This was a banner week for reviews for my books.
The first review for The Big Green Book of the Big Blue Sea appeared in Booklist. You can see that review here.
There were two reviews for Juba This, Juba That. Read the CM Magazine review here, and the Canadian Children's Book Centre review here.
And Trouble in the Hills received its first review, from CM Magazine. You can read that one here.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Nature Study is For the Birds
I'm reposting an article here from http://www.sci-why.blogspot.com/, where I group-blog along with 15 other science and nature children's writers, because its an important one. It highlights very clearly the importance of having scientific knowledge and critical thinking skills when evaluating research and other information (even more so when creating research!). These are topics dear to my heart, and ones that I think have an impact on every kid out there.
Here's the article. I hope you find it interesting!
Originally Posted by the Writers of Sci-Why
The Huffington Post recently ran a story entitled, “Children's Books Lack Nature References, Study Suggests.” The study it referred to, which was published in the journal Sociological Inquiry, concluded that “today’s generation of children are [sic] not being socialized, at least through this source, toward an understanding and appreciation of the natural world and the place of humans within it.” (You can read the complete study here)
Here at Sci-Why, where we are both children’s writers/illustrators AND scientist/environmentalist types, we were naturally intrigued by this study. So we took a closer look at it.
As suspected, the study did not pass the scientific sniff test.
The study looked at 296 children’s books, published between 1938 and 2008, and which won the prestigious Caldecott Medal. The medal is awarded annually by the Association for Library Service to Children, a division of the American Library Association, “to the artist of the most distinguished American picture book for children.” From an examination of these books, the study authors drew conclusions about children’s books overall, and their effect on children.
In short, the conclusions the authors reach are not supportable by the facts, and the study’s design is flawed.
To begin with, the study examined books that are award-winners for artistic merit. These books, by definition, are not reflective of books overall.
Nor, as the authors claim, are Caldecott winners necessarily “the books that young children are most likely to encounter.” Quoting a 15-year-old study, the authors say the Caldecott winners “are important both because the award leads to strong sales and they are featured in schools and libraries and influence tastes for children’s literature more generally.” While it may be true that Caldecott winners influence tastes in children’s literature, those tastes would be in artistic style, not in subject matter.
Furthermore, Caldecott winners are not necessarily the books children tend to encounter most. A better designed study would have looked at best-selling books, and books actually on school and library shelves. Caldecott winners are a tiny minority of these, and not reflective of them over all.
The choice of the sample, therefore, is seriously flawed. But an even greater flaw is the severely restricted size of the sample. The study examined just 296 books. Contrast this to the number of children’s books published in 2009, as reported by The Library and Book Trade Almanac (“Book Title Output and Average Prices: 2006-2009):” 21,878.
According to the American Library Association, that staggering figure is actually part of a downward trend in the number of published children’s books that began in 2008.
While we do not have access to the data describing the number of books published for children overall since 1938, considering the 2009 figure alone demonstrates the problem with this study. 296 books are simply too small a sample to reflect the nature of children’s books over all; in 2009, the Caldecott winner was just one title out of more than 20,000 books published for children in the U.S. One of of twenty-thousand yields a statistical correlation of exactly zero.
Furthermore, the authors' statistical analysis of trends over time is noted in three graphs. The data, the authors says, show statistical significance with a p-value of about .05. This is not a strong p-value. Something where p=.01 or less are stronger data.
Scientifically, then, the study fails to convince. A non-scientific, common-sense approach to the study reveals even further flaws.
A quick eyeballing of the most popular picture books from the first “golden age of publishing” – a period loosely covering the 1950s and 1960s, features bestsellers such as Babar, Curious George, and books by Dr. Seuss and Richard Scarry. The Little Engine that Could. Madeline. Mike Mulligan and His Steam Shovel. Goodnight Moon. Where the Wild Things Are.
