Pictures and children, a thoughtful is rambling blog. REVISED.

So, continuing the rereading cycle, I have moved on to The Edge Chronicles, a great series set in an elaborately detailed fantasy world. No magic is involved, but the place is magical for readers, and the authors seem to be able to write story after story about the fascinating place they created. It is done by two authors. The writing is good, with gripping plot lines, and good description. But the pictures are the great. The pen sketches are about one per two pages, and really add to the book, and help create the world. But every time I flip through the pictures, I feel a little juvenile because after all, pictures are for little kids, right? And who wants to be associated with kids? Just because children are younger than adults, doesn’t mean they have to be treated unfairly. And things that children like don’t have to have bad preconception attached to them.

Take what we’re reading now in ELA, Romeo and Juliet. They (particularly the latter) are forced to do things they don’t want to because they are young. Juliet is forced to marry someone and when she refuses her father says. “Out you greensickness carrion! out, you baggage!” [sic]. In Romeo’s case his love for Juliet is quickly dismissed by the friar. While this may be because he was obsessing over someone else just the other day, I believe in part it is because of the youth of Romeo.

And then when you reach an age around 12 or 13, everything that is “childish” is suddenly branded as evil. Children’s toys, clothes, books and other items become considered a social taboo.

What I don’t think people realize is that the fact that kids and “their” things are preconceived as silly is such a bad thing. Take my original example. Pictures can actually enhance a book. The vivid illustrations in “Black Ships before Troy” make reading the entire book a great experience, and actually encouraged me to read the real “Iliad”. Younger folk have real opinions and real thoughts and they, and their pictures, shouldn’t be 
dismissed without a second thought. 


Old post: http://ridingapancaketoschool.blogspot.com/2011/03/pictures.html

Grandpa Grumble shows us an odd moral.

 So I’m on a tear through the Moomin series. The first couple are light hearted and fun, but as you get deeper into the series the books take a darker, more meaningful turn.  I read Moominvalley in November which is about several characters that are not wacky or zany but kind of odd, and unsociable with problems in their life. They go to the Moomin house because they have vague recollections of the Moomins being perfect. However when they arrive no one is there. They have to live with each other through the dreary autumn. The book takes twists and turns and is quite thought provoking.  One of the characters (Grandpa Grumble) is living in a dream world and is angry when people point out reality. This made me think, is it sometimes okay to be ignorant?

Long ago I dismissed the “Ignorance is bliss” concept. But it seems that Grandpa Grumble, a hundred plus old man actually benefits from forgetting things and living his own reality. He has fun, enjoys his life and views it through his own eyes. To everyone else in the book the body of water in the valley is a river. To him it is a brook. To everyone else “Ancestor” is Grandpa Grumble looking in a mirror. To Grumble “Ancestor” is his best friend. When someone described the river as a river Grumble got very upset. But soon he willed himself to forget all about it.

Obviously there are drawbacks to this. If all of society wandered around calling rivers brooks nothing would ever get done. But to me, Grumbles attitude was almost refreshing. He does what he likes, he remembers what he likes (Maybe this comes with old age). I think the world would be a better (or more interesting for sure) place if people had a bit of fillyjonk (super organized) but also a touch of Grumble, carefree and happy about it.

Coping with grief.

I am reading a book called Case Histories which is a complex mystery novel, centering on dysfunctional families. The main character, Jackson, is a detective who works privately dealing with missing cats and suspicious spouses. But as his cases start piling up, things get more and more serious. One of the new cases he has is investigating a ten year old murder of a young intern. Her father, Theo, seems to be obsessed with her, gathering all the news paper articles and pinning them up. Jackson is constantly saying that he needs to move on, and that he can’t let go. But then his co-worker says “Why would he let go?”

That was very interesting to me. If you think about it about, why would he say a final goodbye do his daughter. He seems to be very content going through rituals that honor her memory and sit4ting in her favorite places, etc. This might be creepy, but obviously he had a strong connection to her and misses her a lot. This is his way of coping with loss. Other people look at it and judge him.

On the flip side it is true he doesn’t seem to be getting on with his life. And by getting on I mean; Meeting new people, making new friends, going for new experiences. He wallows in the past, finding no consolation for his grief. And what does it do for him? Nothing really.

Coping with grief is something a lot of people have trouble with. But to each his own, no one should judge Theo for living in the past, even if it might not be the best thing for him. 

Pictures?!

So, continuing the rereading cycle, I have moved on to The Edge Chronicles, a great series set in an elaborately detailed fantasy world. No magic is involved, but the place is magical for readers, and the authors seem to be able to write story after story about the fascinating place they created. It is done by two authors. The writing is good, with gripping plot lines, and good description. But the pictures are the great. The pen sketches are about one per two pages, and really add to the book, and help create the world. But every time I flip through the pictures, I feel a little juvenile because after all, pictures are for little kids, right?

Every single book for children seems to have pictures, and likewise most adult books are only text. Big, long chunks of text. I believe that The Edge Chronicles show us that all books should be allowed to have pictures (Did you think that sentence was juvenile? You’re prejudiced against picture books). Intricate drawings really can’t harm a book, only add to it. While I agree that huge water colors every page aren’t necessary, I don’t see why some nice sketches are almost banned from adult books.

People hold preconceptions about things that are “for kids”. They automatically label them as stupid and childish. Yet some things (like pictures in books) are actually helpful, as the Edge Chronicles show. The books would truly suffer without the illustrations. 

Really long. Sprawling.

                So recently (just today actually) I reread one of my favorite books “Fly by night” by Frances Hardinge. This robust tale is filled with mystery, adventure, intrigue (lots of it!), comedy and tragedy. One might say, “That’s a lot to stuff in a book.” yet the author still manages to get across several extremely thought provoking morals. In the book Mosca Mye is forced to leave her mean uncle and aunt and become a fugitive, with her pet goose.  She meets a down on his luck, shifty, crafty, poet named Clent and the two strike up an uneasy relationship. They travel to a city with an unstable duke, warring guilds, and a dark secret.  

                One of the major themes of the book is the freedom of press. Masca’s father was a major supporter of freedom of press, but after a religious cult called “The Birdcatchers” took over by way of written propaganda and killed thousands of non believers, the people of the Relm generally agree that books should only be written by a select few.  Those select few are part of the Stationer guild, which fear other people’s books because of the power they have over the masses.

                Obviously as a firm believer of the first amendment my first reaction was one of distaste for the crushing of opinion. But as I kept reading the argument got a little more interesting, so I turned to history for good examples. In history written word has always been powerful. In the American revolution newspapers played a key role, keeping states informed about other states doings and raising public outcry. Thomas Paine’s book “Common Sense” was influential to many.  Hitler’s terrible rise to power was partially fueled by Mien Kamf, his autobiography. It played a major part in the propaganda that surrounded him. On the flip side, after his rise to power Hitler order any piece of literature by a Jewish author to be burned.  

                In modern day you see examples not with written word, but with typed word on the internet. Mubarak, the ex-president of Egypt saw how powerful this was and turned the internet off for days. So obviously the ability to write freely is an extremely powerful one, but is it too powerful? Can it convince people to do awful, awful things like the Birdcatchers did?

                I think we need to look deeper into the problem. In the end, Mosca says “If I told people what to believe, they’d stop thinking. And then they’d be even easier to lie to.” The problem is the people. There are always week minded people, who rely on others to think. If we teach people to think for themselves, words would be less dangerous, and therefore would be allowed for all to use.