Geez, you take your eyes off the blogs for a few days, and a big dustup involving one of the nation’s largest newspapers slips right past you. A few thoughts, many of them undoubtedly already expressed elsewhere, as I play catch-up:
- 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea? Are they serious?
- Actually, I haven’t read the Jules Verne book, so I can’t comment on how inspiring it may be for today’s children. In general, I think it’s a good idea not to criticize a creative work that you haven’t seen/read/listened to yourself.
- But get used to it, people. Never before has it been so easy to acquire a superficial awareness of so many creative works, and never before has it been so easy to disseminate ill-informed opinions about those works. We’ll be seeing lots more of this.
- At the same time, it’s never been easier to set the record straight, circulate alternate viewpoints, etc., as Paul Acampora and other thoughtful bloggers have done. Good work, folks.
- Would any editorialist who has, in fact, read Edward Bloor’s magnificent and complex Tangerine parrot the Houston Schools Library Network’s simplistic summary of that book (“12-year-old Paul’s family revolves around his football-hero brother, failing to notice as Paul fights for his right to play soccer when disqualified for his bad eyes”)?
- Still, consider the source: As a news organization, the Wall Street Journal is excellent, but its editorial pages are much better known for turning out enough Whitewater editorials to fill more than 3,000 pages in a six-volume set than for providing valuable, thoughtful criticism of contemporary children’s literature. As we’ll be seeing more of these slapdash takedowns of children’s books (see above), those of us in the kidlitosphere would do well to pace ourselves, pick our battles, etc.
- Why was that WSJ intern trusted to write an editorial about a topic he was obviously unfamiliar with? I’m reminded of Michael Kinsley’s long-ago description of Al Gore as “an old person’s idea of a young person.” They must have just assumed, because of his age, that he knew what he was talking about.
- From personal experience, I can tell you that it’s quite possible to score a college internship with a major daily newspaper without being all that well developed as a thinker. We all make mistakes, and there’s hope for him yet.
- His editor(s)? Well, that’s another story. But perhaps I’ve been spoiled by the rigorous, serious-minded editing that goes into so many children’s books — even if they aren’t classics.
I have to say the Ellen Fader’s comment about adults’ intervention in how children are exposed to books and what books they are exposed to is truer than she has perhaps recogiized.
My husband still raves about Les Miserables. His sixth-grade, mind you his sixth-grade teacher, read, READ out loud, that book to her class for an entire year. Kept the class spell-bound. He’s never forgotten the book, the story–or her.
I just watched an eleventh-grade watch the Romeo and Juliet movie version, the one with Claire Danes as Juliet, but it has the original Shakespearan language; she was sobbing by the end of the movie. The langguage was no barrier at all. What odds that she’s goign to go and seek that story out in book form sometime soon–and cry over that one as well, as girls her age have done now for centuries….?
T
I have to say the Ellen Fader’s comment about adults’ intervention in how children are exposed to books and what books they are exposed to is truer than she has perhaps recogiized.
My husband still raves about Les Miserables. His sixth-grade, mind you his sixth-grade teacher, read, READ out loud, that book to her class for an entire year. Kept the class spell-bound. He’s never forgotten the book, the story–or her.
I just watched an eleventh-grade watch the Romeo and Juliet movie version, the one with Claire Danes as Juliet, but it has the original Shakespearan language; she was sobbing by the end of the movie. The langguage was no barrier at all. What odds that she’s goign to go and seek that story out in book form sometime soon–and cry over that one as well, as girls her age have done now for centuries….?
T
I have to say the Ellen Fader’s comment about adults’ intervention in how children are exposed to books and what books they are exposed to is truer than she has perhaps recogiized.
My husband still raves about Les Miserables. His sixth-grade, mind you his sixth-grade teacher, read, READ out loud, that book to her class for an entire year. Kept the class spell-bound. He’s never forgotten the book, the story–or her.
I just watched an eleventh-grade watch the Romeo and Juliet movie version, the one with Claire Danes as Juliet, but it has the original Shakespearan language; she was sobbing by the end of the movie. The langguage was no barrier at all. What odds that she’s goign to go and seek that story out in book form sometime soon–and cry over that one as well, as girls her age have done now for centuries….?
T
It was obvious from reading the WSJ editorial that it was someone who did not know these books. Still, I was shocked that the someone was an intern; and that the intern (and hence his/her editor) thought it was appropriate to start with a bias and support the bias despite contrary evidence. Actually, he took the further step of twisting the evidence — by quoting someone out of context, misusing quotes, and not reading the source material (the books themselves.)
While we here in the blogosphere are discussing this (and as Paul did, investigating this) I cannot help but think that the intern is enjoying a succesful internship, with everyone saying how wonderful he/she is, and no one taking this to be a teaching moment — that they either don’t know or don’t care. Or worse, think it’s OK.
It was obvious from reading the WSJ editorial that it was someone who did not know these books. Still, I was shocked that the someone was an intern; and that the intern (and hence his/her editor) thought it was appropriate to start with a bias and support the bias despite contrary evidence. Actually, he took the further step of twisting the evidence — by quoting someone out of context, misusing quotes, and not reading the source material (the books themselves.)
While we here in the blogosphere are discussing this (and as Paul did, investigating this) I cannot help but think that the intern is enjoying a succesful internship, with everyone saying how wonderful he/she is, and no one taking this to be a teaching moment — that they either don’t know or don’t care. Or worse, think it’s OK.
It was obvious from reading the WSJ editorial that it was someone who did not know these books. Still, I was shocked that the someone was an intern; and that the intern (and hence his/her editor) thought it was appropriate to start with a bias and support the bias despite contrary evidence. Actually, he took the further step of twisting the evidence — by quoting someone out of context, misusing quotes, and not reading the source material (the books themselves.)
While we here in the blogosphere are discussing this (and as Paul did, investigating this) I cannot help but think that the intern is enjoying a succesful internship, with everyone saying how wonderful he/she is, and no one taking this to be a teaching moment — that they either don’t know or don’t care. Or worse, think it’s OK.