Looking back even further, to the first illustrated children’s books in the 19th century, every single book features built environments, tamed nature and artificially civilized animals – think of Beatrix Potter’s Peter in his little blue coat.
None of these books is “natural” in focus or illustration, yet they remain, perhaps, the most influential children’s books of all time.
In contrast, look at some notable books for 2012 from the Association for Library Service to Children (http://www.ala.org/alsc/awardsgrants/notalists/ncb). Nine out of 32 picture books on the list have natural themes and settings.
Interestingly, students of literature know that in the fairly short history of children’s literature, nature has rarely been presented as benevolent or even benign, making the current crop of books with pro-nature themes an anomaly. In traditional children’s stories, both oral and written, the wilderness is universally presented as a place of evil and danger. Consider Little Red Riding Hood or Hansel and Gretel as prime examples of the classic form.
There are still other issues with the study overall. For example, the authors use dated material, and also cite references that do not, in fact, support their claims. For example, consider this sentence: “the final decades of the twentieth century and the early years of the twenty-first saw a conservative backlash (Kline 2000; K. Gottfried, personal communication).” Unless the authors engaged in time travel, it would be impossible to draw conclusions about “the early years of the twenty-first century” from a document dated 2000.
Similarly, the authors of the study use data from 1996 to draw conclusions about the content of children’s science textbooks and continuing trends today. This data, 16 years out of date, does not reflect either the content of children’s texts today, nor the changing nature and usage of textbooks overall. To draw conclusions about books and their impact without consideration for the revolution in publishing we have been undergoing in the last decade is simply nonsensical.
The authors, we believe, suffer from a common problem among scientists and researchers of all stripes: confirmation bias. The researchers set out to confirm a hypothesis in which they already believed. Consider this quotation from one of the sources used in the study: ‘‘I believe one of the greatest causes of the ecological crisis is the state of personal alienation from nature in which many people live.’’ This is not a scientific observation; it is an unsubstantiated opinion.
As writers and illustrators involved in science and nature, we, of course, have our own biases. We know, however, exactly how much our own work, and the work of our peers, is inspired by and infused by the natural world. We see firsthand the work that is most influential, the work that is most often read by children and promoted by teachers and librarians.
Is it less “natural” than previous generations? We think not.
The Huffington Post should be more careful about the studies on which they choose to report. And for information about science or nature in children’s books, they should perhaps look to those who know something about the field: authors or librarians, not environmentalist-sociologists.
Here's the article. I hope you find it interesting!
Originally Posted by the Writers of Sci-Why
The Huffington Post recently ran a story entitled, “Children's Books Lack Nature References, Study Suggests.” The study it referred to, which was published in the journal Sociological Inquiry, concluded that “today’s generation of children are [sic] not being socialized, at least through this source, toward an understanding and appreciation of the natural world and the place of humans within it.” (You can read the complete study here)
Here at Sci-Why, where we are both children’s writers/illustrators AND scientist/environmentalist types, we were naturally intrigued by this study. So we took a closer look at it.
As suspected, the study did not pass the scientific sniff test.
The study looked at 296 children’s books, published between 1938 and 2008, and which won the prestigious Caldecott Medal. The medal is awarded annually by the Association for Library Service to Children, a division of the American Library Association, “to the artist of the most distinguished American picture book for children.” From an examination of these books, the study authors drew conclusions about children’s books overall, and their effect on children.
In short, the conclusions the authors reach are not supportable by the facts, and the study’s design is flawed.
To begin with, the study examined books that are award-winners for artistic merit. These books, by definition, are not reflective of books overall.
Nor, as the authors claim, are Caldecott winners necessarily “the books that young children are most likely to encounter.” Quoting a 15-year-old study, the authors say the Caldecott winners “are important both because the award leads to strong sales and they are featured in schools and libraries and influence tastes for children’s literature more generally.” While it may be true that Caldecott winners influence tastes in children’s literature, those tastes would be in artistic style, not in subject matter.
Furthermore, Caldecott winners are not necessarily the books children tend to encounter most. A better designed study would have looked at best-selling books, and books actually on school and library shelves. Caldecott winners are a tiny minority of these, and not reflective of them over all.
The choice of the sample, therefore, is seriously flawed. But an even greater flaw is the severely restricted size of the sample. The study examined just 296 books. Contrast this to the number of children’s books published in 2009, as reported by The Library and Book Trade Almanac (“Book Title Output and Average Prices: 2006-2009):” 21,878.
According to the American Library Association, that staggering figure is actually part of a downward trend in the number of published children’s books that began in 2008.
While we do not have access to the data describing the number of books published for children overall since 1938, considering the 2009 figure alone demonstrates the problem with this study. 296 books are simply too small a sample to reflect the nature of children’s books over all; in 2009, the Caldecott winner was just one title out of more than 20,000 books published for children in the U.S. One of of twenty-thousand yields a statistical correlation of exactly zero.
Furthermore, the authors' statistical analysis of trends over time is noted in three graphs. The data, the authors says, show statistical significance with a p-value of about .05. This is not a strong p-value. Something where p=.01 or less are stronger data.
Scientifically, then, the study fails to convince. A non-scientific, common-sense approach to the study reveals even further flaws.
A quick eyeballing of the most popular picture books from the first “golden age of publishing” – a period loosely covering the 1950s and 1960s, features bestsellers such as Babar, Curious George, and books by Dr. Seuss and Richard Scarry. The Little Engine that Could. Madeline. Mike Mulligan and His Steam Shovel. Goodnight Moon. Where the Wild Things Are.
Looking back even further, to the first illustrated children’s books in the 19th century, every single book features built environments, tamed nature and artificially civilized animals – think of Beatrix Potter’s Peter in his little blue coat.
None of these books is “natural” in focus or illustration, yet they remain, perhaps, the most influential children’s books of all time.
In contrast, look at some notable books for 2012 from the Association for Library Service to Children (http://www.ala.org/alsc/awardsgrants/notalists/ncb). Nine out of 32 picture books on the list have natural themes and settings.
Interestingly, students of literature know that in the fairly short history of children’s literature, nature has rarely been presented as benevolent or even benign, making the current crop of books with pro-nature themes an anomaly. In traditional children’s stories, both oral and written, the wilderness is universally presented as a place of evil and danger. Consider Little Red Riding Hood or Hansel and Gretel as prime examples of the classic form.
There are still other issues with the study overall. For example, the authors use dated material, and also cite references that do not, in fact, support their claims. For example, consider this sentence: “the final decades of the twentieth century and the early years of the twenty-first saw a conservative backlash (Kline 2000; K. Gottfried, personal communication).” Unless the authors engaged in time travel, it would be impossible to draw conclusions about “the early years of the twenty-first century” from a document dated 2000.
Similarly, the authors of the study use data from 1996 to draw conclusions about the content of children’s science textbooks and continuing trends today. This data, 16 years out of date, does not reflect either the content of children’s texts today, nor the changing nature and usage of textbooks overall. To draw conclusions about books and their impact without consideration for the revolution in publishing we have been undergoing in the last decade is simply nonsensical.
The authors, we believe, suffer from a common problem among scientists and researchers of all stripes: confirmation bias. The researchers set out to confirm a hypothesis in which they already believed. Consider this quotation from one of the sources used in the study: ‘‘I believe one of the greatest causes of the ecological crisis is the state of personal alienation from nature in which many people live.’’ This is not a scientific observation; it is an unsubstantiated opinion.
As writers and illustrators involved in science and nature, we, of course, have our own biases. We know, however, exactly how much our own work, and the work of our peers, is inspired by and infused by the natural world. We see firsthand the work that is most influential, the work that is most often read by children and promoted by teachers and librarians.
Is it less “natural” than previous generations? We think not.
