what it is..

I remember, when I was about 11, reading Slumber Party by Christopher Pike and absolutely loving it. Slumber party was about a group of young women go to a cabin in the in mountains. Unfortunately, they had a sleepover party eight years prior that was quite catastrophic: one girl’s face, Nell’s, was scarred by a fire and another girl died. This slumber party begins to get suspenseful when Dana goes missing and someone is burned. Ironically,the events begin to resemble the last tragic sleep over party.

I think I enjoyed this book because it was a suspenseful mystery rather than a scary story. Additionally, boys were at the sleep over party and there was no parental supervision…AWESOME! To provide some further insight to why I was drawn to this book I point you to 2 things I don’t think I will ever grow out of being excited by:
· Sleep-over parties
· Making out

According to James Howe in his article, “Writing Mysteries for Children”, the “plot is the most crucial ingredient in any” (178). He also suggests that contrary to the question posed by adults when they read mysteries, “Who did it?”, children, when reading mysteries, question, “What’s going on here?”. I don’t know if I agree with that statement because the main question when I read Slumber Party, was who is the villain? - "who did it"

Interestingly, Howe’s article, illustrated how he personally approaches writing mysteries for kids instead of merely suggesting a way to do it. He states, “A mystery is a story told forward but conceived backward” (180). He leads the reader of this article on an insightful adventure of methods, cautions, and suggestions when constructing a mystery.

To entice you, if you have not read his article,I present you with following excerpt:
“Ultimately, mysteries may be most compelling because they are stories of human failing. Crime is at the core of every mystery, and no crime is committed with suffering on someone’s part. Still, compassion in the reader will not come from the writer tell the reader to be compassionate. It will only come when the writer has done the most essential thing – tell a good story” (184).

Howe, James. 1990.

Writing mysteries for children

.The Horn Book66 Mar/Apr: 178-183.


Pike, Christopher. 1985. Slumber Party . New York: Scholastic.

reluctant or epileptic? you decide...or maybe I did

I did not mind reading “Ashley and Junie B. Jones: a struggling reader make a connection to literacy” by Carol D Wickstrom, Joan Scott Curtis, Kayla Daniel, Karen Smith and Faryl Kander. Although, I started to get a bit irritated when I read the last page, but alas, I am getting ahead of myself.

So, this little girl, Ashley, was born prematurely and had experienced some other complications from being in the womb when her mother had toxemia. The previous sentence would have been a more sensitive way for the authors to have documented Ashley’s medical issues. Sadly, for Ashley, the authors note that some of Ashley’s medical side effects from her mother’s toxemia were surgeries on her eyes and bladder. Okay, I can see how the eye surgery is pertinent for the reader to grasp an understanding of a reason that Ashley may not be a good or interested reader, but the bladder surgery? I have never heard, maybe I am ignorant, of the bladder affecting reading habits or lack of?

This poor girl has her hardships with speech and reading outlined publicly, and to top it off she has her bladder issues smeared in black and white for all to see? Damn, how traumatizing would that be…immeasurable! Even if Ashley was a pseudonym, her mother is listed as an author – Kayla Daniel. The connection is not that hard to make.

I will continue. So, Ashley had these issues and is not interested in reading. She had a hard time remembering details. One day she witnessed an accident and afterwards is able to describe the situation she encountered. Because she can remember the details, which was something rare for her, her teachers and parents believe that she has to have an emotional attachment to something in order to retain it as a long term memory.

Well, Ashley gets a hold of this Junie B Jones book via a teacher, Joan, during an open house night at the high school. Ashley was only in elementary school during this time but throroughly enjoyed these books being read to her and became interested in see the text. The authors then posed the question “So can a book that is a higher reading level than the ability of the student become a catalyst for learning to read” (Wickstrom et al., 20)? Well, obviously, Ashley was totally into them. The question posed is not that simple of answer for Ashley is only one person, but what really ticked me off about this article is that the reader comes to find out that Ashley wasn’t a reluctant reader, SHE WAS EPILEPTIC! Part of her brain was in a constant state of seizure. After she began taking medicine “Ashley’s motor skis improved immediately…Her reading skills have improved, and Ashley is reading slightly above her grade” (20). This became an article that was not about higher level reading material intriguing the reluctant reader, but that the reluctant reader may be epileptic?

