How to use this Page

This piece looks great, Eric. The feel of it doesn't look digital at all - a great mix of media.

The colours of this piece really set a beautiful mood as well.

This looks really nice Eric. you always retain that graphic novel quality in your work.

for about 7 years at my work I have had to do almost all of my design by scanning in and finishing in Photoshop. its just not fast enough to paint everything by hand.
i still just dont enjoy my art nearly as much if there is anything digital in it. strange, i know.

Nice, Eric. An interesting way to work, too.

this is really great man. I dig it a lot. The garb is my favorite part

Thanks Brian! I remebered the artist whose work inspired this: Nic Klein. He does painted comics.It was a black and white drawing and I added 1 colour in photoshop and then played with levels.

Thanks Joe! I've actually become pretty bored wit most digital means of art making and rarely use much photoshop except for tweaking.It's funny, I spent maybe an hour drawing this and really only a few minutes turning it purple. If I lost the drawing aspect of my work I'd be really disappointed: it's the whole point of what I do`tell stories through drawing.

Thanks Jennifer!I love posting my experiments here.

Thanks Shane! Did you follow the link to the photos of nomads? Amazing stuff, just unbelievably beautiful clothing and I can't believe they wear it now.

I think the artist who inspired this method was Nic Klein, but I'm not a hundred percent on that:

http://www.nicklein.com/imagepage/imagepage.html

While books for adults similarly try to bring readers around to their point of view, the position is much more mano a mano, not directed from above.

With books for younger children, it may be different, but as a YA writer, I have to say that I'm not--consciously, at least--directing from above, but looking at the reader at eye level, so to speak.

Even middle grade is more complicated, if I think about it honestly. But my experience (and of course, I filter for things I enjoy reading) has been that YA really isn't about looking at or presenting viewpoints from all that different a place than adult fiction is.

(I put that badly. I didn't mean that YA doesn't have a different perspective than adult fiction, just that it's not a from-above perspective, in my experience.)

I'm 22. Most of the novels I read are young adult (and I'm writing a young adult novel of my own) but I do read adult novels from time to time. (The Life of Pi is one of my favorite books.) Most of the non-YA books I read are nonfiction, though: history, psychology and true crime. Do you have an objections, Roger, to someone who reads YA novels and adult nonfiction?

Let me say again that I am making no judgments about what people choose to read--children's books, romances, Faulkner, whatever floats your boat.

In my line of work I regularly--not frequently, but regularly--meet people who upon learning who I am or what I do, say "oh, I only read children's books." They say it as a point of pride, continuing with "because those are the best written." This is where I have a problem--not with what they are reading but that they are proud to read only children's books, that it indicates a keen delineation of taste that only the cogniscenti share. I don't get this from people who only read mysteries, say, or sci-fi or romance. They just like what they like. I understand that the general ignorance and sentimentality about children's books in the larger culture might make one defensive about having a taste for them, but let's not go overboard.

I have great respect for children's & YA literature. I derive great enjoyment from it. I read it pretty much exclusively until I came to college, but here is the thing: though they are good, they aren't everything. Good YA novels, like any other good literature, derive from their historical and literary tradition. If, for example, you read Chris Crutcher's Whale Talk without knowing anything about Taoism, some of the points are lost. (Same with the Earthsea books, actually.) If you read Octavian Nothing having studied British imperialism, the American Revolution, 18th century science & society, you will get a lot out of it and make a lot of connections that you will not have otherwise. If you read His Dark Materials, the whole thing is a lot more interesting with Genesis and Milton under your belt.

The point is, YA books are good--but a sophisticated reader is not satisfied with the last incarnation, with the end product, with what is, if we are being frank, generally easier to read and less substantial than its source material. (Yes, it is good, yes, it is substantial, but there is more.)A sophisticated reader--of any age--wants to know what things mean, where they came from, and how they fit together. If reading just YA is enough for someone--without any interest in why and how it exists--I think that's both lazy and rather dull.

I agree with Roger. My liberal arts education: let me show you it.

