The Radical Woman Behind “Goodnight Moon”
newyorker.com
newyorker.com
That line from Goodnight Moon fascinated me. What a strangely beautiful bit of absurdism in a children’s book!
This article really makes clear the beauty of the pacing and care for language in her work. Brown apparently spent several years crafting language of each of her stories. It’s quite subtle but much more evident when compared to some of the clumsier modern children’s books that I’ve read.
Also I think there are real insights for parents to be gained from considering her work. Brown really takes the subjective, sensory experiences of children’s seriously. It’s not easy for an adult to remember the sensations of feeling the world for the first time but i think it’s really important to try to have empathy for how children experience life.
I doubt that very many in the book's audience have been able to appreciate it as such. Instead, it seems prone to plant in the listener the seed of imprecise logocentric thinking. The phrase reminds me of "The nothing itself nothings", a non-ironic statement, whose ilk I had thought we had left behind in a previous generation.
"The nothing itself nothings" is Heidegger, and while I agree metaphysics often amounts to thinking far more deeply about meaningless quirks of language than they deserve I don't see the relevance to a book for preschool children. Do you see all absurdist linguistic humour as "imprecise logocentric thinking"?
I didn’t understand the appeal of the book as it seems like any other book (why is there an old rabbit chilling out in the room until the rabbit falls asleep?), until the above episode pointed out that there was simply no books like that before.
1. The clocks are actually showing the appropriate time as it gets later in the evening.
2. There is a picture, on the wall, of a rabbit fishing, trying to catch a smaller rabbit, using a carrot as a lure. I surely didn't expect the "Why is the rabbit trying to catch the other rabbit. Rabbits don't eat other rabbits, do they?" question.
3. The book on the nightstand is actually the "Goodnight Moon" book itself.
4. There is slightly less "mush" in the bowl after the mouse eats it.
So for example the baby turns to a fish, and the mother starts fishing; or —- and this captures the spirit better —- the baby to a climber and the mother to a mountain.
Another somewhat interesting find is that on the nightstand next to the bed sits another book with a discernible title: Goodnight Moon.
Similarly satisfying kids' books: "Tomorrow Most Likely", and "All the World."
BTW, the book that I disliked reading the most was "The Little Engine That Could". It felt jarring to read -- like I never could quite catch my breath or my rhythm.
Every time I would say ‘Oops’ while they were on my lap, I would jump my knee up a bit and they would laugh hysterically.
I agree otherwise. We've got a nice little library of children's books, and no one to read them to now. I still recite Goodnight Moon and Very Hungry Caterpillar from memory from time to time, like when we start reading LoTR. "So, last time Merry and Pippen had been captured by orcs... 'In the light of the moon, a little egg lay on a leaf'" always gets a laugh.
Now I read for my wife sometimes, before we fall asleep. Technical books are great.
This was the most fascinating detail to me about Brown’s writing process. She was essentially doing “user testing” with her drafts — observing how children responded to see what worked and what didn’t.
- The Going to Bed Book by Sandra Boynton
- The Little Mouse, the Red Ripe Strawberry, and the Big Hungry Bear by Don & Audrey Wood (or The Strawberry book as we called it)
I'm extremely fond of the Strawberry book. I don't think I'll ever not love it. It's such a fun story that slyly places the reader as a character in the story. It's just a little bit sneaky.
And, the illustrations are absolutely gorgeous. I would pay real money for a framed copy of the disguise scene. It makes me laugh to this day.
We have pretty much every Sandra Boynton book. They are fantastic. Plus a good number of them are songs and she has collaborated with tons of musicians to make them very special. Perfect Piggies [1] is a total ear worm and here is a song done by the Bacon Brothers [2].
While we do ready The Going to Bed Book every.single.night, I think my favorite is Snuggle Puppy - A Little Love Song [3]. I read it a little different than how that video is, but its really sweet and pure.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6x0aUhUJDBE [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Pm9_M-94XY [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4G6cJTmrYZ8
Re: Goodnight Moon, I was most taken by the colors. That orangy-red is so vibrant (at least in the old 1970s copy I have).
