Dorothy Wall

Dorothy Wall wrote the Blinky Bill thing. I have the book. I read it. I didn't like it that much. I would have probably been okay reading a Blinky Bill short story. I just got bored with a whole novel of it.

People may say this is because I'm an adult, and the book is for kids. But I read a lot of kid's books and love them.

 I don't know. Maybe it's just not my thing. And it bothered me that the book uses the term bear for Koala. That's rude of me to be bothered by that. Probably in those days, people didn't know koalas weren't bears.

Maybe it IS about me being an adult. When it comes to children's television: Some stuff I watch with Jack, and I totally love it. With other stuff, watching it with him borders on torture.

Anyway, I could struggle to explain WHY I don't like Blinky Bill. But it's probably best to move on and talk about its author.

Lord Wiki says that Dorothy Wall was born in New Zealand, on 12 January 1894. May Gibbs was born in January too!

I guess she had an art thing going on. At the age of ten, she won a scholarship for her art. That seems pretty impressive to me. Her drawings are cute. I'm looking at Blinky Bill right now. Although I prefer the May Gibbs stuff. Just a personal preference. Maybe I prefer mystical creatures over anthropomorphic animals? But I do love Arthur, and that's totally anthropomorphic.

In 1914, Wall immigrated to Australia. I'm guessing she went with her whole family. She would have been ten then; so did the scholarship come from New Zealand or Australia?

She worked for a newspaper. Lord Wiki says it was called The Sun. When I googled it, the first item on the search was The Sydney Morning Herald. Further down, I got The Sun Herald. I'm getting the idea that The Sun Herald is SMH's Sunday paper?

Anyway, The Sun that Wall worked for might have been something completely different.

In 1920, Wall published her first children's story. It was called "Tommy Bear and the Zookies". Lord Wiki doesn't say what it was published in. A magazine? Book anthology? This Flickr person has some photos from it. I actually like it. The one I'm looking at has koalas on the beach. It's cute.

In 1921 Wall got married. That year she also had some success with doing illustrations for someone else's book.

Through the 1920's and 1930's, she did the illustrating thing.

In 1933, she published Blinky Bill: the Quaint Little Australian. I wonder if it's the same Blinky Bill I have. Mine doesn't have the quaint little Australian bit in the title.

Oh! I think I get it. I'm looking at the titles of her other books. They're all in my book.... My book is divided into three sections. The first part is Blinky Bill. The second part is Blinky Bill Grows Up. The third part is Blinky Bill and Nutsy. I guess the publishers compiled it all into one volume.

All right. Wall is the third story, I've heard, of a well-loved Aussie author having financial difficulties. There's her, May Gibbs, and then Henry Lawson. Were writers not paid well in Australia? I'm guessing that's not the case anymore. Well, I hope not! And I wonder if American writers had the same issues.

I know not all published writers are going to end up rich. Many of them don't sell enough books to give up their day job. But it's hard to imagine a successful writer struggling financially. Was it a matter of them not managing their funds properly. Or was it a matter of the publishing houses being stingy?

In 1934, Wall and her husband got divorced. Oh. Well, maybe that caused the financial problems? Perhaps he ended up with more of the money. I'm not sure what the divorce laws were in those days.

Wall went to live with her son in The Blue Mountains.

Like Henry Lawson, Wall didn't just have financial difficulties. She was depressed as well, and unhealthy. She returned to New Zealand. Why? I don't know. But there she worked as an illustrator for various New Zealand newspapers.

Lord Wiki says in 1939, her health and financial situation improved. He says this is probably due to her publishing The Complete Adventures of Blinky Bill. I guess maybe that book brought her more money? Maybe the other book brought her money as well, but she spent it all or something. I don't know.

She didn't have many good years, though. She returned to Sydney in July 1941. About six months later, she died.

That's about it for Lord Wiki. I'll go see if she's in the Australian Dictionary of Biography.

Here we go. She's in there.

Wall was born in Wellington, New Zealand. That's on the North Island...the southern part. Her parents had been both born in England.

The book she first did illustrations for was J.J Halls The Crystal Bowl. Lord Wiki had actually provided the title, but I couldn't find it on Google. Now I'm finding it. Maybe I put it in the search thing differently. Here's the book. It's Australian nature stories. You can read part of the book, and see Wall's illustrations on Google Books.

She illustrated other books.

There was Jacko-the Broadcasting Kookaburra and The Amazing Adventures of Bill Penguin. Both of these were written by Brooke Nicholls. And she illustrated a book by Nellie Grant called Australians All.

The biographical dictionary says that Wall had one child. Blinky Bill was based on stories she told to him. They say critics have spoken out against her anthropomorphism. I guess some people have a problem with that. Why? Is it disrespectful towards animals? Are the people against it the same ones who are against fantasy? Do they fear it will make children see the world in an unrealistic way? Are they worried children will become too sentimental about animals and then do something drastic like become vegetarian?

I like anthropomorphic animals. I think they're fun. Some of it's weird, though. On Arthur, the animals all go to the same school. They work together. They play together. They shop together. An Aardvark is best friends with a rabbit. Here's the thing, though. There's no inter-breeding. Each family is made up of the same animals. I'm guessing that's because if one animal bred with another animal-type, the creators of the show would have to make hybrid animals. Maybe that would get too complicated. But it seems almost racist to me...or at least anti-intermarriage. I don't think that was the intent. I wonder if some kids though get that message. You can play with those other people. You can be friends with them. You can invite them over for lunch. But you can NOT marry and have children with them.

Anyway, I've been trying to find information about this anti-anthropomorphic movement, but I can't find it. I do feel like I've learned about it before. I just don't remember the details.

Several years ago, I worked at the Fort Worth Zoo. There I learned that they're against naming the animals....or at least sharing the names with the public. One woman I worked with told me it's because the animals are not pets. I guess that would be a somewhat anti-anthropomorphic attitude. The thing about this zoo is it really pushes the idea that animals are here for human use. There's a whole video in the children's play area that shows factory farms blessing us humans with much needed milk, cheese, and ice-cream. There's play activities teaching kids which animals bring us which products. I think the main idea of the Fort Worth Zoo is animal are here for US. We might feel less eager to USE them if they have cute little names.

It's easier to eat a chicken if you imagine it to be a mindless biological blob that eats and poops until you chop off it's head. If you name it Peter, make it talk, and give it a suit and tie....people might think twice about eating that drumstick. I doubt it, though. Humans are blessed with a certain cognitive dissonance. We can eat our meat AND coo over how adorable the animals are. At the Fort Worth Zoo, there's a little area where kids can pet farm animals. About thirty feet away, they can buy a cheeseburger or pepperoni pizza.

Let me get back to Dorothy Wall. The biographical dictionary talks about her financial difficulties. At one point, she wrote to her publisher (Angus and Robertson Ltd). If I'm reading this right, she said she never cared much about seeing her name in print. What matters to her is the money. They responded by giving her more work. She got three guineas for each book jacket she illustrated. That doesn't sound like a lot of money. I may be wrong. But I'm betting she wished they just paid her more money for the work she had ALREADY done.

She tried to get money in other ways. The website says she was really into playing the lottery. She tried to sell her cartoons to American movie companies and the Blinky Bill image to English china companies. I'm not sure if any of that worked out. Well, the website doesn't speak of successes, so I'm guessing not.

I'm going through Google right now....looking for something interesting.

There's been Blinky Bill TV programs. From 1984-1987, there was some puppet thing called The New Adventures of Blinky Bill. Here's a video from that. It has humans interacting with the puppets. Interesting.....I can't find it on IMDb. They have the next Blinky Bill show though....a cartoon that premiered in 1993. Here's the opening song. It's very cute.

Read my novel: The Dead are Online

Nevill Drury

Nevill Drury MIGHT be a spiritual guru type person.

I think I added a bunch of these people in a row. But I could have interspersed other people in the middle.

Well, we shall see.....

Okay. Yeah. Lord Wiki says Drury does have a spiritual connection.

He's a publisher; and I guess he published some metaphysical stuff.

Baby Nevill was born in England in 1947. Lord Wiki doesn't give an exact date.

He moved to Australia when he was ten. That would be 1957, or it could have been the beginning of 1958.

He has a Masters of Arts degree in anthropology from Macquarie University. One of my friends just enrolled there, and I made sure to remind her that this is where The Wiggles went to school.

Drury's publishing career began in 1976. He worked as a managing editor for Harper and Row and Doubleday.

Harper and Row later became Harper Collins. Harper Collins has so many imprints....including Australia's Angus  and Robertson.

Doubleday is now part of Random House.

