Wild Robot
Oh, those pictures! Wait! Sorry…wrong blog, wrong medal!
So, let’s get into our first book discussion – Peter Brown’s The Wild Robot. Starred reviews from Publisher’s Weekly, School Library Journal, and Booklist. Adam Rubin praised it in the New York Times. Is it a Newbery contender? Well, this is a great chance to pull out our Criteria for the first time this year. What makes a book distinguished, according to the Newbery Medal terms and criteria?
- Marked by eminence and distinction; noted for significant achievement.
- Marked by excellence in quality.
- Marked by conspicuous excellence or eminence.
- Individually distinct.
In my opinion, there is no doubt that The Wild Robot meets these definitions of distinguished, but I’d love to hear your interpretations of how it does, or does not.
The robot, Roz, is our protagonist and is unlike any other character I’ve encountered thus far this year. Humanoid, but definitely not human, she is introduced as a being that doesn’t feel emotions. Then we spend the whole book watching her react in a way that can be read as with emotion. Are these real emotions, or just artificial reactions learned from watching other creatures with emotion? The book brings questions of what makes humanity, what makes emotions, where we fit in on our earth and with its other creatures, and also functions as just a great adventure and wilderness novel, a coming-of-age story of sorts, and a little tiny bit of science fiction.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Is there an arguement that it is too heavy-handed or too obvious in its metaphor?
What do you think?
Filed under: Uncategorized
About Sharon McKellar
Sharon McKellar is the Supervising Librarian for Teen Services at the Oakland Public Library in California. She has served on the Rainbow List Committee, the Notable Children’s Recordings Committee, The Arbuthnot Honor Lecture Committee, and the 2015 Caldecott Committee. You can reach her at sharon@mckellar.org.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
SLJ Blog Network
Books on Film: Making THE LAST ZOOKEEPER with Aaron Becker
31 Days, 31 Lists: 2024 Message / SEL Books for Kids
Mixed-Up | Review
The Seven Bills That Will Safeguard the Future of School Librarianship
Amanda’s Favorite Reads of 2024
ADVERTISEMENT
This book looked boring to me, so I ended up listening to it — and was charmed. It’s a simple story, but has so much depth. It explores what it means to be alive in a simple way, a way accessible to kids.
I should have listened to it on audiobook. If it works, then that addresses my major problem with the book.
Yes, the reader did a good job! It was somehow more interesting to me hearing it read. Which brings up an interesting question about judging the Newbery — I assume committee members would never *only* listen to a book, but surely they *can* listen to a book?
The reader consistently used a robot voice for Roz, and that went well with the simple sentence structure of the narration.
Now, I didn’t try *very* hard to read it in print and just turned it back in. But it’s interesting to me that I liked it a lot better in audio. I think I was impatient with it in print form.
I actually listened to this one on audiobook, too. I haven’t seen a finished copy of the book yet; I’d love to see what the pictures add. One aspect of the audiobook that I disliked was the distracting music and noise that competed with the narrator in the opening and closing chapters. No, Odyssey Award for you, WILD ROBOT!
Now, I’m still thinking about Newbery possibilities. I think I have an intrinsic tendency to undervalue some of the literary elements as being too simple, but I think that can be explained as serving the needs of the young audience. I see this as a book that can work for independent readers as young as 2nd and 3rd grade. I was surprised to see the book is 280 pages as it is only 35,000 words and is a quick listen on the audiobook.
It was odd, because it wasn’t just the final chapter where they suddenly added music and sound effects, but almost the entire final CD. I didn’t notice how much of the beginning used it. They were rather cool sound effects — but distracting after so much of the book was without them. I think I might have liked them if they did the entire book that way. Maybe. Though I liked the sound effects that fit with the story more than the background music.
I had trouble with this one, and I think it’s mostly because of the writing itself. Something about the choices in sentence structure and length, word choices and scansion—it just didn’t flow for me and seemed to lack mastery over the musical qualities of language that I think the best writing has. Many sentences seemed to stop with such finality that it was a struggle to move on to the next one.
Take the first paragraph:
“Our story begins on the ocean, with wind and rain and thunder and lightning and waves.”
The first clause has such a strong limerick-y scansion, that the rest of the sentence, with its five strong stresses, feels overlong and unbalanced. This sentence doesn’t “read-aloud” well.
“A hurricane roared and raged through the night. “
Another sentence of strong stresses and alliteration (though rhythmically more prosaic than the first) followed by a hyperactive chatter of 3 weaker/1 strong syllables with a hiccup-y comma in the middle: “And in the MID-dle of the CHA-os, a CAR-go ship was SINK-ing” that seems inconsistent with what’s being depicted and the pace and sound Brown had established thus far.
“down
down
down
to the ocean floor.”
I won’t even comment on the arrangement of the “downs” but the rhythm it sets up make the following “to the ocean floor” with the unaccented “to the” and “floor” carrying the strongest stress at the end another example where sound and sense seem muddled. It’s like Brown alternates poetry and prose for ½ sentences. Or like he took a picture book-ish text and un-pruned it with more straightforward prose.
