Ghost Dancing with the Paiute

What I researched and Why?

‘“What if the ghost dance is real?” Justice asks me again and again’ (34). Even when I reached the end of this book, to me what stood out as the most important passage of the text is the dialogue between Zits and Justice about The Ghost Dance, towards the beginning of the book (pp 31-35). Intertwined with the introduction to Zits about violence and power, it serves as the precursor to Zits walking into a bank with the intention of murdering innocents. Zits tell Justice a brief history of the purpose of the Ghost Dance, in which bottom line, if the Indians did this dance long enough, the dead Indians would return and the white man would die. When Zits finally believes in the power of the Ghost Dance after his practice with the guns and the persistence of Justice’s questioning, he decides his time has come to act upon his newly-found beliefs. But what is the Ghost Dance really and why does Alexie use it in his book? I wanted to gain some historical perspective to further understand this poignant part of the text.

What I found

I wasn’t sure I’d find very much in my search, but it was quite the contrary and I found some interesting things on the topic. And thanks to the power of YouTube, I found a very interesting video, giving a brief history and importance of the Native American Ghost Dance, through the interview of Anita Collins, a member of the Paiute tribe today. The video is also accompanied by an interesting montage of pictures and spiritual music, http://youtube.com/watch?v=cI0Jfdkq4z8.

For those who don’t have the time to watch the short video, here is a little bit of what Anita says. A Paiute Indian (Nevada) named Wokova, who the others perceived as a Paiute Messiah, became one of the first individuals to spread the message of the religious Ghost Dance movement, he was also known as Grandpa Jack Wilson. This movement began at time as Anita Collins called it, “a time when looking for hope for the future” came about; The Paiute were struggling to survive and there was a lot of uncertainty about what would happen to the tribe in the future. Wokova gave them “a voice during sad times, gave them strength.” Within the preaching of Wokova, came a message that if the dance was done, the white oppressors would disappear and the tribe would reunite with friends/relatives in the ghost world in brotherhood. This message and the dance spread across the United States to desperate worshippers, as far as the Great Plains. The government began to fear the movement and the US Army massacred 300 Indians at Wounded Knee, South Dakota, putting an end to the movement. Not to mention, 27 men received the Medal of Honor for the battle.

I also found some songs and lyrics to various Ghost Dance Songs: http://msnbc.com/onair/msnbc/TimeandAgain/archive/wknee/ghostsongs.asp.

My Interpretation/ What this adds to our class discussion

What stood out to me most, in listening to Anita Collins describe how important the Ghost Dance and Wokova were to the Paiute people, were the striking similarities I found that existed in comparison to Zits and Justice. If nothing, this passage stands as a great time of confusion for Zits in his life. He had been through so much in his young life, including so much pain, isolation, and being deserted by foster parents numerous times. He was holding onto his childhood memories, including distant memories of his real parents, and the history of the Indian people he had read in books and seen on television. Enter Justice, who resembles Wokova greatly. Anita Collins speaks to great end about the sad state of her people and the need for a message of hope and a path to regain their strength. For the first time in Zits’ life, he had found a friend, a mentor, a leader who he agreed with that could show him the way. He found the voice he was looking for to give him strength. Zits is so fragile during that time, that he is looking for anyone willing to help to relieve his pain. Justice leads Zits down a path in which Zits believes that killing innocent people in a bank (white people, at that) would relieve that pain and strain of desiring his parents to return. Killing people in that bank is Zits’ Ghost Dance, minus the songs, the drum, and the circle of fellow Indians. And the bank in which the attempted massacre takes place is Wounded Knee. Sherman Alexie integrates Indian/American history, in a symbolic manner, so perfectly in this book throughout, but primarily in this passage to set the stage for Zits: The Time Traveler.

I think this adds to the discussion we had in our previous class discussion of postmodernity in terms of Zits lack of identity. His history has been given to him through the television, the discovery channel, books; in other words, he has received his history through superficial terms. His lack of true experience of history distorts his mind and makes him vulnerable during his search for identity , selfhood, personal feeling of history and love.

Offensive Language and Rebellion: The Youthful Way to Search for Identity in Present Day

What I Researched and Why?
After reading the selection in the course packet, "Language, Resistance and Subjectivity," I started to read "Flight" a little more closely. I wanted to see how the character Zits felt about language and how he used it to protect himself from hurting and also how it gave him an identity. I also wanted to research how other scholars felt about language as a form of resistance. I felt that rebellious youth really are "bad" for a reason, maybe because they never felt that they fit in or found their identity, so I researched rebellious youth to see if the stems of their problems were ever fully determined.

What I found:
I found two particularly helpful websites, http://books.google.com/books?id=sT2ilrNtGkEC&pg=PA179&ots=HPOEMfhwC1&dq=language+and+resistance+in+youth&sig=Nvl1oXX-_nxoStiR7ho350zb6Tc#PPA180,M1 and http://books.google.com/books?id=gOiWLnc-yTsC&pg=PA183&ots=nGSsqtOS7d&dq=psychology+of+rebellious+youth&sig=f3MEsaiDpk6b_D6FPmuGZLlkweM
I feel that these both help in explaining what the character Zits was going through in the story. The first website explains the language-identity equation, stating that, "the lack of language is experienced as having a lack of being; not having a language that adequately, immediately, and fully expresses what one wishes to say about the world and perhaps particularly, about oneself, becomes fully equated with not having a fully realized self" (180). This article also goes on to show how language, culture and socioeconomic status are all intertwined. The second website researches postmodern youth as an alienated culture. "Caught in this conflict of emerging autonomy on one hand and adult control on the other, young people's frustrations and anxieties mounted" (183). This article is helpful in examining how youth may feel a lack of identity due to postmodern movements.

My interpretation/What I think it adds to our discussion:
In the story, Zits is constantly in trouble. He cusses at his parents, he's constantly in fights, is active in substance abuse and pretty much seems to have no motivation whatsoever. This is an all too common occurrence in today's society. I wanted to see why this seems so and what the root of the problem really is.
The first website seems to go along quite well with the selection in the course packet, "Language, Resistance and Subjectivity." After reading this and the first website that I found, it seems that Zits uses offensive language as a way to resist society and to protect himself from being hurt again like he has been too many times before. When the social worker tried to equate herself to him in the beginning of the story and cussed just as he did, he laughed in her face and scoffed at her attempts to understand him. Is it really all that funny, or does he scoff because deep down he realizes that no one can identify with him because he in turn can't even identify with himself? Could he really just being using those words to protect himself from letting someone get to close and actually show him love? "He thinks the curse word will scare me"- page 141, Flight. Even as he is in his own father's body, he still thinks that these certain words are used to shield from becoming too vulnerable. He also repeats the word "whatever" several times and remarks on page 178, " 'Whatever', I say, because it hurts to have hope."

The second website, on the postmodern explanations of rebellious youth researches the growing gap between adults and youth and the expectations that adults have for youth. In class we discussed Postmodern thought as including a lack of individuality and identity. Justice states on page 25, "The individual has always had to work hard to avoid being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high for the privlege of owning yourself." Zits wanders from home to home, he never really met his family, and he's half white, half Indian; he really has no identity. He doesn't even go by his real name. His only identity marker is the acne on his face, further proving the postmodern thought in its superficiality, that looks only matter.

Between the two websites and the thoughts on language as a tool of protection and resistance and rebellious youth as just looking for their own identity, I feel that the character of Zits can be explained. His journey throughout the book, through history and different characters shows that he really is just looking for his identity, and not to be labeled as just a rebellious youth.

Childhood in Crisis?

What I researched and why?
After our class discussion about “Tom and Huck Don’t Live Here Anymore” greatly intrigued by the notion that childhood is now in a crisis. Is this true; are kids behaving much worse? Although there are many different ways to look at this idea, such as media trends, educational trends, and so on, I was more interested in looking at crime rates.

