I just can’t seem to get away from the “preaching in stories” theme. Paul McCartney has a new children’s book out. He says:
a lot of good books have messages. Dickens is very much about child welfare and we have an anti-sweat shop message here. We wanted to make a point about oppression so there are messages contained in the story that are, hopefully, not preached, but are there.
But I really like what he says about his co-author, Phillip Ardaugh:
Where we might have said, ”Once upon a time, there was a squirrel named Wirral,” Philip wrote, ”Wirral the squirrel is lying back on his favorite branch, munching acorns from a bag as he listens to him mom telling one of her stories.” I think he has a nice storytelling style and he was willing to do it without changing the story. Over the 10 years, other people have said, ”Let’s scrap all of this and start again,” and we let them do that but we never found a story we liked better. So the first thing we did say to Philip is, ”We’d like to stick with this story,” and he said, ”That suits me fine. I’ll just do the first chapter and see what you think.” And when we read it we said, ”Oh, wow.” We were excited. He gave it a little more shape but avoided clichés.
That just tickles me. He avoided cliché’s for them. Except for the whole “talking animal with the rhyming name, preaching an anti-sweatshop message” cliché, maybe.
But the book has a first printing of 500,000. Wowsers. Who’d'a thunk a squirrel named Wirral could pull it off?
Well certainly Whirrl didn’t pull it off–Paul McCartney’s name did. It’s that platform thing …
As to cliché, talking animals will probably be around forever. Little kids will always love that and every generation there will be a new set of little kids!;D The theme–can’t really speak to it’s freshness unless I read the book. Old themes with a contemporary application aren’t cliché, I don’t think.
But, yes, we are back to a secular writer unashamedly admitting to having a message he wanted to get across. Would that Christian writers will learn to embrace the opportunity we have to tell God’s true message.
I was being sarcastic when I said “who’d'a thunk a talking squirrel with a rhyming name could pull this off.”
It says something about our idol worshipping society when Madonna, Jay Leno, and Paul McCartney, three people who probably know less than squat about children in the first place, can all write children’s books and sell them without any problems.
Regarding clichés: talking animals with cutesy rhyming names have been around for a long time, that’s what makes them cliché. And as for theme . . . it’s not that a person can’t write an anti-sweatshop message that is fresh and engaging, it’s that this particular message is given by an entertainer who probably knows nothing about really loving his neighbor, that makes it cliché.
The reporter in the article I linked to said this
That message, coming out of a rock star’s mouth really is what we’d expect isn’t it? It’s old and worn out. It’s also Biblical. In Proverbs we’re told that a righteous man takes care of his animals. The Bible is also against oppression and sweatshops, no doubt. But the rock stars and the actors, generally speaking, put different construct on abuse than the Bible does. So, when the reporter remarks on man’s treatment of fellow animals, Paul answers about sweatshops. Why is that? Because man is just an animal in Paul’s mind, I’d guess, and to harm animals is akin to running a sweatshop and oppressing other men.
And this is exactly what I’d expect from Paul. That’s why I called it cliché.
All we need is love, do do do do do, do. All we need is love, do do do do do do. All we need is love, love. Love is all we need.
I agree with him. I just kind of doubt that he knows much about true love.
Anyway, I’m all for breaking the rules when you have a compelling reason–when you are going to enhance the rhythm or clarity of your writing, let the rules be hanged. But almost every children’s book publisher on the face of the planet says, “No talking animals and if, God forbid, you can only tell the story with talking animals, then please, please, please, don’t give them rhyming names or use alliteration in the names.” And I can think of no compelling reason to break those rules.
PS It’s pretty common for talking animals with the cutesy rhyming, or alliterative names to preach. For some reason, people who want to preach, think it’s more palatable when it comes out of the mouth of Timothy Tiger, or Myrtle the Turtle.
I’ve been saying that every writer does preach, but I’ve also been trying to look at the proper way to do it. Having J. Mark the aardvark do it for you, is an example of an ineffective way, I think.
What do you think? Do you have examples of preaching talking animals with rhyming names that have worked well?
Sorry I missed the sarcasm. Got it now and should have at first!
I think of cliché differently, I guess.
I don’t know enough about children’s lit to realize that talking animals esp. with rhyming names was so taboo.
I can’t think of a good preaching one off the top of my head, though I know I read them. I’m trying to remember the story about the elephant getting his trunk, ones like that. And Mr. Toad’s wild ride. There have to be lots. I think that’s all I read when I was little. Ready Fox. Briar Rabbit. I’m sure there are others, but I don’t know if any names rhymed. (I know I never liked rhyming books back then).
“J. Mark the aardvark” Hahah. I should tell him you’re blogging about him. Hahah.
Becky
Yeah, for some reason it tickled me to write, “J Mark the aardvark.” Just seemed fitting to make him the star of a children’s book. LOL
There are some excellent books with talking animals, Beatrix Potter books, Little Bear, Berenstain Bears, Li’l Critters, and one of my favorites, Babar.
For some reason it seems that when most people give their characters rhyming or alliterative names, though, the story takes a back seat to cutesy, preachy rhymes.
This is not to say that you can’t use some rhyming in your books. Norma Jean, Jumping Bean was an enjoyable early reader. Rhymes make it fun for the reader. Some writers are very good at rhyme. Those writers usually take a couple of years to write a 500 word picture book text, though.
It is just so tempting for the mom sitting at home making up ditties for her kids, to think that she can write a rhyming book, or a picture book with talking animals. It really is not an easy thing to do well.
And it’s better to not do it than to do it badly. And you don’t need the rhyme. If you want to read some great picture books, give Shirley Hughes a shot. They are the best. I’ll have to review a couple for the site.
But back to Paul and Wirral the Squirrel. At least Paul had the sense to hire a real children’s writer to fix his story. Still, he wanted to stick with his story and his character names and from what I’ve seen it’s not getting any rave reviews for it’s literary quality. Oh well. Maybe Arnold Schwarzenegger will write a children’s book and it will be great. His wife, has written one, I believe, so maybe that lets him out. Maybe Clint Eastwood will do one.
No, I’m not saying that actors can’t write. Some of them can, I’m sure. But why should they take the time when all they have to do is slap their names on junk and it will sell?
OK end of rant. heh heh
Just can’t resist adding the link for Maria’s book. here she be.
The PW and reader reviews were interesting.