It seems like most books these days are published by a very small handful of publishing companies. It's like how almost every food product is owned by a small number of food companies.

It bothers me that the whole world seems to be controlled by a few huge corporations.

In 1981, Drury helped to establish an art book imprint called Craftsman House. It looks like the company was still publishing books within this decade. Drury worked for them as publishing director from 1989 to 2000. I wonder if the company is still in business?

Well, here's a 2002 article from The Sydney Morning Herald about Craftsman House. It says that a woman named Rhonda Fitzsimmons bought Craftsman House. Fitzsimmons seems to feel she saved the company from folding. Yet, some other people are angry at her because she's done annoying things like refusing to pay authors their royalties. Fitzsimmons feels she doesn't owe royalties to authors published by the previous owner. What? That sounds crazy to me! She sounds a bit like the Rhonda I wrote about yesterday...not giving people the money that is owed to them.

I don't see a current website for Craftsman House, so I'm wondering if they did eventually go under.

At some point, Drury also did the bookstore thing. He was the manager of a metaphysical bookstore in Sydney called Adyar Bookshop. They're still in existence. Their website says they've been around since 1922, and they're owned by The Blavatsky Lodge of the Theosophical Society. Cool.

I like the three objectives of the Theosophical Society. They are:

1. To Form a nucleolus of the Universal Brotherhood of Humanity without distinction of race, creed, sex, caste, or colour. Wouldn't race be color...and if not, what does colour refer to? Is it how tan you are?

2. To encourage the study of comparative religion, philosophy, and science. I like that they encourage learning. Learning is lovely.

3. To investigate unexplained laws of nature, and the powers latent in human beings.

Well, at least on the surface; this seems like a group I could like.

Back to the bookstore....

It recently moved locations. It used to be on Clarence Street. Now it's on Bathurst Street. I'll try to find it on Google Maps.

It's close to Town Hall Station and St. Andrew's Church. It's not too far from the west side of Hyde Park.

Anyway, I don't know how long Drury was manager of the bookstore....or when. It might have been before he worked for the publishing companies.

Strangely, while thinking/writing about the sentence above, I had one of these weird flashes. I wrote a post about it before. Basically, I had this amazing dream sometime in my childhood. It gave me this FEELING. I can't really explain it. Sometimes I have flashes of the dream...or flashes of feelings from the dream. And I believe the dream MIGHT have been connected to Australia in some way. Maybe the bookstore is a clue. OR maybe reading about metaphysical bookstores led my mind into connecting to thoughts of my metaphysical-feeling dream. Who knows. Any atheists reading this can believe the latter. I like to believe the former. We can all choose the explanations that make us most happy and comfortable.

Drury doesn't just publish. He writes as well. He writes about Shamanism and other occult stuff.

He wrote a biography of an Australian witch named Rosaleen Norton. I'm definitely adding her to the list....unless I already have her.

Nope. She's not on the list yet. I had thought maybe I had encountered her name while searching for occult people that one July evening.

Anyway, I think I'm done with Lord Wiki. I'm going to feed Jack and myself some breakfast. Then I'll look elsewhere.

I'm back. Speaking of weird stuff and breakfast....

Yesterday Tim made his own bagels. I don't think it's something he's made for us before. Although when I expressed surprise, he reminded me that he had spent many years working at a bagel shop. But I think this might have been the first time he tried making them on his own...in a home kitchen.

Later in the day, Tim called his sister to wish her a happy birthday. She told him that she had tried to make bagels very recently. Tim was quite surprised, and informed her that he had done the same. I guess it's some kind of sibling-bagel bond.

Anyway, back to Drury.

This esoteric website has an article written by him. It's called "Magic and Cyberspace: Fusing Technology and Consciousness in the Modern World".

He talks about how the Internet can be used for role-playing. We can become something that we're really not. I'm totally fine with this, as long as everyone KNOWS a game is being played. I know sites are out there for people to use their imaginations. That's fine, and fun. I think there's a huge difference between doing that, and LYING. When I talk to people on the Internet, I expect them to be who they say they are. I would not be happy or easily forgiving if I found out they were lying.

There's stuff I want to say about dishonesty, but I don't want to give certain media hungry individuals time on my blog. Let's just say I'm disgusted and leave it at that.

Drury says, It comes as no surprise, then, that neopagans and occultists of all descriptions have been quick to embrace the Internet as a new means of communication.

Okay. Yeah. But there's also a ton of Christians, Atheists, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. embracing the Internet.

Drury seems to be connecting cyberspace experiences with psychedelic drug experiences. I've never done the latter, so I can't personally compare.

Drury says that Steve Jobs went to India and did a lot of Acid. Wow.

I'm starting to understand this article. Maybe the connection is that drugs give people a sense of connection...oneness with the universe. And the Internet does the same thing. It's really connecting all of us. It's mind boggling to me that this is happening to us....that I can reach out and talk to people far far away....instantaneously. We live in a world where your best friend no longer has to live in your neighborhood. They can live on a whole different continent.

Oh. I'm glad I've decided to consider myself Neopagan. I can really relate to some of the stuff that Drury says about them.

He says here.... Neopagans generally regard technology and magic as interchangeable. Ever pragmatic, they seem to be primarily concerned with what works.

Yeah. That sounds like me. I try not to stick with a limited dogma...especially with stuff like health. I feel a lot of people make a strict choice between Western and alternative medicine. My feeling is if works for me, I'll use it.

When I'm not feeling good, I take immunity tablets...you know things with Vitamin C, zinc, and various herbs. It almost always makes me feel better (knock on wood!) People will mention that they've heard it's just a placebo. I say, Fine! If it's a placebo and it works...bring me my damn placebo!

I'll happily try alternative medicine even if scientific studies show it doesn't do anything. But I also don't shy away from Western medicine. We go to a regular Western medicine doctor. I take Western medicine painkillers.

I'm the same with spirituality stuff. I'll try different practices and products. If it works, I'll keep using it. If it doesn't work, I'll lose interest. In my case, most stuff does NOT work for me. I've tried so many things to increase lucid dreams....gemstones, herbs, meditation stuff, music, tea, vitamins, etc. None of it has worked for me. I don't regret buying most of it though. The tea tasted good. The gemstones are pretty, and Jack helped me invent a fun game with them. The vitamins are healthy otherwise.....

Drury's article talks about how pagans in the Bible Belt can use the Internet to access like-minded people. I think this concept can apply to anyone who lives among people that they differ from. I live in Fort Worth--a Republican cow-eating Christian city. How could a Pagan, more-left-then-democrat, vegetarian survive in a place like this?

The Internet doesn't just help us find like-minded folks far away. It helps us find other fringe people close by. I met my best friend in Texas through the Internet. And well, she actually is a Republican cow-eating Christian, but she homeschools her kids. So we have that weirdness in common.

The Internet is probably responsible for the recent growth in homeschooling families. We can now easily find people out there who are as weird as us. We don't have to feel so alone. There's strength in numbers.

Here's an interview with Drury in a Pagan journal.

Drury was born in the same year and same town that Aleister Crowley died. I'm not sure who that is. He's not the guy who started the Satanist religion, is he?

No. He's a British occult guy.

Who am I thinking about then?

Ah. Anton LaVey.

I'm not sure how I confused those two guys. Well, both their names start with the same letter.

Drury says he considered the idea that he was Crowley reincarnated; but Drury was born in October, and Crowley died in December.

The interviewer suggests that maybe Crowley was brain dead by then. Yeah. Maybe his soul had already entered Drury's baby body.

When Drury came to Australia, he lived in a migrant hostel for three years.

Daddy Drury was an art teacher.

The family did a lot of traveling. If I'm reading this right, they left Australia to travel the world. Then they returned again.

Daddy Drury returned to England at some point. He got sick and died.

Drury did a lot of traveling in his early years. In reaction to this, he got himself a big house and accumulated lots of stuff.

I moved around a lot as a child. I mean it wasn't as nuts as some people. We moved every 2-5 years. I feel I'm sort of torn about moving. There's this part of me that wants to sell almost everything we own and become nomadic. I hate that we have so much stuff. I want to be FREE. But then there's this other part of me that wants to keep our house forever....mostly because I'm too lazy to do a massive clean up.

I'd love to be a nomad in Australia though. I'd love to just travel from place to place.

Drury believes what made him first interested in the occult was a paperback book called The Dawn of Magic.

He got the book when he was fifteen. He won a math competition. As a reward, he was told he could pick out a paperback book. He picked the magic one, and it changed his whole life.

I love stories like that.

I love thinking that something seemingly insignificant can happen today that will have a huge impact on my life.

