CCBC-Net Archives
Bud, Not Buddy and Joseph
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: drabkin <arcanis>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 08:25:47 -0800
Linnea asks:
Actually, the references are not to "Fiddler", but to the stories on which whoever-it-was based the musical. There are references in bits and pieces of newspapers and book titles to at least one well-known figure in Jewish literature, in addition to Sholem Aleichem, who is the name that most people seem to recognize. There is no pattern relating to the story, but there is a pattern of references to some very well-loved tales (Chelm stories, well-known Jewish folktales) and to at least one very well-loved writer, Mendele Moishe
Sforim, whose name appears on a small book lying on the floor. There are also references to the stories of Sholem Aleichem (not only to the Tevye stories, which are what "Fiddler" was adapted from).
The text of "Joseph" is disappointing to anyone who has been long familiar with the song and to the many variations of the song-into-story performed by storytellers like Nancy Schimmel (who has been telling it for years -- I believe it's in her book on storytelling called "Just Enough To Make a Story", which is essential to any storytelling collection). Sid Lieberman also tells it on a tape whose title I've forgotten, but his version is dynamic, hilarious, and interactive. Most people who tell Jewish stories have told this one at one time or another, because of all the opportunities to insert a catchy repetitive refrain at every repetition of the cutting down.
(My favourite is Lieberman's -- "So he cut and he stitched and he snipped and he sewed" -- and I really missed that in Taback's bald account.) But maybe the worst thing, for me, in the text is that all the sly humour and gracefulness of a very expressive and wonderful language is missing. This is the bare bones of a story, but the music and rhythm of a good telling are not there. And that's neither inevitable nor necessary. But for those who have never heard any other version, there's still great humour in the situation
itself, and maybe this telling is enough? I can't be objective about this and won't pretend to be, because I've both heard and told this story for many years myself. However, the Caldecott is not given for text, but for illustration. So perhaps what I've said is quite irrelevant. The illustrations are just fine even if I personally find the colour palette unappealing and question the purpose of all those extraneous holes in the pages, which seem more gimmicky than anything else. (Yes, I know they're meant to underline the wearing out of the fabric, but for heaven's sake, the text is supposed to be doing that, and if it can't, then ... !)
Marian Drabkin Richmond Public Library Richmond, CA
Received on Thu 27 Jan 2000 10:25:47 AM CST
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 08:25:47 -0800
Linnea asks:
Actually, the references are not to "Fiddler", but to the stories on which whoever-it-was based the musical. There are references in bits and pieces of newspapers and book titles to at least one well-known figure in Jewish literature, in addition to Sholem Aleichem, who is the name that most people seem to recognize. There is no pattern relating to the story, but there is a pattern of references to some very well-loved tales (Chelm stories, well-known Jewish folktales) and to at least one very well-loved writer, Mendele Moishe
Sforim, whose name appears on a small book lying on the floor. There are also references to the stories of Sholem Aleichem (not only to the Tevye stories, which are what "Fiddler" was adapted from).
The text of "Joseph" is disappointing to anyone who has been long familiar with the song and to the many variations of the song-into-story performed by storytellers like Nancy Schimmel (who has been telling it for years -- I believe it's in her book on storytelling called "Just Enough To Make a Story", which is essential to any storytelling collection). Sid Lieberman also tells it on a tape whose title I've forgotten, but his version is dynamic, hilarious, and interactive. Most people who tell Jewish stories have told this one at one time or another, because of all the opportunities to insert a catchy repetitive refrain at every repetition of the cutting down.
(My favourite is Lieberman's -- "So he cut and he stitched and he snipped and he sewed" -- and I really missed that in Taback's bald account.) But maybe the worst thing, for me, in the text is that all the sly humour and gracefulness of a very expressive and wonderful language is missing. This is the bare bones of a story, but the music and rhythm of a good telling are not there. And that's neither inevitable nor necessary. But for those who have never heard any other version, there's still great humour in the situation
itself, and maybe this telling is enough? I can't be objective about this and won't pretend to be, because I've both heard and told this story for many years myself. However, the Caldecott is not given for text, but for illustration. So perhaps what I've said is quite irrelevant. The illustrations are just fine even if I personally find the colour palette unappealing and question the purpose of all those extraneous holes in the pages, which seem more gimmicky than anything else. (Yes, I know they're meant to underline the wearing out of the fabric, but for heaven's sake, the text is supposed to be doing that, and if it can't, then ... !)
Marian Drabkin Richmond Public Library Richmond, CA
Received on Thu 27 Jan 2000 10:25:47 AM CST