A question for Maurice Sendak

May 8, 2012
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

News of the death of the great Maurice Sendak sent my mind to memories of reading "Outside Over There" to my daughter Emily and to my files for a 1995 interview I had with the outspoken author/illustrator.

"What's missing today in children's literature?" I asked him.

"Honestly," said Sendak. "Acknowledging that they are complicated animals with intensely alive minds. It amazes me that I've had a successful career. What I'm disappointed in is how little what I've achieved has been used by the newer generation. I'm horribly suspicious that if I were to arise on the scene now, I would never be published."

I asked about the possibility of a sequel to "Really Rosie." 

His response: "I don't believe in sequels. Why do it except to capitalize on what you're already done. I'll leave that to the movie industry."

And on parents censoring classic children's books:

"There are no invectives I can say that won't hurt your ears. This is the stupidity that goes on generation after generation. Grimm's Fairy Tales was verboten years ago. If there are shadings of colonialism in Babar, if women are treated poorly in Grimm, that's a matter of their time. I would rather look at the beauty of the craftsmanship of Babar--the composition of the pictures and the subtler, more poignant reasons for reading the books: [Babar was written by] a man dying of tuberculosis addressing two boys who would never have a father after adolescence. 'When you are orphaned,' he was saying, 'you, too, can still become King.'"

Your thoughts?

ADVERTISEMENT
  • PC Kills Art
    Political correctness has stifled many good stories that could shed litght on the human condition. Some subjects cannot be broached, so they just fester.
  • A breath of fresh reality
    Mr. Sendak was a breath of fresh reality when he first emerged as a children's book writer, and continues to be now. I hope his dream of influencing current writers to be more respectful of children's intellects by not writing down to them takes hold soon. It's sad to have lost him.

Post a comment to this blog

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT