From: lhendr at unm.edu <lhendr>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 13:36:11 -0700 (MST)

In further response to John Peters, obviously kids aren't going grasp all the allusions in Zelinsky's art, at least not at first glance, and neither are most adults, as he says, without years of study. But, I am always amazed at how much kids do pick up, and I don't think there's anything, even the more obscure points about the peacock, that even very young children couldn't relate to if they were interested and an adult perhaps directed their attention. I suspect even very young kids are familiar with "proud as a peacock" and could probably also make the connection between eyes and the patterns on the tail.

But even saying, "Look how the rocks seem to be moving with the prince" or
"See those dark clouds coming..." can create awareness that each element in the artwork has a purpose -- something that is probably true in all the best picture books, but is especially true in Renaissance and medieval art. One reason for using a book like Rapunzel rather than copies of original art is that the art in Rapunzel is created to illustrate a story, and the story is one that is accessible to children. It makes a better starting place, perhaps, than annunciation scenes, or flights from Eden, or Venus rising from the sea. It is also a contemporary reinterpretation of an old story and an older kind of art.

But, I also believe, that even if adults do not discuss any of the underlying elements in the book with children, adults' awareness of them results in a different emphasis in reading, and in attitude conveyed about the story. Sometimes this may be the greatest value of literary criticism of children's literature for adults who work with children.

Linnea Hendrickson lhendr at unm.edu
Received on Mon 02 Feb 1998 02:36:11 PM CST