Related Sections: Books Movies Opinion
Hard to believe: People hated Where the Wild Things Are once
Now that there's a movie coming out, everyone's all "Oh, Where the Wild Things Are was my favorite book. What a childhood classic." It almost seems like Hollywood made a movie everyone was guaranteed to want to see. Actually, the movie could be the riskiest of the year, and that would only mirror the rough road the book traveled.
The cover of the current editions may boast the Caldecott Medal, but Maurice Sendak's illustrated book was not an instant hit when it was released, nor is it necessarily today. It's been trashed by critics, chastised by psychologists and even banned. How could nine run-on sentences cause so much trouble?
Harper & Row first published Where the Wild Things Are in 1963. Sendak had worked for the publisher illustrating books for other authors, such as Ruth Krauss, Else Holmelund and Isaac Bashevis Singer. Even his editors didn't like Sendak's first solo offering. He fought with them over his text because they wanted him to change Max's supper from hot to warm, as Sendak recalled to Newsweek.
The first reviews worried Sendak's Wild Things were too scary for children. Children seemed to weather the monster rumpus, but that wasn't the end of the WTWTA haters.
At a time when parents were used to reading their children Curious George and Madeline books, the grown-up community felt threatened by Sendak's story. Just seeing a boy throw a tantrum at his mother was considered dangerous behavior. Was Sendak glorifying Max's anger?
The Caldecott delivered its stamp in 1964, naming WTWTA the year's most distinguished American picture book for children. Still, it was banned in the South specifically and by libraries all over throughout the '60s.
In his March 1969 column for Ladies' Home Journal, child psychologist Bruno Bettelheim called the book psychologically damaging for 3- and 4-year-olds. Get this, he thought the idea that mom would deprive Max of food would traumatize them.
HarperCollins still publishes the book, though maybe today's kids of the Harry Potter generation aren't quite so nostalgic about it. Last week, New York Times Sunday Book Review columnist Bruce Handy published his son's assessment of the book: "The book wasn't any good."
Still, earlier this year, President Obama commenced the Easter egg roll on the White House lawn by reading passages from Where the Wild Things Are. Those kids seemed happy with it, but they were also anxious to get free Easter eggs.
The film version of Where the Wild Things Are opens Friday, directed by Spike Jonze. Early reviews seem mixed. A reaction as controversial as the book's might do Warner Brothers some good. It would be free publicity that they couldn't buy for all the ad dollars in their budget.
By Heather J. at 1:15 PM ON 10/15/09
My husband loved this book as a child - he and my son are very excited about the movie. I, on the other hand, thought it was (in my kid-vocabulary) stupid. I still don't get the appeal, but my husband insists it was - and is - a wonderful book. Go figure!
By Mandy at 2:04 PM ON 10/15/09
Why is it the South has such a history of banning perfectly wholesome children's stories? All this does is perpetuate ignorance? At least this particular book isn't banned anymore.
By Gelzyme at 2:48 PM ON 10/15/09
So, most of the South banned the book "Where the Wild Things Are." In response, Disney banned the film "Song of the South." Now, "Where the Wild Things Are" has been made into a movie. Maybe Disney will make "Song of the South" into a book.
Wait a minute... :-/
By A Non PC thug at 3:15 PM ON 10/15/09
I live i the south and this is the first I have heard of this book being banned at one point. Though I could care less, never have liked the story as a kid. I damn sure not going to see the movie, that kid is way to freaking annoying in the trailers.
By SCfan at 4:07 PM ON 10/15/09
Born in 62 in a small town in South Carilina and we read the book in the first or second grade. So I do not understand the specifically in the south remark. In fact the public library in Columbia SC has a WTWTA mural and play area which was endosed by Sendak.
By John W. Kennedy at 6:46 PM ON 10/15/09
Well, as a general rule, book banning in the US has been at the municipal level, or even lower (individual libraries, say), so the fact that a book was not banned somewhere in the South really doesn't prove anything either way.
By Reptile fan at 7:25 PM ON 10/15/09
I loved this book, but I had no idea it was so culturaly relevant until these movie and a simpsons episode
By Methos at 8:05 PM ON 10/15/09
Honestly as a child, I really did hate this book. I hated the art work and thought the story was dumb. I was like 6 at the time too.
By Daumier at 9:51 PM ON 10/15/09
I loved the book when I was little. I liked the illustrations and I wanted Max's wolf footie pjs more than anything. I think most kids liked it mainly on that sort of superficial level. Max was kind of like a kid's first literary anti-hero: not somebody you want to emulate, but just a fun character who did interesting things.
By Skorn at 12:07 AM ON 10/16/09
I love how people pretend whether or not they can even REMEMBER if they liked the book as a child. Heh.
By Skorn at 12:15 AM ON 10/16/09
Okay that was worded weirdly. What I meant to say is: I know that I read the book as a child, or more likely had the book read to me, but I'll be damned if I can remember a specific instance of this happening. I did flip through the book at work the other day and it thought it was good. Nothing earth shattering, but certainly imaginative enough. No idea about the movie, but it's important to remember that books and movies are entirely different things, even (or especially) when based on each other. Either way I don't think it's going to ruin any childhood memories for me.
By JimmyDabomb at 1:47 AM ON 10/16/09
Most of my classmates in school loved the book. I never really liked it. Instead, I liked a book which featured trolls and faces in the bushes that you could find if you looked really hard. The art was similar, but I thought it was much more interesting. I thought Where the Wild Things Are was shallow by comparison.
Of course, one of these is popular and getting made into a movie (and I know a kid who has the whole story memorized), and the other is obscure to the point where I've been entirely unable to find it, so I'm probably wrong. :P
By meggi at 7:28 AM ON 10/16/09
I came across the book at my local shop a few years ago, when my daughter had just turned one, and we had to buy it. I was way more excited than she was. It was a well loved, and well worn book when I was growing up, and now it's becoming so again in my child's hands
By Sparrownightmare at 10:38 AM ON 10/16/09
I remember this book. I was one of those unfortunate enough to have to sit through my mom reading it to me. Of course, I had to pretend to like it, so I wouldn't hurt my Mom's feelings. It was infantile and just plain dumb.
I can't believe that they actually wasted film/tape/whatever on this idiotic spectacle of what not to make a movie out of. I think it's gonna tank harder than Bridge to Terrabiffida or whatever it was called.
By thekatwoman at 11:00 AM ON 10/16/09
I was 2 when this came out. I remember NOT wanting to read it, just because of the cover. I never did and I have no idea what the book is about, and I still won't read it or watch the movie. And the kid DOES look really annoying.
By edwin sanchez at 12:30 PM ON 10/16/09
Definitely grew up on this book...
By yeti at 5:43 PM ON 10/17/09
I loved the book all through my youth. I was quite excited to see the movie interpretation. I am a Spike Jonze fan as well so this seemed a slam-dunk. I was dead wrong. I was thoroughly disappointed in the movie and I am off to reread the book to scrub my psyche of the residue the movie left.
By Samantha K at 4:19 PM ON 10/26/09
one of the main things that make this movie seem less "child-like" was the actors they chose for the voices, especially James Gandolfini
Visit mobile.syfy.com/wire on your mobile device.
Samantha K:
one of the main things that make this movie seem less "child-like" was the actors they chose for the voices, especi...More »