
How to Raise Boys Who Read - grellas
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704271804575405511702112290.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion
======
RyanMcGreal
How I raised two boys who read:

1\. Start reading to them pretty much as soon as they're born.

2\. Read _a lot_ \- both frequently and as long as their attention holds.
Their attention for stories will get longer as they get older if you keep
reading to them.

3\. Get comfy and make reading time a time to cuddle.

4\. Read really well-written books - engaging plots, smart dialogue, solid
exposition. Even young children are sophisticated and discerning enough to
know when an author is condescending to them.

5\. _Perform_ when you're reading. Don't just read in a monotone: recite the
book, with intonation and voices and accents and everything.

6\. When they interrupt you to ask questions, take the time to answer them. By
doing this, you help children to engage the story and build their own
listening comprehension.

7\. When they start to show an interest in reading, start teaching them how to
do it. Get into the habit of taking turns reading to each other.

 _Edit - one more thing:_

8\. Be seen reading a lot yourself.

~~~
runjake
It's posts like yours when I wish that HN had a "save" feature.

~~~
billswift
It does, sort of. If you upvote a story, it is added to the "saved stories"
link on your profile page.

------
jacquesm
I used to be one of those 'boys who read' (still am, just not so much of a boy
I guess, maybe). I would read _anything_ that had letters on it, packaging,
comics, stuff that was way over my head and stuff that made sense to me.

There was a second hand bookstore near my grandmothers house that I had a deal
with, if I brought back a book the next day after taking it I could exchange
it for free. The little hacker in me didn't take long to figure out that for
the price of one book I could technically read through the whole store.

Long nights with the flashlight under the blanket to avoid being discovered :)

It never really stopped, I still read, pretty much all day long, unless I'm
coding or doing something else.

If you have a kid that likes to read, make sure they don't have to do it in
secret, they'll do it anyway and it helps to have everybody on the same page
instead of having secrets about your 'habits'.

The internet is changing our reading habits, and I think that those
'electronic media' that are to be kept under control according to the author
are really the new books.

Another decade or so and you'll be able to find all that good stuff online and
on mobile devices. To deal with the distracting element of that is going to be
the real problem, but forbidding their use is to throw out the baby (that vast
library out there) with the bathwater.

Project Gutenberg and Wikipedia are accessible through the same medium that
leads to major sources of distraction.

~~~
jemfinch
Given youngsters' propensity for rebellion I wonder if furtive nighttime
reading by flashlight actually encourages the behavior.

~~~
VBprogrammer
I think you're probably right. Probably best to keep up the illusion of
furtiveness!

------
jeffbarr
Having raised two "boys who read," (and three girls as well), I think that the
secret here is, like many aspects of "how to," simply lead by example.

Read to your kids when they are very young, let them see you read, make sure
that there are plenty of interesting books around, and do your best to instill
them with a sense of curiosity. From time to time, drop a book on their bed or
desk and say "you might find this one interesting."

Also, my secret policy is to always buy my kids whatever books they ask for,
without consideration to price or budget. My younger son (20) almost literally
eats advanced math books for breakfast. I am happy to keep him well-fed.

Net-net: Well-informed kids who love to read and a house stuffed with books.

~~~
hugh3
_My younger son (20) almost literally eats advanced math books for breakfast._

I'm not sure I understand what it means to almost-literally eat advanced maths
books for breakfast.

I understand what it means to do it figuratively, and I understand what it
means to do it literally, but I'm afraid that almost-literally has me puzzled.

edit: Wow, modded down to -4 for linguistic pedantry? That's unusual.

~~~
kenjackson
The definition of literally has changed over time. Now a commonly accepted
definition is: "used for emphasis: used with figurative expressions to add
emphasis"

So "literally" is one of the few words that keeps its traditional meaning and
means the opposite as well (like "bad" :-))

~~~
hugh3
I'm not sure where the dividing line is between "has changed its meaning" and
"is commonly misused", but I'm pretty sure that "literally" is still on the
commonly-misused side of things.

Very few words come to mean their exact opposites via misuse. (I am assured
that "bad" meant "good" in some brief period of the 80s in which I was too
young to know the cool slang, but it wasn't because people were confused about
which meant which.)

~~~
JustinSeriously
It's an auto-antonym, a word that has two opposite meanings.