Heh. I actually do hear this sort of thing from romance and SF/fantasy readers as well. (And don't disagree, when put like that, that reading in any one genre is potentially limiting, though having a home/preferred genre is not.)

Roger, you say: "In my line of work I regularly--not frequently, but regularly--meet people who upon learning who I am or what I do, say "oh, I only read children's books." They say it as a point of pride, continuing with "because those are the best written." This is where I have a problem--not with what they are reading but that they are proud to read only children's books, that it indicates a keen delineation of taste that only the cogniscenti share."

My take on that would rather be that because children's literature is so patronized in the wider critical circles, we feel the need to make outrageous statements like this to wake people up to the fact that there is fabulous writing in children's literature. Not necessarily pride reading nothing else...just a shock statement. I've said it many times in just that way...and it's not even true in my case. (Yep, I'm a liar.)

To take this is another direction...I'm someone who reads both adult and chidlren's literature recreationally, but I do find often that my recreational response to chidlren's literature gets in the way of my professional response. On a daily basis I have to actively separate my appreciation of a children's book from my critical brain. At the same time I find that my public library colleagues who don't read children's literature recreationally also tend not to choose to review it professionally...just because they don't really like to read it. This then puts a whole new layer on how I read reviews of children's literature; if I suspect that most reviewers are actually "fans," I have to suspect their evaluation of the audience for the book, and look actively for evidence in the review that they considered a REAL child audience. The evidence isn't always there. I'm probably guilty of neglecting it myself.

People can read whatever they want, but the reflexive smugness of the person who says, "Oh, children's and YA books are so much better than adult books! That is all I read!" makes me somewhat ill. For one thing, it is a gross generalization. For another, why on earth would anyone be proud of limiting his or her reading?

It also makes me wonder if these people read *Weekly Reader* for their news coverage.

While I agree with some of your points, and am certainly anti-smugness in generally, I think you're overlooking something major with your condemnation here:

WHAT one choses to read and HOW one reads it are two VERY SEPARATE THINGS. I went on an ill-fated date lately with one of those "I believe everything the NY Times says about ART" people and although his recently read books were no doubt more "literary" than mine, I can guarantee you that he read No Country for Old Men with but a tiny fraction of the care, intelligence, analysis, acuity, and, yes, MATURITY with which I approach even fluffy books like Princess Mia.

I would not deem someone reads Flannery O'Connor blindly because "that's what's done" any more inherently "mature" than I would deem someone who exclusively reads YA lit and is proud of it. What matters is HOW a person engages with their reading, not what they chose to read. As long as their brain is on, any reader is mature in my book.

I don't get this from people who only read mysteries, say, or sci-fi or romance.

Clearly, you have not been around enough SciFi people...

Oh God, Cassandra Mortmain, must everything be so heavy? I like to read Flannery O'Connor because she's so creepy. And I'm sure if I were taking a class or reading an article on her, I would get additional insights that I would enjoy. But while your date might have been an obnoxious name dropper, I don't think it's any less pompous to brag about the WAY you read! For Pete's sake, life is busy and hard enough, aren't we talking about reading for fun? This reminds me of the time Deborah Brodie told me I could only go the Met if I studied the opera beforehand.

And I'm not the Elizabeth who posted at the beginning of this thread, I'm the one who posts fairly often here and is 47. Roger is staying at my apartment right now, and Come Back, Little Sheba was a sad play, but Epatha Merkerson was GREAT. Of course, although I was very moved by the loneliness of both the central characters, I'm sure I would have been more moved if I had watched the play with acuity and MATURITY.

I didn't mean to imply that my way is the only way to read- and, to be frank, I don't do it to be SERIOUS, I do it because that's how I enjoy reading. I engage closely because it's fun for me. I just meant to point out that there's more to the issue of reading than what you choose to read and plenty of immature things can be engaged with in a mature way.

And I can also guarantee you that most of my dates aren't treated to an exhaustive description of how I read- I only bring it up here for argument's sake :).

