Janice, thank you for your article. I wish there were more such.
A recommendation from Maurice Sendak is an honour, in my view.
In my view, it is sad and a little disturbing that so few of the really worthwhile children's authors and the superb material they produce is far less well known than the so-called 'classics' of the past.
Many brilliant and perceptive children's authors of the last 50 years have produced work hat is not written 'down' to children but actually shows empathy with their being and extends their creativity, vocabulary and understanding.
Given that the majority of children will regularly read only from the age of 5 to 12, even if they read one book a week, that is only 52 a year or about 400 books during the whole of their childhood. Sure, there are those who read much more but even reading 1 book a day, (a relatively rare likelihood for most), would still only give exposure to about 3000 books.
To those who don't think about or read much, these figures may seem of little interest or even seem to be relatively good. However, it is worth remembering that many more children will read less than will read more than the average. (Average = the mean as opposed to the median.)
Given that in the USA alone, well over 21,000 children's books are published each year and in the UK aound 10,000, these figures not including Young adult publications, it is not hard to see that, in reality, those reading figures are not great.
Some will argue that digital entertainment has replaced or at least complements reading but the research indicates that it is a poor replacement. Digital video for children, for instance, provides exposure to only about 50% of the vocabulary offered in written publications.
There are myriad other reasons why this situation is regrettable. When one considers the low numbers of children's books experienced by the average child during their main reading years, as compared with the number of titles published for children each year, it is clear that the average child will miss much of worth.
One of the common arguments against what I've suggested is made by parents who will say words to the effect that: "Well I read Enid Blyton and enjoyed it and it didn't do me any harm." or "I loved Thomas the Tank Engine - what's wrong with that?"
Enid Blyton's total prolific output included only approximately 400 different words. It was also elitist, racist, sexist, stereotypical and mundane. the Rev. Audry's Thomas the Tank Engine stories are equally poor, particularly in insipid plots, lack of imagination, demeaning description of bodily image and stereotypical characterisation, as well as poor behaviour modelling.
Such issues are common with the majority of children's material produced prior to the 1960's and, unfortunately, has not disappeared today. The difference is that in the last 5 or 6 decades there has been a major increase in the number of well written, extending, informative, entertaining but challenging children's books which also provide positive models of difference and diversity and not only its acceptance but its opportunity and value.
This is only a comment and is already probably too long for most. I apologise to those whom I may have irritated. In mitigation, I can only offer that it is a great loss when children are given poor reading material for, inevitably, it means that they will miss other work that is of great value and will benefit their understanding, attitudes, curiosity, rationality and well-being for the rest of their lives.
Take care. Stay safe. ☮️
