I absolutely hate the illustrations/concept sentences
346567
This book is perfectly sized, begins with a clear introduction, and moves right into practice pages.  The layout is exactly what I wanted... BUT I absolutely hate the illustrations/concept sentences in the hirigana section ("KAH!  A crow cries as it flies to a tree on the top of a cliff.").  I used a different book many years ago and learned about a small fraction of the kana.  It was so much easier than these convoluted images ([Old book] "We went camping in a TE-nt" ...  [New book] "The shape of TE is in the palm of your right hand and the word for hand in Japanese is Te").  These concepts should be simple and easy to remember.  When I have to remember a really strange sentence to learn the kana, it's not going to work for me.  I'm considering trading this book in for one with better phrases and imagery.
194116
I teach English conversation in Japan and was excited to find an alphabet bulletin board set which featured a Dr. Seuss theme.  Unfortunately, the great graphics were accompanied by glaring errors and flimsy construction.  Although the product image does NOT show the stroke order graphics which are on the actual product (very misleading), many of the actual stroke order graphics are ridiculously unintuitive.  For example, the lower-case "e" graphic shows a stroke order for writing the "e" as #1 write the lower-case "c", and #2 draw a line from the BACK middle section of the "c" to the front top line of the "c" to make the lower-case "e".  I have never seen it written this way, and having children see it this way on a regular basis is not a good thing.  The letters D, M, N, V, W also have ridiculous stroke order graphics included, which I will need to fix manually before decorating my classroom with them.  In addition, there is a picture above each letter of the alphabet (the best part of this product is the Dr. Seuss pictures) which has some text underneath in the usual Dr. Seuss rhyming tradition.  While MOST of the letters include text underneath the picture with interesting rhymes and alliteration, etc. there are 2 letters of the alphabet that have only one word: "E" only has "elephant" written, and "X" only has "xylophone" written.  It would not have been difficult to keep the theme consistent by making these letters have text in the same theme as the rest of the letters (i.e.- elephant in a tent, ellie the elephant, etc.);  even worse, although the letter "X" has "xylophone" written underneath, the picture is of a red creature holding an AXE over his shoulder- totally messed up that one.  Again, I will need to manually fix this and other glaring errors.  Another issue I have with the pictures and accompanying text occurs with the letter "N," which is a picture of 3 bear-like creatures wearing bow ties.  The text writes "Nice New Neckties"- I guess a bow tie technically IS a type of necktie, but this can be confusing when teaching students of other languages how to speak English and use its vocabulary consistent with its use in the English language in America (where Theodor Seuss Geisel is from).  They are called bow ties in America for a reason, and neckties are not considered the same thing in everyday American English, which is something that needs to be excplained to students, if not AGAIN manually fixed on the actual product (i.e.- Beautiful Bright Bowties).  Finally, and this is really frustrating, the product is not laminated.  For a product that is teachning the basic alphabet and numbers from 0-9, this should be targeted for pre-school aged children.  As a product intended to be used as and advertised as a "bulletin board" that will most likely have children touching along with an ABC song as they learn their ABCs, it is woefully inadequate in terms of durability.  One misplaced tug and it will tear, one misplaced crayon and it is ruined, cannot be wiped clean.  I will have to spend extra cash to laminate each panel for durability in the classroom.