Someone new could comment on my blog. We might become friends and eventually meet. Our children might be become friends. Later they may fall in love. Then I can say that my grandchildren are the result of the fact that one day their grandmother committed on my blog.

Yesterday I went through and started looking at my blog entries from last year. I saw a comment on one of my blog entries that had inspired me to write another blog entry. That other blog entry resulted in me having a horrible fight with someone. I saw that yesterday and thought....if that person had never written that comment, I would probably have never been inspired to write the controversial blog entry. I mean I don't BLAME the comment in anyway. And I might have later written a similar entry anyway. But it's just funny how one little thing can lead to something big.

Here Drury says he went to the University of Sydney rather than The Wiggles University. But perhaps he went to both.

Drury says he had a very wild social life....lots of drunken parties.

Around his University time, Drury did some counterculture publications. One was called Chaos, and the other was called Lucifer.

It seems it wasn't just the prize paperback that introduced Drury to the world of the occult. His father was a Theosophist.

Then at some party, he had an exciting drug experience. I guess that pulled him farther into it all.

Sometimes I wonder if I'm the only occult-leaning person who hasn't had past experiences with mild-altering drugs.

Well, I'm sure there are others out there like me.

Drury gives his viewpoint of the difference between mysticism and the occult. He says that mystics see the world in terms of love and light. Occults believe there is a dark side as well, and this needs to be worked through. I think I definitely lean towards the occult. I don't LIKE evil, but I do believe it's out there.

Yikes. I thought I had just lost my WHOLE post...well, everything after the first few sentences. It all just kind of disappeared....I mean not magically. But I must have pressed the wrong thing somehow. That's never happened to me before. Fortunately, it didn't go through an automatic save, so I was able to close it, and then get back to it.

I did lose a few sentences, but I'll just redo.

I like what Drury says here. The people I regard as my greatest influences have all been individualists and not team players. I don't usually feel I fit in well with any group. And sometimes I don't feel strong and brave enough to be the black sheep. So I need to remember that it's OKAY to be different. And I don't just mean different from the mainstream. I mean in my life....that's a given. But I also don't fit in well with most other alternative people. I don't mean that I fail to get along with everyone. I just mean that I'm kind of caught in the middle a lot of times.

Religion is one example. I'll look at an atheist website and think these people are SO rigid. Can they not have faith in anything? Do they have to so strongly rely on science?

Then I'll go a spiritual website, roll my eyes, and think, These people have their heads completely in the clouds! Do they even know what science is? Why do they put so much faith in anecdotal evidence!

I think I could fit in with Neopagans...somewhat. But not really. There's the whole drug thing. It seems a lot of pagans are into that. And a lot of pagans do rituals. I am SO not a ritual person. That's one of the main things that turned me away from Judaism. I obsessively read about Judaism. I loved it. I even loved reading about all the rituals and traditions...stuff that really had not been a part of my own Jewish-upbringing. Then I went to someone's house, and I think we did some ritual...maybe some ritual hand-washing thing. It just didn't feel right to me. And I don't like closing my eyes to say the prayers over the sabbath candles. I don't like kissing the Torah in Synagogue. It all feels silly to me.

I don't have anything against other people doing religious/spiritual rituals. I just don't feel comfortable doing them myself. I guess I'd rather just watch, or read about it.

I like what Drury says at the end of the interview. He says that occultists should stop with all the secretiveness. We should feel connected. We should be open and share. I agree with this.

If we have knowledge that will help people in the world, we should share it.

I hate websites advertisement that promise a miraculous cure or idea. But you have to buy the E-book to learn about it. I hate when people are greedy with their knowledge. And when they are that way....I usually assume they really don't have something worthy to share.

There's some that say we shouldn't trust that which is free. I'm the opposite. I'm weary to trust any information that is NOT free. Because if it's not free, someone might have an alternative motive in publishing it.

Now a lot of self-help people do make money from their work. But they still provide information for free. An example that comes to mind is William Sears, the attachment parenting guru. He has a helpful website that I've often consulted. But he also has a library of books one can order...or find at the library. I don't put full faith in his ideas and methods. But I have more faith in him then I would in a guru who says I have the answers that will make parenting easy! Buy my e-book and finally be the parent you've always wanted to be! My three steps will change your life!

I think I'm going to stop soon. I need to take Jack shoe shopping. We're going to Disney World soon, and we need to start doing preparation stuff.

It seems my beloved Powells store has a lot of Drury books. I might add some to my wish list. Oh! Speaking of books. I'm reading Stephen King's Duma Key right now. It's kind of funny because it's about supernatural stuff and art. And Nevill Drury's two main interests are supernatural/occult stuff and art. So the book I'm currently reading fits in well with this post. How lovely is that.

Well, guess what. I can't quit this post yet. I just found more good stuff that I can't just ignore.

So I'm going to take Jack shoe shopping and indulge him with a promised ICEE. Then I'll come back and do more work....

Well, I'm back.

After Target, we took a walk around the neighborhood. We saw lots of butterflies, an ant that looked like a bull ant, and a small dead snake.

Now I'm ready to get back to work.

There's an interview with Drury on ABC's The Ark.

Drury says that New Age is an eclectic approach to spirituality. Under that definition, I could label myself New Age. I just don't fit well with the New Age ideas of...well, there being a new age. I don't believe humanity is on the cusp of some mass spiritual breakthrough.

Drury says, It's a blending of re-birth doctrines, self-help, personal growth, and in the modern era of course it's got blended in with psychology and the study of consciousness. But it does originally come from the idea there's a universal wisdom tradition, which applies to all of the great religions, and it focuses on the idea that there are many paths to the same transcendental reality, the same supreme reality, and in a way it's moving away from the concept of an exclusive religious path.

That all sounds nice to me. I'm not a big fan of self-help though. In small doses, it's okay.

Drury says, And I think many New Age people are looking for the idea that you don't have to have religious or spiritual perception based on faith, it can be based on experience, and that experience can also link into the world of scientific observation.

I think that's fine...great. I like combining science and spirituality, as long as people understand that some stuff can't be proved or disproved. Some of spirituality has to come from faith. And if a person IS going to use science, they need proper documentation. It's not right for them to just declare Well quantum physics shows that blah blah blah is true. If you're going to bring up science, then ACT scientific about it. Give me evidence. At least give me the name of the study that was done.

I'm not one of those who's going to shout out pseudo-science just because I might disagree with it. But I'm not going to believe something simply because someone has said, Science has proven.....Most of the interview is about the history of the New Age movement. I don't really want to go into all that, so I'll look elsewhere now.

Actually, maybe I'll stop here. I'm hungry, and Jack wants to watch Arthur with me.

Mick Molloy

I don't know who Mick Molloy is, but his name sounds very Irish to me.

Lord Wiki says....

He's a comedian.

I wonder how I got his name on my list.

Anyway....

Baby Mick was born on 11 July 1966. And he was born in Canberra! I haven't found many famous people who were born there.

Lord Wiki says Molloy grew up in Canberra, then later moved to Melbourne to pursue his career.

He studied performing arts at the University of Melbourne. There he wrote and performed in his first show.

Molloy also attended a school called Maroondah Secondary College. Well, at least Lord Wiki says that he did. I'm confused because this is a high school, not a university. Maybe this is the school that Molloy attended BEFORE he did his university studies? Did his whole family leave Canberra for Victoria? Or did Molloy go there on his own?

In 1987, Molloy started working for a comedy group called The D-Generation. He had auditioned for the show earlier, but didn't have any luck.  Then the group saw him do his university performance, and they signed him up as one of their writers.

YouTube has some clips from the show. I'm going to watch one. I'm not sure if it will be one that Molloy wrote.

That was fairly decent. I wasn't falling on the floor laughing, but I did smile a few times. I liked the pool romance skit best.

Molloy continued to do D-Generation stuff in the late 1980's. Then in the early 1990's, many of the members of the D-Generation moved over to something called The Late Show. Molloy did this from 1992-1993.

Here's a clip from that. It's a segment called "What's All That About?" I personally didn't love it that much.

From 1995 until 1998, Molloy did a radio program with one of the D-Generation/Late Show guys. It was called Martin/Molloy. I wonder how they decided whose name would go first. Maybe it was alphabetical.

There were three compilation albums made from the show, and these albums won ARIA awards. Cool.

In 1999, Molloy had his own talk show, but it was canceled after only eight episodes.


From 2003-2004, Molloy played Kim's dad on Kath And Kim. Is Kim the mother or daughter? I always forget. Okay. Kim's the daughter. So I'm guessing then that Molloy played Kath's ex-lover.