What I found:
For some reason I was expecting to see a great increase in crime rates, and I was actually greatly surprised to find the exact opposite. Here’s a report on juvenile crime by the Department of Justice: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/191031.pdf. <’a>. It was pretty difficult for me to find more recent trends, but I did manage to find some statistics for 2003: http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/nr2006/downloads/chapter5.pdf <’a>. Also, here is an article by the Office of Child Development here at Pitt: http://www.education.pitt.edu/ocd/publications/backgrounds/31.pdf<’a>.
Some of these statistics may be a little misleading because crime greatly increased in the 80s to the 90s. However I think it is more relevant to look at the more current trends. From these graphs we can see that the time around 1993 marked a peak in the number of crimes. After that year, we are able to see an extremely rapid decline in the majority of crimes committed by juveniles including, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, various types of theft, arson, and murder.

My interpretation/ what this adds to our discussion:
In class, we were discussing how the innocence of childhood, seen in Tom and Huck, has slowly begun to disappear. In “Tom and Huck Don’t Live Here Anymore” Powers talks about how children have become increasingly more violent. While I do strongly agree that the media is becoming more violent, I would have to disagree with the notion that children themselves are becoming more violent. I find it odd that his book was published in 2001 while juvenile crimes were on the decline.
If children are, indeed, in a crisis, then what is the cause? Poor parenting? The media? Morals? I would like to gain some insight into what other think of this.

Foster Care in the U.S.

What I researched and Why:
As I read this book, I couldn't help but be shocked at the things that happen to this character in his foster homes. Foster homes are supposed to be places where children are sent to protect them from their family who cannot or will not take proper care of them. In this book however, many of the homes that Zits is placed in abuse him or neglect him. Because of this I started to wonder just what the requirements were for a person to be a foster parent, and I was pretty unnerved by the very lax requirements I found.

What I found:
Here is a link to the Pennsylvania site on Foster Care. http://www.dpw.state.pa.us/ServicesPrograms/ChildWelfare/003676623.htm However, so you don't have to bother going to the site and the list is very short, I'm going to include it here.

1. Be at least 21 years of age.
   
2. Pass a medical examination that states the individual is physically able to care for children and is free from communicable disease.
   
3. Pass screening requirements related to child abuse and criminal history clearances.

And without exaggeration, this is the entire list of requirements for people to take care of children who so desperately need a safe place to go.

Frankly, I find this incredibly disturbing that these are the only requiremenst specified by the state of Pennsylvania. Some other counties have one or two more rules tacked on, but otherwise, this is the only screening that individuals are required to go through. I feel like I should mention that these screening tests are often no more involved than simply signing a consent form that allows child welfare access to your criminal records. Essentially they only want to know if you have been convicted of hurting kids in the past and that is as involved as it gets.

Because of the lax requirements, many of these people couldn't care less that the kids they are in charge of protecting exist. They are foster parents for only one reason: the monthly check. As a result these kids suffer neglect through their entire lives as they travel from home to home. Don't misunderstand, there are a few good foster parents, I'm sure, but with restrictions like these, the majority are bound to be people in it for the money.

My Interpretation/What this adds to our discussion:
We have discussed at length how adults percieve a child's naughtiness. This image, as we have discussed in class has gone from being infant depravity, to innocent childishness, to a natural stage that we all go through. Yet none of these definitions of naughtiness take into account when children are misbehaving, not because of some inherent "wildness" in them, but rather as a cry for help.

In Flight, Zits isn't an innocent who doesn't know what he's doing is wrong. He's definitely no "romantic" child. He wasn't born with all his issues and violence ingrained in his personality. He acts the way that he does because he desperately wants someone to care that he exists. He is trying to get that attention that is denied to him through each and every useless foster parent that he's pawned off on. Ultimately this system, which requires that the person in charge of a child's well-being only be healthy, 21, and not have a criminal record, has allowed this character to fall through the hypothetical cracks.

Here are a few questions to consider. Every time Zits gets in trouble, it is implied that he is arrested and put in jail again, but no one ever seems to wonder what it is about these homes he is living in that makes him want to strike out against his foster parents. Why is it that virtually all the characters (there are a few exceptions) simply write him off as another lost cause? Is a system that allows foster children to be placed in poor family environments (where they suffer neglect or abuse) not encouraging the children in these environments to behave badly or to become juvenile delinquents? In a sense, is it not the adults who become responsible for the actions of children like Zits rather than the children themselves?

Sherman Alexie

What I researched and why:
As I continue to read Flight by Sherman Alexie, I am completely enthralled by his writing style and the creative and twisted world he creates for the main character, Zits. He uses descriptive langauge which helps the reader create a vivid depiction of what is going on in the mind and environment of the main character. I cannot help but feel bad for Zits and feel that his whole life has been a cry for help. When he experiences the time travel, he is able to experience a different person, which works to his advantage since he seems to loathe himself and have nothing but self-pity for himself. Since I was so intrigued by this character, I wanted to do some research on Alexie and find out how much of this story was autobiographical or if it even was based on him at all. I couldn't help but wonder...what is the author's hope for the reader and what does he want young readers to think or feel as they read this highly entertaining book.

What I found:
While doing research on Alexie I came across an interesting interview between him and Dennis and Joan West, called "Sending Cinematic Smoke Signals: An Interview with Sherman Alexie." (This should take you to the website: http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC/alexie.html. If not, you can go to wikipedia.org and scroll all the way to the bottom, under interviews, it is the second link). Smoke Signals is a film that Alexie was the scriptwriter and co-producor for. He argues that American pop culture recognizes Native Americans in two categories, the warrior and the shaman. He destoys the stereotypes through different images, stories and songs.
In the interview, Alexie comments on the semi-autobiographical elements by stating, "It's more about my relationship with my father...he had to struggle with alcoholism, as I have. It's also about the struggle within myself...it's sort of schizophrenic multiple personality of myself that I develop within the movie." He talks about his "fascination with dreams and stories and flashing forward and flashing back and playing with conventions of time", which directly correlates to the time travel feature in Flight.

My interpretation:
When asked to comment on the absent father theme, I found Alexie's response to be fascinating. He explains that a father does not have to physically leave home to be absent in a child's life, that they could simply be sitting in the living room and still be absent. This theme resonates for Alexie because of his negative relationship with his father. He states, "My father did leave to drink, but he always came back. So for me it was a way of exploring that feeling of abondonment." This statement is quite powerful and insightful. I feel that when Alexie writes stories such as Flight, where personal, painful issues are raised, it almost acts as therapy for him and is a way for him to heal his wounds from the lack of his father figure. I think takes a brave and aware individual to create something like that and have hopes that someone who struggles with the same issue will read the book and feel less lonely and with more hope.

What this adds to our discussion:
I feel like this topic ties in with our discussion last week on Where the Wild Things Are in which we discussed how books "speak for children" and even side with them. The school of thought in the 1960's when Where the Wild Things Are was written, was that books should expand a child reader's imagination and more importantly, they should have a pyschological benefit. For example, they can help children deal with childhood traumas or fears. Specifically, if a child has an absent father or experiences the intense loniless and shame that Zits does, they can unleash these feelings while delving into the story of Flight. By relating to the character, they feel safe and know that they are not the only one who is struggling and they find comfort in the fact that someone else has felt the same sadness they have felt. Is this not the sole purpose for books? Especially books for child readers...they need to feel safe and comfortable and realize that books can help them deal with issues in their life where they may feel are lacking or out of control. It is readily apparant how the book Flight could potentially help child readers who may relate to the characters and have experienced struggles both individually and interpersonally.

Sherman Alexie's view of 'justice'

What I researched and why:
After reading the first ten chapters of Flight by Sherman Alexie, I thought that the feelings Zit had about life, at least in the beginning of the novel, were accurately described by Alexie, in terms of real life situations. This attracted me to the book because it was blunt, to the point, and included the good and the bad of a boy's life. It didn't try to mask anything for the reader's sake. I decided I wanted to research other views on this novel because it is so blunt and raunchy, and I wondered how Alexie's writing style and the plot of the story affected other readers.

