What I researched and why:
From our last conversation in class on Tuesday regarding "17 Things..." I was interested in all of the different interpretations people had about the book. Some thought it was an entertaining book about the creativity of kids, while others thought it would not be good for children because the main character does not get punished for the "naughty" or rather, mischevious things she does. I found myself struggling between these two ideas and wanted to research some more reviews of the book and see how adult and child readers are interpreting this book. I think it is important to consider that adults are more likely to see this book as upsetting due to the lack of discipline, where children may find it simply amusing and entertaining. This is an intersting book because it definetly lends itself to debate and contraversy.
What I found/My Interpretation:
Since "17 Things" is a fairly recent book, there isn't too much to research other than reviews, however I found an interesting blog website called BookMoot. http://www.bookmoot.com/2007/05/17-things-im-not-allowed-to-do-anymore.html#c3762051705062692380.
The blog looks at many varied authors, illustrators, and especially focuses on children's literature. Of all the comments, the most interesting one in my opinion, came from "Proud Dad" and claims to be the author's (Jenny Offill) father. He states, "Glad to see such positve responses to "17 Things.." Jenny Offill is my daughter and the vast majority of the reviews/responses have been very positive. I have found it rather interesting that a small minority of folks have been outraged that the girl "does not see the error of her ways," does not apologize to the adults (who of course know everything!) and is not properly contrite at the end." My interpretation of this quote is that the main character is not meant to apologetic and is a symbol of the innocence, creativity, and spunk that childhood brings. We as adults reading this book, can't help but find her mischevious behavior funny and we laugh at her wit and perhaps even admire her bravery, creations, and audacity. However, we struggle with this because we also can't help but notice that she is not severly punished for her misbehaviors. This is disturbing to us because it seems as though she should be somewhat disciplined so she can learn consequences. We are torn between celebrating her debatable creativity and wanting to punish her for doing the bad things she does. Offill's father's statement leads me to believe that he feels the book is really a celebration of a girl's precosiousness and it is acceptable for her lack of remorse. He makes is seem as though it is inevitable that she "does not see the error of her ways" and isn't apologetic. Also, I sense his sarcasm when he paranthetically states that adults, of course, know everything. I feel like he wants adults to interpret this book as a child who is using her raw talent and wit in ways that could be considered bad to adults, but is beneficial to the child as it is her form of expression.
What this adds to our discussions:
Our discussion about the celebration of childhood creativity versus inappropriateness is still interesting to me and I feel like what I found directly speaks to our conversation. It is clear to me why a child reading this book could relate to it and adults may relate as well or feel the opposite and want to punish the girl. One of the bloggers from the website poses the question, "would we want to read about a child who is perfectly behaved, always makes perfect choices and lives an ordinary life?" This would be boring to children and they would less likely relate to it. A huge function of books is for the readers to relate to the characters and the story. This has been a repeating theme in our class as we have discussed in great detail the kinds of readers that relate to the books we've read. I feel that part of the reason this book was created was for adults to take a step back and instead of punishing or limited children, they should find the uniqueness, innocence and pure magic of childhood...even if it is a bit naughty at times, after all, they are kids.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I said in class on Tuesday that I thought this book was different than the others we have read in this class so far because it is not intended (as far as I can tell) to be didactic, it is simply representative, or reactive to the way children are. I have personally been back and forth on how I feel about this book, and have come to the conclusion that I like it. I'm not a fan of the prose style, but I love the pictures and above all I think it provides insight to a child's mind of the sort we haven't seen yet. What I mean by this is that discipline is a way of showing that something is wrong, and a child learns to avoid a certain action for fear of further discipline, it is not until later in life, I imagine, that the true morality of the action is understood. In the same respect praise teaches what is right by providing a desired response to an action regardless of the fundamental morality that action represents. The final page of 17 things shows us this insight into the mind of the child, perhaps she doesn't even know that lieing is wrong (though her smirk would indicate otherwise), but she knows that it was rewarded with a hug, and is therefore OK.
I have enjoyed the different opinions mentioned in class regarding "17 Things". I find myself challenged in what I originally viewed this books as, which is always a good thing. I do agree with you though, ultimately I feel like it is simply the magic and creativity of a child at work. Sure, children need a guiding hand and discipline for certain actions made, but I think this book is no threat to children.
