The Monster at the End of This Book PDF Free Download

The Monster at the End of This Book PDF

Features of The Monster at the End of This Book PDF

The Monster at the End of This Book PDF-Read along as Grover begs you not to turn the page — because there is a monster at this end of this book!

Lovable, furry old Grover is distressed to learn that there’s a monster at the end of this book! He begs readers not to turn the pages, but of course kids feel they just have to see this monster for themselves. Grover is astonished–and toddlers will be delighted–to discover who is really the monster at the end of the book!-The Monster at the End of This Book PDF

Recommended Books For You

Tarnished Tainted by Ruin Series Book 1 PDF Tarnished Tainted by Ruin Series Book 1 PDF Free Download

Easter Basket Stuffers PDF Easter Basket Stuffers PDF Free Download

Description of The Monster at the End of This Book PDF

The Monster at the End of This Book PDF This is the best book for anyone around the world to download and must read whether of any age or any profession as they will improve the thinking with which you live your life dramatically.

The Authors

The Monster at the End of This Book PDF

Jon Stone (April 13, 1931 – March 30, 1997), was an Emmy-winning writer, director, and producer who was involved in the creation of Sesame Street and continued to work on the show until shortly before his death.

Born in New Haven, Connecticut, Stone graduated from Williams College in 1952. He received a master’s degree from the Yale University School of Drama in 1955, at which time he joined a CBS training program. Before helping to create Sesame Street, he worked on the popular children’s television show Captain Kangaroo for CBS. He also worked on several other Muppet projects before and during his time on Sesame Street, and was the author of several books, including the popular The Monster at the End of This Book. He was married for 9 years to actress Beverly Owen.

Stone’s earliest association with Jim Henson came in 1965, working on fairy tale projects, along with writer Tom Whedon, such as a proposed Snow White series. This was turned into a Cinderella pilot, which was shot in October of that year but never aired, and eventually became Hey Cinderella!. Stone also appeared in Henson’s 1967 short film Ripples, as an introspective architect.-The Monster at the End of This Book PDF

In 1968, Stone brought Henson and Joe Raposo to the attention of CTW president Joan Ganz Cooney when she started putting together Sesame Street. Stone wrote the pilot script, and was one of the three original producers of the program in addition to serving as head writer for the first season. He later became executive producer for seasons 4 through 9.

During a 1980 trip to Sesame Street’s German co-production Sesamstrasse, Stone appeared on the show’s 750th episode, together with Big Bird, Oscar the Grouch, Kermit Love and Caroll Spinney’s wife Debra Spinney.

In a 1999 article, Children’s Television Workshop Director of Research Edward L. Palmer recalled how Stone approached writing for Sesame Street in the early days of the production:

“One member of the CTW staff became terribly agitated when he first saw the curriculum statement. His concern was that if this document, with all its educational jargon, set the tone for the series, Sesame Street would be terribly dull instead of light and lively. However, head writer Jon Stone spoke for all of the key producers in his response to the concern; he said, first, that the curriculum document did not set the tone for the entertainment concent of the program, and second, that in sitting down to write a script, he would far rather start with a curriculum goal at the top of the page than with a totally empty page. What Stone understood was that stating a curriculum goal did not limit creativity, because there were still an infinite number of ways in which to express it on the screen.[2]”

Stone was the show’s principal director until 1996. Working with Jim Henson, he helped to create many of the Muppet characters, including Big Bird and Cookie Monster. He was also responsible for the show’s format and setting. Stone contributed occasional announcer voices (such as the soap opera promo spoof “School in the Afternoon”), and served similar duty on two Muppet Meeting Films. In April 1990, Stone hosted and directed a television special titled Sing! Sesame Street Remembers Joe Raposo and His Music. The special was created as a tribute to Joe Raposo, who passed away from lymphoma in February 1989.

The 2021 documentary Street Gang: How We Got to Sesame Street focuses a good amount of time on the show’s founding members. One segment features Jon Stone’s two daughters Kate and Polly, as well as Joan Ganz Cooney, Sharon Lerner, Christopher Cerf, and Brian Henson all providing personal anecdotes and insight into the man, specifically.

Jon Stone died of complications from Lou Gehrig’s disease on March 30, 1997, two weeks before his 66th birthday. In his New York Times obituary, Joan Ganz Cooney describes Stone as “probably the most brilliant writer of children’s television material in America.”



