| Romance and Amber Spyglass
Sun, 3 Dec 2000
Several thoughts on this:
1. Lyra and Will are not truly Archetypal characters -- they possibly
should be in this epic, but they are NOT. They are very much unique
individuals. They cannot be described by one or even a few qualities:
"simpleton," the "good," the "trustworthy,"
etc. A"trustworthy murderer"
and a "truthtelling liar," how unique and totally anti-archetypal!
2. Is it possible that the FALL is not about having SEX? The original
FALL was not about sexual "activities," it was about gaining
the KNOWLEDGE of the act. So, can we allow the possibility (of course,
I understand that there are a LOT of symbolism that can be interpreted
otherwise) that all that happened was their BUDDING AWARENESS of
the romantic feelings, the sexual attraction, the longing, toward
each other? I would like to think that the KISS and the CUDDLING
is all that happened. And the DUST attracted to them is explained
as "consciousness" -- a consciousness of
their own sexuality -- a coming of age, an understanding of Adulthood,
crossing-over to puberty? Remember, their daemons became fix-shaped
at
least the day after they were described as "children-no-longer-children."
It seems to me that's proof enough that they could not have done
more than
what is presented in the printed words. Maybe we should be disappointed
that there is not that much to be read between the lines?
3. May I boldly offer another observation? It seems to me that
the one
FALL that truly matters in this final installment is the FALL of
the
Authority, along with Asriel and Mrs. Coulter. That is the fall
that
brings down the evil power. Will and Lyra's experience seems to
me almost
anti-climatic. When I read about the Authority's end, I asked myself,
"Um, ok, now the Authority is gone, why are there still more
than a
hundred pages left in the book? Are Will and Lyra going to do something
to completely change the Worlds and bring a second Eden to all creatures?"
As it turns out, they cannot even change their own fates, and will
go on
living normal lives in their individual worlds, like NORMAL teenagers,
just a lot wiser and sadder.
|
| Spunky Heroines
Sun, 7 Jan 2001
I always wondered:
When did accuracy in historical details and
character "plausibility"
become of utmost importance in Historical FICTION? Did it happen
when
teachers in schools started using Historical FICTION as Historical
FACTS
for their social studies/history curricula? How have our collective
sensibilities changed through the years as readers and educators?
Can
anyone shed some light on this?
|
| Silent to the
Bone
Fri, 26 Jan 2001
I'm late in responding to [someone's] thoughts,
but I'm totally in
agreement with him regarding Silent to the Bone.
This is my favorite book of the year.
This is a great "puzzle" book, one that I'll recommend
to kids who ask
this eternal question, "Do you have another book, just like
the Westing
Game?"
Konigsburg's ability to write an emotionally
complex story, presenting
very intelligent characters, and still makes them totally believable
is
simply AMAZING.
The sexuality is handled so delicately that
I believe younger readers will
understand the impact of the act without being disturbed while older
readers will understand the whole subject and appreciate the author's
dexterity in capturing the elusiveness and giving it a definite
shape and
taste.
Anyway, it was a bit disappointing to not
see either Silent to the Bone or
Star Girl on the Newbery OR Printz list.
|
| Answering Questions
Re The Michael Printz Award
Fri, 26 Jan 2001
I don't know whether these questions have
been answered (have not checked
email for a while...)
I'm attempting to answer a few of them:
1. Although Newbery and Printz are both given
by the American Library
Association, they are given by TWO DIFFERENT DIVISIONS: Newbery
by the
Association of Library Service to Children (ALSC), and the age range
is
specified as 0 to 14; Printz by the Young Adult Library Service
Association (YALSA.) I don't know the specific age range for YALSA
or
Printz award.
2. Newbery specifies in its criteria that
the book has to be penned by an
American Author (born citizen, naturalized, or long-term residence
in the
U.S.) and it has to be FIRST PUBLISHED by an American Publisher.
Printz
has no such limitation.
3. Newbery Commmittee and the Printz Committee
work completely SEPERATELY.
They do not discuss, or even disclose
nominations outside of their
Committee members. For Newbery, it's 15 people each year. They do
NOT
decide which books get considered because the other committee have
or have
not considered the titles. All titles are judged purely on their
merits
according to the committee's own opinions, not to REFLECT or IN
COORPERATION WITH some other groups.
4. Newbery Committee members do not DISMISS
a title simply because it is
MARKETED as YA. They make the age range judgement when they read
the
evaluate the book. I imagine the Printz Award Committee members
do the
same.
