Adventures in Reading: "The Wild Things" by Dave Eggers

"This should be interesting."

That's what I thought when I picked up "The Wild Things" by Dave Eggers. It's a novel based on a movie based on a children's book, written by an author with a really distinct voice and writing style.

"Where the Wild Things Are" by Maurice Sendak was one of my favorite books as a kid. Rereading it now, I'm not completely sure why, but there was something about it then that I loved. And I'm not the only one.

Several months ago, I read that there was a more adult novel in the works based on what would be the movie "Where the Wild Things Are," and that it would be written by co-screen writer Dave Eggers. This was long before I read "A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius," so I wasn't especially excited about it based specifically on the author. It was the concept that intrigued me. The original book has only ten sentences. What would a book/movie do to fill in the gaps?

I saw the movie before I read "The Wild Things". I still haven't decided which side of the fence I'm on with it. I don't really think it's a kid's movie. I read in a review somewhere that it's a movie about being a kid, not a movie for kids. I think that describes it really well. It has humor and fantasy, but it deals with a lot of more adult themes as they affect a boy named Max. It's a movie that makes you think, and those aren't always the kind that you leave thinking, "Wow! That was entertaining!"

I had already purchased "The Wild Things" before I saw the movie, because I had been looking forward to it for so long. I was reading other things at the time, so I couldn't get to the book before the movie, although it turned out to not matter all that much. When it came time to actually start reading, though, I was a bit hesitant. For some reason, knowing how the movie portrayed the story made me unsure about the book. I didn't know if I wanted to delve even further into the issues presented in the movie just yet, especially knowing the brutal honesty Eggers comes at his work with. Turns out, I had nothing to fear.

In the acknowledgments at the end of the book, Eggers comments on the differences in his version of the story versus Spike Jonze's screenplay versus Marice Sendak's book, saying that the Max in all three versions of the story was somewhat based on the author of each. This meant that each story had it's own particular set of themes, while still remaining true to the overall story.

I really enjoyed Eggers take on the story. There are still a lot of adult themes dealing with Max's psychology and his personal struggles, but the story doesn't become overwhelmed by them. It deviates from the movie in some places, but never enough to change the overall story. Honestly, I don't think it would have mattered too much if it had. I didn't really think of the movie very often as I read, which I think shows that the book stands on it's own well enough. Eggers presumably could have taken the story in a completely different direction, and probably made an equally good novel, but that wasn't the task he was given.

There is one thing that I would change, both in the movie and in Eggers' novel: In the original book by Sendak, there is no judgment, no moral-to-the-story. Max misbehaves, he is sent to his room, he goes to where the wild things are, he rules as king, and then he comes home. There is no explanation for his behavior or justification of his actions. The movie and novel, however, add back story and issues for Max to deal with. Max goes to the island to deal with things he is faced with in his own reality. I think this is a really genius idea, and I like where both went with it. However, there's a lack of any kind of resolution. What has Max learned? How has he changed? I don't like authors to overtly spell things out for me, but I also need to see some indication of the change in the character for me to know it's taken place. I won't assume it's happened just because it makes sense that it would. It's an author's job to somehow show me that it has occurred. And neither the movie or book did that well enough for me to feel a real sense of completion. In the original book, this is not needed because Max never finds himself in a situation that asks him to change. In the books and movies, he is put in scenarios where he is asked to look at the behaviors of others and how they affect one another. In my opinion, this should cause some sort of change in Max's view of the world, or at least of himself. I wasn't left feeling satisfied that this had happened, for better or for worse.

Also, I'm all for subtlety, but I felt like there was a lack of connection between the issues of the wild things and Max's own problems. Maybe this was intentional, and Max was only supposed to see how it feels to have to try to understand a lot of other people's problems while still dealing with his own. In this particular point, however, I think the book did a better job than the movie of giving some indication of the possible connections.

While those seem like a large complaints, they doesn't take away from the story as a whole in a way that would leave me not recommending "The Wild Things". It's an interesting read, with characters and story lines that are believable, even in their most fantastic incarnations.