The Huffington Post should be more careful about the studies on which they choose to report. And for information about science or nature in children’s books, they should perhaps look to those who know something about the field: authors or librarians, not environmentalist-sociologists.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
African-American History Month - a Perfect Time to Talk about Cultural Appropriation
February is African-American History Month. That makes it a great month to talk about my most recent picture book, Juba This, Juba That. The book is adapted from an African-American slave chant for contemporary audiences, and includes a toe-tapping rhythm, lighthearted rhyme, and gorgeous illustrations by GG Award-Winner Ron Lightburn.
On more than one occasion, I’ve been party to discussions on the topic of “cultural appropriation.” Those who oppose “cultural appropriation” believe that people can only write about their own experience, first hand, and that those who write from outside their own experience, are somehow stealing from their subjects. To do so would make you a bad, bad person: an opportunist without sensitivity or moral standing.
As you might have gathered from the above paragraph, I do not agree with this position. In fact, I find it one of the most pernicious bits of racist claptrap I can imagine.
A fiction writer’s job is, quite simply, to write from other people’s point of view. Our mission is to get into another person’s (or object’s – we can become flying carpets, or toasters, if we wish) skin and try and recreate their experience. How well we do this job is the mark of our craftsmanship - whether we succeeded or failed as a writer.
So when people have suggested to me that I shouldn’t have written Juba This, Juba That because I am not African-American, I got angry. Right down to the bottom of my pale pink toes.
I wrote the book because I had uncovered a great story that wasn’t being told. I adapted it using the very best of my abilities, as a writer and as human being, to create a book that is beautiful, moving, and delightful. The final result is a book I am proud of, and a book I hope will introduce children of all colors to an aspect of African-American history that they night not have learned about otherwise.
To be told I should not write this book because I am white is galling in the extreme. It considers my skin color the deciding factor in what I can and cannot do. It judges my output not on its quality, but on the color of my skin.
Is this anything other than racism?
Read the book. Review it based on what is on the page, not on what I look like, where I come from, or what sex I am.
And don’t even mention the term “cultural appropriation in my presence, unless you're ready for an argument!
On more than one occasion, I’ve been party to discussions on the topic of “cultural appropriation.” Those who oppose “cultural appropriation” believe that people can only write about their own experience, first hand, and that those who write from outside their own experience, are somehow stealing from their subjects. To do so would make you a bad, bad person: an opportunist without sensitivity or moral standing.
As you might have gathered from the above paragraph, I do not agree with this position. In fact, I find it one of the most pernicious bits of racist claptrap I can imagine.
A fiction writer’s job is, quite simply, to write from other people’s point of view. Our mission is to get into another person’s (or object’s – we can become flying carpets, or toasters, if we wish) skin and try and recreate their experience. How well we do this job is the mark of our craftsmanship - whether we succeeded or failed as a writer.
So when people have suggested to me that I shouldn’t have written Juba This, Juba That because I am not African-American, I got angry. Right down to the bottom of my pale pink toes.
I wrote the book because I had uncovered a great story that wasn’t being told. I adapted it using the very best of my abilities, as a writer and as human being, to create a book that is beautiful, moving, and delightful. The final result is a book I am proud of, and a book I hope will introduce children of all colors to an aspect of African-American history that they night not have learned about otherwise.
To be told I should not write this book because I am white is galling in the extreme. It considers my skin color the deciding factor in what I can and cannot do. It judges my output not on its quality, but on the color of my skin.
Is this anything other than racism?
Read the book. Review it based on what is on the page, not on what I look like, where I come from, or what sex I am.
And don’t even mention the term “cultural appropriation in my presence, unless you're ready for an argument!
Sunday, January 15, 2012
BOOK GIVEAWAY
I've got a contest going! You can find it and enter on the group blog I belong to: SCI-WHY.
Serve up your best guess as to what a corpse would look like after a year in a cave. The best answer to the question will win a free signed copy of Trouble in the Hills.