*phew*
|
| How to Measure the Quality of a Novel
Sat, 30 Jun 2001
I promised myself to sign back on child_lit and just lurk.... but,
haha,
this topic is simply too exciting for me to stay put. This is a
long one.
I'm a bit baffled by the fixation of "character development
(or growth, or
growing up, or epiphany, however you would like to phrase it) as
the SOLE
measurement of high-quality literature, esp. those for children.
I also can't quite buy that "popular" children's books
are more
plot-driven and those loved by critics and grown-ups, but less "popular"
with kids, are "character growth" driven.
Where does the creativity and style of an author count then? Does
an
author say to herself, "Ok. I'm going to sit down and write
me a fine
novel today. I'd better make it character driven;" and another
author
says to herself, "Hmm.. since I'm going to write a book that
will be very
popular with kids, I'd rather write a plot driven book where the
characters simply do not change."?
Just look quickly at a few fiction titles (novels?) that I have
enjoyed
tremendously as a READER and the only "common thread"
I can see is the
talent of the authors, and nothing else. They know not only how
to
create/develop their characters, but many other ways to make strong
impressions upon readers: by Settings, Tones, Language, Plot, Styles,
Themes and Ideas, etc.
Winnie-the-Pooh (umm... can you imagine Pooh suddenly learns how
to spell
and stops loving honey so excessively for his own good???)
Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (another child that we do not
want to see
growing up or actually learning anything useful in life.)
Narnia (The children definitely grow/grow-up in these stories,
but, don't
you remember mostly what the maze feels like in The Silver Chair,
and how
glorious it is to defeat the White Witch?)
The Hobbit (Does Bilbo change very much? Oh, right, he's not even
a CHILD
to start with.)
Charlotte's Web (Wilbur absolutely grows and has an epiphany in
this
novel. However, if not for E.B. White's magnificently crafted paragraphs,
would it have enjoyed such success?)
Nothing but the Truth (The "lesson" of the story is in
the irony that
although the READER might learn something about life and how twisted
it
can be, the boy learns nothing and does not grow-up, mature, or
have an
epiphany.)
The Giver (Jonas definitely learns and matures in the story. But,
without
the setting of a frightening comformist's colony and the baby to
rescue,
will we care as much as we do?)
Matilda (All Matilda learns is that by exerting her full power
as herself,
she can have a future completely to her own liking! Hurray for Matilda
who
was "the real grownup" from the very beginning of the
story!)
The Golden Compass (Character-Adventure-Imagination-Setting-Throught
driven!)
Tuck Everlasting (Winnie's lesson and growth is the ultimate one.
Babbitt
is not telling a story of Winnie, but a story of life itself. Winnie
in
this case is the symbolic WE as readers, not a character who needs
to grow
up to gain our respect. She is ALL OF US.)
Lucie Babbagie's House (Lucie's discovering of herself and her
self-reliance is part of the story. However, Cassidy's masterful
telling
of her lies/truth and the ambiguous mingling of imagined world and
the
real world is at the heart of this "story" and is what
makes it stand out
from so many thousand other "self-discovery" stories.)
To quickly conclude: I believe there are many different ways to
measure
the quality of any children's novel, and that to examine the many
aspects
of any author's craftsmanship is not only a curtesy to the author
but a
MUST in order to truely appreciate any novel as a whole.
Phew.. that took a long time. Bed for me now
Sun, 1 Jul 2001
I guess I should clarify some of the points made by me and responded
by
[listmember] since obviously I didn't make myself quite clear in
my post and
some of her misunderstanding is because of my poor writing :)
The point that I was addressing was from a previous post about
a
professor's claim that a work of fiction can not qualify as a novel
if it
does not show character growth... and the subsequent posts seemingly
agreeing with that notion: the value of all "novels" depends
(ok, not
solely) largely on character growth.
Here are the few points that I want to clarify:
I wrote:
I also can't quite buy that "popular" children's books
are more
plot-driven and those loved by critics and grown-ups, but less "popular"
with kids, are "character growth" driven.
[listmember] wrote:
Well, I know I never said it was the *sole* measurement, and I question
your assertion that children do not recognize and like stories where
characters
change and only adults or critics do.
My response: First of all, sorry for the "sole" statement.
Secondly, I
did not assert children do not like character growth in stories
-- on the
contrary, I believe that they DO like stories in which the main
character
grows and changes, The Giver, Hatchet, Harriet the Spy, etc. are
excellent
examples. They are both critically acclaimed and "popular"
with children.
