Upcoming PMLA article

Look for Maurice Sendak: A Tribute essays in the PMLA journal January 2014.  There's a note about the  collection in the Oct. 2013 PMLA.  I'm excited about seeing the tribute as I conceived this idea and helped to select the people to write the essays.  I have an essay as well as George Bodmer, John Cech, Derick Dreher, U.C. Knoepflmacher, Phil Nel, Amy Sonheim and Maria Tatar. PMLA is a publication of the Modern Language Association.

Sendak was important to how we think about and look at children's literature.  He brought a more challenging concept to childhood, while dismissing children as precious and idealized.  While he was forward thinking and progressive, he was also rooted and deeply influenced by illustrators and aritists.  It was no coincidence that he kept a photograph by Lewis Carroll next to his drawing table.

Looking forward to see all the essays together in January.

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

Much Ado About Alice: Thoughts on the new Wonderland

Unless you’ve been living in a rabbit hole, you’re probably aware that Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland promotion poster for Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderlandopened up this weekend.  Its first day ticket sales were more successful than Avatar’s first day. But just because a lot of people go to see a film, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a great film.

There is an inverse relationship between Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland and Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland: the more you like the Alice books, the more you are probably going to dislike Burton’s film.  Obviously, I like the Alice books.  That’s not to say films are always inferior to the books on which they’re based.  For example, Victor Fleming’s Wizard of Oz film is more effective than L. Frank Baum’s Wonderful Wizard of Oz original novel.

This is not a film version of the Alice books.  Instead, key characters from the Alice books appear in the film.  It’s a bit like Gavin Miller’s Dreamchild in that an older Alice revists Wonderland.  In Dreamchild, it’s an 80-year-old Alice reflecting on the books and her friendship with Lewis Carroll.  In the new film, Alice is a fetching, independent 19-year-old contemplating a marriage proposal to a wimpy, titled young man.   Unlike Dreamchild, Lewis Carroll is absent in this film and even his usual stand-ins, the Dodo and the White Knight, don’t appear.

I think the film is misnamed and should be called Return to Wonderland.  Burton’s Wonderland relates to Carroll’s Alice books in the same way that Walter Murch’s Return to Oz relates to Baum’s Oz series.

What is surprising about this film is how much references previous films.  It is a very much a pastiche of similar films, mostly fantasy films.  Tim Burton clearly references his previous films, including Nightmare Before Christmas, Edward Scissorhands, Sweeney Todd, Corpse Bride, and Planet of the Apes. The screenwriter, Linda Woolverton has helped with Disney films such as The Lion King and Beauty and the Beast.  So, the film dips into Disney references including the opening taken directly from the Disney animated Peter Pan.  Johnny Depp’s Mad Hatter is a combination of Peter Pan, the Scarecrow from The Wizard of Oz combined with Jack Sparrow from the Pirates of the Caribbean series and the Joker from Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Night and perhaps Charlie Chaplin.

There are plenty of references to The Wizard of Oz and the Broadway musical Wicked, The Golden Compass, and The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe.  The last two films were inspired by the success of The Lord of the Rings, so that’s in here, too.  The relationship between the Red and White Queens is borrowed from Wicked.  Others have noted reference to The Princess Bride and Shrek.  The fighting Dormouse reminded me of The Tales of Despereaux.

Woolverton seems to have acknowledged problems with the script.  In fact, a running theme throughout the film is whether this is the ‘right’ Alice.  The Wonderland characters frequently ask the White Rabbit if he has brought the wrong Alice back.  Is she an imitation Alice? Has she lost her Muchness? She’s not Alice, but Almost Alice. In short, Tim Burton has directed the wrong Alice.  I sort of think he knows this because the question of an authentic Alice is an essential aspect of the film.

Alice is warned in this film not to divert herself from the path.  Alice replies, I don’t divert myself from the path, I make the path.  If you are going to re-write Alice in Wonderland, then you better be as good a writer as Lewis Carroll. 

Burton’s film is not as bad as the dreadful The Cat in the Hat by Bo Welch, which featured Mike Meyers as the Cat.  But it is not as inventive as the interpretation of Maurice Sendak’s Where the Wild Things Are by Dave Eggers and Spike Jonez.

Mia Wasikowska makes an arresting Alice.  But viewers haven’t seen so much skin in Alice since the 1976 X-rated, musical version of Alice in Wonderland.  Not only does Tim Burton feature a 20-year-old play Alice, she is constantly on the verge of having her clothes slip off.  Sometimes this film feels as if it’s a Maxim version of Alice in Wonderland.

In the beginning of the film, Alice refuses to wear a corset or stocking, which shocks her proper Victorian mother.  Once the adventure begins, Alice is running around in flimsy petticoats in a land that’s actually Underland, not Wonderland.  Alice’s clothes never quite fit; they are either too tight, too loose, too short, or slipping off completely. This is less Queen Victoria’s Alice and more of a Victoria’s Secret Alice.

Not only does Burton up the sexualization of Alice, but he increases the violence in Wonderland as well.  This film transforms a minor episode of Through the Looking-Glass involving the Jabberwocky into the climax of the film.  This has become a violent film, as so many children’s fantasy films are these days.  They all have to end with a big battle.  The original Alice books are much less violent.  When the Red Queen says “Off with her head,” the King quietly pardons them.  In this film, the King’s head is floating in the moat with the other heads that have been cut off by order of the Red Queen. This is mock execution the way children play.  It wasn’t intended to be staged execution viewed with violent lust by the Red Queen, as it is in this film.

There are a several clever additions to the Alice film.  Much is done with the Hatter’s meditation on words beginning with the letter M.  But a couple of words not mentioned in the film are a fair description of it: messy, major mashup of previous children’s movies, and mayhem.  Tweedledum and Tweedledee characters are great.  The landscapes are highly imaginative.

I felt the 3-D version seemed somewhat of a distraction to me and unnecessary.  Younger audience members seemed to like it.  Ironically, Carroll would have been fascinated with 3-D films. 

While this is certainly not my favorite Alice film, it is an interesting variation on Carroll’s characters.  But as long as it directs some folks back to Lewis Carroll’s original Alice books, it’s fine with me.

Where the Wild Things Are

ENG 372 students are reading the Maurice Sendak book as well as the adaptation story by Dave Eggers.  The film opens this Friday, Oct. 16.  I'm going to see it this weekend.  Are you?