Serve up your best guess as to what a corpse would look like after a year in a cave. The best answer to the question will win a free signed copy of Trouble in the Hills.
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Why I'm Saying No to Movies in 2012
I'm making a New Year's Resolution to stay out of the movie theatres in 2012. At least the major ones like Cineplex/Silver City. Here's my shortlist why:
1. I'm not your $$%%^&^ 'guest.'
As we approached the ticket booth, both my husband and I recoiled visibly (yes, there was even some twitching) when we heard, "Can we help the next guest in line?"
It's true, I'm a word nerd, but really. Guest???? In my understanding of the word, when you are someone's guest, they treat you. They do not stick their hand in all your pockets and shake you down for every last cent.
At my friend's party, I am a guest. At the theatre, I am a customer. Have the civility to not insult me by trying to construe our relationship as something it is not.
2. 3D.
At it's best, 3D only thrills for the first 30 seconds. Then you stop noticing the effect at all, except for that queasy feeling in your gut and the headache that forms between your eyebrows. I don't like it and don't want it, and definitely resent having to pay more for it. But guess what? I'm gonna get it. Even though we "guests" have clearly communicated our lack of enthusiasm for 3D to the film industry. But so what? they can charge us more for it!
So don't expect 3D to go away anytime soon.
The only option I'm left with, then, is for me to go away. So I will.
3. Ads
This item is actually about 150 items. Because that is at least how many advertisements we were bombarded with at the theatre. Ads for movies are ok with me - promotional POS displays in the lobby, trailers for coming attractions - these belong in a theatre. Every other kind of ad - and let's not mince words here - sucks.
When theatres first started showing paid advertising way back when, I was one of those folks who booed and hissed. Here in polite Canada, I was pretty much alone in voicing my disapproval. As a result, the ads, which are universally despised, not only stayed, but multiplied exponentially.
We now get ads on the screen before the curtain goes up and the lights dim. We get more ads for 15-20 minutes after the lights dim and before the movie trailer. We also get ads during the movie, in terms of product placement and video game plugs (more on this below).
The other night, we were treated to 45 freaking minutes of ads. Yes,we kept track.
This is a misuse of the cinema/customer relationship. I am paying the theatre to be entertained. Instead, they treat me like a captive pair of eyeballs that can be sold to third parties. I am no longer the customer, I am the product.
If my eyeballs are being sold to a 'real' customer, (oh, right, I'm a 'guest!') then don't charge me for this privilege. Pay me, goddammit.
154. Interactive 'games.'
Gosh, you really think the audience is stupid, don't you, Cineplex? You tell us you are unrolling a new and exciting 'game' for us to play on our cell phones. Then you show us a tricked out 'interactive' car ad.
Sure, some of the audience is stupid, but not all of us. How long do you think it took the audience to realize you have sold our eyeballs, our cell phone IDs, and your own souls, yet again, for ad sales (at a premium)?
It took this eyeball-holder less than a nanosecond, and during that nanosecond I decided that I was not having fun anymore. In fact, I was thoroughly disgusted by your cynicism and naked opportunism. I could practically smell the greed rolling off the screen. It smelled like...sniff sniff....a bag of vomited-up popcorn.
In fact the experience sickened me so much, I decided there and then I might never repeat it. And I'd certainly never buy that tacky lo-rent red car you were flogging.
Go sell that interactive customer feedback (at a premium) to Ford.
155. Product placement.
We saw the movie Tin Tin. It would have been a pleasant enough pastime if it hadn't cost us $36; The cost/benefit ratio was not there vis a vis the quality of the film.
But what really tanked the whole thing was that the film wasn't really a movie at all, but rather a vehicle for more product sales. Gee, how lovely those chase and action scenes will look when translated into the video game, which was of course advertised before the movie started, sandwiched between all those car and phone ads. Platforming game, perhaps? Chase game, perhaps? Crane battle game perhaps? Gross, obvious and lame, lame lame.