I was referring to someone else's post which devides children's
books
into two catagories (popular vs. critical success "equals"
character
stable vs. character growing -- once again, NOT my opinion.)
[listmember] wrote:
It's been my understanding that the discussion is more about *how*
characters are perceived to change, and also how young readers may
be expected to change, as the result of work labeled as children's
literature.
My response:
Yes, some of the discussion, especially by [another listmember]
and messages responding to his posts... and I am not referring to
those either. I really enjoy those musings.
I wrote:
" Where does the creativity and style of an author count then?
Does an
author say to herself, "Ok. I'm going to sit down and write
me a fine
novel today. I'd better make it character driven;" and another
author
says to herself, "Hmm.. since I'm going to write a book that
will be very
popular with kids, I'd rather write a plot driven book where the
characters simply do not change."?
[listmember] wrote:
It doesn't work that way, at least not for the writers I know. I'll
speak
for myself. I tend to think of characters first; the story evolves
from
them. I also think writing is a much more serious enterprise to
artists
and writers than you suggest. Writers I respect are either writing
to find,
discover, uncover some kind of *truth* about the human condition
or are
writing for the sheer *joy* of playing with language, or both. I
think
that a good story will appeal to both adults and children because
they are both
people. Does that mean that all good literature has to be serious?
Nah...
My response:
.... my point EXACTLY. Those questions were rhetorical -- I guess
that
was very unclear. Of course I know enough to believe that writers
DO NOT
sit down and decide what type of stories to write to FIT into a
mode.
You're saying exactly what I meant.
I wrote:
" Just look quickly at a few fiction titles (novels?) that
I have enjoyed
tremendously as a READER and the only "common thread"
I can see is the
talent of the authors, and nothing else."
[listmember] wrote:
" Talent, sure! I will simply also point out that it is the
*characters* in
all of the stories you mention that we remember most vividly!"
My response:
Ah, I should not have made that blanket statement. But, I also have
to
differ here with your blanket statement -- because for some of those
titles I mentioned, I do not really recall the characters as vividly
as
certain events and what the characters "symbolize" or
what the themes are
or particular scenes. Like I said at the end of my post, there are
also
many different types of readers who look for different elements
to satisfy
their reading needs... to assume that every reader remembers the
characters most vividly is, in my humble opinion, a dangerous thing.
[listmember] wrote:
I don't pretend to be the expert on these issues; I just wanted
to respond
to your post from my own point of view. If I appear to retreat back
to
'lurkerland' now, it's because it's summer, and I have to guard
that
short, precious work and play time--as we all do!
My response:
I also was just voicing my own opinion - and thanks for your taking
time
to respond to my post. It's fun to get back to talking mode on child_lit
-- even if all I did was to raise some eyebrows!!!
|
| Who Are We,
the Children's Literature Lovers?
Wed, 4 Jul 2001
It's been such a treat reading so many thoughtful
posts.
I'm asking a question -- to my self, and
to anyone interested:
While we try to define children's literature,
child readers, and the
meaning of growing up, should we not also try to define ourselves?
Ourselves being the type of people who prefer reading children's
books to
adult books (in general) and want to persuade "others"
(adult literature
critcs, for example) that children's literature is every bit as
valid as
adult literature.
What does this say about ourselves? Are we
"less" grown-up, in some ways?
Are we more in tune with the child-self than others? Have we not
lost our
"innocence"? Are we desparately trying to cling to a world
lost to us
years ago when we physically grew up?
Do we have more hope and faith in this world than the truly "grown"
people? Are we more accepting and open-minded?
And, how can we convince the "others"
of what we believe in, if there is a
true divide between "us" and "them?" (I'm not
making any assertion --
just questioning.)
(If person A is the number 1 fan of American
football and cannot see the
value of figure skating, what will it take for person B to convince
person
A that figure skating is also a valid form of sport?)
|
5 Jul 2001
[M] wrote:
"I think that by defining children's literature, child readers
and the meaning of growing up, we are defining ourselves."
I am not as sure as you are, [M], that simply by defining the genre
or
category of literature, we're actually defining ourselves. It is,
however, possible that by defining children's literature, we might
become
aware of who we are -- readers of fine literature, regardless of
its
intended (or projected) audience. And yet, it is still very hard
to convey
our expertise as literary critics (I'm using this term in its broadest
possible sense, and not trying to assume a status that I do not
have) who
can intelligently analyze any piece of literature regardless of
its
audience to the "outsiders."
