Games and Chucks
My four year old kicks ass at Billy and Mandy’s Harum Scarum. And he’s not bad at Foster’s Big Fat Awesome House Party, either.
He’s only been using the computer in a sanctioned way (i.e. Mummy finally let him use her computer) for about three weeks.
The first time he was allowed to use it, he took approximately 30 minutes to master the mouse, explore the intricacies of Firefox and find Cartoon Network.
Thirty minutes. Tops.
Now we have a problem.. he’s become a little bit addicted to these games. I know, I know… being a little bit addicted is like being a little bit pregnant…
So we’ve had to set time limits, but even though he knows he’s only got half an hour, he still comes off the computer screaming and crying, clutching frantically at the keyboard and mouse.
I was feeling tremendously guilty (hey, I’m a parent, it’s obligatory) about the amount of time he was spending on games, so I bought him Kid Pix, software that lets him draw, paint, be creative! That’s a good thing, yes? Less games, more creativity.
Kid Pix is like a glorified version of MS Paint, with animations and backgrounds and sounds and cool things. Surely it would keep a four year preoccupied for… months?
Hah. Try about two days.
Next thing I know he’s dispensed with Kid Pix and he’s got my RawShooter open, adusting contrast and saturation on my images.
“I’m making them look better, Mummy”.
Uh… okaaaaay.
Plan B… what is Plan B, folks?
What can I let him do on the computer which is going to challenge him, teach him, allow him to explore, keep him occupied?
How can I keep one step ahead of a computer-literate four year old? All ideas gratefully received. In the meantime I’m off to do some research and I’ll report back.
************
So that’s the four year old.
The eight year old has discovered books (hallelujah!) and fashion coolness (arrrgggh). Conversation overheard tonight at the dinner table:
Matt: “Mum, on the weekend, can we go and get me a pair of Chuck Taylor’s?”
Me: “Do you need a new pair of shoes?” (Knowing full well the answer is no).
Matt: “Yes, yes I do. So can I get a pair? Pleeeease? It has to be the ones with Chuck written on the back.”
Me: “Chuck Taylor’s are expensive, and they’re hardly practical - they’re not waterproof OR warm”
Michael: “Since when does “waterproof” and “warm” rate on the cool scale?”
Me: “It might not rate on the cool scale, but it rates on the Mummy scale”
Michael: “Awww… c’mon… whatever happened to that 20-something girl who lived in London and bought that pair of black Doc Marten’s and refused to wear anything else?”
Me: “Hey… Doc Marten’s were practical - waterproof AND warm.”
And they were.
Hmmm… now there’s a mash-up idea… Chuck Marten’s! Somebody’s probably already thought of that, huh?
Anyway, we came to a deal, Matthew and I. He can get a pair of Chucks only if I can, too.
Seems fair to me.