On my way to work, I regularly listen to On Point with Tom Ashbrook. If you're not a regular listener, I highly recommend you start listening in. The show often has interesting and different interviews and angles, and I enjoy the hosts of guests that cycle through on each broadcasting. The particular interview that caught my ear today, however, was one with Jeff Kinney, who is perhaps most famous as a children's author for his series
The Diary of a Whimpy Kid. The edge on the piece was about children's literature, particularly the diveregence of the classics like
Treasure Island or
The Wind in the Willows vis-a-vis the newer "kid's fiction" such as the popular series written by Kinney, has sold over 40 million copies and have be turned into three movies, to date. Something that Kinney really commented on that I found interesting was his inclusion of cartoons in his books, because our kids are visual and they like having something they can look at with the text. I'm not too sure that's a good thing. Isn't part of the reading experience to enter into the text and meaning of the story? To visualize for yourself the world you're entering into? That's something I've always enjoyed as a reader.
Granted, I did not grow up with books like the
Whimpy Kid series, but I remember such books being around books like it that utilize the same kind of backdrop in their writing and incorporate copious amounts of drawings and cartoons to "keep kids interested." This was all very puzzling to me as a kid, having grown up with Roald Dahl, Madeline L'Engle and C.S. Lewis. Why would kids want to read stories about boring kids in school doing silly things, when they could read about kids with enchanted forests, flying fruits and interstellar intrigue?
Reading for me as kid was about escape. I guess that's why I still enjoy fantasy/sci-fi writing, it's an escape into one's own mind. But it's also literary, there are points being made in the narrative. I've never cared too much for a good story without a reason, even if the reason is that there isn't always one (which is still in and of itself a philosophical assertion). Of course, I've grown to enjoy other types of literature as well. Harper Lee's
To Kill a Mockingbird and Stephen Harper's
The Red Badge of Courage opened up to me a world that was literary and real. It wasn't full of knights, castles and magicians, nor were there spaceships, laser beams and aliens. However, one thing remained constant: character development. The people in the story learned something that was important. Their lives were changed. They had overcome adversity, and that had changed who they were and they way they viewed the world. What's a story worth if the characters don't learn, grow and adapt to their new lot in life? What's the point of the narrative if no true struggle occurs? In my opinion, it's not worth anything...no point...why bother?
I'm not saying that books like Kinney's don't engage the imagination and show character development. I have no true way of knowing because I haven't read the series. I also have to include that Kinney considers the books like
Whimpy Kid as "gateways" to more classical reading, using such light-hearted books to get kids reading before they start tackling the
Treasure Island's and
The Wind in the Willow's type classics. So, for Kinney, his books aren't an end for reading, but a beginning. Whatever they are, let's give kids some credit where credit is due, and make sure they're reading books that engage their minds, both in deep thought and in imagination.