C'mon Roger: YA adult readers "need to grow up"? I read anything I can get my hands on - adult fiction, definitely adult fiction (i.e erotica) and YA and midgrade fiction. Not only because I'm a kids writer (Feral, Orca Book Publishers April 08, Keeper of the Light, Conciliar Press 06, Royal Monastic Conciliar Press, August 08). I like kids books just as much as adults books. The writing isn't overall better or worse - there are brilliant books in all those categories. I read what catches my interest and what moves me. But to suggest that I need to grow up because I read kids' books? No. You're off track there.

bev, i think that you, like many readers, missed roger's point and keep missing it. he has never said there was anything wrong with reading kids books, or with enjoying kids books. what he keeps saying is that it is kind of lame to read ONLY kids books. just like it would be lame to only go to operas and not see musicals, to dismiss rock because you think only classical is worth listening to. to refuse to visit the museum if it didn't have just the one kind of art that you think is worth looking at.

it's really starting to bother me that people can't follow this argument. read anything you want. but if all you read is kids books, i think you are pretty intellectually limited. just as i would if the only thing you read was military sf with oooh lasers and stuff.

Yes, Bev, I would be off track--not to mention self-delusional!--if I were suggesting that adults should not read kids' books. But I never suggested that, so I guess we're on the same page.

Anonymous 10;40 PM has it EXACTLY RIGHT! What a shame we've had to read through pages of gush about "how much YA fantasy etc means in my life". It would appear that no one actually read the initial post but seized the opportunity to declare their allegiance to a medium that was never challenged. If only she had made this intelligent statement FIRST!

I find time to keep up with both only because my library finally carries audiobooks. I can keep up with adult reading through listening on my commute.

Tee-hee. I spent Tuesday reading an adult recommendation of Roger's from last December-- The Exception by Christian Jungersen. 500 pages of bloat, if you ask me, which is why it took up only a day--I skimmed. But I can't stop myself from looking for tips, and maybe one of these days I'll get around to the books he mentions he's reading this weekend....

I forgot that damned Japanese mystery (Grotesque) at Elizabeth's. But the first fifty pages (about the cruelty of adolescence, ironically) were GREAT.

Like Zee, I get a lot of my adult books via audio. Just started Middlemarch . . .

"Let me say again that I am making no judgments about what people choose to read"

Um, except that you are making judgments. The "grow up" line? That was a judgment.

I do love you defending being smug about people's reading choices by pointing the finger at people being smug about their reading choices. Masterful.

I actually agreed with the first part of the post, about revealing the ending when it would be relevant to the adult purchasing or recommending the book. And you have a point with the wealth available to readers in books written for adults. But that last statement? Not good.

"Grow up"? Yeah, you're right, that's a judgment. But it's true (for me): I can't take seriously a grownup who doesn't read grownup books on the grounds that they aren't as good as children's books. Can you? People who "learned everything they needed to know in kindergarten" or who find "ineffable wisdom" in The Giving Tree--nope, wouldn't trust 'em with my kids.

I'll admit it always seem strange to me when people ONLY read books meant for children. The same way I'd think it odd if they ONLY ate "kid food" (fluffernutters?) or ONLY listened to "kid music" (Though I do love Dan Zanes!).

This is not to say that children's books aren't great, complex, well written, etc. Or that adult work is *better*. Only that the bulk of children's booksa are meant for... well, kids! The dramas of the YA world are different than the issues facing adults.

That these same readers might get something *else* from checking out some adult book.

(They might not, I guess. But from my own experience, though I LOVE to read middle grade, I learn more about myself as a person from, say, Chabon or Irving or whomever)

I wonder what some of the people commenting here would think of someone who only watched kiddie tv. Barney and Sesame Street. If they met a grown man who sat around at night, alone, drinking beer and watching the Teletubbies...

I mean, the writing on Sesame Street *is* far better than the inanity of reality tv.

As a writer too, I find that when I'm reading an adult book I'm looking for ways to bring the craft over into my writing for kids. To push my writing. When I read adult poetry, I'm thinking about sentence structure, internal rhyme, and how I might use them in picture books.

