Amanda Palmer and The Daily Mail

Back when I was posting every day (for a year) I posted this sort of thing from time to time, but it’s been a while. Anyway…

So, this happened:

“Making a boob of herself…”

(It’s a review in The Daily Mail of a performance by Amanda Palmer in which there was a “wardrobe malfundtion”, and the review only talked about that. Nothing at all is mentioned about the music, and very little is said about any other aspect of the performance.)

And then this happened:

Good for her.

That’s all.

Goodnight. 

Spoiler alert!!! ...2

I’m watching Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. It’s on HBO, which I have here at the beach.

When Scabbers, the rat, turns into Peter Pettigrew, he’s wearing clothes. 

Okay, fine. It’s magic. The clothes he was wearing when he last turned are still with him.

Also, it’s a kids’ story/movie.

I can accept that.

Except that several minutes later, when he turns back into a rat, he shrinks out of his clothes and leaves them behind.

So which is it? I vote for nudity. It makes sense. 

One Year Old

Happy Birthday!

...or Anniversary!

My first post on this blog was one year ago today. And I’ve been posting every day since then.

Okay, I did cheat a couple of times. One time I forgot and another time I fell asleep before posting a blog for the day. Both those times I posted within half an hour or maybe an hour at most of midnight. And then I back dated the blog an hour or so.

Last month I was on the road for several days, and I wasn’t sure I’d be able to get online to post. So before I left, I did posts for those several days and set them to post automatically on those days I’d be gone. But I don’t consider that cheating.

Anyway, with those exceptions, I’ve posted something every day for a year, some days more than one post. And I have to say, it’s not always been easy. There’ve been several times when I doubted I’d be able to keep up the daily posting rate. And there’ve certainly been days when I was lazy and posted something that took relatively little effort. But I’d challenge anyone to do a daily blog that dealt with a specific subject matter and was not just a re-blogging thing, like tumblr can be.

I think the chief difficulty is that I’ve generally wanted to do something worth posting, something different than previous posts, and something as good or better than previous posts. I don’t think I’ve always succeeded in that. But I accept that always doing something different and better isn’t possible. I think that’s just part of the nature of such frequent output: it’s probably inevitable that quality will vary at times.

I was chatting with a new friend recently about the blog. She was looking at it for the first time and was telling me posts that she liked, and a favorite so far. I’ve done so many posts that I’d have a hard time selecting a favorite. Then again, in life I’ve often been reluctant to pick favorites, unless it’s something with a small number of options—like seasons. (I think my favorite season is fall.)

But I’d love to know what posts are other people’s favorites, and why. Or least favorites—also instructive.

-    -    -    -    -

Earlier this year, in the spring or early summer, I decided that I would keep up the daily posting until today—you know, assuming that I made it this far. I did, so yay me! From here on, I will not be posting every day. But I am not ending the blog, nor taking it down. I’ll keep posting whenever I have something to post.

-    -    -    -    -

One big thing that’s come out of this blog is an increased interest in photography in general. I’ve been taking lots of pictures of various things. But mostly that’s been a solitary endeavor. And I’d really like to make it less solitary—work with people, take pictures of people (naked or not), and share pictures with people. I don’t know where I’ll end up in the future, but if I’m near you, get in touch and maybe I’ll take your picture.

-    -    -    -    -

So...Happy Cake Day! 

Now, send me presents. You know, submissions and suggestions and, of course, comments. 

Naked Opera 9 (a miscellaneous threesome)

So, I’m spring cleaning, in the fall. Well, almost fall, so last-day-of-summer cleaning.

Also, I’m not sure I have enough to say about these three clips to make them separate entries.

Wagner’s Parsifal at Teatro La Fenice in Venice, 2005:

I don’t know what’s going on here. I don’t know why there’s a mix of clothed and naked people. But it does conform to an often-seen approach to nudity in opera—that is, the singers are clothed, and it’s non-singing extras or dancers who are naked.

Gounod’s Faust (I don’t know the production info. Anyone?):

Another not-unpopular choice—one or two naked people, again, not singing, surrounded by clothed principals and clothed chorus.

Verdi’s Rigoletto at the Royal Opera House in London, 2012:

Ah...what every opera needs—an orgy. 

Topless Duchess

British Prince William & his wife, Kate (Duchess of Cambridge) have gone to court—well, their lawyers have—in France to ask that recent topless pictures of the Duchess be prevented from further use. And they’re suing for damages, apparently calling the publication a “grotesque” invasion of privacy. 