Wikipedia used to have a good list of them, but it looks like they just
deleted it. Thank god for revision history:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_auto-
anton...](http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_auto-
antonyms_in_English&oldid=386146896)

~~~
kenjackson
I'm going to start using autoantonyms in completely ambiguous ways in email. I
love it!

------
maxawaytoolong
I'm not sure I buy the argument that you have to eliminate other media habits
in order to become a reader.

When I was younger I watched loads of TV, beat Zelda and Super Mario Bros,
honed my Gameboy Tetris skills to near Woz-level, watched skateboard videos
over and over again to analyze the moves, futzed around with Amigas and Macs
and PCs for hours, ran up my dad's phone bill with long-distance BBS charges,
etc. I also read 2-5 entire books per week, got a perfect score on the verbal
section of the SAT and the reading comprehension portion of the ACT and
subsequently got a full ride academic scholarship to college.

I'm also not convinced that reading a bunch of junk books is actually a great
use of one's time. I have a lot of nerd friends who never read anything other
than HOWTOs and they are much better at their mathematical software jobs than
I am. I can read a 300 page crime novel in about 90 minutes, but what's the
point?

~~~
awakeasleep
I agree with you 100%. Trouble brews when people are illiterate, but unless
you're pursuing a literary career, there isn't _too much_ use for reading
fiction. Nonfiction has its own benefits that attract anyone who wants to
learn in general, or has complex goals.

Remember the phrase 'bookworm'? It wasn't always a cute alternative to the
word nerd. I know about it, because I wasted years of my life reading crap
fantasy novels, hardy boys casefiles, etc.

~~~
xyzzyz
You mentioned an interesting point. Is the time spent on reading crap books
really wasted? I wouldn't say so. It helps telling good books apart from bad
ones. Reading wide variety of books makes one's taste more sophisticated.
Also, mere familiarity with some books can be helpful in some social settings,
when we want or need to make friends with people who read those books too.

~~~
awakeasleep
True, I wouldn't say wasted, but I believe there are sharply diminishing
returns for the classes of books I was referring to.

------
jdminhbg
In my unproveable anecdotal experience, the tendency towards gross-out books
identifies the problem but misses the solution. The problem is that reading
curricula tend to focus nearly exclusively on literature (novels, short
stories, plays) and target the choice towards the students' reading
comprehension level rather than their emotional comprehension level.

For example: Most 10th graders can read "Of Mice And Men," but how much are
they getting out of it? Conversely, "Romeo and Juliet" has much harder words,
but at least works at an emotional level they can understand.

Beyond that, there's usually a token 'biography' unit in a reading class or a
short section on comprehending a science article, but almost never a full
science, engineering, history, current events, etc. book assigned. Kids who
have acquisitive minds are left out in the cold by reading Jane Austen -- in
their minds, they're learning nothing useful at all.

~~~
protomyth
"The Pearl" was required reading in high school. If that had been anywhere
near my first book, I would have stopped reading for recreation forever. Love
of baseball doesn't begin with the workout, why should reading.

// my book report was the subject of a parent / teacher conference

------
GFischer
Anecdotal evidence: my father raised me exactly that way.

No TV (that was in the 80s), no newfangled Nintendo thingie (I got one when I
was ten, and was allowed only during the weekends)

And an all-you-can-eat collection of books, by an Argentinean editorial that
included books by Jack London, Mark Twain, Jules Verne, Lewis Carroll, Charles
Dickens and Emilio Salgari and many many others.

Plus, my mother re-married and her second husband is a huge science fiction
fan, so I got acquainted with Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke and others also from an
early age (it also set me into my career path, so maybe it wasn't that healthy
:) ).

The result: I'm about the fastest reader I know of (whenever they offer me a
fast-reading course I see the benchmarks of what you can supposedly archieve
are a bit lower than what I already do archieve), and when I moved I had to
leave 14 boxes full of paperback novels (about 300 books) which I had read -
add to that a few thousand I've borrowed from family, friends and libraries or
read as e-books, and I'd say that my father's experiment turned out a success
as far as book-reading goes.

On the other hand, I'm often "out" when it comes to discussing movies or old
TV shows and other shared cultural experiences, which makes me think I missed
out some things as well.

~~~
tseabrooks
Anecdotal evidence:

I've owned every video game console made in the last 15 years or so (While I
was growing up). I had a TV in my own room and my own computer with broadband
as soon as it was available in our city. I skipped classes to play video games
in high school. I played video games into the wee hours of the night for all
of high school and college. I've seen all the latest movies and TV shows and
enjoy critiquing them with friends.