The entire thread on book vs. novel started when one of us (or
quite a few
of us) was outraged at the belittling of children's literature in
the Fox
interview. From the subsequent posts, I sensed a common "yearning"
of
proving to the larger world that what we are interested in (children's
literature) is valid, and thus, ultimately, "WE" as scholars,
readers,
critics, etc. are valid. Someone mentioned that any field dealing
directly with children tends to be viewed as lesser in its value
(pediatricians, child-psychologists, children's librarians, elementary
teachers) when compared to its adult counterpart.
That's why I started thinking of who we are, as a collective
"sub-species." Where does our passion stem? By spending
a large amount
of time thinking, reading, discussing children's literature, we
must be
different, in certain ways, from those who almost never touch children's
literature, even if they are of literary minds and training.
A personal example: In my school, there are a few teachers who
think that
I am doing terrible harm to our 6th to 8th graders by passionately
recommending fine children's literature and not immersing them in
an
exclusive environment of adult literature and classics. Of course,
these
teachers have not, in the last 10 to 30 years, read books published
for
children and young adults. I wonder if they read contemporary children's
books, will they view them differently. (I'm trying my best to convince
them to read a few of the best... Wish me luck!)
" I'm not sure that everyone on this list would prefer children's
books over
adult books, as you suggest,"
I'm not sure of this either... so, let me rephrase it to "readers
who
embrace children's books."
"although I would emphatically insist that children's books
can be and many are as truthful/beautiful as meaningful and necessary
as the best of the best of adult books, that without them a piece
of the human mind would blink out of existence."
[M], can I ask you a question? As far as I remember from my
children's lit. history courses, literature created specifically
for
children came to existence a lot later than those for adults. In
fact, in
the U.S., it's only been a little more than a century long, right?
What
makes you so sure that without children's books, a piece of the
human mind
would blink out of existence? What happened to children and humanity
before children's literature became a strong and healthy publishing
entity? (Trust me, for the most part of my own "existence"
I believe
whole-heartedly your statement, and I want to believe that it is
the only
truth. However...) Is it like saying that if Picasso, or Van Gogh,
or
Paul Klee (3 or my favorite artists) had never been born, a piece
of
humanity will be missing? And is this statement true?
"I believe the position is eminently rational and may be intelligibly
communicated to others possessed of reasonable intelligence, independant
judgment, a certain amount of experience in the world and a normal
degree of skepticism, but I'm nor sure I can persuade anybody of
anything."
You voiced what I tried to say in my post -- I don't know whether
we can
EVER persuade the "non-believers" of the value of children's
literature.
If by finding out who we are, we find out that it takes a certain
temperament, a certain "linkage" to childhood, a certain
sensibility, for
some one to appreciate children's literature, then, are we ready
to accept
the notion that those who do not possess these traits will then
never be
convinced to see or understand children's literature no matter how
rationally and intelligently we make our arguments?
" I think our allegiance to children's literature doesn't mean
we are more grown up or less because I believe that 'grown up' is
a false category with absolutely arbitrary significance--and if
you disagree Roxanne, well, grow up!"
"grown-up" or not is just one of the possible traits I
was considering --
and you are absolutely right that it is truly arbitrary. (See how
polite
and "grown-up" I can be??)
Then, I would like to find out what "traits" we share
as "adult" readers
and critics of children's books. And, you may be right that we are
all
drawn to children's literature out of thousands of personal and
arbitrary
reasons, and that there are NO common traits. (Like what I believe
about
children's literature itself, that each piece is essentially an
individual
and unique creation that does not necessarily share a common trait
with
the next piece.)
So, anyone at any given time of her life might suddenly become
a
children's lit. embracer; and that maybe someday there will be a
venerable
adult literature critic who suddenly discovers the depth and beauty
of so
many children's books and thus changes the status of children's
literature
forever.
But, until then, is there little hope for us to elevate children's
literature to its deserved height?
(Question: how many adult readers - excluding children's lit. people
- of
Harry Potter books continue on to discover and read other children's
books, such as those by Diana Wynn Jones, and Susan Cooper or Philip
Pullman?)
|
Regarding Oprah's Belittling of Children's
Literature
12 Jul 2001
From what I have read and what I believe, here are a few points
I would
like to make:
1. Oprah's show is not JUST A TV SHOW. Her power is far-reaching.
I
think for us to dismiss it as if it does not count is not wise.
Her
influence can be greater than our "local" newspapers.
