the sentence "at least it gets kids to read" drives me nuts when it is
applied to bad books, because it is like saying at least mcdonald’s
gets kids to eat. i don’t think reading is as necessary to existence as
eating, sure, but i do think that the analogy holds up. some people
don’t appreciate well-prepared healthy meals, and would prefer to
subsist on peanut butter and jelly sandwiches with the crusts cut off
for apparently the rest of their lives, and if you’re the parent who
wants to prepare that meal day in and day out then i guess you can go
ahead and do that, but don’t expect me to think you’re doing a good job
with your "well at least he’s eating!" and don’t expect the school to
back up your indulgence of your kid’s dietary lack of imagination. i
like to think that as parents we care enough about our children’s
health to see to it that they eat a decent amount of vegetables and we
want the school to exhibit at least a basic understanding of what is
nourishing as well. we may not expect our children to subsist on whole
wheat crackers and fresh vegetables only, and especially at birthdays
and christmas even i have been known to indulge the sweet tooth. similarly, one may
indulge the darlings with a few "glittery unicorns and the dragon
adventures" from time to time, but it should be presented as a
exception to the rule of selecting books that engage the
thinking brain as well as the pleasure centers. i think the reason we
want children to read is not for the sake of the reading itself (we
don’t eat because "chewing is good for you"), but for the fact that it
expands the horizons of their imagination and understanding and makes
them better humans.
i have a more conflicted response when the "at least it gets kids to
read" is applied to books being made into movies. i wasn’t allowed to
see movies until i’d read the book, and i apply the same rule to Squire Tuck’s
movie viewing. this ruined a lot of movies for me, because i had
pictured the book in my mind perfectly and the director didn’t always
do right by my imagination. however, it did wonders for my critical
thinking skills, deciding which things in a book were subject to
interpretation, how far artistic license could reasonably extend,
whether it’s possible that i misunderstood the book and the
screenwriter had understood it better, etc. Squire Tuck is following right
along behind me and when he had a ten minute rant about the "scorning
of the shire" i nearly ate my heart. so although we go about it in one
direction ("you must read the book if you want to see the movie"), while i think many people tend to see the movie and then decide
whether to read the book, i will concede that sometimes books into
movies, and i mean great books into movies, can lead children to great
books. lots of children read "charlotte’s web" for the first time this
winter (because of the movie), and while part of me feels like –how
can they have not already read it and loved it?– on the other hand, if
it takes sending piles of cash to hollywood in order to get people
sucked into "where’s papa going with that ax?" then i’ll accept it.
some people need a cookbook to cook, they need to be inspired to do
what might come naturally to other people. they need to see a picture
of the finished product before they can imagine if they would like it
for themselves. and as long as they accept that their version might
come out differently, and as long as they’re inspired to keep trying
instead of throwing up their hands and dashing down to the
drive-through… i guess i’m okay with that. i guess i can take off my
judge’s robes and sit down with the rest of the people at that table.
that said, if there is a hint of romance between jess and leslie; if
janice is made to seem more worthy of mockery than pity … i mean, i
can handle the emo-girl sock arm thingies, but if they have changed the
ending of this to make it one whit less painful and beautiful, i will
go and punch david paterson repeatedly in the face.
tuckova 
Leave a comment