|
Post by wenonah4th on Apr 22, 2008 21:32:42 GMT -5
But Mary Poppins snapped her fingers.
|
|
|
Post by m0drnmoonlight on Apr 23, 2008 9:01:24 GMT -5
Hahahhaah yeah. Then Dawn snaps her fingers and everything's well lol.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2008 12:59:35 GMT -5
Haven't posted in awhile, but I've been re-reading the books lately, so I thought I'd get back to the boards again.
Anyway, I had a big problem with "Dawn and the Impossible Three" just as a concept. The kids were NEVER impossible or hellions in my eyes, it was the mother who was the impossible one. Yet in every book in which the Barretts were a babysitting charge, one of the sitters would talk about how 'impossible' they used to be and how Dawn 'tamed' them. Umm no...the kids were just out-of-sorts because their parents had just gotten divorced and they had no idea how to deal with it, especially considering the mother and father's incredibly acrimonious relationship. Completely OT, but I always thought Mrs. Barrett was not a great mother...
|
|
|
Post by luckymojo on Apr 23, 2008 13:17:06 GMT -5
^ I agree to this
|
|
|
Post by wenonah4th on Apr 23, 2008 13:44:15 GMT -5
Definitely likewise.
|
|
|
Post by candykane on Apr 23, 2008 15:07:30 GMT -5
Okay, I have another one: In Kristy and the Baby Parade (one of the crappier books in the series, don't you think?) the girls are discussing how to deal with temper tantrums and say that one technique for dealing with them is to tuck the kids into their beds and talk gently to them until they calm down. When I read that the for the first time, I remember thinking that sounded ridiculous and that it would never work. Of course, I've never tried it on any kid and I don't have any kids of my own, but I can't imagine some kids wanting to stay there in the bed as they're flipping out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2008 17:48:06 GMT -5
Okay, I have another one: In Kristy and the Baby Parade (one of the crappier books in the series, don't you think?) the girls are discussing how to deal with temper tantrums and say that one technique for dealing with them is to tuck the kids into their beds and talk gently to them until they calm down. When I read that the for the first time, I remember thinking that sounded ridiculous and that it would never work. Of course, I've never tried it on any kid and I don't have any kids of my own, but I can't imagine some kids wanting to stay there in the bed as they're flipping out. This is kind of an isolated incident, but I did see it work on my 2-year-old-nephew. My sister, nephew and I were on vacation at a hotel and my nephew freaked out about something that he wanted but couldn't have. My sister picked him up, took him to our hotel room, laid him on the bed and talked to him gently and he calmed down after a bit. However, I've also seen circumstances where this doesn't work. In my experience, tucking them into their beds (or putting them in their beds) is a good way to de-escalate the temper tantrum, but I think it tends to work better when you walk out of the room and let them cry it out. The longer you stay there is an invitation for them to keep crying, I think, because in some ways it can be an attention-seeking event...or can easily become one. That being said, I imagine all kids are different and the age of the kid is a big factor too.
|
|
|
Post by wenonah4th on Apr 23, 2008 18:50:04 GMT -5
I imagine it would work better with an older child, not a toddler.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2008 19:07:18 GMT -5
I imagine it would work better with an older child, not a toddler. I could see it working either way actually because temper tantrums usually stem from some kind of anger, its possible the child could flail out and hit at whoever is nearest...
|
|
|
Post by wenonah4th on Apr 23, 2008 20:58:59 GMT -5
I didn't say it was foolproof, just more likely to work.
|
|
|
Post by m0drnmoonlight on Apr 23, 2008 21:40:46 GMT -5
Haven't posted in awhile, but I've been re-reading the books lately, so I thought I'd get back to the boards again. Anyway, I had a big problem with "Dawn and the Impossible Three" just as a concept. The kids were NEVER impossible or hellions in my eyes, it was the mother who was the impossible one. Yet in every book in which the Barretts were a babysitting charge, one of the sitters would talk about how 'impossible' they used to be and how Dawn 'tamed' them. Umm no...the kids were just out-of-sorts because their parents had just gotten divorced and they had no idea how to deal with it, especially considering the mother and father's incredibly acrimonious relationship. Completely OT, but I always thought Mrs. Barrett was not a great mother... I think that's more of the point I was trying to make lol. The BSC writes the Barrett kids off as impossible until Dawn magically "tames" them and rights everything. I think she did help them out a lot, but it wasn't like they were Supernanny material to begin with. Their parents had just split, from how Mrs. Barrett acted, it sounded like it was really messy (telling Dawn they couldn't talk to their dad if he called up), and doesn't Suzi start crying when Dawn starts talking about her father? The kids needed some love, but they were in no way impossible. That's one of the biggest things that annoys me, as far as dumb assumptions goes. The Barretts are impossible because they live in a messy house and their mom is bordering on Sharon-like absent-mindedness, the name Jenny Prezzioso elicits "NOOOOO!" and "*GROAN*" from the sitters because she's high-maintenance. If a kid isn't a perfect little angel, they're completely horrible.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2008 13:00:25 GMT -5
One of the funniest assumptions (I always thought) was made by Kristy in "Kristy's Mystery Admirer" when she thought the progressively creepy notes were written by some kind of psycho who wanted to kidnap her because she was Watson-the-millionaire's step-daughter...I never fail to laugh whenever she pontificates to her friends about that particular theory ;D
|
|
|
Post by candykane on Apr 24, 2008 14:56:04 GMT -5
A theory that Shannon shoots down by saying that a kidnapper would be more likely to go after Karen or Andrew, because they're Watson's real kids, and they are little and therefore easier to kidnap.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2008 15:09:25 GMT -5
LOL, I loved Shannon in that book...her involvement with the mystery admirer letters along with Buddy's crush on Shannon were great!
Have to admit, I was kind of weirded out by the letters Bart sent. They were pretty intense for someone who Kristy describes as merely a crush...
|
|
sarish
Sitting For The Papadakis's
Posts: 1,618
|
Post by sarish on Apr 24, 2008 22:22:43 GMT -5
I am reading Beware, Dawn and when the bell rang at the Prezzioso's house when she was babsyitting and there was an envelope outside the door and nothing else. She assumed that the envelope was for her (it was), there was no mention of her name written on it, I would have thought it was an invitation or something for the Prezzioso's since it was on their front steps.
|
|