The American Scene

An ongoing review of politics and culture

• Politics
• Economics
• The Media
• Culture

• Home
• About
• Archive
• Search

Leave a Reply

1. Kenneth Taylor bible. I recently got myself a Russian version of “My First Bible” by Kenneth Taylor. I like to listen to Russian children talk in movies, etc. It’s sometimes close to a level I can more or less understand. I happened on this Bible while getting other Russian books from Amazon to help me learn. But I had forgotten how deadly those Kenneth Taylor books are. So very generalized, and all the interesting stories with specific details are removed and replaced with vague platitudes. It’s not a problem specific to Kenneth Taylor. When I was a teacher I used to see the same problem with school textbooks for the early elementary grades, and analogous problems with some science materials. Just terrible.

   Back when we had young children I used to spend at least an hour a night reading to them. One rule for picking books was that they had to be something interesting to me, too.

   — The Reticulator · Jul 20, 05:24 AM · #

2. I don’t think you do get the point of The Giving Tree if you think that any apologies were necessary.

   It is a pretty solid short and simple meditation on human nature as shown through one human life, from the standpoint of a stationary tree.

   The tree never judges the boy, or would expect an apology, but it can’t – it’s a stupid, stationary tree, good for nothing but what man makes of it. Judging is what humans do, and why so many come away judging the boy as bad and selfish, while the tree is so pure and generous, like a mother. But this is Shel’s trick on us – all this moralism and sense of good intentions and the innate wickedness of the human heart, is all projected from the reader entirely. And it is a very silly and unfair judgment that most contemporary readers are fooled into making, by their own moral assumptions and instincts of anthropomorphism – about a tree (!) as some sort of martyred saint.

   The tree is happy (as happy as a tree can be) just being a raw material or prop in the boy’s much more complete, self-aware, mobile, and thriving life. Without the boy making use of it and making it a part of his much more complete life, it becomes something – first a tree (which it never even was until the boy first played on it, and nothing really is anything until it is part of man’s world), a monument, a source of provision, house, boat, etc.
   It would be absurd if a fully grown and completely developed adult human being loved a plant. Is it sad that the boy did not? Only if you are a tree. But that is much more impossible than making a boat or house out of branches. (I’m not sure why you’d apply the standard of reality to that aspect of the story, but have no problem with a talking tree, which realistically, could only say and feel things in the boy’s mind).

   Ultimately I’d say it is a profound little portrait about mortality and and the futility of all life – even the most complete and fully lived human life.

   Now, that IS sad and discomforting, and perhaps a little too Bergmanesque for a children’s book, but I’d say its profound sadness comes from it being so true – we go around living our lives and leave some marks on the world, with little time to enjoy or ponder it all, except when there is nothing left to ponder but the nothingness before us that was always with us.
   Maybe it’s not Huck Finn, but I really don’t see how you can say it is so bad. I don’t know of many books (especially kids’ books) that are so simple and yet so profound.
   It is true that many seem to interpret it as some sort of morality tale about the environment or human consumption, but that is all just read in by shallow tree-huggers (the deformed types who do love what is not inherently lovable and think there is mutuality in our relations with our world). Silverstein himself puts nothing like that in the book (part of the beauty of its sparseness). There is nothing wrong with the boy or his attitude toward the tree – it is perfectly normal, or human, to live a human life amongst humans, have kids, make things. I’d even say it is a very pro-human book. But just because living a human life isn’t wrong doesn’t make it all very sad and futile, which is what the perspective of the tree helps even children sense on some level, and even the environmentalists who are simply trying to turn away from and to cover up their own existential dread with the comfort that moral fables and finger wagging gives us.

   Shel himself was no hater of humanity and human desire and the fleeting chase of life and pleasure, in all its forms. I’d even suggest he is a much better poet than almost all of his more revered (amongst today’s few readers of ‘poetry’) contemporaries.

   I’ve never read Polar Express, but I do hate most of those ‘childhood is magic,’ ‘reason corrupts’ belief books. It is probably worse when it is about Santa Claus.

   Personally I think the Judy Blume books I’d read were much more popular than they merited, but maybe they aren’t anymore. But perhaps that’s a different genre.

   Beyond that, if I can recall, I think everything by Richard Scarry is great, and everything by Eric Carle sucks. But I guess kids like them both. Kids are pretty stupid though.

   — Shel's mom · Jul 20, 05:41 AM · #

3. Wait. I don’t get it. The Polar Express is bad because it acknowledges the Santa lie? Isn’t that a good thing?

   — PEG · Jul 20, 06:18 AM · #

4. “It would be absurd if a fully grown and completely developed adult human being loved a plant.”

   Now who’s projecting their own hang-ups onto the book… ?

   We have no idea how the boy/man feels about the tree, because the story isn’t told from his point of view — it’s told from the tree’s. Clearly he feels some sort of connection to it, though, since he keeps going back to it.

   — Erik Siegrist · Jul 20, 07:07 AM · #

5. I don’t know what to make of the Giving Tree story, but I’m pretty sure it’s supposed to be really sad. I’d like it a lot better if there were some kind of triumph in it, but I remember it more since there isn’t. I don’t know if it’s better or worse for that.

   — Neil the Ethical Werewolf · Jul 20, 10:18 AM · #

6. I’m afraid that shel’s mom is bouncing back and forth between taking an allegorical view of the book and not, as it suits her. Saying both that the tree is just a tree and can’t feel anything and that it’s absurd to martyr it, while also saying that the tree is “happy” doesn’t make sense, and that’s just one example.

   As shel’s mom fancies herself an existentialist, she should really go back and read her Beauvoir. Her post is rife with the Serious and contains more mauvaise foi than you can shake a stick at. On a more basic level, she is reacting with the usual hostility that anyone who has over read an author’s intentions feels when they encounter someone that they consider to have over read in kind. You’re far too certain about Shel Silverstein’s message, in the book, and yet are resistant to John because you think he’s certain in advancing a misreading.

   — Freddie · Jul 20, 02:17 PM · #

7. John’s short list is exactly where I would start, too. The Polar Express sucks because it’s all about [paging J. Poulos!] maintaining “a sense of wonder” once rationality displaces belief in Santa magic. Everything wrong with boomer paganism in one slim volume.

   If we’re flamebaiting and smashing idols, I’ll take a swipe at all the Curious George books.

   — Matt Frost · Jul 20, 02:21 PM · #

8. Obligatory troll: “Where the Wild Things Are” — meh.

   — Klug · Jul 20, 02:33 PM · #

9. OK, not to go overboard, but I’m really confused by someone saying that a story is critical of anthropomorphizing a tree when the story itself explicitly does so, attaching emotions and agency to the tree. “The tree was happy” isn’t mocking human tendency to attach human emotions to non-human objects, it’s doing that. The tree speaking to the boy, and eliciting a response, isn’t described in any way whatsoever that would compel us to think it’s purely metaphorical. It’s just a very weird reading.

   — Freddie · Jul 20, 02:33 PM · #

10. Some years back, First Things did a symposium on The Giving Tree. The responses are quite varied and the disagreements strong.

    — Alan Jacobs · Jul 20, 02:40 PM · #

11. The Polar Express is bad because it acknowledges the Santa lie? Isn’t that a good thing?

    Well actually it doesn’t acknowledge the lie; it makes it out as if everyone who stops believing is missing something essential. But one of the crucial points in the plot is that the kid’s parents don’t believe in Santa! (Where they think that box under the tree came from, I’ll never know …)

    — John Schwenkler · Jul 20, 02:49 PM · #

12. The biggest problem with a story like “Polar Express” is… just who’s supposed to read it?

    A kid who’s old enough to realize there’s no Santa Claus isn’t going to read it and start believing again, nor should he.