On the flip side, I have some 20 or so boxes of books I've completely read...
I average maybe 2 books a week and have done so since I was old enough to find
what I wanted at the library. I read faster than anyone I know. I read books
from all genres for fun, and always have. I managed to do well in college
which got me into grad school with a stipend.

The point: anecdotal evidence is not very useful. Also, the article and your
comment seem to take a very naive view of human development. There is a lot
more to this than just "video games made my son stupid".

~~~
GFischer
"The point: anecdotal evidence is not very useful."

Indeed, I'm not arguing that, I just wanted to share my anecdote because it
was relevant to the article.

"Also, the article and your comment seem to take a very naive view of human
development. There is a lot more to this than just "video games made my son
stupid"."

Sorry if it sounds that way, I didn't want to imply that (though my father
does believe it). I'm pretty sure there are lots of people that played video
games a lot and turned out well.

Also, all I have to show for it is an improved reading ability, I don't think
it made me smarter or anything(1). I'm extremely bad at personal interactions,
communications and other stuff, which is why I'm still programming and not in
a managerial position.

I will try out doing a startup on my own, but I doubt I'd climb the career
ladder in a "traditional" way - I'm always being overtaken by the arrogant,
self-confident, usually way less technically capable people-talkers on the way
up, at least on the big corporate environments I've worked in (finance and
insurance).

(1)Edit: see these two other posts by maxawaytoolong and awakeasleep which
seem to agree on it not being that useful:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1724089>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1724269>

~~~
m-photonic
>I'm pretty sure there are lots of people that played video games a lot and
turned out well.

Not only that, there are lots of people who had access to video games
restricted and ended up worse off for it.

------
jaxn
The computer helps my boys to read. I have an 8 year old who's desire to read
stemmed from his wanting to be able to play online games like Club Penguin. He
needed to read the instructions. The same is true for the Leapster video game
console and the Nintendo DS.

Now he reads all the time. Has complete the Percy Jackson series, read several
of the Harry Potter books cover to cover, etc.

His younger brothers are readers, but not like he is. I think it is in part
because their older brother showed them how to play the games.

Then again, it is likely that my kids are somewhat self-directed learners like
I am.

Still, I don't think technology should be vilified as an obstacle to reading.
Especially interactive technology.

------
mtts
Anecdotal : move to a really far away country (the remote outskirts of
Indonesia, in my case, but I imagine the highlands of Cameroon or tea
plantations in Eastern Bhutan would work just as well), bring nothing but your
father's (!) old children's books (on account of which I know to this day that
to operate a home built radio receiver one must "scratch" at a "crystal" until
one gets a "signal") and wait what happens). While there is enough to do there
in the way of outdoors-y activities ("let's climb that there volcano!"),
intellectual stimulation will have to come not from the internet, computer
games or even television (you would not believe how little worthwhile there is
to see on television channels aimed at the remote parts of third world
countries) but from good old fashioned books. As a result, if you (that would
be me) have been subjected to such a regimen in your childhood, you will
always, always, continue to hold good old fashioned books as belonging to a
quite, quite dear portion of your heart.

To make it a little less anecdotal, by the way, I've seen a similar love of
books in others who have grown up in this way.

~~~
technomancy
I can confirm this worked for me, although the outskirts of Indonesia were not
that remote in my case.

------
natmaster
WARNING: RANTING AHEAD

"Everyone agrees..." No support evidence for this claim. Furthermore, the
entire premise of the argument relies on looking at number of boys below a
certain level. That's fine in it's own right, but they seem to assume this
means boys are overall worse at reading, when no evidence has been presented
to support this claim, and every study I have read about male intelligence
indicates that it has higher variance than females.

This man seems obsessed with imposing his arbitrary and unnatural social views
upon boys. He denounces the natural desire for boys to be active, negatively
calling upon the properties of 'squirminess'. And we sit to wonder why America
is expected to be 75% obese people in a few years, when activity is denounced?

The author then reveals his complete ignorance when he cites one study
demonstrating correlation between media consumption in boys to academic
progress as Scientific Fact that his claims are accurate. To quote, "Hard to
believe, isn't it, but Science has spoken." Yet, he ignores two very important
parts of Science - experiments must be repeated, and correlation != causation.
He steps through magical logical leaps that somehow playing video games makes
your children illiterate and that the solution to illiteracy is removing
anything interesting that is not a book, when there are in fact several
simpler explanations supported by much more repeated research reflecting child
development patterns. I am sure he does not want to accept this 'barbaric'
view, but boys have a tendency to learn more effectively through trial and
error, and develop their analytical (as he might call it, 'civilized')
language skills later. Boys are learning about the world around them by
pushing the boundaries to see how it reacts - no matter how much it upsets
this author's view on how civilized people should act. Those boys not held
back by imbeciles like him will grow up to become Engineers and Scientists,
spending a little time in their day to use their superior literacy and
reasoning skills to retort people such as the author here.

A boy raised on the stimulating electronic media of infinite possibility, will
imagine - and create - the future that narrow-minded president's of publishing
companies could never think of, but take for granted anyway.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Everyone agrees that statements proven by appeal to majority [consensus] are
logically fallacious.

------
patio11
Dungeons and Dragons, while not quite a gateway drug into books for me, was
sure close. I read before D&D, but I _read_ after D&D.

I know exactly why I read newspapers: my fourth grade English teacher taught
me the joy of political cartoons, and to have the context for the jokes you
need to know most of the rest of the paper. Dad and I read together at the
kitchen table.