And how about all those damn Snowy toys we'll be seeing in mass market merchandisers? A Captain Haddock ringtone (Blistering Barnacles!) perhaps? Take-apart Unicorn Lego (complete with secret scroll!)? The movie doesn't even pretend that this isn't its primary goal: to sell more shit.
And it is shit. You know it, we know it, they know it.
So I'm saying no to shit.
I'll only go to independently run theatres and small chains that treat me like a paying customer, not a pair of pockets to be turned inside out.
I'll only go to films at festivals, in which Toronto is blessed - the TIFF, The Jewish Film Festival, Hot Docs, etc. And I'll go to the Lightbox, which screens great movies and treats its patrons like intelligent beings.
In every relationship, both parties need to benefit. Sure, movie theatres have to make a buck - I don't begrudge them that. But there's a quid pro quo that is supposed to operate: you make a buck, and I get entertained.
But that's not how it works any more. My demands and desires are treated with disdain, and the theatre's naked self-interest is predominant and dominant. Our relationship is broken when the benefit all goes one way.
I know I don't represent the mass market. But I'm hoping this time I represent the front edge of the wedge, and the rest of y'all will also say no and stop paying for naked opportunism and corporate disdain.
I've got teenagers, so I can get my disrespect at home, for free. So my 2012 New Year's Resolution is to avoid cinemas that treat their 'guests' like pockets with legs.
1. I'm not your $$%%^&^ 'guest.'
As we approached the ticket booth, both my husband and I recoiled visibly (yes, there was even some twitching) when we heard, "Can we help the next guest in line?"
It's true, I'm a word nerd, but really. Guest???? In my understanding of the word, when you are someone's guest, they treat you. They do not stick their hand in all your pockets and shake you down for every last cent.
At my friend's party, I am a guest. At the theatre, I am a customer. Have the civility to not insult me by trying to construe our relationship as something it is not.
2. 3D.
At it's best, 3D only thrills for the first 30 seconds. Then you stop noticing the effect at all, except for that queasy feeling in your gut and the headache that forms between your eyebrows. I don't like it and don't want it, and definitely resent having to pay more for it. But guess what? I'm gonna get it. Even though we "guests" have clearly communicated our lack of enthusiasm for 3D to the film industry. But so what? they can charge us more for it!
So don't expect 3D to go away anytime soon.
The only option I'm left with, then, is for me to go away. So I will.
3. Ads
This item is actually about 150 items. Because that is at least how many advertisements we were bombarded with at the theatre. Ads for movies are ok with me - promotional POS displays in the lobby, trailers for coming attractions - these belong in a theatre. Every other kind of ad - and let's not mince words here - sucks.
When theatres first started showing paid advertising way back when, I was one of those folks who booed and hissed. Here in polite Canada, I was pretty much alone in voicing my disapproval. As a result, the ads, which are universally despised, not only stayed, but multiplied exponentially.
We now get ads on the screen before the curtain goes up and the lights dim. We get more ads for 15-20 minutes after the lights dim and before the movie trailer. We also get ads during the movie, in terms of product placement and video game plugs (more on this below).
The other night, we were treated to 45 freaking minutes of ads. Yes,we kept track.
This is a misuse of the cinema/customer relationship. I am paying the theatre to be entertained. Instead, they treat me like a captive pair of eyeballs that can be sold to third parties. I am no longer the customer, I am the product.
If my eyeballs are being sold to a 'real' customer, (oh, right, I'm a 'guest!') then don't charge me for this privilege. Pay me, goddammit.
154. Interactive 'games.'
Gosh, you really think the audience is stupid, don't you, Cineplex? You tell us you are unrolling a new and exciting 'game' for us to play on our cell phones. Then you show us a tricked out 'interactive' car ad.
Sure, some of the audience is stupid, but not all of us. How long do you think it took the audience to realize you have sold our eyeballs, our cell phone IDs, and your own souls, yet again, for ad sales (at a premium)?