    And a kid young enough to believe in Santa unquestioningly will only be hurt and confused by reading/hearing the story. (“He thinks Santa isn’t real? His Mommy and Daddy think Santa isn’t real? Why?? What do they know that I don’t?”) A story intended to ENCOURAGE belief in St. Nick is liable to SHAKE belief in younger kids.

    So, who can read it and truly enjoy it?

    As for me, I believed in Santa for a long time, and have fond memories of those days… but I can’t regain my innocence, and it would be silly for me to try. That’s why I have little use for Francis Church’s famed “Yes, Virginia…” essay. I think that a kid who’s old enough to ask questions on almost ANY topic is old enough to hear the truth.

    — astorian · Jul 20, 03:23 PM · #

13. astorian: Exactly. I’m all for kids’ books that are fun for adults to read – think Goodnight Moon or Where the Wild Things Are, which are poetry of a quality that I can read aloud over and over again – but the central conceit of PE is one that makes sense only to adults, and any kid who can keep track of what’s going on will be pretty deeply confused by it. The way that it begins – with the boy’s friends telling him that there is no Santa – is one thing: it’s a common enough experience, and I’m perfectly happy to read my kids a story where that turns out to be wrong. The way the story ends, though, turns all of that on its head …

    — John Schwenkler · Jul 20, 03:30 PM · #

14. I agree with you about PE, but still have a fondness for Where the Sidewalk Ends.

    Absolute worst children’s book, though, is “BAAA” by David Macauly. Macauly is brilliant when he diagrams Castles and Cathedrals, but he’s not so good when it comes to preachy picture books. On the plus side, I’ve never seen a parent read it to their child, and I’ve rarely seen it in the picture book sections of the stores I frequent. But it is featured prominently in the Norton Anthology of Children’s Literature. The post-modernists love it. Parents…not so much.

    — Margaret Perry · Jul 20, 04:04 PM · #

15. I can say with some experience that My Little Pony – A Dance in the Clouds is (1) very popular with 2 year old girls and (2) incredibly awful. I have no idea how that book even got on my daughter’s shelf.

    I thought A Wocket in my Pocket was much scarier than it needed to be. Do I really want to read a book to my kids that posits that grotesque beings are hiding under every single thing in their rooms? Right before they go to sleep?

    — J Mann · Jul 20, 04:05 PM · #

16. I think Shel Silverstein’s poems are great. Our condemnation is, presumably, limited to The Giving Tree.

    — Matt Frost · Jul 20, 04:06 PM · #

17. Whoops. I didn’t read the instructions that carefully. Eliminate the first paragraph, I guess. (I’m torn on __The Lorax_ – I love the spooky beginning, and the verse is nice, but the story is a little bit goofy.)

    — J Mann · Jul 20, 04:07 PM · #

18. Anything by Todd Parr. Bad for the eyes, bad for the soul.

    — Chris Floyd · Jul 20, 04:08 PM · #

19. Our condemnation is, presumably, limited to The Giving Tree.

    Indeed. Where the Sidewalk Ends and A Light in the Attic are among the highlights of my childhood.

    The Lorax, though? That’s one of our favorites (in fact, I’ve got it memorized cover to cover), though my little one has a tendency to tear up with the little orange guy gets taken away.

    — John Schwenkler · Jul 20, 04:15 PM · #

20. Little Women.

    — Andy Bolen · Jul 20, 04:19 PM · #

21. Dr. Seuss has his great and his not-so-great (I never cared for the Lorax so much), but I feel obliged to mention his greatest work because it seems lesser-known: Did I Ever Tell You How Lucky You Are?

    If you don’t own a copy, go find one. It’s some pretty fine poetry.

    — Chris Floyd · Jul 20, 04:42 PM · #

22. As a brand-new parent just beginning to puzzle his way through how best to expose his son to literature and philosophy, I really do appreciate all these “lists” posts. Thank you.

    — Erik Vanderhoff · Jul 20, 04:43 PM · #

23. Among the worst children’s books ever, in my opinion, is Brother Eagle, Sister Sky (Jeffers, 1991). A more inaccurate depiction of Native Americans is hard to find. It’s right up there with My Heart is on the Ground (Rinaldi, 1999). Both books render Native people as ghosts of the past. Oyate

    — Debi · Jul 20, 05:06 PM · #

24. I’ll Love You Forever by Robert Munsch. Absolute garbage, probably Munsch’s worst book.

    I have a small library of terrible childrens’ books that my wife and I received after the birth of our first son. We noticed that the more recent the publication, the more decidedly awful the book.

    PS: Der StruwwelPeter should be required bedtime reading for all children.

    — CEK · Jul 20, 05:29 PM · #

25. For children, I’ve always enjoyed John Ciardi’s poetry, like The Man Who Sang the Sillies, better than Silverstein’s.

    Agree with all the negative comments re: Polar Express; could never understand its appeal for either parents or children. Concluded its success must have been riding on its illustrations, like so many children’s books. And agree wholeheartedly with the “worst” nature of Brother Eagle, Sister Sky; it’s incredibly offensive and shallow.

    I’d vote off Incredible Journey, but keep either Lad: A Dog or Lassie Come Home. Not quite sure why.

    Sadly long off everyone’s lists: Anything by William Pene du Bois and Paul Gallico.

    — Chart · Jul 20, 05:38 PM · #

26. “it’s a stupid, stationary tree, good for nothing but what man makes of it”

    how very arrogant

    — let's think · Jul 20, 06:29 PM · #

27. Freddie,
    I appreciate how you have projected my own fancies on me in his effort to say I am projecting. But I feel compelled to reply that I couldn’t say that I am, or fancy myself, an existentialist, or even care to know what he means by “the Serious” or “mauvaise foi” is. But this all smells like it’s meant to be insulting to me.

    In reply to your somewhat understandable consternation that I would bounce back and forth between ‘Saying both that the tree is just a tree and can’t feel anything and that it’s absurd to martyr it, while also saying that the tree is “happy” doesn’t make sense,’ I should simply point out that is what most poetry does. Poems are beautiful little lies, and the best poets are those who are most aware of this. Trees do not have emotions in real life, but a poet can make them feel however he wants, as Shel does in this story.
    I don’t see why that’s so problematic for you. I am simply applying reality to a made up story and pointing out the differences (which I am certain Shel is aware of as well).

    I also never said it has to be taken purely as a metaphor, as you imply, and I understand John was being facetious in his critique of the physical possibility of some of the events, but I just didn’t want him to discount it (especially before Eric Carle), since his humorous criticism did not seem to justify kicking it off, and because this sort of standard would leave nothing left for the kids to read.

    I also did not mean to say the story was some sort of critique of anthropomorphizing, but that it is an example of it, and that the same tendency in all of us is why so many come away from the story thinking of the tree as heroic and the boy as a typical example of man’s darkened heart of warped timber who should be blamed as an ingrate for all of nature’s bounty that has been given to him.
    As I said, the story does play upon the human tendency to want to see our world as given and nature as a sort of gift or benefactor.
    But that’s not how it is at all – in real life or the story – the tree cannot really do anything but speak the boy’s own language (given to it by the poet, or perhaps even the boy’s own imagination). Note that the tree does not actually give or do anything for the boy than suggest and propose. Instead the boy has to do everything – he isn’t given anything, but has to take it all and make it all for himself.