After writing this commentary, I realize, I don’t like this article at all and I retract my opening paragraph statement. The fact that it took 5 people to write it is mind blowing.

Though, Junie B. Jones, a series book may be beneficial to a reluctant reader, this article only would provoke a parent that is a hypochondriac to take his or her child to a neurologist.

Wickstrom, Carol D., Joan Scott Curtis, Kayla Daniel, Karen Smith, Faryl Kander. 2005. "Ashley and Junie B. Jones: A struggling reader makes a connection to literacy," Language Arts 83(1): 16-21.

It's about to get real graphic

I am a fan of graphic novels, specifically, manga. I gained an interest in type of reading material when I was 21. I was dating this kid that was all about manga. I didn't understand the appeal of these books. At first glance, I thought they were silly and a bit juvenile for my partner who was 29 back then. After we broke up, naturally, I started dating someone else. Coincidently, my new prospect was into manga. During our courtship, I was working at a bookstore and they only carried a minimal amount of manga. Being the diligent worker I was known to be, I decided that while I was on the clock I might as well check out our graphic novel section. Surprisingly, I was totally into it (not the Marvel comics).

I now have my own small, very small, collection of manga including my personal favorite Naruto (I even have a tattoo from this series...hehe...uh, shirt tug)!

At first, as I described above, I was skeptical of the merit and maturity of this genre, but after taking a closer look, I realized that this visual and textual experience is entertaining, creative and a fun read.

I was thoroughly pleased to read "What Teens Want: Thirty Graphic Novels you Can't Live Without" by Michele Gorman. From the title I thought this would be an article solely about graphic novels suited for teens. I was pleased and intrigued that this was more than a pathfinder for graphic novels; it was a collection, cataloging and integration manual for public libraries. I was impressed how Gorman emphasized, much like Lisa Heggeum during her talk last Wednesday, that teens need to be involved in the advisory committee to ensure the collection of your library will reflect the interest of the young adults and b/c, "This [having teens on the advisory committee] will provide feedback and help advertise the availability of graphic novels in your library. Word of mouth is the fastest way to spread news about new programs or materials" (44).

In other news…

I was really into "Sex Thugs, and Rock 'n' Roll: Magazines for Young Adults" by Patrick Jones.

I thought back to when I was a preteen. I loved to read magazines and I would read any time I was presented with "Teen" or "YM", though I wouldn't consider myself to have been an avid reader. This is not an uncommon misconception. As Jones notes, "Often when librarians say that YAs don't like to read, they must mean books, because YA do like to read magazines" (100).

What I found most appealing about these 2 magazines was that there was always a quiz about how to be a better kisser, flirt more effectively or find out if you are ready to use tampons - you know- things a 10 year-old needs to know. Additionally, these magazines would have pop culture references, including music and television, that I was particularly keen on.

I found Jones' article to present facts that I never have taken into consideration. For example, "The primary benefit to a YA magazine collection is circulation. For the cost of one hardback book a magazine subscription can be purchased" (Jones 99).

Once again, a YA librarian suggests that teenagers should be a part of the selection process when acquiring YA material: "The best source for a list of magazines is teenagers themselves- either through formal or informal surveys, most teenagers know what they want" (Jones 101).

Moral of the articles: Get involved with your community to effectively and efficiently serve it.

Gorman, Michele. 2002. What teens want. School Library Journal 48(8): 42-47.