It took this eyeball-holder less than a nanosecond, and during that nanosecond I decided that I was not having fun anymore. In fact, I was thoroughly disgusted by your cynicism and naked opportunism. I could practically smell the greed rolling off the screen. It smelled like...sniff sniff....a bag of vomited-up popcorn.
In fact the experience sickened me so much, I decided there and then I might never repeat it. And I'd certainly never buy that tacky lo-rent red car you were flogging.
Go sell that interactive customer feedback (at a premium) to Ford.
155. Product placement.
We saw the movie Tin Tin. It would have been a pleasant enough pastime if it hadn't cost us $36; The cost/benefit ratio was not there vis a vis the quality of the film.
But what really tanked the whole thing was that the film wasn't really a movie at all, but rather a vehicle for more product sales. Gee, how lovely those chase and action scenes will look when translated into the video game, which was of course advertised before the movie started, sandwiched between all those car and phone ads. Platforming game, perhaps? Chase game, perhaps? Crane battle game perhaps? Gross, obvious and lame, lame lame.
And how about all those damn Snowy toys we'll be seeing in mass market merchandisers? A Captain Haddock ringtone (Blistering Barnacles!) perhaps? Take-apart Unicorn Lego (complete with secret scroll!)? The movie doesn't even pretend that this isn't its primary goal: to sell more shit.
And it is shit. You know it, we know it, they know it.
So I'm saying no to shit.
I'll only go to independently run theatres and small chains that treat me like a paying customer, not a pair of pockets to be turned inside out.
I'll only go to films at festivals, in which Toronto is blessed - the TIFF, The Jewish Film Festival, Hot Docs, etc. And I'll go to the Lightbox, which screens great movies and treats its patrons like intelligent beings.
In every relationship, both parties need to benefit. Sure, movie theatres have to make a buck - I don't begrudge them that. But there's a quid pro quo that is supposed to operate: you make a buck, and I get entertained.
But that's not how it works any more. My demands and desires are treated with disdain, and the theatre's naked self-interest is predominant and dominant. Our relationship is broken when the benefit all goes one way.
I know I don't represent the mass market. But I'm hoping this time I represent the front edge of the wedge, and the rest of y'all will also say no and stop paying for naked opportunism and corporate disdain.
I've got teenagers, so I can get my disrespect at home, for free. So my 2012 New Year's Resolution is to avoid cinemas that treat their 'guests' like pockets with legs.
Friday, December 23, 2011
Gifts
Yes, the holiday is more about giving than receiving. But when I got these three pieces of news, I was pretty happy about being on the receiving end.
First, Porcupine in a Pine Tree hit #1 for children's bestsellers overall on Canadian Bookseller's List.
Second, Magic Up Your Sleeve has been shortlisted for the Rocky Mountain Book Award.
And third, I found out that the TV show I've been working on, Planet Echo, has been renewed for the third year.
So it's seems true that good news comes in threes.
Wishing you and yours a happy holiday season and all good things for 2012!
First, Porcupine in a Pine Tree hit #1 for children's bestsellers overall on Canadian Bookseller's List.
Wishing you and yours a happy holiday season and all good things for 2012!
Monday, December 19, 2011
School Library Journal Reviews Juba This Juba That
"This modern-day version of a traditional African chant imagines an adventure that happens one evening when a dark-skinned boy follows a yellow cat to the fair. They laugh at their reflections in the House of Mirrors, take a spooky fun-house ride, and generally have a wonderful time before returning home to bed. Becker’s simple rhyme plays with opposites and is just right for clapping and bouncing along. Lightburn’s lively illustrations perfectly capture the joy of the nighttime escapade and extend the story. The boy and cat are set against backgrounds of diagonal streaks of cool colors that aptly convey movement and a sense of fantasy. This is a good choice for reading aloud to an active group of youngsters."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Because: Science!