What I found and My Interpretation:
Researching on the web, I found many differing views on Flight, including reviews which were both supportive and un-supportive of Alexie's style of this particular novel. However, as I read through these reviews I found one which emphasized the ironic fact that Zit met a boy named Justice in jail. Here is the article: http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/08/01/001410.php. The reviewer Richard Marcus claims that "Getting arrested isn't the strange part it's meeting the white kid called Justice in the prison - that's strange". With this, I realized that 'justice' was a central focus of the plot, at least up to the point I had read to, and I found this much more interesting than what other reader's views were of the story. Justice is able to convince Zip that he needs to get back at people for his current life and with this we are thrown into many different situations where characters are getting revenge, justice or vengeance for something that has occurred either to them or to a group of people they are representing (ex: when Zip is in the body of a young Indian who is contemplating slitting a white soldier's throat to avenge his own throat slaying). These continuous examples seem to portray the getting justice is an innate part of human interaction, whatever the means, in all facets of life. Justice's point of view also seems to indicate that Zit has other people to blame for the life he is leading, regardless of his age, hence the need to get back at them.

What this adds to our discussion:
I feel that this is important to our discussion because it parallels what we have been discussing in class dealing with the 20th century view on childhood. This view holds that children are a locus for competing desires, anxieties, aggressions and traumas. Naughtiness is a natural state we need to overcome. Following this then, did Zit and the other adult or near adult characters in Flight fail to overcome their naughtiness? These characters seems to completely lack any kind of adult characteristics, such as inhibition or consciousness for right and wrong. Marcus makes an interesting conclusion about this story saying "revenge turns you into the people you want revenge against", meaning that although one feels they are entitled to justice and revenge, doesn't this serve to make them just as bad as the person they are seeking justice against? Although I have a hunch, I am curious to see how/whether Alexis solves this problem towards the end of the book.

"Author Sherman Alexie Talks 'Flight'"

*Spoiler Warning: The end of the novel is talked about in various moments in this post. If you do not wish to hear of the ending yet, please refrain from viewing at this time*


What I researched and Why:

After having read seven chapters (though that number will most likely have changed by the time one reads this), of Sherman Alexie's Flight, I was really interested in finding out more information about Sherman Alexie and the text. Not only did I want to do so because I find Alexie's narrative style interesting, but I'm fascinated with the fact that Flight is a fairly recent novel, and is from an author, that while having written other well-recepted texts (Reservation Blues, Indian Killer, etc), I had never heard of before. I suppose you could say, in so few words, that I wanted to go on a fact finding mission and see what I could dig up.

What I found:

When I typed "Flight" (Sherman Alexie) in Google, it produced a gold mine of results. Not only can one find book reviews from major newspapers, but also that Sherman Alexie has his own blog devoted to his Flight book tour. While perhaps someone else would like to post about that blog (but if no one chooses not to, it's still worth looking at), I found something very interesting. Earlier this year in April, Sherman Alexie did about a seventeen minute radio interview for NPR (National Public Radio)'s segment Talk of the Nation, wherein he discussed quite a bit about Flight.

This should link you straight to the interview:
http://www.npr.org/templates/dmg/popup.php?id=9517858&type=1&date=11-Apr-2007&au=1&pid=43343430&random=0330506640&guid=000940667C54071E5CE4353061626364&uaType=WM&aaType=RM,WM&upf=Win32&topicName=Books&subtopicName=Fiction&prgCode=TOTN&hubId=-1&thingId=9517855&ssid=&tableModifier=&mtype=WM

However, if it doesn't, please try this:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9517855

(If you use this link, you just have to click the red "Listen", which is below the title "Author Sherman Alexie Talks 'Flight'")

Here are some points from the interview (in case no one can get it to work):

-The book's narrative track originated from Alexie watching a documentary on the events of September 11th. Alexie remembered an interview with a flight instructor that had taught one of the terrorists how to fly, and noted the sense of personal betrayal the man exuded. The instructor had grown to be friends with the terrorist (he remembers telling jokes, getting drunk with him, etc), but it just shocked him that this same man, who he had called his friend, had committed such a horrible act. Alexie combined this essence of personal betrayal and ethnic crime to create Flight.

-While writing about this, Alexie remembered other violent acts in U.S. history and what stories had not been told about these events. He then wanted to write about these eras as well.

-But the problem he had was that he had multiple stories, and couldn't connect them together. He solved the problem after reading Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-Five, wherein the main character of that story could travel through time. As Alexie states in the interview, "If Vonnegut could do it, I could try" (Maybe this is the reason why there is a Slaughterhouse-Five quote before the story begins...)

-Alexie addresses the question of Flight being "A Study of Violence". He's surprised that the book has been received half postively and half negatively. He believes that the book is based on the idea that violence is perpetuated on both sides of any conflict, even using the Iraq war as an example. Alexie credits the Iraq war a lot in writing this novel.

-Flight came about also from Alexie's work on another book, The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian.

-Alexie addressed the ending of Flight. *Here is where the spoilers come in *



Alexie wanted to be "Hopeful about being Hopeful" He's surprised that the ending has received some negative criticism because he [Alexie] is being hopeful. He had been cynical with all his other works, but now is being punished for being optimistic. Also, Alexie had written alternate endings to the novel, but chose the one he did because he thought it was just the right one.


*End spoiler*




-Alexie compares himself to Zits while talking about the funny points to the novel. He mentions the blend of violence and humor in the novel, and says that Flight has been particularly criticized for its humor. Alexie says that he's been called "shallow" and "glib"

-Alexie addresses an Indian stereotype, proving it true in many cases in his life.


My Interpretation/ What this adds to our discussion:
I feel that I cannot continue without saying first that it's quite rather nice to actually hear Sherman Alexie's voice. In a way, it seems to add another dimension to understanding him (putting the photo to the voice/putting the voice to the photo). After all, aside from written comments and photographs, we have not literally "heard" from any of the other authors of the texts we've read in this course. I don't know, it just seems to make him more identifying and personable.

I find Alexie's comment on violence being perpetuated on both sides of a conflict really interesting. It seems to me that he is saying that violence is infinite, a never ending Mobius strip. Yet something about that just doesn't seem to sit right with me. If violence is perpetuated on both sides, is there really no chance for peace? What of the cases where conflicts of violence have been resolved? If the conflict has been resolved, isn't this a critical contradiction? Or is one side of the conflict still prone to violence?

*Spoiler: Discussion of end from here on *



Like Sherman Alexie, I'm also surprised about the criticism that the end of the novel has been getting. Granted I haven't finished the novel yet, but I find the criticism itself interesting. The end is being criticized because it is hopeful and shows optimism, that things can have a resolution.

Why would critics be against this? For me, this reminds me of part of the discussion we had in class on Tuesday about the portrayal and shielding of violence and adult themes towards children. On the one hand, we have one group wanting to shield children from blood and gore, while the other doesn't want these issues hidden, to show them reality.

For a novel such as Flight, even from what you have read so far, which ending would you prefer? Should it have a happy ending, such as Alexie's hopeful optimism or not? That everything can be alright for the troubled and violent boy after all? The happy ending seems in league with the way most children's literature, past and present, ends ("Happily Ever After" and the like). Are happy endings realistic? Or, are they shields to protect the child from what really should/would happen? If we deny the existence of hope, such as Alexie's critics have been doing, what does that say about reality, and for that matter, society and values? Have they changed throughout the flight of the ages?

"Mama, Do You Love Me?"