The pictures were published in the French gossip magazine Closer, and can be found online. 

My feeling is this: she was sunbathing topless on a balcony which was viewable from some publically accessible place—granted, the photographer seems to have used a significantly high-power zoom lens—so they shouldn’t be so insanely outraged that these pictures have come out. If you’re that concerned about the public being aware that you do, in fact, have breasts and nipples, then you should always keep them securely covered up when near cameras and when outside or near any windows or mirrors that might be in line of sight of windows. 

Seriously, this is just about preserving the traditional, uptight, “proper” image of the British Royal family, which is an outdated institution in my opinion. To pretend that these are not people, but rather iconic demi-gods who’d never engage in any untoward behaviour is just craziness. It perpetuates an unrealistic ideal of behaviour which could, in time, contribute to unhealthy or perhaps more extreme behaviours by members of the royal family. Pushing down impulsive feelings, by saying “we can’t behave this way or that way, doesn’t make those impulses go away. They just get channeled into other areas, and it all comes out somehow, somewhere, at some time. 

Come on, that’s just PSYCH 101.

The Telegraph, the online version of The Daily Telegraph (a 150+ year old conservative British newspaper), published this video & article, in which the young royal couple visited the Solomon Islands...

...where topless native women in traditional dress greeted them:

Ursula Martinez, I love you

Ursula Martinez:

I love her.

Okay, not really. I don’t know Ursula Martinez. I imagine she’d be an interesting person to know—smart and funny and not uptight. Or maybe not.

Anyway, I do love this piece of hers called “Hanky Panky”. It’s a magic trick/striptease.

I first saw it online somewhere maybe a year ago or more, and have come across it a few times since then.

I thought it was hilarious.

Still do.

Now, despite dabbling a little as a kid, I am not a magician. But I would guess the magic trick involved in “Hanky Panky” is probably not all that complicated. It’s her performance that makes it great. The music choice, the choreography, her facial expressions, the nods and winks to the audience...they’re all perfect.

Well. She had always kept it as a live performance piece, and not put it online herself. But a video of “Hanky Panky” was apparently made and put online without her permission. Then she started getting creepy emails from men in response to it (along with some not-so-creepy emails from men & women.)

A few years later, in response to the whole thing, she created a show called “My Stories, Your Emails”.  

Here she is talking about it in an interview:

I was going to post that original “Hanky Panky” video. Buuuut...in light of what she has to say about it in the interview, I decided against it. (If you’re really interested, I’m sure you can find it online easily enough.)

Her website, ursulamartinez.com, describes some other pieces she’s done. 

I’d love to see any of those, really.

“A Family Outing”

“Viva Croydon!”

“Curing Homosexuality”

...Or to meet and actually get to know her. Then, who knows? Maybe one day I really could say “Ursula Martinez, I love you.”

“Dawn Gets Naked”

I happened upon this last night, after posting yesterday’s entry:

“Dawn Gets Naked”

It’s a 1-hour BBC “special”...well, maybe it’s not all that special. It’s one of a series of shows in which Dawn Porter, a British TV “presenter”, explores various issues.

Anyway, it’s not bad. She does ask a few interesting questions.

But I’ve noticed more and more videos online that seem to be British TV programs exploring nudity. I wrote about another such show not long ago, “My Daughter, the Teenage Nudist”. I wonder if this general topic is just being used for the titillation effect and to boost ratings. Or does it reflect a broadening interest in nudity among the young (and no-so-young) folks watching the BBC? Maybe both.

The video above is part 1 of 4. Here are the other 3 parts:

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Sancta Susanna (naked opera 8)

Sancta Susanna by Paul Hindemith

I believe this is from a production at Opéra de Lyon with Agnes Selma Weiland as Susanna 

and Magdalena Anna Hofmann as Klementia.

I had never heard of this opera until this evening when I was looking for something to write about. 

And now, I only know what I’ve read on Wikipedia (see the link above, at the top).

It sounds interesting. Has anybody out there ever seen a production?

“My Daughter, the Teenage Nudist”

I found this “documentary” yesterday:

“My Daughter, the Teenage Nudist”

My Daughter The Teenage Nudist by vivrenu-tv

(I found it here: iNAKED.)

It seems to be a program made for British TV.

It focuses on 2 main groups: one, an 18(?) year old girl named Molly and her friends who are exploring public or group nakedness; and two, these people: nakedvegancooking.com. 

