CCBC-Net Archives
My Friend Rabbit
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Linnea Hendrickson <lhendr>
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 14:30:33 -0700
I have to say I was surprised that My Friend Rabbit was the Caldecott winner. In some ways it is like going to an award-winning movie, thinking it is going to be fabulous and afterwards wondering what the fuss was about; compared to going to some movie you don't expect much from, and leaving feeling it is an unrecognized gem. I think that had I discovered My Friend Rabbit on my own, I might have felt it was an undiscovered gem, but I'm not even quite sure of that.
Are the illustrations actually wood-cuts, or something more line linoleum block prints? They don't look like wood cuts to me, and the description says something like "relife prints" -- book is at school, so I can't check. Can someone clarify?
I am intrigued by the change in Rohmann's style from Time Flies and Cinder-Eyed Cats. I loved the art in Cinder-Eyed cats, but felt the story didn't quite work. I am always fascinated by illustrators who vary their style so greatly -- I suppose Marcia Brown would be the ultimate Caldecott winner with her three medals, each one for a very different-looking book.
I do like the graphic quality of My Friend Rabbit, including the use of space and the way the animals fill the pages or fall of the edges. The expressions on the faces tell much, as do the eyes.
I shared the book with children all last week, and all enjoyed it. It is the kind of book that lends itself to being shown and "talked" rather than "read." (Last year's Three Pigs is also like that). I think my favorite page is the one with the little ducks fluttering their wings -- what we expected to see is the animals crashing down, but we have to wait for the next page for that. Predicting what they'll see on the next page helps make the book come alive for the children. I love the page with the animals falling and filling the page -- if only for pure visual effect. I like the way so much is told in the pictures -- the ribbon around the box from which the plane comes, for example. But, I'm not sure whether the plane is a gift for mouse or for rabbit?
I am glad we have a Caldecott winner aimed at little kids -- I think as adults we tend to reward complexity in award winners because complexity appeals to us.
However, part of me still says, huh? about this book. I suppose I have no imagination, or too strong a practical bent, but if Rabbit can carry and stack up all those animals, why couldn't he come up with some other way to get that plane down? My practical, logical side rebels, as it did with Cinder-Eyed Cats where the mix of fire and water, sea and sky stretched my credulity just a bit too far for the story to work.
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 14:30:33 -0700
I have to say I was surprised that My Friend Rabbit was the Caldecott winner. In some ways it is like going to an award-winning movie, thinking it is going to be fabulous and afterwards wondering what the fuss was about; compared to going to some movie you don't expect much from, and leaving feeling it is an unrecognized gem. I think that had I discovered My Friend Rabbit on my own, I might have felt it was an undiscovered gem, but I'm not even quite sure of that.
Are the illustrations actually wood-cuts, or something more line linoleum block prints? They don't look like wood cuts to me, and the description says something like "relife prints" -- book is at school, so I can't check. Can someone clarify?
I am intrigued by the change in Rohmann's style from Time Flies and Cinder-Eyed Cats. I loved the art in Cinder-Eyed cats, but felt the story didn't quite work. I am always fascinated by illustrators who vary their style so greatly -- I suppose Marcia Brown would be the ultimate Caldecott winner with her three medals, each one for a very different-looking book.
I do like the graphic quality of My Friend Rabbit, including the use of space and the way the animals fill the pages or fall of the edges. The expressions on the faces tell much, as do the eyes.
I shared the book with children all last week, and all enjoyed it. It is the kind of book that lends itself to being shown and "talked" rather than "read." (Last year's Three Pigs is also like that). I think my favorite page is the one with the little ducks fluttering their wings -- what we expected to see is the animals crashing down, but we have to wait for the next page for that. Predicting what they'll see on the next page helps make the book come alive for the children. I love the page with the animals falling and filling the page -- if only for pure visual effect. I like the way so much is told in the pictures -- the ribbon around the box from which the plane comes, for example. But, I'm not sure whether the plane is a gift for mouse or for rabbit?
I am glad we have a Caldecott winner aimed at little kids -- I think as adults we tend to reward complexity in award winners because complexity appeals to us.
However, part of me still says, huh? about this book. I suppose I have no imagination, or too strong a practical bent, but if Rabbit can carry and stack up all those animals, why couldn't he come up with some other way to get that plane down? My practical, logical side rebels, as it did with Cinder-Eyed Cats where the mix of fire and water, sea and sky stretched my credulity just a bit too far for the story to work.
-- Linnea Linnea Hendrickson Albuquerque, NM Lhendr at unm.edu http://www.unm.edu/~lhendrReceived on Wed 05 Feb 2003 03:30:33 PM CST