What I researched and why:
After reading “17 Things I’m Not Allowed to do Anymore” I was curious to see the reviews that it received. Like all of the previous stories containing a misbehaving main character, I expected this book to receive much rough criticism. Surprisingly, I was wrong (well at least for the most part). As I read through tons of reviews I was only able to come across one that stated that “17 Things” was inappropriate for children. All of the other reviews raved of brilliance. http://www.jandysbooks.com/children/17things.html <’a> . Basically, this critic found it unsuitable that the main character did not show any remorse for her mischievous acts. She believes that children may be easily swayed into reproducing these wrong doings.
Upon this discovery, I remember an acclaimed story that I read as a child called “Mama, Do You Love Me?” by Barbara M. Joosse. In this story a little girl tests her mother’s love by asking her if she will still love her if she did a variety of “off of the wall” things. For example, the little girl asks if her mother will still love her if she turned into a scary monster.

What I found/My Interpretation:
I believe that there are many similarities between “17Things I’m Not Allowed to do Anymore” and “Mama, Do you love Me?” In “Mama” the little girl comes up with crazy ideas to see how unconditional her mother’s love actually is. By partaking in many naughty events, I feel that the character in “17 Things” is doing the same. At the end of story, the mother happily embraces her daughter, which shows her that her mother still loves her despite her misbehaving.
In my opinion, “17 Things” does not encourage unruly behavior in children. Covered by vibrant illustrations and a creative plot, I think it is a great way to get children interested in reading while teaching them a great meaning. I feel that many children today feel as if they are horrible children, and get the feeling that they are not cared for, when they do something wrong. Both of these books show children that even though they might do something wrong (in an adult’s eyes), that they are still cared for.

What this adds to class discussion:
In class we have be discussing the different types of criticism that can be used when examining a story. We have also looked more closely at various critics and their interpretations on our class readings. All of these are very different, and may seem crazy to others (Freud maybe?). However, all of them do have good points. Although I disagree with what the critic previously mentioned, I can understand where she is coming from. I am very curious to hear what everyone else thinks about the text, as well as the ways this book may affect the child reading it.

* I’ll bring “Mama, Do You Love Me?” to our next class.

what i researched and why-

To be honest, this might have been some of the most depressing research I've ever done! The selection from "Tom and Huck Don't Live Here Anymore" prompted me to research the obvious thing, which would be juvenile delinquency. I wanted to look around and see what the news reports were like. Were these children being punished? How do reports like this affect a society that wants to view childhood as a time of innocence?

what i found-
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=866502259882461359&q=juvenile+crime+interview&total=8&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

This is a video of a news report about ten year old boys who beat a homeless man quite brutally. I chose to include this video (even though there were so many options to choose from) for a few reasons. First of all, there is the obvious issue of age. These boys aren't even teens; They are children. This issue of age complicates not only our interpretation of their actions but also the idea of punishment. For instance, it seems, in this video, that the seventeen year old boy with the two ten year olds will probably be blamed for instigating the actions. This is evidence of our inability to see children as capable of comitting such a crime on their own. We cannot comprehend ten year olds being that evil.
Another reason I chose this video was because of the discussion of the children's families and punishment. The children are referred to as "disposable kids" because no family members can be found in connection with them. There are no smiling school pictures of the children, no crying mothers pleading for mercy for their sons, like we usually see in such cases. I think this is an interesting case, because it really challenges the way that we are able to think about children and crime.

Contribution to Discussion:

This is a very relevant thing, I think, to everything we've talked about so far concerning childhood innocence and naughtiness. We see things that might make us chuckle every now and then on the news or in day to day life: kids stealing yard decorations, harmless grafitti, things that are "mischevious", but acceptable. Then we see news reports of ten year olds attacking homeless people. What's interesing to me is our reaction. We want to know motives. We want to know who is responsible, because we don't think it can be them. That automatic response to defend the innocence of children is interesting, and I think it might be worth discussing, especially in regards to literature and what ideas of childhood we take from our childhood books.

Similarities between Rabelais and Sendak

What I researched and why

When reading about “Rabelais and His World”, by Mikhail Bakhtin, I noticed similarities between Rabelais’ concepts and “Where the Wild Things Are”, by Maurice Sendak. I had never heard of Rabelais before, so I decided to look up some information about Rabelais and his writings. I thought it would be interesting to see how writings from the fifteenth century could have similarities with writings from the twentieth century.

What I found

I ended up finding a few similarities between Rabelais and Sendak. Rabelais’ most famous writing is a series of five novels about two giants. Gargantua is the father giant and Pantagruel is his son. One of Rabelais’ concepts is called grotesque realism. Grotesque realism focuses on the body. Eating is something very important to Rabelais’ giants. In “Where the Wild Things Are”, eating is also a major theme of the book. Max gets sent to bed without supper and he is upset by that. In Rabelais’ writing, he often uses profanities and curses. In “Where the Wild Things Are”, Max says something inappropriate to his mother when he yells at her, “I’LL EAT YOU UP!” Rabelais’ writings also deal with fantasy because giants of course don’t exist. So the reader can use their imagination when reading about Rabelais’ giants and Sendak’s wild things. Both writers were also controversial. Rabelais had some of his books banned for unorthodox ideas and a carefree attitude. “In the Night Kitchen” by Sendak was a censorship target because of the naked drawings of the character Mickey. Bettelheim also thought that “Where the Wild Things Are” was too violent for children for example. Here is a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/François_Rabelais to a short biography about Rabelais that I found interesting. And this is another link: http://expasy.org/spotlight/images/sptlt066_1.jpg of a picture of Pantagruel the giant.

My interpretation/ what this adds to class discussion

I think it’s neat that these writings from different time periods that are very far apart from each other have so much in common. At first they may seem totally different from one another, but if you dig deeper and do some research, they actually share a lot of common themes. It’s interesting to ponder whether Sendak was influenced by Rabelais at all. What would Rabelais think if he would’ve read “Where the Wild Things Are”? Would he have liked it? Would Rabelais’ readers have liked “Where the Wild Things Are”? It’s something to think about.

Interview with Sendak

What I researched and why: When I began to look around the web for things related to “Where the Wild Things Are,” I wasn’t sure of what I was looking for. I found a few slightly animated versions of the story on Youtube and a short video clip that talks about how Disney almost made it into a CG animated movie in the 80’s. I really wanted to find something that interpreted the illustrations and hopefully bring a few answers to some of the questions raised in class while discussing the book. After a long while I gave up on looking for anything of the nature, and began to search Sendak’s name to see if I could dig up something interesting.

What I found: After a while of browsing around I came across an interview with Maurice Sendak from 2004. http://www.library.northwestern.edu/exhibits/hca/interviews.html The full interview is 45 minutes, but there is also a 5 minute version of the interview also. Carefully taking my work ethic/attention span into consideration I clicked on the 5 minute version. During this interview, however, Sendak says some very interesting things. He talks about trying to come up with the sort of monsters that he wanted for the “Wild Things.” At first he was drawing traditional children’s literature monster, but he says that he “detests” these sorts of characters. So after an epiphany he created the monsters based on his relatives from Brooklyn! I found this to be very interesting; he even calls his relatives “dreadful,” and says that it was a way to get revenge on them. He then begins talking about how the Wild Things are not supposed to frighten children, but he admits that they do scare adults. He talks about how they scare adults because adults are scared to frighten the children, but he claims that children are already frightened. He then goes on to say that children see things inherently different than adults do, and it is this gift that allows them to work through frightening things in their own way. The last interesting point that he briefly touches on is the idea of overprotection of children by adults.

My interpretation/what this adds to our class discussion: I think it is very interesting that Sendak chose to use his relatives as models for the Wild Things. He started out trying to use “typical” scary monsters, but felt that they just did not cut it. Instead he chose to use something much more personal to represent the Wild Things, his very own family members. On another website I read a biography of him where it discusses this matter, and it said he used his relatives as the monsters because they had bad nose hair and he never liked them. They also were always hovering over him, pinching him, saying “you’re so cute, I could just eat you!” In this interview Sendak even says that he used them to exact revenge on them. I guess the revenge is turning them into monsters, but perhaps he also seeks revenge by having Max become King of the Wild Things. This way he is turning the tables on the people he disliked while growing up. In class we had discussed how Sendak has used therapy his whole life, and perhaps this is another form of therapy that Sendak uses to resolve some of his issues.

