Children's Books discussion

Come join us to discuss any or all of these laudable books from 1965:

The Black Cauldron by Lloyd Alexander
(Second book of the series; I'm going to read The Book of Three first.)

The Animal Family by Randall Jarrell

The Noonday Friends by Mary Stolz

All are available on openlibrary.org, though most are limited to 1 hour borrow atm.
Check your local library; they should have at least some of them.

After you borrow it for an hour, it gives you the option to borrow it for two weeks, if you need more time.

I read The Noonday Friends and loved it. I want to read The Animal Family next.

I read The Black Cauldron when I was younger. I'm considering doing a re-read of the whole series.

Thank you!

Do you think Noonday Friends is still relevant to today's kids? Or would they be better off reading through the lens of 'historical fiction' maybe?

The only one I haven't read is Noonday Friends. My niece just mentioned Animal Family as one of the only "big" books she can read on her own without getting bored. She's loved it since she was little. It didn't do anything for me.

I liked the Chronicles of Prydain well enough as an amusing procrastination while NOT doing my grad school homework. I was reading a lot of books recommended on the "while you wait for the next Harry Potter" lists at that time.

I first read the Chronicles of Prydain probably in the 1980s. When my son was about 9 or 10 years old, I read the quintology to him as well, and he loved it as much as I had. I don't have time to re-read the book this month, but I have very fond memories of it and the others in the series. The whole series was well thought out; the characters came alive for me; and the settings thoroughly described so that I could picture them in my mind. This remains one of my all time favorite children's fantasy series.

Cheryl wrote: "Thank you!

Do you think Noonday Friends is still relevant to today's kids? Or would they be better off reading through the lens of 'historical fiction' maybe?"

I'm honestly not sure. The story itself... say, if it was a movie, I would say it's still relevant, but the way it's written / some of the language might throw younger readers who aren't familiar with some terms or social concepts. I can't think of any off the top of my head, but it's something I noticed and was thinking about when I was reading it.

It might be a good book to read together, so there's someone there to explain the things that aren't clear to the kids of our day.

Although, I think a movie would lose something in the translation to screen. One of the reasons I liked the book so much, is that we get to see everyone's thoughts, and it does such a great job of showing that you never can tell what something is thinking or feeling.

From my review: Following multiple points of view worked really well here, as all of the people in the book have their own sorrows and their own worries, and we get to see all of it from the inside. No one really knows what's going on inside each other's heads, but we get to see it all, and see how different it is from the perceptions we might make from the outside. I think Longfellow says it best; “Every man has his secret sorrows which the world knows not; and often times we call a man cold when he is only sad.” I think that having the reader take turns walking in various characters' shoes becomes a good exercise in empathy and "don't judge a book by its cover" as well as being a good story.

Thanks to all of you, I'm now looking forward to my reads (and my reread of Animal Family)!

Unfortunately I won't have time enough for all three books, but I'm going to have to read two as I've actually never read Lloyd Alexander's series, and it's the one which speaks most to my tastes as I love fantasy. So I had to start with The Book of Three, and so far I'm thoroughly enjoying it!

yay!

I read The Animal Family, and loved it! (I forgot to come back and comment.) Right away with the first paragraph, I could see why this book is the favorite among the current three. The story is something unique and interesting, but the way it's told, the lyrical beauty of the language, makes it wonderful. I'm really glad it came up this month!

:smiles:

I'm starting Book of Three now and found it too easy to put down already. I guess because I'm not 9 years old? Or because I don't like quest fantasy? If I'd met Hen Pen I might be invested in the search for her, but everything seems so distant right now.

Does anyone know if Black Cauldron stands alone well enough?

Cheryl wrote: "I'm starting Book of Three now and found it too easy to put down already. I guess because I'm not 9 years old? Or because I don't like quest fantasy? If I'd met Hen Pen I might be invested in the s..."

In my opinion, this series is best read in order.

Thank you.

But yeah, I had to give up. It just really isn't my thing. So dark and intense so early on. I guess I like the way the Harry Potter series was done, as it starts out more comical and mostly lighter, easing into the difficult stuff. And by difficult I don't mean just dark, but all the alliances and geography etc.

Otoh, The Animal Family is just as poetic and mysterious and lovely as I remember from the other times I've read it.

I like the book design. Plenty of pages, not too many illustrations, but not many words on each page. It slows down the readers, makes them think about the words and ideas.

I love the subtle characterizations. Somehow we figure out the hunter's nature while being told very little about him, or even spending much time with him. He had a happy childhood, his parents are dead, he's lonely, he's patient, he's not self-centered...

I love the writing style, too. The mermaid "had learned the hunter's words, but she said them to the sea's tune."

I think there's a lot of metaphor and deep themes going on here.

I mean, an easy idea is that even the hunter and mermaid are 'animals.' After all, how else can we readers reconcile our unease with him killing for all those furs he uses to outfit his bed and floor, and with her catching and eating raw fish as she swims, just as another fish would, with our desire to empathize with and like or admire them?

But there's more depth, isn't there?

For example, why, at the end, do they tell (view spoiler)[the boy, the latest arrival, that all three human-like beings came first, and the bear and lynx later (hide spoiler)]?

And why exactly does the mermaid choose to be basically imprisoned in the cottage? She 'pushes herself along' or gets carried to go anywhere. But the hunter holds her by no word or action or behavior. She says, late in the book, that she finds the consistency of life under the sea boring, but I think the author had something more in mind.

