Picture Books: M is for Mirthful and (Unfortunately) Mindless Criticism

Mercer Mayer is one of my favorite illustrators/writers. 

The truth is some of his works cross the line into overly cutesy--but I still adore the easy conveyance of emotion from deadpan amusement to irritation to uncertainty. 

In fact, the "Boy, Dog, Frog" series doesn't even include text. The stories are conveyed entirely through set pieces per page. The joie de vivre embedded in each scene is reminiscent of Calvin & Hobbes. In fact, in many ways, Mercer Mayer created early Calvin & Hobbes. The adventurous boy is accompanied by alert, communicative, and opinionated animals.

There's a Nightmare in My Closet is also a classic, capturing a fundamental childhood worry (I checked my closets before going to bed; I then jumped from the middle of the floor to my bed because as Mercer Mayer also tackled, There's an Alligator Under My Bed).  

I didn't realize until I looked up Mayer's bibliography on Wikipedia that There's a Nightmare was compared, negatively, to Sendak's Where the Wild Things Are. 

This is so stupid, it makes my brain hurt. The two books tackle a similar issue: children at bedtime; monsters in the offing. But they are not the same at all, not even thematically. There's a Nightmare in My Closet is Monsters, Inc. Sendak's Where the Wild Things Are is actually closer to Harold and the Purple Crayon, a wild ride where the child breaks all the rules. The first book is domestic. The second is more like the Pevensie kids stepping into the painting.

There's no need to compare the books negatively (as if they are both trying to do the same thing and one failed). I never did as a kid, and it never occurred to me to compare them as an adult.  

The older I get, the more I think that the default for the human brain is comparisons based on lack of context. We seem to need to make comparisons in order to survive. But those comparisons are so often based on narrowing in on one word/clause/detail/trope/phrase and then insisting that the word/clause/detail/trope/phrase is everything about a story/novel/movie/post/event. But the entirety of the thing deserves to be appraised for what it is, not for some single "a-ha!" recognition. 

This tendency could explain why teaching summaries (pinpoint the overall gist of a passage) is the most difficult skill I teach in English Composition.*

*And in other classes and, unfortunately, for more than research. I am struck quite often by an attitude whereby students want single answers that can be easily found/pinpointed because they are already embedded in texts (words/phrases/details), a reluctance to move beyond a label or multiple choice option to ponder a problem and form an answer that may involve taking a position while also acknowledging complications. 

And yes, okay, that last part is not easy. It's the resistance that becomes more and more puzzling to me. But then, it is so much easier to find that "one wrong or right thing."

Human nature? A quality of the time period?  Is "opinion without context" taking over the planet or has it always been with us--and now it's simply noisier?