Take a photo of a barcode or cover
hairymaclairey 's review for:
The Rainbow Fish
by Marcus Pfister
Ok, seriously. I've been reading this book literally my whole life. I think it is wonderful.
The only message I have ever received is that if you share your good fortune then others will appreciate you and your good nature. If you are selfish and refuse to open your heart then others will think exactly that of you and you will be alienated.
The rainbow fish shared his good fortune (being his shiny scales) with the less fortunate fish that only had dull, one colour. The rainbow fish never lost his whole identity and never have away all of his shiny scales. He kept one for himself and still had all his rainbow, which he was actually known for. It's just like a child with the most beautiful shade of hair that is almost impossible to recreate having a packet of lollies and then sharing them with the class. That child still has its physical identity and I'm sure kept one lolly for itself. They just learnt to share.
I think many people read too deeply into the story. A child isn't going to think of such extreme political themes, they are just going to think the fish was friendly because he shared.
Sharing is caring, right?
Another issue I have is, why does everything have to have a moral to the story? It is possible to write a story with out making the reader have some philosophical epiphany. Especially children. Who is to say what a proper moral or value for a child is, or for anyone for that matter?
I'm giving Pfister the benefit of the doubt and following my own instinct and opinion, it's a lovely, well illustrated story of a fish that learnt to share. That's it. Nothing more.
The only message I have ever received is that if you share your good fortune then others will appreciate you and your good nature. If you are selfish and refuse to open your heart then others will think exactly that of you and you will be alienated.
The rainbow fish shared his good fortune (being his shiny scales) with the less fortunate fish that only had dull, one colour. The rainbow fish never lost his whole identity and never have away all of his shiny scales. He kept one for himself and still had all his rainbow, which he was actually known for. It's just like a child with the most beautiful shade of hair that is almost impossible to recreate having a packet of lollies and then sharing them with the class. That child still has its physical identity and I'm sure kept one lolly for itself. They just learnt to share.
I think many people read too deeply into the story. A child isn't going to think of such extreme political themes, they are just going to think the fish was friendly because he shared.
Sharing is caring, right?
Another issue I have is, why does everything have to have a moral to the story? It is possible to write a story with out making the reader have some philosophical epiphany. Especially children. Who is to say what a proper moral or value for a child is, or for anyone for that matter?
I'm giving Pfister the benefit of the doubt and following my own instinct and opinion, it's a lovely, well illustrated story of a fish that learnt to share. That's it. Nothing more.