I also enjoy Sendak’s view on criticisms of his books. He says that adults are more scared of the book than children are. He says that children look at things differently than adults do, and when they read this book they immediately identify with Max. He says that Max leads the child on the adventure of the book, and they are not concerned about the scary monsters. I find a lot of truth in what Sendak says about adults being more scared of the monsters that children are. There are so many instances of adults raising a fuss about this being bad for kids, or that corrupting the minds of our children; and a lot of the times it is over extremely silly things. Most of the time it is the adults who concern themselves so much about protecting the children that they end up being the one’s terrified. This, I believe, is our current view of childhood; we value the innocence of childhood so much, that we try to protect them from anything that may be a little bit perverse. We have this view that once children are tainted with reality (the perverse); they have lost this innocence forever.

"Where the Wild Things Are" As a Garden

What I Researched/Why:

I set out looking for alternate illustrations/representations of the story from Where The Wild Things Are. We discussed in class how the illustrations contribute heavily to the story in children’s picture books, so I was curious to see if anyone had attempted to reinterpret the story through changing the pictures. I wanted to see what other artists found important to the telling of the story. I found something really interesting, although it is not exactly an alternative illustration.


What I Found:
I found a garden someone entered in a flower show this year, based on Where The Wild Things Are. CLICK HERE to go to my favorite picture of the garden. I like that picture because it shows all of the plants, as well as the bed and the boat. However, there are some other great shots, including a beautiful one of the grass-bed. I also found THIS page, where the plan for the layout of the garden is shown, to be really interesting.


Interpretation/What This Adds to Class Discussion:

I thought that this garden shows how much value children’s books hold for adults. People often question how much children’s literature really influences kids. The amount of time and effort spent in the planning and execution of this garden (which is clearly a lot, if you look at the complexity of the garden’s plan) shows just how much a book from their childhood meant to an adult.

One of my favorite things about this garden is that Max is not in it. If you look at the pictures from within the garden, it feels like you are standing in Max’s room—as if you have become Max. This is really interesting because a common strategy in books, especially children’s books, is making the reader identify with the main character. Certainly most children can remember wanting to be a character in their favorite books. I love the extreme this strategy is taken to here. As an adult, you can live out a childhood dream (or perhaps relive a childhood reality—if you were a very imaginative child) to participate in the world of the book.

A final thing this garden reminded me of is the child's perceived strong connection to nature that we have discussed in class. When I think of Where the Wild Things Are, I usually think of the "wild" in association with Max's naughtiness, and of course the wild things themselves, forgetting what an important part the "wildness" of nature plays in the story. This garden really emphasizes that aspect of the book. So, even though it was not exactly the alternate illustration I was originally looking for, it did let me see what aspects of the story were important for the artist who created this garden. I wonder if any other artists have chosen to represent Where the Wild Things Are through emphasizing different aspects of the text--it's interesting to see what different people find important about the story.

"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.

Maurice Sendak's Nightmare

What I Researched and Why:

After reading Sigmund Freud's "Wolf Man", I became very interested in researching psychological reviews/criticisms of Where the Wild Things Are. After all, if Freud was able to interpret so much from "Wolf Man's" dreams, just imagine what could be found when analyzing Where the Wild Things Are!

However, when I began to conduct research, one topic pushed its way towards the center of my attention. That topic, was dreams. I realized that dreams were and are a very crucial point of interest; that they are too important to be casually brushed aside. Take Freud's "Wolf Man", for example. Freud's defenses for his logic and analysis of the "Wolf Man" stemmed from the "Wolf Man's" dreams. Without the dreams to serve as his "ammo" and evidence, his psychological arguments could have proven much more difficult to persuade the reader. Where would have been the evidence that would support his claims? As any good debater knows, you should always be prepared to back up your argument, and not resort to dogmatic defenses.

But the field of dreams is rather extensive. What should I look for in such a sea of psychology? And then it dawned on me: Go to the source. I wanted to see if I could find a dream from Maurice Sendak himself. I wanted to take a look inside the mind that created Where the Wild Things Are.

What I found:

I found an interview with Maurice Sendak that was done in 2003 by Roger Sutton, Editor from The Horn Book Magazine. Under topics that they discussed, I just so happened to see "nightmares".

This should be the link:

http://www.hbook.com/magazine/articles/2003/nov03_sendak_sutton.asp

I'll post the nightmare also to save everyone from scrolling:

" I had a recurring nightmare when I was a kid — I must have been four-ish — a nightmare about being chased by a very frightening something and my heart is beating out of my chest. In the dream I'm desperate to get the cellar door open, but this thing is right behind me. And I finally turn. And it's my father. And his face is hot on my face and his hands are out: murder. That's all it is: he will kill me. And that went on and on and on. And then just this week, here I am seventy years later, and the dream came back, and even in the dream I was stunned to be dreaming this again! The same thing happened and — this sounds like a TV movie of the week; can't be helped — I did something I never did before. I turned around and there he was, but I stood my ground and his face was so close to mine and his nose was pressing my nose and then I saw that he was laughing — that it was a joke. He wasn't trying to kill me, he was playing with me. Now, does that reach all the way back — like that Gregory Peck movie with Ingrid Bergman, Spellbound — and say, "That's your answer" (seventy years too late, but what the fuck)? I don't think so. I don't think it's an answer to anything. It's probably just a release on my part. I can't claim now that my father really wanted to kill me and that he really hated me."

My interpretation:

Now it's my turn to be Sigmund Freud...

I find this dream very interesting, especially the role of the father. When he was a child, Sendak feared that his father wanted to murder him. How could a child possibly cope with that kind of trauma? As we've talked about in class, Children's Literature is the answer. Children were able to cope with the help of the stories they read. These books brought light to their worlds of darkness.

I'd like to argue that subconsciously, Maurice Sendak coped with his recurring nightmare when he created Where the Wild Things Are. As we read the text, notice how there is no mention of Max's father. We don't know where he is, who he is, or even if he exists (at least in the story world because Max logically has to at least have some father).

But why is there no father, and why is that important? I'd like to argue that Sendak did not mention a father for a psychological reason. Perhaps when he created Where The Wild Things Are, Sendak saw a little bit of himself in Max. Subconsciously, Sendak may not have wanted his "book version" of himself to go through the same nightmare that Sendak had as a child, possibly being murdered by his father. And so how would Sendak ease Max of this trauma? He would do it by not mentioning a father. If there is no father, then there is no one that can murder you. Max would be safe.

I also find the mentioning of the cellar door interesting. It's a pity we don't know where the cellar door would have led to. If that door would have led outside, then we can make a comparison to Max in Where the Wild Things Are. The comparison being that while Sendak wanted to escape his murderer by going outside, Max "escapes" his room and punishment by going/creating outside (the forest, the sea, and Where the Wild Things are) . The fact that Sendak couldn't escape in his dream while Max could is yet another example of Sendak helping the child escape (through transferrence).

Finally, there is the issue of Sendak having the dream again, seventy years later. However, this time, Sendak stood his ground and faced his father. Thanks to this, Sendak finally saw the truth of the dream that used to plague him so long ago. His father did not want to kill him. He was laughing. This was all a joke. His dad could have pretended to be a monster (or maybe a Wild Thing) and was chasing Maurice for fun.

The reason why Sendak stood his ground and faced his father could be that after venting and releasing his troubles in his literature, his mind (consciousness, subsconsious, whatever terms you choose) was finally ready to face its inner trauma. Writing his stories may have been the weapons that Sendak's mind needed to fight back. Nevertheless, even if Sendak only believes this is a release on his part and not "an answer", he can finally put that dream behind him.

What this adds to our discussion:

We've discussed in class that children use literature to help cope with their personal problems. Now we've been given a chance to look inside a child's mind that became a famous writer and illustrator. How do childrens' dreams play out in children's literature? Are they linked to the author? What do they mean? How have the problems of children changed throughout the ages? Are they different, or have they remained fundamentally the same?

