Much ado about children: very pro- in terms of their innate drives to know, explore, follow intent with ability; very anti- in terms of present culture, doctors, hospitals, schools, and parents. Following a vaguely Piagetian schema, Pearce describes what he believes normal stages of intellectual growth should be and how ""nature's plan"" is blunted by the forces above. It is an exasperating overwrite, righteous at the expense of reason, fuzzy at the expense of clarity, and at times dangerous, in the sense that a little learning is. What can one say of someone who speaks of an episiotomy as major surgery, calls the reticular formation a small spot in the midbrain, or believes children in the middle years have psychic powers we should encourage. Pearce has some good things to say. Surely child's play is a key to survival, children's dreams and fantasies are important. Surely it is right to caress children and stimulate them in all their senses. And we have all learned a lot from Piaget even if we argue about stages and ages. But when you mix Piaget with a vocabulary of ""primary processing"" and ""earth-mind holograms,"" speak of bonding a tripartite mind, and season it all with adjectives like massive or awesome the result is not glorious stew but unpalatable hash.