Jones, Patrick. 1998. Sex, thugs and rock n’roll: Magazines for young adults. In Young adults and public libraries: A handbook of materials and services, eds. Mary Anne Nichols and C. Allen Nichols, 98-106. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Justin may be bringing sexy back, but Jon is bringing funny back

Jon Scieszka is my new favorite person. In fact, I am in love with his style and speeches! He is brilliant, yet easy to read.
In his intelligent and comic speech, “What’s so funny, Mr. Scieszka”, Jon Scieszka surfaces some truths:


- The tragedy is one of the only genres that is considered “high art”
- Many curriculums do not give children the opportunity to learn on their own: information and methods are pushed on children


MOST IMPORTANTLY:
- Comedic material is not receiving the credit it deserves! Al Franken, Chuck Klosterman, Margaret Cho, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert (definitely not an exhaustive list) are so damn funny, intelligent and politically aware that it is amazing that this form/genre of expression is not held in a higher regard.


A classic satirist is Jonathan Swift. Honestly, I enjoy his stories, but the message is so subverted and no longer relevant to current world issues that my question becomes, why is the material produced by the aforementioned writers/performers not considered to be as brilliant? Is it that they, the current day satirists, are too blunt? Is it that some of their material could not be distributed in schools because their ideas do not conform to the current conservative parties in power in North America?


When you are feeling blue because a loved one passed away, you have broken up with a partner, you can’t get your homework done, you are hung over or you have stepped in dog poo what makes you feel better:
- A good epic tragedy that deals with death, broken hearts and failures
OR
- A good joke that is about a guy ringing a bell with his head or a joke about “the shit hitting the fan”


I feel it is extremely important for children to learn sarcasm and other forms of humour when they are young. Developing an understanding of the juxtaposition of words and tones that are associated with humour equips a child with a set semiotics that are essential in order to effectively communicate.


How many times have you made a joke and no one laughs? (I know that never happens to me either!) Or, how many times has someone told you a joke, written an e-mail or instant messaged you something that is supposed to elicit a “LOL” or a chuckle and you have to give a “courtesy laugh”? It is one of the most uncomfortable things to do. Actually, I think the courtesy laugh is plain painful. In an effort to steer clear of telling painful jokes or future generations telling stories that receive a “courtesy laugh” we need to motivate our children, our friend's children, our brother’s and sister's children to read and to be taught humour. As Whitney Houston always said, “I believe the children are our future. Teach them well and let them lead the way.”

Scieszka, Jon. 2005. "What's So Funny, Mr. Scieszka?: The Zena Sutherland Lecture," Horn Book 81(6): 653-667.

This ain't no chicken, but Tyson is treating you like family

This week I am presenting a booktalk on realistic fiction; therefore, when I saw the professional and scholarly readings for this week, I realized that read Cynthia A. Tyson's article, "'Shut My Mouth Open': Realistic Fiction and Social Action" could provide additional insight.

I absolutely loved this article. It was smart and witty. In fact, I take pleasure in any article that begins by quoting a fifth-grader saying "'There ain't no Little Red in my hood, and if I catch one of 'dem little piggies, I'm gon' have a Bar-B-Que" (Tyson, 155). I also enjoy reading about educators who sincerely care about students success.

Tyson acknowledged that some of her male students were having trouble identifying with the characters, plots and themes of traditional tales; therefore, she took an active approach with her students and started exploring literature from a different genre: contemporary realistic fiction.

Interestingly and unsurprisingly realistic fiction provided a true-to-life foundation in which the students were able to relate. In addition, this genre “can provide a literary framework for the development of a sense of personal and civic competency, and the ability to make improvement in our own lives and the lives of others” (Tyson, 156). Through realistic fiction the students were able to empathized and acknowledge local and national social issues. Like their teacher, they were inspired to take an active approach to a problem; therefore, they wrote letters to the president expressing their passion and solutions for social change.

It is an awesome article that demonstrates how inspiring and essential realistic fiction is in exposing and shaping society. Unfortunately, my review and reflection does not serve this article justice.

Tyson, Cynthia A. 1999." "Shut my mouth wide open": Realistic fiction and social action." Theory into practice 38(3): 155-159.

