A Good Picture Book?

I actually wrote this in November, when I was working at AIA, and posted on a different blog, but I'm going to try blogspot again.

November 15, 2007

I'll give credit to the idea to a coworker who asked me today how I determined what makes a good book, this after we talked about my interest in children's books. I initially began to answer about longer works, since I suppose it's easier to determine for those. I'm not quite sure why, perhaps because I actually find more longer books that I don't like, which tends to the formulating of opinions. But true, too, there are qualifications to good picture books (the type of book most think of when they hear "children's literature"). So what are they?

After the clarification of her wishes, my initial thought went back to my days teaching daycare when the children would respond so well to the fun characters that many of them would "be" for awhile after we'd read good books. If you look at lists of bestsellers on the picture book genre, you'll see the character-driven ones do sneak to the top fairly readily. And what are the kinds of books that publishers like to serialize? Well, the character-based, of course. Think Arthur, Olivia, Eloise, Madeline, Curious George, Clifford...and a recent favorite--Fancy Nancy. (I have a fancy sister named Nancy, so I'm particularly drawn to this one :) Do you need any more? These books include the characters' names in the titles, too, which is some indication of the marketer's ideas as well.

My co-worker, however, pointed out another character that I didn't have on my list--perhaps because she's more of a television star than a book, but it did make me think a little--What's so special about Dora the Explorer? She's not as sassy as Olivia or Madeline. She's not at all fancy like Nancy, and though she may be curious, she's really not as cute as a monkey. What draws her audience, then?

Now I'll admit again this is more speculation. I'm not even tremendously familiar with Dora. But, as I looked at the list I've collected over the past few years of picture books I like (as shown on this site), it occurred to me that there are a handful of adventure books that have average joe characters and though the character might even get serialized, it's really the adventure that gets the attention. Of course, the Magic School Bus has Miss Frizzle, who's really quite the character, but none of the kids are much to sneeze at. The kids are more average joes, the kind of kids that well, your average joe kids could relate with--and thus more easily put themselves into the adventure. Harold, too, though his name gets in the title, isn't a terribly dynamic character. But he does tend to have a bit of fun with that purple crayon. It's the adventure--in his pajamas even--that draws the crowd (pardon the pun).

Characters, though, don't accurately cover the gamut of good picture books. The next thing I think of is the book's use of language. Of course, there is some truth that this appeal is more to the other half of the dual audience--the adults--it is, nonetheless, quite significant (particularly since I'm an adult! :)

Now, there are two parts to the language aspect, but it becomes more obvious that this is a factor thanks to those books that are more purely poetic in nature, as opposed to character and plot driven. Picture books have the unique ability to comprise a wide variety of genres and be classified as a single genre. That is, while publishers may joke that if you want to go into a company that doesn't sell anything--going into specialized poetry. But, picture books can still sell poetry. And even better--adults aren't lost in the confusion of images with this kind of poetry either--they can still enjoy the beauty of the language without worrying about having "to get it."

Along with this is the aspect of language that enables learning. Alphabet and counting books are the most obvious of these, but there is en emerging tendency for elementary school teachers to seek books that teach grammar principles, and some can do this quite cleverly. I think of Rick Walton, for example, and other postmodernists whose language play makes the learning of nuance rather fun.

This leads to another area of good picture books--the clever twists on old tales--well, even the old tales themselves--fairy tales, animal tales, folk tales, Jack tales, etc. etc. Of course, some of these fall into good character books (think Jack, damsel in distress, knight in shining armor, think Three Pigs). However, I'm not always sure what about these characters is so intriguing (aside from Jack), you have to admit, they have perpetuity. Maybe it's jus the idea that we like things that are familiar, or maybe it's the common rags to riches idea that flows through many of these. But maybe we all just really like pigs.

In spite of the claim in this modern more-feminist era that the traditional princesses are lacking in strong character, I do think it's possible that people like the princesses because they are sweet and good-natured. These attributes have a tendency toward sentimental feelings that people love to love! Love stories in all fashions, are truly as old as literature itself.