Sorry for all the questions, but we should definitely keep all of them "in mind" (how could I not resist a bad psychology pun?) while reading and discussing children's literature. After all, who knows, sometime in the future, if some of us go on to write children's stories, we may do exactly what Sendak and authors have done, whether we know it or not.

"In the Night Kitchen" by Maurice Sendak

What I Researched and Why I have been interested in our classroom discussion on Where the Wild Things Are as an exploration of the child's imagination. I work in the children's department of Barnes & Noble, and I found myself looking at some other picture books, thinking about what I could address for this blog posting. I came across another book by Maurice Sendak that is not quite as well known, but in my opinion, is an even deeper look into the minds of children. I thought it would be instructive to look at another one of Sendak's books as a means of comparison.

What I Found: Because I can't post a picture book here, this is the movie adaptation of In the Night Kitchen that is a very close representation of the book. You can also see in the "Related Links" a movie representation of Where the Wild Things Are that is fun to watch too. Watch In the Night Kitchen.

My Interpretation: This book reminds me of the disconnectedness of a dream a child might have at night. It's just a little bit beyond making any sense, which is how dreams often are. The "dream sequence" involves things that you see around the Mickey's room, like the hanging airplane. It has the same sense of scariness that you find in Where the Wild Things Are - I personally think it would be pretty scary to get mixed in a batter and put in a hot oven, Hansel and Gretel style. Although you all don't have the benefit of seeing this, the actual book version of this story has some of the same stylistic elements as Where the Wild Things Are, such as different-sized margins and whole pages without any text, to indicate a complete entrance into the imagination. I also would like to point out some of the background details in the movie - the city skyline you see in the background is composed of everyday objects - a corkscrew, jars, bottles, etc. I really get the sense that we have entered Mickey's imagination.

What it Adds to Our Discussion: I think comparing two of Maurice Sendak's books confirms what his goal is: to lead the reader into the world of the imagination. Both books deal with fantastic adventures that couldn't happen in real life, and both boys leave the real world and enter the world of the imagination when they are dealing with some sort of disturbance in the real world (with Max, the loss of his supper, and with Mickey, a non-descript "rumpus"). I think we can say with more confidence that Sendak writes these picture books to send us into the imaginary realm.

Maurice, King of the Wild Things

What I Researched and Why: I was researching Where the Wild Things Are and I started to get bored with the different criticisms and interpretations that I read. So, rather than reading further analyses of the book, I decided to find what Maurice had to say about his own work. After all, an author should be allowed to say a thing or two about their own book.

What I Found: I discovered a copy of Maurice Sendak’s Caldecott Award acceptance speech in which he explains the full meaning of his book.
"Max, the hero of my book, discharges his anger against his mother, and returns to the real world sleepy, hungry, and at peace with himself. Certainly we want to protect our children from new and painful experiences that are beyond their emotional comprehension and that intensify anxiety; and to a point we can prevent premature exposure to such experiences. That is obvious. But what is just as obvious --and what is too often overlooked-- is the fact that from their earliest years children live on familiar terms with disrupting emotions, that fear and anxiety are an intrinsic part of their everyday lives, that they continually cope with frustration as best they can. And it is through fantasy that children achieve catharsis. It is the best means they have for taming Wild Things.
It is my involvement with this inescapable fact of childhood--the awful vulnerability of children and their struggle to make themselves King of all Wild Things--that gives my work whatever truth and passion it may have."

How I’m Interpreting It: Well, this is pretty much to the point. I have to say that I agree with Maurice, although I am not certain if what he says is completely accurate. I know it was true about me. I had a very active imagination as a kid so I could relate to the book. But this makes me think, does every kid have an imagination that can help them cope with stress? I have to believe that not every child likes fantasy.

How This Adds to Our Discussion: I am interested in what others think about what Maurice says. We learned in class that he believes his books “speak for children”. Do you think this book speaks to all children or only the select group who enjoys fantasy?

Wild Things scary? To Who?

What I Researched and Why: Before class today, I had never considered WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE a scary book. The thought had never occured to me. So, I wanted to see if this was a case of parents over-protecting their children, or if our generation is just tougher than the kids that originally read this book. I looked through the book DEAR GENIUS: The Letters of Ursala Nordstum. Nordstrum was a famous childrens book editor that discovered and worked with the likes of E.B. White (Charlotte's Web), Margaret Wise Brown (Goodnight Moon), Shel Silverstein and Maurice Sendak.

What I Found: On Novemeber 21, 1963, Nordstum wrote to Prof. Mary Gaver about WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE. She wrote: "I can't tell you how much I appreciate your note...and the comments from the children. I'm not the last [sic] bit surprised that no child was frightened by the wild things...I think this book can frighten on a neurotic child or neurotic adult...Too often adults (including children's book editors in general and this one in particular) sift their reactions to a creative picture book through their own adult experiences...As an editor who stands between the creative artist and the creative child I am constantly terrified that i will react as a dull adult, which is all i am, of course. But at least I must try to remember it every minute!"

How I am Interpreting it: As it turns out, the group of kids used as a focus group for this book agreed with me that this book is not scary. And how could it be? The beauty of this book is that the monsters are so creative, so unlike any real animal, that it is no doubt that it is the work of harmless imagination. I think that a child reading about a little girl getting eaten by a wolf (which is a real animal) would be much scarier than a story of a boy dancing with beasts that cannot really be described as resembling any sort of real creature (except for the one with the beak). She also agreed with my statement that maybe it's the parents that are scared for their children, even the the kids can handle it fine. The other interesting part about this letter is that Nordstrum takes a very Romantic view on childhood. She compares children with artists, saying that regular adults do not have the creativity ability that kids have. Even after all of her work with children's books, she is still afraid of breaking the chain of creativity and being unable to see things the way children see them.

How This Adds to Our Discussion: I think it will be interesting to hear what the rest of the class says on the "scariness" of this book. Is a child going to bed without dinner really that terrible? Are we just looking at it through "dull adult" eyes? Do we overprotect children, or underestimate what they can handle? This text could really help this discussion, because now we won't have to guess about what kids were like back then. We have proof that the book was tested and passed through a group of kids before it was published. The text gives us valuable insight into how the book was recieved and what fears the publishers had at its release.

What I researched and Why? I researched what people thought of the book and also the author. The reason I researched this is because I believe that some people may have seen this book as very controversy. It involves 'scary' monsters and them Max wanting to 'Eat up' his mother. This can be seen as something children should not read because it may scare them or give them ideas that they should not do.

What I found? When I googled critiques of Where the Wild Things Are many items came up. The one that stuck out to me was the one by PBS. It opens up with an author who wrote an article called "The Not-So-Wild Things." The author states that when Sendak released the book, he was called a Wild Thing. Many people believed that children should not read the book because it was "dark and disturbing." It then questions how books similar to Where the Wild Things Are are treated with in school. The answer was censorship. http://www.pbs.org/now/arts/kidslit.html


My Interpretation When it comes to censorship, I believe that it is not always a good thing. Censoring a book, I believe would take us back in time when books were banned. The idea of banning books was to prevent children from reading something the adults did not want them to read. The idea may have seemed good, but the children would be more inclined to read something that is banned. I know from my personal experience that if something is 'off limits' to me, I am more inclined to want to do it. Also calling the book dark and disturbing is very interesting. Many other things that have been written could be classified as dark and disturbing. Where the Wild Things Are may have some dark and disturbing aspects, but I do not think children would find these particular images disturbing. In our society today, children are exposed to many other things that are more disturbing, such as the news. Our society is becoming more violent and the solution is thought to be censorship. Censorship is not going to solve the violence in our society. It may help people feel better that their children can't read a particular book or listen to a certain song, but sooner or later they will be exposed to it.