I struggled with "The Struggle for Meaning"

I like to think of myself as an optimistic realist. That is, I am aware and conscious of reality and I view it through a positive lens. I also consider myself honest, actually blunt at times. I don’t deceive or stray from the truth to emphasize a point; therefore, when someone writes, “It is well known how many have lost the will to live, and have stopped trying, because such meaning [meaning of life] has evaded them” (326) I become a bit irritated. First, I don’t think that desperation or depression are topics that are freely discussed pieces of common knowledge or “well known” in our society; therefore that part of the sentence I believe to be a fallacy. If they were topics that were “well known” there would not be such a stigma around psychotherapy, antidepressants or other psychotropic drugs. Secondly, I don’t believe that “many”, a nonspecific number that implies a majority or close to, is very representative of those who have “lost the will to live”. That part of the sentence would be a definite exaggeration. Finally, the reason someone looses a will to live, is not necessarily because he or she has lost the meaning of his or her life, there may be a chemical imbalance or another serious or medical underlying issue.

As I continued to read “The struggle for Meaning” by Bruno Bettleheim, I continued to disagree with a lot of his positions. Though, I do believe children’s literature plays a role in a child’s development, I do not feel that fairy tales send a positive or realistic message to children as Bettleheim insists.

There is nothing realistic about a stepmother that has magical powers as in “Snow White”. Nor is there anything realistic about a girl who is asleep for 100 years, who never ages, and isn’t hooked up to a feeding tube as in “Sleeping Beauty”.

I do not feel that fairytales helped me cope with life and I believe this is because they have not set up a positive model of life for a young female. As in “Snow White” with her 7 dwarfs, “Cinderella” with her handsome prince, “Sleeping Beauty” with her handsome prince and “Rapunzel” with her handsome prince: a woman is always in need and a man is always her savor. It did not surprise me that this issue was not confronted by the author, for he continually referred to the child reader with the male pronoun of “he”.

Additionally, all of the romantic encounters are strictly heterosexual. This may confuse a child who has 2 moms or 2 dads. Additionally, as the child hits puberty, begins to have sexual feeling and revisits the fairy tales he or she may become ashamed or confused of arousal from a homosexual experience because he or she has never been exposed to a queer representation of society through literature.

Fairytales do not reflect society or the issues kids face today. They (as far as the fairy tales I have read) do not address historical or present day social issues such as segregation, women’s suffrage, religious crusades or capitalism to name a few

Bettleheim made an erroneous statement, “Today children no longer grow up with the security of an extended family or of a well-integrated community” (335). I happen have friends who have children and they live with their parents and grandparents: “the security of an extended family”. Additionally, I have been exposed to many “well-integrated community[ies]”.

While I feel that fairy tales are entertaining I would not deem them as necessary for a child to find meaning in his or her life.


Bettelheim, Bruno. 1991. The struggle for meaning. In Folk and fairy tales, eds. Martin Hallet and Barbara Karas, 326-345. Peterborough: Broadview Press.

Art

I was intrigued by this week's professional and scholarly readings. The two articles I found the most interesting were by Gratia Banta and Barbara Kiefer.

Gratia Banta, in her article "Reading Pictures, Searching for Excellence in Picture Books”, focuses on the value of picture book illustrations. Banta strongly believes that one must acquire knowledge of art term/vocabulary and art history to accurately evaluate illustrations in a picture book. Additionally, Banta feels that traditional categories of art styles are applicable to modern illustrations. Though Banta served on the Caldecott Committee she does agree with their method of evaluating illustrations. She is in the camp that illustrations should be appraised separately from the text of the picture book. Contrarily, I believe that text and illustrations should harmonize; therefore, it would be negligent to critique one without the other. Similarly, Barbara Kiefer in her article "Visual Criticism and Children's Literature", believes that illustration and text should complement each other. Simply put, “the illustrator, on the other hand, is bound to a specific idea or narrative, with some intent, at least, to convey a specific meaning to an audience” (77). Kiefer takes an in-depth look, with many examples, of how illustrations convey meaning. Contrasting with Banta, Kiefer does not think that applying traditional categories of art styles useful when appraising modern art. Instead, she believes that semiotic theory is helpful in the evaluation of picture books. I was captivated by Kiefer’s style of writing and I am in compliance with her ideas.