Grassroots movement
can be powerful, and yet, to raise awareness and try to change a
"national" (if not "international") figure and
what she does with
children's literature can be equally, if not more, powerful. So,
please
accept some list members' efforts to reach Oprah -- even if you
do not
support it, can you please at least try not to suppress it?
2. What I saw from the so-called "anti-Oprah" posters
is not
"anti-Oprah-ness" at all, but an expectation of a professionalism
which
Oprah often shows in many of her other segments -- but obviously
did not
deign to keep up for her Children's Books segments. Someone from
S&S
pointed out that it took months to prepare for the segment, and
that they
contacted publishers and other sources to gather information. She
seemed
to imply that we should then be satisfied with the quality of the
segment
because of all the "efforts" the producers made. Let's
not forget,
"PREPARING FOR A SEGMENT," however long and hard it takes,
is what the
Oprah Show producers DO for a living. It is their professional field
and
duty to prepare Oprah to come up with EVERY excellent segment. Do
we
review a book by how much effort the author, his editor and publisher
put
into producing a work of fiction? No. We analyze and "judge"
it by its
final quality. We do not say: "Oh, it took this author 6 years
to
research and write a story and get it published, how can we look
at it
critically?" For every field, there is a standard to be expected,
be it
producers of a TV show, a software designer, a teacher, a writer,
a pilot,
or a waiter. And when a public figure is not meeting the standard
of his
or her normal performance, it is natural for the "public"
to make comments
and urge this person to "perform" better. That is all
I have seen here on
the list by the members who are labeled "anti-Oprah."
3. I'd like to reiterate Waller's point that when someone, often
an
influential someone" who usually has nothing to do with children's
books
says and analyzes children's books, what they should do at LEAST
is to not
make under-informed choices or comments -- which, unfortunately,
does not
seem to be the common practice among those people. So, who can change
this trend but we who feel passionate about children's literature??
(Those were LONG points, huh?)
|
| 16 Jul 2001
Yet a few rambling points inspired by Jane Kurtz's and Julius Lester's
recent posts:
1. For one who worked briefly in the Children's Publishing world
(I was a
Subsidiary Rights Assistant in the old Macmillan publishing company
(merged with Simon & Schuster,) I always feel that most of the
editors are
truly dedicated in publishing books they feel strongly about. They
are
the first "hand-sellers" of books. They know the materials,
and they have
to PRESENT their books to the sales reps. and marketing people,
and they
have to be passionate about their titles in order to PERSUADE their
sales
reps. and marketing people that such and such book is indeed worthy
of
publishing and selling. Editors do not get paid well, for the most
part,
and what keep these editors in the field of children's publishing
is a
powerful passion for quality books. However, I hope I'm not too
off the
mark here, publishing houses NEED the mass-sellers to support good
books
that don't sell as well. (I'm thinking something like Scholastic
-- Blue
Sky Press and Arthur Levine Books definitely publish books VERY
different
from other Scholastic products such as Baby-sitters Club, and Goosebumps
series.) It is no crime for publishers to be money-conscious --
how else
should they be? Publishing books that do not sell so that authors
and
illustrators get no payment? Please do not forget that authors and
illustrators, as well as editors and publicists, all need the companies
to
be financially healthy in order to survive in this field of very
narrow
profit margines.
2. As a former booksales person at an independent children's bookstore
(out of business,) I do think that the public is robbed by the "great"
chain stores. Yes, there were only a few of us who "made"
the selection
of titles in our store for sale, however, each one of us was truly
passionate about the books we sold. I remember my manager used to
say
often, "If you can promise to PUSH and HANDSELL such and such
title, I'll
order them this month!" That's why you could find The Animal
Family, and
Ordinary Princess, and Amazing Grace (before it got "famous",)
etc. in my
old bookstore. And we "pushed" and booktalked these special
titles to our
customers. Let's see if any of the chain stores has buyers who talk
directly to their sales force and let the "passionate"
sales people make
this type of decision!!
3. I've been also wondering about the "masses" vs. the
"elitists"
situation -- don't we, usually, show disdain toward "adult"
books that
sell by the millions? Don't we, members of this list, pride somewhat
in
our "taste" in books that are EXCELLENT but do not have
"mass" appeals?