    Granted, the illustrations are more suggestive than the words in this regard (the tree seems to hold apples and the boy himself), but why would anyone cut down and use a self-aware, communicative tree, if he really thought it was as sentient as he? Why not charge people to see and meet it, instead of just selling apples? I don’t think anyone who reads the poem thinks the boy is a complete monster who uses and kills the one magical tree in the world that can move and talk and sense. Instead we suspend our disbelief just enough to see the tree as some mute but noble sort of spirit of nature. We blame the boy, but not as worse than any other human being who has lived and pursued love, money, fame, and adventure (all the things that human life is about and that bare nature alone does not give us, or even supply) by the consumption and use of other living things.)
    It is not such a “strange” reading then, not to completely take the story as literal and bounce between saying the tree is just a tree and that it is happy, since that seems to be exactly how it is presented by the writer, and read by everyone.
    Rather than a criticism of anthropomorphism and the anthropocentrism it arises from, the poem simply uses these to present a sad little portrait of mortality and loneliness. We can call that existentialist, I suppose, but it is a theme that started long before the Beauvoir and others made more of the word existential than it meant before.
    —
    And of course, it is from the tree’s “perspective, so we don’t know how much the boy loves or hates the tree, but his actions (and the tree’s very natural lack of actions) give us no reason to judge him or the tree morally, and yet we do.

    How is pointing that out (that the story doesn’t contain much of the moral meaning that so many critics and praisers attribute to it) so hard to understand?

    I never said it was mocking this tendency, or that it criticizes this tendency, I just said it exists and plays upon it, but actually makes no real criticisms or judgments at all (again, this was my main point in criticizing other readings of the poem).

    However, I do think it’s strange that you attribute hostility to a passionate defense of a fine piece of literature I thought was being unfairly maligned. I should ask that you imagine a more chipper voice in your head when you read my post since I meant no ill-will. It is just a book after all, albeit a very good one. No need for nastiness – especially about what you incorrectly attribute to me.

    — Shel's mom · Jul 20, 06:32 PM · #

28. As far as others’ comments that I am somehow arrogant or have hang-ups because I have said that trees are stupid and stationary and that there is something deformed in a fully grown man who would love a tree like it were a human being, or even an animal, I don’t know what to say.

    I can’t help, no matter how humble I try to become, but think all the trees I know, as beautiful and useful as they may be, aren’t smarter than any of the people (or animals I know). I’m not sure, but this is probably partly why I don’t think anyone can have the same sort of deep abiding deserved love that humans can yearn for and deserve.

    Sorry, just my corrupt nature I guess. Please forgive me as the trees would.

    — Shel's mom · Jul 20, 06:38 PM · #

29. “Poems are beautiful little lies, and the best poets are those who are most aware of this.”

    and poems can unintendingly expose profound truths without the author ever intending to do so

    “he…has to take it all… all for himself”

    — let's think · Jul 20, 06:53 PM · #

30. You admire a forest only for its lumber? Not the majesty of its growth, the cool shade, the innumerable animals it shelters, the splendor of a living thing so old and grand?

    I don’t need to forgive you. I will pity you instead.

    — Travis Mason-Bushman · Jul 20, 07:00 PM · #

31. William Pene du Bois rules! Especially 21 Balloons. Der Struwelpeter, not so much.

    A story I disliked as a child is Hans Christian Andersen’s The Little Mermaid. (I should say that my childhood far, far predates Disney’s Little Mermaid). I liked other H.C.A. stories, but not that one, because the ending is first, such a downer, and second, so preachy. (She doesn’t get the prince, so she melts into seafoam, but angels or something come and turn her into a spirit of the air and tell her that if she flies around doing good deeds for the next 300 years, she will have a soul. Wheee!) I am not sure that story is really for children anyway, or maybe only Danish ones.

    When I was a teenager, I avoided Newberry Award books on principle, because by and large they were about Angst and Issues. As an adolescent, I got more than enough of that in real life. This is probably more a commentary on me than on the intrinsic worth of the Newberry awards, however.

    — DRK · Jul 20, 07:02 PM · #

32. This one for real: “The Butter Battle Book”, by Dr. Seuss. Yes, equating the ideological differences of the Cold War to which side your bread is buttered on is a great message for kids.

    — Klug · Jul 20, 07:06 PM · #

33. I am frankly surprised at the negative comments about The Giving Tree, a story that is a modern contribution in the spirit of Aesop’s beautiful fables. I remember, as a child, reading that book, crying a little for the sheer beauty of the goodness of the tree, reflecting on man’s relationship with nature, with his fellow man, with himself and with God. Because it is a natural thing to anthropomorphize the tree (the tree is described with feelings), one does identify very strongly with the selfless tree, but not necessarily as a literal tree per se. I did not, for instance, leave that book with a conviction not to exploit natural resources, but I did connect creation with a God who willing gave everything to a people who did not deserve it and yet this God loved unconditionally. Now, perhaps you feel that is quite a heavy theme for such a humble book, but I think that the fable genre is just that: simple narratives meant to teach straightforward though profound truth. Because it gave me such a concrete, simple and beautiful picture of unconditional love, (though, perhaps not comprehensive) it forever remains an essential part of the cannon of Children’s Literature.

    — gryphon · Jul 20, 07:22 PM · #

34. Not to pick on the Bushes, but “Read All About it!” by Laura and Jenna is a preachy drag of a book.

    — Jason · Jul 20, 07:39 PM · #

35. “The Butter Battle Book”, by Dr. Seuss

    Good call. I can live with Seuss’s politics and am on board with the concerns that TBBB raises about modern weaponry, but as an account of liberalism vs. socialism? Not so much …

    — John Schwenkler · Jul 20, 07:39 PM · #

36. “You admire a forest only for its lumber? Not the majesty of its growth, the cool shade, the innumerable animals it shelters, the splendor of a living thing so old and grand?”

    Yeah Travis, that’s exactly what I said, I just want to use the forest differently than you and cut it all down because it’s only good for A&M football bonfires (truly majestic).
    Oh, wait, I didn’t say anything like that. But I do note that all the splendor you deny me from being able to see is something else only human beings (not the furry animals the wild shelters (and kills)) project on the environment. Why would you pity me any more than someone who can only see beauty and is unable to make anything more of it to improve his life or those of his friends and family? Perhaps because along with all that splendor you are projecting moral categories that make it better to discount others as unfeeling, heartless, and wicked in order to put sentiment in the way of any real engagement or thought.

    However your odd, unsupported statement is precisely the viewpoint amongst enviro-mystic readers that I was trying to say warps their interpretations of good stories like The Giving Tree.
    Of course, it should be pointed out that it is probably this very perspective that has made the book such a success and helped a young poet provide for his own kin by selling and producing numerous re-prints and millions of copies out of majestic (but dumb) trees. Pity us all.

    =====

    I do concur that Butter Battle is a good candidate for censoring on the island. I don’t know any other books by Seuss that are so weak and lazy. All the others I know are really good. Wasn’t it one of his last? Perhaps burn-out or gambling debts to pay?

    — Shel's mom · Jul 20, 07:46 PM · #

37. “my corrupt nature”

    and mans as well, reflected in your sons work quite vibrantly

    — let's think · Jul 20, 07:48 PM · #

38. Any particular textual rendition of The Ugly Duckling.

    Ugly duckling is shunned and harassed by peers for being ugly. Duckling grows up and becomes attractive. Shows them, hah! Moral: If you’re young and ostracized, you better hope you grow up and turn out hot. Otherwise, you’re screwed.

    How about a duckling that grows up and stays ugly but becomes a great scientist or humanitarian or saves a baby from a house fire?

    Worst childrens’ story ever.

    — sidereal · Jul 20, 07:52 PM · #

39. “Why would you pity me any more than someone who can only see beauty and is unable to make anything more of it to improve his life or those of his friends and family?”

