The Decline of the Picture Book

Image via Wikipedia

I just read an article in the Seattle Times that made me desperately sad for the Picture Book. I love picture books. I have always loved picture books. I even collect some of the more beautiful ones. Among my favourites are The Butterfly Ball and the Grasshopper's Feast by William Plomer and Alan Aldridge (along with the subsequent books, The Peacock Party and The Lion's Cavalcade) and the most exquisitely illustrated copy of Cinderella. The illustrations in this last book, by Moira Kemp are wonderful, whimsical fancies of a stoic young woman who endures all kinds of adversity to finally reap her rich reward. Most of us know the story in one form or another, but this book doesn't pull any punches. Toes are chopped to fit into shoes, eyes are gouged by delicate turtle doves and Cinders gets her man. The story on its own is gruesome and true to the time of writing, but it's the illustrations that lift it to the realm of high art.

More recently, I've been following the extraordinary work of Shaun Tan who can certainly spin a tale with no words at all. This is a huge admission from someone who loves words. And I do love words. I love them so much that I have postgraduate qualifications in Linguistics. So, I think, that to admit that a book can hold its own, can be at least as valuable and wonderful with no words (!!) is truly meaningful and constitutes high praise from me.

I'm not sure why parents shy away from picture books for their children. Perhaps there's a notion that somehow picture books "dumb down" a child. I would beg to differ. In my mind, before words, there are pictures. Before we read and make sense of the world (and even after) we interact with our world through visual images. For those of us who are visual-spatial learners, this is even more the case.

Image via WikipediaSo, it seems to me that picture books are our first foray into using our imaginations and being creative. "But the illustrations are there for us!" I hear you cry. "How can we be creative and imaginative if the picturing is already done for us?". Oh that's easy. Just because we see a picture, doesn't mean that we accept what we see as the entirety of the story. If we did, how could we engage with art? How could we be inspired by La Gioconda or Klimt's The Kiss? Is it only me or do we all imagine what Leonardo da Vinci was saying to Lisa Gherardini to make her smile in such an enigmatic way? Am I the only one that wonders what led the two lovers to be sheathed in gold in Klimt's painting? And how is it that he is so clearly adoring of her and still only kissing her on the cheek, yet she looks so blissfully loved and content? Who are they? Are they lovers or have they come to some deep understanding of each other through years of marriage? What's their story? It's intriguing that nobody really knows, and at this point, I start inventing what I think should be their story.

For me, it's the same for picture books. In the absence of words, I create my own; my own story to go with the pictures so artfully created by others.

...and for the latest update, one of my favourite bloggers on books is also lamenting the decline of the picture book. I'm with you, Book Chook!

The Weight of Possessions

I was reading a quote that resonated with me today. It began;

"I do not seek possessions. Possessions possess the possessor.".

How prophetic, how axiomatic at a time when we're deciding a path for our future. Should we buy the big house and the fancy car and be happy for now? Can we make do with whatever we have and save for a comfortable (more than comfortable, a secure) future? Is the house we live in still meeting our needs? And what exactly are our needs anyway?

And therein lies the key...What are our needs in this modern world we live in? It seems easy, even flippant to say that our needs never change, that the basics; food, water, shelter are our only real needs. I think it downplays the fact that our needs are actually ever changing. It might seem frivolous or even pretentious to think that we actually need more than our parents needed; or our grandparents. However, I'm inclining to the thought that each generation's "needs" are different.

The basic human needs never change, of course, but if we assume that having our needs fulfilled is what makes us happy, productive members of society, then we have to concede that our needs differ with changing society and technology.

Are my children ingrates to suggest that they "need" an iTouch? Perhaps. However, given how much of education is now being delivered through recorded lectures/lessons on iTunes, given how many truly worthwhile educational applications there are, I'm not so sure anymore. I know that my parents thought it outrageous when I presented the argument to them, while at university, that I "needed" a computer, yet now, there are few homes we're familiar with that don't have at least one computer (and often many more!).

Does this justify rampant consumerism? No. I don't think so. Certainly not in my book anyway. I still believe in encouraging the children to save for things they really want. It's still important to LomL and me that they earn what they desire and that gratification is delayed, not instantaneous. Encouragingly, B1 and B2 are still as thrilled with toys from the thrift shop or $2 shop as they are with the big, expensive presents. I'm grateful that they still see the value in giving to those less fortunate in life or those with less means or access. I hope we're instilling these important values in them and I hope that they don't become possessed by possessions.