Dimensions and Characteristics of The Monster at the End of This Book PDF

  • Book Name :The Monster at the End of This Book PDF

Top reviews

Sherry R-L “When my children were little we used to read them this story
My father and I used to make silly voices while reading it and my son and daughter used to laugh and have a great time with it.
Now, I am lucky to have a granddaughter. When I saw it on ; I had to get it for her
We recently had a family brunch at a restaurant and I gave her a couple of books. She wanted me to read this one to her right then and there. I told her I would read it on the ride home.
When we got into the car she wanted me to read the book.
I started out in my best Grover voice and she laughed at me, and I was so happy!
So we read it together, she would turn the pages when she was ready. This book can be a little scary, after all there is a monster at the end.
She wasn’t sure it was ok to turn the pages, because Grover said not to. We discussed this a bit. When you have a book you are supposed to keep reading.
She would giggle at the story and my attempt to sound like Grover. We had fun with it and I was so happy! This is a great book to share.
When my father read it to my daughter he did a different voice. They would laugh. I have many memories of my father reading to my children.
I am just making sure that my Granddaughter has some of the memories like her Mama used to.
My granddaughter has a huge collection of books. Her parents read to her every day. I just wanted to have this one and I am glad I did it.
DrLAmama2 “This is one of my all time favorite children’s books ever!!! I can remember reading this when I was a little kid and loving it so much! So when I found this on , I was so thrilled and immediately had to buy it so I could share it with my own kiddos.
The book is so well written and adorable! I love how Grover is talking to the readers throughout the book; it really feels as though you are interacting with him during the story. And his comments and pleas to the readers to stop turning pages is so cute. My kids get more excited as anticipation grows, and we get closer and closer to the end of the book.
I also really love how the message helps to relay that there was nothing to be afraid of the whole time. It’s funny how kids will naturally empathize with Grover being afraid of monsters. But in a way, they become somewhat empowered as the readers who keep turning the pages. And the ending does such a great job of giving a warm reassuring feeling that everything is fine, and Grover was silly to be scared (especially because he’s the monster at the end of the book).
This book was delivered very quickly and was packaged well. It arrived in perfect new condition and as expected.
And by the way, the price for this book is unbeatable! Because I consider this to be a personal favorite and classic, I have actually bought it several times as gifts for other kids. Again, the price is awesome and everyone enjoys it; it’s a win win for all!
Highly recommended!!! :)”

carla “I read the review that gave this book low rating and I feel like they’re missing Haidt’s main point/ reason to write about this book. Haidt is concerned about social cohesion. And the thing is social cohesion comes from homogeneity or at least shared values or activities. Considering that the left is all about diversity, newness and difference, it makes sense that he would portray it in a somewhat negative light. The problem with insisting on difference and individuality, is that instead of making society adapt to you, it makes society notice your difference even more and hence, cause more bigotry and racism. Furthermore, I would like to point out something about diversity and multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is a pretty word that is tossed around when we’re talking about diversity, but it seems to me that very few people understand it.

Multiculturalism hardly means people living together as a community, it means having community within a larger community. Take the example of London, you have people from Eastern Europe on one side, the Polish only stays with the Polish, the Slovakian with the Slovakian and so on and so forth. Then, you have Black Jamaican who make up another unit. You have Black African (Anglophone and Francophone) – Nigerian, Ghanaian, Ugandan, Ivorian, Congolese…etc. Obviously nobody actually mix together. Nigerian stays with Nigerian, Ivorian with Ivorian and so on and so forth. Then you have Indians and Pakistani who stays with people who come from the same country as them. Even Italian in London usually stays with Italians. In fact not long ago, an Italian told me that there was a big association for Italian in London and that he was a member. There are many other group that I skipped because I couldn’t be bothered but you understand what I mean. And then you have the English – some accept this diversity (usually easier in good economic time), others merely tolerate it.

All group have a natural tendency toward self-segregation. But on top of that, these days we have an external pressure from the Left. The Left does everything it can to remind people how different they are from another, besides picking nonsense battle which erode social trust and our already tenuous social cohesion (i.e tearing statues, protests on university…etc).

The left in its haste to remake fail to understand that a) the world as it is though not perfect is way better than it use to be and b)that if they continue it will only lead us to a civil war. There is still poverty but anyone who’d read history would know that it’s nothing as it used to be (read for example Way to Wigan Road), racism though still a major issue is better now than it ever was. I should also point out something people always talk about how Trump brought a fascist state, about how much of a Nazi he is and so on and so forth. Do they not realise that if they were living in a true Nazi state they could not insult him, or his supporter the way they do on TV or even anonymously on social media? Trump is bad, but no he’s isn’t creating a new Nazi Germany or URSS. And really saying such things is terribly insensitive to the people who lived through those time.

