Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Graphics for Elementary

We recall a meeting of our district media folk during which graphic novels were discussed, lo, not so very many years ago. These titles were just hitting our shelves, having shed their status as lowly comic books (trouble right here in River City!) and gained cachet as serious works of art. The upper schools had bought several new titles, then been shocked to note that a few of the pages were, well, fairly graphic in content. "You have to look at every page," it seemed. Still does. The nature of the format is to be graphic in every sense of the word. Still, there are wonderful titles, which elementary students are snapping up enthusiastically, that are perfectly and delightfully age appropriate. Some of the most loved-to-death titles sprinting out our doors include:

Jeff Smith's Bone series
Scott Morse's Magic Pickle series
David Steinberg's Loud Boy series
Emmanuel Guibert's Sardine in Space series
Jimmy Gownley's Amelia Rules series
Max Axiom (science series) from Capstone
Jennifer Holm's Babymouse

Newer (we haven't picked up past book one) is The Amulet by Kazu Kibuishi, which skews a little more in the manga direction. A popular, and covertly educational, non-fiction choice is Howtoons by Saul Griffith. There are also some nice new titles for the primary set coming from Top Shelf Productions -- which are also interesting enough for older students reading below grade level who rather read nothing than be caught with Biscuit's New Friend.

But do check out a terrific new graphic title: Wonderland by Tommy Kovac (art by Sonny Liew). It revisits Alice in Wonderland from the viewpoint of the much maligned (but never, in the original, seen) character of Maryann, the White Rabbit's parlormaid. Weird and wondrous, it might even send a few readers back to the Lewis Carroll books.

No discussion of graphic novels would be complete without a harangue about their general lack of durability. There seems to be a large subset of elementary boys who are "active readers," for lack of a better term. These are the readers who wear away the edges of paperbacks, break the spines, loosen all the "flip-o-rama" pages in the Captain Underpants books (thank you SO much, Dav Pilkey . . .) Now, we would not for a moment think of barring these readers from touching our precious books (we are NOT that kind of librarian) but some sort of preventative action is required lest we spend our few and dwindling book dollars on constantly replacing the same old favorites. Here we go in for some unabashed product placement: buy Permabound. One starts out gleefully noting that the company swears to replace any book that doesn't hold up. Aha! one thinks: they haven't met our boys! Then one discovers that . . . the books actually do stay in one piece. Who'd a thunk it? Worth the price.

Tuesday, May 19, 2009


It may be that we are getting older, but recently we are more likely to put down a book unfinished, whether reading for pleasure or in our capacity as school librarian. Too many cute anthropomorphic animals?: cut. Know where this is going?: cut. Jumping the shark 3 chapters from the end?: cut. Just plain irritating?: cut. Maybe it's spring and we'd rather be out in the garden. Still, it is a disturbing trend for this normally rather eclectic reader.

Recently we read of a formula for giving each book a chance. The number of pages required for a fair shot was reduced as one aged. Wise --although we are of an age where now we can't remember the formula...

Particularly annoying are sequels. Are publishers insisting now that every good book has a sequel in it? The City of Ember was, for example, a terrific story, but one that has inspired now 3 rather tepid and didactic follow-ons. There are even some authors who have turned out several nice books in series, but who may need to know when there is nothing new to be said. For example: Colfer's Artemis Fowl, Riordan's Percy Jackson, or Garth Nix's Keys to the Kingdom. Though it is tough if one commits to a book for each day of the week. I fear we were tired out by Wednesday.

There are some wonderful stories out there that make just one wonderful book. And then end.

Wednesday, January 7, 2009

Books & Movies

Movies and television these days are rife with versions of children's literature. One can hardly pass the shelves of a Barnes & Noble without noticing new paperback covers that push the videos at least as hard as the text inside. Miss Shelved noticed at least one (very thin) "novelization" of a movie made from a (rather thick) book! Sigh. One tries not to fret over which book the potential buyer will select. We also remind ourselves that movie versions can be delightful and even lead an enchanted viewer back to the text, eager for more. It happens.

There are are sad moments when a borrower returns a book unread because, "I don't need to read it now -- I saw the movie." In this case, Hiaasen's Hoot. Ouch. On the other hand, some young readers of our acquaintence were quick to point out how inadequately one new movie treated the book they loved (The City of Ember and, yes, we saw it too and agree with them). What a terrific reminder of the power of the word and of the imagination -- and the vast difference between verbal and visual storytelling.

This reader's advisor will continue to place all possible moral suasion behind "read the book." Every reader should have the chance to decide for herself what Hogwarts or Narnia looks like, to put faces to names, and provide an emotional context for a story. Clearly it is hard for moviemakers to resist realizing the visual richness of texts like those of Rowling and C.S. Lewis (for the 2nd time in the case of the latter). Authors should not be condemned for being willing to accept a check for movie rights -- one would have to be awfully strong-minded to say no. But one cannot help wishing that Hollywood had kept its hands off the delicate, moody Tale of Despereaux.

Part of media literacy should include both verbal and visual storytelling. How to show it is not the same as how to tell it. Three cheers for Pixar Studios for choosing to create their own stories and distinct visual style. Now, if they could resist accepting checks for cheap "novelizations" of their wonderful movies! . . .