I can see how this can be a very controversial book. The little boy who is about four years old is naked in half of the pictures with his genitals showing. One of the pages the little boy is standing on a huge milk can with his legs spread apart standing confident and macho while facing the reader. I think some people may look at it as soft pornography. Imagine a young boy or girl reading this book. It might give them the impression that it is ok to be naked for other people to see. Think about all of the child molesters out there. It must be gratifying for them to see this and that is not exactly the audience you want to attract. On the other hand, it is a little boy and not an adult. Babies and young children are natural seen naked by their caretakers at times when they take a bath, get dressed, or need their diaper changed. However, I will stress that it is their caretakers that see them naked not everyone. I think they could have avoided a lot of issues if they would have tilted the boy’s hips in more towards the page so you couldn’t see any of his genitals. Another option would be to at least leave his underwear on. Despite the nudity, I still particularly did not like this book because nothing really flowed together in an imaginative sense to my liking. Other than the controversial images of the boy, the illustrations were great. The drawings were very bubbly and clear to understand. Interestingly enough, there are pages without words and those were my favorite pages because I could create my own interpretation of what was going on.
I see your viewpoint, and I think that it's a mainstream one. Still, I think it's worth considering that Maurice Sendak may have tapped into something about childhood here. My stepson LOVED being naked--perhaps Sendak tapped into some experinces of boyhood that we don't know about? I think that our views on nakedness are very cultural, and though I see your concern, I'm not sure that Sendak doesn't have something quite different in mind for his readers.
ReplyDelete