By the way, I do not mean to say that injustice should not be tackled, but it has to be done in a pragmatic and useful way. Concretely, though I understand why he did this, what has Kaeparnick protesting the American flag accomplished besides increasing polarisation? Similarly, for the last couple of years I have heard using terms such as white privilege, white supremacists, old white men, patriarchy and other similar words in almost in every sense and often when they aren’t warranted. But what has it accomplished? It has created a backlash from conservative and annoyed liberals. You also have white liberals who have accepted those terms. But I believe for some, it is only a cool trend they have stumbled into, for other it is a form of religion which I’m not entirely sure they fully believe into, and the last group simply feel obliged.

To be clear, I do believe that in an unfair world, black people are more likely to suffer from unfairness than white people. There are various reasons for this bias and prejudice, the fact that black people are a numeral minority (10% of black in US, only 2% in UK and probably also about 2% in France) whereas white are the majority, lack of economic power of black people in the country they live, lack of economic country of African countries and cultural difference. So, in a sense I believe that white privilege exists, but I think that the way we go about talking about it is simply too divisive and does not promote understanding or even compassion.

I am very well aware of all the wrong white led country have done in history. Though if we’re being very fair about it, Arab countries (slavery) and Asian countries (mostly Japon have done the same [severe colonisation of neighbours]) have done similar misdeed. But really, we can’t expect someone to understand our point of view when we scream have him that the colour of his skin make him a bad person, even if he personally hasn’t done anything. Or when we say that all white people are basically evil. I understand where people are coming from when they say that. Exchanging with someone who has entrenched beliefs about you & your people, who simply cannot imagine that his experience is not the experience of everybody else or someone who is wilfully ignorant/ selectively chose morsel of history (many Conservative) can be very trying. Nonetheless, if our objective is to make a positive change then we need to change how we communicate.

Going back to the book, though Haidt says that Conservative have six moral foundation rather than the Liberal’s three, he does point out the flaws within the Conservative movement. Besides, Haidt never said that having the six moral foundation mean that you can’t be biases or that your reasoning is perfect. In fact, you could argue that he said the contrary. One more thing, someone pointed out that if Conservative score high in Loyalty how come they distrust the government. Well, this reading is wrong. Conservative do trust government to provide a good environment/ market, they trust the government’s words, including its lies. Essentially, they gov to rule the environment but not the individual. You should remember that they also score high in Liberty. Hence, it isn’t surprising that they do not want an external force to rule them.

I suppose some people aren’t happy just because he didn’t call them racist idiots. By the way, even after reading this book, I still have trouble reconciling my initial views with the picture Haidt presented. What I’m trying to say is that though Haidt’s book gave me a lot of insight, I still have much to digest.

I would recommend this book to anyone who want to understand politics and their neighbours with different political opinion.

There’s only one thing which the book is missing for me. It is a niggle and really, Haidt already did enough and couldn’t have looked at this. But I wonder how morality work/ develop across race. For example, a lot of black people are liberal/ democrats because this side have generally been against injustice and willing to do something for the lower section of society. But, could it be that some despite their skin colour are actually closer in their moral spectrum to the white conservative they despise (and who in turn may despise them)? More bluntly said, if instead of being black, they had been born white, could their political leaning be completely different because being white and conservative doesn’t come with the same baggage has being black and conservative? Really, if they white conservative could leave out his bias, could the black who have the same moral makeup as him get along better with him than with fellow black who do not have the same moral buds?

Really, I can’t help wondering how much who you are outside influence your political leaning despite who you are inside. If I had the opportunity I would have done a Phd on this. But ah…I’m way too busy. Has anyone ever thought about this?

In any case, as I said, highly recommended!”

Reference: Wikipedia

Download Link 1

The Monster at the End of This Book PDF

This site complies with DMCA Digital Copyright Laws. Please bear in mind that we do not own copyrights to this book/software. We’re sharing this with our audience ONLY for educational purposes and we highly encourage our visitors to purchase the original licensed software/Books. If someone with copyrights wants us to remove this software/Book, please contact us
. immediately.

You may send an email to for all DMCA / Removal Requests.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here