There’s also a guy who is trying to recruit new young members for a naturist group.

One thing that’s mentioned briefly that I wish they’d emphasized a little more is the idea that “naturists” or “nudists” are not necessarily naked 24 hours a day every day.

Someone once suggested that I must be naked all the time. Well, if I’m at home and it’s not too cold, then I most likely am naked. But if someone is coming over, I put something on...unless they just drop by unannounced, or significantly earlier than expected. But that basically never happens. I mean, people don’t even come by announced that much.

Another thing that was mentioned in the program, and which is related to my post from a few days ago, is that if someone is naked all the time they must be really comfortable with their body. One guy responded to that idea by basically saying no, he’s not, but he’s getting much better thanks to being naked.

So while this isn’t necessarily the best video that could possibly be made about nudism, it’s not bad. And it examines the issue in a non-sexualized, non-titillating way. Also it verifies those couple of things I’ve said about being naked. (Yay! It’s not just me.)

-     -     -     -     -     -     -     -     -     -

Here’s a morning news clip with a couple of the same folks who were in that longer video. 

The Rite of Spring

My first semester in college I took a music class—I think it was Intro to Music Lit, one of those courses for music majors that you were supposed to take before your main music history classes—in which, at some point half-way through the semester, we watched a video of part of The Rite of Spring. 

The Rite of Spring, or Le sacre du printemps, is a ballet with music by Igor Stravinsky.

And Vaslav Nijinsky

choreographed the original production for the Ballets Russes in Paris in 1913. Both the music and the choreography were considered outrageous and nearly caused a riot by the audience.

It was definitely “pushing the envelope” in its day.

The score is now considered a major work of early 20th century “classical” music.

Well, when I watched this video in that class, just a little over 20 years ago, it wasn’t “outrageous”, but to me it seemed quite new and a little shocking. There was some nudity.

(AHHH! Naked people! AHHH!)

There was a solo dance in which the female soloist sort of danced her dress off. I didn’t know the piece then. I didn’t know that it is often performed with nudity. I was just surprised by the fact that her dress was falling down and she didn’t stop dancing, and no one stopped her to tell her. I thought at first that perhaps it was just one of those live performance accidents, but it eventually became quite clear to me that she couldn’t not be aware of this situation.

I don’t remember what the class discussion involved after we watched the video. So I don’t recall if the nudity was even brought up.

I have occasionally looked for that version, but I haven’t found it yet. I don’t recall any names—the dancers or company involved.

(None of these are from that version.)

Thinking about it now, I find it shockingly ridiculous that I found it surprising and shocking and had never seen any artistic performance before then which included nudity. And I can’t imagine I was the only one in the class who had that same level of ignorance or, if you’ll pardon the pun, that lack of exposure.

We still find nudity shocking today—at least nudity that doesn’t fit into certain acceptable or expected categories. Naked babies are fine. Nakedness in pornography is pretty-much a “given”. Nakedness in (some) cable TV and movies is okay as long as it’s set up right: a love scene or a shower scene or if it’s done for comedic effect. But it must be “pointed to” in a sense; it must be filmed in such a way as to bring it to our attention and played for the most titillation possible.

(BLECH! We suck.)

Ya know folks, artists are entertainers. Yes, we sometimes present nice, fun, sweet, pretty, socially non-problematic work which is extremely unlikely to offend anyone. 

BUT!!! We also are instigators, commentators, instructors, and many other things ending with “-ors”. Sometimes we present challenging, uncomfortable, ugly, shocking, surprising work that you very well may find offensive or may not even fully understand. If you’re shocked or surprised or offended, then you should ask yourself why.

What is being presented here that I find problematic in whatever way?
What is the author or creator of this work trying to do?
Should I be offended? Am I supposed to be upset about some external thing?
Or perhaps should I be re-examining myself and my assumptions about art and life?

.   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .

Well...

If you’re still with me... 

This turned into more of a rant than I expected. I’m quite certain I know why that is. Most likely I shall share that here sometime soon. 

“Lady doctor”

I started watching Bramwell last night on the netflix. It’s a British TV series from 1995-98.

It’s about a woman who is a doctor and the difficulties she faces as a woman and due to her attempts to help the poor in late Victorian England.

Jemma Redgrave as Dr. Eleanor Bramwell

The first episode kept reminding me of the recent Michigan “Vagina” controversy that I wrote about yesterday and several days ago.