When I read to my pre-literate children, I'd say the title and they would have to repeat it after me. Then I'd say the author's name, again they'd have to repeat it back. Then I'd read the rest of the book.
They wondered why they had to do that, and sometimes they even resisted. Then I'd play a game of not being able to go on until they said it.
Anyway, as they grew they knew the authors of all their favorite books. To this day (in their 30's) they know the names.
But she's convinced that all books are written by Mo Willems, because we do have a lot of his books.
I was never read Goodnight Moon as a child, so I have no sense of nostalgia for the book. And despite the overwhelming pressure society places on me reading it to my toddler, neither of us have any meaningful connection to the book.
In contrast, you had A.A. Milne, Dr. Suess, and Dorothy Kunhardt all publishing some amazing (and radical!) children's books over decade earlier!
IMHO, it's a bedtime story for very young children. It's got a calming pace, a rhythm that you can probably appreciate even if you can't understand words yet, and lots of concrete nouns.
> And despite the overwhelming pressure society places on me reading it to my toddler, neither of us have any meaningful connection to the book.
I have a little one, and he has a meaningful connection to it, because he's at the stage where everyday things are super interesting and new. You give him some more "interesting" book, and he doesn't care about the "interesting" parts, and is more into the cups, the clocks, or the balls.
But “Goodnight Moon” is overrated.
Can you say more about why you feel this way? I ask because I feel the opposite. To me, saying "goodnight" to noises everywhere is almost like my three-year-old calling a ceasefire for the night; the noises are also going to sleep, so she need not worry.
I understand it won't be like this for everyone, of course. And at the same time, I don't understand the appeal. So to me, it's not a great book all around.
A couple of quick bits from her wiki: "Brown was born in Brooklyn, New York, the middle child of three of Maude Margaret (Johnson) and Robert Bruce Brown.[1][3] She was the granddaughter of politician Benjamin Gratz Brown. Her parents had an unhappy marriage. She was initially raised in Brooklyn's Greenpoint neighborhood, and attended Chateau Brilliantmont boarding school in Lausanne, Switzerland in 1923,[4][5] while her parents were living in India and Canterbury, Connecticut. In 1925, she attended The Kew-Forest School.[6] She began attending Dana Hall School in Wellesley, Massachusetts, in 1926, where she did well in athletics. After graduation in 1928, Brown went on to Hollins College in Roanoke, Virginia."
- granddaughter of politician, boarding school in Switzerland
"Brown was an avid, lifelong beagler and was noted for her ability to keep pace, on foot, with the hounds.[7]"
- foxhunter
"While at Hollins she was briefly engaged.[12] She dated, for some time, an unknown "good, quiet man from Virginia,"[13] had a long-running affair with William Gaston,[14][15] and had a summer romance with Preston Schoyer.[16] In the summer of 1940, Brown began a long-term relationship with Blanche Oelrichs (nom de plume Michael Strange), poet/playwright, actress, and the former wife of John Barrymore. The relationship, which began as a mentoring one, eventually became romantic and included co-habiting at 10 Gracie Square in Manhattan beginning in 1943.[17] As a studio, they used Cobble Court, a wooden house later moved to Charles Street. Oelrichs, who was 20 years Brown's senior, died in 1950."
- relationships with men and women. Is this 'radical'? Even in 1920?
"In 1952, Brown met James Stillman 'Pebble' Rockefeller Jr. at a party, and they became engaged."
--
The point is that many people are capable of creating wonderful literature, being acclaimed as radical, etc. Its not that hard when you granddad was governor of Missouri and a potential VP, you went to school in Switzerland, and you are engaged to a Rockefeller.
maybe spelling is important to literature, too?
Still, that's a pretty tame effort (pointing out a typo) for an elite apologist. You don't address any of the points I mention.
Honestly, I'm pretty bored of hearing about these individuals who live their lives in luxury on account of their family undertaking some of form of trickery on the masses. And then because some later relative of their owns or writes for the NYT, they are feted and shoved down our throats, even 100 years later.