From 2004-2006, Molloy did a radio show called Tough Love with Mick Molloy. His younger brother Richard was one of his co-hosts. How cute...brotherly love.

In 2006, he did a sport show called Any Given Sunday. Isn't there a movie with that name? Okay. Yeah. Here it is. It's an Oliver Stone film about football.

Molloy has been in some movies.

In 2002, he was in Crackerjack. Molloy co-wrote this film with his brother. It's about a bowling club. The movie earned the Molloy brothers an AFI nomination for best screenplay.

Here's a trailer for the film. It looks fairly cute...one of those intergenerational stories.

In 2003, he was in Bad Eggs. It was written and directed by Tony Martin--the same guy who did the radio show with Molloy. Marshall Napier from McLeod's Daughters was in it too!

Here's a trailer for the movie.

It doesn't really look like my type of thing.

In 2006, he was in BoyTown. This one was also written by the Molloy brothers. It's about a boy band from the 1980's. The team also made a mockumentary to go with the movie. Clips from the mockumentary were shown in the movie. Lord Wiki says the entire documentary was supposed to be included in the DVD release, but it was left out. Molloy blamed lack of funding. His old friend Tony Martin wasn't too happy about the mockumentary being excluded.

YouTube has a clip from the mockumentary. That made me laugh out loud once or twice. I have a feeling Tim would find that video hilarious. Sometimes my husband's sense of humor matches my own. Sometimes it does not.

Molloy had a small role in the Australian 2006 Macbeth movie. I didn't know about this Macbeth movie. I might want to see it someday. I like Macbeth. Yesterday, Jack and I watched Arthur, and it had a Macbeth theme. Little Muffy encouraged her best friend Francine to frame their mutual friend in an act of thievery, so Francine would win the student of the month award. They end up having to commit another crime to cover up their first. It was pretty clever.

I got all excited in the middle of it. I started babbling to Jack about how it the episode was like a Shakespeare played called Macbeth. Jack looked at me as if I was totally dense. He showed me the title. Macfrensky. Okay. So I guess I missed that.

Well, here's a trailer for the 2006 Aussie version.

I actually wrote a screenplay involving Macbeth. I think it was called The Subway Monster. Maybe? It was a romantic-comedy about this woman who had seen a horror movie as a teenager. The monster in the film totally freaks her out, and she develops this huge persisting fear. Later, to finally overcome the fear, she decides to learn about the actor who played the monster that scared her so much. She learns that he's become a small town theater actor. She ends up finding out where he lives, and goes to track him down. She just plans to quietly stalk him a bit, but they end up meeting. They fall in love...blah, blah, blah. All is well until she sees him in a production of Macbeth. He plays Banquo, and with all the blood/ghost stuff...he looks freaky again.

I forgot what happens after that. But now that I've written that whole summary, I'm thinking that was a pretty dumb story.

But it MIGHT be good. I'm horrible at writing pitches and stuff like that.

The premise sounds a bit ridiculous, though.

Shit. Here I am rambling on and on about this Macbeth stuff, and Malloy had such a small role in the film. At least I think he did. IMDb says he played a character named Murderer in Brown. I guess it was a cameo type thing.

For a very short time in 2007, Molloy hosted a show called The Nation.

In 2008, he helped host a football comedy show called Before the Game. I guess the show is still on. At least that's what I'm getting from Lord Wiki. I'm not sure if Molloy is still involved though.

Oh wait. I missed some earlier TV stuff!

In 2004, Malloy was in a TV movie directed by Sam Neill. The Brush-off. He played the same character in another TV movie called Stiff. Stiff wasn't directed by Neill. It was directed by someone else.

Currently, Malloy is on a TV show called The Jesters. It's a sitcom about a comedy sketch guy who has become a producer. It sounds a LITTLE bit like 30 Rock.

Here's an interview with Molloy regarding BoyTown.

This is funny. The interviewer says, Besides me and my mum, pretty much anyone that has ever lived in Australia appears in the film, is there anyone that actually missed out on a role?

That reminds me of the Australia movie trailer spoof.

In the interview, Molloy says it was Tony Martin who did the mockumentary. Lord Wiki says there was some anger between Molloy and Martin regarding that being left off the DVD. I hadn't understood why Martin cared so much about the mockumentary. But now I guess it makes much more sense.

Well, I think I'm going to make this a short post. Jack wants me to watch the season finale of his TV show with him. Plus, I'm not really finding much that excites me today. Maybe I'm just not in a comedian mood. Who knows.....

Mem Fox

Mem Fox writes children's books. I think her books are fairly popular in America...mostly for the preschool age, probably.

The other thing I know about Mem Fox is she controversially spoke out against daycare. That should be interesting.

Anyway, I shall go start my research.

Lord Wiki says that Baby Mem (originally Merrion,) was born on 5 March 1946.

The birthday website says she's a Pisces and a 1 in numerology. I think of the Pisces as being spiritual people. The 1 is the number which deals with independence and leadership.

In Chinese astrology, Fox is a dog. That's funny because foxes and dogs both belong to the Canidae family.

Baby Mem was born in Melbourne. She grew up outside of Australia though...in Southern Rhodesia. I had no idea where that was, so I had to look it up. It's the place that is now called Zimbabwe. When it was Southern Rhodesia, it was a British Colony. When did it become Zimbabwe?

If I'm reading this right, not until 1980.

Mommy and Daddy Fox were missionaries. I guess that's why they moved to Africa.

When Fox was eighteen she moved to England. There she went to drama school.

Did she spend any time in Australia?

Okay. Yes. In 1971, she and her husband moved back to Australia. She'd be about twenty-five then.

Fox and the hubby had one daughter....Chloe. Chloe is now a Member of Parliament.

Fox has this huge passion for literacy. She wants people to READ. I love reading. I think everyone should know how to read. My feeling is though that we shouldn't push each person to be a bookworm. It's not going to happen. People have different personalities and interests. I think instead we should push the various types of reading. Some people might love novels. Some people might prefer comic books. Some might like reading fashion magazines. Some people might enjoy reading technical manuals.

I sometimes say Jack isn't a big reader. That's not really true. He's not a big fiction reader. He's not one of these kids who reads series upon series of books. But he does read a LOT everyday. He reads information. He spends a lot of time with my friend Lord Wiki. Mostly he does research on Mario Bros. He knows about every single character in every game, plus the history of the Nintendo Company. He'll read about other stuff as well. Yesterday, for some random reason, he started researching the Missouri River.

Lately, he HAS been reading books more though...comics and his old favorite chapter books.

Fox took a course in children's literature at Flinders University. I took two children's literature courses...one in college and one in graduate school. I loved them. I loved having the excuse to read children's books. Although now I feel secure enough not to have an excuse. I read them with pride. I think Stephanie Meyer and JK Rowling helped people like me feel safe enough to come out of the closet.

During her class, Flinders wrote her first draft of Possum Magic. Within five years, nine publishers rejected the manuscript. The book was finally accepted by Omnibus Books in Adelaide. They asked her though to make some changes. First, they wanted her to make it shorter. Second, originally the characters in the story were mice. Yeah, don't worry. It had a different title back then. The publishers asked Fox to change the mice into possums.  Make it more Australian.

Fox made the changes. The book became a very famous Australian picture book.

I'm reading the description on Amazon. It looks really cute. It's about a possum who is put under an invisibility spell. Then the characters have to remember which Aussie food reverses the spell.

Lord Wiki says one of Fox's books (Guess What) is on America's list of the 100 most challenged books. These are books that certain small-minded Americans don't want the rest of us to read. There's some great books on this list. It's probably actually an honor to be listed on it.

Shit. Shit. Shit. This makes me so disgusted with certain Americans. Why is Guess What challenged? Because it has a positive portrayal of a witch. What the hell?

If parents want to forbid THEIR particular children from reading books because the books disagree with their religion, FINE. That's their business. But to sit there and try to ban it for the rest of us.... That's so not right.

I feel sick to my stomach just thinking of this stuff.

You know I recently wrote that the one thing that truly bothers me about Scientology is their attempts to suppress the media. But you know....attempting to ban books is really no different. I am SO sick of people trying to force their beliefs on others.

I'm going to look at the book on Amazon...see if there are any interesting reviews.

The professional review people don't complain about the witch aspect. They do say, though, that the illustrations are weird. These aren't done by Fox, but someone named Vivienne Goodman. The reviewers say the pictures are too eerie and sophisticated for the text.

There are three very negative user reviews. Two are disturbed by the illustrations. One is upset about the positive portrayal of witches.

Fox's book after Possum Magic was Wilfrid Gordon McDonald Partridge. I actually used to own that book. I got it as a gift....I think maybe from teachers I worked with. It's about Alzheimer's disease, I think. I wonder if I still have it. Let me go check.....