Kiefer’s article suggests that the production of the illustrations should reflect the original media used to create the art. For example, if oil pastels are used to create the illustrations the paper in the book should have a reflective surface which mimics the luster of the pastels. This is an idea I would not have thought of. She clearly articulates why and how to critique illustrations in picture books. Furthermore, Kiefer includes an extremely useful appendix that outlines elements to consider when evaluating picture books.

Though Banta's article was informative, had some good points, gave an extensive suggested reading list, I have to say that I was not all about her her writing style or her position on how to critique picture book illustrations.

Simply put, Kiefer rocks and Banta doesn't!


Kiefer, Barbara. 1993. Visual criticism and children’s literature. In Evaluating children’s books, 73-88. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: GSLIS.

Banta, Gratia J. 2004. Reading pictures: Searching for excellence in picture books. Children and libraries 2(3): 30-34

Brevity is key...

I was so pleased with last week's professional and scholarly readings that I approached this week's reading with a high level of expectation and excitement. As Aidan Chambers explained in chapter 15: A Critical Blueprint of his book titled Introducing Books to Children, our histories and experiences affect our reactions to what we read (176). Unfortunately, my anticipated degree of delight from this weeks reading was not met.

Chambers had some good ideas and points. Disappointingly, he did not grasp the meaning of conciseness. Each point was over explored, yet at the same time he did not fully explain things. For example, he introduces the idea of levels of reading. Apparently, there are four levels of reading, yet he only touches on three levels and one of the four is never presented (177).

Other parts of Chambers' chapter I was displeased with were the following sentences:

"But the child who has the advantage of being brought up enriched by hearing stories and reading books will have added and much greater pleasure playing the game, airing his knowledge, re-experiencing the pleasure of the nursery stories, and finding a whole new story based on those familiar tales and verses" (179).

"Indeed, when a book calls strongly on another book, and the reader lacks the knowledge of the source, then part of the books pleasure is lost" (180).

I feel that it is quite silly to assume that a child's pleasure from a book that has many allusions will be increased if he or she is familiar with the works the book at hand has alluded to. I feel that the quoted sentences above are void of the points the author previous made. For example, as previously stated the author points out that we bring "our own personal histories" to texts; therefore, a child who is familiar with tale of Little Red Riding Hood and remembers it being told by his or grandma while his or her parents were having a violent fight in the background may not derive more pleasure from the film Hoodwinked than a child who is not familiar with the Little Red Riding Hood. Additionally, if the book or film in question alludes to another work and a child is not familiar with the book or film, a book talk could spark the child’s interest in the alluded work; therefore, pleasure is derived from a work that "calls strongly on another book."

I also thought it to be quite self-serving that he plugs another work of his in this chapter: "In my essay 'The Reader in the Book,' included in The Signal Approach to Children's Books I have explored in more detail this aspect of reading" (182).

I also feel that Chambers made a strong statement that does not ring true, "'What is it that makes me I and feel as I do - why am I impressed"' then the text will in any case slowly reveal itself" (182). I have read T. S. Eliot’s “The Wasteland" and I have reflected on my thoughts and feeling that I experienced when I read the poem. The text has yet to reveal itself to me. Or, perhaps since 1997 it is still "slowly revealing itself"??

What I did gather from the reading by Chambers is:
-Discussing books with children is important
-Reader's advisory is important in children's literature and as a youth librarian
-There is a need to pay attention to how expectations and personal histories affect our interpretations of what we read
-Some believe that he or she is so prolific or the authority on a topic that he or she should plug his or her other published items in his or her works
** (Most important!!) Anyone can get published



Chambers, Aidan. 1983. A critical blueprint. In Introducing books to children, 2d.ed., 174-193. Boston: The Horn Book.

