My Mother-in-Law Says the Way I Read Books to My Baby Is Harmful

"I fully embrace the whimsy of magic and animal anthropomorphism, and read stories about animals performing human behaviors without qualm. I can't wait until my son and I can read books like Harry Potter and Redwall together. My mother-in-law, however, constantly interrupts her book reading to point out that these animal behaviors are "silly" and "just pretend." She says she doesn't want to "confuse him.""

"I agree with you that your mother-in-law sounds like a bit of a wet blanket. Her disclaimers about reality also strike me as unnecessary-most kids learn quickly enough which stories are fanciful and which are based in reality; they don't need adults reminding them of the fact that animals can't talk. I don't think your kid is going to grow up "confused" and believing that everything he reads is true."

"I worry that she is squelching his sense of whimsy, fantasy, and imagination before it even has a chance to form. I will add that my mother-in-law is not particularly fun and quite rigid in her thinking. My husband sort of agrees with her that our son could become "confused." He is also rigid like his mother and definitely not whimsical. Who's right?"

A parent enjoys reading whimsical, anthropomorphic stories and looks forward to sharing fantasy books with her infant son. The parent’s mother-in-law repeatedly interrupts readings to label animal behaviors as "silly" and "just pretend," claiming this prevents confusion. The parent's husband echoes concerns that the child might become "confused." The columnist contends that adults' frequent reality disclaimers are unnecessary because children typically distinguish fanciful stories from reality naturally. The columnist judges the mother-in-law to be dampening the child's imagination and believes the child will not literally believe every story read to him.

Read at Slate Magazine