From: Steven
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 08:56:26 PST

One cardinal rule of reviewing that I've heard and read often is
"review the book in front of you, not the book you think it could have been." I agree with that, but sometimes find it hard. One example: "A Friend Like Ed" by Karen Wagner and Janet Pedersen. Two mice are friends. Ed has always been unusual, but when he starts acting weird in public, Mildred stops liking him. Later they reconcile. The illustrations and the rest of the story make the reconciliation convincing. But it was still just the two of them. Mildred never showed that she was willing to like Ed even when he was weird in public. Is it fair to fault a book for not including a plot element that I think could have improved the story? To criticize the story for what's not in it?
 Another recent one was "A Tale of a Tail" by Judit Bodnar and John Sandford. Fox tricks Bear into getting his tail frozen in a lake. Bear drags the whole lake out through the forest. I picture that scene as potentially hilarious. The artist was more subtle, sticking to the restrained, homey tones he uses throughout. Once I considered, I realized that the illustrations work well, match the storytelling voice nicely, and correctly (I hope) revised my initial reaction. Still, I struggle with the question of what a book should have been (which I see as fair criticism) and what it could have been (which seems unfair). Any advice on how to make that distinction? Or is it even as important as I'm thinking?
-------------------------------------------------------Steven Engelfried, West Linn Public Library 1595 Burns Streeet West Linn, OR 97068 ph: 503e6x57 fax: 503e6'46 e-mail: steven at westlinn.lib.or.us
-------------------------------------------------------
Received on Thu 24 Sep 1998 11:56:26 AM CDT