Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.93 AVERAGE
3.93 AVERAGE
Maybe it's me, but seeing the little boy's woo woo kind of freaked me out...especially with 3 men trying to bake him! At the time it was written I'm sure it wouldn't have been odd. While it did startle me, I don't think there should be any censorship or anything of the like.
Recommended in [b:A Parent's Guide to the Best Kids' Comics: Choosing Titles Your Children Will Love|13109702|A Parent's Guide to the Best Kids' Comics Choosing Titles Your Children Will Love|Scott Robins|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1355027959l/13109702._SX50_.jpg|18283038]
Nope, no, nope, and also, NO.
This book, which somehow won the Caldecott medal in 1971, features a little boy's full frontal nudity on MULTIPLE pages. I remembered from [b:Wild Things: The Joy of Reading Children's Literature as an Adult|32919295|Wild Things The Joy of Reading Children's Literature as an Adult|Bruce Handy|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1496414965l/32919295._SY75_.jpg|53536950] that this book caused controversy back in the day, with some children's librarians painstakingly cutting out and gluing paper underwear onto this child, but I thought that it was just one page. It's MULTIPLE, and it's not subtle at all.
Some people won't find this objectionable, but lots of parents will, and it would be very difficult for someone to be prepared for this unless they received advance warning. No one is going to pick up a Caldecott-winning picture book from the 1970s and assume that it involves nudity, and in a conversation with my mom a while back, I was surprised to learn that she had never heard about this, and hadn't deliberately filtered this book out at the library. I am glad that this book never made its way into our repeated check-outs of [b:Where the Wild Things Are|19543|Where the Wild Things Are|Maurice Sendak|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1384434560l/19543._SX50_.jpg|3020535], which is still one of my favorites.
Now, you might be wondering why I read this, if I already knew about the nudity and had a problem with it. The answer is that I thoroughly enjoyed reading a number of Caldecott books for a school assignment, decided that I want to someday read them all, and wanted to get this one over with at the beginning. Also, I am giving it one star not just for what I find morally problematic, but also for the story itself. It makes no sense. NONE.
Granted, the picture book is all about a little boy's dream, so there is a clear explanation for why it wouldn't make sense, but this has no story arc, none of the events relate to each other in a logical way, and even though the plane that Mickey makes out of bread dough is a nice fantasy concept, everything else is disturbing, strange, and nonsensical. I wouldn't have liked the book if I had been reading one of the 1970s copies with fake underwear, because this was terrible anyway.
As another reviewer pointed out, when a child tells you about their dream, you say things like, "Yeah. Uh huh. Wow." There's nothing gripping or even enjoyable about them, usually, and this book doesn't have anything to offer other than vague sexual symbolism. And if all your children's book has to offer is vague sexual symbolism, the world is better off without it.
The ending is also terrible: "And that is why we always have cake at breakfast." What? Even if you've persevered through an illustrated boy's full frontal nudity with your kids, now you have to explain to them why you don't have cake at breakfast, and have to deal with Maurice Sendak putting this idea into their heads. The whole book is an illogical mess, and even though I can see why the dreamlike illustrations would make an impression on children who would then enjoy this in adulthood, this is not something I would ever share with kids or recommend to anyone.
This book, which somehow won the Caldecott medal in 1971, features a little boy's full frontal nudity on MULTIPLE pages. I remembered from [b:Wild Things: The Joy of Reading Children's Literature as an Adult|32919295|Wild Things The Joy of Reading Children's Literature as an Adult|Bruce Handy|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1496414965l/32919295._SY75_.jpg|53536950] that this book caused controversy back in the day, with some children's librarians painstakingly cutting out and gluing paper underwear onto this child, but I thought that it was just one page. It's MULTIPLE, and it's not subtle at all.
Some people won't find this objectionable, but lots of parents will, and it would be very difficult for someone to be prepared for this unless they received advance warning. No one is going to pick up a Caldecott-winning picture book from the 1970s and assume that it involves nudity, and in a conversation with my mom a while back, I was surprised to learn that she had never heard about this, and hadn't deliberately filtered this book out at the library. I am glad that this book never made its way into our repeated check-outs of [b:Where the Wild Things Are|19543|Where the Wild Things Are|Maurice Sendak|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1384434560l/19543._SX50_.jpg|3020535], which is still one of my favorites.