    Because beauty needs no revision into something else, to do is not an improvement upon it

    — let's think · Jul 20, 07:55 PM · #

40. This is ripping of J. Bottum, but oh well: the prose style in the Winnie the Pooh books is so constipated … I lack the imagination for an adequate comparison. Pictures: fantastic – storylines: imaginative and memorable – Milne’s children’s poetry: top shelf. But anybody who’s tried to sit down and keep a child interested in these stories without skipping chunks of the crabbed prose knows what I’m talking about.

    — Joe · Jul 20, 08:26 PM · #

41. Oh, those stupid Olivia books are really lame too.

    — Joe · Jul 20, 08:37 PM · #

42. Good call. I can live with Seuss’s politics and am on board with the concerns that TBBB raises about modern weaponry, but as an account of liberalism vs. socialism? Not so much …

    Uh, the whole point of the butter side up-butter side down division is to point out the meaninglessness of what we fight about. One side isn’t analogized to one side of the Cold War or the other, merely pointing out the vacuousness of how we separate the two.

    — Freddie · Jul 20, 09:43 PM · #

43. Freddie: Outside of the BSU/BSD divide, there is a wall, there is an arms race and the final page of the book shows two people on the wall, each willing/unwilling to drop a small weapon that will wipe out the other side.

    How am I not supposed to see that 1) the book is directly commenting on the Cold War and 2) that Seuss is not boiling down the core ideological differences between the West and the Soviet Union to BSU/BSD?

    — Klug · Jul 20, 10:24 PM · #

44. Hansel and Gretel. Most children’s stories are rooted in fear and insecurity, as witnessed by all of the Disney movies about orphans. But this one takes the cake for casual cruelty.

    It starts with the dead mom (of course). The stepmother convinces the dad to murder the two children. He cannot carry through at the last minute, so he only abandons them to die in the woods. The children’s bread-crumb trail is destroyed, and by chance they encounter a murderous cannibal whose home is decorated to attract children. The cannibal kidnaps the children and puts them in a feed pen. Thanks to her poor eyesight, the children manage to delay their execution and indeed are able to immolate her alive in her own oven. They steal her riches and return home(!!!) to their father, who thankfully does not attempt to murder them this time. And they all live happily ever after.

    When I read this to my own children, it was after having read Alice Miller’s insightful tomes on the poisonous, inherited viciousness of German pedagogy. I could not help giving my interpretation of the story as I read it, so maybe Hansel and Gretel is useful after all.

    — Yammer · Jul 20, 10:42 PM · #

45. One side isn’t analogized to one side of the Cold War or the other …

    I never said that they were.

    … merely pointing out the vacuousness of how we separate the two.

    Yes, well call me crazy but somehow I’ve come to the conviction that the division between liberalism and communism wasn’t entirely vacuous.

    — John Schwenkler · Jul 20, 11:04 PM · #

46. THE TREE IS THE VILLAIN.
    http://eve-tushnet.blogspot.com/2008_09_01_archive.html#5685471027995385435
    Piling on, I know.

    — Eve Tushnet · Jul 20, 11:37 PM · #

47. “THE TREE IS THE VILLAIN.” re: tree-los

    The tree has no purpose except that assigned to it by man. It’s only real and intented purpose is to exist therefore it can not possibly be a villian. Nor can the tree have any other intention to be anything other than what it is. And what it provides, as a living or dead organism, to humans is only whatever they attribute to it.

    — let's think · Jul 21, 12:35 AM · #

48. The tree in the beginning is alive and in the end is dead, nothing less and nothing more.

    — let's think · Jul 21, 01:05 AM · #

49. Um, not to hijack this post, but can we veer onto the subject of adolescent fiction? What is the most “overrated”? What is a must-read? I have an eleven year old brother who spends most of his time reading fantasy. Not that I disapprove, but I’d like to widen his perspective.

    — Josh Xiong · Jul 21, 01:46 AM · #

50. “Please forgive me as the trees would”

    Trees are not capable of forgiveness, I however am, and the arrogance of a single human is forgiveable but I am not sure that I can forgive the penchant of mankind to take all that he can and in doing so bring destruction and death in his wake.

    — let's think · Jul 21, 02:15 AM · #

51. “I am not sure that I can forgive the penchant of mankind to take all that he can and in doing so bring destruction and death in his wake.”

    When you quote the Unabomber, please cite him. I hear he takes such things very personally.

    — Shel's mom · Jul 21, 04:47 AM · #

52. The unholy trinity: Love You Forever by Robert Munsch (which purports to be about love, but which is much more successful as an allegory of how child abuse spans generations), The Rainbow Fish by Marcus Pfister (not only a total ripoff of an old Leo Lionni story but hideous art and a hammered-down moral that being different will cause your friends to reject you) and, yeah… The Giving Tree.

    — tim b · Jul 21, 05:04 AM · #

53. The rainbow f#@%ing fish! yes, you win! – that’s the worst of all time.

    Very good call that everyone else probably wiped from their memory banks.
    It’s coming back to me now….

    “Child, if you try to stand out others will rightfully swim away. You want friends, child, don’t you? No, not the kind who will respect you or admire your natural assets. You can’t count on ever finding friends who are like you if you are different. It’s much easier to just go along to get along with everyone. The only way is assimilation. No one likes show-offs, or elitist freaks.
    The solution is to distribute your assets to everyone else equally, so you blend in and everyone else is exactly the same. Then they will be your friends.
    Swim with the collective, my child – sacrifice to us so we can all be the equal, then we can accept you as friends. It is your duty to buy our camaraderie…or be spurned forever in the dark currents of loneliness, you mutant degenerate. You think you’re better than me? Go die you stuck-up glitter-geek cuz you are banished, pretty boy. I don’t need your stupid contributions anyway, kid. I hope the sharks and squids find those shiny scales easier to catch.”

    Timeless message for every generation.

    — LeVar B. · Jul 21, 06:05 AM · #

54. How am I not supposed to see that 1) the book is directly commenting on the Cold War and

    I don’t know, because it is.

    2) that Seuss is not boiling down the core ideological differences between the West and the Soviet Union to BSU/BSD?

    Sure. When did I dispute that? I’m disputing that you can call either side “USA Analog” or “USSR Analog”.

    — Freddie · Jul 21, 02:00 PM · #

55. I’m disputing that you can call either side “USA Analog” or “USSR Analog”.

    But no one ever said or implied that one could. The only complaint that’s been voiced about TBBB is that the issues at stake between Soviet totalitarianism and the liberalism of the West are a bit more substantial than those concerning which side of one’s bread is the right one to butter. I’m quite in favor of the book’s anti-militarism, but the underlying premise is indeed absurd.

    — John Schwenkler · Jul 21, 02:16 PM · #

56. Well, Seuss was a radical.

    — Freddie · Jul 21, 03:02 PM · #

57. I’m really glad that Levar Burton has joined the thread.

    

    — Matt Frost · Jul 21, 03:13 PM · #

58. Whether The Rainbow Fish sucks depends on what exactly the scales are a metaphor for.

    IMHO, to the target audience – 2-3 year olds – “share your stuff” is a good message. A toddler’s natural instict is to hoard their own endowment toys, snacks, attention time, etc., and to try to acquire others toddlers’ endowments by any means available. Their own moral view is so distorted that anything that causes them to share more is good.

    As to whether we should be raising our kids to be Niechian uberkinder or Christ-like self-effacers, I think it’s up to the parent to put the desired gloss on it.

    Frankly, even if my kid turns out to be the best player on the T-ball team, I want him to spend some time encouraging the other kids and helping them to play. Does it mean that they all have to be exactly equal? No, but you don’t have to force that interpretation on the book, either.

