From: Eliza T. Dresang <edresang>
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 07:45:46 -0500

I'd like to add a word of appreciation about how Christopher Paul Curtis developed the plot and character motivation in Bud, not Buddy.

One of my objections to many children's books, particularly one that is accessible to readers as young as those who appreciate Bud, not Buddy, is


that the underlying motivation for a journey or search seems so contrived
-- either by unbelievable coincidence that is not treated as such or just plain manipulation by the author so what can happen, happens. This is especially true when something out the ordinary happens as it did in Bud, not Buddy.

I felt that the observation that Bud made of his mother's actions that led him to conclude who his father might be -- an observation that was slowly revealed to the reader -- showed a respect for the reasoning power of young children that is not frequently found in their books. Bud did not
"overhear" adults talking to get his idea of who his father was, nor did he simply fantasize about it without a good reason, but rather he put together what he observed his mother doing in a logical manner and came to a logical conclusion.

It may seem somewhat miraculous and heart-warming that he was 'almost right,' on the one hand, but I think it is more a "right on' description of reality and a reminder that adults might more often listen to the 'way children think' and not dismiss their 'far fetched' ideas. It takes a depth of understanding of how children observe and conclude in a way that sometimes is dismissed by adults -- and it also goes back to the adult's responsibility to listen carefully and respect what children think and say. Some of it is make believe and far off the base of reality, but some is not. It takes an equally wise adult to sort through that. As for the child reader, I suspect he or she 'knows' what Bud did is what they do day in and day out to make sense of their world and to instill hope in it -- if they are reflective at all. Curtis had Paul follow a dream that was grounded in a piece of concrete believable reality in a manner right for an astute child.

The author's note at the end: it did not spoil the reading for me, but I suspect that is an individual 'reader's response' issue, not a 'right of wrong.' I"ve had this discussion before with editors who do not want to put these kind of notes in to spoil the story.

I believe that most, if not all, fiction has a strong piece of the author embedded in it -- it make be in the form of experience , history, or values, but it is there. I like to know as much about that as I can. (maybe its like a little piece of hyptertext link to me!) I don't find it writing with an agenda but rather writing from a knowledge or experiential base that Curtis (or whoever), can offer us that others cannot. Mildred Taylor did the same, even if she did not explicate it as extensively, and it is one reason her books convey discrimination and racism in a powerful way few others have been able to. But, again, I think this is just how one likes to read.



Finally, a name is one' is most personal symbolic expression, and it is deeply embedded in meaning for a thinking child like Bud -- just as his homemade "rules" are. It symbolizes his attachment to his mother and her wishes, also.

He is a just right character for me in a believable, if extraordinary, plot
-- and I predict he will hold up through many years of scrutiny.

Eliza T. Dresang Associate Professor Florida State University School of Information Studies



At 01:37 PM 1/28/00 00, steven engelfried wrote:

_________________________________________________________ Eliza T. Dresang, Associate Professor School of Information Studies/ Florida State University Tallahassee, Florida
Received on Sat 29 Jan 2000 06:45:46 AM CST