I guess it just seems a kind of arrested state, a weird barrier to me. It seems extremely limiting. A closed circle.

Just my 2 cents.

xoLaurel
http://laurelsnyder.com

Roger, but you know that I never actually want to grow up! I read a lot of "adult" books when I was really young, both classics and contemporary at the time (70s and 80s.) And then, I did decide that I really enjoyed reading Children's and YA lit more, more often, than reading "grown-up" books since, um, I don't find "grown-up issues" categorically or entirely appealing in novel or nonfiction forms. (Same way that I don't find shows like 30 Something or Sex and the City appealing... they are just whiny, and I'll tell you, whiny middle-aged men and women are much less savory than bratty children! Of course, I'm not saying good adult novels/nonfiction are all like those soap-operas! I do find popular adult fiction like The Kite Runner both well written and yet very heavy-handed in their attempts to encapsulate human experiences.)

Anyway... I don't know that we (those of us prefer reading good children's books for fun) "need to grow up," only that we need to admit: sure, we can be a bit arrested in our mental/emotional development. And at the same time, I can be proud of it. It's my life, after all, not someone else's. As I see it, as long as I am happy and not out destroying the world (which I am somewhat capable of doing, haha,) it's safe to keep me around, even as friends!

So it was YOU, Roxie, who took down Go-Krida!

And now, wreaking havoc in Second Life, mwahaha... But, seriously, I do enjoy certain non-children/YA authors and have little patience with MANY books published, supposedly for children and teens! (I still need to read Spook City, I know!)

I'm no Baby Einstein fan, but that article is pathetic! Since when is vocabulary the sole indicator of intelligence? Did the study measure the infants' spatial awareness or anything else the videos purport to improve?

Yes! I vote for the dumb parents --> TV is thought to be good for you --> dumb children theory.

That's how it looks to play out in my library, anyway. The parents who come in and demand (never request, always demand) the Baby Einstein DVDs are almost never the ones who read to their children or spend time with thier kids coloring or doing puzzles.

The parents who demand the Baby Einstein DVDs are, in my experience, much more often the ones who rush in, shout at their children, shout at the staff, grab the DVDs from the spinner rack, and rush out (grumbling that we never have enough Baby Einstein DVDs.)

The nice parents, the ones who read to their children and spend time doing puzzles with them, the ones who speak respectfully to the staff, are much more likely to take out...

Um. Okay, I don't know, but I'm going to observe and see what they're taking. (Which DVDs, I mean. I already know they're taking books galore.)

i wonder how many people will read that article and take away: "BABYS SHOULD WATCH AMERICAN IDOL"

Cheryl, that sounds like MEAN parents versus NICE parents! Which kind of goes along with the whole Baby Einstein premise, raising your child to have a competitive advantage, but being too competitive yourself to actually want to spend time with your kids.

Agreed. Or a lot of grief.

I suppose the hope is that if the kid spends enough time propped before the tube then later in life he’ll end up with a middling job at, say, a patent office. Not a guaranteed route to genius, but it's something.

Is there really no room at all for parents who read to their kids AND show them (limited) Baby Einsteins?

And play games, do Play-Doh with them, and take them to the playground (the kids, not the videos)?

Guilty as charged!
--DF

DF - I'm also guilty of using the Baby Einstein series -- Baby Mozart in particular -- along with all the other things you mention. But I never thought the videos actually were teaching my babies anything. Baby Mozart just had the awesome effect of spellbinding them for a little bit when I needed a sanity break.

Believing that sitting your infant in front of a looping video of synthesized classical music and puppets is teaching and nurturing your child is the problem, I believe. Not the use of the videos.

The Am. Acad. of Peds. says no TV before age two. That makes Baby Einstein and Teletubbies evil because under two is their core market. But isn't it a little like taking "What to Expect When You're Expecting" so seriously that you actually bake (and eat) those gawdawful sugar-free muffins? If the only way to get a shower before noon is to pop in Baby Einstein, then chat baby up the rest of the day to cover the lost vocabulary. --m

I thought that Einstein himself didn't start talking until he was four years old: this is one of those oft-cited markers of his early exceptionalism. (Maybe I made that up?) So therefore if Baby Einstein videos inhibit speech development they're just doing their job.

