 |
 |
|
|
|
||
“McLuhan, Youth, and Literature”: Part I Thank you for incorporating in your magazine the much-needed articles about children’s literature in England. Having taught in both the U. S. and England, I, too, have long deplored the lack of cognizance concerning authors and books on the part of teachers in both countries. And at long last, I found on reading Eleanor Cameron’s fine article in the October issue that there is someone else who agrees with my opinion of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory! As always, I open the Horn Book with a feeling of Christmas — so many wonderful new books are set before me, and I know I’ll be adding to my long “must read” list. Thank you again for an evening of pure joy! MARY WADSWORTH SUCHER
Horn Book continues to be the most provocative magazine around for children’s books. The reviews do justice to the hard work of writing books (printed, of course, on the best paper ever). And compliments to Eleanor Cameron for such intelligent writing and criticism. VIRGINIA HAMILTON
“McLuhan, Youth, and Literature” touched off youthful pyrotechnics at the Wellesley Free Library. After absorbing a summarization of Eleanor Cameron’s recent article in Horn Book, spirited fifth and sixth graders responded with considerable heat and light. These kids were unanimously aghast at the mere possibility of the Death of the Book. It was a real challenge to play devil’s (McLuhan’s) advocate in the face of such dedicated opposition. Individual and group outbursts established the facts that TV was boring and kids who like TV are stupid. More specifically, it was agreed that TV shows are fake situations. “But,” I countered innocently, “can’t books be imaginary or fake?” “Yes. But with books you make it your own way and imagine your own pictures.” These avid readers further clarified their feeling by asserting that kids who watched TV were just like apes. All TV requires is staring at the screen. In books, you can go back and read stuff again. Words won’t move across the page if your mother yells at you to clean up your room in the middle of a chapter. The kids acknowledged that some people like to see a total story from beginning to end, the total sequence all in one sitting like the average TV show. But the kids think books are better because you can make them suspenseful. You can stop reading any place you want and just think. Or you can keep reading. I asked what they would schedule if they planned TV shows. The library reverberated with their shout of “Book Reviews!” It was agreed that TV was a major topic of conversation among their classmates. I asked how they accounted for their ignorance when the shows were discussed. The consensus was that reading was a personal thing. If a friend asks why you missed a show, you usually just say you were busy. In a last devil’s advocate attempt, I asked if they could see McLuhan’s point at all. Could they recognize that they were a minority and that reading was too slow and too much trouble for the majority of people. No, that wasn’t a valid point because people were always learning to read faster. I asked where we could possibly keep the millions and millions of books that would collect, and suggested that books would have to become obsolete as there wouldn’t be enough space for them. Even that pessimistic view failed to daunt the stalwart readers. Several solutions were offered. The most innovative outlined plans for a library on the moon for book storage. Rockets traveling back and forth could exchange batches of books. To these children, at least, the conception of a book depository on the moon is no more fantastic than McLuhan’s conception of no books at all. Thank you, Ms. Cameron, for inciting this most reassuring riot. FRAN HAWK |
||
 |
  
 
  |
||||||||