I still have it. How funny. All this time we had an extra Australian book on our shelf, and I didn't even realize it.

I don't remember particularly liking the book. I wondered why these teachers were giving me a book about Alzheimer's. It seemed a bit random.

Anyway, let me read the book again. Maybe I'll have changed and like it more now....

I'm done. It's okay. To me, it's one of those picture books that are more for the adults than the children. I think it would be especially meaningful and poignant to people dealing with Alzheimer's or other types of dementia and memory loss.

It's a sweet book, but it didn't leave me with tears or anything.

I'm looking at Lord Wiki's list of her books for stuff that looks familar to me. I think I've heard of Sophie, but I might be thinking of another book. I'm thinking of a story where a little girl gets very angry.

No, this doesn't look like the book I'm thinking about. The Mem Fox book isn't about anger. It's about a grandfather and a granddaughter.

Here is the book I was thinking of. When Sophie Gets Angry--Really Really Angry. It was written by Molly Bang.

I think I'm done with Lord Wiki. Funny. He doesn't even mention the daycare stuff. I thought that was a pretty big issue.

Where should I go next?

I'll go to the Mem Fox website. Fox has a sweet little welcome letter on the front page. I'll read it.

She says sleeping is her favorite activity. I love sleeping too. I love dreaming. I wonder if Fox has vivid dreams like I do.

Fox says she has taught courses for teachers at a university. She also says she's bossy. I think those two things go hand in hand. When I went to graduate school for education, I found the professors to be very bossy. Bossy might be the wrong word though. I can't think of the right word. Maybe opinionated? Yeah, that's it. I find educators to be extremely opinionated. That would fit in with Fox declaring that daycare is child abuse.

Hey, and I'm opinionated. And I once was a professional educator person. This might be hard to believe, but I'm much less opinionated than I used to be....at least in terms of parenting and education.

Fox's most recently published book is about African animals. She said it will probably be the one book that she does about her childhood home.

Here, Fox talks about how there's a rumor saying she doesn't like children. Fox says this is so not true. She eats them all the time. No, I'm joking. Actually, Fox seems really sad about the accusations. She says what happened is she was interviewed by someone when she was really exhausted. She doesn't blame the person who interviewed her much. She blames herself. She says she told the interviewer that she doesn't have a special affinity with children.

I'm not sure how that translates to hating children. A person could like children but not be very good at interacting with them.

Fox says, What I was trying to convey to the journalist—and obviously I failed spectacularly—was that children’s authors are often able to write well without knowing any children at all, let alone liking them.

I agree with that. I can see how it's possible. Well, I understand how an author can write about children without knowing any. The writer can remember himself as a child. He can use the memories for inspiration. I can't really see how someone who dislikes children could write well for children. But maybe there could be someone who likes children, yet is shy around them. Maybe their way of reaching out is by writing books.

Fox said she also got in trouble for saying she doesn't like badly behaved children...the whining and moaning. I can't say I support her saying that. What child isn't sometimes badly behaved? I think it would have been better to say I don't like when children are misbehaving. Yeah. Neither do I. Does anyone?

Here's her response to the daycare issue. Fox had said she's against very young babies (under three weeks) being put into daycare for over sixty hours a week.

I agree. I'm sorry. I think it's very pathetic to have babies that young in daycare. I think it's horrible. Do I blame the parents? No, probably not. I blame society. I'm guessing in many cases, these mothers are forced to go back to work early. Although I'm sure sometimes the workaholic parents make this choice on their own.

Fox herself says she's a working mother. She went back to work when her daughter was six weeks. I think it was part time though. She talks about the lack of support. She understands that for some families it's not exactly a choice.

If I'm reading this right, Fox herself didn't say childcare was abusive. She quoted someone else who said that. But still...she could have been quoting it to emphasize her own feelings.

Fox did a speech about David Hicks. In one part she says:

What does it say about us that we won’t accord the same rights to David Hicks that are given to rapists, drug pushers and murderers in South Australia? Are they ever left languishing in jail for five years before they’re charged? Are they ever confined in wire cages in all weathers and without privacy? Are they ever allowed only one book a week? Are they every tortured or sleep-deprived in spite of their own allegedly horrible crimes? Are they ever so confined that they don’t see the sky or sunlight for months on end? No, never. We don’t do this because we’re not animals: we understand that civilised people treat prisoners in a civilised, legal manner.

I think she makes some very good points in terms of comparing the punishment of Hicks to the punishment of other criminals. I think her animal comment is foolish, though. We ARE animals. We're primates. Why do people keep forgetting that? And why do people use animals as a synonym for atrocious behavior. Humans are the worst behaved animals. We treat our own kind like shit, and we treat other animals horribly as well.

Fox says, If David Hicks were an animal he might have been better off: the RSPCA would have had strong things to say about his maltreatment. We don’t treat dogs as badly as this human being is treated. We’re civilised.

Has she seen how we treat farm animals? Yes, we're civilized, but that doesn't equate to being kind.

Fox's dad had Alzheimer's. I guess that's what inspired her to write the book I own.

This page lists stuff that Fox loves and hates. She likes the usual: family, friends, world peace. As for the less common answers....she likes green paper clips, a clean sink, singing in the car, etc.

She doesn't like brown clothes. I'm not sure I'm a big fan of that either. I prefer black. A little brown is okay though.

She doesn't like economic rationalism. I forgot what that is. I'm guessing it's commercialism, maybe? Lord Wiki says it's free market stuff. To me I guess, it's money over morals. Who cares what's right and wrong. What matters is that our corporation makes tons of money. Yeah, that kind of stuff.

She doesn't like identical letters from a class. I have no idea what that means.

She doesn't like mobile phones in airport lounges. I'm okay with that. I'd rather people talk there then while driving their cars.

She doesn't like right wing newspaper columnists. I'm getting the idea that she's quite a leftie.

It looks like Fox is a nutritionally obsessed person. She's very apologetic that the recipes she shares on her site both have chocolate. I was like that at a time....mostly during my eating disorder days. Now I'm more into the moderation thing. I think it's sad that some schools have made rules against treats at school birthday parties. Or is that just a rumor?

Nope. Here's an article about it.

I'm no longer a fan of the sugar police. Yeah, I think some of us eat way too much of it. But I think we should strive for moderation. I don' t think we should turn a cupcake into the forbidden fruit.

I really liked a recent episode of Arthur we watched. It was all about nutrition. The kids at the school had to figure out which one food would keep them alive on a deserted island. By the end of the episode, the kids realize the assignment is impossible. They realize they need a VARIETY of food. The show talked about the needs for healthy fats, vitamins, proteins, carbohydrates, etc. But at the end, the teacher also brings a cake in to celebrate. The idea is that most of the food we eat needs to be nutritious, but it's okay to have a treat too.

As for her recipes, Fox says....Please clean your teeth afterwards and only make each recipe once every three months! Yikes. That's a bit uptight for my taste.

Here Fox lists her favorite books. I'll look at them and see if we share any favorites.

There's My Place by Sally Morgan. We have that favorite in common.

She liked The Riders by Tim Winton. I like that too.

One of her favorite books is the Bible. We don't share that in common. It's not just that I don't believe in it. I find it quite boring. There are a few good parts....I suppose.

Here's her biography page.

She left Australia for Africa when she was just six months old. In her school, she was the only white child. Therefore, all her friends were black.

Fox has two sisters. One lives in Italy, and the other lives near Sydney. My parents are in Italy now.

She says Possum Magic is the best-selling children's book in Australia. Wow.

Fox says teaching is actually her first passion, not writing. She retired from teaching though in 1996. She cried three times during her last class. If she was so sad about it, why did she leave?

Well, it seems she wanted to busy herself with other stuff. These days, she travels the world and lectures to parents. She's very big into getting parents to read aloud to their children.

Fox has a whole lesson on how to read-a-loud to children. It's very detailed...maybe a little too detailed. I don't know. Maybe some parents need such explicit instructions. In a way, I think it could intimidate parents. It makes reading to a child sound like an incredibly challenging task. From what I've seen....most adults do a fairly good job reading books to kids. I don't think they've had formal instructions. I think for most people, it comes natural.

I just read most of the instructions. I feel Mem Fox takes something fun, simple, and beautiful and turns it into a complicated art form. I can imagine some parents being frightened away from ever wanting to read to their children. Their homes might turn into the daycare I sent Jack to for three days. There the teachers didn't read to the children. Instead, they held up books and used pre-recorded audio tapes to tell the stories.