Now, you might be wondering why I read this, if I already knew about the nudity and had a problem with it. The answer is that I thoroughly enjoyed reading a number of Caldecott books for a school assignment, decided that I want to someday read them all, and wanted to get this one over with at the beginning. Also, I am giving it one star not just for what I find morally problematic, but also for the story itself. It makes no sense. NONE.
Granted, the picture book is all about a little boy's dream, so there is a clear explanation for why it wouldn't make sense, but this has no story arc, none of the events relate to each other in a logical way, and even though the plane that Mickey makes out of bread dough is a nice fantasy concept, everything else is disturbing, strange, and nonsensical. I wouldn't have liked the book if I had been reading one of the 1970s copies with fake underwear, because this was terrible anyway.
As another reviewer pointed out, when a child tells you about their dream, you say things like, "Yeah. Uh huh. Wow." There's nothing gripping or even enjoyable about them, usually, and this book doesn't have anything to offer other than vague sexual symbolism. And if all your children's book has to offer is vague sexual symbolism, the world is better off without it.
The ending is also terrible: "And that is why we always have cake at breakfast." What? Even if you've persevered through an illustrated boy's full frontal nudity with your kids, now you have to explain to them why you don't have cake at breakfast, and have to deal with Maurice Sendak putting this idea into their heads. The whole book is an illogical mess, and even though I can see why the dreamlike illustrations would make an impression on children who would then enjoy this in adulthood, this is not something I would ever share with kids or recommend to anyone.
According to a clip I saw from Jeopardy this is part of a trilogy with Where the Wild Things Are, I'm not seeing it and it is not referenced ion here as such (having said that this site is about as accurate as a Trump speech) but anyway a decent little read.
Naked boys falling into the food... ew, yuk!
I can't imagine children liking this book.
I can't imagine children liking this book.
2014-2015 - a staple. He knows certain phrases - "I'm Mickey" or "cock-a-doodle-doo" that he contributes at the right point.
Late 2015/2016 - I hear him repeating phrases in his imaginative play.
May 2017 - We listened to the audiobook after not reading the print book for a few months, and Ben kept interrupting to tell me what was happening in the pictures. Apparently I still have about 50% of it memorized.
Late 2015/2016 - I hear him repeating phrases in his imaginative play.
May 2017 - We listened to the audiobook after not reading the print book for a few months, and Ben kept interrupting to tell me what was happening in the pictures. Apparently I still have about 50% of it memorized.
After Sendak died went to Strand and read In the Night Kitchen and Bumble-ardy as an act of commemoration.
Finally picked this up since I’ve heard so much about it. Look, I’m a firm believer in not censoring books. I am also a parent with a four year old and a two year old. I understand how some parents wince at content that seems inappropriate for a certain age. I also am a bit sensitive about issues of exploitation, regardless of the target.
I went into this blind, only knowing it was Sendak and having read Where the Wild Things Are back when I was younger. The story itself did not really impress me, nor did it impress my four year old. I *did* notice the nudity, however my daughter did not. I didn’t point it out or treat it differently than anything else I’ve read, and in effect she didn’t point it out either.
I’m not one to cause problems where there are none.
However, I found the book choppy and hard to read. I’ve seen some reviews call it “lyrical,” and maybe I just need to reread it in my head (my first shot was out loud) to get the rhythm. If it flowed better I can see the appeal of this little boy dreaming of cake.
I’m just not 100% sold on it being more than a mediocre kids story with a bit of darkness.
I went into this blind, only knowing it was Sendak and having read Where the Wild Things Are back when I was younger. The story itself did not really impress me, nor did it impress my four year old. I *did* notice the nudity, however my daughter did not. I didn’t point it out or treat it differently than anything else I’ve read, and in effect she didn’t point it out either.
I’m not one to cause problems where there are none.
However, I found the book choppy and hard to read. I’ve seen some reviews call it “lyrical,” and maybe I just need to reread it in my head (my first shot was out loud) to get the rhythm. If it flowed better I can see the appeal of this little boy dreaming of cake.
I’m just not 100% sold on it being more than a mediocre kids story with a bit of darkness.