There are these older, white, male establishment doctors who keep performing ovariectomies on women for various conditions such as “female hysteria” (a very common diagnoses in that time) and refusing to discuss a diagnosis of syphilis because it’s improper, especially for a woman to discuss.  

After Dr. Bramwell challenges all this, she gets kicked out of the hospital, banned from working in its wards.

Sounds ridiculously familiar. When watching this sort of thing in a TV show, it’s obviously wrong and stupid and pig-headed and blind. Perhaps the Republican leaders in the Michigan State House should watch it. But that may be unlikely, as it’s the sort of liberal “claptrap” they show in other countries, or maybe on PBS.

I don’t expect there to be any nakedness in this series, but it relates to other stuff I’ve written about, so...why not, eh?

Anyway, here’s what I have to say to late Victorian England: Vagina, vagina, vagina!

Oh wait, no... HERE’S what I have to say to late Victorian England: Let that “lady doctor” do her thing. She’s right. You’re not.

Stripping Natasha

“Strip Me” by Natasha Bedingfield 

AAAHHHHH!!!!!

This song demonstrates part of what I hate about contemporary popular music.

It’s just so fucking repetitive.

If you strip it down to its basics, except for the bridge, I think it’s pretty-much the same 3 chords over and over and over. But you don’t ever really hear the chords that much. What you hear is vocals and drums, and much of the rest of the “accompaniment” is like repetitive background noise.

I listened to another song by the same singer (“Pocketful of Sunshine”). It’s similarly, annoyingly limited in musical variety, when you “strip it down” to the basics. It’s mostly 3 or 4 chords.

That’s what popular music has been for a while. A few chords plus attitude.

I think the audience has become more technologically sophisticated and wants new and more and better—look at movie special effects. But I think we’ve become so much less sophisticated in terms of our understanding of or our desire for content.

The basics are so damn basic that you have to throw a bunch of shit on top of it. Forget well-crafted songs. Just give us a lot of attitude and a decent-sounding voice (which is likely edited and manipulated in the studio), then layer a bunch of annoying sounds on top of it so it seems like something is happening.

Oh yeah...don’t forget the pretty face.

I don’t know, it just seems a bit like waving your arms and yelling “Whoo-whoo-whoo”, flashing lights in people’s eyes and calling that great dancing.

“Strip Me” lyrics

(from: lyricslike.blogspot.com)

INTRO

La-la-la-la-la La-la La-la-la La-la-la La-la
La-la-la-la-la La-la La-la-la La-la-la La-la

VERSE 1

Every day I fight for all my future somethings,

A thousand little awards I have to choose between.
I could spend a lifetime earning things that I don’t need.
That’s like chasing rainbows and coming home empty.

PRE-CHORUS (This is just like a chorus, but it’s followed by another chorus, so we call it a “pre-chorus”.)

And if you strip me, strip it all away,
If you strip me, what would you find?
If you strip me, strip it all away,
I'll be alright.

CHORUS 

Take what you want, steal my pride,
Build me up or cut me down to size.
Shut me out, but I’ll just scream.
I'm only one voice in a million but you ain't taking that from me.
(Oh oh oh) you ain't taking that from me.

(Oh oh oh) you ain't taking that from me.

(Oh oh oh) you ain't taking that from me.

(Oh oh oh) you ain't taking that.

VERSE 2 (abbreviated—probably nobody notices much, or minds, because it’s all the same repetitive stuff)

I don't need a microphone to say what I been thinking.
My heart is like a loudspeaker that's always on eleven.

PRE-CHORUS

And if you strip me, strip it all away,
If you strip me, what would you find?
If you strip me, strip it all away,
I'll be alright.

CHORUS 

Take what you want, steal my pride,
Build me up or cut me down to size.
Shut me out, but I’ll just scream.
I'm only one voice in a million but you ain't taking that from me.
(Oh oh oh) you ain't taking that from me.

(Oh oh oh) you ain't taking that from me.

(Oh oh oh) you ain't taking that from me.

(Oh oh oh) you ain't taking that.

BRIDGE

‘Cos when it all boils down at the end of the day
It's what you do and say that makes you who you are,
Makes you think about, think about it, doesn’t it?
Sometimes all it takes is one voice.

CHORUS

Take what you want, steal my pride,
Build me up or cut me down to size.
Shut me out, but I’ll just scream.
I'm only one voice in a million but you ain't taking that from me.
(Oh oh oh) you ain't taking that from me.

(Oh oh oh) you ain't taking that from me.