Neither I nor anyone reads consciously like this. But this was a slog for me, and I wanted to really figure out why. I chose not to read this aloud to my daughter, even though it should have been perfect, because in the end I couldn’t see how to make it work. We talk about world-building and character development, but authors also construct in their books a linguistic sensibility, their “sound.” And when I compare this aspect of THE WILD ROBOT to contenders like Kate DiCamillo (whose authorial voice is so distinctive it actually hurt RAYMIE NIGHTINGALE in my opinion) or Lauren Wolk, I think it suffers.
I really love WILD ROBOT and look forward to the sequel Brown promises. I have successfully shared this with many children, who also love it. However, I’m not convinced it is Newbery quality. I agree with Leonard, it does not compare with WOLF HOLLOW and several other possibilities.
Leonard, I cannot wait for the discussion of RAYMIE NIGHTINGALE. I have read it twice and listened to the audio version and still have questions!
I have mixed fillings about this book. I am a huge Peter Brown fan mainly because his books make me laugh. So I went into this book anticipating a funny, light-hearted story. Instead I had my heart ripped out, and I felt confused.
The book is packed full of hefty themes from environmentalism to community to tolerance, but the language he uses feels like “picture book” language. So, I finished and felt like I had just read a 280 picture book that was well done, charming, and even powerful – but also heavy and traumatic, so it just didn’t click for me.
The question of audience for this one is interesting. I found myself recommending it as a read-aloud to a friend with a 6-year-old who is really into pondering life in the ways this book encourages, and for whom I knew the robot and animal adventures would be exciting! As a middle-grade novel, though, does it not work as well?
Yeah, I’m thinking of it as more for younger kids who are just beginning to be ready for chapter books. Though I haven’t tried it on actual kids.
I’m yet another person who enjoyed this on audiobook (and my five year old loved it and has asked at least once a week when there’s going to be “another Roz story”.) But….
I found the very human-like characteristics of the animals annoying- things like gardening or community spirit amongst different species, or the way animals were willing to work for long term goals. Not so much in themselves – anthropomorphism has a long and storied tradition that I’m happy to engage in – but because they seemed at odds with the some of the themes of the story to me. If part of the appeal is that a robot, this unnatural creature created by man, is learning and growing and becoming “wild”, it’s frustrating that many of the “wild” behaviors that she engages in are so human-like, and not really things I’d expect actual wild animals to be doing. Many of the ways in which Roz becomes so beloved of the island residents – such as building houses with firepits during the fierce winter – are very human. Basically the “wild robot” is making the island more like a human space.
The ending frustrated me as well. The bleak tone of the last few chapters seemed at odds with the rest of the book. It also upset me how gleefully and utterly without remorse or guilt that the other robots were killed. The language even reflected that – the Recos were not destroyed or deactivated, they were killed, they were dead robots. If we accept that Roz is a person in her own right, but still acting within her programming, then we have to accept that those robots were too. They were doing what they believed to be the right thing to do (for some definition of “believe”), why should they be wantonly destroyed? And all for nothing! Roz ends up doing exactly what the Recos wanted her to do and returning to the human realms. The only thing that was successful was in hurting animals and killing robots. There was a certain emotional resonance in all of the animals banding together for the sake of “the monster” they had scorned a year before, but it felt cheap when those sacrifices were not just unlikely animal behavior, but also ultimately could have been avoided entirely.
And why is Roz female? Robots don’t inherently have a gender.
I’m appreciating the conversation here. I attributed my lukewarm response to it not being my kind of book. I read it and get the impression that the audio performance may heighten appreciation for it. But is that something to consider for Newbery? If I went back and listened to it and ended up liking it more because of the reader does that make it a better book? Seems to me if you were on the committee you’d have to really set aside performance and such (sounds, music, etc) when using your experience listening to a book when evaluating it for the Newbery.
Now my thanks to Alys who has articulated something that bothered me too, those animals acting in human-like ways. For me there was this odd mix of the animals being both wild a la My Side of the Mountain and comfy/nuturing-to-Roz-friendshipwise a la Mr. Tummus in The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe. I tried to let go of this unease when reading it, but Alys’s comment brought it back to mind. At times I expected more animal-responses to certain acts, harsher and disturbing ones more in keeping with the way the animals really behave, but it didn’t happen — there were more and more community building things that rubbed up against all the nature description. I also apppreciate Alys noting that the default was human-behavior as done by animals who have their own styles of community-creating. Ones not necessarily so accepting of different species as in this utopia.
I also think Alys thought regarding the ending should give pause. And I too wondered why Roz was a “she.” Was it to somehow “humanize her” especially against the other more-machinel-like Recos. Did they have assigned genders, can’t recall.
In regards to Roz being a “she…”
I got the feeling that the story was being told to us after-the-fact. As in, it has already happened. I understood the “she” to be a result of Roz taking on a motherly role raising the gosling. I believe she was without gender to begin with, but took on a motherly role with the gosling and now that the narrator is telling us her story, the narrator is referring to her as a she.