My question is whether the world can actually handle any more Einstein's since the theories of the original one did after all lead to such things as nuclear weapons. (As Bronowski observed, human ethical development doesn't keep pace with human scientific knowledge.)

I would much prefer Baby Buddha videos.

Or Baby Gandhi!

Baby Mother Theresa!

And then there's always Baby Baby Jesus, which sounds too much like a de-wop song.

Actually I don't believe that Einstead exactly pulled down the big bucks, and certainly the parents in question must have some sort of financial success in mind for their child. Really they want to be rearing some sort of Science Nerd who makes a lot of money right? So: Baby Bill Gates videos might be a good profit opportunity?

Baby Edison.

Jeanne, you made my day with "Baby Baby Jesus." Thanks!

It is unfortunate that the television has come to play such a negative role in our children's life. Yet I recall the words of my step-father when he referred to the television as "The Bube Tube". It should now be called "The baby-sitter". However, a television is like the baby-sitter who allows the children to water the indoor plants with a garden hose. Choosing a baby-sitter with the credentials of a Charles Manson and then blaiming the sitter for your child's bad behavior is like putting a loaded gun to your head and pulling the trigger to see if it will work. Parents need to take responsability for what their children watch and then they should watch far less of it. A child who is read to is ten times more likely to do well in school and a hundred times more likely to succeed in life.

In Greenland, when television was non-existant (less than ten years ago) people read, families had book night in, and their children thrived.

Books are the foundation of a solid education. It is up to parents to lay down the bricks.

Patrick Wellman

Enjoyed the post, love the comments. Always something to think about. And laugh!

Now just as long as we don't end up with Baby Paris Hilton.

I read the baby Jesus comment and here we are back at those Christmas books again...

I did laugh at the Baby Paris Hilton one-Too! I think she really has a kid book or two on the way. Oh, No that's Cheech Marin! (My Mistake again!)

Please no more Baby, Baby Jesus videos. Or big ones either. There are far too many of those out there already. I'm serious about that. And it's embarrassing to be a Christian and know such things actually exist.

With the profits thereof filling the pockets of rich Christians.

Aww...she's cute, Roger. What a great quote. And, she'll probably grow up to be a great editor, you know.

I've been arguing this for years! I was a bookseller for a time, and whenever someone asked for Junie B. Jones I would give a heartfelt speech and point them in the direction of Cam Jansen.

hurrah! perhaps this will create a NEW topic - time to drop the endless POTTER discussion











hurrah for a NEW TOPIC! Maybe we will be spared more of the Potter discussion - at last!








1

Two of my four kids have been exceptionally fond of Junie B. in kindergarten and first grade, and both were perfectly able to appreciate the humor in Junie B.'s grammar.

People overreact. And hearing a seven-year-old read Junie B. aloud is one of life's true joys.

Though maybe not for Roger.

Thought the article was completely ridiculous. Heaven forbid a kid actually likes a book-it might actually lead them to like reading! Great idea to get upset and steer them away from it.

I’m just going to sit back now and wait for someone to post that if “runned” is what she’s using, then “runned” must be correct. Don’t let the Man tell you how to conjugate!

Yes, Anon4. Just as I suggest in an earlier post that reviewers should take a wait-and-see attitude before publishing a review, now you've got me thinking that we should perhaps spare everything from review on the grounds that somebody might like it.

Did the current misuse of the word "literally" come from a series we all read years ago, I wonder? I heard it twice today. On a repeat episode of project runway, Nick said "Literally, my heart was in my throat." Then Al Trautwig, commentating on the Tour de France, said "The greatest dishonor is to literally have the maillot jaune ripped from your body, which is what happened to Michael Rasmussen yesterday." Actually, that's not literally what happened. He was told he wouldn't be allowed to compete in the rest of the race.

