Story of the world- pics or just read alound?

[quaz]

DD loves books. (she's about 4).

She can listen to me read long books, BUT she does want a picture on occasion. Is story of the world simply a read alound, or does it have pictures.

Any other ideas of interesting history books for young kids. I have a little house excerpt book, that has pictures, I thought of reading to her... give at least a little flavor of history.

Tammy

[Queen Gwen]

Story of the World is a read aloud, not a picture book.

We have some picture books of the Epic of Gilgamesh by Ludmila Zeman, and also the Shipwrecked Sailor by ... I forget who that's by. These aren't history, but ancient stories.

[USAmma]

We use SOTW but it's just a small part of what we do with history. I will see the subject of that chapter, read ahead, then check out a whole stack of books related to it. The books have good pictures for dd to look at and understand the subject better and really get into it. Right now we are doing Egypt and I have rented some documentaries on it, checked out books, and we just made a paper mache cat mummy today. All of that is beyond SOTW. But she loves to sit and listen to the stories in that book too and really gets into it. The other day she saw a book on Native Americans at the library and asked, "Are those nomads like in my world story book?" Not quite but at least I know she's thinking about it.

[moominmamma]

Just thought I'd pipe up and mention that I think 4 is a little young for Story of the World for most kids. I have kids who are pretty sophisticated readaloud listeners, who were all happy listening to chapter books like "Charlotte's Web" and similar children's novels by about their 4th birthdays, but I felt they needed to be a bit older than that for SOTW for reasonable comprehension. Around the fifth birthday worked for us, with 6 being about the ideal age. Since I think your dd is still three, you might consider waiting a while.

Miranda

[USAmma]

Originally Posted by moominmamma

Just thought I'd pipe up and mention that I think 4 is a little young for Story of the World for most kids. I have kids who are pretty sophisticated readaloud listeners, who were all happy listening to chapter books like "Charlotte's Web" and similar children's novels by about their 4th birthdays, but I felt they needed to be a bit older than that for SOTW for reasonable comprehension. Around the fifth birthday worked for us, with 6 being about the ideal age. Since I think your dd is still three, you might consider waiting a while.

Miranda

I agree! My dd was 5 when we got it. I read the first part and then put it down for awhile and now she's 5.5 and really getting into it more.

[Queen Gwen]

The D'Aulaires have some cool history books with lots of pictures.

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by Queen Gwen

The D'Aulaires have some cool history books with lots of pictures.

I was going to suggest this too!

[quaz]

Originally Posted by moominmamma

Just thought I'd pipe up and mention that I think 4 is a little young for Story of the World for most kids. I have kids who are pretty sophisticated readaloud listeners, who were all happy listening to chapter books like "Charlotte's Web" and similar children's novels by about their 4th birthdays, but I felt they needed to be a bit older than that for SOTW for reasonable comprehension. Around the fifth birthday worked for us, with 6 being about the ideal age. Since I think your dd is still three, you might consider waiting a while.

Miranda

Ah, ya see that is exactly why I was asking if it had pics or not. Being just a read-aloud, nope it won't work for her. She will listen to magic tree house all in one sitting (despite me trying to take a break or two).. so yah, can listen to chapter books, BUT they need pictures every few pages. SOTW won't work for her yet... but was the one homeschooling 'history' stuff I had heard of.

I was trying to find some 'fun' kids history type books for younger kids... the other day she was wanting to know about everything in China... or will ask about people from 'long ago'. We've done a bit of little house books...

Tammy

[Jennifer3141]

I have a confession.

I read DD (well, and DS is usually attached to the other boobie at the same time) a page or two out of SOTF everyday. I know. I know. She has very little clue of what I'm talking about but sometimes, I just cannot do another moment of Dr. Seuss or chatty turtles or pink poodles, etc. etc.

I read SOTW for me. Although DD does get a good laugh out of things every once in awhile. For some reason, the word "Sumerian" just cracks her up. She ran around the house with her diaper falling off her fanny today screaming, "Sumerian!" at the top of her lungs. I have no idea why. I wonder if I emphasized it or something.

[eilonwy]

I don't think that three's too young for SOTW, necessarily. The chapters are *extremely* short, especially in the beginning. I think that pictures would be great, but there's better history-related art to be found at the library.

[littlest birds]

Originally Posted by eilonwy

I don't think that three's too young for SOTW, necessarily. The chapters are *extremely* short, especially in the beginning. I think that pictures would be great, but there's better history-related art to be found at the library.

I think only if you enjoy introducing the most mature content possible to your children as early as possible would you want to choose this book for 3yo. In other words, though not completely inconceivable for a 3yo, it would be best thought of as an "extreme" choice for that age. A situation where it could be appropriate would be extremely rare.

[eilonwy]

Originally Posted by deeporgarten

I think only if you enjoy introducing the most mature content possible to your children as early as possible would you want to choose this book for 3yo. In other words, though not completely inconceivable for a 3yo, it would be best thought of as an "extreme" choice for that age. A situation where it could be appropriate would be extremely rare.

The most mature content possible? By what standards?

[littlest birds]

relatively "average" ones I would have to admit...

Though I also admit my wording in the previous comment may have been too strong.

I don't understand what the deal is about doing things early. It's come up in a lot of recent threads that I have read, and I know that some folks are into that approach and most aren't--that is obviously fine--but considering the op and her questions I am . She seemed interested in knowing whether a child interested in picture books would enjoy the book.

[Jennifer3141]

Originally Posted by deeporgarten

relatively "average" ones I would have to admit...

Though I also admit my wording in the previous comment may have been too strong.