    — J Mann · Jul 21, 04:17 PM · #

59. The Little Rabbit Who Wanted Red Wings is very much like Rainbow Fish. A young rabbit is magically gifted with red wings and rejoices in his new ability to fly. But he soon learns that To Be Different (and Better) is Bad. Other rabbits, including his own mother, reject and shun him for his special gift. He soon learns his lesson, and in the end, voluntarily shorn of the wings that gave him so much delight and lifted him above other rabbits, he is again accepted by rabbitkind. What a perfect book for the odd and/or gifted child.

    — s.d. · Jul 21, 05:26 PM · #

60. “Free to Be… You and Me” should be on the list (the book, the record, and the movie). I would also put “A Light in the Attic,” and “Where the Sidewalk Ends” on the list.

    — victor · Jul 21, 05:30 PM · #

61. Shel’s Mom, Wow, I point out a powerful message I took away from your son’s work and you compare me to the Unabomber? Those are my words I’ve written and I fail to see the connection to the Unabomber as I am not advocating violence against anyone, nor am I delusional or mentally unstable.

    Rather harsh of you considering I was willing to forgive your arrogant comments about the unusefulness of nature unless it’s use is to the benefit of man. I’ve never even said I don’t like your son’s work. I actually believe it is one of the great pieces of children’s literature ever written because of what can be derived from it.

    You see the work from the view as mankind making good use of his environment and resources and I’d would have agreed with you if at some point the boy or the man had, at the very least, planted another tree but he didn’t.

    Instead because he neglected to do so, I have a different take on the message but that certainly does not make me a terrorist hell bent on killing to right mentally maligned preceived wrongs. I resent the implication heartily, but I will stand by my statement about the unforgiveableness of what man does in the blind pursuit of his aspirations. And I’ll still forgive you for your shallowness.

    Is it too much to ask of mankind to respect his environment and treasure it’s limited resources by replacing what is used, or developing cleaner ways to meet needs, or at the very least getting a sip of water from something other than a plastic bottle, or heaven forbid, giving up something, anything? I think not.

    — let's think · Jul 21, 07:43 PM · #

62. I did not compare you to the unabomber, sir. My concern is only that proper attribution is given for statements made by others. I thought you had lifted his words without any acknowledging the source, but I now see they do vary slightly and that you were speaking from your own stone heart about the wickedness of humans being human.
    You seem to have a tendency to read just as much into my words, just as you have my son’s.

    Of course, you speak the truth when you say the G-Tree is one of the greatest children’s books ever written – look at how much passion and different interpretations it has evoked here alone.
    But do not expect your statement of this fact to flatter me or sway me from defending my son’s work as more than some simplistic enviro-fable that reveals man is corrupt.

    You, along with too many judgmental environmentalists these days, say the boy (or mankind) is unforgivably corrupt, but in the end of the story the boy loves the tree and the tree was happy. That isn’t good enough for you?
    You have to frame it as a materialistic equation of putting back the resources you take away? But that doesn’t change how the boy lived his life, “in the blind pursuit of his aspirations.”
    Why is that so bad/unforgivable (and what human being lives differently, or could live differently, and remain human), and why would planting a tree to replace the talking one that he stripped naked and took all its seeds from make up for such a grave sin against “nature?”
    How does planting a new tree to replace this one apple tree really redeem the boy or mankind in your eyes? If that is the standard by which you condemn and forgive all that goes on the book and all that man has done throughout history, then it is you who are being shallow.

    No one I’ve ever met doesn’t appreciate and want to preserve the environment and planet. Even kids don’t need a book to learn that basic desire. I only object to this sort of mindless rhetoric and preaching infecting the appreciation, and criticism, of literature.
    It is the same sort of perspective that ruined the mind of the unabomber and I don’t want it to ruin my son’s book too.

    I was merely trying to suggest that the book is actually about nature, human nature, our mortality and our connection to the world – a world which we are given to as much as it seems to be given to us; all written from the intentionally limited, and stunted perspective of a tree.
    But that does not mean it is about conserving resources, nor is it the self-righteous anti-human book that so many assume.

    I am not saying this simplifying interpretation is more wrong than other interpretations, but only that it projects onto the story things that are not there (like plastic bottles, wickedness, and other litter), and it is the dominant interpretation that tends to poison other people’s interpretation or appreciation of the book.

    And to clarify – I also did not say anything isn’t useful if it’s not useful to man (I’m aware that other things use things) – I meant that no thing is anything if it is not first something to man (the poem-writing animal). That would include nature, beauty, majesty, cleanliness, and all that crap everyone loves. This claim is a mere tautology, and nothing really profound or objectionable, unless you want to get theological about it.

    Just because my son and others sacrifice to life and beauty in a different, unquantifiable way than you want them to doesn’t make what they have given any more or less forgivable or pitiable than the bean-counters or tree-counters who tout their arbitrary standards of static balance as if they were a natural law of morality.

    If mere preservation and conservation of the sacred natural balance of the status quo were truly as moral as you suggest, then the tree of the story, and all givers of gifts and life should be condemned for disrupting the harmony of the pristine world you insist we all just stop doing things in and be satisfied with.
    I teach my children to strive and struggle against all those who will try to hold them back with their superstitions and misguided aesthetic tastes they want to rule over others. But we’ve never had to drink out of water bottles either, like all the poor people around the world who must in order to live and you are unable to forgive.

    — Shel's mom · Jul 21, 09:10 PM · #

63. The Little Prince
    The most over-rated piece of Franco crap ever. Its not insightful. Its not profound. Its just the drunken musings of a leftist buffoon. And the artwork sucks!

    And you can throw The Velveteen Rabbit on the fire as well

    — Warren · Jul 21, 09:35 PM · #

64. I read the Little Prince when I was 10, and absolutely loved it! All seven of my brothers and sisters have loved it too. I also found the Olivia books delightful, but totally agree with whoever said that Little Women needs to go.

    I think that’s the thing though; some people may have cherished memories of Where the Wild Things Are or Beatrix Potter. Others found them boring and preferred Eloise. Children’s tastes differ as much as adults’ do, and there is plenty of room for variety and difference of opinion.

    Having said that, The Giving Tree bugs me too:)

    — Clare · Jul 21, 10:18 PM · #

65. * Many, many of the Beatrix Potter books. I love Peter Rabbit, but some of her other ones are so archaic they lose their charm and are just plain confusing.

    * The title character in The Poky Little Puppy does quite well all in all, which kind of defeats the message of the book.

    * I’m torn over Tootle. Obviously, I agree with the message that it’s important to work hard at what you love. I don’t agree with the message that if you ever stop and smell the dandelions (literally), we’ll emotionally manipulate you until you break down weeping.

    * My 3-year-old son loves the Berenstain Bears books, but damn, they write some of the most ham-handed segues into life lessons I’ve ever read. And aren’t there enough books where the mother is always right and the father is a bumbling fool?

    — KobayashiMaru · Jul 21, 10:19 PM · #

66. Hey, thanks for the love.
    Great site you’ve got here. Good to see so many care about what our kids are reading. Trust me, they’ll all go twice of high because of your concern. It’s in a book I read once.