I think the two most popular series with me as a kid were the Bobsey Twins (I did learn a lot of incorrect words from their stereotypical Black maid, including "stuffocated") and Alfred Hitchcock and the Three Investigators. And now that I think of the Three Investigators books, Jupiter Jones (wasn't that his name? Wow! Amazingly similar to Junie) seems to me to be a prototype for le Carre's George Smiley. Physically unprepossessing but literally smart as a whip. But I digress...

I love the reference in the article about the woman who won't give away the books, because she doesn't want anyone else to read them. Now who's acting like a five year old?

From the article:

“But that’s O.K. I’m reading a really good book about a boy whose parents think some of his video games are inappropriate,” Mollie said. “It’s called ‘Diary of a Wimpy Kid.’ ”

My word! Is censorship the only thing parents approve of these days? My mother would let little me read the book on how babies were made for hours on end and National Geographic with pictures of naked tribeswomen because I simply needed to read. Nowadays she'd probably be arrainged for corrupting a minor or something.

Well, I think we should get rid of the first chapter of The Sound and the Fury, because it is ungrammatical.
Marian

I think, actually, if I remember something of my early childhood education classes, she's quite too old to NOT be using English "correctly" UNLESS she were living in a family around grownups and a culture where English is NOT used correctly.

That grammar thing, young children don't have to wait to be taught that. They can absorb the rules and regularities of English that they HEAR spoken very early on, and by two and three years old, they will be running words together in sentences with correct grammar usage, depending on the individual child, his/her abilities, and his/her environemnt.

So, my opinion is that, when I read the Junie books, this is a little girl who is DELIBERATELY misusing the language in the never ending struggle to self actualize as an individual that we all go through as human beings that get normally socialized.

Of course, as a copy editor nyself and having to spend large volumes of my adult life in untangling adult grammar of well-educated folks who ought to have gotten through graduate school knowing better (I do not possess such a thing myself, sigh...) just to earn my bread, the bad grammar in Junie irritates me. Quite a bit. It's rather like eating red hot pepper curry to read the books. You enjoy it, but oh! The brief fierce sting at first!

However, I find nothing startling in her other behavior either nor anything shocking in that she would use this bad grammar deliberately to get attention, distinguish herself as an individual, test rules and boundaries out as a five-year-old. She's just going through a phase, to me, and believe me, folks, I have been through the mill with other folks' two, three, and five year olds! In class and out! I like young children and have done a lot of caretaking of them in my time. And there is huge variety in their personalities.

The stuff Junie does pales besides the stuff I've seen real-life children do at that age!

I've had three-year-olds in class for example that could swear more expertly and longer than anyone on this blog...of course, they then expertly and quickly taught the other children in class to do the same...the parents got really ruffled up and all upset...what's a poor teacher to do in a situation like that? She can hardly put a gag on the little rascals who are more than smart enought to figure out that they can sit in a chair and make teacher wring her hands and pull her hair...

So, in comparision to real-life experiences, Junie's misbehaviors and misused grammar lapses seem awfully mild.

BTW! I DO NOT ON PRINCIPLE COPY EDIT MY COMMENTS ON ROGER'S BLOG!! I need some place to relax and stay a bit sane.....from a hard day's work.

It's like dressing up. I can do it when it's necessary and really do it well...but who would wnat to when one can run around in old sloppies and have fun instead...

“Sure, maybe Junie B. isn’t everyone’s cup of tea. But when she does things wrong or says things incorrectly, it provides an opportunity to talk about how things should be.”

This is the quote from the article I most agree with. I really enjoy the books, and I really appreciate Junie's bad grammar because, from a read-a-loud perspective, it helps me find a great and distinctive voice for Junie, and there's nothing my students (who do read things other than Harry Potter, I sweaar!) enjoy more than that.

They're all at least 7, and so old enough to know Junie's grammar (and behavior) is something to laugh at, not emulate, but I think they all remember the days before they knew grammar and just had to make it up for themselves and like seeing Junie doing the same.

And I do a GREAT Junie voice, so I am all in favor of them.