And this, now, leads to the final general category of good kids' books--the lovey dovey stuff. However, it's not just romance love that makes good picture books. Actually, the less silly romance, the better (in my humble opinion). That is, love between parents and children is more what I'm thinking. Whether really gushy like "Mama, Do you Love Me?" "Guess How Much I Love You," and the big winner "Love You Forever"--or fun, like "Horton Hatches an Egg," "Just for You," and "Are you my Mother?"--teaching children about parental love is one of the best qualities a picture book can have, anchoring a real kind of love in their mind before they try understanding romance.

Even if a child's relationship with their parents isn't perfect, there's something enduring about the love of most parents that children need to know. And of course, this does overlap with character-based books, but I'll get to that in a minute--that is to say, that I don't necessarily think that a book has to be proactively about parental love to instill this idea. And in fact, sometimes it's better if it's more subtle.

Okay, so so far, I've only been discussing general areas of children's books, and of course not all books that attempt at these qualities do it well. And you might be thinking, what else is there? Well, let's just use these as a base, and keep going!

So now I'm going to go backwards a little bit. What actually makes a good picture book character? Do they have to be animals? Let's see--Dora and Fancy Nancy aren't animals, so no. If they are animals, do they have to be people-like animals? (talking, etc.) Emily Elizabeth would say no. (She's the owner of Clifford). Even people don't have to talk much, as we discovered with Harold (though maybe they should know how to weild a purple crayon!). Okay, not everyone can be Harold. But thinking of his crayon, I'm reminded of this other question my co-worker asked, do they need to have a prop? Well, it does seem to help. Dora wouldn't get too far without her backpack.

Let's look at this for a minute. Along the lines of props falls the category of side-kicks, or secondary characters. And in fact, the best kind of props, the ones that are significant to creating a good character, will actually be characters themselves. Mary Poppin's magic bag is definitely a character, for example.

And Mary Poppins would not be Mary Poppins without her magic bag. It helps to build her character. As in books for older readers, secondary characters can be very significant builders of "character." That is, a protagonist is greatly defined by how she reacts to other people (or animals)--either positively or negatively. Nancy's fanciness would take on different meaning if her family were fancy, too, for example. But since they are plain, we get some character development.

Families, in general, are some of the biggest character builders in real life, and so it makes sense that would and should be in books as well. Without DW, Arthur would be quite different; and Olivia's whole world seems to be with her home and family. It seems, in fact, that quite a few series are family-based, to name only a few: the Berenstein Bears, Max and Ruby, Mercer Mayer's Little Critter (a favorite of mine as a child), and even, yes, the Stupids.

From this list, we can also see that a good character doesn't have to be a single character, but can be a group character. There are few if any stories about only one of the Berenstein bears, for example.

Also, I mention the Stupids not just because it's kind of an irony, but also because they do illustrate another point I'd like to make--that the relationships in families don't have to be opposite (as we saw in Fancy Nancy), or antagonistic, where the conflict is within the family relationships. The Stupids are generally unified in their stupidity and it's the rest of the world they're contending with. But their characterization is still heightened in their multiplicity (as opposed to how the books would work if there were only one Stupid).

And this leads nicely to the actual question, again--so we've noticed that it can definitely help character to have sidekicks, or mulitiplicity. But does this "make" a good character? Aside from the family so-named, I'm sure you can think of some stupid characters with sidekicks, or characters with stupid sidekicks. So, obviously not. But aside from the obvious "stupid" things, there are some more things to look at. And, I'm going to get a little moral on you. As I mentioned on my Welcome page, conflict kind of goes without saying. Of course, in the picture book arena, there are some exceptions to this--some of the more poetic books don't have much conflict. But character-based books will have to have a conflict. And to build a good character, like the secondary characters, the conflict has to be one that enhances the qualities that make the character likeable, memorable, and engaging. And my moral addition--this means it should actually build good "character." In other words, I don't think a book is good if the conflict resolution involves getting even with people, or if it involves a punishment, regardless of the protagnoist's involvement, that incites the audience to delight (laugh at) in the antagonist's doom. This does not encourage brotherly love or charity, which is actually the definition of "good" according to my friend Moroni (see Moroni Chapter 7 in the Book of Mormon).

