Folks may have seen Nicholas Kristof’s NY Times column on what he (or his editor) claims are the best kids’ books ever.
Now, first of all, I highly support people writing about children’s books, and second, I happen to have my own deep and abiding affection for the FREDDY THE PIG books, and so am particularly glad to see Kristof resuscitating their brand.
However. It’s kind of annoying when people who know very little about children’s books adopt the veneer of expertise about them — and yes, I do feel more than a twinge of hypocrisy in writing that, but still; I have a hard time imagining that Kristof would’ve felt qualified to expound on, say, “the best oil paintings ever” just because he happens to have enjoyed seeing some with his family. Kristof’s amateur status shows in the oddly narrow list he made; as Marc Aronson pointed out, if what we’re worried about is IQ scores falling in the summer, then maybe we should thinking about books that will particularly appeal to the kids who are most reluctant to read. Harry Potter aside (and we clearly don’t need anyone recommending that one), this list probably ain’t that.
I think Kristof was mostly picking out the books he’s most enjoyed reading to his own kids, in which case I wish he’d dropped the pretense to objectivity or high-mindedness and written a more personal column about what he remembers fondly about those experiences. Because the thing is, while it’s simply not true that anyone can be an expert in children’s books — it is true that anyone can love them for reasons that are interesting for others to hear about.
At least, I hope so. Otherwise, what the hell am I doing with this blog???
-->Feed me text
July 6, 2009 at 8:29 pm
Haha! I totally read this and thought of you guys. Well, everyone in the blogosphere but you guys in particular. I wasn’t impressed by this list either. It feels like he googled for a bunch of kids’ books and came up with the ones he remembered and decided that was enough.
July 6, 2009 at 11:15 pm
Totally. And a token “Hardy Boys for boys, Anne of Green Gables for girls…” — which, does ANYONE still read the Hardy Boys? Are there updated ones? Because I imagine they’d seem pretty damn dated to most boys today…
(As will Freddy the Pig, but that’s part of his charm — and also why it’s a select slice of kiddom that will love him like I do.)
July 7, 2009 at 12:58 am
Liz B at A Chair, A Fireplace & A Tea Cozy said something along these lines here:http://yzocaet.blogspot.com/2009/07/what-does-best-mean.html …But you probably saw it already!
July 7, 2009 at 1:37 am
I would have liked to see something out of the ordinary, to show me that he didn’t, as Sadako suggests, just Googled kidlit.
Still, it’s his list, and he does suggest reading. He’s got that going for him.
July 7, 2009 at 5:23 am
Seriously? Who needs to recommend Harry Potter?
July 7, 2009 at 9:09 am
Lenore: Why else would you want the platform of a column in the NY Times, than to tell large numbers of people things they wouldn’t otherwise realize, like that those Harry Potter books can be really enjoyable for ki–
Okay, you’re right. Including HP pretty much in and of itself qualifies this list for parody status.
Rhiannon: thanks for the link!
July 7, 2009 at 12:00 pm
I had the same reaction. It wasn’t so much which books he picked, because everyone gets to have their own favorites, and I love some of the ones on the list. It was the combination of total vagueness as to selection criteria with universal voice of authority tone. Meanwhile, my dad’s reaction was to be very vocally indignant at the exclusion of Mr. Popper’s Penguins from any such list.
July 7, 2009 at 3:54 pm
“the combination of total vagueness as to selection criteria with universal voice of authority tone” — very well put.
And, your dad is cool.