What this Adds to Class Discussion? The question about what children should read and should not read seems to be a common topic. My question is would a book like Where the Wild Things are have any impact on the children reading it? When I was little, i would just read a book and not really think much about it. This somewhat relates to Tom Sawyer in that Tom did 'bad' things and Max did 'bad' things. Yet are these boys considered 'naughty'?

Movie- Where the Wild Things Are

What I researched and Why?
I looked into more modern day interpretations of Maurice Sendak's book Where the Wild Things Are. I remember my father reading this book to me when I was young because he loved the book, but all I remembered about it was that it was a little scary. I eventually outgrew that stage or got used to the story, one or the other, but I wanted to see what other people thought about the book.

What I found?
I found that some people thought that the book was slightly scary, and early readers were concerned about this. Critics early on thought that the book might traumatize children and show them an appreciation for chaos, freedom, and fantasy. These early critics have been overshadowed by the great deal of praise for the book being able to help children deal with "dark emotions". The book was published in 1963 and was the first around that children could really identify with to help them deal with anger.
In the early 1980's Disney had possession of the rights to the book and were considering making an animation film from it. Disney decided to pass for whatever reasons and lost the rights to the story. Currently Warner Bros has possession of these rights and is due to release a live action/ puppet/computer animation movie based on the book. The movie is to open in Oct of 2008 and is being directed by Spike Jonze. The film will be rated PG13 for computer animated violence, language, and adult situations. Movie

My Interpretation
I think it is interesting that the movie will be rated PG13 when the book was designed to help young children deal with anger. The movie is obviously aimed at an older audience. Maybe the audience needs to be able to understand things that the book has already taught them. As I can tell the book currently does not deal with violence, language or adult situations that are over the heads of children under 13. I am curious to see how these situations were included into the film.
Children's interpretation of the story will most likely be altered due to this film. People seem to remember more about a film than they do about a book. This may be do to how much visual stimulus is actually given to you. If someone is given more of how the director sees the story, then they are less likely to use their imagination to create their own ideas about the story.

What this Adds to Class Discussion?
Will the meaning of the story change as a result of this film? Are films a good thing? Do they help children understand a story in a way that will help them, or do they stunt a child's own development of being able to come up with a moral that is age appropriate to them?

Native Americans and Racism in The Adventures of Tom Sawyer

What I researched and why: As I read through the critical, secondary text "Why Mark Twain Murdered Injun Joe" I came upon an interesting passage: "We know what was done to Blacks, so we care about Jim; we don't know what was done to Indians, so we care nothing for Joe" (Revard 338). This passage made me question the circumstances and history surrounding the Native Americans and the underlying cause of the racism against them, which could possibly answer why Mark Twain was so hateful towards Injun Joe in "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer". To answer my questions, I turned to the internet to get a brief history of what led to the prejudice against them.

What I found: I searched the web to gain a better understanding of what exactly happened to the Native Americans because I am not as familiar with their history as I am with African American history. I found on essay about the Native Americans that includes an unauthored very concise history (only a couple of sentences) explaining the impact Europeans had on Native American life. Although some of the claims may not be based on fact, the essay provides an interesting insight as to the development of racism against the Native Americans. The author suggests that the treaties made between the American government and the Native Americans was the start of the racism against them. Here is the web address to this site that I discuss in my post: http://www.megaessays.com/viewpaper/24163.html. I also found a site that discusses Twain's ideology concerning American Indians when he wrote this novel, which suggests that Twain viewed Indians as not having a place in American culture and the idea that their bad behavior was caused by bad Indian blood. The web address to this website is http://etext.virginia.edu/railton/projects/rissetto/joe.html.

My interpretation: No where in the history of Native Americans did I find a description of them being murderous or overly criminal, as Mark Twain portrays Injun Joe to be, in fact Native Americans "were overall a peaceful people who enjoyed family, prayer, and creativity" (http://www.indians.org/articles/american-indians.html). The only reason, according to history, that Indians are 'hated' is because Europeans wanted their land, and fought to the death for it. I feel that this history is important in analyzing "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer" because when I read it, I first thought that Injun Joe was only a bad character because he was criminal. I did not realize that the author, Mark Twain, was deceptively inserting his own racist feelings into the text. If Twain's goal was only to depict an criminal character then there is no need to insert the derogatory title 'Injun' in front of his name. Although Mark Twain may have very strong feelings as to why Indians are terrible people, I could not find anything to support the fact that Indians were anymore or anyless criminal than the next person, which completely rejects Twain's "culture of violence" theory he had about Native Americans.

What this adds to our discussion: I feel that this adds to our discussion in that it is important to acknowledge the fact that Mark Twain is wrong in his portrayal of Injun Joe, solely because his basis for Injun Joe's behavior is due to the fact that he is Indian, and not just a bad person. I first read this book in grade school and am concerned that children may also relate Injun Joe's behavior to his ethnic background, as Twain did, thereby reinforcing the unfounded racism against Native Americans.

Retro-Tom

What I Researched/Why: I originally wanted to find some clips of the anime “Adventures of Tom Sawyer” cartoons from the early 1980s that were mentioned in class. I remembered watching these when I was younger and was also curious to see how a Japanese director might have interpreted a classic American story. Unfortunately, I could not find any clips of this cartoon in English (Click Here if you’d like to see one of the non-English versions, they’re pretty funny.)

So, I looked for other cartoon versions of Tom Sawyer, hoping that I could find an interesting interpretation of the story.

What I Found: I found a short (about 6 minutes) “Mel-O-Toons” cartoon titled “Tom Sawyer.”You can Click Here to view it if you can't see it below. It is part of a series of 104 short cartoons released in 1960. The series also featured well known folk-tales, myths and bible stories. such as Cinderella, Noah’s Ark and Robin Hood. I’ve always really liked watching old cartoons, especially the ridiculously politically incorrect ones with those weird narrators, so I was pretty excited about finding this.

Interpretation/What This Adds to Class Discussions: Some of the choices made in shortening the story were very interesting. First, Huck Finn’s character is totally left out in favor of Joe Harper. I think that this must have something to do with the possible moral difficulties of presenting a very poor (yet happy/satisfied) child to young viewers. Maybe showing Huck would somehow threaten the “American dream,” “Pull yourself up by your bootstraps!” mentality that was so prevalent in the 50s-60s. I was also particularly interested in the portrayal of Injun Joe’s character in this cartoon. He has a feather on his head and says things like “I go in peace.” In the book, he was certainly a very evil character, but he was also taken much more seriously.

This cartoon shows the way cultural values and norms can change over time. Clearly what was valued in 1960’s US children’s culture was the portrayal of boyish adventures and doing good deeds. Any moral ambiguity, including the problem of Huck Finn’s character, seemed to be glossed over, even though Twain focused heavily on moral ambiguity in The Adventures of Tom Sawyer. Showing racial stereotypes to children did not seem to be an issue at the time, whereas today this is the kind of thing that would be worried about immensely.

I wonder how a modern adaptation of Tom Sawyer would deal with the character of Injun Joe. I don’t know if anyone has read or seen Shakespeare’s “The Merchant of Venice,” but I was reminded of this play in thinking about what a modern interpretation of Tom Sawyer might be like. “The Merchant of Venice” used to be most frequently performed with an emphasis on its anti-Semitic aspects. Now that this has become culturally unacceptable, many scholars and theaters have re-interpreted the play as actually being sympathetic to its Jewish character, and perform it emphasizing this aspect. I wonder if modern adaptations of Tom Sawyer might take a similar approach, or if they might just leave out Injun Joe’s character altogether, as the cartoon I found did with Huck Finn? Does anyone remember how the movie Tom and Huck dealt with Injun Joe’s character?

Injun Joe: from Racial Fraud to Freud

What I Researched and Why: Carter Revard's disdain for critics and their indifference to the racism of Tom Sawyer's tale is confronted in his article "Why Mark Twain Murdered Injun Joe." Revard writes, "The critics who are alive to every nuance of how Twain, in Huckleberry Finn, kid-gloves the Black and White issues, blatantly ignore his mauling of Red and White questions in Tom Sawyer" (336). Challenged by his statement, I resolved to find out more about Joe and his portrayal, as well as the extrapolated portrayal of all Native Americans. Perusing the internet, I discovered a site that analyzed the classic in regards to this disenfranchised character.