I also liked how you added the quote form the authors father. I never really thought about the connection between the authors perspective, and her writing, and her own experience as a child with her children. Sounds like he wasn't a severally strict dad. I actually am curious about this, I'm wondering how her relationship with her parents is portrayed through her book.
You bring up a very interesting point, Danielle, about how her relationship with her parents could be portrayed in this book. I can't help immediately thinking that like all the other texts we have read, this book also has no father figure. However, this trend will finally come to an end when we view "Mean Girls" in a few weeks.
Anyway, if Offill's father wasn't very strict, I'm intriqued to see why there is a mother figure. After all, our "main character" receives hardly any, if not at all, punishment, so couldn't that be linked to her not so strict father?
So why is there a mother? Was Offill's mother even less strict? Or, was she such a disciplinarian, that Offill wanted her "17 Things" mother figure to be an exact opposite, and be viewed as completely ineffective in terms of disciplining? Was this Offill's way of coping with strict discipline during her childhood?
I think it is appropriate that the author's father praise his daughter for her work. I do not see the book as not punishing the girl for her behavior. In school she is made to write sentences, the traffic cop takes her home, and her mother sends her to her room. These punishments seem pretty much like how I was scolded as a child (although I was never brought home by a traffic cop, if I had gotten in trouble my parents would have been notified like hers were). So I disagree that the girl is not disiplined. Also I think this book speaks to adults telling adults that there is creativity coming out of naughtyness. This girl is very creative and tries to get around things like her George Washington report by doing one on beavers. I think this encourages parents to see creativity in their childrens actions even though they may seem naughty. As to the child reader, I think he can see that the girl is not behaving how she should be. A child knows that he is not to do these things and it is silly to think about but he determines what is right and wrong not the book. I work with four year olds and they know what is right and wrong, they know they shouldn't be throwing food at their little brother. Im sure it would be fun for all of us to fling veggies at our siblings but despite the author/illustrator showing this picture I do not believe anyone will think it is the right thing to do just because it is shown in the book.
I think parents who are reacting to the book negatively need to really ask themselves what their worried about. In some cases, it may be that they don't want to deal with their children acting that way. They want their child to be well behaved because a well behaved child is easy to deal with. If this is the case, then there really is no real moral dilemma at the root of their objections. I think parents should stop and examine how deeply thier concerns are rooted in morals before they condemn this book.
I think that the parents who are reacting poorly to this book may be the parents who punish their children for many small things. These parents may be afraid that their children would read this book and think that their parents overreact. Children do misbehave. It is a part of childhood to explore the boundaries and test the limits. If children did not do this, they would grow up and be afraid to take risks.
I do not think that this book poses any major threat to children. I think it is a funny, childlike book that children would laugh at. I do not, necessarily, think that children would decide to do the things that she does and think that they would not get in trouble for them. I do think that the little girl is punished for her wrong-doings in this book, yet she does not really learn from them. Instead of looking at this as a negative influence on children, parents should look at it as a learning tool. Children have every oppurtunity to learn from this book. Parents could show their children that this is not the proper way to act and that the little girl will continue to be punished if she does not learn from her mistakes. I think that parents need to take the book for what it is. Children may learn a thing or two from it, but the ultimate learning tool should be the parents. Parents hold a lot of cards in the way their children grow up. They have every oppurtunity to help their children make the right decisions. A book should not determine a child's fate.
I believe the reactions to the book are natural. Yes some will not enjoy the book because this and that, and others will like it for various reasons, but to look at it critically it portrays children as they are, in my opinion. All children are wild and crazy in their youth, they will disobey parents, not apologize for things, and continue to do things they know they can't/shouldn't because...well thats what children do. As they grow older if this trend continues it will become a problem, but as children all of the girl's actions in the book are normal. Yes she should apologize for all the bad things, and yes at the end she gives her mother a sarcastic hug with the devilish smirk on her face and mischief in her hand, but thats what children do. You can tell a child a million times not to throw rocks, they will continue to do so and sometimes they will as adults as well. I think that some of these posts are a little over the top, but thats what the internet is for. I thinkt he book accurately portrays children as they are today and is a good tool for us to analyze in this class because of its modern approach to naughtiness that we can see apparent in todays world.
I can understand why some parents would be upset by the ending of "17 Things". The girl isn't really sorry for all of the naughty things she's done. But if parents were upset by the ending they could still read it to their child and explain to their child that you shouldn't lie about certain things. I feel that children would really enjoy this book because of the illustrations and the humor in it.
Post a Comment