Elizabeth -
WOW! Flashback. I hadn't so much as had a passign thought of the Three Investigators until I read it in your post and all those book covers flashed immediately in my mind, taking me back to the Dedham Public Library (the old Oakdale branch). Thanks! I wonder whatever happened to my copies of those books....maybe my older brother stole them.

On the subject of irregular verbs: Yesterday my four-year-old said she "puck" a flower.

I just had to say that.

But Cassandra inadvertently points out my problem with the series. Readers are supposed to recognize that Junie's grammar is incorrect; that's why it's funny. That's a variant on the aren't-kids-cute kind of humor that already plagues children's books. We hate it when picture books make jokes for adults at the characters' expense; how is this different?

It's different because (unlike the vast majority of children's books, where kids prefer to read about characters who are at least their age, or older) the series is aimed at children a year or two older than Junie. They enjoy the humor for the same reason adults do--because they are older and know better.

That's right, and it's always easier to laugh at one's inferiors than it is at oneself. To laugh at somebody who doesn't know any better always has a streak of sadism.

I haven't thought about Jupiter Jones and the Three Investigators in a very long time (literally, heh). Wow. Now I'm going to have to try to find one or two.

Most kids who, at ages three & four, were speaking "correct" English, conjugating properly etc., still go through a phase of grammatical confusion around ages five & six. They become conscious of the rules of language & over-apply those rules to new and even familiar words.

Younger and same age kids also enjoy Junie B. because of the situations represented. The bad grammar may make it funny or irritating (or both) to the adults reading the books, but the younger kids seem to respond to the predicaments the character creates.

I stopped reading the series because the adults are uniformly mean and nagging. Probably that's what makes it enjoyable from a kid's pov!

Oh, honestly, are you really calling all of the kids who love to read the Junie books sadists? Please. They aren't laughing to be cruel. They are laughing because they can relate.
Marian

a welcome change from the endless Potteristics! but seriously, folks, don't you recognize that this is simply what a childless adult thinks a cute little kid sounds like? the author would do the same sort of thing with a black or asian character. if kids enjoy being patronized LET THEM READ THE BOOKS. (in other words, GROW UP !)

I think kids laugh at Junie B. in the same way adults laughed at Lucille Ball. Is that sadistic?

Roger, do you think AMELIA BEDELIA is sadistic? CURIOUS GEORGE? Or any of the other umpteen well-loved books in which small children have the rare opportunity to laugh at someone who doesn't know as much as they do?

Anon, do you know anything at all about Barbara Park and her books? Or are you just mouthing off?

there is a cutesy style that would-be professional chilit writers adopt - any reader of unsoliciteds can spot it - and many successful professionals have it, too. has nothing to do with age,sex, or number of offspring

Just to add, after thinking about Roger's comments, I do think the Junie books are not all they could potentially be mainly, not because of the bad grammar which in and of itself is mildly irritating/maybe pleasurable, but because Junie does not always experience consequences for her behavior that are serious enough to make her grow as a character, and that element, in the Ramona books, I do appreciate. Ramona can be awful, but she does change, does grow. She's a real person, not cutsy-cutsy all the time, and the cutsy-cutsy part, I do find annoysome (ha! new word there)with Junie B.

I am not sure that the character, series, books are sadistic, strictly speaking, but I do think the writing genius of Cleary is very evident to me in contrast. She has done both, made an enduring series with a very popular character that younger children like to read about who is both funny and who also grows! Like children are supposed to do.

The writer of Junie is a clever, talented writer, but she is not at all on Cleary's level.

I think laughing at someone for being stupider than oneself does have some cruelty in it, yes. (There's a lot of sadism in I Love Lucy.) Humor is generally at the expense of someone, and that doesn't in itself offend me. What I don't like about Junie B. is the way it's packaged as cuteness. I'm reminded of the discussion re "feisty" we had a while back--Junie's sauciness and her cute way with words are meant to be adorable and thus completely lacking in any real power. Unlike Ramona, she is not a creature to be reckoned with.

