Comments on: Proud to Be an American?

By: Cecilia

Cecilia — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:53:11 +0000

MASTER OF DECEIT probably doesn’t make my top five, but I did enjoy it and I think it’s worth the read, Wendy. As I think I mentioned in a comment on an earlier post, it paired well with BOMB as I think together they give a broader picture of all the concerns about Communism in the US following WWII and how those concerns manifested themselves in people’s lives (i.e. scientists protecting atomic secrets, Hoover hunting down suspected spies).

By: Jonathan Hunt

Jonathan Hunt — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:40:28 +0000

I never felt like Freedman was equating growing up poor to being a slave. The strength of the dual biography is the ability to compare and contrast, and Freedman did that here without distorting each subject. The friendship wasn’t necessarily overplayed, but I do think it is a fair question. I’m not buying that kids cannot understand this kind friendship, especially when I think about celebrity friendship (are Ellen and Oprah really friends?) or pen pal friendship in the digital age with texting, twitter, e-mail, and Skype.

I do not think MASTER OF DECEIT is too old for the Newbery, but it’s just going to be virtually impossible to build consensus around this one, given the many excellent titles that skew younger–and Aronson’s divisive style.

By: Monica Edinger

Monica Edinger — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:09:10 +0000

..or at least not with this book given some of the slipperier aspects that the two Sarahs (or are they Saras — have to go teach so can’t go check:) tease out.

By: Monica Edinger

Monica Edinger — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:07:09 +0000

As for the Aronson book, I think both Sarahs have made some very important points. My feeling is that this book is beyond the Newbery age range as it demands a more sophisticated level of reading ability to consider all that is presented. Kids need to be ready to consider the problematic areas and not just absorb them and accept them. Not sure kids 14 and under are ready for that.

By: Wendy

Wendy — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:05:35 +0000

That’s the crux of the question, indeed! Maybe this is a more daring book of Freedman’s than it seems at the outset. I wonder if he does succeed.

By: Monica Edinger

Monica Edinger — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:03:08 +0000

Yes, and I wonder if the intended audience is at the developmental place or has the necessary background to truly appreciate and get that subtler kind of relationship.

By: Wendy

Wendy — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 13:49:02 +0000

Well, I’m not saying the relationship was insignificant–only superficially so; as others have pointed out, they only met a few times, and Freedman doesn’t seem to me to be glossing over that fact. The book explores a subtler kind of relationship than that between, say, Jefferson and Adams.

By: Monica Edinger

Monica Edinger — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 13:34:23 +0000

I truly don’t know much about the relationship between Douglass and Lincoln, but I do think a book featuring them together this way suggests a significant one, especially to younger readers who will come to it with no background knowledge at all.

By: Wendy

Wendy — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 13:24:45 +0000

…and I’ll say what I said over there, which is that I think Sarah is making a claim that Freedman didn’t (though I don’t have the book in front of me). Lincoln and Douglass are shown to have points of connection and points of dissonance, which is what made their limited relationship surprisingly meaningful (to each man) and which gives it its impact on a national level. Lincoln had his opinions on slavery and on African Americans in general; Douglass actually lived it. Dozens of white authors, looking back–even dozens of white abolitionists during Lincoln’s time–can/could criticize Lincoln for his race-relations shortcomings, but that all rings a little thin compared to this, where we get the voice of absolute authority in Frederick Douglass.

By: Monica Edinger

Monica Edinger — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 10:40:36 +0000

I think Sarah Couri over at the Printz blog (http://blogs.slj.com/printzblog/2012/11/11/nonfiction-roundup/) hit on my reservations with the Freeman book. I read it months back, but remember feeling there was something reductive about the parallels between the two men and their lives and now Sarah has made it clear in her post (http://blogs.slj.com/printzblog/2012/11/11/nonfiction-roundup/) with this money quote:

“I also — and maybe this is just me — had some issues with the parallels Freedman draws between Lincoln’s life and Douglass’s life. Yes, there are entire books on the similarities the two men lived (destitute circumstances, nearly complete lack of formal education, rising from practically nothing to become central figures in national discourse). But were they that similar? Is it really comparable: desperately poor hardscrabble beginnings vs being considered property? Really? It’s just so superficial.”