You know that article about cluttered houses

hurting the development of children reading-wise? I saw it linked to yesterday at a couple of blogs, and left somewhat sneering comments, and smugly went down to read to my children, nimbly avoiding the clutter that makes walking around in my living room so enriching.

But then I couldn't find the book we were in the middle of reading.

The Clutter had gotten it. And since a good bit of the clutter is piles of books, it is hard to find the one small paperback that one is looking for.

Perhaps the article is right.


  1. You are too dear. I find it hard to imagine you leaving any sort of smug behind. But then look at you—willing to take another look at your own conclusions.

    Hope you found that book.

  2. Oh, I can smug with the best of them!

  3. Hmm, I seem to remember a few Cybils reads that disappeared in your house before you finished them. :)

    And I think if clutter is books, well, then it really isn't clutter, is it? It's just piles of literary genius. I bet the study didn't talk about the effect of having books in the house. Now, that is probably a big factor in reading development.

  4. I'm with Em! I've gotten indignant when talking with people who seemed to be so impressed with how little stuff they had in their lives so they could travel anywhere on a whim. They thought I should pare down my books because I could always find those books in libraries. Not necessarily! I retorted (but not very cleverly). I didn't count books as "stuff."


Free Blog Counter

Button styles