Monday, October 15, 2007

"The Nakie Book", otherwise known as In the Night Kitchen

What I researched and why:

Maurice Sendak has gained a certain amount of acclaim in the theatrical world over the years. He is a set designer as well as a children's book writer, and he recently published an opera in conjunction with Tony Kushner (aclaimed writer of Angels in America) titled Brunidbar. Along with these successes he has published several more children's book, one of noteable mention is In the Night Kitchen. My first experience with In the Night Kitchen did not come through direct research of Sendak, but from when I was teaching preschool two years ago; it was a book that had found its way onto the shelf in my classroom. But the funniest thing about In the Night Kitchen was that it was notoriously known among my three to five year-old students as "The Nakie Book." Why was this? Because on the third page, Mickey, the main character of the book, gets naked in the picture and his genitals are very well illustrated. The interesting thing that I remember in retrospect, is that the part about Mickey getting naked was a very integral part to the children's narrative of the story. I remember watching a five year-old student give a pictoral reading of "The Nakie Book" to a three year-old. His retelling of it went something like, "...And then the boy wakes up, and then he gets naked, and then he floats through the window...". Mickey taking his clothing off is lightly mentioned in the textual narrative as, "...And fell through the dark, out of his clothes...". Why was this part about Mickey taking his clothing off such an important and definitive part of the story to the children? Did they just find it funny that they could see his "wee-wee"? Did it somehow represent some sort of control or comfort with their own bodies?

What I found:

I found it interesting in class that we discussed how Sendak uses his books to help children cope with nightmares, because this book was set directly within the child's dream world. Because of Mickey's nakedness and Sendak's reactionary history with Where the Wild Things Are, I was sure that this other book was received with much controversy. I found a link on the internet that describes some librarians approaches to dealing with Mickey's nakedness. Some magic marker shorts onto his body. Some scotch taped white diapers onto him. The article even discussed some freudian interpretations of the book suggesting that the giant white bottle of milk Mickey takes a swim in is a phallic symbol, and thus, a story about masturbation. I checked out In the Night Kitchen from the library yesterday and will be sure to bring it to class to pass around. Attached is also a link to the discussion I found about the book's controversial reception and successes. The sixth and seventh paragraphs concern information about In the Night Kitchen specifically, but the rest of the essay is very interesting as well.

http://www.nndb.com/people/275/000023206/

My Interpretation:

I personally, did not suffer any anxiety about the content of Sendak's book when it was being passed among my students during reading time. I actually found it quite funny how they were all so amused with it. As I saw it, the children didn't really know any different about their bodies, we as the teachers were just trying to teach them simple things, like to flush the toilets and wash their hands, etc. That's all I really feel it is with socializing children about their bodies, I don't believe they have any serious sexual understandings at so young an age. I found the interpretation for the story about masturbation to be just an absurd theory. When Mickey gets thrown into the batter he makes himself a snow-suit out of dough, so he isn't naked for the entire book. And all children drink milk while growing up, I didn't see why the bottle of milk had to have denotations concerning bodily fluids. Mickey dresses himself in the batter half-way through the dream, and I believe this represents him having a certain comfort in his dreams. I'm really excited for the class to get a look at the story tomorrow, it's a great book.

What this contributes to our Discussion:

A further example of Sendak's unique and original approach to story-telling through children's literature. The book helps children cope with nightmares such as those similar to hansel-and-gretel images of being baked in an oven, and having control over one's own dreams (like when Mickey builds a plane out of dough and flies away in it). This is comparable to Max having the ability to tame the Wild Things. Some images that adults would expect to be frightening or unsettling to children has delighted them instead.

4 comments:

erica s said...

I find it quite funny that the milk is associated with masturbation. Honestly, when reading this story I would have never thought of this comparison. It actually quite off of the wall. I feel that even if the character was diving into something such as water or orange juice a critic would find some way to relate it to sex. In my opinion, the author is just trying to use a substance that they children are able to understand and relate to, and milke just happens to go into cake.

Mark V. said...

That's a shame that librarians would deface Sendak's book like that. In fact, by doing so, they actually contradict it.

If Mickey "falls through the darkness and out of his clothes", then how can he still be wearing shorts? The text says he fell out of *all* his clothes!

I wonder if a child would notice the contradiction?

Brian said...

There's nothing wrong with a book like this. It shows, in a dream like manner, that nakedness is not a shameful thing. The boy dresses up in a dough suit, it serves its purpose to keep him secure during his romp through the kitchen, then at the end it is disolved off his body, leaving him liberated and free to return to his body to wake up.
To censor a book like this would be like teaching a child only half of the alphabet.

astralsled said...

I believe I read somewhere that Sendak's only consideration when making the child be naked is that he "didn't want him to get his clothes messy." I think that, in the past, parents/teachers/librarians reacted violently to this image because it was "immoral" or "inappropriate", and that modern concerns probably relate to the paranoia over pedophiles, and so people tend to see children in a much more sexualized context, even if it is only fear over others sexualizing them. Personally, I think this is an over-reaction, and the children you spoke of in your post are probably picking up the signals sent by adults, and hence focus so much on Mickey being "nakie." If children (and adults) were taught more healthy, less shameful attitudes towards their own bodies, books like this would not be controversial.