Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.75 AVERAGE
3.75 AVERAGE
adventurous
emotional
inspiring
reflective
sad
tense
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
N/A
This is a book from my childhood that I greatly enjoyed, in addition to its sequels. I have many fond memories of it, and the book did seem to hold up to them. George's writing is beautiful and simple. I was engrossed once more from page one of Julie's story. I can definitely understand why it won the Newbery Medal. I don't regret buying these used to keep on my shelves as when I had originally read the series it was through the library.
However, as much as I was engaged in the story and its various twists of fate, I did notice some misinformation throughout. Some could be chalked up to outdated knowledge, like the idea of alphas, as George got her information from observing National Park wolf packs, and we now know that the hierarchy we see in somewhat captive wolves is probably fabricated from their captivity and not what real wild wolf packs are like. I also noticed, of course, some issues with suspension of disbelief, like Julie fighting off a wolverine, one of the most violent predators out there.
In my bid to be better as a white person consuming a book written by a white woman about "Inupiaq" culture, I did some research. As a child, it never would've occurred to me that the information within this book was inaccurate because I was a child and white. My privilege allowed me to overlook things that I didn't even have to worry about or even understand properly. I am glad I am now at an age where I am able to do research and make informed opinions about media such as this.
What I found was a site called American Indians in Children's Literature, which was founded to provide "critical analysis of Indigenous peoples in children's and young adult books." There it was stated that Julie of the Wolves was not recommended and cited the review of Martha Stackhouse who is Inupiaq herself. I highly recommend reading through it as it is very to the point of what she found wrong within the book (I will link it below, as well as the previous site). Summed up, George not only misinforms the reader of Inupiaq culture but also makes up facts that have scientific basis on why she is wrong.
Finally, I just want to say, I think if you believe that you can consume books critically like this, then reading this should be no issue for you. I still greatly enjoyed the novel, keeping my fond memories, at the same time as acknowledging its flaws.
I will read Julie's Wolf Pack as soon as I acquire the second book, Julie, and will review those as well hopefully.
Notes: https://americanindiansinchildrensliterature.blogspot.com/2020/04/not-recommended-julie-of-wolves-by-jean.html
http://www.ankn.uaf.edu/iks/hail/JulieWolves.html
However, as much as I was engaged in the story and its various twists of fate, I did notice some misinformation throughout. Some could be chalked up to outdated knowledge, like the idea of alphas, as George got her information from observing National Park wolf packs, and we now know that the hierarchy we see in somewhat captive wolves is probably fabricated from their captivity and not what real wild wolf packs are like. I also noticed, of course, some issues with suspension of disbelief, like Julie fighting off a wolverine, one of the most violent predators out there.
In my bid to be better as a white person consuming a book written by a white woman about "Inupiaq" culture, I did some research. As a child, it never would've occurred to me that the information within this book was inaccurate because I was a child and white. My privilege allowed me to overlook things that I didn't even have to worry about or even understand properly. I am glad I am now at an age where I am able to do research and make informed opinions about media such as this.
What I found was a site called American Indians in Children's Literature, which was founded to provide "critical analysis of Indigenous peoples in children's and young adult books." There it was stated that Julie of the Wolves was not recommended and cited the review of Martha Stackhouse who is Inupiaq herself. I highly recommend reading through it as it is very to the point of what she found wrong within the book (I will link it below, as well as the previous site). Summed up, George not only misinforms the reader of Inupiaq culture but also makes up facts that have scientific basis on why she is wrong.
Finally, I just want to say, I think if you believe that you can consume books critically like this, then reading this should be no issue for you. I still greatly enjoyed the novel, keeping my fond memories, at the same time as acknowledging its flaws.
I will read Julie's Wolf Pack as soon as I acquire the second book, Julie, and will review those as well hopefully.
Notes: https://americanindiansinchildrensliterature.blogspot.com/2020/04/not-recommended-julie-of-wolves-by-jean.html
http://www.ankn.uaf.edu/iks/hail/JulieWolves.html
Wow. This book surprised me. I expected to enjoy it. I expected that the research about the natural world would be very good, and the research about Inupiaq culture would be much less good. As it turns out...
1. I did not enjoy it. It was maybe not as much of a slog as The Trumpeter of Krakow, but it was really boring. The pacing was off, and I don't think the structure does it any favors. It picks up a little during the second part, where we get Miyax/Julie's backstory, and it would have been helpful to have that connection to the character before we sit and stare at wolves with her for fifty pages. I think George meant to drop us RIGHT INTO THE MIDDLE OF THE ACTION, but when the action involves lying on an ice hill for hours at a time, that plan backfires. At least for this reader.
And then there's the ending. What the serious hell. In the space of three pages, Miyax decides to live with her father, learns that her father is one of the people shooting the wolves and changes her mind, and changes her mind again because her bird dies and that symbolizes the end of the "Eskimo" way of life.
Finally, there's the infamous attempted rape scene, which is not at all graphic, but it's also out of place and not essential to the narrative.
2. Everything she writes about wolf communication and culture seems plausible, but I'm no expert, and given that she gets many other things wrong about life in the Arctic, I'm inclined to view the whole thing with suspicion.
3. Well, I knew going in that the representation of "Eskimo" culture was going to be somewhere between misleading and cringe-inducing. I had a feeling I would find something about Julie of the Wolves on American Indians in Children's Literature, and I was not wrong.