(Oh oh oh) you ain't taking that from me.

(Oh oh oh) you ain't taking that.

REPEAT CHORUS

FADE OUT (intro)

La-la-la-la-la La-la La-la-la La-la-la La-la
La-la-la-la-la La-la La-la-la La-la-la La-la

Michigan Vagina

So, Michigan State Representative Lisa Brown

has been banned indefinitely from the floor of the Michigan House of Representatives, for using her word “vagina” during a debate on an abortion bill.

At least, that’s what everybody’s saying. Apparently, the reason wasn’t specified.  

Another Representative—Barb Byrum—was also banned, for trying to speak out of turn, which is a violation of the rules, but rarely results in being banned.

Now, concerning Representative Brown’s banning, I’m sure it’s quite possible that it was simply her use of the word “vagina”. But it might also be more her attitude when using the word. She said, “I’m flattered that you’re all so interested in my vagina, but no means no.”

I feel, after listening to her, that the tone changed there at the end with what seemed perhaps a mildly incendiary comment.

That’s not to say she should be banned for it. I’m sure plenty of other things that I’d find offensive have been said on that and other legislative floors.  

Anyway...if, in fact, she was banned for using the word “vagina” because the Michigan House Speaker felt it was inappropriate...well, that’s absolutely ridiculous.  

And here’s why I’m writing about it in my naked blog.

I think, and have said many times before, that if people were generally more comfortable with their bodies and others’ bodies, it would likely be part of a more general openness and comfortability in dealing with topics like sex, or perhaps scary words like “vagina”.

Vagina, vagina, vagina.

Come on, Michigan—you need to get comfortable with vaginas.

I’d certainly like to.

(Hey, just puttin' it out there, ya know?)

politico.com article

Topless in New York

In the state of New York it is legal for a woman to go topless anywhere that a man can go topless, except if she’s selling something. It has been since 1992, after the NY Court of Appeals ruling in People v. Santorelli.

Holly Van Voast has been going around New York City topless.

Holly Van Voast as Harvey Van Toast

And so has Moira Johnston.

Moira Johnston as Moira Johnston

Van Voast appears as her mustachioed alter ego “Harvey Van Toast” taking pictures and video of herself, other people, and herself while taking pictures and video of other people.

Yes, that is Bill Cosby in the background.

And sometimes other people video her.

At NYC Apple Store

She seems to be interested in the attention, and seems to consider toplessness as a possible route to fame or notoriety or something.

Moira Johnston just appears.

She’s promoting awareness of the law.

Yay! Go ladies.

Holly Van Voast was arrested and went to court last fall for her topless appearances. While in court she removed her jacket, exposing her bare breasts.

The New York Times article

Huffington Post article

She says about the incident that “not much” happened.

At comic con 2011

Moira Johnston was taken into police custody and detained for a short time.

But it’s legal and the police can’t really stop a woman from being topless.

She talks about it in part of this video. 

A few years back another woman was arrested in New York for being topless. She was released 12 hours later, sued the city and settled out of court for $29,000.

Tuscon Citizen article

Yeah! Ya gotta hit ‘em where it counts. 

Battle Beyond the Stars—the ships

Battle Beyond the Stars is a sci-fi film from 1980. It’s a version of Kurosawa’s Seven Samurai. 

I watched it not long ago on the netflix and noticed something about the ships.

The bad guys are a big conquering group that takes over planets by force. The good guys are a small, peaceful, agrarian group on a little, backwater planet.

The first thing I noticed was the opening shot of the bad guys is very much like the opening of Star Wars (Episode 4).

(you can forward through the credits to around 1’40”)

Actually there are a lot of Star Wars references in the film. Or maybe they’re rip-offs, or perhaps just innocent similarities.

Anyway, the next thing I noticed about the bad guys’ ship was that it’s sort of phallic, although slightly triangular.

Now, the good guys ship? A uterus.

However, from some angles you may notice a resemblance to testicles. Or, if you get up close enough, it may resemble breasts.

Now, I don’t know if that whole phallic/yonic thing was intentional. Maybe I’m reading more into it than is there. But you look at it and tell me what you think.

Naked States (Spencer Tunick)

A few days ago I watched, for the second time, Naked States. It’s a documentary about photographer Spencer Tunick and his Naked States tour.

In 1997 Spencer toured the U.S. states, taking pictures of people (generally not “models”, just “normal” people) posing nude in public. Some were individuals or small groups, some were large groups of people.

The documentary came out in 2000.

