Yet the third person narration is the key here. So is it fair that the text should show such a visual world when that is not Peter’s experience? I don’t find it much of a problem myself, though I can see how some folks would deem it strange. We’re still with Peter every step of the way, after all. Auxier sets his tale in the third, leaving the reader to decide whether or not the book should be this deftly described. Or rather, you would be if the book was first person. Next thing he knows, Peter has pilfered a box containing three pairs of magical eyes and in accepting them he allows himself to take part in a marvelous, epic adventure.Ī difficulty with writing a story from the perspective of a blind protagonist is that you’re limited to that person’s senses. All seems bleak until the day Peter stops to listen to a crazy haberdasher who has come to town. This talent is swiftly exploited by the nasty Mr. On his own he manages to use his talents to become the world's greatest thief.
Found floating in the sea, his eyes pecked out (presumably by the raven perched there), Peter is abandoned to the wilds of the world. They get adopted by pharaohs' daughters and the like, right? Well, that may be the case for some babies, but Peter Nimble isn’t exactly the lucky sort. That Peter Nimble and His Fantastic Eyes succeeds in this endeavor is a testament not only to its author but to a publishing world that’s willing to put out something that doesn’t slot into the usual five categories of books for youth.īabies found floating in baskets usually turn out quite well. It is incredibly difficult to write a book for the youth of today that is interesting to them and yet manages to feel “timeless” without covering itself in must and dust.
Of course there are as many bad books for kids that try to reach that golden goal as there are good ones. What do they answer? Would they even know where to begin? I wonder since the memorable children’s books of the past, the ones that we hold in our hearts and pass along from generation to generation have a quality that most children’s books today don’t bother to cultivate: timelessness. Pose the question to a room full of kids now. They’re smarter, hipper, less didactic, and so on and such. What is the most telling difference between those works of children’s literature written long ago and those written today? Pose this question to a room full of children’s librarians and I suspect that the answers would be myriad.
0 kommentar(er)
