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.
Sunday, October 29, 2006
Sunday, October 08, 2006
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.
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.
Monday, October 02, 2006
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