He’s been arrested several times, in several locations. In the film his lawyer says that none of his arrests were the result of a complaint, but rather they all resulted from a policeman who happened by while the photographs were being taken.

The Naked States tour was instrumental in bringing Spencer’s work to the public, at least, certainly in the art world. Perhaps the documentary has brought him to a wider general public’s attention. Since doing this tour he’s gone on to do a Naked World tour, and other national tours and large “installations” at various locations.

I believe on this tour, he broke the then-record for the largest (most people) in a nude photo with 1,000+ people. His current record is around 18,000 people. (Wow. And by that, I mean “Wow” not “World of Warcraft”.)

On Spencer’s website you can view some of his work, find out about upcoming projects, and even “sign up” to participate in future installations.

Some quotes from the film:

In the documentary, one of his models says about the shoot, “As soon as I had my clothes off—I think it was actually getting them off and getting them back on that was more uncomfortable for me, than actually being nude outside.”

(I can completely relate to that. When I take pictures outside, behind my apartment, I’m just not that nervous while I’m naked, taking pictures. It’s a little before and mostly after that I feel nervous.)

Another of his models, says, “Being naked is just a wonderful experience. I highly recommend it to everyone. They should all run out of their houses immediately, and be naked. You don’t have to have people watching you, just go out at night sometime and walk around in the yard and see how good it feels.”

(Yes, I agree. It totally does feel great. Do it. You know you’re curious.)

In the documentary, Dan Speers, President of the Tri-State Metro Naturists group (based in New Jersey), says “For someone to tell me, especially a government authority, that I have to wear clothes—they’re telling me to be ashamed of myself. Government is mandating that people shame themselves.”

(YEAH! If I ever get arrested, I’m gonna have to remember that. Actually, in that case, it would be really helpful if I could get some of my pictures hung up somewhere—a gallery or coffee shop, even. Also, I’m still interested in taking pictures of other people. Anyone?)

Staccato (Sordid Lives, the TV series)

I just got finished watching Sordid Lives, the TV series on the netflix.

I rather liked it. It’s a prequel to the play/film of the same name by Del Shores.

In the season/series finale there was unexpected full (but brief) frontal male nudity. There were a couple of other glimpses of penises, which mostly seemed like it could’ve been sloppy editing, or more likely something that a censor missed while blinking. But in the last episode the opening night of an all-nude play called Staccato—which is referred to for 11 prior episodes—occurs.

(This is actually 2 separate, unrelated clips...with German subtitles.)

The show aired on Logo, a digital cable TV channel with programming geared toward the LGBT community.

I don’t know that channel. I don’t know how heavily it was edited for airing. There was some profanity, but not tons. But the nudity was just a little surprising for what seemed like a typical TV show. I mean, they could’ve done without the nudity, but it certainly made sense for the character, etc.

It reminded me a bit of The Full Monty, except they did show the big “reveal”.

Anyway, I rather enjoyed the show (you know, the program) and would love to see the film or play now.

I don’t expect that there’d necessarily be nudity. And, despite what some might think, not everything in my life is about nudity. I’m actually curious about the characters and what happens next. 

In the Night Kitchen

Maurice Sendak died today.

He was a beloved children’s author, best known for “Where the Wild Things Are”.  He also wrote other things. I remember in elementary school watching “Really Rosie” (music by Carole King).

I even vaguely recall there being some kind of live performance, maybe by the class a year or two ahead of mine. Or maybe I’m remembering that wrong.

Anyway, the Sendak work I remember liking the most was “In the Night Kitchen”.

It’s about a boy who falls (or dreams) into the “night kitchen” and has a little adventure there.

I remember thinking that the cooks looked weird.

They all look the same, which is weird, and they also all look like Oliver Hardy from the Laurel and Hardy comedy team.

(He's the the one on the right.)

I also remember noticing that Mickey (the kid) was naked, and knowing that was unusual for kids’ stories. But I didn’t find it bothersome or perverse.

So, there was also an animated version.

I wish the picture quality were better, but this is all I could find.

The music was composed by, and the narration performed by, Peter Schickele (a.k.a. P.D.Q. Bach).

Apparently, the book was really controversial and banned in various places back in 1970 when it was written. According to this article—“The 15 Most Controversial Picture Books” —it remains on various lists of banned or controversial books.

Also, It was a Caldecott “Honor” Award recipient (which is like first runner up).

Well, I applaud Maurice Sendak for having the balls to let his character have balls.