David Brooks is so annoying.
He wrote a column in today's New York Times that I should love, because it is all about how great books are, especially for kids. But I can't fully love it, because his attitude is so darn prissy and annoying -- exactly the attitude that turns so many kids off to books.
Here's the link to his column:
I love that researchers gave kids books -- and that the kids got to CHOOSE their 12 books, and that those kids showed real improvements in their test scores. Yay for them, and yay for books.
But contrary to what David Brooks seems to be saying, books aren't just good because they make you a better student. Or because they are somehow hierarchical. Or because a better mind than your own created them and you should just shut up and listen.
Books are interactive in most profound way: the reader's imagination completes the story created by the writer.
Books force us not to just shut up and listen but to imagine and wonder and question.
I get his point about the twitchy anarchy/lack of deep thought of the internet, and also the value in seeing oneself as someone who has books.
But books are also fun, even the classics, even the really hard and deep books. He makes them sound like drudgery to be endured if you want to climb some ladder. Ew.
Do you love books? Why?