It’s sad when I wholeheartedly agree with an author’s thesis, yet manage to dislike the book so much that I find myself looking for counter-argument for every page — every paragraph in this case. The author of A Country Called Childhood: Children and the Exuberant World believes, as I do, that children would do well with more free time exploring nature without hovering parents. Great. But she bulldozes her way through the argument with little heed for logic, often stating without reserve that the life of children in primitive societies is much superior than that of children in the developed world — clearly false, in many objective ways. Still false to claim that education is worthless simply because it separates children from nature. It would be great, perhaps, for children to spend more time in nature and without constraints, but that would create some adaption problems come adulthood, don’t you think?