~~~
jimbokun
"I know exactly why I read newspapers"

Then I assume you read Japanese newspapers, which makes me curious, which
one(s)?

Asked because I never quite got to the level of Japanese newspaper reading,
I'm curious about which Japanese papers are any good, and wonder how they're
different from American papers.

~~~
patio11
Sadly, I do not read much Japanese other than technical documents,
transactional correspondence, and the odd manga. I just learned the other day
that I can understand an insurance policy.

------
Hates_
Short answer, from the article: The secret to raising boys who read, I submit,
is pretty simple—keep electronic media, especially video games and
recreational Internet, under control (that is to say, almost completely
absent). Then fill your shelves with good books.

~~~
hugh3
Also known as: "How to raise boys who hate their parents". Possibly also "boys
who are shunned at school", since they won't be able to take part in a huge
fraction of the conversations going on in the playground.

The best way to raise children with good habits is to have those habits
yourself. If every day after dinner both parents retire to the lounge room to
listen to some music and read a book (each), the children will quickly get the
idea that's what people do. If they go and watch TV instead, they'll get that
idea.

One more point: childhood habits don't always bleed over into the adult. From
age 13-17 I probably barely read a single novel that wasn't assigned for
school. (I read plenty of non-fiction for pleasure.) But once reading novels
stopped being "schoolwork" I started doing it for pleasure, and have since
read... a lot.

~~~
jacobolus
Oh give me a break. Not playing video games and reading lots of books growing
up never made me shunned on the playground and never made me hate my parents
(and I’ve never heard anyone say they hate their parents for video-game
deprivation). Playgrounds are for running around, kicking things, messily
digging in the dirt, and generally making mischief, not analyzing video games.

~~~
nollidge
Swear on my life, I _love_ my parents for video-game deprivation.

------
geebee
I'm a little late to this discussion, but I have one more suggestion for boys
over the age of 13. Get them around girls who find boys who are artistic and
literary attractive.

I know, anyone who watches glee thinks that jocks and cheerleaders run the
high schools, and I know that my experience (a small private high school in
san francisco) probably isn't representative... but still, if you can find an
environment like this for your kid, go for it.

He'll look back with mild embarrassment at how oh-so-suave he felt hanging out
in north beach cafes reading beat lit, but hey, at least he's reading, right?

(ok, fine, that was me).

------
rpbertp13
> "One obvious problem with the SweetFarts philosophy of education is that it
> is more suited to producing a generation of barbarians and morons than to
> raising the sort of men who make good husbands, fathers and professionals.
> If you keep meeting a boy where he is, he doesn't go very far."

> "Whom would you prefer to have shaped the boyhood imagination of your
> daughter's husband—Raymond Bean or Robert Louis Stevenson?"

I'm surprised how the article emphasizes being a 'good husband'. What if it
said "good wives, mothers and professionals"?

~~~
ryanwaggoner
Umm...it's an article about getting boys to read and the long-term effects of
meeting boys where they are. I'm guessing they didn't emphasize being good
wives and mothers because boys rarely grow up to be wives and mothers.

~~~
rpbertp13
That is clearly not where I'm coming from. I'm just trying to point out how an
analogous article today that would make such emphasis would probably strike
most people as inappropriate or chauvinistic. Don't you agree?

~~~
astine
That's because people associate 'good wife' with a _subservient_ wife.
Feminism has encouraged women to act in their own interests rather than their
families interests for some time now and the values have sunk into the
culture.

'Good husband' doesn't have that connotation and for better or for worse,
people still think that husbands should care for their wives and children and
be respectable people themselves.

------
twillerelator
>keep electronic media, especially video games and recreational Internet,
under control (that is to say, almost completely absent). Then fill your
shelves with good books.

The problem with these books is that they interfere with the more traditional
crafts of _conversation_ and _oratory_.

