Hello folks!
I have decided that I am going to reskin the jellybean as a podcast in which I read out loud classic children’s books – books in the public domain – and then, once they’re complete, have a bit of a discussion about them. If you have a preference for what you’d like to see as my first book, please let me know. 
Otherwise I’ll just pick one of my favourites and do the thing!
❤
Hello folks!
First of all, I’d like to thank you for still being here despite me being very quiet over the last year or two. There has been a lot of upheaval in my life, what with the accidental creation of not one, but TWO ridiculously active online communities (Critter Gifting and Wolfenoot). They have taken up a lot of my time and energy.
I have rather a soft spot for the Jellybean, though, and would like to get back to it. But I kind of want to give it a facelift. So I am giving that some thought.
My original plan of working through a list that (more or less) represented the “western canon” of kiddielit was based heavily in a data kind of way of thinking. It was about the individual stories to a degree, but it was also about analysing the canon as a whole, seeing patterns, that kind of thing. While I still think there is value in that, I’m not sure it’s the best approach for this particular thing.
I am now thinking perhaps the Jellybean would be better served by me working with our kids and reviewing books they read and enjoy. I could still do occasional nerdy essays on canon books, but I think other parents may be more interested in the recommendations of kids?
I would definitely like to punctuate that with longer form, more in-depth, academically leaning pieces on kids books – to be honest, the academic side of my brain would enjoy the exercise, and I do actually have that expertise, so that might be fun, and possibly of interest to other people?
With all that in mind, what direction would YOU like the Jellybean to take? Is there anything in particular you would like to see?
Let me know!
More in the Series – Curious George
“More in the Series” scores the other books in a series where one (or more) of the books have made it into the 1001 Books list. Mostly because I’m a bit of a completionist.
POINTS: 3 out of 10.
Bechdel: 0 points
Variety of characters: 0 points
Good story: 2 point
Discretionary ideological points: 1 point
The Curious George books unfortunately really don’t stand up to modern scrutiny very well. They are still a delight to read, and the kidlet definitely has enjoyed them (and I think still does, despite being a bit old for them now). Worth the read, but be prepared for some jarring ideological things.
The only women in this one are the woman whose apartment George “redecorates” (much to her dismay), and the nurse he encounters after he breaks his leg. Everyone else of any significance is a male. The world of George (in the books – the TV show was quite different, as I recall) is a fairly WASPish one. The inherent colonialism is still pretty prevalent.
As a zoo professional, I found myself balking much more at the depiction of the zoo than I used to. My darlings, zoos are no longer like this! (At least not the good ones.) All the tiny cages and interchangable zookeepers. Blargh.
Having said all that, George, as a character, is fairly redeeming. His curiosity certainly gets him into trouble, but the adults around him have a tendency to treat it with kindness and opportunities to learn rather than with cruelty and discipline, which, frankly, for a book of its era, is pretty great.
It is worth a read. The story is a bit meandery – a far cry from today’s picture books which tend to be fairly single-themed and to the point. Nowdays this book would have been about three books. 😉 But it’s still a fairly good read.
More in the Series – Beatrix Potter
“More in the Series” scores the other books in a series where one (or more) of the books have made it into the 1001 Books list. Mostly because I’m a bit of a completionist.
POINTS: 2 out of 10.
Bechdel: 0 points
Variety of characters: 0 points
Good story: 2 points
Discretionary ideological points: 0 points
This book has only two characters – so it’s a bit hard for it to pass Bechdel or diversity metrics. It’s pretty cute, though.
Miss Moppet hears a mouse and proceeds to hunt and catch said mouse. She is very sneaky about it! But the mouse manages to escape and taunt her anyway. That’s pretty much the whole story, but, as with most of Potter’s work, it is executed in such a delightful, fond and charming way that it leaves you smiling.
The kidlet and I both enjoyed it. It certainly isn’t one of her best – and I’d say it’s best for the smaller of the small humans – but it’s pretty great anyway. 🙂
Worth a read, despite the low grade.
POINTS: 3 out of 10.
Bechdel: 0 point
Variety of characters: 0 points
Good story: 2 points
Discretionary ideological points: 1 point
It is no secret that I am in constant awe of Lynley Dodd and the things she can do with rhyme. This book is about a cat who goes out at night, finds treasures and brings them all home. But then his mountain of treasures collapses, waking his family! So he vows to change his ways, and stays inside instead.
Storywise, there’s not much to it, but the tale rollicks along listing the various things he finds in ways that bring to life the community in which he lives (and, oh boy, does it feel Kiwi).
SLinky Malinki is pretty much the only character in this book, so it is inevitably going to fail on all the diversity markers, but it is still a complete delight. C still loves these books, even though he’s, in theory anyway, way to old for them now. 😉 Which just goes to show that really good rhyming and a knack for delightful humour goes a long way.
If you have never read them, I cannot recommend them enough. ❤
POINTS: 3 out of 10.
Bechdel: 0 point
Variety of characters: 0 points
Good story: 2 points
Discretionary ideological points: 1 point
This is an excellent example of how a book can fail on all the technicalities and yet still be an utter delight.
The Mousehole Cat is a story about a courageous fisherman and his courageous cat and how they risk everything together to feed their village. I kind of don’t want to say much more about it because if you haven’t read it, the unfolding story is just beautiful.
