Ok. Here's something you should know about Vladimir Radunsky: he is a pacifist. You may be wondering why that's important. Well, it explains his motives for writing Manneken Pis and that explains why the book doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It was completely by chance that I picked up two controversial books based on the same statue of a peeing boy in Brussels. I don't think it was by chance that I liked one way better than the other. Radunsky chooses to tell the story of the peeing boy and how he became so famous in Manneken Pis: a Simple Story of a Boy Who Peed on a War. That right there is intriguing. And I thought to myself now, how did this work out? So I started reading. I was immediately captured by the great illustrations. I would describe them as frenzied painting...or something. And so I read of a little boy who lived very happily with his mother and father until one day enemies came and ruined everything. At this point, I'm expecting a brief explanation of war. Maybe some hint at its complexities. But no, Radunsky says no one knew why they came and that perhaps it was jealousy of the town's beauty that drew them there (to destroy it). And that's it. And now all of a sudden the boys parents are gone and he's scared and there are people fighting everywhere. So he walks up to a wall and he very suddenly has the very urgent need to pee--this part was actually kind of funny because it literally came from nowhere. So he stands on that wall and he lets it fly. And somehow this little boy is able to pee on everyone and everything. Seriously. And the mean people fighting the war, instead of getting mad, laugh. They laugh themselves to sleep in fact. And in the morning they wake up in such a good mood, they stop fighting. And look!--are those the boy's parents coming up the lane there? And yes, they all lived happily ever after...so like, I get the message. And I get the humor. It really was kind of funny. But I just don't get the writing. I just think Radunsky could have done more. It feels choppy and incomplete. I guess he wasn't kidding when he said he'd be telling a "simple" story.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
a simple story of a boy who peed on a war
Ok. Here's something you should know about Vladimir Radunsky: he is a pacifist. You may be wondering why that's important. Well, it explains his motives for writing Manneken Pis and that explains why the book doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It was completely by chance that I picked up two controversial books based on the same statue of a peeing boy in Brussels. I don't think it was by chance that I liked one way better than the other. Radunsky chooses to tell the story of the peeing boy and how he became so famous in Manneken Pis: a Simple Story of a Boy Who Peed on a War. That right there is intriguing. And I thought to myself now, how did this work out? So I started reading. I was immediately captured by the great illustrations. I would describe them as frenzied painting...or something. And so I read of a little boy who lived very happily with his mother and father until one day enemies came and ruined everything. At this point, I'm expecting a brief explanation of war. Maybe some hint at its complexities. But no, Radunsky says no one knew why they came and that perhaps it was jealousy of the town's beauty that drew them there (to destroy it). And that's it. And now all of a sudden the boys parents are gone and he's scared and there are people fighting everywhere. So he walks up to a wall and he very suddenly has the very urgent need to pee--this part was actually kind of funny because it literally came from nowhere. So he stands on that wall and he lets it fly. And somehow this little boy is able to pee on everyone and everything. Seriously. And the mean people fighting the war, instead of getting mad, laugh. They laugh themselves to sleep in fact. And in the morning they wake up in such a good mood, they stop fighting. And look!--are those the boy's parents coming up the lane there? And yes, they all lived happily ever after...so like, I get the message. And I get the humor. It really was kind of funny. But I just don't get the writing. I just think Radunsky could have done more. It feels choppy and incomplete. I guess he wasn't kidding when he said he'd be telling a "simple" story.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment