Maurice Sendak, brilliant picture book creator, dies

Maurice Sendak — the acclaimed, innovative, and challenging children’s picture book illustrator and writer — Maurice Sendak signing the ""Faithful Nutcracker"" lithograph at Tyler Graphics Ltd., Bedford Village, New York, 1984. Kenneth Tyler Photographerdied Tuesday at 83 in his Connecticut home.  Sendak’s detailed knowledge of book illustration combined with his ability to create beautiful picture books that dealt with difficult subjects for children positioned him as a acclaimed traditionalist who brilliantly broke conventional boundaries of children’s literature.  He is the Randolph Caldecott of American picture books. 

[Since I have posted this, WGLT's Charlie Schlenker posted his interview of me today about Sendak.  Here's a link to that interview where I add to this blog post.]

Sendak distinctly changed children’s literature with his famous trilogy of Where The Wild Things Are (1963), In the Night Kitchen (1970), and Outside Over There (1981).  He said that these books are about the same themes —boredom, fear, frustration, jealousy — and how children manage to come to grips with the realities of their lives.  He was often confronted by adults who found his books “troubling and frightening.” He accused them of wanting to sentimentalize childhood.  Sendak understood that children want to confront their fears and work through them.

Sendak believed that children deserved well-designed, beautiful books.  At the same time, he fearlessly wrote about difficult subject matters.  While parents, critics, and librarians may not have warmed to some of the topics, Sendak’s books were best sellers precisely because the topics they addressed touched a nerve while being stunning works of art. 

Not only was Sendak a brilliant picture book creator, he was also an insightful critic.  His brilliant essays in Caldecott & Co.: Notes on Books and Pictures (1990) ought to be read by anybody interested in children’s literature and picture books.  Sendak had an appreciation and sweep of understanding of both illustration and picture books that informed his work and is evident in these valuable essays.

In 1997, I nominated Sendak to be an Honorary Fellow of the Modern Language Association.  He is the only children’s picture book author to be in the company of authors who were nominated and elected since 1959 including such writers as Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Carlos Fuentes, Toni Morrison, Tom Stoppard, Margaret Atwood, and Seamus Heaney.  While Sendak was unable to attend that year’s MLA, he was courteous and collegial in our correspondence.

Sendak said that

“a picture book is not only what most people think it is, an easy thing to read to small children with a lot of pictures in it.  For me, it is a damned difficult thing to do… very much like a complicated poetic form that requires absolute concentration and control.”

A fitting book to read upon Sendak’s death may be Higgelty Pigglety Pop! or There Must be More to Life (1967), which he later developed into an opera – one of many opera projects that he collaborated on beginning in the 1980s.  Containing some of his best illustrations, the book is about Sendak’s beloved shaggy dog Jennie, a Sealyham Terrier.The Little Bear series is great for early readers. This illustration is from A Kiss for Little Bear with illustrations by Sendak, story by Elsie Holmelund Minarik

To read more about Sendak, I would suggest John Cech’s Angels and Wild Things: The Archetypal Poetics of Maurice Sendak and Amy Sonheim’s Maurice Sendak in the Twayne United States Author Series. The Rosenbach Museum and Library in Philadelphia has Sendak's papers and always celebrates his work with stylish enthusiasm.  Worth visiting if you are in Philadelphia.

And to see perhaps one of the last interviews of Sendak, check out Stephen Colbert’s interviews with him in January 20120 (here's part 2). In this lively interview, Sendak is curmudgeonly, gracious, gregarious, spunky, liberal, gay, free-wheeling, slightly mean, and smart.  "I don't write for children.  I write and somebody says that's for children.  I didn't set out to make children happy," he says.

Yesterday,  I gave my final exam in the ENG 372: Studies of Contemporary Literature for Young People.  Sendak appeared in his illustrations and quotations.  I am sure he would have hated it, but his place in the canon of children’s literature is undeniable.

Here's a link to more materials I have compiled about Sendak, particularly in relation to the book and film Where the Wild Things Are.

Sendak's bookplate

Fairy tale films

The films Mirror, Mirror and Snow White and the Huntsman are part of a trend of re-interpreting traditional fairy tales with contemporary twists that move beyond the bouyant Disney versions. Mirror, Mirror, which opens Friday, stars Julia Roberts in a humorous retelling of Snow White.  In a significant contract, the  Huntsman version is much darker, more brooding and somewhat in the trend of Twilight and Hunger Games. Clearly, Red Riding Hood, directed by Catherine Hardwick who directed the first Twilight film, is part of this collection of films as well and Beastly with Vanessa Hudgens. Also released in March, direct to DVD, is Grimm's Snow White. When we saw Hunger Games over the weekend, we saw a previous for Snow White and the Huntsman, but not Mirror, Mirror, which opens sooner. 

As I tell my classes, every generation re-interprets fairy tales.  The wide difference in these two Snow White films suggests the malleability of this classic story.  Disney's version is primarily from the young princess's perspective, but in the two upcoming films, the older Queen has a more prominent role.  I will be interested to see Julia Rogers as the Queen, as she seems to be relishing the role and having fun.  I am not sure how evil she is in her version.  But in the film to be released in June, the older Queen is clearly evil.  Then, too, look at the title of the second film, Snow White and the Huntsman -- the focus is on the relationship between Snow White (played by Kristen Stewart) and the handsome Huntsman out to kill her (Chris Hemsworth). Charlize Theron, who some might say has a history of looking more stunning than Kristen Stewart, plays the Queen.  Theron also has played some roles of gutsy, powerful roles while Stewart seems to be majoring in mumbling, slightly awkward young women.  Hmm, the conflicts arise.

