.
| Hearsay: |
Telling the story of a naughty little boy, Max, who is sent to bed without his supper only to journey by boat to a land where wild monsters live, Sendak’s classic tale was first published in 1963 and has captured children’s imaginations ever since. With a film version adapted by Dave Eggers and Spike Jonze out later this year, Sendak told this week’s edition of Newsweek that he would “not tolerate” parental concerns about the book being too scary.
“I would tell them to go to hell,” Sendak said. And if children can’t handle the story, they should “go
home,” he added. “Or wet your pants. Do whatever you like. But it’s not a question that can be answered.”
[Slow clap accompanied by slowly nodding head with approving look, eventual rise to feet.]
January 2006
December
2005
November
2005
October
2005
September
2005
August
2005
July
2005
June
2005
May
2005
April
2005
March
2005
February
2005
January
2005
December
2004
November
2004
October
2004
September
2004
August
2004
July
2004
June
2004
May
2004
April
2004
March
2004
February
2004
January
2004
December
2003
November
2003
October
2003
September
2003
August
2003
Bookninja © Copyright
The opinions expressed on this site are those of individual participants
and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the site owners,
organizers, or other participants.
[powered by WordPress.]
October 20th, 2009 at 8:59 am
Now this is why I read this site. I love to wake up and laugh out loud.
October 20th, 2009 at 9:34 am
Finally some serious truth-telling about Mickey: ‘”He was more dangerous,” the author told Newsweek. “He did things to Minnie that were not nice. I think what happened was that he became so popular … they gave his cruelty and his toughness to Donald Duck. And they made Mickey a fat nothing. …I despised him after a point.”‘
October 20th, 2009 at 9:41 am
love love love Maurice Sendak. New insult for me. Go to hell, or wet your pants. I don’t care.
October 20th, 2009 at 10:47 am
In a day and age when so many people hide behind double speak, it’s nice to see someone speak their mind. Nice.
October 20th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
This pretty much made my day.
October 20th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
It’s important to note, I think, that Sendak is referring to the FILM of WTWTA, not the book. The article isn’t awfully clear, so I’m going with the lede: “Parents who think the new film of Maurice Sendak’s picture book Where the Wild Things Are is too frightening for children can “go to hell”, the author has said.”
With that in mind, all I can say is “Fuck you, Sendak”. As a parent, it’s my JOB to be concerned with what might or might not scare my child. And there’s a difference between a book that “captures children’s imaginations” and a film — in a theatre, not even in the relative safety of a DVD – that bombards them with images and surround sound.
We spend a lot of time on this site and elsewhere bemoaning the fact that parents don’t take an active enough role in the imaginative life of their children, that their failure to be sufficiently involved with their reading, viewing and interacting has led to the intervention of the Mommy State. So to be told to “go to hell” for taking that responsibility? Fuck you, Sendak.
October 20th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
“As a parent, it’s my JOB to be concerned with what might or might not scare my child. And there’s a difference between a book that “captures children’s imaginations” and a film — in a theatre, not even in the relative safety of a DVD – that bombards them with images and surround sound.”
That’s ridiculous. What on Earth do you think is going to happen if your child is scared by a film? What damage, in the long or short term, is it going to do? None.
As parents, it’s our job to protect our kids from actual dangers, from forming self-destructive habits, etc. Sheltering our children from media properties that *could* upset them is not only a waste of energy, it doesn’t credit them with emotional sophistication that they may very well have.
Think about it: What are some classic children’s films that are completely free of intensely scary content? Sleeping Beauty? Nope. Watership Down? Nope. The Iron Giant? Captain Nemo? Pinocchio? The Lion King? The Secret of Nimh? Bambi (for Pete’s sake)? Probably the majority of children’s classics have dark, horrific moments in them. They succeed with kids because kids can often handle more complexity — and yes, more scariness — than their parents give them credit for.
October 21st, 2009 at 11:03 am
“That’s ridiculous. What on Earth do you think is going to happen if your child is scared by a film? What damage, in the long or short term, is it going to do? None.”
Oh, I’m sorry for my ridiculousness — I wasn’t aware that my responsibility for my child was only to negate the need for future therapy. How silly of me. I mean, if he’s only terrified in the moment, that’s okay then. Gotcha. I’m gonna have a great time sitting down this Halloween and watching all five of the Saw movies with him — if he doesn’t like it, fuck him. Someone on the internet says he should just man up, so damn it, that’s what he’s gonna do!
I give my son credit for EXACTLY the amount of emotional complexity he can handle — that’s part of being a parent, and interacting with him and participating in what he participates in, creatively speaking.
Furthermore, you’re reading into my post things that aren’t there — where did I say “shelter”? Where did I say “protect”? I used the word “concerned” — Are you objecting to my being concerned with what my ten-year-old watches and reads? Seriously? So if I set him up with the Saw movies on the DVD player and a stack of Hustler magazines, that would be okay, so long as I don’t start him smoking and I limit his transfats?
