data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/59bfe/59bfee3a606739535fb6797a4b52564d85283fcd" alt=""
Combine all that with the kid-lit masterpiece that is Charlotte's Web, and — as a reader — I'm in piggy heaven. I'm terribly happy as a writer, too, of course. (Fellow Smackdowners take note: Mr. White took this little piece of work through eight full drafts, with plenty of editorial input and acute bouts of writerly angst.)
Get a load of this hilarious White quote, uttered after reading a critical analysis of his novel:
"It is an extraordinary document, any way you look at it, and it makes me realize how lucky I was (when I was writing the book) that I didn't know what in hell was going on."
One of the earliest lessons I learned as a rabid-for-story English-lit major some 25 years ago was that there are as many possible interpretations of any given work as there are eager-for-As interpreters. What makes a great story great is, quite often, mere simplicity. And Charlotte's Web has that in razor-sharp farm implements. (Plus, you know, universally relatable themes, engaging action, genuinely adorable characters, and jaw-droppingly gorgeous language pulling it all together.)
As much as I love deconstructing a wonderful piece of literature . . . just to see how it ticks or try to assign "meaning" . . . I love, love, LOVE it even more when a magnificent talent like Mr. White (ever so gently) calls foul on the pretension surrounding the practice.
He wrote the story he was interested in, and he — simply — kept at it until all the parts fit to make a sparkling, cohesive whole.
THE END.