From: Monica R. Edinger <edinger>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 07:33:08 +0100

In keeping with the windy, maze-like, and non-linear style of these three books, here are some of my windy and non-linear thoughts about them, one of which ends up like the dead-ends of mazes, irresolvable.

The Three Golden Keys, Tibet, and Madlenka feel connected to me, sort of like a trilogy as they all involve memory of one sort or another. The first is Sis's magical memories of Prague. Tibet is largely Sis's father's memories of Tibet, woven into Sis's own memories of his father. And finally, there is Madlenka, both Sis's daughter's very young memories of her block and Sis's memories of his daughter's small world. Each is, as Megan noted, maze?ntered. The most complex is Tibet, the least is Madlenka. Understandable as Tibet involves an adult while Madlenka involves a very young child. In each time twists and turns and functions in a non-linear way. Each story twists and turns within and without mazes. Each is magical. Each is based on reality made magical.

While I very much loved the imagery of Madlenka, I was uncomfortable with the iconic quality of the neighbors she encounters. I understand completely what Sis was intending: that this is a very small child's view of her world and it is not going to necessarily be constructed to suit those outside the world. Thus, her world contains very specific Europeans and more generalized Asians, Latin Americans, and Africa. Because of my time in Sierra Leone and subsquent experience of Americans with very generalized and stereotypic views of Africa, I was especially uncomfortable with Cleopatra. I realize that my response was very personal, but wondered if anyone else was discomforted by the way the different ethnic and national groups are represented in the book.

I admire Sis greatly; he is in my pantheon of great producers of illustrated books. I absolutely love his books, every single one of them.
 But I wonder about his audience for these more complicated ones. I hate to raise this as it often results in contention; however, are these particular books truly and independently appreciated by many children? Tibet was not marketed for children and my students do not voluntarily read and reread The Three Golden Keys; it is one of those books I have to read to them and take them through.

Madlenka strikes me as the most accessible and most problematical in that it is fun to read, but provides young readers with a stereotypic world view. Now, of course, that is the way Madlenka sees her world. It is unformed and uninformed, that is the reality of a very young child. They are building their knowledge of the world as Madlenka does and as they grow the add to this knowledge. Madlenka will later know more about Africa; that there is more to it than she knows now. I understand and appreciate completely (at least I HOPE I do!) Sis's intent with this book. But I do worry about the nature of imprinting stereotyping on the readers of the book. Will children who read it necessarily go beyond the stereotypes at some point? I always tell the story of my parents telling me as a child that outhouses were "Indian toilets." I somehow assumed until I was an adult that the term was an accepted one. I just never gave it any thought and it stayed in the corner of my mind until something drew it out, forced me to examine it and realize that it was wrong. I wonder about children taking in the cultural generalizations of Madlenka and simply tucking them away in the corners of their minds, unexamined forever. I have no answer to my disquiet with Madlenka in this, but raise it anyway; one of those maze dead-ends, I guess.

Monica


The Dalton School New York NY edinger at dalton.org monicaedinger at yahoo.com
Received on Thu 21 Jun 2001 01:33:08 AM CDT