Mowser is a slightly irrascible cat and she helps her human in that perfectly grudging “I would rather stay by the fire, but you obviously can’t do this without me” kind of way that belies a deep (if grumpy) love for him.
The story manages to show the importance of courage and kindness, of pulling together as a community, without being didactic or moralistic. There is just a smidge of magic, just enough to make you think it might be real.
It’s about a fisherman and his cat in an English fishing village, so it is not surprising that it fails Bechdel and any kind of diversity, but it is still totally worth a read.
Neither the kid nor I had read it before, and we both thoroughly loved it. ❤
POINTS: 4 out of 10.
Bechdel: 1 point
Variety of characters: 0 points
Good story: 2 points
Discretionary ideological points: 1 point
I happen to have a pretty impressive collection of fairytale and folklore books. I picked this one up in a second hand bookstore somewhere in England, I believe.
It’s a weird one to read to a kid in 2019, because the language hasn’t been updated. So there were a lot of things he didn’t understand. However, there is something about the rhythm and cadence of the language of this book (originally published in 1922, and, even then, trying to retain a sense of Perrault’s originals) that makes up for the weirdly archaic language. He sat still and quiet through long, difficult stories, and followed the gist just fine.
It’s so difficult to rate these kinds of books on a modern scale, since they are very much products of their time. So there is a lot of 17th century France entangled in the tales, despite them mostly being fantastical. Those 17th century mores edge their way in. 😉
My kid is fascinated by folklore and fairytales (wonder where he gets that from) so he enjoyed this, but I think a lot of children would probably find it fairly impenetrable. May be better to get an updated version unless you also have a little folklore nerd on your hands. As with all fairytales, be prepared to explain some odd things. Explaining DonkeySkin to an eight year old was… interesting.
But I maintain that reading these ancient tales to your kids is good for them. It gives them a sense of the history of story and the threads that have been there for centuries. C is already making connections between different traditions – like the beast bride/groom trope. It’s pretty great to see.
In short, not remotely in line with modern ideology, but there is still a lot of value here. 🙂
POINTS: 5 out of 10.
Bechdel: 1 point
Variety of characters: 1 point
Good story: 2 points
Discretionary ideological points: 1 point
C absolutely loved this book. He was legitimately sad when it ended. I think I have a mini folklorist on my hands. 😉
It passes the Bechdel on a technicality – in “The Tongue-Cut Sparrow”, the old lady and the sparrow have conversations about starch and laundry, and both have names. WIN.
So, if you’ve been following me at all, you’ll know that I have a real love for folklore from around the world, and that I firmly believe that it is good for kids to be exposed to international folklore. These stories are, in many ways, the blueprint for the way we (as humans) tell stories, and I think it benefits kids to understand that those narrative structures are relatively universal.
The kid utterly loved this book. It was kind of fascinating to me just how much he loved it – and unexpected. The stories are what you would expect – folkloric, occasionally didactic, but mostly just the sorts of tales you expect a grandparent to tell their grandchildren. He lapped them up.
I love it too, but that is less surprising.
Read folktales from around the world to your children! Give them a rich storytelling basis from which to create their own worlds. ❤ Start with this one. It is absolutely lovely.
POINTS: 4 out of 10.
Bechdel: 0 point
Variety of characters: 1 point
Good story: 2 points
Discretionary ideological points: 1 point
This was a pretty interesting thing to read with the kid, just because of his reaction. We’ll get to that.
There is no Bechdel pass here – there are pretty much no women at all in any of these stories. By the very nature of the book, though, it passes the diversity test.
Here’s where it gets interesting. So, I asked the kid what he thought after we read it, and he said, “I liked it but the stories were strange.”
“Strange how?” I asked.
“They just ended. It was weird.”
This is kid code for “these tales have a different narrative structure to that with which I am familiar”. And this is why you should expose your kids to stories from other cultures!! Much narrative structure is fairly cultural. It’s useful for children to be exposed to other kinds, as it helps them see the scaffolds of narratives which makes them more critical! *folklore nerd squee over*
It won’t surprise anyone who knows me that I enjoyed reading this with the kid. I love folktales from all over the world – they are endlessly fascinating to me. I’m grateful to the translaters of this book for not “westernising” them up too much.
Read your kids stories from other cultures! It will make their brains more agile. 😉
POINTS: 3 out of 10.
Bechdel: 0 point
Variety of characters: 0 points
Good story: 2 points
Discretionary ideological points: 1 point
Despite its low score, this book is actually extremely charming.
As with many children’s books, the focus is firmly on the protagonist, so no other conversations happen really, so it can’t pass Bechdel. Harry does have an older sister, Sam, who gets a fair amount of pagetime, but that’s the extent of it. There also isn’t a single person to be seen in the world of Harry who isn’t a white Angle-Saxon type. Soooo no diversity here.
Still, the story is really pretty cute, and it is one of those tales that has gentle nods to the reading adult. Any parent knows what it is like when your kid gets attached to a particular toy. In this case it is a bucketful of dinosaurs instead of the usual cuddly bunny type toy, but Harry is no less attached. The illustrations sometimes show them as simply plastic dinosaurs, but more frequently show them as living, curious, real dinosaurs – they are sure real for Harry! It kind of captures how real these things can be for kids.
C thought it was very cute and gave it full marks! I guess he recognises something in (very imaginative) Harry. 😉
Despite the low score, I have no hesitation in saying you should read this one. It’s really pretty great.
The Bookish Jelly Bean 