I just saw a movie that compelled me to write.

Funny things kids say in class--

I wish I could remember all the funny comments students make in the course of a year. My sister is visiting this week from far far away. I've been telling funny student comments and thought, Oh, why not put them in my blog? So here they are: Comments from the little people:

How does a teacher get the attention of her students? As a librarian I have tried a number of methods. Each works at various times. Sometimes this is what I get:

One method that nearly always works is counting backwards from 5. Usually, I get total attention by 4 with all heads turned toward me and sounds dropping off immediately. Because my students feel so comfortable with me (I am wild and woolly as a reader)--well here's what Kindergarten did one day. I started the backward counting and they joined in and counted backwards with me. So, ha ha, they made a game of it. I had to beg their pardon and ask what they thought they were doing. There, that settled them!

On another occasion I just looked at them--you know, the evil eye that teachers can give. One girl asked, "Are you going to say 'Grrrrr" now?" Oh my gosh! That Grrrr is  a throaty, impatient sound I obviously picked up from my mother. I didn't even realize I did it, too! I asked, "I make that sound"? "Yeah, you do." Anyway, I had to laugh at that one!

And the last one I can remember for now happened just last Friday. I have a treasure box (a small trunk about 2 feet long and 1 foot wide) filled with knick-knack, doodad type stuff costing one dollar or less. I dole out these little "treasures" based on good thinking, good behavior, special kindness one shows another, and the like. One first-grade girl has made a game of it. Every week she asks, "Can we go to the treasure chest today?" I give her all sorts of answers. On Friday as I sat and checked out books, she asked her weekly question. I looked at her and said, "Blah blah blah blah blah," over and over, each time she asked. She kept asking, "What does that mean?" Another girl looked at her, looked at me, and said, "Blah blah blah blah," also. This may sound rude out of context, but it wasn't meant to be. The original girl, the one who asked, finally said, "Oh, I get it. I'm not supposed to ask." Right! My rule about the treasure chest is that it is opened based on spontaneity, not planned (except in rare cases).

Also on that same Friday with that same first grade class, I received a funny comment from a seventh grade student. The language arts teacher and I have an arrangement: On Sustained Silent Reading days, she can send a couple of students to check out books (if I don't have a class at that time). Well, first grade girls were there--we had finished story time (a children's abridged Black Beauty) and they were searching for their books. One seventh grade boy said to me: "Why are you letting them run around and you don't let us?" He was perhaps exaggerating a bit, but the point and I said it: "They are not really running--they're skipping. Besides, they are excited about books. How can I fuss when they're that excited about finding just the right book?" But the funny part is based on his own comment: Why would boys old enough to be in the seventh grade want to run around the library? (Incidentally, they would and I have to have them cease and desist.)

Those are just a few of the funny things say!

An excellent nonfiction series--

Here are the facts: I'm a librarian. My students are 3-13 years old (K-3 through 8th grade). I didn't like graphic books (similar to comic books but loftier in content). "Levi Strauss and Blue Jeans," one of the books in the Graphic Library: Inventions and Discoveries series, has totally changed my mind.

Graphic books have gained almost virally in popularity over the last few years. As a stubborn librarian, I put my foot down concerning the addition of graphic books to our collection. I thought children should read words, not look at pictures. What nonsense and silliness! Nearly always on the cutting edge, I fell down on this one. Oh sure, I've added some titles the last couple of years, you know, those half-way books like Fashion Kitty and A Very Merry Christmas (Geronimo Stilton, No. 35). Of course, The Adventures of Captain Underpants led the way.

By the time of the Graphic Library history/biographies, entrenched librarians like me were ready. We could peek into books like this. Well, lo and behold, when what to my eyes did appear--an informative, both verbally and visually, book about the making of blue jeans. I was fascinated! To Nathan Olson's research and words are added to-the-point illustrations by Dave Hoover, Keith Williams, and Charles Barnett III. How they divided their labor, I don't know, but the finals results are truly revealing.

So, what can a student learn? The title page itself foreshadows THE details that made Levi's stand out above the others: orange thread, seagull V symbol on the pockets, and the little red symbolic Levi's label to the left of the pockets. Originally, Strauss started out with canvas for a strong pair of pants for miners, cowboys, railroad workers, and other tough jobs. When he no longer could obtain canvas, he...no, you must read and see for yourself how denim became the domain for jeans.

All of this story is told succinctly in just a few pages (25), but other details are added in two more pages. The book concludes with a glossary, internet sites to visit, a list of books to read (aha!), and Olson's sources.

