by Mac Barnett
art by Adam Rex
Disney Hyperion
2012
My coworker who's interested in children's lit is taking a class on it this semester, so her desk is pretty much covered in kids' books and she has a new suggestion any time you ask. Her latest pick for me is Chloe and the Lion by Mac Barnett and illustrated by Adam Rex, and I have to say it's good choice for me, because I generally love the kind of metafictional gimmicks that are being deployed here. I eat this kind of thing right up.
I don't know the name for the exact metafictional device at work here, when a work of fiction stars what is supposedly its own author as a character, when the lead character of the work is depicted as acting out the story simply as a performance, as a job like any other. The most famous example is probably the play Six Characters in Search of an Author, although it's a device I know best from the Looney Tune "Duck Amuck", where Daffy Duck is tormented by an off-screen animator who keeps redrawing the cartoon around him, supposedly forcing Daffy to improvise his performance in response to the changing costumes and scenery.
Chloe and the Lion stars the character Chloe, of course, and a lion, but it also stars author Mac Barnett and artist Adam Rex. Actual Rex depicts 'Adam' and 'Mac' as detailed and relatively realistic clay figures, like you'd see in stop-motion animation, and shows them in a miniature theater with stage backdrops providing the scenery. I think these are photos of actual miniatures. As wholly fictional characters, Chloe and the lion are depicted as 2D drawings, playing their parts on-stage in response to Mac's narration. The mix of art syles is visually impressive and elevates the whole endeavor.
We never do get very far into the supposed story because of a clash of personalities between Adam and Mac very quickly derails the intended plot. Chloe collects coins and saves them up to ride the carousel, except one day she gets lost in the woods and meets ... well, she's supposed to meet a lion, but instead Adam draws a dragon because he thinks that looks cooler! Adam and Mac argue, and after several pages of disagreement, Adam gets fed to the lion and Mac takes over drawing the illustrations himself. They are comically bad and amateurish.
Eventually Chloe and the lion intervene, because Chloe wants the story to continue and the lion wants to be drawn in a less embarrassing-looking way. Ultimately, Adam and Mac make up and become friends again, and Chloe gets to ride the carousel again. It's a happy ending, and a lot of fun getting there!
When I was a teen, I read the novel The Princess Bride by William Goldman, the one the film is based off of. In the movie adaptation, there's a bit of metafiction in that the whole story is being told as a bedtime story by a grandfather to his grandson. But the book is quite a bit more experimental. Goldman claims to be merely an editor for the 'real author' S Morgenstern, and the book itself claims to be a much abridged 'good parts' edition, with lots of footnote comments by Goldman explaining what he cut out. As a teen, I wasn't really able to understand that there was no Morgenstern, no prior, more complete version of the same story. I didn't understand that what I was holding was the real and only version of the book, that all the supposed comments and edits were actually part of the story. It was something I realized only later, when I had a little more experience with literary artifice and more time to think about it
In the case of Chloe and the Lion, the artifice is more obvious, and probably young readers will have a parent or someone around to act as a sounding board if they need to talk their way through what they're seeing to fully understand it. It's a fun introduction to a literary device they'll likely see again, one that plays with the boundary between fact and fiction and shows off some of what's possible in art.
I don't know the name for the exact metafictional device at work here, when a work of fiction stars what is supposedly its own author as a character, when the lead character of the work is depicted as acting out the story simply as a performance, as a job like any other. The most famous example is probably the play Six Characters in Search of an Author, although it's a device I know best from the Looney Tune "Duck Amuck", where Daffy Duck is tormented by an off-screen animator who keeps redrawing the cartoon around him, supposedly forcing Daffy to improvise his performance in response to the changing costumes and scenery.
Chloe and the Lion stars the character Chloe, of course, and a lion, but it also stars author Mac Barnett and artist Adam Rex. Actual Rex depicts 'Adam' and 'Mac' as detailed and relatively realistic clay figures, like you'd see in stop-motion animation, and shows them in a miniature theater with stage backdrops providing the scenery. I think these are photos of actual miniatures. As wholly fictional characters, Chloe and the lion are depicted as 2D drawings, playing their parts on-stage in response to Mac's narration. The mix of art syles is visually impressive and elevates the whole endeavor.
We never do get very far into the supposed story because of a clash of personalities between Adam and Mac very quickly derails the intended plot. Chloe collects coins and saves them up to ride the carousel, except one day she gets lost in the woods and meets ... well, she's supposed to meet a lion, but instead Adam draws a dragon because he thinks that looks cooler! Adam and Mac argue, and after several pages of disagreement, Adam gets fed to the lion and Mac takes over drawing the illustrations himself. They are comically bad and amateurish.
Eventually Chloe and the lion intervene, because Chloe wants the story to continue and the lion wants to be drawn in a less embarrassing-looking way. Ultimately, Adam and Mac make up and become friends again, and Chloe gets to ride the carousel again. It's a happy ending, and a lot of fun getting there!
When I was a teen, I read the novel The Princess Bride by William Goldman, the one the film is based off of. In the movie adaptation, there's a bit of metafiction in that the whole story is being told as a bedtime story by a grandfather to his grandson. But the book is quite a bit more experimental. Goldman claims to be merely an editor for the 'real author' S Morgenstern, and the book itself claims to be a much abridged 'good parts' edition, with lots of footnote comments by Goldman explaining what he cut out. As a teen, I wasn't really able to understand that there was no Morgenstern, no prior, more complete version of the same story. I didn't understand that what I was holding was the real and only version of the book, that all the supposed comments and edits were actually part of the story. It was something I realized only later, when I had a little more experience with literary artifice and more time to think about it
In the case of Chloe and the Lion, the artifice is more obvious, and probably young readers will have a parent or someone around to act as a sounding board if they need to talk their way through what they're seeing to fully understand it. It's a fun introduction to a literary device they'll likely see again, one that plays with the boundary between fact and fiction and shows off some of what's possible in art.