Fox has a list of read-a-loud commandments. The second one says parents should read at least three stories a day. It's okay if the story is the same one each time. Okay. But what if the child doesn't WANT to hear three stories a day? How is forcing them to listen helping anyone?

Will it make them love reading? I doubt it. It will probably have the opposite effect. My brother-in-law was forced to eat mac and cheese as a child. He grew up with an aversion to it.

At some ages, Jack loved for me to read to him. And I did....probably MUCH more than three stories. At other ages, he hasn't wanted me to read to him at all. A few times, I decided to force him to listen. He looked bored and miserable. I ended up miserable as well. We put a stop to that.

I do agree with commandment five. Read the stories that the kids love, over and over and over again, and always read in the same ‘tune’ for each book: i.e. with the same intonations on each page, each time. I believe in following the child's interests and loves. When Jack was a a baby and toddler, I'd read him the same books over and over. I'm pretty sure I used the same "tune" for each book.

I strongly agree with commandment seven! I wish the director of the Fort Worth preschool I worked at believed in it. Look for rhyme, rhythm or repetition in books for young children, and make sure the books are really short. Thank you. Yes! In NYC, the teachers were great with this rule. We read simple short books to the kids. At the Fort Worth preschool, the teachers would read these long and complicated picture books to the kids. They would take 10-15 minutes to read. It was ridiculous. The kids had four different classes everyday. Each class lasted about 50 minutes. By the time, the teacher finished reading a story to the kids, there was hardly any enough time to work and play.

I think once kids are around five, you can read more complicated stories to them. Even younger kids can enjoy a longer story, but not four times a day. Of course each child is different though. Some very young children MIGHT like sophisticated longer stories, but I think they're the exception not the rule.

In the 9th commandment, Fox says Never ever teach reading, or get tense around books. How can parents not get tense after reading her very didactic instructions?

I really don't like the 10th commandment. Please read aloud every day, mums and dads, because you just love being with your child, not because it’s the right thing to do. Yikes. There's something so guilt-inducing about that statement. Please love your child? I mean hopefully a parent DOES love their child, but I don't think Fox saying that is going to magically transform the parent who doesn't. I feel she's so bossy. Do this, this, this, and that. But do not do it because I told you to do it. Do it because you WANT to do it.

I have to say...I'm finding it a bit hard to love Mem Fox. She reminds me too much of the preschool directors I've worked with. They have these extreme views of working with children, and this idea that no parent could possibly be capable of dealing with children without the director's explicit guidance.

One thing I DO like about Mem Fox is her website. It's one of the most informative official celebrity websites I've encountered.

Here's a FAQ page.

She says the publishers choose the illustrator for her books...not her. That surprises me. I knew for NEW authors, that the illustrator was chosen by the publisher. I assumed though that once you were a success you could pick out your own illustrator.

She said she's not interested in writing a novel for kids, or fiction for adults.

She doesn't like sports. Well, we have that in common. I mean that's not the only thing we have in common. We actually probably have a lot in common. Still, I don't like her that much.

This is funny. Earlier, she said parents should look for books that have rhymes. Yet in her advice to writers, she says DO NOT write your story in rhyme. Prose is more effective. Most editors detest rhyme. What the hell? Is that not a contradiction? Am I missing something here? Anyway, who gives a crap what the editors like? What do CHILDREN like? I think young children DO like rhyme. The books Jack liked when he was very young rhymed:

Brown Bear Brown Bear What Do You See
Hands Hands Fingers Thumb
Chicka Chicka Boom Boom
My First Book of Sushi.

The Sandra Boyton books.....

I think most young kids like rhymes. Not only that, but I remember learning that rhyming books help children learn to read.

I do agree with the sentiments behind this rule, but not the reality. DO ensure that the content of the story will interest both children and adults, not just adults—a common fault which might well lead to publication but will never lead to best-selling status. I think these picture-books-for-adults can become best sellers. Parents buy the books for their children because they (the adult) wants it for themselves.

Here's a piece she wrote about literacy. I'm going to read it.

She talks about the war between phonics and the whole language method. The graduate school I went to was VERY whole language oriented....almost to the point of being fanatical.

I like what Fox says here. There is such a vehemence of belief, by the adherents to the various methods in the rightness and truth of their own particular approach, that to be bold enough to ask critical questions of any of them requires a fair degree of courage. I think that's very true. I'm telling you. Educators are very passionate about what they believe. It's hard to openly disagree with them.

Fox says she's personally an advocate for whole language.

What most of the editorial is saying (if I'm getting this right) is that method is less important than the relationship between the adult and child. I agree with that. I guess I'm contradicting my dislike of her commandment about loving your child. I don't think you can force someone to love a child though. Maybe it's more realistic to say that if you don't like children, you shouldn't be teaching. You can't really say that to a parent though. It's a little too late once the kid is born. I guess we just have to hope that there IS a strong positive relationship there.

Sadly, I think there are teachers who have passion for the subject matter, but not the children. I had a chemistry teacher like that in high school. He seemed to love chemistry. I got the sense that he couldn't stand us...except for the one pretty girl who'd make him blush. I hated chemistry in high school. I'm reviewing some of it now with Jack, and I'm loving it. It's funny how a teacher can totally turn us off from a subject.

When I took children's literature in college...actually it was young adult literature. Anyway, there were students in that class who seemed to be much more passionate about literature than they were about teenagers. We had discussions about it, and they seemed downright negative and ignorant when it came to that age group. What they wanted was not to be with a bunch of teenagers; they wanted to immerse themselves in literature. I can't imagine that think these people ended up being great teachers. I think they'll alienate their students.

Here's another editorial from Fox. She says if she was queen of the world, children would learn to read before they started school. I support her dream in some ways, but in other ways I don't like it.

I think children learn at different paces. Some of them are ready to read when they're toddlers. Many kids are ready to read when they're five or six. Then some kids are late bloomers. They might not be truly ready until they're eight. I hate when educators put pressure on parents and teachers to get kids reading at a young age. Learning doesn't need to be a race.

I do agree with her in that children CAN learn to read at home with their parents. They don't need some magical teacher to bring them into the world of reading. I talked to a mom the other day. Her daughter just started kindergarten. From what the mom was saying, her child was very eager to learn to read. She asked if she'd learn the first day. The mom broke the bad news to her....probably not. The child said something like Okay. Well, then we'll learn the next day.

That child was EAGER to learn. There's no reason her mother couldn't have helped her at home. There's no reason they had to wait for school to arrive. It's just parents have been led to believe that they're incapable of teaching their own children. It's so NOT true.

There's so much I want to say here, but I should probably read more of the editorial first. I haven't actually gotten beyond the first paragraph.

Fox says she's horrified to learn that there are kids in year three who don't know how to read. Does she realize there's actually a popular educational philosophy that believes children shouldn't be given formal reading instruction until they are about that age? I love what this Waldorf website says:

There is evidence that normal, healthy children who learn to read relatively late are not disadvantaged by this, but rather are able quickly to catch up with, and may overtake, children who have learned to read early. Additionally, they are much less likely to develop the "tiredness toward reading" that many children taught to read at a very early age experience later on. Instead there is lively interest in reading and learning that continues into adulthood. Some children will, out of themselves, want to learn to read at an early age. This interest can and should be met, as long as it comes in fact from the child. Early imposed formal instruction in reading can be a handicap in later years, when enthusiasm toward reading and learning may begin to falter.

That's pretty much EXACTLY how I feel.

Fox suggests parents should read to children the day they are born. I don't think we did that, but I do think I started to read to Jack during the first few weeks. I would read him this book called The Big Book of Beautiful Babies. I guess he gave it enough attention to make me continue reading it to him. There was one page that offended me so I'd change the words. Baby good. Baby bad. I think it's ridiculous to label a baby as being good or bad. What the hell does that mean? Anyway, I forgot what words I used instead.

Fox's advice to parents is to have a house full of literacy. This is easier in families with parents who truly LIKE books, magazines, etc. I'm not sure if it's something you can fake. Although maybe for the sake of their children, parents can TRY to like it. Jack was born into a literacy house. I love to read. I love to buy books. I love to go to the library. Tim reads magazines....books sometimes too. Both of us write a lot. The written word is a HUGE part of our lives. We didn't have to fake it at all.

Jack also was born to parents who watch a lot of TV, spend a lot of time on the computer, love video games, and eat junk food. Jack too watches TV, goes on the computer a lot, loves video games, and eats junk food.

Back to parents helping their kids learn to read.... I wish more parents understood that it CAN be done at home. I just don't want them to enforce some kind of time line.

I'll explain how Jack learned to read....or the steps we took that led him to read.