Librarians, teachers, parents, if you are in doubt about the quality of this graphic information book, cease. I am amazed at how much I learned--and retained through words and illustrations. This book is well worth your money! The intended age is about second through fifth grades, although interest in blue jeans could carry it further. As a suggestion: For students (including older ones) who finish assignments early, have a display of graphic books at hand for quick reads (and addition of basic knowledge)!

An excellent nonfiction/biographical series for school libraries!

Here are the facts: I'm a librarian. My students are 3-13 years old (K-3 through 8th grade). I didn't like graphic books (similar to comic books but loftier in content). "Levi Strauss and Blue Jeans," one of the books in the Graphic Library: Inventions and Discoveries series, has totally changed my mind.

Graphic books have gained almost virally in popularity over the last few years. As a stubborn librarian, I put my foot down concerning the addition of graphic books to our collection. I thought children should read words, not look at pictures. What nonsense and silliness! Nearly always on the cutting edge, I fell down on this one. Oh sure, I've added some titles the last couple of years, you know, those half-way books like Fashion Kitty and A Very Merry Christmas (Geronimo Stilton, No. 35). Of course, The Adventures of Captain Underpants led the way.

By the time of the Graphic Library history/biographies, entrenched librarians like me were ready. We could peek into books like this. Well, lo and behold, when what to my eyes did appear--an informative, both verbally and visually, book about the making of blue jeans. I was fascinated! To Nathan Olson's research and words are added to-the-point illustrations by Dave Hoover, Keith Williams, and Charles Barnett III. How they divided their labor, I don't know, but the finals results are truly revealing.

So, what can a student learn? The title page itself foreshadows THE details that made Levi's stand out above the others: orange thread, seagull V symbol on the pockets, and the little red symbolic Levi's label to the left of the pockets. Originally, Strauss started out with canvas for a strong pair of pants for miners, cowboys, railroad workers, and other tough jobs. When he no longer could obtain canvas, he...no, you must read and see for yourself how denim became the domain for jeans.

All of this story is told succinctly in just a few pages (25), but other details are added in two more pages. The book concludes with a glossary, internet sites to visit, a list of books to read (aha!), and Olson's sources.

Librarians, teachers, parents, if you are in doubt about the quality of this graphic information book, cease. I am amazed at how much I learned--and retained through words and illustrations. This book is well worth your money! The intended age is about second through fifth grades, although interest in blue jeans could carry it further. As a suggestion: For students (including older ones) who finish assignments early, have a display of graphic books at hand for quick reads (and addition of basic knowledge)!

This truly is a worthy book!

War Horse: A Novel (Review of a book now a movie)

 Note: I wrote this review for Amazon, on January 18, 2009.

"War Horse" is a story of courage and endurance by horse and man, conveyed through the destruction that is war. Told from the viewpoint of the horse, the story can draw in the most reluctant reader, as children often feel more empathy for animals than people. Because of descriptions of grueling labor and unsound working conditions for the horses, the book is best directed toward fourth grade and up.

Joey, a gorgeous bay with four white stocking legs and a white cross on his forehead, is the War Horse. Albert is his 15-year-old human who trains and loves him. When his father sells the horse to the cavalry for service in World War I, Albert swears to join when he is old enough and find Joey.

The insanity of matching a cavalry of horses and riders with sabers against soldiers with rifles and machine guns has to be one of the most insane moments in war history!! One-fourth of the horses are killed in the first battle. All but two die in the next battle this cavalry faces. Joey and his equal, Topthorn, a huge black Arabian, survive, only to be taken as prisoners by the Germans.

What Joey and Topthorn face as part of the team to pull the hospital cart to the battle front over and over is made right by kind treatment their German masters give to their wounds and injuries, and treat their fatigue at the end of day. Joey's worse experience comes when he and Topthorn and others must pull the artillery. Because these soldiers are dead tired themselves and also starving, they are not as attentive to the horses.

The most horrifying scene occurs when Joey is totally alone and runs and runs from the sound of cannons until he is trapped in No Man's Land, a barren area between the French and English on one side and the Germans on the other. Two rolls of barbed wire separate the land from the trenches. Joey finds himself in this area. What transpires is an incredible and beautiful moment in the midst of an insane war.

***
SPOILER ALERT! Read no further if you don't like to know anything about a book's ending.)

Of course, you must know that Albert is re-united with Joey. How that comes about is purely contrived, but welcomed by a reader weary of the horrors of war for both man and horse.

Last week a fourth-grader asked me (I'm the school librarian) for a really good book to read. I showed him several. When he saw "War Horse," he wanted it at once. The next day he told me, "This is a great book." He was already half-way finished. So I went home and read my copy.