And what did the Newbery committee find to honor? *I* think the book worthy of note for it's poetry and thoughtfulness, but it's atypical of what is usually chosen for Newbery recognition, at least until this date.

Speaking of The Animal Family, this podcast episode might be interesting, if any of you have an hour to spare: https://www.backlisted.fm/episodes/bv...

I've started The Noonday Friends and at first I was not too sure I'd like it because it's another MG story about 'issues.' But Marshall, her little brother, is a charmer. When he and Franny played their after-school games I laughed and almost cried; what a wonderful big sister she is!

But why isn't the big brother helping take care of the little one? Because it's the early 1960s?

Well, I'm done with Noonday Friends and I loved it. I have no idea whether I would have as a child. We were poor, but not that poor, and my dad worked, between his job and his mother's farm and other rural 'gig' work, probably 70 hours a week. None of us were creative, or social... this would have been just too foreign to me; I'd have had no point of access.

Now, though, I can recognize that it's one of the first and best 'issues' books. But it is indeed about so much more than just MG friendships. Just like A Tree Grows in Brooklyn, it's about the setting as much as anything. Greenwich Village of 1965 is almost a character in its own right. And Mr. Davis, and Marshall, and Mr. Hourney, and even bit players like Tulio, all come alive. Well, except for that Jim. I do not understand him at all. And I do not know why Stoltz made him be twins with Franny, as that doesn't seem to add to the story.

I noticed that the edition scanned to openlibrary has a bunch of checkouts - at least a couple every year from 1966 to 1979. I don't know if it was on recommended reading lists, but I suspect at least some of those readers enjoyed it.

So, do any of you understand Jim, or understand why the author wrote Franny and Jim as twins?

It might be that she didn't want either Fanny or Jim to be "the older sibling" with authority over the younger ones, so by making them twins it puts them on a more equal level.

I think I understand Jim. His situation makes him feel vulnerable, and his worldview is that only the stong survive, that gentleness is a sign of weakness, and that the stonger boys/men will bully or take advantage of those who are deemed weaker (and this constant struggle for dominance affects disadvantaged young men in particular; so even though he and Fanny are going through the same thing, their experience of it is very different). So, for Jim, acting tough is a way to make him feel more in control, and appear strong and someone to be respected. He doesn't even consciously understand why he acts like that, it's an unconscious survival instinct that's a product of his environment.

I liked that he also cared about his family and wanted to help them, though he was so used to wearing the 'tough guy' persona that he didn't quite know how to drop that mask even with his family. He sort of pushed through that at Marshall's birthday, a little, but was very awkward about it. But the fact that he did that is hopeful for the future.

Actually, I was impressed with the way Stolz showed how social expectations shape people, the sad inevitability of disadvantaged boys having to learn that their only chance of survival in a hard world is to become hard themselves... but I think she was also suggesting (and urging boys to realize?) that putting on a strong face doesn't have to mean choking out one's kindness and caring nature.

I don't know, I felt like this book is so densely packed with social analysis, that it could be a whole social studies course, but it amazingly doesn't intrude into the story. I kind of felt like maybe she wrote it that way so kids might absorb the lessons on a subconscious level, even if their critical thinking skills are not yet developed enough to understand the social issues they may be facing in their lives.

I think not every character is meant to speak to every reader, but given that everyone's experience of hardship is different, I appreciate that she covered such a wide range of experiences. There's probably someone for everyone, and also it's good to learn to empathize with people who are different.

Wow. Ok, I'm humbled. Thank you so much. I can now see that you're right, there is indeed more to unpack about Jim, and about the whole story, than I realized.

Cheryl wrote: "Wow. Ok, I'm humbled. Thank you so much. I can now see that you're right, there is indeed more to unpack about Jim, and about the whole story, than I realized."

I am going to have to rather meticulously reread the book after perusing Kaylee's excellent musings.

1966- What a solid year. Although, I think the books have expired.

The winner, I Juan de Pareja, is one I really liked but have never had a student read. I don't even know what kind of student would want to read it.

I was a massive fan of the Prydain series when I read it as a child in the '80s, but I don't think the pacing and characterization hold up against Harry Potter and Percy Jackson. I've tried to get students to read it and failed because it's just less engaging than modern fantasy books. There was a lot less competition for child-friendly high fantasy in the '80s. It was basically this, Narnia, and maybe the Hobbitt if you were an advanced reader.

I read the Animal Family out loud to a group of sixth graders about 15 years ago. I remember loving it, but the students thought it was weird. I thought it was an interesting take on relationships and the concept that family is not necessarily blood.

I haven't read Noonday Friends. I think I get it confused with Saturday Cousins

Yeah, Noonday Friends is much more worth the read, I think.

You have a point. I do wonder what modern child might be interested in any of these.

Maybe Michael's kids?

Cheryl wrote: "Wow. Ok, I'm humbled. Thank you so much. I can now see that you're right, there is indeed more to unpack about Jim, and about the whole story, than I realized."

*blushes* You're welcome, I just had a lot of thoughts about the book and the characters. It's one of those that can use a few pages to convey a lot.

I'm actually adding this to my "to enjoy again" shelf.

Time to open the September thread, but this discussion will never close. If you want to contribute later you might find it here, or in the Newbery Archive folder.