Then, why at the same time, we seem to think that "all"
book buyers should
buy ONLY the quality books and that their tastes should be RAISED
to our
level? Do we have the illusion that reading IS or SHOULD BE the
most
important thing in life for everyone in the world? It is definitely
NOT,
and I still am not sure whether it SHOULD BE. Or maybe, we just
FEEL BAD
that excellent books and writers are "under-valued" by
our society -- but,
isn't it quite the norm, too? So many artists suffered from
under-recognition throughout human history. Will we ever be able
to
change that??????? (I am pessimistic -- or just very honest :)
4. The color-blindness discussion thread is inspiring. I am re-adjusting
my own notion as to whether I should or should not see colors when
I read
and when I encounter people in real life. I think being aware of
others'
ethnicities is different from pre-determining what those others'
behaviors
or mind-sets should and would be. However, if one says that one's
ethnicity is part of his or her identity, then, how can one asks
others to
not have any "presumption?" Without certain "characteristics"
that
qualify each ethnicity, there will be no such thing as a collective
"ethnicity." How can we request others to SEE COLORS,
but DO NOT PRESUME
THE HISTORY OR CULTURAL CHARCTERISTICS ATTACHED TO IT? Does not
ethnicity
come with a somewhat static set of history and characteristics?
5. By the way, how many of you know (without checking) my ethnicity
and
background?
|
Publishing Decisions on Illustrators
19 Jul 2001
According to Jane's and Scott's recent posts, I suddenly realized
something:
Because we (as a collective, political, social trend) believe that
ONLY
the people of a particular culture are allowed to write and illustrate
about that culture, instead of Giving More Opportunities to the
artists
regardless of their up-bringing, training, cultural background,
skin-color, we are actually limiting their opportunities?
And how SPECIFIC AND DETAILED are we when we define A Culture?
I am Chinese (secret revealed!!) -- but I was born in Taiwan, several
decades ago, to parents who came from Mainland China (one from a
South
West province and the other from a North East province.) I was educated
in Taiwan and never lived anywhere but Taipei City until I was in
my early
20's. Then, I taught school, and then I came to America 12 years
ago.
I never set foot on Mainland China, even though, in my heart, I
believe
that I KNOW a lot ABOUT the history and land of that place.
I am considered a "mainlander" by the Taiwanese and not
a Taiwanese -- we
did not speak Taiwanese at home and seldom ate Taiwanese food. By
the
way, these millions of so-called Taiwanese were once Mainland Chinese
whose ancesters migrated 600, 700 years ago and took over the island.
They are not the Taiwan Aborigines -- what we call the "Mountain
People"
whose languages and customs are drastically different from any Chinese.
If I were to become a children's writer:
Should I then be ALLOWED to write a story based on traditional
Chinese
legends or values and set in Beijing or Shanghai?
Should I only be ALLOWED to write about Taiwan/Taipei, and only
about kids
in Catholic Boarding schools (since that was a large part of my
experience) there?
Oh, and my mother was Manchurian (invaders to China from the North
East
and established the Qing Dynasty, about 700 years ago,) not Han
(the major
Chinese tribe,) maybe I SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED to write anything
that has
any relation with the Hui people (another, less major Tribe.)
When my daughter grows up, if she wants to become a children's
writier,
what will she be allowed to write about? Chinese-Jewish-American
experience only? And what, pray tell, is the "percentage"
of each culture
goes into her Mixture?
As you can see, the more rules we apply to keep OTHERS in line,
the fewer
opportunities OURSELVES have to explore.
One example for your thought:
I just recently discovered that Lensey Namioka, who, aside from
writing
about Chinese-American experiences, also wrote wonderful adventure
stories
set in Ancient Japan, is Chinese -- Namioka is her married name.
Which of the following would you guess as my reaction to this knowledge?
A. Hey, how can she write something set in Ancient Japan????? She
did not
live in Ancient Japan and she is NOT EVEN Japanese!!!
B. Since China and Japan are both ASIAN cultures, I trust that
Namioka
must know everything about Ancient Japan, and thus MAY set her stories
in
that time and culture. But she'd better not venture into the realm
of an
Arthurian legend or set her new story in South America!
C. She is a great writer who creates wonderful moods and settings
and her
characters are inspiring and the plots are exciting. I'm just going
to
sit back and enjoy her stories!
|
When Dad Killed Mom by Julius Lester,
musings
17 Aug 2001
Several questions regarding WDKM:
1. Does anyone feel that the Diary as a device is not entirely
convincing -- such detailed descriptions, Jeremy's reading it over
a period of many days, rather than at one sitting, and that it is
admitted to be introduced as evidence at court on the spot?
2. Audience: does anyone else feel that it is suitable for kids
under 14 years of age -- meaning, upper middle school, younger than
high school kids?