Here's what puzzles me though: the Wikipedia article about the book claims that George did not feel comfortable writing sequels because she "did not know enough about the Eskimo culture." (There is a source listed for this quote, but the link is broken.) If that was the case... why did she write Julie of the Wolves in the first place?
I wonder if George's understanding of Inupiaq culture grew over time (her last book, Ice Whale, takes place in the same setting, but I don't see any reviews by Debbie Reese or other native scholars). If so, why didn't she ever put out a revised edition of Julie of the Wolves?
4 and 5. Just a couple of infuriating extra tidbits:
-I'm certain that this book is still blithely taught in schools, and it's not even in the top ten worst offenders on that count. I'm pretty sure my daughter had to read The Courage of Sarah Noble a couple of years ago.
-They were making a movie of Julie of the Wolves, and though they initially wanted to cast an Inuk or Inupiat actress, Young changed his mind because he "didn't find the person that we felt was going to breathe the right kind of feeling into the story." RAGE. LASERS OF RAGE FROM MY EYEBALLS. That article is from 2008, though, so maybe they saw reason and scrapped the whole thing.
Going back to the "problematic old Newbery books being taught in schools" thing though... this is the problem with an award like this for children's literature. Teachers seem to think that a Newbery book's "most distinguished" status will last forever, and that the gold sticker is a carte blanche to teach it uncritically. Maybe Newbery winners should come with a caveat, or an expiration date... but that's probably the subject of a whole 'nother post.
1. I did not enjoy it. It was maybe not as much of a slog as The Trumpeter of Krakow, but it was really boring. The pacing was off, and I don't think the structure does it any favors. It picks up a little during the second part, where we get Miyax/Julie's backstory, and it would have been helpful to have that connection to the character before we sit and stare at wolves with her for fifty pages. I think George meant to drop us RIGHT INTO THE MIDDLE OF THE ACTION, but when the action involves lying on an ice hill for hours at a time, that plan backfires. At least for this reader.
And then there's the ending. What the serious hell. In the space of three pages, Miyax decides to live with her father, learns that her father is one of the people shooting the wolves and changes her mind, and changes her mind again because her bird dies and that symbolizes the end of the "Eskimo" way of life.
Finally, there's the infamous attempted rape scene, which is not at all graphic, but it's also out of place and not essential to the narrative.
2. Everything she writes about wolf communication and culture seems plausible, but I'm no expert, and given that she gets many other things wrong about life in the Arctic, I'm inclined to view the whole thing with suspicion.
3. Well, I knew going in that the representation of "Eskimo" culture was going to be somewhere between misleading and cringe-inducing. I had a feeling I would find something about Julie of the Wolves on American Indians in Children's Literature, and I was not wrong.
Here's what puzzles me though: the Wikipedia article about the book claims that George did not feel comfortable writing sequels because she "did not know enough about the Eskimo culture." (There is a source listed for this quote, but the link is broken.) If that was the case... why did she write Julie of the Wolves in the first place?
I wonder if George's understanding of Inupiaq culture grew over time (her last book, Ice Whale, takes place in the same setting, but I don't see any reviews by Debbie Reese or other native scholars). If so, why didn't she ever put out a revised edition of Julie of the Wolves?
4 and 5. Just a couple of infuriating extra tidbits:
-I'm certain that this book is still blithely taught in schools, and it's not even in the top ten worst offenders on that count. I'm pretty sure my daughter had to read The Courage of Sarah Noble a couple of years ago.
-They were making a movie of Julie of the Wolves, and though they initially wanted to cast an Inuk or Inupiat actress, Young changed his mind because he "didn't find the person that we felt was going to breathe the right kind of feeling into the story." RAGE. LASERS OF RAGE FROM MY EYEBALLS. That article is from 2008, though, so maybe they saw reason and scrapped the whole thing.
Going back to the "problematic old Newbery books being taught in schools" thing though... this is the problem with an award like this for children's literature. Teachers seem to think that a Newbery book's "most distinguished" status will last forever, and that the gold sticker is a carte blanche to teach it uncritically. Maybe Newbery winners should come with a caveat, or an expiration date... but that's probably the subject of a whole 'nother post.
adventurous
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
Content Warnings
Minor: Sexual assault
Excellent book my 4th and 5th grade students loved me to read to them.
A story that was very different from my life, seeing a kid need to be so brave was something I didn’t know happened when I read this book, great read for young girls.
I'm not sure how realistic of a portrayal this book is, but I do appreciate that it shows some harsh realities. As a kid these ideas were SHOCKING to see a young teenager married, abused, and divorced. The contrast between Julie's various lives was jarring, but it portrayed her life with the wolves as a comparative utopia.
I think there are sequels to this book that I would be interested to read.
I think there are sequels to this book that I would be interested to read.
I liked this book until the ending. Thought it could have been a bit better. It is the story of a young Eskimo girl who is given to another Eskimo boy as his wife. Julie is attacked by the boy so she runs away to go back to her home town. When she leaves she only takes what she can carry and because it is many miles home she must use the teaching of her dad to survive the wild. In her trek home she befriends a wolf pack and they help her survival.
I'd been meaning to read this classic kids book for many years; although I appreciate its intent and it is particularly interesting to read in our changing environment, I felt that the prose was rather heavy-handed, preachy, and idealistic in a way that just comes across as judgmental of the choices that people make under really difficult circumstances.
Reread a couple days ago and oh my god, incredibly racist. Also, I think the wolf hierarchy stuff is based on the captivity study that isn't accurate to wolves social structure in the wild, shrug emote
I didn't care for the subject matter but I admired George's writing talent.