macca
Sitting For The Newtons
Posts: 2,084
|
Post by macca on Apr 24, 2006 19:35:12 GMT -5
^ ugh, who knows why. Now that she's written award winning literature, she probably thinks she's above BSC fluff
|
|
jen
Sitting For The Johanssens
Posts: 1,156
|
Post by jen on Apr 24, 2006 19:37:39 GMT -5
You know, I haven't even seen any of her new books. Are they in the children's section, under Ann M. Martin?
|
|
macca
Sitting For The Newtons
Posts: 2,084
|
Post by macca on Apr 24, 2006 19:42:13 GMT -5
^ neither have I, come to think of it. Maybe they're not available in Australia? But that seems weird, considering how popular she's been here in the past.
|
|
Amalia
Sitting For The Braddocks
Her Original Point of View
Posts: 3,664
|
Post by Amalia on Apr 29, 2006 1:00:03 GMT -5
Are any of her other books popular?
|
|
macca
Sitting For The Newtons
Posts: 2,084
|
Post by macca on Apr 29, 2006 2:30:50 GMT -5
^ not really any more. I'm not sure if they were in the past, actually. It was mainly BSC focused.
|
|
|
Post by lovelylemontree on Apr 30, 2006 14:46:21 GMT -5
Dawn and Whitney, Friends Forever is one of the worst BSC books I've read. It's like a huge anvil hitting you repeatedly over the head. And it had the opposite effect that it intended. I hated Whitney. I found her obnoxious and loathesome. And Dawn's condescending attitude toward her was annoying, if typical of Dawn.
One of the many things I hated about the book is that after Whitney basically kidnaps Clover and Daffodil, everyone insists on what a good job at baby-sitting she did. Dawn even calls her "responsible". Except for the fact that she kidnapped them. And Whitney doesn't even face any consequences. She doesn't seem to get in any trouble at all. She throws a fit about how "grown up" she is and then is sent off with a "yes, you were very responsible." And then she's actually rewarded by being made an honorary member of the We Love Kids Club.
And Clover and Daffodil are morons for running off with Whitney because she claimed to be baby-sitting. I really wanted an irate Mrs. Austin to show up and make Whitney, Clover, and Daffodil understand why what they did was wrong. Instead, Whitney gets off with no consequences and her bad behavior is condoned.
I also hated the ending with Mr. Schafer and Carol. So, after dating like crazy for about a month, he doesn't find a suitable new girlfriend, which obviously means he should go back to his dysfunctional relationship with Carol. Not only that, they should get married. Without working out any of their existing problems. But, of course, Carol is the right woman. She was nice to Whitney, after all.
|
|
macca
Sitting For The Newtons
Posts: 2,084
|
Post by macca on Apr 30, 2006 17:51:33 GMT -5
I think we were supposed to believe that Whitney wasn't really aware that her behavior was wrong. It would be difficult, I guess - and the intended audience would definitely feel it was 'mean' - to punish Whitney for "kidnapping" when the girl truly believed she was just being a wonderful, responsible baby-sitter who was simply misunderstood.
What would the appropriate response have been, I wonder?
Total, TOTAL word on Mr Schafer/Carol. Ugh, what a man-wh*re. Ever heard of just being a single dad for a while?
|
|
|
Post by lovelylemontree on Apr 30, 2006 19:55:04 GMT -5
I agree that we're supposed to assume Whitney didn't know her actions were wrong. Although, I don't see how she couldn't know that. Whitney may have Down's Syndrome, but she's smart enough to know that lying to kids about being their baby-sitter, then taking them to a carnival is wrong. I think Whitney knew her actions were wrong, but did it anyway to "prove" her point.
And even if Whitney really didn't know she was in the wrong, it should have been made clear to her after the fact. What she did was serious - the police were called in, people were really worried, something bad could have happened. I think she should have been punished because I think she knew her actions were wrong. But really, most important is that she should have at least received some stern lectures. What's to stop her from pulling that stunt again?
|
|
macca
Sitting For The Newtons
Posts: 2,084
|
Post by macca on Apr 30, 2006 22:59:55 GMT -5
I agree - and I also agree that there should've been consequences to her actions. Part of socializing mentally impaired people is NOT wrapping them in cotton wool and treating them like they're "special". Lessons in right/wrong and actions/consequences are necessary in order for them to lead a productive, reasonably independent life. But I guess the author of this particular book figured the target audience wouldn't understand such concepts. This is more proof that the BSC really needed to stay away from the Big Issues (remember Jessi and the Awful Secret? )
|
|
|
Post by aln1982 on May 1, 2006 8:04:01 GMT -5
I get so sick of excuses being made for mentally challenged people that they "don't know what they are doing" so shouldn't be held accountable. Not that I don't understand that they have special needs and all but agree totally with Macca and lovelylemontree's views. If they aren't at least made aware that their actions are wrong, they can become almost dangerous to society. I know a boy with down's syndrome who becomes physically violent and his mother just laughs and then explains to everyone that he is "special" (by the way - I hate it that they are given the distinction of "special" though I don't know of a better way to put it. But in my opinion, all kids should be told they are "special"). That was fine when he was young and smaller but now that he is bigger, he has become quite dangerous.
|
|
macca
Sitting For The Newtons
Posts: 2,084
|
Post by macca on May 1, 2006 18:05:35 GMT -5
^ there is a boy like that across the road from my parents, although I believe he's autistic. He runs around naked and becomes very aggressive and violent, nothing that was too extreme when he was four yrs old but now that he's in his mid teens it's not so easily excused. The boy is potentially dangerous.
I was at a shopping centre food court a while ago and a mentally challenged person (don't know what was wrong with him exactly, but he was a full grown man) became overwhelmed and outraged for some apparent reason. He was throwing food, attacked a woman and threw a cleaners' bucket of water all over his carer (who had let him go off alone to get the food, obviously given him a little "job") ...
Ignoring the very real and serious conditions these people have in order to give them a chance at independence (and usually also for the sake of political correctness) is NOT in society's best interests when these people have absolutely no coping skills nor the necessary restraint required to interact with the general public.
|
|
Amalia
Sitting For The Braddocks
Her Original Point of View
Posts: 3,664
|
Post by Amalia on May 2, 2006 1:14:09 GMT -5
Hmm . . . how about mentally unstable people who commit crimes? Should they be punished? If you commit a crime and your reason is insanity, don't you usually just get help but not really get punished? I dunno about that topic at all.
|
|
macca
Sitting For The Newtons
Posts: 2,084
|
Post by macca on May 2, 2006 21:19:12 GMT -5
^ you get help, but if you are seen as dangerous to the public, you are still imprisoned until you are considered no longer a threat - just in a mental hospital as opposed to jail.
Whitney should definitely have been made to understand that kidnapping kids is wrong, even if she wasn't actually punished. She seemed to have the capacity to understand that concept.
|
|
Amalia
Sitting For The Braddocks
Her Original Point of View
Posts: 3,664
|
Post by Amalia on May 7, 2006 2:00:08 GMT -5
^ Especially since she wanted to be treated as a more responsible person - one that didn't need a babysitter. I dunno if that's already been said.
|
|
macca
Sitting For The Newtons
Posts: 2,084
|
Post by macca on May 7, 2006 2:21:16 GMT -5
^ words to that effect, mcpon. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Are more kids going to be kidnapped in order to avoid hurting Whitney's feelings?
|
|