Heroines, Plain and Awkward

On Facebook Tuesday, news zipped around that the director of Frozen would be making a movie version of A Wrinkle in Time.

I wrote:  "Oh the important casting questions. I hope they don't make the Meg character all glammed up. She needs to be studious and Calvin needs to be athletic, and they can find each other regardless."


Bookgirl then responded:  "I also immediately went to the casting of Meg. It's kind of like Jane Eyre. They never make Jane plain enough. They never make Meg awkward enough. (Might make an interesting blog post; would truly plain or awkward heroines make audiences too uncomfortable in a way that book readers aren't?)"

It's an interesting question.  Can we love the star of a movie who doesn't look beautiful?  Can we believe that a plain/awkward/ugly female character could still get the guy?  Until recently, male leads in movies could be attractive in a variety of ways.  Women have always had a narrow range of beauty.

In real life, plenty of people find love, regardless of how they look.  Why don't we see this more often in the movies?

At least if we don't have that plot in the movies, we have it in numerous books.

I've written numerous times about the importance of A Wrinkle in Time to me as a child.  In her post that elaborates on our Facebook exchange, Bookgirl sums up my feelings in two sentences:  "Meg is an awkward, difficult teenager whom people love anyway, and I think that’s part of the reason so many of us identify so deeply with her. She was not someone we aspired to be; she was who we actually were."

The book also holds up well for adult readers.  Several years ago, I wrote this post about reading the book again as an adult. 

When I reread the post this morning, this part leapt out at me:  "Meg is perfect, just the way she is.  In fact, all of these characters turn out to be perfect, despite their imperfections.  It's such a great message for a world that tries to get us to conform, to change, to squeeze ourselves into costumes that do not fit.  Meg doesn't have to slim down, to use the right make-up, to get a better hairstyle, to get the guy.  Meg doesn't have to settle down so that she can do well in school and get into a good college.  Her parents continue in their scientific pursuits, even though they aren't successful in traditional ways.  Charles Wallace is allowed to grow up at his own pace.  Calvin finds a family that fits him better, but he doesn't have to reject his birth family."

I was also struck that in this book, Meg's flaws turn out to be the very strengths that she needs to win the day.

If the movie gets this part right, it could be a very powerful movie, even if the casting decisions aren't ideal.

Literacy for All Ages

My first reading pal transferred schools; his new school doesn't have the Reading Pals program.  So I've been working with a new-to-me first grader.  His grown-up reading pal couldn't complete her commitment.  I guess it's worked out, although I do miss my first reading pal.  He was making such improvement week to week.  I hope he can continue.  I realize that the improvement may have had nothing to do with my efforts.

I continue to be amazed at how the children continue to be enthusiastic about our weekly appointments.  Some books are more popular than others.  I'm also happy about the wide diversity of books, and how there does seem to be a book for every taste.

A few months ago, I was working with 2 children at once, when one grown-up was late.  They asked about my age.  I told them that forty years from now, maybe they'd be the one working with first graders and reading stories to them.  "You could be a reading pal some day," I said.

One of the children said, "Or maybe we could be cops!"

I love the different perspective that children have.  I have noticed that these children, like other children with whom I've worked, these children LOVE to color and draw.  I use the drawing time as a reward for reading. 

I try to work literacy into the drawing time too.  We draw flowers and I ask, "How do you spell flower?"  I hope that I'm helping first graders achieve better literacy, but I can't be sure.

Yesterday, my friend who is teaching early American literature talked about her reading/rediscovery of Frederick Douglass.  He figured out as a slave child that he needed to learn to read.  He worked on a plantation where there was plenty of food, so he'd take scraps of bread to the waterfront, and he'd trade bread for reading lessons from the children who were around the docks.  He practiced writing by using copybooks leftover from the plantation owner's sons.  He got so good that it's hard to tell the difference between their writings.

I thought about literacy, how valuable it is, how hard to teach it to students who would rather draw and color.  Along the way, I've been reminded of how strange the English language is--if you don't believe me, try explaining the word "neighbors" to a first grader.

At the end of the day, a colleague asked me if I'd heard of Flat Stanley.  I love that story!  He told me of a project that his nephew is doing, where they trace themselves and mail flat versions of themselves to relatives who will take photos of Flat children in different locations.  My colleague is having great fun planning Flat ___________'s Florida vacation.

I imagine that these kinds of projects make children more enthusiastic about literacy.  It makes me think of our college age students, a startling number of whom are still having problems with literacy.  How can we bring them up to speed?  How can we make literacy fun for them?