With such a great idea, a MUCH better job could have and should have been done with the exectution, and I would even go as a far to suggest the product is terribly misleading with its advertising, which Amazon should be aware of and the manafacturers should correct as well as make amends with customers who purchased a product based on misleading advertising and containing incompetent errors.
1803855
I ordered this thinking that the artwork on the box was JUST ON THE BOX.  Turns out they completely replaced the beautiful and creepy illustrations by Stephen Gammel with someone elses. I was disappointed and completely horrified. Stephen Gammels artwork is what gave these books their character. To eliminate that is to completely destroy the books legacy. Whoever authorized this is a coward and should be ashamed of themselves. Im not saying the artist featured here is bad, its just a travesty they didn't keep Stephen Gammels. I wouldve burned this, but I wanted my money back.
2715836
The visuals for Gloomcookie were so overwhelmingly beautiful that i ordered every single issue based on the covers alone, hoping this would be the next "Lenore" or "Johnny The Homicidal Maniac." My mistake.
The storyline and writing, supplied by Serena Valentino, is just horrible. The entire series reads like a junior-high-school level book: puerile, overwhelmingly basic, lack of character development and depth, dialogue that reads like a bad soap opera or after-school tv drama. The characters use very simple, 6th-grade level speech and resort to using the F-word to express emotion--a clear sign that the author cannot properly express anger/hurt/frustration with true writing skills, so the easy way out is to use the F-word. The plot is anticlimactic, and definitely not the sign of a good writer. Take a look at anything by Jhonen Vasquez or Roman Dirge and you will see how they properly craft ingenious characters and dimensional scenes of humour, anger, drama, and imagination. Their writing is by far 100x more witty and intelligent than Gloomcookie and will stimulate you to no end. And by the way, they don't need to use curse words because they CAN write.
Gloomcookie's one saving grace: Ted Naifeh. His illustrations blow me away. Exquisite, rich, and emotionally illustrated, Naifeh's art does not subscribe to comic-book-art guidelines--it's modern, sharp, graphically astounding. Think "Batman the cartoon series" a sort of dark art-deco type of feel but more gothic.
Gloomcookie will not amuse you in terms of content--it bored me so much that i stopped reading it and just admired Naifeh's art. In fact, it is Ted Naifeh who keeps Gloomcookie from floundering--it's the only redeeming thing that makes me give this an extra 2 stars (otherwise, I'd only give it 1 star). He needs to do his own project with another person--preferably one who knows how to write.
Gloomcookie is all style, no substance. I'm not even inclined to order the rest of the issues.
321091
I know I'm hating on kids book, but it's just that bad. It can't decide whether it's poetic or a simple story. It jumps all over the place, but not in that cute way a kids imagination does. It's like the author was trying to prove that anyone that writes anything can sell. The illustrations are okay, neither here nor there. Good thing I got this from the library so I didn't actually pay for it.
460505
I like the quotes. I do NOT like the background artwork at all. It does not do any justice to the quality of the quotes. I would not want to display them or share them.
2019541
The illustrations are in black and white and very, very hard to read and understand.
435880
This is a review of Kindle version.  Very bad...  I specifically love this original hard book, but this e-version was made by someone who was probably high when assigned the task and never looked at their work, and then their work was approved without checking.  The columns of the  pages are split, so if the nursery rhyme you are reading is in the first column, you have to flip to the next page to continue reading.  This is annoying,  but once you figure it out you can adjust.  The bigger fail is the complete lack of an indexed table of contents.  The rhymes are in order by "An Alphabetical List of First Lines.  So imagine a Kindle dictionary....are you with me?  You have to P*A*G*E* through one page-at-a-time...keep with me, almost through the "B's"... stay with me, still flipping pages,  still flipping, now I'm at the "C's"...still flipping...all this to find anything you might be looking for. Now, I ask How worthless is that?
  I give Two stars because these are the original nursery rhymes; unsanitised for a politically correct world.  For afterall if we sanitise our past we might as well erase our future.  In a world where it acceptable and commonplace to ink one's body with "art",  pierce one's face to rival a porcupine, and where our powers that be feel it is right and proper to have story time readings by drag queens (this past weekend in Chicago Public Library), what could possibly be wrong with "I love my Pussy(cat)"?  These rhymes are hundreds of years old and have been sung out by countless thousand children.  They capture history and mystery of times past and should never be changed.
2280332
UGH! These books are crap. The illustrations are pathetic. Completely non-dynamic reading based on incredible nonsense. The use of the language they teach is improper-for example shows a pic of a girl next to the bonfire to teach you the word heated. Yeah, we all stand next to a fire to get heated. For example in the ETC 5 - The flying pot holder may give the monster a jolt. Seriously? Who talks like that?! She scratched her wild rattlesnake on the neck. WTH!? That's just irresponsible and an all around poor teaching tool!
We do have a fun time mocking these illustrations and poor use of language. It gets us into conversations about the real use of everyday English.
Other irrelevant sentences in this book include-
The rabbit was scolded for stealing the money.
The stalks beside the window were talking and singing.
Gretchen was jolted when she fell from the giant grasshopper.
The gold ring is talking to the child.
Glen sold stacks of cold-cuts while using his walky-talky.
The tall child hung tasty chops in the old peach tree.
The shrimp is scrubbing itself while sitting on the throne.
Please note-all of the sentences are the correct answers to be chosen in this ridiculous book. I think whoever wrote this fried their brains on LSD and are having some flashbacks.
See attached photo for page from this book and draw your own conclusions.
502460
Not a fan,I do not like how it is worded. I do like the illustrations
4037194
Luckily I got this book as a decoration for my grandsons nursery which is sock monkey themed. The illustrations are very cute, the story is just awful. I couldn't imagine ever reading this tho a child. I had a moment where I considered returning it but decided to keep it for the art work.
4824655
The "title" of this book claims that it is "beautifully illustrated" - it's not.  And I don't mean that in the sense that art is personal taste and maybe I just don't like it.  Nope, with a couple of exceptions, it's simply not very well-drawn.  The title also says it's "funny" but unless the author means that in the sense of being highly strange, then nope to that as well.

Starting with a good, basic story concept, this "book" has clearly not been edited at all.  It's full of typos that actually DO make the book a bit funny - like when the brother thinks of his sister as a "sacredly cat" (should be scaredy cat?).  At one point, we learn that she's "not a coward ad Ted thought" and "Amy's shoulder's shaking" ("oh he had to comfort her he thought") is par for the course in a book where punctuation is sprinkled around like pepper, perhaps in the hope that it will land in the right places (for the most part, it hasn't).

The cover of the book - really just a picture to which the author has crudely added the name of the book - implies that the children will be outdoors with all sorts of scary critters.  In reality, they never leave the house and the scariest thing that happens (spoiler alert!) is that they bump into their own family dog.