3. Does anyone have a problem with the resolution of the entire
story/plot being the two gigantic tragedies in DAD's life? That
because Dad killed both his beloved sister and then his beloved
daughter, he became someone who is sexually interested in younger
female, included his own daughter? I am not versed in psycholoy,
so I cannot see the causal-effect of his actions. The book itself
does not explain (or having a professional character to help explain)
this link to me as a reader.
17 Aug 2001
Just a quick response to [J]'s reply to me regarding my question
no. 3:
My own reading of it actually will be more satisfied if there is
one fewer tragedy for the father. When I finished reading the story,
my first reaction was that the father does NOT need TWO tragedies
to "justify" his crime. And yes, I read it as an attempt
to explain the extremity of the father's crime. How otherwise can
we even start fathoming his actions? How otherwise can we start
the forgiving and healing process?? Jonathan expressed that the
"causal-effect" does not quite matter in the telling of
the story and I quite agree with him, since the story is really
about Jenna's and Jeremy's dealing with the situation. Because of
this reasoning, there is even less need for the double tragedy.
Do you agree??
(Whether it was what Julius had in mind when he created the tragedy
in the father's childhood does not affect how I felt as a reader.)
17 Aug 2001
Just to clarify something:
I was engrossed in the story -- I thought the voices very effective.
However, I also did not set out to find faults or pick bones.
I believe (although I do not know how) that there must be ways
to let the story and the characters unfold and express themselves
in this character-driven "mystery" (for it sure reads
like one to me, especially with the court room scene and the diary
as a clue) without making one reader (me) feel that the devices
do not ring true.
I don't think to want a story intended to reflect a fragment of
our real world to sound, feel, and act not just plausible but totally
believable is asking too much :)
(Am I being too harsh??)
18 Aug 2001
[J]
"All fiction is contrived to some degree. Don't you think?"
And yes, I think so. So, in a way, it depends on each individual
reader to decide whether the contrivance is worthwhile or not. In
this particular case, you and I differ in our reading and our focus.
I'm not dismissing the whole book. Please understand that :)
[J] three recent Newbery winners to illustrate how each one features
"unlikely" situations. He wrote, "We do not see any
of the aforementioned as contrivances, as credibility problems because
we do not want to. We turn a blind eye to them because we like the
characters well enough to root for them, and are willing to let
all kinds of stuff slide by in order to see them succeed, and in
so doing we become willing conspirators and accomplices."
Here's my response:
And I am moving away from discussing WDKM, focusing more on the
literary elements and what Jonathan had written.
I disagree with the statement of "we do not want to"
see the contrivances simply because we like the characters and root
for them. I think it's more complex than that.
All three protagonists in the books mentioned by [J] are meant
to be somewhat "larger" than life. The tone of the three
books are all consistant with the elements of surprises and coincidence.
HOLES and A YEAR DOWN YONDER are books closer to tall-tales than
to realistic fiction. BUD, NOT BUDDY is also more or less a "legend."
-- When writers create stories based on their relatives' memories
of the past (which both Down Yonder and Buddy are,) there is inevitably
an aura of dramatic "unrealism" that any reader can easily
detect and accept readily. HOLES sets out to be completely unrealistic
-- like a fairy tale, a tall-tale, or a fantasy. We definitely do
NOT believe that what happens to Stanley Yelnats can happen to us
tomorrow! So, in a way, to compare these to WDKM does not quite
shed lights on my opinions.
However, I expressed on child_lit a LONG while ago my opinions
on WALK TWO MOONS, another Newbery winner, which is meant to be
more realistic and is closer to nature of the storytelling to WDKM,
and you can go back and see my posts on fairrosa cyber library site.
I think I felt similarly about Two Moons, that there are elements
that discredit the story for me.
So. My observation and conclusion at this point becomes:
When someone is writing a contemporary realistic fiction, featuring
our own time and people that we might know, it is important to keep
the plot and incidents "realistic" and logically consistent.
Could it be because one of the important elements in a "contemporary
realistic fiction" is that it holds its backdrop and plot "realistically"
without faltering? When one writes a fantasy, one must include spells
and magic. When one writes a historical fiction, one must set it
in a historical era and does some justice to the sense of time and
place. When one writes a biography, one must strive to let the readers
feel that they KNOW the person inside and out. So, when one writes
a realistic fiction, set in one's own time, certain realistic situations
cannot be overlooked.
I just finished ALICE ALONE (the newest installment in Naylor's
ALICE saga) and found it completely satisfying and real, as opposed
to ALICE ON THE OUTSIDE, also in the same series, which felt contrived
and sloppy. The same author, the same cast, the same setting --
one is quite good, and the other is quite poor.