Loved the readings

A HISTORY OF THE LILLIAN H. SMITH and OSBORNE COLLECTIONS

Prior to the readings required for today, I was in dark. Though this semester marks the beginning of my final year of my graduate studies at FIS, still, I am not certain of my desired career path. Furthermore, I did not think that I, a person who does not wish to baby-sit, bear or adopt children, would be so interested in youth/children's librarianship.
While reading Margaret Crawford Maloney's, "Public Trust: Special Collections of Children's Material", I became intrigued. I was unaware how rich Toronto's history of children's librarianship truly is. Being a lover of history this reading appealed to me.
Not having previous courses that dealt with the subjects of collection development or rare books, I found it useful that the author defines many terms. For example, Maloney defines something of rarity as, "intrinsic merit, significance within a field of study or research and scarcity in relationship to desirability" (144).
I knew that our upcoming field trip was to visit the Lillian H. Smith and Osborne Collections, but I had no idea the story behind these collections. Maloney's reading gave me the much needed insight. Furthermore, this reading sparked my interest in Judith St. John's The Osborne Collection of Early Children's Books, a Catalogue and Lillian H. Smith's The Unreluctant Years.
My journey to and through information studies was sparked by an interest in information policy, specifically, public access; therefore, I was pleased to read that, "Identification, organization and ultimately the detailed cataloguing demanded by the nature and use of rare materials is needed to maximize public access" (Maloney 145). For all those who are skeptical, 1320 is not an out-of-date class, as the aforementioned sentences states, it is integral to the understanding of public access.
I found it fascinating and awesome how much emphasis is put on respecting the benefactor's gift by preserving it and providing access to the gift.
I look forward to touring this PUBLIC TRUST! This essay was the perfect appetizer to the main course.

A HISTORY OF CHILDREN'S BOOKS AND LITERATURE

Zena Sutherlan detailed and commented on the history of children's literature. My favorite line in "Chapter 3: The History of Children's Books" from Children and Books is, "We need perspective in judging children's books. We need to look at the past with modern eyes and view the present with the accumulated wisdom of the past" (41). I feel that that advice/statement is applicable to many areas of study and life.
From this reading I learned a lot about children's book history. It is interesting that many of the titles regarded as children's literature I thought to be adult literature. Some titles include:
- Gulliver's Travels by Jonathan Swift
- Little Women by Louisa May Alcott
- Sarah Plan and Tall by Patricia MacLachlan
Similarly, today, though a different medium, there are many children's films that seem to have humour directed at adults opposed to the intended audience, yet children still laugh. The previous sentence relates to children's book history which Suterlan outlines children enjoying the stories (literature) that were intended for adults. One could concluded that there can be a blurred line between what is deemed children's literature (entertainment) and what is adult literature (entertainment).
I could not help laughing out-loud when I read that some believe that the first children's book was on table manners. I did not snicker at the belief, but that the first book intended to be read by children was not about having fun or being young, but about etiquette.
I thoroughly enjoyed the section on Puritans and children's literature. With some of the literature the Puritans had their children reading I was surprised that Jonathan Edwards, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" was not on the list. I found it quite humorous that as Sutherlan notes, a happy child was not defined according to the Puritans as a child that smiled and seemed cheerful, but “This meant [in order to make children happy their] being [was] secure in the avoidance of Hell and the assurance of Heaven" (45).
As if the Puritan's belief of what defined children's literature was unbelievable, it is hard to imagine that 300 + years ago marks the first appearance of the picture book. Furthermore, I think that it is lunacy that only since 1744, "marks the beginning of English books [being read] for their delight" (Sutherlan 47).
I learned a lot about the history of children's literature from Sutherland. I also learned her viewpoint on tradition of didacticism.
I enjoyed reading about the history though I am baffled by her deeming pedantical writings as "oppressively informative" (Sutherlan 53)???


------------------------------REFERENCES---------------------------------------

Maloney, Margaret Crawford. 1990. Public trust: Special collections of children’s materials. In Lands of pleasure: Essays on Lillian H. Smith and the development of children’s libraries, eds., Adele M. Fasick, Margaret Johnson and Ruth Osler, 143-151. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow.

Sutherland, Zena. 1997. Chapter 3: History of Children's Books. In Children and books, 9th ed., 41-61. NY: Longman.