The proof? Both characters are literal. Ted, especially, spends the book deciphering the non-sensical language of idiomatic speech. Both characters fail to understand social cues. Emma-Jean, especially, does not realize when she is being teased or ostracized by her peers. Ted uses a series of memorized clues to help him recognize facial expressions or gestures. Neither likes to be touched. Both have focused interests and amass details about specific topics. Emma-Jean can be found standing in her yard giving the Latin names for the flora and fauna.
There is a humanity to these books. While wikipedia informs me that the collection of details often does not imply a vested interest (ex: memorizing camera model numbers but not being interested in photography), Emma-Jean and Ted do not fit that sympton. Emma-Jean's obsession with science stems from the loss of her father. Naming trees and flowers is an attempt to relive the comfort of his presence. Ted is obsessed with weather reports, however it is part of a greater dream of being a meteorologist. He plays with words and likens his sister Kat to Hurricane Katrina and other Katastrophes. He uses the weather as an outlet when he can't sleep, is distressed, and just generally as a filter through which he examines the world around him. These insights into their compulsive behavior gives depth and sentiment to the books.
Each book makes use of a symbol. Emma-Jean has the tree. The tree is part of nature and can be studied, sketched, understood. She climbs it in great haste to try and reach out to a classmate who she believes needs her help. It represents the effort she makes to communicate with others. Of course, to fall from such great heights is a painful emotional letdown. However, as her mother says, sometimes you just have to try another tree or hold on tighter.
For Ted, the great London Eye overlooks his investigations into his cousin's disappearance. From the Eye you see London in a different way, like using a different operating system. The constantly changing view reminds us that there are an infinite number of ways to look at the world. These two books help the reader better understand one more.
Sketch of Solanum Tuberosum
Marla,
ReplyDeleteGreat analysis of the books as usual. The connections you make and the ideas you chose to highlight demonstrate the potential for a great career in professional book reviewing. I've said it before, but I hope you pursue book reviewing in some way after you leave this class. The only thing I wish I had seen here are some read alikes, but you probably covered that in class--which I missed! Shoot:) Out of curiosity, which title did you like best? Did you all discuss the proliferation of titles that feature characters on the autistic spectrum? There have been several since the publication of THE CURIOUS INCIDENT OF THE DOG IN THE NIGHT TIME, and might make a good curricular unit.
Thanks for your thoughtful and articulate post, and I'll see you in class on Monday.
Do you really think I could get through class without read alikes?! Personally Emma-Jean made me think of Frankie Landau-Banks, if only for the ingenious of the stunts they both pulled. Of course, she stands out like Stargirl (and they both just want to help people), and Schooled's Cap Anderson.
ReplyDeleteA lot of titles featuring mental illness came up. Among them were Al Capone Does my Shirts and Rules. Books in which kids feel excluded for other reasons included The Schwa Was Here, This is What I Did, and even Matilda.
Purely for the mystery and detective like content of The London Eye, it also reminds me of Half Moon Investigations.
I like this idea of reviewing books! Thanks for pushing me to do it. It's certainly satisfying to pick them apart and compare all the little pieces! What I can't imagine is how a school librarian finds the time to do more work outside of school? How do you do it?!