Friday, December 16, 2011

Some Light Hearted Christmas Reading

My Mom recently sent a little care package to the house with a little touch of Christmas for Leyton inside.  Some holiday pj's, some holiday music and two holiday books.



Classics really.

I didn't think he'd be interested in them because they are a bit wordy, but after a couple different attempts the other day he finally sat through them and I got to see them in their entirety. 

It was during my reading of "A Christmas Carol" that I realized these books might be a little different.  To start, this book is written in rhyme.  Now at first that seems fine.  Gives it a jingle.  Makes it fun for Leyton to follow along to....a Dr. Seuss touch if you will.  It was when we got to Tiny Tim that I first said "huh?"

For those not familiar Tiny Tim is ill and handicap in the story "A Christmas Carol."  He is in this book too, only it's put in a different manner?

I quote:
"Tiny Tim," said the Spirit, "will always be lame.  But he still is cheerful despite his great pain."

Now, I know they had to rhyme with pain....but seriously....lame?!  Not sure that is quite appropriate?

I quote:
"It spoke not a word and seemed to be dumb.  It was the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come."

So, if you are handicap or sick you are lame and if you can't talk you are dumb?!  Man, the lessons my kid is learning from this book are fantastic!  Now, don't get me wrong....I know both of these terms were PC at some time but I'm thinking this might not make the must read at Christmas list.

Thankfully the "Twelve Days of Christmas" had the lyrics that I always remember it happening.  I just question if these Lords are really a-leaping?
Wowza.

2 comments:

amy said...

lame does mean to not walk & dumb does mean someone who cannot talk. old words we don't really use anymore--but that is their meaning.

amy said...

now i'm totally having a conversation in my head :) your post got me thinking--
growing up i wasn't allowed to call anyone a "geek" bc according to my mom this was the term for someone that bit the heads off chickens. apparently this was the worst thing you could compare someone to. in this example we see a perhaps negative word change meaning & become more socially acceptable.

in your books it uses words that at one time were employed as descriptors for a person's capabilities and have now become associated with more negative uses.

so which one is correct?
the original intention or the modern?

i find the fluidity of language really fascinating. read a book a couple of years ago on it with a group--sounds boring but it was amazing.

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails