<p>And I am fascinated why you take so strong an opinion on this. Some people love to fall down on the snow, get wet and cold skiiing. Some people think life is about getting wetting with salt water sailing. And some think life is to torture oneself to learn to play in pitch that most can’t even hear well enough to discriminate. Shall we call it to each his own and let them live as they please?</p>
<p>^ You’re missing the point. It’s not about refusing to be informed. The behavior outlined in previews of this book is perceived by some CC posters to be so morally reprehensible that they are ethically opposed to aiding and abetting Chua in profiting from the public exhibition of the suffering of her children. So they won’t buy the book or put their names on the library waiting list.</p>
<p>As long as the person is torturing his own self to do what he enjoys, I have no objection. That is not what Chua’s book is about, however.</p>
<p>It could be that the excerpts and even Chua’s own article overstate what the book actually says. I suppose people who actually read the book can tell us that. But I think this discussion has addressed more general topics about parenting.</p>
<p>Re #756</p>
<p>Viola is what people who really understand music want to play. The reason we have all those viola jokes is to keep Chua style parents from forcing their kids to play the viola.</p>
<p>:)</p>
<p>You mean Spartans vs Enablers? That’s certainly more interesting to me. What Chua did with her kids is her business to a point. It’s not like they live in isolation that we in cyber space need to rescue her kids from her abuse. They got many relatives, level headed in-laws who could step in, I would think.</p>
<p>I’m with QuantMech in #749. Why would I contribute any of my money to this woman?</p>
<p>Has any one here read the 18 year old daughter’s interview yet? She seems to apprecaite some of pushes her mom did to her.</p>
<p>Ha ha, Stardmom. If you allow Chua to viola, we may finally have viola played with the right intonation!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not sure if Oberlin is necessarily a good example regarding approval from the “old country” based on my experiences in China in the late '90s. </p>
<p>Among the well-educated Chinese(i.e. academics), those showing interest in classical music, and those who spent some time in the US, Oberlin was surprisingly well-known, especially in the urban areas. For anyone who didn’t know about, all I needed to do was to mention H.H. Kung, a prominent Chinese politician in the Chinese Republic during the 1930’s, was a 1906 graduate. </p>
<p>Was accorded much respect, especially among the Chinese academics and musicians. More interestingly, many asked about how to apply because they were interested in sending their kids there. </p>
<p>Moreover, I was surprised at how my Chinese father and most friends in his generation not only knew about Oberlin and other LACs, but held them in great esteem. His only concern when I was surprisingly admitted there was whether I could handle the work considering I was a mediocre student in high school (Actual mediocre…especially in first two years…not stereotypical Asian-immigrant/perfectionist Ivy-wannabe WASP “mediocre”).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This just supports what my woodwind-playing S says about the violins in his orchestras - they think they are the most important! ;)</p>
<p>Because S is a musician, the whole idea of MAKING him practice eludes me. Either he wants to or not. Both kids took piano lessons because we valued the concept of being able to read music. D took for 3 years and that was it.</p>
<p>Like PizzaGirl commented, S is a musician because he enjoys it. I would have never pushed D into becoming one. Why?? She has plenty of other gifts!</p>
<p>Having now read the book (someone gave it to me), Chua did back down significantly by the end of the book. She allowed her second daughter to quit her youth orchestra and high level teacher and take up another activity. When Chua started to micro-manage that her daughter told her to stop and not ruin that activity and she did.</p>
<p>Actually, it does seem to be a very top level violinist, the amount of practicing Chua required of her girls is the norm. For a gifted musician to get to the top (Julliard for example), everything else must take second place. Is this sometimes justified? Should it only come from the child? Are there really kids out there that have the maturity to choose to play their instrument for hours every day at the expense of more “fun”? </p>
<p>This is not my parenting style and I don’t think it would work with my kids.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They are! Without strings winds can’t stand out. They just become quacking collage of sound not harmonious mix. We make kids do their schoolwork. Or do we do that only to kids who are academically inclined? Why is it different for music? Why is music a choice but not schoolwork? Or why is it that parents who harp on schoolwork are being responsible and harping on music is being abusive?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes. It should come from the child. Otherwise, it’s all about the parents’ ego in having a kid who plays at Carnegie Hall or Juilliard or whatever. And that doesn’t reflect too highly on the parents that their ego is tied up with pushing kid to play at that level.</p>
<p>BTW, I say the exact same thing when it comes to the stereotypical Western “soccer parents” (or insert whatever sport). There are a lot of egos on athletic playing fields as well. I saw it with my nieces, who were pushed towards scholarship levels (which they did achieve). My D played the same sport, and all we ever wanted for her was that she have fun, make some new friends, and get some fresh air and exercise and develop a lifelong skill she could enjoy. That’s it. Couldn’t care less if she’s ever “accomplished” in her sport. She gets to choose what she wants to become accomplished in.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’ve got to be kidding. English, math, science, history and foreign language are the backbone; IMO, you need to achieve a certain level of proficiency in those things. Music? Art? Drama? It’s great to be exposed to those things, they are part of what make someone well-rounded, and it’s great if you enjoy them and want to pursue them either as a hobby or as a career – more power to you – but sorry, I just don’t see the “necessity” of learning to play the piano / violin the same way it’s a necessity to learn how to do math and read well.</p>
<p>Thanks, the GFG. You’ve stated the point exactly in #764.</p>
<p>PG - In other words, art in general is an afterthought to you? The ultimate of humanity that distingushes us from animal that we strive beyond a meager survival and long for something higher and create is just a something to do to be well-round?</p>
<p>Iglooo–If we are created in the image of God, who is our Creator and by definition creative, then when our spirit compels us to express ourselves artistically through art, music, poetry, and the like, then yes we are in the flow of our uniqueness as humans. We have free will. But when we teach a bear to dance, or a monkey to “talk” using buttons on a keyboard, are they sharing in the same experience? Of course not. They’ve been trained and given rewards of food and the like in order to get them to perform as we wish. Their behavior is not coming from their own initiative and will, nor does it arise from their own nature as an animal. So I ask you–do you really think that a child who is relentlessly forced with punishment, deprivation, nagging, and screaming-- all with the goal of getting him to play an instrument well-- is truly in the beautiful flow of the creativity and freedom of the human spirit?</p>
<p>I think some of the parents here are going on to the other extreme. Some of these posts seems to suggest that other than food, shelter, and basic live necessities, the parents should leave the kids alone. The parents should help a child only after he/she has developped their own interest. </p>
<p>Wow, how many really practice that kind of parenting?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I can <em>enjoy</em> art - in that I can enjoy going to art museums, looking at fine works of art, reading about famous artists, etc. That doesn’t mean that I have to torture myself or my children (none of whom have artistic ability) into creating it at a high level. I can <em>enjoy</em> listening to music (and I do!) but if I had some intrinsic desire to create it – well, again, nothing prevents me now from taking piano (or whatever instrument lessons). I don’t have such a desire, though. There are other ways in which I prefer being creative. </p>
<p>None of which says that people who aren’t talented in art and music shouldn’t pursue those to whatever level they desire – indeed, my BIL is an artist by training and a musician on the side. But that doesn’t mean that my kids need to be obligated to try to produce art / music at high levels, when they have little aptitude for it. I suppose I could have forced them to take music lessons and stood over them for hours on end to force them to play an instrument, but for what end? What’s the point?</p>