I don't understand what the deal is about doing things early. It's come up in a lot of recent threads that I have read, and I know that some folks are into that approach and most aren't--that is obviously fine--but considering the op and her questions I am . She seemed interested in knowing whether a child interested in picture books would enjoy the book.

And I think it's kind of funny that you're so worried about what anyone else's children are "enjoying."

As "silly" as my reading SOTW to my kids is, my DH reads medical journals to her and they have a BLAST. Maybe your children wouldn't but my DD just soaks that up. Does she understand it? Nope. Does it negate the fun time she has with Daddy because she has no clue what diabetes or neroblastoma is? Nope.

If she wasn't enjoying herself she'd just get up, walk out the door, and empty the cat food dish unto the floor.

[eilonwy]

Originally Posted by deeporgarten

relatively "average" ones I would have to admit...

I still don't understand. Please explain the standards by which SotW would be considered "the most mature content possible."

I don't understand what the deal is about doing things early. It's come up in a lot of recent threads that I have read, and I know that some folks are into that approach and most aren't--that is obviously fine--but considering the op and her questions I am . She seemed interested in knowing whether a child interested in picture books would enjoy the book.

You're the one making a big deal about this. Some people do things earlier and some later. Not every child is the same, and not every parent is the same. I don't understand what's so difficult about that. To me, the OP seemed to be asking if SotW would be a fun book for a child who likes to listen to longer stories, but likes to see a picture every now and then:

Originally Posted by quaz

She can listen to me read long books, BUT she does want a picture on occasion. Is story of the world simply a read alound, or does it have pictures.

[~*SugarMama*~]

Barnes and Nobles carries a wonderful history series for kids called "If I was.....". Some of the titles include "If I was at Ellis Island", "If I lived in a log cabin like Abe Lincoln", etc. I haven't started getting them yet because neither of my children are into history yet (getting an interest though from reading The Magic Treehouse Series) but I am planning on asking for those.

[littlest birds]

Originally Posted by Jennifer3141

And I think it's kind of funny that you're so worried about what anyone else's children are "enjoying."

As "silly" as my reading SOTW to my kids is, my DH reads medical journals to her and they have a BLAST. Maybe your children wouldn't but my DD just soaks that up. Does she understand it? Nope. Does it negate the fun time she has with Daddy because she has no clue what diabetes or neroblastoma is? Nope.

If she wasn't enjoying herself she'd just get up, walk out the door, and empty the cat food dish unto the floor.

I'm not worried what other people's children "enjoy". The op is looking for history curriculum--I assume comprehension does matter. If I asked for health curriculum for my 4yo you would not suggest your dh's medical journals, or so I assume. That doesn't mean they couldn't be fun and even beneficial in some ways... Please realize that you are jumping to concclusions about my meaning, and that I am not ignorant or simple-minded therefore it is actually possible that what I am saying isn't either.

[quaz]

Wow.

How about regardless of what everyone thinks I was asking....

we leave it at the point that SOTW will not work, b/c it doesn't even have an occasional pic.


Tammy

[littlest birds]

Originally Posted by quaz

Wow.

How about regardless of what everyone thinks I was asking....

we leave it at the point that SOTW will not work, b/c it doesn't even have an occasional pic.


Tammy

Actually it DOES have pictures.

[littlest birds]

Originally Posted by eilonwy

I still don't understand. Please explain the standards by which SotW would be considered "the most mature content possible."

As I said my word choice was extreme-though otherwise it is fairly apt. You did add an even younger age--compared to what other posters said. Also, I was refering to a pattern on multiple threads of similar comments on doing things early. I don't wish to discuss other threads further than that.

Originally Posted by eilonwy

You're the one making a big deal about this. Some people do things earlier and some later. Not every child is the same, and not every parent is the same. I don't understand what's so difficult about that. To me, the OP seemed to be asking if SotW would be a fun book for a child who likes to listen to longer stories, but likes to see a picture every now and then:

Actually I was making a pretty small deal about it. My original comment was an extremely brief one, especially for me. I don't give a hoot if we are all the same--that is-- why would I want us to be? I guess it is that I have no idea why anyone would want to choose SOTW for 3yo for history, or why that even comes up in relation to the original question. If we are different and this particular difference makes me because I really don't understand the gratuitous commentary on potential precocity, or it irritates me more than "average" because I grew up surrounded by adults who were way too interested in my own so-called genius, my high IQ, and my potential, then you can assume I am coming from a different perspective.

Uggh How many times I heard about how early I read, what atypical topics I studied or advanced things I was doing, what my score was on this or that I cannot even begin to count, and I assure you it was NOT a healthy emphasis. (Nobody was obsessed--it was simply a fairly frequent topic) If you are a parent with a precocious child do be careful how you talk about it and how much you "get into it" or even push for more of it once you see that the potential is there. And a parent excited by their child's intelligence can get pushy without even intending to. And lose sight of whole child development for the sake of "mental" or "abilities" development. When I hear (or read here) a lot of comments about stuff like this, to me it suggests imbalance. That doesn't have to be the case, but it IS the reason it starts to rub me the wrong way after a while.

(I don't pretend I don't have a personal bias.)

Anyhow, Eilonwy, I am sure you have thought about this all at length already so I guess I won't ask you to give it some thought. You certainly know what you think, including that I am being extreme in finding it annoying or mentioning it. That's fine.

I apologize for my blabbage on the nice thread quaz and all. I didn't really have a goal of making it a long discussion--it was just a quick comment on something I'd noticed and it got a bit out of hand. No further comments here. Peace.