![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.john-howe.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/12\/PokyPuppy-port.jpg\" "\\"PokyPuppy-port\\"")
<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\nThis was the first – and completely and otherwise utterly forgotten – children\u2019s book I ever owned. And by Tenggren of all people. Born in 1896, Tenggren emigrated to the US in 1920, was snapped up by Disney in 1936, and instead of spending his best years illustrating grand Norse epics or Celtic myth, he produced a bevy of children\u2019s books in a totally different and rather broader style, like the one or two that ended up in my hands. (I also had his \u201cLittle Black Sambo\u201d and suddenly recalled \u201cThe Little Red Hen\u201d and \u201cThe Little Red Caboose\u201d by other illustrators. Looking at them now, I wonder if they didn\u2019t pick titles from a set formula: diminutive-colour-character.) Admittedly, with over 2 billion copies of the Little Golden Age books published over a good half a century – including fifteen million Poky Puppies – there was little likelihood of NOT seeing them.<\/p>\n
Now of course, all this is now bathed in the rose-tinted glow of nostalgia (AND available on amazon NEW and USED from $2.99 – decidely we live in an age where we can have our memories and buy them new and used too) but nonetheless, it also brought to mind Dick and Jane.<\/p>\n
Dick and Jane likely explains away a few generations of illiterate North Americans. I distinctly remember arriving in school on the very first day, already secure in the knowledge I count count pretty far, and was able to read my Poky Little Puppy and his animal and caboose friends at very least.
\nThat\u2019s when we kids met Dick and Jane.<\/p>\n
Here\u2019s a sample:
\nDick.
\nLook Dick. Look, look.
\nOh, oh. Look, Dick.
\nOh. oh. See Dick.<\/p>\n
Come on, nobody<\/em> talks like that. How the teacher ever kept a straight face and how we kids even paid any kind of attention is beyond me. Likely the educators didn\u2019t want to tax our little brains overmuch; at any rate, they certainly did wonders for our attention spans. It\u2019s a miracle a year or so of Dick and Jane didn\u2019t leave us lobotomized. (I heartily recommend \u201cOn Learning to Read\u201d, by the controversial and outspoken but occasionally sober and readable Bruno Bettelheim for an overview of the kind of material produced in the US and Canada, at least the English speaking part, in the 50\u2019s and 60\u2019s. It is a VERY sobering read, though those of use who were force-fed Dick & Jane and who had phonics scrapped will probably find it has too many big words\u2026) Now of course even Dick and Jane (and their equally edulcorated pals Spot, Puff, Sally, Tim, Mother, Father) are shrouded in the rosy mists of yesteryear, as well as being available in collected volumes and likely in boxed sets (\u201cNow Dick and Jane and all their pals are back with revised editions of these classic readers for a whole new generation of readers to enjoy!\u201d). Nevertheless, they provide an unrelenting and critical mirror of their times.<\/p>\n While I do not subscribe to the \u201cgood old days\u201d approach to the past, and disapprove of the soppy nostalgia with which we signpost even the most mediocre of memory\u2019s lanes, I am convinced of the persistence of vision. While I have no desire to actually see copies of these books again, I am grateful nonetheless to all the illustrators, immortal or forgotten, meritorious or middling, who made pictures for the books that passed through my young hands. I am grateful for all the images, vapid or vibrant, bold or bland, that made up my childhood. And even more grateful for the certitude that they are in my head somewhere, whether happenstance will afford me glimpses of them or not.<\/p>\n That\u2019s why I work hard. I want to make sure that there are as many images stored away in as many heads as I can reach. Images are like stories. They are the things we share, whether we remember them or not.<\/p>\n Isn\u2019t that how it\u2019s supposed to be? You can never go back, but sometimes the pictures catch up with you again. I\u2019d like to thank Bud Plant<\/a>, whose monthly catalogue helps me ceaselessly redefine \u201cwant\u201d and \u201cneed\u201d and is as trying for my wallet as it is rewarding for my library. Every time I give an interview about something punctual involving publishing, I feel like I am talking out of turn. One never knows what to say that may pre-empt something top-secret the publishers are holding in reserve. Also, posting images, which is so terribly tempting while they are brand new, is always governed by publishing dates.
\nI was the last first-grade class to be handed Dick and Jane, subsequent years were fortunate enough to be given actual story and textbooks, with real grammar in proper sentences, and words over a syllable long\u2026<\/p>\n
\nSPECIAL THANKS<\/p>\n
\nVery special thanks to Jim Vadeboncoeur, who sent me the jpeg of the Poky Little Puppy. Jim, when he isn\u2019t helping illustrators with their childhoods, edits ImageS<\/a>, the absolutely in-dis-pens-able publication for anyone who loves late 19th and early 20th century art and illustration. I order every new issue practically before the ink is even dry. Jim is also responsible for the Illustrators<\/a> site (and for the excessive number of bookmarks I\u2019ve ended up saving for all those biographies\u2026)
\nImageS is worth every penny you should IMMEDIATELY spend on buying ALL the available issues NOW.
\n(I believe the first two are sold out.)
\nCAUGHT TALKING IN CLASS<\/p>\n
\nSo, you can imagine my delight, when this interview<\/a>, which I had TOTALLY forgotten I had given, was sent my way by Kristofer Bengtsson of Fantasy Flight Games. The Gothmog he mentions is now in the portfolio: before<\/a> and after<\/a>.
\nI even actually enjoyed re-reading it, although this begs the question WHY do I identify with Boromir, who makes such a resounding mess of things and comes to such a sorry end?
\nFLY ON THE WALL
\nfly on the wall<\/strong> an unnoticed observer of a particular situation. \u2022 [as adj. ] denoting a filmmaking technique whereby events are observed realistically with minimum interference rather than acted out under direction : a fly-on-the-wall documentary<\/em>.<\/p>\n