Can we discuss Harry Potter again?
Pwetty pwease wif sugar on top?

Cock-a-doodie friggin no!--Annie Wilkes, hitting Anonymous in the knee with a two-by-four.

I think the new Ramona is not Junie B., but Clementine (who is also amusing without meaning to be).

Rebuttal?

Disagree where I Love Lucy is concerned! The gal always came out on top (in her own way) in the end, and there lies the difference.

Yes, I will take up your rebuttal, nw.

I found Clementine to be full of the cutsey-ness factor. For my taste, there was far too much winking at readers over Clementine's head. In almost every instance, the humor came from Clementine's own lack of understanding, and a more mature reader's ability to decipher the true dynamics of her situation.

In response to an earlier commenter: I would say that Amelia Bedilia is a very different case, because the character in question is an adult. It's the child reader who has the satisfaction of understanding what the adult does not... in that case I don't think it's sadistic; it's subversive.

Just to add to the above: I suppose it would be nicer, too, if AB weren't a housekeeper...

But Roger, you're much older than nine! :)

Reading Junie B. wears me out in the same way that talking to a hyper 5-year-old for that long wears me out.

But the kids like her. Boys will read her without blinking. Teenagers sneak back into the children's section and check out bunches of them for "um, my, um, my, ummmmmmmmmmmmmm, cousin! Yeah! They're for my cousin!"

But, there's a difference between not liking a book and reviewing it badly, and not letting your children read it. A *huge* difference. I read a lot of stuff my mother did not approve of (mainly, the collected works of Christopher Pike) but she let me read them. Thank goodness for that.

I agree with Jenni-I think the article said there were over 40 million copies of the books in print-Junie might annoy some parents (obviously), but that's stil a huge number of kids reading them and loving them. To me, that's a miraculous thing-any books that get kids (esp. reluctant readers as Junie often does ) engaged and excited about reading deserves applause, b/c that book-Junie or Amelia Bedelia or even an Archie comic just might change that child's life and turn him/her into a reader. Getting angry b/c the main child doesn't use perfect English, seems incredibly petty and is missing the point.

Okay, I don't mean to single out Anonymous here, but can someone just explain to me, once and for all, the logic behind this argument about reading? I've never gotten it. Why does the act of reading justify that which is read? Why does the fact that someone (only a young someone?) is *reading* forgive-- and even defer criticism of-- a book's flaws? Don't we care about reading, at least partly, because of content... or is reading itself a sacred thing, separate from the text?

(Or, is this argument founded in a developmental approach... i.e. the young reader will develop a love of reading so as to move on to other, better books?)

I don't mean these questions at all facetiously... I really am curious.

I don't get it either, Ruth. Harry Potter aside, our bestseller lists are currently dominated by James Patterson, who I think is a terrible writer. Lazy, too. People may agree or not with me on that point, but they don't get all huffy that I've insulted public taste. When it comes to kids' books, though . . . .

Anon here-my argument is based on the development approach-ideally finding a book that they love/that's not 'work' assigned by an adult but just pure fun, has the potential to open a door for that child and lead them to a future of more and perhaps better books. It's based on growing up with kids who didn't love reading and who always thought of books as school work, things they had to read for school and hated. Those kids always made me so sad, and I blame it partly on the books they were reading. There parents weren't giving them books, so it was up to the teachers. In hs I remember reading Billy Bud, which I'm sorry to say I hated. I'm an avid reader, so that didn't turn me off reading. But no wonder a lot of the kids I grew up with didn't get the reading bug-they couldn't relate to Billy Bud and it definitely didn't make reading feel like a fun, appealing pleasure time option. And I really do think that's key-if you find a book that makes reading fun-whether it's Junie or James Patterson-that can change your whole life. There's something magical about that. Maybe it's a socio-economic thing. I see where you all are coming from and respect that viewpoint, but I stand behind my belief that anything that gets a kid reading is a wonderful thing.

Whoops, and yes that should be 'Their' not 'There', I'm a terrible copyeditor (or perhaps have read too many Junies.)