~~~
swift
This was a good bit of wit that seems, alas, to have gone largely
unappreciated.

------
proee
One trick that's worked for us:

If your kids want to take a toy with them to bed, instead let them pick out a
few books. This way they think of books as toys and therefore a sort of
privilege (i.e. fun!).

------
ShabbyDoo
An issue with any reading-related arguments is that the definition of
"reading" is so loose. Here are at least three different definitions commonly
in use:

1\. A person can look at a page full of sentences and translate them into
appropriate sounds coming out of his mouth. An add-on to this definition is
the ability to answer basic comprehension question questions about these
sentences.

2\. A person can reason upon, expand upon, interpret, or otherwise think about
the words he has read.

3\. A person can read fiction and appreciate it in some way.

#1 seems like an obvious necessity for life in a society where so much is
communicated via written language. #2 seems like necessary skill for someone
to be a high-functioning adult. But, why do we couple our discussion about why
Johnny can't "read" with our concerns that Johnny can't think? Isn't written
language simply an (important) input method for ideas upon which one may
reason?

As a guy who hasn't read a work of fiction in a long time but still considers
himself a regular "reader", I consider definition #3 to be ill-conceived. Why
is it more important for a person to be proficient in the interpretation of
"written word" art than visual art, performing arts, cinema, etc.? What's so
darned special about literature? I spend a lot more time observing others'
photography (in an attempt to improve my own) than I do with other art forms.
Am I un-cultured? Un-intelligent? In college, when I had lots of time on my
hands, I enjoyed sitting down in the afternoon with a Guiness and reading
large swaths of the Wall Street Journal. Does this count as reading?

The lack of definition around the test "is a reader" results in many mushy
arguments. Shouldn't those proficient in Definition #2 be able to detect this?

------
bherms
PS, Does this make anyone else want to read such titles at "Sir Fartsalot
Hunts the Booger" and "The Psycho Butts of Uranus"? I never read books like
those, but I can easily see books like this getting young boys into the habit
of reading.

~~~
hugh3
Oh wow, those are real books? From the titles, they sound like they were
written entirely via mad libs.

If I had children, I would absolutely forbid them from reading books like Sir
Fartsalot Hunts the Booger and The Psycho Butts of Uranus. Then I would smile
to myself, because I'd know they'd be reading them behind my back, and the
effort they'd be going to in order to hide it from me would prevent them from
getting into any worse trouble.

------
pavel_lishin
Unfortunately, my advice is useless for English speakers.

I was raised in Russia, and my mom tricked me into learning to read. Russian
is very phonetic - if you know the alphabet, you can sound out words and
understand them (compare this with "daughter" - good fucking luck, kid.)

So she would start reading a book, wait until a really exciting part of the
plot was coming up, and then put the book down next to me and excuse herself
for a moment - she had to stir the pot on the stove, or help my dad look for
something, or whatever sounded plausible to me - and being impatient, I would
pick up the book and struggle to read, because I wanted to know what was
coming next.

------
phuff
While I agree that video games are compelling to the 11-14 year old boy scouts
that I've spent a lot of time with over the last few years, I know of a few
who are prolific readers as well as being competent gamers (we have video game
nights every once in a while, too :)).

I think the author is well meaning, but probably not entirely on base. The
author must certainly also know of the golden mean
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_mean_%28philosophy%29>). As Aristotle
professed, moderation in all things (including video games and reading).

------
lukeqsee
How I became a boy that reads:

My parents read to me _alot_. I would find a book, walk up to mom and say,
"Book." I loved them. Then once I learned to read I read everything, you name
it, I read it. Books, magazines, billboards, cereal boxes, coke cans, if it
had letters, I read it. Simple as that. I have read nearly every book in the
house, twice. I just ate up books.

Now I read HN articles, programming articles, free books on Kindle, iBooks,
and real books. They are the single most influential part of my life.

Reading is a very fulfilling addiction. I caught the bug. I hope you did too.

------
bherms
I think more than anything, is to encourage your children to learn, and help
them to find passions early in life. I used to read a lot when I was a kid
because I was really interested in our founding fathers, so I read a lot about
Ben Franklin, Jefferson, etc. I lost that for a while because I didn't have
any books available that interested me. Near the end of highschool, I was
forced to read a few books that really got me going and I've been reading
fiction ever since. I found a passion for it.