My Findings and Interpretation: The University of Virginia's website, http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/HNS/Indians/twain3.html, acknowledges the hypocrisy between Twain's writing concerning slaves versus Native Americans. According to the site, Twain sees the Indians as feral and barbaric and insinuates that their savagery will be their downfall as civilization overcomes them. More specifically, http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/HNS/Indians/joe.html explores Joe's character development within the novel and how it reflects Mark Twain's personal ideology concerning Native Americans.

After struggling to find legitimate discussions online, I agree with Revard in upbraiding critics for overlooking Joe. The few sites I did find barely acknowledged him, despite the nature of his role in the story and its societal impact. "Twain's Indians" mentions that Twain's vengeful character never elicits the audience's sympathy and his cruel personality can be directly blamed on his bad blood. The web-page does a great job of highlighting scenes and drawing ties to other pieces of the time portraying Indians, including Last of the Mohicans.

One of the popular images in Twain's The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, featured on the "Injun Joe" page, seems to illustrate Tom's torment following his role as a witness in the murder trial. Twain writes, "His nights were seasons of horror. Joe infested all his dreams, and always with doom in his eye" (118). When I first encountered this sketch, I immediately recalled an unsettling painting by Fuseli, entitled "Nightmare," which can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Johann_Heinrich_F%C3%BCssli_053.jpg. Although simplified, the content and composition of the pen and ink drawing greatly mimic the 18th century portrait. Joe mirrors a perched incubus, suffocating the supine Tom who is draped identically to the woman. This dream scene invites a whole new Freudian perspective. Tom, like the woman, is pure and good, pale and cherubic, while the monster-like Joe lurks in sinister shadow. In reality Joe is normal in appearance, but the artist makes him as terrifying and savage as Twain makes his personality.

Contributions to Class Discussion: We haven't had the opportunity to really delve into these topics with regards to Tom Sawyer yet, but I'm looking forward to seeing what points will be raised in class on the role of Joe. It would be interesting to consider how children are affected by the story in these respects, and how their opinions of Native Americans are shaped thanks to Joe's character and the illustrations which accompany it. The Adventures of Tom Sawyer may be regarded as a beloved albeit juvenile tale, but it also presents weighty issues and deeper meanings. Analysis of the book's portrayal of race is a crucial endeavor well-suited for political and historical theories; additionally, the nightmare scene invites us to take a more unconventional, psychological approach as well. Instead of being shunned by men and women as Twain feared, the book is the perfect medium for us to apply academic discussions.

Tom Sawyer Island

What I researched and Why:
One of the earlier posts talked about the transformation of Tom Sawyer Island in Disneyland into a Pirates of the Caribbean attraction. I thought the idea of a whole island which brings to life something that existed in a work of literature was interesting, so I decided to find out more.

What I found:
http://www.allearsnet.com/tp/mk/mk_tsi.htm
This site tells about Tom Sawyer Island, which other sites confirms is still Tom Sawyer Island, but with an area devoted to Pirates. Considering Tam, Huck, and Joe's adventures while they had 'drowned,' this does not seem altogether inappropriate. They have an 'Injun Joe' Cave, a raft that ferries tourists to the island, paths and hills, and an Ice Cream shop called 'Aunt Polly's that is designed to look like a period house. there are some other things not mentioned in the book, but do follow its character. There is a Mill and a Fort; perhaps these would be the product of the boys' imaginations.
After researching this I remembered another, similar piece of information. Orlando Studios is in the process of creating a Harry Potter theme park in Florida complete with castle, magical village, and train. The images on their website seem to promise a big visual payout on the investment.
http://www.universalorlando.com/harrypotter/

My Interpretation:
I think it is very interesting that in the modern era we seek to live our fictions. It is not enough for us to simply read Tom Sawyer or Harry Potter or to simply watch Pirates of the Caribbean. We want to touch and taste and smell all of it. Why is that? I'm not sure I know the answer, but here are a few possibilities. Maybe we are spoiled by media systems that have grown beyond their creators so that our attention deficit cannot handle having only one ore two senses stimulated at a time. Maybe Disney and Orlando build them, and so we come. In other words, maybe the demand is driven by the production. Or maybe the technology and the economy have simply grown far enough for us to be able to do this and we would have in every era before, but didn't have the means. Or we could take a really optimistic view and say that we are simply more involved with the literature in the modern era than common people have ever been, and therefore want more and more of it, and in varying avenues of absorption.

What it adds to our discussion:
I think the question raised in my interpretation is a good one for discussion. I brought the topic forward and even I don't know what I think of it. Has our society changed so much? Has our media changed so much? What effect might such 'amusement parks' have on future generations and particularly on children's literature? And are these parks a way of subverting the subversive side of children's literature? I suppose I have more questions than answers.

Little Women: girl-book, boy-book, or neither?

My research and findings:
I was very interested in the nineteenth-century idea of the “girl-book” and “boy-book.” The first thing that I looked at (briefly) was the book The Story of a Bad Boy by Thomas Bailey Aldrich (the boy-book of the day). Google has actually digitized the entire book, so I was able to read a little and examine the images. (The book that is displayed is the original version from 1870, and I was immediately struck by the illustrations. You’ll know what I’m talking about when you look at them). I found Aldrich’s writing style to be quite humorous. Here’s a little snippet from the first chapter:
"Lest the title should mislead the reader, I hasten to assure him here that I have no dark confessions to make. I call my story the story of a bad boy, partly to distinguish myself from those faultless young gentlemen who generally figure in narratives of this kind, and partly because I really was not a cherub. "
While I was reading the first few pages of The Story of a Bad Boy, I found myself wondering how Little Women came to be considered the “girl-book” when the main character (Jo) is a such a tomboy. I found an article from the New England Quarterly by John W. Crowley which discusses this exact conundrum.

My Interpretation:
Crowley discusses the idea of the boy-book and the manner in which it was introduced to the reading public, stressing the point that it “depicts a child’s world that is antagonistic to the world of adults”. He goes on to examine the world of Alcott’s Little Women and its qualification as a girl-book. He claims that it cannot be considered a girl-book because
"Aldrich, Mark Twain, Howells, and other writers of the boy-book imagine a boy-world distinct from both the adult spheres (or at least from the woman’s sphere) [while] Alcott shows the girl-world to by circumscribed by the woman’s sphere and governed by its civilizing codes. "
In my opinion, the way that the woman’s world informs that of the girl could be the main difference between the “boy-book” and the “girl-book”; however, I don’t disagree with everything that Crowley discusses in this essay. The majority of his essay is spent discussing Jo’s character and her boyishness and aggressive nature. While Jo is still a young, nurturing woman with a tendency to be dramatic and emotional, she does not fret over her appearance (cutting her hair for money to support her family) and works very hard to be a writer. She wishes that she and her sisters were boys so that “’then there wouldn’t be any bother!’” and “submits herself to a reforming self-discipline: ‘I’ll try to be what he loves to call me, a little woman, and not be rough and wild’”. This reformation and acceptance of the role which one must play in the adult world is another aspect of the boy-book which can be applied to Little Women, and therefore increases its ambiguity as a girl-book.

What I think it adds to our class discussion:
In children’s literature today, the line between girl-book/boy-book has become increasingly blurred. Sure, there are some: The Babysitters’ Club, Sweet Valley High, Hardy Boys. But the most recent and popular books like Harry Potter and Lemony Snicket’s A Series of Unfortunate Events contain characters which cross the traditional gender boundaries. I feel that in examining books of other time periods, it is helpful to view them through a more critical lens than that to which we might be accustomed. Little Women may be called a girl-book because its main characters are all female; however, we must examine it closely to determine whether the distinction between boy-book and girl-book has always been as clear as we have assumed.