First of all....Yes, I did read to him a lot. However, he LOVED books. He wanted me to read to him....over and over and over. I'm talking about when he was not yet a year-old. Some other babies do not like books. Some babies and toddlers see books as something that you chew. I see no point in forcing them to listen to books. These kid will probably be better off exploring the world in other ways. These might be the kids who learn to read when they're six, seven, or eight.

When Jack was around two-years-old, I did some phonics with him. I would take letter magnets, shake one at a time, and repeat their sounds over and over. Jack loved this. If I remember correctly, very early on he knew which letter had which sound.

When I read to Jack, I would put my finger on each word. I wanted him to understand that there was connection between those squiggly lines on the page and what I was saying. I would read books that rhymed and were predictable. When I read books, I knew he had memorized, I'd pause and let him fill in the blanks. Memorizing a book is GREAT way for kids to learn how to read. No, it's not "real" reading. But eventually, they'll connect the words to what they're saying. They'll know which word is cat and which word is hat. Then later...the next step....is them seeing the word outside of the book and recognizing it.

A few weeks or months after Jack turned three, I read him a Sandra Boyton book. It wasn't a book we read often, but Jack still knew some of the words. That's when I realized my child MIGHT know how to read. Along with that, was a freaky moment at the mall where I thought maybe Jack had read the GAP store sign. I hadn't been sure if it had been my imagination or not.

Anyway, I made some flashcards to test Jack's reading. And yep. My child was already a reader. I'd say for the most part we used the whole language and whole word method. Whole word is where you read word by word more than sounding things out. That's how I read, and I'm a very fast reader. My goal in teaching Jack to read was to get him to memorize words. I personally feel that's the best way to read. It might not be for everyone though. We did do some phonics as well. For that, we used a great website called Starfall.com.

You know what my advise is in terms of learning-to-read philosophies is....Use them ALL. They're all great methods, but I think they work less well when you stick to only one of them.

This all being said....My methods with Jack are not some magical formula that will work on all children. I tried reading to a five-year-old child in the way that I would read to Jack. I used easy predictable rhyming text. The same words were used frequently. I pointed to the words. I paused. I did all the right stuff. To my disappointment, the child did not magically learn to read in the few hours I was babysitting her. She did have fun, though. She greatly enjoyed our lessons, and kept wanting more.

That child has since learned to read. I'm not sure if her teachers used a method that better fitted her personality and learning style, or whether that child simply reached the age at which she was more ready to learn.

My graduate school, was strongly against literature they deemed as being not authentic. They were against text that was written for the purpose of teaching phonics. An example of this is SRA. I used it at school when I was a child. I LOVED it. I think it was one of my favorite parts of school. And guess what....I ended up being a pretty good reader. I think it's ridiculous to be completely against any type of educational material. It might work for SOME children.

I'm against preschools forcing children to sit down and fill out worksheets. I think for the most part, worksheets are not helpful. However, an individual child might LOVE worksheets. I definitely think a parent of such a child should buy their kids a bunch of workbooks.

I think it's crazy to suggest that parents do reading flashcards with their babies. But if you have a six-month-old who happens to enjoy it....buy the flashcards!

Okay. Enough of that. Here's an editorial that Fox wrote about racism. She talks about how books published even in the 1990's (maybe today as well?) have racist overtones. There are books about Christopher Columbus that use the words savage and discover. Fox says, It must make white Anglo-Saxon American children feel extremely superior to belong to a race that ‘discovered’ the New World and conquered ’savages’. I wonder how American Indian children feel when they read the same texts....

She talks about how Aborigines are often missing in children's literature. She says In 90% of our recent children’s literature and in our all-too-recent history books we Aussies don’t even give ourselves the opportunity of being racist: it’s much easier for us to ignore the Aborigines altogether.

How does a child, who is not white, feel in the classroom when they are not represented in the literature being read?

This is a bit strange. Fox seems to be trashing her own book....the one that I own. She talks about how all the characters are white. She says it reinforces the western idea of the elderly being separated from us via retirement and nursing homes. It pushes the idea of the nuclear family being the normal one.

Okay. She does explain why she's being so critical of her own work. Fox says it's actually one of her favorite books that she's written. BUT she wants people to look at children's books with a critical eye. She wants us to notice stereotypes.

Fox says, I picked it apart to illustrate that all the books we read, even our favourite books, are politically loaded. Those of us who teach need to be aware of this so we remember to provide affirming literature for all the children in our care, not just for those who belong to the prevailing, dominant ruling classes or sexes.

I think her words are very wise there. I guess the point is that it's okay for individual books to emphasize one race or political ideology. But we need to make sure that, within our library of books, we have variety.

In part of this editorial, Fox says that children should be allowed to read what they want to read. I strongly agree with this. Children shouldn't be told a book is too young or too old for them...especially the former. I think it's okay to say something like that book might be too hard for you. Maybe you should try something else.  But I think it would be wrong to forbid a book because a parent feels it's above the child's age level.

I talked to the parent of a very young child who is already quite the reader. She's not even five yet, and she's zipping through chapter books. How do you find appropriate chapter books for a child that age? By the time, the child is eight I predict she'll be at a high school reading level. Part of me thinks you can't let a child that age read Twilight or Evil Genius! But if her reading level is that advanced, her maturity level is likely be advanced as well.

This Mem Fox website is almost too good. There's too much material. I'm too lazy to go through all of it. I don't want to read a few more things though.

In this editorial about phonics, Fox says something I agree with. When we force poor little reluctant readers to read to us and when we tell them to sound out words they don’t know, instead of simply giving them the word, they tend to read so slowly that they make little sense of the print and receive no joy from it. This is one of the things my graduate school taught me that I DO agree with. I think it's very annoying for children to hear us say sound it out. I believe it's better to give them the word, and then hopefully soon they'll memorize it. I do think phonics has it's place in learning to read, but I don't think it should ever be part of our pleasure reading. When a child is reading a chapter book and asks an adult for a help with a word, it's so much better if the parent just quickly says it. Then later, at a different time, there can be some phonic lessons.

Last but not least....Fox's editorial about childcare. After I read this, I'd also like to read some editorials and articles about this issue....not written by Fox herself.

The words from someone else that Fox had quoted were Mem, when we look back at the quality of child-care for babies at this time in our history, with the terrible ratios of carers-to-children we currently have, people are going ask us how we allowed such child abuse to happen. I agree 100% with this. I understand that some parents HAVE to choose childcare. I do think some childcare centers have good programs. Some childcare centers might provide better care than certain parents might provide. But there are some AWFUL childcare centers out there.

I probably have talked about this before, but I shall talk about it again. When Jack was 3.5, I put him in a daycare camp. Most of my decision probably came from societal pressure. Daycare and preschool is not seen as a choice that some parents have to make because they have to work or love their careers. It is now often seen as something that all children NEED. There are parents of two-year-olds who do NOT have outside jobs. They do not WANT a break from their children. Yet they put their kids in a program because they've been led to believe that if they don't, they're a bad parent. Now I'm not saying there is ANYTHING wrong with a mother wanting some time to herself. If a mother wants a few hours to herself every week and she finds a good center....awesome! But a parent shouldn't be fooled into thinking that her child needs daycare.

I was knowledgeable enough to understand Jack didn't need a forced institutionalized separation when he was very young. Around the time he was three though, I felt that pressure. I thought perhaps we both needed some time apart. I signed him up for a camp at The Children's Courtyard.  These are owned by Australia's ABC Learning Centers. Although actually, when Jack went....it seems they weren't yet owned by ABC.

Anyway, I spent hours reading their websites. I loved what I read. It fit my feelings about education. I visited the school. The classrooms looked like the type I liked. They had all the right materials.

I brought Jack there the first day. I picked him up a few hours later. When I got there, Jack was crying hysterically. The teachers casually informed me that he had been crying for over forty-five minutes. I was quite appalled. Why would they just let him cry and cry like that? I was nervous and naive though. I decided I should give it another try. We went back the next day. Again, the same thing happened. I returned to find Jack crying hysterically. When I came in the classroom, the teacher casually mentioned that Jack might be sick. He felt warm to her. She went to get the thermometer. And yes, he had a fever. Why did she wait until I came to check his temperature?

I should have just signed us out of the program right then and there. I hated to give up so easily though. I called the school and asked if I could spend a day with Jack. During my NYC teaching days, we were taught that parents and children should be separated gradually. In the first days of school, parents often spend a lot of the day WITH the children. As the children became more comfortable, parents were scooted out. Fort Worth schools don't share this philosophy. They want parents out of there as soon as possible. They want parents as far away as possible.