~~~
Volscio
This seems appropriate. I didn't really start "reading" a lot until I was in
my mid-twenties and wanted to know more about global issues and international
affairs, and I could find books on those topics pretty easily in the best-
sellers list.

My dad would have me read classics like The Lord of the Rings. I appreciate
them now, but they had little relevance to me as a boy.

The internet was probably the best thing for me because it allowed me to
quickly find more information on topics I actually cared about.

So I'd say the way to get anyone to read, not just boys, is to facilitate the
link between their interests and books. So when someone shows an interest or
aptitude in a certain hobby, show them a bunch of books in that area.

It's not quite so obvious to people that there is a ton of information out
there on the things they love.

Also I think it's funny to read comments on hackernews saying that kids
shouldn't have access to video games when a lot of us grew up on computer
games, BBSs, MUDs, etc. and are now hackers/coders.

------
thasmin
Is there an implication that reading means reading books? Because I'd think
that it's harder to raise a child who doesn't read in the internet age.

------
eogas
I think one of the best things my dad ever did for me was read to my brother
and me as children. And I'm not talking about stupid kid books. These were
classics. Books that you might be assigned to read for a literature class.

Hell, he read The Road Ahead to us at one point. Don't ask me why.

But as a result of him reading to me, I took an interest in reading for
myself, and learning in general. I think I can say, without trying to be
immodest, that it improved my life enormously and allowed me to get through
school with ease. I have never had trouble writing either, though this was
probably because my dad was an English major. Up until high school, he would
personally proofread and comment on anything we had to write.

Even today, my first draft is always my final draft.

So read to your kids dads. It will prove to be an invaluable experience.

------
bethsears
I volunteer for an organization called Raising a Reader, a non-profit literacy
organization that teaches families the importance of reading to a child from
birth to age 5 in order to have them reading-ready for school. This is a very
worthwhile cause.

When my own children were born I took reading to them as a given and read to
them every night, enjoying the cuddle time. When they became competent readers
themselves, I would read the first chapter of a juicy book to them and they'd
be grabbing the book from me like it was a piece of candy.

The screens are ok, as long as you don't use them as a babysitter. We're in a
technology age, so we can't ignore them. As parents, we need to teach our
children a balance between screen time and other stellar activities like
reading.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Watching and reading are both quite sedentary - don't forget to mix in some
'fleeing from rampaging space-monster-vampires' and associated activities.

------
hmahncke
The author's argument that what worked well for the elites of 50 years ago
should be good enough for everyone today is unlikely to be correct. What
worked for the elites of 50 years ago probably works just fine for the elites
of today, like him and his kids. However, what has changed over 50 years is
that we're now trying to educate all kids, not just elite kids. It's likely
we'll need different approaches to reach all kids today, just like we would
have needed different approaches to reach all kids 50 years ago - if anyone
back then cared about all kids.

------
ktf
I would rather raise my (hypothetical) child as someone who is open minded,
who can listen to suggestions and choose what they'd like to read themselves.
I'm not into the idea of raising a closed-minded elitist who's only allowed to
read the books his father loved as a child.

Incidentally, I can say firsthand that the _Captain Underpants_ series is
wonderful. If you have a child (or are one), I highly recommend checking it
out.

------
squidsoup
My 5 year old son is significantly ahead of his peers in terms of reading. We
do play video games together in moderation (Minecraft!), but we also read
together _every_ night. Fortnightly visits to the library, and modelling good
choices by reading ourselves instead of turning on the TV, seem to be
cultivating both love and respect for books.

------
stewiecat
Don't watch TV.

My father never watched TV. He finally put a tv in the living room of his home
long after all three of us were out of the house. Growing up, I'd be doing
homework while my father read and smoked his pipe, the tv downstairs off.

He'd unplug for a week/month as punishment for even the smallest mistakes, but
he would always bring us to the library.

------
Avshalom
Can't remember who it was, Bradbury, Heinlein, possibly Spider Robinson, who
gave the advice:

Make your kid the deal that they can stay up as late as they want as long as
they're reading. Kids will fight bedtime by any means necessary.

------
thisduck
Entirely anecdotal as well, but how many of us got into computer
science/engineering/programming _because_ we played lots of computer games?