[J]onathan wrote, "Critical readers can see the
strings moving. Absolutely they can, but so what? Critical readers
also
know that all fiction is flawed; the trick is to figure out which
flaws are
important and which are not."
I think the FUN for me IS to see and discuss the strings -- otherwise,
we can just always say, "Oh, I LOVE that book." or "Oh,
isn't that book terrible??" without discussing why and what
and how -- then, there is no need for Child_lit, is there?? And
I agree that figuring out which elements are important for each
book. For me, the diary and the double tragedies in Eric's life
become a major hinderance of my complete enjoyment (hmm... may not
be a proper word for such a harsh and bleak story) of WDKM. So,
it is important. To me.
18 Aug 2001
[J,]
I can see and agree with all your points, too.
And it IS interesting how much I ADORED Silent to the Bone -- and
some how I never even thought of it as in the "realistic fiction"
category.
I willingly suspended my disbelief from the very very very first
paragraph until the end and never questioned ANYTHING (not even
the convenience of an eye witness who will confess or the whole
"legitimacy" of the game of flashcards.
:)
So, you are right. I, as a reader, had double standards for these
books -- and yet, there must be a reason that I have those double
standards. I'm trying to puzzle out the WHY of my reading and demanding
different things for these books.
Let's not talk about Walk Two Moons because my issue of that one
is beyond the "realism" aspect and because I read the
book so many years ago.
Let's see why I had no problems with STTB but do have problems
with WDKM: why? (I actually don't know and am just trying to puzzle
it out like I said above.)
I believe, it is because in STTB, all the characters and the circumstances,
from the very beginning, are created to make me feel that they are
not ALL THAT REAL. The intelligence of the two main characters and
the verbal games they play set them quite far apart from any 13-year-olds
we encounter on a daily basis. I allowed, from the first sentence
to the last, the story, plot, and devices, to be above the measurement
of realism.
WDKM, although featuring some strong and unique characters, to
me, seems to be trying to portray people and circumstances that
echo "real" life. I don't think I, as the reader, allowed
it to deviate from that narrow path. Maybe I should have willingly
suspend my disbelief. However, WILLINGLY is the operating word here.
I cannot control my reaction to how I felt about the story and devices
once I do not have that WILLING suspension of disbelief.
It obviously works for many other, critical readers, just not for
me, in a small area. It does not ruin the book for me and does not
reduce my admiration of the author's skill in creating two very
convincing voices.
I think I'll stop talking now and start thinking more seriously
what Jonathan has expressed so expertly in his posts about the paradox
of "realistic" "fiction."
|
Child_lit as Book Basher?
31 Aug 2001
Two thoughts:
1. Regarding the role of an interviewer: the interviewer always
has the option to include and exclude the interviewee's responses
and opinions. Even though she cannot control what the interviewee
said during an interview, she usually is in control during the compiling
and editing process, and thus shape the final "feel" of
the printed interview. Under normal circumstances, not every sentence
uttered in an interview can be or is included. This is (as far as
I can tell) not a word-for-word transcript of an informal conversation,
but a formal interview. The interviewer may choose not to include
a blanket statement such as the one uttered by Rinaldi because:
A. the interviewer feels that there is invalidity of the statement
and does not want to incite negative reactions -- such as the ones
we have seen posted here today, or because: B. the interviewer feels
that the interviewee will be seen in a poor light if such unfounded
and hostile statement is printed in the final version o f the interview.
In my very humble and very personal opinion, by including those
words, the interviwer feels that: A. Rinaldi's statement is true,
and B. that Rinaldi's image as an author who can take criticism
will not be harmed by these statements.
Unfortunately, to us active and conscientious child_lit contributors,
neither A. nor B. holds true.
2. Regarding us as book bashers: There IS a tendency in humans
to talk in DETAILS the flaws of an object, a person, a piece of
literary work, and to praise sparingly. When someone posts how wonderful
a book is, and if everyone agrees with that post, we basically nod
our heads in our various computer stations across the nation and
the world, and let that post stands without too many follow-ups.
However, if someone praises a book, and many others disagree with
that praise, we usually go into a heated round of dispute. Or, if
someone finds a book by an established author is flawed and posts
his opinions, and if someone else on the list agrees, he or she
WILL tend to "voice" the same sentiment more readily and
openly on the list. So, even though we are not here to bash books,
we are looking at books VERY critically and to some, this might
already constitute bashing!
|
|
