>Whither Jackie Paper?

>While showering this morning, I recollected for no good reason the fact that, as a child, I always thought that Little Jackie Paper died. And now I'm reading John Green's marvelous An Abundance of Katherines, and am pleased to have found another child for whom fables were not all that: "if only he'd known that the story of the tortoise and the hare is about more than a tortoise and a hare, he might have saved himself considerable trouble."

And if children's writers would just stay away from the fables, already, they would save us ALL considerable trouble. Making a story (The Gift, by Robert Morneau) about transubstantiation into one about pumpkin pie enlightens us about neither subject. Making a story (Bravemole, by Lynne Jonell) about the World Trade Center and terrorists into one about molehills and dragons demeans all concerned. It shouldn't come as a surprise that so many celebrity-amateur books (Madonna's Mr. Peabody's Apples; Patricia Cornwell's Life's Little Fable) indulge in this sort of thing, because the financial model for a successful picture book is The Giving Tree. But the thing is this: The Giving Tree never was a book for children; it was a book for adults charmed by thinking themselves sophisticated for finding such "wisdom" in a kiddie book. Idiots.

What brought this on? I'll tell ya. I'm reviewing The Boy in the Striped Pajamas, a novel-length fable about the Holocaust. And once I hit the first instance of the word Auschwitz rendered in irony-laden lisping babytalk ("Out-With") I knew we were in trouble all over again.
Roger Sutton
Roger Sutton

Editor Emeritus Roger Sutton was editor in chief of The Horn Book, Inc., from 1996-2021. He was previously editor of The Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books and a children's and young adult librarian. He received his MA in library science from the University of Chicago in 1982 and a BA from Pitzer College in 1978.

Comment Policy:
  • Be respectful, and do not attack the author, people mentioned in the article, or other commenters. Take on the idea, not the messenger.
  • Don't use obscene, profane, or vulgar language.
  • Stay on point. Comments that stray from the topic at hand may be deleted.
  • Comments may be republished in print, online, or other forms of media.
  • If you see something objectionable, please let us know. Once a comment has been flagged, a staff member will investigate.


Anonymous

>I had to read The Boy in the Stripped Pygamas for our book club.
The author is in my veiw a Mark Haddon wannabe, who seriously and patronizingly misses the mark. I LIVED through The Curious Incident...and at the end I cried, something I had not done since Jane Eyre at 13 years of age. Where has Bruno been all his life - in a cupboard? He did not know, depite the German love of the fatherland, what a farm was, but had know trouble identifying barbed wire. How dare the author use this terrible period of human suffering to write this sentimental drivel.I LOATHED HAVING TO FINISH THE BOOK.

Posted : Dec 07, 2008 09:08


Cat_Starr

>I read 'The Boy...' when it first came out and it wasn't being called a fable at that point, atleast not on my copy. I think it is an awful book. As a stage writer I have done a massive amount of research into, in particular, Rudolph Hoess and his time as Kommandant at Auschwitz. I agree with many things people on here have said such as Hitler not stooping low enough to meet with Hoess, it's true, Hoess answered to Himmler. I also find it incredibly arrogant and patronising of the author to think he can get away with writing things like 'Out- With' and 'Fury' and expecting the reader not to feel resentful for being treated like an idiot. When I realised what he was trying to do with these childish phrases it made me seriously dislike the book before I had even really started. The thing that angers me more than anything is the fact that Bruno has a relationship with Schmuel for about a year. No child would have lasted more than a few days once they reached Auschwitz. Why would the Nazi killing machine, horribly effective and efficient keep children, who are useless to the war machine even in terms of foced labour, alive? Answer: they didn't. It offends me that someone who calls themselves an author, and takes all the authority that goes with that title, could write a book so flawed in terms of historical accuracy and literary terms. I cannot express just how much I dislike this book, mainly because I can't bear the thought that children are going to read it and think that they now understand what happened.

Anyone thinking of buying this book for their children- don't. Buy Waiting For Anya by Michael Morpurgo instead, it shows much more literary talent and ultimately, humility.

Posted : Jan 13, 2008 11:50


Anonymous

>I am with Miss Katherine on this in that it is plausible for a not-so-bright 9-yr old who was sheltered and home-schooled with hardly any contact to the outside world to be naieve.

But that point has been made, and even so I felt compelled to add my view, because I felt that many of the posts complaining of the naievity, the description of the book as a 'fable', or the out-with/fury puns have slightly missed the point of the book. Those are the things that remind you at every page that this is a story, that that world could never happen have occured, could it? Those are part of the things that make the book (as Monica pointed out) "icky".

It is not a book to 'enjoy', but I found it a fantastic book. Very worthwhile, very thought-provoking, very disturbing.

Posted : Aug 27, 2006 02:37


Miss Katharine

>As the child of German immigrants, I was very moved by The Boy in Striped Pajamas. I understand some of the objections, but I was pulled into the story so deeply that things like "The Fury" did not bother me at all. As for Bruno not understanding what was happening... My grandmother was a pre-teen in Germany during that time and lived in a small village where she says she had *no idea* about the death camps. She knows that her father wouldn't let her join the Hitler Youth, but she didn't understand *why* (she so wanted the pretty uniform and to go to meetings and on outings!). So, honestly, I can understand how a child can be so sheltered that they just don't understand what the heck is happening. Plus, children can frequently be self-absorbed not notice things that aren't all about them. (A line from an A.A. Milne poem comes to mind, "Do you think the king knows all about me?") Add to that the fact that children were not so inundated with media of all manner the way they are now...

So do I believe that it is possible for a 9-year-old boy living in Hitler's Germany to be unaware of the atrocities around him? I do. I was absorbed in the book until the final pages, when I gasped in horror and began crying on the bus...

Posted : Aug 23, 2006 05:04


rindawriter

>The painful question to wonder about all of this is WHY so often the #!%&##!!!###!! things sell so well--the "Giving Tree" rip-offs, I mean. Clearly, publishers are publishing them not for alturistic reasons. Clearly, publishers see a buying public out there, a rather large one, of adults. THAT's what un-nerves me a bit to wonder about.

I like that "Kitten" book of Kevin Henkes a lot; I mean it looks like a fable type book on the surface...but I don't feel that it is. It's funny, endearing. Kitten is a flawed kitten, a silly, stupid kitten, albeit adorable. She has an adventure with a satisfying end.

I've never been a fan of Seuss's picture books. Like his easy readers a bit better.

But my opion, that I so, SO dislike PREACHY, TEACHY books for children probably doesn't weigh a qark in the wider world...God help me though to never write one...and His help might be needed in my case! We are only human after all...and prone to blindness about ourselves.

Posted : Jul 14, 2006 10:56


View More Comments

RELATED 

ALREADY A SUBSCRIBER?

We are currently offering this content for free. Sign up now to activate your personal profile, where you can save articles for future viewing.

ALREADY A SUBSCRIBER?