Come on.
October 21st, 2009 at 12:17 pm
“Are you objecting to my being concerned with what my ten-year-old watches and reads? Seriously? So if I set him up with the Saw movies on the DVD player and a stack of Hustler magazines, that would be okay, so long as I don’t start him smoking and I limit his transfats?”
So you’re over-reacting hysterically and reading things into my post that aren’t there – in order to show that I’m doing the same? I don’t see much potential in this conversation, but here goes:
Find out if your son wants to see the movie. If he does, you might warn him, “Well gee, son, it might scare you.” If he still wants to see it, then *trust* him. Take him to see it. The point of my post is that, even as his parent, you may not actually know what emotional complexity your son can handle. Sometimes kids reach cognitive/emotional milestones of which we aren’t (yet) aware. What he can handle now may very well be different from what he could handle a few months ago. This is how our children surprise us, and that’s one of the joys of being a parent.
And if your kid runs screaming out of the theater – terrified only in the moment – then yes, that is ok. You may have to wash an extra pair of undies that week, but your son will be fine. He’ll gain a better sense for himself of what he can handle and what he can’t. He may even be less likely to bother with those Saw films (obviously, I never suggested you force them on him), though I’m afraid his interest in Hustler is inevitable.
October 21st, 2009 at 12:22 pm
(shrugs)
Tell you what — I’ll raise my kid the way I want to, you raise yours the way you want to, and we’ll call it square.
I maintain, however, that a writer telling parents who are concerned about their children and their responses to a film to “go to hell” is patently ludicrous. But hey, your mileage clearly varies.
October 22nd, 2009 at 8:07 am
Robert Wiersema, you know i love you. I have to partially agree with you, partially disagree with you. I like the way Sendak doesn’t engage in double speak. He said what he thinks, which is so rare in this day (well, if you discount Kanye West, but i dont think he actually thinks before he speaks, so…)Most people are so worried about their image, and say what people want to hear.
I do agree that it is up to parents to decide what is appropriate for their children to see. I also think that, as they’re ready, we need to allow them to push the envelope, and not just see the ’safe’ things. I’ve allowed my kids, over the years, to see things that maybe other more conservative parents wouldn’t allow. Let them read books that were outside their age range, and at this stage in their lives (they’re 18) they make pretty good choices.
Anyway. That’s my two cents.
October 22nd, 2009 at 9:48 am
Monica — that’s exactly what I was saying. I never once said that envelopes weren’t there to be pushed, nor that children should be kept in their “safe” zones (that idea of “protectionism” was a bit of straw-manning on PL’s part). Xander has seen things, at age ten, that would definitely make folks blanch, but it’s stuff that he is — in his way — ready for.
For example — he can recite whole seasons of Buffy. But he hasn’t watched The Body — he’s not ready for that unremitting, utterly realistic look, at the death of a parent. That’s fine, and it’s his call. He also didn’t watch Hush the first time through; now he has.
At no point did I argue in favour of protectionism, or of sheltering children (again, that’d be PL putting words in my mouth), but I did argue STRONGLY in favour of parents being CONCERNED about what their children read and view.
As far as double-speak goes, Sendak has a refreshing lack of it. As far as his castigating parents for being concerned? I go back to my refreshing lack of double-speak.
October 22nd, 2009 at 11:21 am
i guess we are agreeing then…..
October 22nd, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Anyone read that Salon article about kid’s movies that are supposedly not for kids? Link above.
October 22nd, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Patricia — there’s certainly a misperception that animation = kid’s movie. Though, further to the above, there’s nothing from that list that my son hasn’t seen…
October 22nd, 2009 at 2:25 pm
It’s very subjective and personal, isn’t it? As a kid, I know I watched a lot of movies that probably were ‘too adult’ for me, but I don’t think it damaged me permanently. However, I’m willing to admit that if I had kids, I’d probably be overly controlling about the kinds of movies I’d prefer them to watch.
October 22nd, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Seems to me that Sendak is getting at the dangers of Disneyfication (which he mentions immediately following the ‘go to hell’ quote). It’s that idiotically sugar-coated world view that he’s objecting to, not the question of whether individual parents ought to be able to decide what their own children can handle. Later in the piece he mentions the war he had over the word ‘hot’–even then the publisher wanted ‘warm’ lest the word insinuate that the boy’s mouth would be burned.
Roald Dahl and the Grimm brothers come to mind as compatriots to Sendak in their attitudes toward what children like and can handle–my kids have both loved that dark stuff. What’s damaging, if you ask me, is the American split personality toward childhood that on one hand wants to coddle children and on the other allows them to parade around in outfits that Humbert Humbert would approve of.