    Just for the record, I agree it is good to teach kids to share, but most books try to demonstrate the pleasure and satisfaction of being generous and friendly without the bullying peer-pressure techniques of the Rainbow Fish. The Rainbow Fish instead makes generosity a matter of social justice, understood crudely as the equality of conformity. It makes friendship the key to happiness and giving everything you have to everyone else who wants it for themselves equally the only way to gain happiness. True friendship and generosity should be taught as something that starts from within the human heart and reaches out to others on the basis of unforced love rather than the obligation we have to other fish just because we are fish too and want to be liked because we are told it is important to fit in and please everyone else in the way they demand. In the end the rainbow fish has no real friends, but has learned how to pay off a bunch of bullies who judge by appearances and to get along with everyone else by getting rid of everything about himself that others might envy.

    But I wouldn’t ban any books from any islands. All books have their place and this is one kids under the age of two can enjoy. I would even read it to my kids before they start developing many memories or much awareness of its socially corrosive and soul-sucking message. Nice colors.

    But you don’t have to take my word for it….

    — LeVar B. · Jul 21, 10:24 PM · #

67. “But do not expect your statement of this fact to flatter me or sway me from defending my son’s work as more than some simplistic enviro-fable that reveals man is corrupt.”

    When did I ever say such? I simply pointed out the fact, which you also said in theses posts in your explanation of the work that, “he…has to take it all… all for himself,” a truth that you yourself espoused and for that I am called stone hearted. Beyond the pale. Whether it is corrupt or not is a matter of opinion only, I hold that it is.

    I never said that was just the only thing of value I see in the poem or even the primary take away. If that was the only value to the piece I wouldn’t have praised it at all, that it is there is only remarkable.

    “in the end of the story the boy loves the tree and the tree was happy.”

    Happily dead.

    “That isn’t good enough for you?”

    No.

    And don’t think I’m in anyway trying to suck up to the likes of you, believe me if I thought the work was crap I’d would have said so. And how presumptuous of you to insult my sensibilities by calling me, “sir.” Your attitude almost makes me almost wish I had something negative to say about, The Giving Tree.

    “the poem simply uses these to present a sad little portrait of mortality and loneliness”

    of the man or the tree?

    I already know the answer because from your perspective, which is clear in this quote, “no thing is anything if it is not first something to man,” and which you’ve made completely clear in your other posts that the tree is irrelavant, “dumb,” and it is the human condition that supersedes all. This viewpoint is why I called you arrogant to begin with, but fine so be it. You’re intitled to your opinion, I don’t share it, so maybe I do want to be ideological about it. Is that a crime?

    “all givers of gifts and life should be condemned for disrupting the harmony of the pristine world you insist we all just stop doing things in and be satisfied with.”

    I never insisted on anything, nor preached, or asked to be followed, so don’t continue to attribute actions to me that aren’t mine. If I think protecting the environment is a noble cause for mankind to pursue, in addition to fulfilling aspirations and that doing so will result in extraordinary satisfaction for both, so what is it too you?

    I’m not asking anyone to hinder their progress just to give consideration to something other than themselves and their livlihood, although I think it would be nice if they did. My real life expectation is that they won’t, and if I see that as corrupt, so what. It doesn’t change the fact that your famliy member can, “provide for his own kin by selling and producing numerous re-prints and millions of copies out of majestic (but dumb) trees,” and laugh all the way to the bank.

    — let's think · Jul 22, 12:34 AM · #

68. LeVar B, it’s a pleasure to communicate with you, a real life celebrity extraordinaire, and I agree that no book should be banned, from islands or wherever else.

    — let's think · Jul 22, 12:39 AM · #

69. So, whoa. The real LeVar Burton and the real Shel Silverstein’s mom commenting on my thread! The internet sure has a way of bringing famous people out of the woodwork …

    — John Schwenkler · Jul 22, 01:56 AM · #

70. Let,

    And to think I was ready to send you an autographed copy of the book….

    Okay, I guess I don’t know what you are talking about. I thought I did, but I obviously don’t.

    Except for the part where you call me arrogant for thinking trees are dumb and holding the pitiable view that human beings are superior and a proper priority for the boy of the story or any person to live for, even if it means cutting down trees. None of which was really my point, but I can’t deny I do hold all these opinions.
    If that is “arrogant” to you, so be it. Like I said, I just don’t see how anyone can think or feel differently.

    But I don’t see why agreeing with a great commentor who once quoted me said, at 8:35 Jul 20, “The tree has no purpose except that assigned to it by man….Nor can the tree have any other intention to be anything other than what it is. And what it provides, as a living or dead organism, to humans is only whatever they attribute to it,” contributes to my arrogance.

    It’s certainly not a crime to be ideological about it (depending on how you define that term), but I still don’t know what ideology or idea would make me see trees as more important than human beings or their lives, partly because you don’t explain any of this, you just tell me it’s arrogant.

    But apparently, terms of respect, like “sir” are even more offensive to you. So, I’ll let it go, and beg you excuse my inability to respond to what you or the trees are saying that I am too arrogantly human and humanist to understand.

    — Shel's mom · Jul 22, 02:00 AM · #

71. How about any retelling of “Robin Hood”? Do we really need to teach kids that stealing from someone is justified because they’re “rich”?

    — Stephen · Jul 22, 02:04 AM · #

72. “why would planting a tree ..make up for such a grave sin against “nature?””

    I don’t see his actions as a grave sin against nature but rather one against himself. Planting a new tree would have continued his legacy. Not doing so seeks to stop the perpetuation of his ambituous plight and continues him on the path to that leads to his ultimate future death.

    — let's think · Jul 22, 02:22 AM · #

73. The Velveteen Rabbit. Its message is pernicious: “you only matter if someone loves you.”

    — Elaine T · Jul 22, 02:37 AM · #

74. Do we really need to teach kids that stealing from someone is justified because they’re “rich”?

    If the people you’re stealing from were taxing the hell out of the poor to build castles for themselves, then maybe so.

    — John Schwenkler · Jul 22, 02:45 AM · #

75. “None of which was really my point, but I can’t deny I do hold all these opinions.”

    What is your point then?

    “why agreeing with a great commentor who once quoted me …contributes to my arrogance.”

    because value, or in your case invalue, is different from purpose.

    “I still don’t know what ideology or idea would make me see trees as more important than human beings or their lives, partly because you don’t explain any of this.”

    “excuse my inability to respond to what you or the trees are saying that I am too arrogantly human and humanist to understand”

    Just the simple fact that you can’t see that trees are equally important as mankind, is what makes you an arrogant human and certainly not a humanist, who would be quick to realize the intimate connection and interdependence between all of nature and the health and prosperity of mankind. Indeed a humanist would need no futher explanations to affect understanding.

    I appreciate the compliment after all, and I’m glad to have made an amusing contribution to your thread. I hope I’ve also met my goal of getting you to think about it, instead of just summarily dismissing things that your mind can not relate to.

    There is plenty of bad literature out there for children and adults. Some of the works sited by others here are perfect examples, but I disagree that this particular book belongs in that category, it’s a lot deeper than the reader wants to acknowledge at first or second read.

    Another great read in children’s books is probably one none has heard of, called “Billy Mink,” by Thornton W. Burgess, first published in 1919, it goes why beyond the drivil that most children are exposed to these days.

    — let's think · Jul 22, 03:55 AM · #

76. For First Prize (MOST over-rated) I nominate the original DOCTOR DOOLITTLE (Hugh Lofting). It’s just god-awful. It’s extremely racist even for its time, and illogical—for instance the text clearly states that Polynesia the Parakeet had to learn all the different animal languages separately, but, stupid animals like the dog (I’ve forgotton its name) and Gub-Gub the Pig, both way too stupid to learn another animal-language, are able to talk fluently TO EACH OTHER. I think there are three-way conversations among members of all-different species, too. This sort of thing encourages sloppy thinking.

    Another: All the Harry Potters. The “magic fights” are just gunfights with wands and magical consequences instead of guns and bullets. Whoever draws and points first, wins. The writing seems designed to provoke as little thought as possible.