You will never look at a horse the same way again. Joey tells us about the people who tend him. Are they heavy-handed, hard, tender, kind, caring? What is it like with each type of person? What is it like to be a horse? But the best lesson is that horses are no longer used in battle (until a reader commented that horses are being used in Afghanistan! Barbarity in a barbaric place. What can one expect? Note: I'm speaking of war and war conditions, not the Afghan people or soldiers.)

Now the film version is getting rave reviews. I look forward to seeing it!

Washingto Square: a film version

Darwinism, selective adaptation, rationalism, a stone cold universe--these are the main characters in the film adaptation of Henry James' novel "Washington Square." I wept for the futility of the motives of the players. Forlorn-ness, weariness, desperation--these are feelings Henry James (author) passed out with plenitude to both Morris and Catherine, the exquisitely needy main characters.

Catherine, an only child, who lives at Washington Square, under the strict supervision of her doctor-father, is a most emotionally deplete character at the begining. Played with utmost perfection, with downward stares, gazes from under obedient eyes, a shrinking of body in the presence of men, Jennifer Jason-Leigh lived that character. So does Chaplin as Morris with perfect beauty, necessary emotional repertoire and glib talent with tongue and ready story. He is as extraordinarily handsome as she is plain. Yet, by steady and intense tender attention, he brings out a lively Catherine no one has ever seen, least of all her domineering father.

This is a story of want meeting need, with each discovering in the other the answer to each dilemma, with one (Morris) knowing what is needed, the other (Catherine) just feeling what is wanted. They meet at an engagement party (so ripe a setting for possibility). It is amazing to watch Morris see Catherine and fall instantly in love with her. Or is it a game? Her father, the wealthy doctor, thinks so and discourages her at every turn. Personally, I watched carefully for any slippage in his facial control to detect a false face or mocking smile. But never. He seemed genuinely to care. On the other hand Catherine refuses--initially-- to accept or believe his intentions. Her father has well-trained her to believe she is stupid and plain and desired by men only for her future fortune.

At the beginning when I spoke of despair and weariness, I mentioned these in accordance with the scientific and philosophic views of the day: the cold indifference of the universe, the non-involvement of the religious with daily life, almost a cold, calculating universe in its own way.

There is in some religious circles today the belief that prayer not only changes the one prayed for, but the one doing the praying. Although an anachronism, surely the context is the same: Morris does fall in love with this poor creature he is wooing. That is my impression. Of course, she loses herself passionately.

That's all I need say about the film. For sure, it is a powerful drama that unfolds before one's eyes and, for sure, the ending is both expected and incredibly sad. Yes, how can we ever push ego into the bushes and seize the moment and take a chance? Why are we so stubborn? Can there occur a merging between these two? What would it take? Everything? Nothing? Can we go too far past a certain point? Oh, I could keep asking these questions, but the answer remains the same: It is what James made it to be. His book reflects the values not only of his day, but our day as well. The story could go differently today, but should it? Can there be too much in a relationship to return to its purer moments?

Addendum: Added in response to a reader comment:

I accept as valid the reader-response (in this case, the viewer-response) genre of criticism. The author/director presents to his/her audience a version of some form of the Truth. The viewer can accept that view as one of the Truths of the universe or not. James was presenting the idea of the possibilities available to plain, but wealthy young women. In this film there was only one, Morris wants Catherine for her money. That's it. If she didn't have money, he would never have shown interest. One particular line shows this: "I wasted two years of my youth courting you AND your money (my emphasis)"-- Just recently I heard a phrase that really stuck in my head: "I settled." Compromised, accepting less than what is truly desired. Catherine would have settled at that moment. Years later she refused to take less. Maybe I did read more into the story than what James intended (rationalism, Darwinism), but I think I can justify my declaration. Morris was willing to "settle" with plain Catherine BUT wads of money (survival of the fittest?) and she, too, with such a charming and handsome man, having decided he did love her (the Watchmaker is sitting in the heavens, so we live life as we find it, not relying on a god to intercede--or is this Ann Rand-ism/objectivism?)

My final question is: Do we take love in whatever form we find it OR do we live by moral and ethical values, for self-respect which is cold and empty. Which causes more pain? Less? The film deeply disturbed me--on a personal level, not as a random viewer-- because of its lack of acceptable alternatives, indeed as life is often lived!

How does James present Morris in the novel? Does he come to love Catherine at all or is his behavior all a game for gain? After such a film, reading the novel becomes necessary...