Katnis links with independent girl characters in books

The Hunger Games pulls together many threads in contemporary culture and literature -- including the appeal of the strongKatnis in The Hunger Games young woman character of Katnis. She's clearly linked to similar protagonists in earlier popular books for YA readers, such as Jo March in Little Women, Julie in Julie of the Wolves, and Pippi Longstocking.

Thanks to Monica Hesse, of The Washington Post, for interviewing me for her article "There’s room for both Katniss and Bella as heroines, but who’ll be remembered?"

There are many types of female protagonists.  Katniss is certainly a strong, independent, spunky, non-conformist girl.  This type of character has always appealed to many female readers.  Girls like to read, and watch films, about characters who break the mold, or stretch beyond their cultural construction.  Katnis is part Buffy the Vampire Slayer and part Xena: Warrior Princess.  She's also has some similarity to Lisbeth Salander, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. There's also the element of a Cinderella-style makeover, too.Katnis restyled by the Capital

But the book, and perhaps the film, raises interesting questions about how American culture deals with violence.  Do we justify violence when it's done by a strong, spunky girl who is following her own path?  Does that make it more allowable?  It's pretty clear that the book is a critique of violence as entertainment.  But can the film carry out that message as well?  It will be interesting to see how the film is able to visually portray the violence, yet at the same time critique it. Is it okay for a young woman to be intelligent, independent, and have desire to kill people?

According to Roger Ebert's review of The Hunger Games, the film has more violence than thoughtful introspection, which is unfortunate since reading about how the characters think about their predicament was what made the books so compelling. Ebert writes that "the film leapfrogs obvious questions in its path, and avoids the opportunities sci-fi provides for social criticism."

Suzanne Collins has made Katnis an interesting, but deeply flawed, character.  Perhaps that's why she's so compelling.

Anticipating Scorsese's Hugo

Trailers for Hugo suggest the film has great possibilities for being a wonderful holiday family filmHugo (Asa Butterfield) and Isabelle (Chloë Moretz) in Hugo (2011)..  When I first heard about the film, I thought it a little unusual that Martin Scorsese would be directing Hugo and filming it in 3-D.  The book is a visual treat.  It  was the first chapter book and graphic novel to receive the Caldecott Award.  Yet, the idea of turning it into a film seemed charming, but worrisome.  Chris Van Allsberg's holiday picturebook The Polar Express became rather creepy in the film version that used high tech animation that made the characters seem less like people and more like robots.  Many teachers like this book, and film, because, perhaps, it allows them to talk about the Christmas holiday in the classroom without bringing in Christianity but still bringing in the related ethics.  On the opposite end of the religious spectrum, The Golden Compass film of 2007 based on the first book in Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials series has a haunting, dark world that is not at satisfying as the way it's described in the books. 

Ben Kingsley in Hugo.So, we'll see about how Hugo does.  The early reviews from the New York Film Festival in October are positive; looks like the film appeals to adults as well as kids. Scorsese's interview with The New York Times suggests that turning the book into a film had to be appealing for him on several levels, including the opportunity to re-create George Méliès’s glass studio. Scorsese said, "We started replicating scenes from Méliès films as best we could. ...With Méliès’s films, especially the hand-colored ones, it’s like illuminated manuscripts come alive. We shot Méliès shooting his films for five or six days. It was one of the best times I’ve had shooting a picture."

I do think that this is probably going to be a film for children 8 and up and very appealing to tweens.  The complicated storyline is not one that young children may be able to easily follow.

Share on Facebook

Fairy Tales re-imagined on TV, part 2

Last Friday, we watched NBC's new Grimm, another contemporary spin-off based on fairy tales. 

At least the new NBC TV series Grimm encourages doing primary research in books.

This one is much more grisly and similar to all those Law & Order/S.V.U. type shows.  (S.V.U. always looks suspiciously like S.U.V. to me).  Obviously, this show is supposed to be creepy and scary with a contemporary sensibility.  There are overtones of Twin Peaks here as well, but very tepid echoes. The links to fairy tales did not seem as compelling or as well constructed.  The friendly neighbor turns out to be a human who can transform into a wolf, but he is able to control himself after years of working on that, kind of like a reformed alcoholic, it seems. 

The show is called Grimm because the main character is supposed to be descended from the Grimm brothers who were supposed to be able to see the real monsters.  It's a special sight that's only available to the family members.  That seems a difficult premise to accept if you think about it.  If there are lots of monsters roaming about all over the world, then why wouldn't there be lots of people who could see them as well?  Even in fantasy worlds you have to have some logic that's believable.  And that brings me to the point that Grimm is fantasy based on fairy tales.  However, fantasy and fairy tales are different as well.

  One of the problems with fantasy is that authors make up rules for how characters can act, but then have a tendency to break those rules.  To make it believable, you have to stick within those rules.  I think that was one of many reasons why Twin Peaks worked -- the rules, in a weird convoluted way, made sense and were quirky enough to be creepy even for those who are too cool to be scared.  Grimm just wants to scare people without trying too hard to do anything else.  And maybe that's all lots of viewers want now.

In the meantime, Once Upon a Time seems more interesting perhaps, but this, too, is a rather convoluted fantasy based on fairy tales.