Ratings and supervision

[bluesqueak <pipdowns@etchells0.demon.co.uk>]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince 
Winston) <catlady at w...>" <catlady at w...> wrote:
> --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "bluesqueak 
<pipdowns at e...>" 
> <pipdowns at e...> wrote:
> 
> > If a child in a bookshop decides to pick a book off the shelf in 
> > the adult SF section, opens 'Island in the Sea of Time', and 
> > unerringly hits the bit with the jaguar, that is not actually 
> > the fault of the bookshop. They've put the book in the right  
> > section.It's the child who's found their way into the *wrong*  
> > section.
> > And yes, the kid probably should be better supervised by their 
> > parents, 

> Catlady:
> Dear God(s), I am *thankful* that *my* parents didn't 'supervise' 
> my reading, or I might have had to learn about sex by doing it 
> instead of from books.

Pip again:
:: twinkles cheerfully at Catlady::

Really? You let a five year old read any adult book they like?

Yes, yes, I know. Reductio ad absurdium, or however you spell it. 
But I suspect what we would actually be arguing about is not whether 
children's reading should be supervised, but the *age* at which it 
becomes unsupervised.

My parents never supervised my reading. They never bought me books 
either, though they were great readers themselves. So 'freedom to 
read anything' largely translated as 'freedom to read anything *we* 
like, and if you don't like it, you have to use your pocket money to 
buy your own bloomin' books'.

My grandparents,(who I lived with quite a lot), did supervise my 
reading and never allowed me (pre teen) into the 'adult' section of 
bookshops, or to read one of their 'grown up' books. On the other 
hand, because they knew I loved reading, I was frequently treated to 
books, which I would pick myself from the children's section of the 
bookshop.

So, while you may find this surprising, Catlady, I 
associate 'supervision' with 'caring and indulgence'.

On the other hand, wandering back to HP, I doubt Harry 
associates 'supervision' with caring. The Dursley's 'supervision' 
boils down to 'let's stop the kid doing *anything* he likes'.  

And in PoA, Harry reacts quite badly to being refused permission to 
go to Hogsmeade. Because he's had such a bad experience 
of 'supervision' it doesn't occur to him that the adults surrounding 
him might actually have a good reason to allow him less than total 
freedom. That they might think it's going to be a lot easier to 
protect him from Sirius if he stays in the castle.

It comes down to motive. 'Supervision' is not a bad thing, if it 
boils down to 'genuinely wanting to protect and care for the 
child'. 'Total freedom' might not be a good thing, if it boils down 
to the sort of benign neglect ('we don't really *care* what you 
read') I got from my parents.

But reverse the motives and you get 'supervision' which is 'stopping 
a child from doing what it enjoys', and 'freedom' which translates 
to 'I think you'll learn best by making your own choices.'

Is there a quote along the lines of 'there is nothing good or bad 
but thinking makes it so?' If there is, it probably applies very 
strongly to supervising or not supervising what kids are allowed to 
do.

Pip