CCBC-Net Archives
Bud Not Buddy
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Monica R. Edinger <edinger>
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 07:20:43 +0000
I'm fascinated by Steven Engelfried's reaction to the author's note at the end of Bud, Not Buddy. It hits, I think, at the core of the tension that the genre of historical fiction creates by its very existence. Fiction is, as Marc Aronson reminds us over and over, art. And art only needs to be. However, when the artist has an underlying didactic goal or when the art is used didactically, complications ensue. We have tussled with this issue over and over again here on ccbc-net and on child_lit.
As a fourth grade teacher, interested in having my students look at historical fiction critically, I was delighted with Curtis's end note. In fact, it is one of the reasons I want to read the book aloud. We have an ongoing conversation going on in my classroom as to what exactly history
is, who tells it, how to trust it. My kids are constantly grappling with issues of historical truth. Dave at Night was a wonderful book for us as it mixed the author's personal history, New York City history, and complete fiction all together into a wonderful story with unique characters. Bud, Not Buddy seems to do that as well. In fact, after hearing Gail speak about Dave at Night's genesis I wished she had put more of it into the author's note so it would have been more like Curtis's for Bud, Not Buddy.
Kids are always so curious about what might be real in a work of fiction, especially personal history. When my students have written authors their letters are full of questions related to this issue. I've tended to take advantage of this interest in my merging of our studies of history and literature. Certainly balancing their time in the world of the story and helping them hone their intellectual skills of criticism is tricky. However, my kids seem to move in and out of both with ease. They can be both in Oz when we read Baum's book and be fascinated by its creation. They can be in the world of the book one minute and gleefully looking at what the man behind the curtain is doing the next.
Yet Steven's point reminds me of what a tightrope I'm on. While I want my students to hone their intellectual tools of criticism I'd prefer they float rather drop with a thud back into Kansas.
Monica
Monica Edinger The Dalton School New York NY edinger at dalton.org monicaedinger at yahoo.com
Received on Sat 29 Jan 2000 01:20:43 AM CST
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 07:20:43 +0000
I'm fascinated by Steven Engelfried's reaction to the author's note at the end of Bud, Not Buddy. It hits, I think, at the core of the tension that the genre of historical fiction creates by its very existence. Fiction is, as Marc Aronson reminds us over and over, art. And art only needs to be. However, when the artist has an underlying didactic goal or when the art is used didactically, complications ensue. We have tussled with this issue over and over again here on ccbc-net and on child_lit.
As a fourth grade teacher, interested in having my students look at historical fiction critically, I was delighted with Curtis's end note. In fact, it is one of the reasons I want to read the book aloud. We have an ongoing conversation going on in my classroom as to what exactly history
is, who tells it, how to trust it. My kids are constantly grappling with issues of historical truth. Dave at Night was a wonderful book for us as it mixed the author's personal history, New York City history, and complete fiction all together into a wonderful story with unique characters. Bud, Not Buddy seems to do that as well. In fact, after hearing Gail speak about Dave at Night's genesis I wished she had put more of it into the author's note so it would have been more like Curtis's for Bud, Not Buddy.
Kids are always so curious about what might be real in a work of fiction, especially personal history. When my students have written authors their letters are full of questions related to this issue. I've tended to take advantage of this interest in my merging of our studies of history and literature. Certainly balancing their time in the world of the story and helping them hone their intellectual skills of criticism is tricky. However, my kids seem to move in and out of both with ease. They can be both in Oz when we read Baum's book and be fascinated by its creation. They can be in the world of the book one minute and gleefully looking at what the man behind the curtain is doing the next.
Yet Steven's point reminds me of what a tightrope I'm on. While I want my students to hone their intellectual tools of criticism I'd prefer they float rather drop with a thud back into Kansas.
Monica
Monica Edinger The Dalton School New York NY edinger at dalton.org monicaedinger at yahoo.com
Received on Sat 29 Jan 2000 01:20:43 AM CST
