"Although the book was originally criticized for having a loose plot and poor characterization, it remains popular worldwide even sixty years after its first publication primarily for the enhancing illustrations and effective pacing."
-- Wikipedia's featured article on February 11th, on Make Way for Ducklings
Really? A loose plot and poor characterization? Effective pacing? This wasn't a Dickens' novel, this is the Caldecott Medal award winning children's book Make Way for Ducklings. Make. Way. For. Ducklings. As in, tiny, cute baby ducks. Doesn't it feel like attacking this book is the same as kicking one of those adorable previously mentioned tiny water fowl? Not to mention the book is intended for kids aged 3 to 8, who's idea of effective pacing is eating as much candy as possible and instantaneous travel (if you don't believe me, refer to "Are we there yet?")
This book starts off with " Mr. and Mrs. Mallard were looking for a place to live." Why can't a book about duck parents looking for a place to live just be that? What's next, criticizing Snuffleupagus' trunk as being anatomically incorrect in proportion to his IMAGINARY body?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
I'm about to feature an article on Wikipedia about how you travel through time for blog-writing purposes.
I think it'd be awesome to read the critic's column about "poor characterization" of Mr. & Mrs. Mallard, names which I can't imagine any more *richly* construing a couple of marriaged ducks.
Snuffleupagus may have body issues, but good heavens are those eyelashes dreamy.
Post a Comment