The Children's Courtyard granted my request, but I could tell they felt it was a bit odd. I got the sense that they felt I was overprotective. The teacher herself seemed especially bothered by my pretense. She was patronizingly amused when I had told her that this was the first time Jack was in a program that wasn't of the mommy and me variety. She acted as if I had greatly failed as a parent.

The teacher wasn't just awful to me. She and the other teachers were awful to the children. I was horrified to see the children listen to a recording of No More Monkeys Jumping on the Bed. No teacher read to the children. A bored looking teacher held the book up while a tape recorder played. The adorable sweet children stood up and chanted the words to the book. Isn't that's what's expected when you read that story?? But no. These children were scolded, and told to be quiet.

I never saw any positive interactions between the teachers and children. Whenever a teacher talked to a child, it was to scold them or tell them what they needed to be doing. There was no warmth in that classroom. There was just coldness.

It was incredibly disgusting. I felt so sad for these children who were stuck there each day from early morning to early evening. I felt bad for the parents who left their children there, imagining that it was a safe and positive environment. These parents are probably so busy that they don't have the chance to visit and see the program for themselves. They trust in something that should not be trusted.

While we ate together in the classroom, I asked Jack whether he wanted to come back. He seemed fine with the idea of quitting. I went to the office and told them we weren't coming back. They cheerfully accepted our goodbyes. I think we discussed refunds and all that. Not once did they show concern that we were leaving so soon. They didn't ask why. I think if they had a quality program, they would have wanted to know. Are you sure you want to leave? Is something wrong? Do you have any concerns? Is there a way we could make things better for you?

I don't want people to think I believe that all childcare is like this. I'm pretty sure there are excellent childcare centers. My advice to parents though is to look BEYOND the surface. Don't just read a website and peer into a classroom for a few minutes. Spend TIME in there. Visit during a lunch break. Stay a few extra minutes in the morning. Come early to pick up your child. If its' a good school, they'll make you feel welcome. Now if you come too often...that might get a bit creepy and annoying. But you shouldn't be made to feel like a helicopter parent if you occasionally come for lunch, or if you want accompany your child for his first few days at the center.

Okay. I'll shut up. Let me read more from Fox.

She talks mostly about babies. They need frequent love, touch, and interaction. This is very hard to provide in childcare centers because the teacher/child ratios are too large.

We need at one of two things.

1. A parental leave program that allows parents to be home with their children for at least the first year.

2. Lower teacher/infant ratios.

In Texas, the required ratio for infants under a year is 4:1. I don't think that works well. I don't think it should be above 2:1. For 18-23 month olds, the ratio is 9:1. How much time does the caregiver have for each child? I imagine it's very little.

In Fort Worth, we had a new child at a school I worked at. The family happened to come from the same school I had quit working at a few months before. The mother confessed they left because her daughter knew how to write her name and the teachers hadn't noticed. I did feel for this parent. It's awful to know that teacher's aren't seeing your child's progress....that they remain so ignorant. But when a teacher has so many children, it's very hard to notice what child can do what.

Like most parents, I'm super proud of my child. I want other adults to notice how brilliant he is. We had him in a once-a-week class at our local museum. This was when he was about 4-6 years old. The teachers never mentioned anything about Jack being smart. They didn't seem to notice. I don't think they knew much about Jack at all. It was a fairly large class. They didn't have time to notice.

Later, Jack took an art class and a drama class. Both those classes had very few students. I think one had less than seven kids, and the other class had only three. The teachers there figured out pretty much immediately that Jack was advanced. They mentioned it to me right away.

Small classes are SO important....I think especially with younger kids.

In my NYC classroom of 3's and 4's, we had fifteen students, I think. For those kids, we had one head teacher, two assistant teachers, and a student teacher. That worked out great. We did lose the student teacher eventually, but even then we had a ratio of about 5/1. I think for preschoolers, there shouldn't be more than six kids per teacher. What's the law in Texas? One teacher for every fifteen kids. That's CRAZY!

Now here's one of the news reports that came out about Fox and Daycare.

Fox is quoted as saying I don't know why some people have children at all if they know that they can only take a few weeks off work.

I hate to admit it, but yeah....I agree with her. Although I feel people shouldn't be forced into that situation. I think it's so sad if someone wants to have a child, but they can't, because the place they work for won't give them the time off. It's these companies that need to be blamed....NOT the parents.

As Fox points out though, it's NOT always the financially desperate who put their infant in childcare. There are parents who work because they want the lavish lifestyle. It's not all selfish. They want to provide their child with all the necessities....beautiful cribs, stylish stroller, the latest celebrity baby fashions, the whole collection of Baby Einstein videos....

Fox says, But do they realise that child needs love more than anything else in the world? It needs love, time and attention.

The article quotes from two other women...ones with opposing viewpoints.

Angela Conway is a spokesperson for The Australian Family Association. This organization doesn't quite look like my type of thing. They spend too much time stressing that marriage should be between a woman and a man. Blah blah blah.

Kate Sykes is the founder of Careermums...an online support system for working mothers. They push the idea of flexible work hours and all that. I greatly support that. I see nothing wrong with both parents wanting to keep and pursue their careers...even when their babies are young. But it's much better if the hours are flexible. It's sad when both parents are working from 9-5....or longer, and the child is in daycare all that time.

Anyway, although I don't love Conway's organization, I do agree with her when she talks about how daycare has been heavily marketed to parents. I talked about this earlier. Parents should be given the message that it's OKAY for their child to be in a good childcare center. We shouldn't be taught that it's BETTER for our children to be in a center.

Sykes says that daycare has done wonders for her children's social skills. I know children who have never attended daycare. I know children who have attended daycare. I see absolutely no difference in their social skills.

Conway supports what Fox has said, but with some reservations. She says, Childcare is not a good place for babies and we support her in that but we know that many families have elected to put very young children and infants into childcare because of serious economic pressures and ... we need to face up to that.

For the families that don't have economic pressures...who don't take off from work because they love their jobs too much....I bet they have nannies. And I do feel a nanny will provide better care than a center. At least then the baby is getting one-on-one attention. Now if it's an evil nanny....that's a whole other story.

This blogger comes down hard on Fox. It points out that there aren't many babies in childcare in the first place. The writer, a childcare provider and mother, points out that only 7% of Australian babies are in full time childcare. So, it's not an epidemic.

The blogger says In these tough economic times many families need duel incomes just to keep up with interest rate increases and basic costs of living. For many families it’s not about handbags and holidays.

Yes. Fox would be better off criticizing the economic situation rather than the parents.

The blogger says Parenting can be a tough job; a break from your children can be a haven in your week and sometimes another point of view or opinion from a qualified person can be a real bonus. This is one of the benefits that child care can offer - another person gets to know you and your child and that person can help you better care for your child. It’s can be a win - win situation for parents and children. I like how she stresses the parents need over the child. I don't see anything wrong with a parent needing a break. But it shouldn't be presented as the CHILD needing the break.

I do think programs can be great for children and parents....as long as it's a QUALITY program. The problem is there are many programs that are NOT good.

The blogger quotes from the Parliamentary Secretary of Early Education. Who needs another guilt trip? That would be my first comment. The fact that more women than ever are in the workforce, having babies and more children than ever are in formal childcare is an extraordinary vote of confidence in the system.

No. Sorry. Just because a lot of people have confidence in a system....it doesn't mean it's a good system. A lot of parents in Fort Worth have confidence in The Children's Courtyard. Other parents had confidence in another school I worked at...one that had cockroaches in the bathrooms and teachers that bribed kids desperately with marshmallows.

For the most part, I agree with what Fox's views on daycare. I think her mistakes are:

A) making a small problem that effects a minority of children sound like a huge epidemic-type problem.

B) Putting blame on parents. I think there ARE a small number of selfish parents. But for the most part, I think it comes out of economic necessity. And just as there are selfish working parents, there are also selfish stay-at-home parents. There are some parents who drag their children around town as accessories. There's no real love and warmth there.

C) Making any mention of child abuse. We're throwing that word around too often lately.
We can disagree with other people's parenting decisions without calling it abuse. Locking a child in a dark closet, sexually molesting them, beating them, and/or constantly calling them names is abuse. Homeschooling, daycare, leading your child to follow your religious beliefs....those are not abusive. We might not agree with them, but I think we can do so without being overly dramatic and judgmental.

I could probably spend weeks talking about Mem Fox, children's literature, education, etc. But it's almost five o'clock. I still need to exercise, do laundry, take a shower, spend more quality time with Jack, etc. I'm not an abusive parent, but on some days (like this one), I AM a bit neglectful.

Read my novel: The Dead are Online