    Another series: The Nancy Drews, at least the original blue-bound editions (I never read the yellow-bound revisions.) Typically Nancy succeeds by realizing that the rude, dangerous-looking man who was rumored to be in financial trouble really is the bad guy, when everyone else unwisely refrains from judging by first-impression and heresay.

    One of the worst books for short-sentence-age readers: “I’m Glad I’m a Boy, I’m Glad I’m a Girl” by Whitney Darrow. Anyone else remember this gem? Exerpts: “Boys are doctors. Girls are nurses.”; “Girls can cook. Boys can eat.”; “Boys have trucks. Girls have dolls.”; and my favorite: “Boys invent things. Girls use what boys invent.” Oops, you said “overrated”, not “bad”. My bad.

    OK, this next one will shock you and I hate to say it because I dearly loved the trilogy in my early teens, and it had some great ideas in it, but I have to nominate the FOUNDATION Trilogy by Isaac Asimov. He wrote great short stories but his novels are all “Gotcha!” “Gotcha again!” “OK, that previous ‘gotcha’ wasn’t really fair but now I gotcha two times more!” At least the second two books—FOUNDATION AND EMPIRE and SECOND FOUNDATION. I’m sorry but the characters are uninteresting and the invented-technology is dopey and the narrative style is incredibly pretentious, the fake solutions presented one by one and then when the true solution is revealed the reader is assured the answer should have been obvious from the beginning. I read it now and I feel badly cheated. The first book in the trilogy is good because it IS short stories, and, it’s presenting the thought-provoking ideas for the first time.

    — OperationCounterstrike · Jul 22, 05:11 AM · #

77. I don’t think that was the real Shel Silverstein’s mom. I met her once at a Caldecott conference during an investigative report on my show about poetry, and she seemed to think the book was actually about her and her unconditional love for Sheldon.

    But that’s okay. You can be anything.
    Take a look, it’s in a book.
    I’ll see you next time.
    And don’t forget to pick up the new ST-TNG films on blu-ray, dropping Sept. 22!

    — LeVar B. · Jul 22, 06:35 AM · #

78. This is either the most exciting discussion on children’s literature going on on the web right now, or we’re getting punked :-)

    I didn’t meant to say “…Sidewalk Ends” or “Light in the Attic” are bad books, just that they’re overrated. If we could get some of Edward Gorey’s books elevated to equal stature (or higher based solely on the merit of their illustrations), or even Belloc’s “Cautionary Tales for Children” (the one Gorey illustrated) into our schools, then I’d be a happy bug.

    — victor · Jul 22, 01:42 PM · #

79. “This is either the most exciting discussion on children’s literature going on on the web right now, or we’re getting punked :-)”

    Spoiler Alert: The answer is “B.”

    — Matt Frost · Jul 22, 02:11 PM · #

80. Spoiler Alert: The answer is “B.”

    Can’t it be Both of the Above?

    — John Schwenkler · Jul 22, 03:21 PM · #

81. That’s the real Levar. Confirmed it. (The man has a Web presence.)

    — Freddie · Jul 22, 03:37 PM · #

82. Are you serious, Freddie?

    — J Mann · Jul 22, 03:52 PM · #

83. I would suggest that the reason “The Polar Express” doesn’t work for so many is because it is simply not well-written. It doesn’t have a good plot, character, style — all those things you need for a good book. Chris van Allsburgh’s illustrations may be another matter, but a good story is primary. As with grown-up literature, most of what gets published in children’s lit isn’t very good. The trend toward didactic stories (rather than good stories that might have a moral in them) has exacerbated this problem. If your main point is to raise the self-esteem of a shy child heading off to kindergarten or to decrease the anxiety of a kid headed off to the dentist, you are not likely to write a decent story. If you have a story to tell and you’re good at telling it, then everything is great, e.g., Mike Mulligan and his steam shovel, the Francis books, Beverly Cleary’s stories, Narnia, Shirley Hughes. Also, avoid anything by a celebrity — for some reason, people think just anyone can write a children’s book (although I guess there is evidence that the same can be said for grown-up books, too.)

    — Josef · Jul 22, 04:20 PM · #

84. Re: The Butter Battle Book, I thought this comment was spot on:

    Seuss somehow leaves out the part where the Butter-Side-Down side throws people in gulags for eating their toast wrong.

    — John Schwenkler · Jul 22, 06:31 PM · #

85. I don’t have any problems with “The Giving Tree”. Some people just like to give.

    “The Missing Piece”, on the other hand, is NOT good.

    — DensityDuck · Jul 22, 08:29 PM · #

86. My kids and I liked Polar Express pretty well — and I don’t have a problem with the story as a story. But I think its prose is nearly unreadable when read aloud, and that’s true for all of Chris Van Allburg’s stuff. Just leaden.

    — DW · Jul 22, 09:14 PM · #

87. Personally I think the comments became far more interesting than the original topic promised. A live-action demonstration of how literary analysis is based so strongly on both what is in the book and what the reader brings to the reading. Each reader sees things a bit differently—and perhaps even more so when dealing with “simple” literature.

    Many of the pieces castigated here are ones I love, but I understand why others don’t. I’m not hugely fond of Rainbow Fish, but more because I find it boring than because of the morality.

    I’ll have to think about others. It’s getting to late to think logically, especially if I’m going up against the likes of (could it be true?) LeVar B.

    — TeacherMommy · Jul 23, 02:50 AM · #

88. The Unforgiving Tree.

    

    By the incomparable mimic who writes the Perry Bible Fellowship. Taken down from the main site; I suspect copyright infringement.

    — Wrongshore · Jul 23, 06:02 PM · #

89. The Polar Express was read to me by my mother the first Christmas after I found out there wasn’t a Santa Claus. It meant alot to me then because it let me suspend disbelief for a little longer…let me be a kid for just one more year.

    — jessica black · Jul 23, 07:05 PM · #

90. Chart:

    I hadn’t realized Ciardi wrote children’s poems; I only knew him from his wonderful translation of Dante. Now I have something to find for my nephews. Thanks!

    — Patrick · Jul 23, 08:32 PM · #

91. Anything written by JK Rowling. I despise when authors take the easy route and do the Disney story telling of witches and wizards. A good writer will find a story that doesn’t involve such drivel. The books are over rated, JK Rowling’s writing abilities are so-so, and contrary to popular belief, these books did not get children reading again. There was an article in the New York Times about 1 or 2 years ago that talked about that. The amount children read did not increase because of those books, they stayed the same.

    — Jenn · Jul 23, 10:20 PM · #

92. “A good writer will find a story that doesn’t involve such drivel.”

    Jenn, perhaps you could do all of us a favor and post a complete list of subject matter, characters, situations, etc. that “good writers” should eschew should they wish to avoid taking “the easy route.” I know I would find a resource such as this invaluable in my own endeavors!

    Thanks in advance!

    — Tony Comstock · Jul 23, 10:42 PM · #

93. Love You Forever by Robert Munsch features a mother who stalks her son throughout the various stages of his life to the extent of climbing in the bedroom window while he is sleeping. Many find it to be “affecting,” I find it creepy.

    — Therese Nielsen · Jul 24, 12:56 AM · #

94. I realize I’ll be dragged through the village and stoned for this, but I’ve always despised Viorst’s Alexander books. Hated ‘em as a kid, hate ‘em now. I also hate Winnie the Pooh and anything remotely Carebear-related.

    — Julia · Jul 24, 01:09 AM · #

95. “I also hate Winnie the Pooh and anything remotely Carebear-related.”