Might be totally off…
“…it’s frustrating that many of the “wild” behaviors that she engages in are so human-like, and not really things I’d expect actual wild animals to be doing.”
Ding ding ding! This was exactly my problem!
As a light read, I didn’t mind it. Loved the packaging. Loved the illustrations. There were moments I laughed at Roz’s behavior. And I think I see where Brown wanted us to go in our thinking (even though that is muddled too). However, I just couldn’t get over how Roz was not becoming “wild.” I didn’t really get the title of the book or the message that was supposed to be coming across.
For what it’s worth, the picture book NANOBOTS by Chris Gall (which is my three-year-old’s current obsession) has several female robots . . .
I’ve been thinking, and I’ve decided that I noticed and placed value on the fact that Roz is female for two reasons. One is personal and political and the other actually has to do with the Newbery criteria. The personal/political reason is that Roz is a girl because she’s “nurturing” and the Reco’s are male because they are warriors and that makes me roll my eyes.
The more important reason for this discussion is that it is yet another way in which the wild robot is being consistently characterized to be as human-like as possible.
I loved the book and the way that Roz changed throughout the story. I think this book is full of hidden life lessons. This book was a very fast read for me as I was anticipating with each chapter what would happen next. I think Brown did an excellent job unfolding and changing the characters. The ending also reminds us of how true love for one another really should be.
Just read Angleberger’s and Dellinger’s FUZZY, which I think is a good point of comparison for those thinking of WILD ROBOT as a Newbery contender. I think FUZZY is the more thoughtful reflection on what it means to be a machine vs a human, and actually takes the time (in a scene that also features robot-robot violence) to contemplate whether this is murder, an issue Alys felt WILD ROBOT skirted. Compared to FUZZY, I think WILD ROBOT reveals itself to be really less about a robot and more a parable. FUZZY I appreciated as an actual science fiction novel for the audience, something that I feel is unfortunately a little under-represented. But I don’t think it’s a Newbery contender either, despite it being worthy of attention. The indictment of certain educational trends, a recurring concern in Angleberger’s books, is to my taste ham-fisted and obvious, even if I am sympathetic.
THE WILD ROBOT was one of the books I most looked forward to reading this year, and I wish it were a stronger Newbery contender for me. Alas, it fell short for me in two critical ways: tone and tension. The former caused the most issues for me.
For such a wildly inventive plot, I found the tone wildly inconsistent. Brown’s occasionally employment of addressing the reader felt tacked on to me, a last minute editorial decision. It worked with DiCamillo’s DESPEREAUX (perhaps because of the fairy-tale qualities therein), but it didn’t work here. Those passages in ROBOT were warm and honeyed, but were immediately jammed up with long swaths of (sorry about this) robotic narrative. Largely, it seems, this affected the tension. Animals have cutesy names and the poor world building (why do the animals have to have an hour of peace in the morning?) really reduced the stakes for me.
Plus, I found the book, as a whole, to be a slog. I didn’t buy into characterization and, as other people have pointed out, the anthropomorphism was weird and unfortunate.
Brown’s drawings, though, were consistently charming. What a shame.
I’m loving all this conversation and commentary and criticism. In all honesty, you are all helping me get my head in the Newbery game. I’m thinking about so much right now, and it’s wonderful! I’ve already started a re-read and I’m hearing so much of what you are saying. I still do find the book charming and didn’t have the strong negative reactions some seemed to have right away, but I hear these criticisms and am not finding myself in disagreement with much. For example, I have no issues with an arbitralily female robot.
The ending was problematic for me and the different treatment of those robots confusing, but at the same time, I also was able to read that as fitting the story in some ways. Roz was programmed to be a domestic robot, and she became one. They were programmed to be warriors, so that’s what they were. They were “bad guys”. Our antagonists.
I loved the book and the pictures. I had no problems with the animals, and found the themes/topics of Roz’s adaptation, survival (both animals and Roz), unconvential family and supporting a community to be well-executed.
I read this book over the summer and really had a hard time getting through it. I felt like the pace was slow, and I didn’t think it would be much of a contender. THEN I began reading the first few chapters out loud to different classes and I realized how differently this book appealed to kids than it did to me! Kids are FASCINATED by this book! Parts that I thought were slow completely gripped those classes. I was floored! Now I feel like Peter Brown is something of a genius, for his ability to really tap into the interests of his intended audience. I was not a fan of the ending, though. It was definitely a lead-in to a sequel, which is fine to keep kids interested in reading more, but it also takes away from the story itself. For that reason, I think it will fall short of a medal.
I adored this book – I sold dozens and dozens of copies this summer in the bookstore. Great read-aloud qualities for a teacher or parent are the short chapters (always time to squeeze in one more) and characters that appeal equally to boys and girls. The artwork is a treat, the philosophical questions it raises are serious, and the original premise make it a standout in a field that is cluttered with fairy tale retellings.
I loved this book! I especially like that the robot adapts to it’s environment and how it can learn from it’s surroundings.