I happened to take my 4-year old granddaughter, Madison, to Barnes & Noble yesterday to look at books. I have had a special fondness for children's books since my college children's literature class. I'm amazed at the lessons children's books can teach us. This book is no exception.
So, what did you see when you first looked at this book cover? A duck? Or, a rabbit? Myself? I saw a rabbit, of course, because that's what it is! Once you open up this book, you are immediately drawn into a friendly debate over which animal it is. There are two perspectives, one on the left-hand side of the book and one on the right-hand side of the book. Each perspective - the "duck perspective" and the "rabbit perspective" have data to support their viewpoint.
After all, the duck is starting to eat a piece of bread (located on the left-hand margin of the left page). The rabbit is starting to eat a carrot (located on the right-hand margin of the right page). The duck is clearly shown moving through the swamp grass, while the rabbit is clearly shown sitting in the grass of the field. The duck is making quacking sounds, while the rabbit is twitching its nose and sniffing the air. The duck is quite obviously flying, while the rabbit is quite obviously hopping.
Each side has enough data to support a fairly convincing argument. When I first started reading the book, I initially saw the carrot and overlooked the piece of bread. Once I saw the piece of bread, it did open up the possibility in my mind that it could be a duck. Naturally I continued looking for more data to support my original contention.
How often do we do this? We can be so attached to our view of things, our view of what is true, that it can actually obscure our vision of what else is true. In doing this, we might be living in a world of rabbits and missing all the ducks that are to be found as well.
Out of curiosity, which one did you see? I still think it is a rabbit! Madison thought it was a duck. You decide.
So, what did you see when you first looked at this book cover? A duck? Or, a rabbit? Myself? I saw a rabbit, of course, because that's what it is! Once you open up this book, you are immediately drawn into a friendly debate over which animal it is. There are two perspectives, one on the left-hand side of the book and one on the right-hand side of the book. Each perspective - the "duck perspective" and the "rabbit perspective" have data to support their viewpoint.
After all, the duck is starting to eat a piece of bread (located on the left-hand margin of the left page). The rabbit is starting to eat a carrot (located on the right-hand margin of the right page). The duck is clearly shown moving through the swamp grass, while the rabbit is clearly shown sitting in the grass of the field. The duck is making quacking sounds, while the rabbit is twitching its nose and sniffing the air. The duck is quite obviously flying, while the rabbit is quite obviously hopping.
Each side has enough data to support a fairly convincing argument. When I first started reading the book, I initially saw the carrot and overlooked the piece of bread. Once I saw the piece of bread, it did open up the possibility in my mind that it could be a duck. Naturally I continued looking for more data to support my original contention.
How often do we do this? We can be so attached to our view of things, our view of what is true, that it can actually obscure our vision of what else is true. In doing this, we might be living in a world of rabbits and missing all the ducks that are to be found as well.
Out of curiosity, which one did you see? I still think it is a rabbit! Madison thought it was a duck. You decide.