    You and Stephen Colbert both.

    — Tony Comstock · Jul 24, 02:29 AM · #

96. Long before I was a mom, I believed that the Giving Tree was about Moms and kids, and I still do. It is a bitter message about moms as martyrs — that they should live only for their kids. It’s a shame because Silverstein’s books of poetry are wonderful, and my kids and I enjoyed them for years.

    I hate the Berenstain Bears books more than any other kid’s books — horrible art, dogmatic preaching — my kids loved them — argh!

    — Jerry Westerby · Jul 26, 09:56 PM · #

97. I nominate Frederick by Leo Lionni—it might as well be an advertisement for the National Endowment for the Arts: “Sorry, I can’t help you gather food for the winter, I’m too busy gazing upon the flowers of the field so that when we all run out of food this winter because I didn’t help to gather any and we’re starving to death I can remind you of the colors of the flowers and we can all smile while we freeze and starve.” Rubbish.

    — Fenric · Jul 27, 04:12 AM · #

98. When I first encountered “I Love You Forever” as a gift to my firstborn, I thought,“Yikes, it’s Norman Bates: the Early Years”. Very creepy. I really am bothered in “The Bernstain Bears” how the father so often loses his temper and the rest of the family is depicted as frightened of him and capitulating to his temper tantrum. Hey kids! Get your way by bullying and scaring everyone.

    — Bradamante · Jul 27, 12:54 PM · #

99. de gustubus non disputandum est, people.

    — Becky D · Jul 27, 05:04 PM · #

100. I’m going to have to nominate “The Story About Ping”. Gorgeous artwork, and I loved it as a kid. Then I grew up and realized that the illustrations of Chinese people were caricatures bordering on racist, and that the moral of the story was, “Conform! And accept your right and proper corporal punishment for not conforming!” Oy.

     — Maggie · Jul 27, 10:12 PM · #

101. I know some will think this heretical, but the beautifully illustrated Beatrix Potter books are some of the worst. Aside from the horrific bunny violence, many of them are just too 19th century for kids to understand anymore.

     — Susan Ariew · Jul 27, 10:57 PM · #

102. The classic list:

     1. You Are Different and That’s Bad
     2. The Boy Who Died From Eating All His Vegetables
     3. Dad’s New Wife Robert
     4. Fun four-letter Words to Know and Share
     5. Hammers, Screwdrivers and Scissors: An I-Can-Do-It Book
     6. The Kids’ Guide to Hitchhiking
     7. Kathy Was So Bad Her Mom Stopped Loving Her
     8. Curious George and the High-Voltage Fence
     9. All Cats Go to Hell
     10. The Little Sissy Who Snitched
     11. Some Kittens Can Fly.
     12. That’s it, I’m Putting You Up for Adoption
     13. Grandpa Gets a Casket
     14. The Magic World Inside the Abandoned Refrigerator
     15. Garfield Gets Feline Leukemia
     16. The Pop-Up Book of Human Anatomy
     17. Strangers Have the Best Candy
     18. Whining, Kicking and Crying to Get Your Way
     19. You Were an Accident
     20. Things Rich Kids Have, But You Never Will
     21. “Pop! Goes The Hamster!”…And Other Great Microwave Games
     22. The Man in the Moon Is Actually Satan
     23. Your Nightmares Are Real
     24. Where Would You Like to Be Buried?
     25. Eggs, Toilet Paper, and Your School
     26. Why Can’t Mr. Fork and Ms. Electrical Outlet Be Friends?
     27. Places Where Mommy and Daddy Hide Neat Things
     28. Daddy Drinks Because You Cry

     (found many places on the Internet; no idea who did the original.)

     — David Throop · Jul 28, 05:02 AM · #

103. Most people are taking The Giving Tree too literally or overthinking it- it’s simply about being a parent.

     — K · Jul 28, 06:10 AM · #

104. Oh! I actually did a survey and poll about this myself, about 3 weeks ago. My top “bad” books were Giving Tree, I Love You Forever, Runaway Bunny, and Rainbow Fish.

     Here’s the link!

     http://laurelsnyder.com/?p=439

     — Laurel Snyder · Jul 28, 02:32 PM · #

105. Late to the convo, but must admit to not liking Goodnight Moon. At all. I find it boring. But understand that others may not agree. I’ve heard it said that it is really about death. Which is interesting, but is that “reading” for children or for adults?

     Am also not keen on The Night Kitchen. I find it creepy.

     — JChevais · Jul 29, 08:36 AM · #

106. After reading to two kids, then 9 grandkids, my absolute favorite book to bash is “The B Book.” I’m also not too very enamoured of “The 500 Hats of Bartholomew Cubbins.” The first because it quickly becomes the child’s favorite to the exclusion of all else and the second because I just don’t like it…. Probably the only Seuss I don’t like :)

     — Dawn · Jul 29, 03:24 PM · #

107. The point of the GIVING TREE is the tree’s unconditional love of the boy, even when all he does is take and run away. It’s really simplistic and beautiful, which is what makes it a good children’s book.

     But whatever.

     My least favorite picture books are those that are based off of television shows and movies. They almost never have anything remotely interesting to say, and don’t work as standalone books unless you’re intimately familiar with the characters on the show.

     Commercialism gives me hives.

     — Claena · Jul 29, 04:24 PM · #

108. My vote: SHREK. Okay, the movie franchise is cute (just my opinion for mindless entertainment), but barely resembles the original book.
     Agree about PE.
     Just about anything from a celeb.
     My question is, with so many poorly written or otherwise weak PBs out there, how did they get published?

     — Ken · Jul 29, 04:36 PM · #

109. I’m afraid (because I love her adult fiction) that Margaret Atwood’s Rude Ramsay and the roaring radishes would be top of my list for bad books for children. It’s clever to be sure, but harder to read outloud than Seuss’ Fox in Socks (another one top of my list here for sheer headachy nonsense and strained rhymes) and utterly meaningless for children who won’t understand a word of it and will only enjoy it because it will turn the reading parent into a blathering mess. (I’ll just add that I absolutely love The Lorax (Seuss is entirely forgiven for Fox in Socks) and also Where the Wild Things Are, Goodnight Moon, and Curious George, and even Ping, all mentioned here…). There are lots of books made from television shows which are also awful (even worse than Fox in Socks sir). The Wiggles for example have a range of them and there are plenty more.

     — Magdalena Ball · Jul 30, 12:06 AM · #

110. I don’t care what the point of The Giving Tree was, is, should be or what anyone thinks it is. It’s an awful book about a stupid tree and the boy who saw the most beautiful thing about it— what he could do with it after he cut it down.

     — T. Bennett · Jul 30, 10:03 PM · #

111. I think that Guess How Much I Love You deserves to be on the list. I know it’s supposed to convey how much a parent loves a child. However, it just ends up being like a one-up contest: “you love me that much, well I love you this much more.” Pretty petty in my opinion.

     — Misty · Aug 1, 10:09 PM · #

112. Misty, you beat me to GUESS HOW MUCH. My top three include GUESS, GIVING TREE and LOVE YOU FOREVER. I held off final judgment until I became a mom – but they’re even worse as a parent. I also personally don’t care for HUNGRY CATERPILLAR, but not because I object to its message.

     (Someone asked about middle-grade books for boys? Try the Percy Jackson & the Olympians series, and maybe the Night Tourist by Katherine Marsh or The Westing Game by Ellen Raskin.)

     — Aerin · Aug 2, 01:29 AM · #

Commenting is closed for this article.

↑ Simple Gifts

↓ Why not just break them up?

All contents copyright The American Scene unless otherwise noted. Colophon. Archive.