On the other hand, I don't necessarily enjoy a book that moralizes about how children should behave. This is actually one of the things that many in the field would agree on, or claim to, and yet there is a lot of implicit moralizing these same people won't recognize as such--including the funny punishments of the antagonists, which really do say: don't be like this, or doom awaits you.

But along these lines, I will say that implicit moralizing is impossible to avoid when conflict exists. The resolution will forcibly provide a statement about acceptable behavior, decisions, judgment, etc. So, if you're trying to decide if a book is "good," this is actually one of the very important place to look--the resolution of the conflict.

Of course, this might look like I'm asking you to read the end of the book first, and I'll admit to that, to a certain degree--though with picture books, the length hardly deters you from reading the whole thing before making that determination. But also, I don't actually think you need to read the whole thing to come to an understanding of what the author's opinions, the ideas she/he is promoting. Not only is there foreshadowing, which good books include (even and especially books for the young), but also, there are attributes the author is asking you to relate with in the character--the traits the author seems to think you'll find likeable.

For example, is the character's winning attribute his/her sassiness to their parents? Or is this a conflict? Do the characters find monetary wealth or popularity positive attributes or desirable? Or are these conflicts, where the character(s) learns about real values? Generally, I'll say picture books don't struggle with the right balance as much as books for older chidren, including adult-children, but you will find wrong-thinking even in this genre, particularly sassiness. Because the primary audience of picture books consists of children who like to pretend to be other things and people, the relationship should be driven home here, that if you don't want a child to be like a character, the book is probably not very good.

Now, although the subject of character could, of course, be explored endlessly, I'm going to let my current remarks on that subject rest for now and turn to another kind of picture book. As mentioned, the poetic books don't necessarily have conflict, so there must be something else that can make these good or not-so.

Opinions here will actually vary quite a bit, I'm sure. Though I do think there are a few things most people will agree on. First, the wording should be smooth. If the adult has a hard time rolling it off the tongue, the child listener certainly won't enjoy it much either.

Yes, it sounds like common sense, but you'd really be surprised--well unless you've actually been reading much, then you know exactly what I'm talking about. This is actually one of the biggest problems with picture books. Too many writers try to find clever rhymes, but they just ain't got rhythm!

This does actually apply more than just to the more tightly poetic books. Even plot or character-driven stories need to have a nice flowing use of language, or the reader will get frustrated.

I'm not saying that I'd like to see a bunch of short, "easy reader" sentences like "See Spot Run." No. Those may have their place, but it's in easy readers, not picture books.

Along these lines, you might be wondering if I support the idea that words in pbs need to be words that children can understand. Absolutely not. Have you heard people comments about another's large vocabulary? Quite often they say, "Oh, s/he reads a lot." As follows, how do you think children's vocabulary grows best? Of course, good books will expand a child's vocabulary.

There are some deeper implications than just using "big" words here, but the problem I'm thinking about actually finds its place more often in books for older readers. Well, I'll say it anyway. This is the use of the least imaginative language of all--profanity, including and especially the taking of the name in Lord in vain. I more strongly ABSOLUTELY do not support this. It's more of a deterent than just to their growing vocabulary.

The next topics then would be the subject of all the tales and the lovey-dovey stories, but believe it or not, I only have little bit to say about these. Well, actually because these overlap so much with the idea of character and language, I've already said quite a bit. But I do have a little more to say:

These must, above all, be clever. New. Fresh. Exciting.

Okay, so I might say some of those stories that have the same old string of happy phrases describing how much I love you are "good"--I would really like it better if there were something about them that was actually new and fresh. But as long as the language flows on these, I'm more inclined to have some leniency on the freshness.

And now, I finally think I've said enough! So now you've got a basic idea of the qualities I look for in good books. I know everyone has different ideas, and I'm sure you have yours, but I hope I at least have planted some ideas to strengthen your own convictions about what makes good literature and consider things you hadn't before. As in any situation, it's easy to say you agree with the "experts"--but psst--you don't have to!