osprey_archer (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
osprey_archer) wrote2016-07-18 11:16 am
osprey_archer) wrote2016-07-18 11:16 am
Entry tags:
Caldecott Monday: Prayer for a Child
I have returned from Chicago, about which more anon! But first, it's time for Caldecott Monday: the 1945 winner, Prayer for a Child, written by Rachel Field and illustrated by Elizabeth Orton Jones.
I have been trying to think of a nicer way to say that this book is anodyne, but there's really no way around it. This book is every bit as anodyne, even faintly cloying, as the title suggests. The illustrations remind me of early twentieth century illustrations, especially Jessie Willcox Smith's illustrations of children (her Wikipedia page collects a few of them) - and I actually really like early twentieth century illustrations, but it's a style that easily shades into precious, and I suppose the self-conscious old-fashionedness of it here strikes me as a little insincere.
So why did the Caldecott committee pick this book? It strikes me that it may have something to do with the upcoming end of World War II, which didn't happen until later in 1945 but which everyone knew was on the horizon. Prayer for a Child offers a vision of happy childhood - one of the lines is "Bless other children, far and near," and it's accompanied by an illustration of happy children of all races - and I can see that really striking a chord with a committee occupied by the end of this vast conflict.
Having said that, none of the other Caldecott winners of the World War II years have struck me as war-related in any way, so this might be reaching. I've noticed in other contexts that books written during a period of history often seem less "historical" than historical fiction: books written now but set during World War II, for instance, tend to breathe the war from their pores, while books written during the war itself often include it only as a distant background detail.
Partly that may be escapism - I've read that Dodie Smith wrote I Capture the Castle (set in the thirties but written during the war) in part to go back to a happier time. But I think part of it is also that historical events are often less all-pervasive than, looking back, we are apt to believe.
So maybe the Caldecott committee just enjoyed the illustration style because it seemed like a throwback to their own childhoods.
I have been trying to think of a nicer way to say that this book is anodyne, but there's really no way around it. This book is every bit as anodyne, even faintly cloying, as the title suggests. The illustrations remind me of early twentieth century illustrations, especially Jessie Willcox Smith's illustrations of children (her Wikipedia page collects a few of them) - and I actually really like early twentieth century illustrations, but it's a style that easily shades into precious, and I suppose the self-conscious old-fashionedness of it here strikes me as a little insincere.
So why did the Caldecott committee pick this book? It strikes me that it may have something to do with the upcoming end of World War II, which didn't happen until later in 1945 but which everyone knew was on the horizon. Prayer for a Child offers a vision of happy childhood - one of the lines is "Bless other children, far and near," and it's accompanied by an illustration of happy children of all races - and I can see that really striking a chord with a committee occupied by the end of this vast conflict.
Having said that, none of the other Caldecott winners of the World War II years have struck me as war-related in any way, so this might be reaching. I've noticed in other contexts that books written during a period of history often seem less "historical" than historical fiction: books written now but set during World War II, for instance, tend to breathe the war from their pores, while books written during the war itself often include it only as a distant background detail.
Partly that may be escapism - I've read that Dodie Smith wrote I Capture the Castle (set in the thirties but written during the war) in part to go back to a happier time. But I think part of it is also that historical events are often less all-pervasive than, looking back, we are apt to believe.
So maybe the Caldecott committee just enjoyed the illustration style because it seemed like a throwback to their own childhoods.
no subject
no subject
no subject