I didn't know about his comments until I heard him interviewed. (I think it was NPR, not certain, though.) He said he regretted the comment in that he hurt the feelings of authors who put in the work and the hours, but I didn't get the feeling that he was completely backing away from the idea, though. An objective, thoughtful person could understand his meaning. In the interview, he analyzes Goodnight Moon to a depth that made me want to go pick it up again as an adult. In that analysis, I understood what he meant. Older children's books tend to enter the child's world and meet them there. They don't try to insert an adult agenda into the mind of a child. They don't force children to deal with issues that even adults have a hard time grappling with. They meet the child in the mind of a child and in doing so capture wonder, awe, laughter, thoughtfulness, and so much more.
There are two different conversations getting conflated here: one about craft and one about content. A book can be skillfully written on a topic that you don't like, and vice versa. Mac Barnett's book Make Believe focuses on craft, not content.
Mac does use the term "propaganda for adulthood" in his book, but he specifies his meaning in the following sentence: "They're prosocial messages masquerading as stories, designed to promote good behavior, glorify grown-ups, and get kids to sleep on time. These books get praised for their educational value or positive moral messages, but they fail to provide any kind of real literary experience for children."
He gives few specific examples of the exact works he is criticizing, but look at the two examples he does give in the book: a series about kindness, and an anthropomorphized banana who learns to share. I do not see anything in the text of Make Believe that indicates he is talking about a specific category of *content* but rather how the story was told (or rather, the lack of story). The predominant criticism about his 94.7% line was not that he was equating diverse books with crud, but that it ran the risk of being a one-liner easy to take out of context and used to promote book banning.
The reason some people have assumed that he was is more of what we might call "circumstantial evidence" - the fact that the books he chooses to talk about are often the classics, from a time period where many people did not see themselves in the books being published. I personally don't think this is enough to accuse him of being against diverse books, nor to use his text as a cudgel against books on certain topics.
On the craft side, I agree with a lot of what Mac says in his book. I especially agree with his dislike of formulaic writing, which I have seen taught and pushed in some of the PB writing classes and groups I have been in. The storytelling should fit the story, and there are all sorts of way to do that effectively. But prior to the book's US publication, I have seen indications that people in the PB community already recognizing that there is room for improvement on the storytelling side of things -- there are some wonderful writers and leaders in the PB space that are doing some really great work on this front.
On the content side, I see this debate as a microcosm of a broader cultural conflict in our country and society. The adults are very much not on the same page, and a book that to one family might feel completely normal and natural, a story like any other, might seem like "pushing an agenda" to another family. I don't see this as a conflict with an easy resolution.
tl;dr I think it is important to at least get our thoughts straight on "craft vs content" and use language that is precise and specific so we can have a clearer, more productive discourse.
Some of it is worse than crud, if I may be so bold.
I didn't know about his comments until I heard him interviewed. (I think it was NPR, not certain, though.) He said he regretted the comment in that he hurt the feelings of authors who put in the work and the hours, but I didn't get the feeling that he was completely backing away from the idea, though. An objective, thoughtful person could understand his meaning. In the interview, he analyzes Goodnight Moon to a depth that made me want to go pick it up again as an adult. In that analysis, I understood what he meant. Older children's books tend to enter the child's world and meet them there. They don't try to insert an adult agenda into the mind of a child. They don't force children to deal with issues that even adults have a hard time grappling with. They meet the child in the mind of a child and in doing so capture wonder, awe, laughter, thoughtfulness, and so much more.
Love this insight so much! Thank you for sharing.
Well said, Kiri!
Thank you, Kiri!
There are two different conversations getting conflated here: one about craft and one about content. A book can be skillfully written on a topic that you don't like, and vice versa. Mac Barnett's book Make Believe focuses on craft, not content.
Mac does use the term "propaganda for adulthood" in his book, but he specifies his meaning in the following sentence: "They're prosocial messages masquerading as stories, designed to promote good behavior, glorify grown-ups, and get kids to sleep on time. These books get praised for their educational value or positive moral messages, but they fail to provide any kind of real literary experience for children."
He gives few specific examples of the exact works he is criticizing, but look at the two examples he does give in the book: a series about kindness, and an anthropomorphized banana who learns to share. I do not see anything in the text of Make Believe that indicates he is talking about a specific category of *content* but rather how the story was told (or rather, the lack of story). The predominant criticism about his 94.7% line was not that he was equating diverse books with crud, but that it ran the risk of being a one-liner easy to take out of context and used to promote book banning.
The reason some people have assumed that he was is more of what we might call "circumstantial evidence" - the fact that the books he chooses to talk about are often the classics, from a time period where many people did not see themselves in the books being published. I personally don't think this is enough to accuse him of being against diverse books, nor to use his text as a cudgel against books on certain topics.
On the craft side, I agree with a lot of what Mac says in his book. I especially agree with his dislike of formulaic writing, which I have seen taught and pushed in some of the PB writing classes and groups I have been in. The storytelling should fit the story, and there are all sorts of way to do that effectively. But prior to the book's US publication, I have seen indications that people in the PB community already recognizing that there is room for improvement on the storytelling side of things -- there are some wonderful writers and leaders in the PB space that are doing some really great work on this front.
On the content side, I see this debate as a microcosm of a broader cultural conflict in our country and society. The adults are very much not on the same page, and a book that to one family might feel completely normal and natural, a story like any other, might seem like "pushing an agenda" to another family. I don't see this as a conflict with an easy resolution.
tl;dr I think it is important to at least get our thoughts straight on "craft vs content" and use language that is precise and specific so we can have a clearer, more productive discourse.
Mac Barnet is on Substack with “looking at picture books’
Go read it. It’s a joy and wonder to behold them giving serious thought and insight to beautiful children’s books