So if you're looking for that sort of book (which my kids love!) look elsewhere - just one more example of what this book is NOT.

I wish the writer had put more time and attention into this book, which might have succeeded if she had.  But I suspect that the entire purpose of this "book" is to direct readers to the author's so-called "personal blog," which seems to be a dummy site designed to collect email addresses to receive Kindle freebie spam.  Clever marketing tactic?  Maybe... just don't call it a children's book.
3907311
5 stars for the stories, 0 stars for the Kindle version. While it would have been nice to have the original illustrations that came with the print versions of the book, I can overlook their omission. However, where the illustrations should have been, the word "Illustration" is typeset in brackets as a jarring reminder that, "Hey, there was supposed to be something here, but we left it out and wanted to remind you that we did." It interrupts the flow of the story and is, frankly, beyond irritating. I hope this review will smack some sense into the publisher and encourage them to either A) insert the illustrations, or B) remove "[illustration]" wherever it appears. I suppose there is a "C" option: Remove the photo of the author from the cover and write, "Photo goes here." At least that will be a red flag that this version should be avoided.
4163028
I have already reviewed this and I feel badly about giving it ONLY four stars. It is a terrific book! But whoever designed the book (typeface, layout, boxes etc.) did a really awful job & I find the appearance of the book dreadful. I have never seen a design job that made a beautifully clear explanation of science so uninteresting.  Prothero tells you where you can see or find fossils of the type he is writing about, which is marvelous, but the designer has put in little banners like a soap commercial or cheap sideshow ad. I have NEVER been so turned off by a design before but this one does a disservice to the content. So here is my second review, explaining why the first review was NOT a five-star.
3262941
They may know printing, but the 4th ed of this book is not readable.

Every single left and right page border contains CMYK registration marks. Cute idea, fine for a front page, but the stark color contrast is constantly distracting.

Chapter headings are migraine-inducing  3" x 7" YELLOW hyper contrasted with blinding full-on CYAN. Other headings are set off with CMYKCMYKCMYK color chunks that are twitchiness defined.

All the text is sans-serif font. Please have mercy on your readers!

This is exactly how not to design a book. A kids' cereal box, maybe... a book, no. The 3rd ed is much more refined and readable, why oh why did they assign this design to the amateurs?

My recommended antidotes: 1) anything by Edward Tufte. Start with "The Visual Display of Quantitative Information"; 2) Robin Williams' "The Non-Designer's Design Book".
2057308
I bought these books, because I wanted to begin introducing my son, whose almost 3, to Bible stories. I was really excited when I opened them...until I started reading them to him. The author and illustrations seems to focus unnecessarily on violence, which my son immediately picked up on and was focused on (instead of the emphasis being on God and His constant provisions). For example, the book on Noah's Ark has a page where it shows a guy lying on the ground bleeding from his head. And when Noah and his family make it back to dry land, there was skeletons everywhere. Why is that necessary in a beginning Bible story? I'm completely disappointed in this series and think I'll just use Veggie Tales from now on. I understand that the author may have been trying to be historically accurate and not deviate from the actual story, but I think there's a way to accomplish that without the violence being such a major focus. In a society where violence is often praised, I already have to go out of my way to make sure my child isn't exposed to those things too early; I'm not expecting to have to do that in a children's Bible story. It's really too bad - this was a cute idea with the legos, but I'll be throwing the entire series away.
1492862
To be honest (and you know I always am), I really hate this book.  I hate reading it.  I find it boring and redundant and mind numbing almost.  But, as much as I hate the book itself, I absolutely adore what it has done for my daughter.

Yes, no matter how I feel about the book in general, I must admit that it has had some wonderful affects on my child.  The book is simple enough to inspire her to read.  Sure, she is not yet two and so she isn't quite READING yet, but the simple wording and straightforward pictures have caused my daughter to learn what it is she is saying `goodnight' to.  As a parent I can say that there is nothing more rewarding than watching your child learn and grow, and regardless of how much I hate this book as an adult I can see why she loves it and watching her love it makes me love it.

Does that make any sense?

If you have children I'm sure you get what I'm saying.

Now, I will tell you just why I'm not the biggest fan of the book itself.  I do find the illustrations to be very old fashioned and the overly simple nature of the story (there is no story) leads to redundancy.  Each page feels like the page that came before it, and thus it feels like it never ends.  When we first got the book and my daughter was too young to really react and or repeat anything I was saying I found the book a nightmare to get through, but now that she does repeat and say pretty much word in the book it is not such a pain.  They could modernize this with some nice illustrations too.  I mean, one of the things I love about children's books is the vibrant colors and the crazy art inside.  This book is rather dull in that regard.

So, in the end; it is a great learning tool and it is a book that your little one will enjoy very much, but I urge you to wait until they are a bit older and can actually learn something from the book; that way it won't be such a bore.

I can't give this a really poor rating because it's not a book for me.  If this were a book I read and not my daughter it would have a D at best, but the expression on her face when we read this before bedtime says it all.  I'm giving it a B.  To her it is an A, but really, it could have been a lot better.