This is going to be a multi-part blog post as I rummage through my thoughts on several illustrators. They will not be posted in sequence.

Upon returning to campus I visited the Dawn Treader Book Shop on Liberty in order to find some cheap copies of novels I required for the semester. I’d figured, at least, that the novels for my Fantasy class would be on the shelves given how widely read they were, for instance, novels from the Harry Potter series or Alice in Wonderland. I did find Alice on the shelves, but they weren’t complete versions of the texts, missing the ever-important Through the Looking-Glass. Also, I’m not proud enough to admit that the cover was not particularly appealing. However, as I was about to leave the shop with nothing, my eyes were drawn to a book that had an interesting illustration on it. It was a bird (perhaps a crow?) with a top hat and cane, walking briskly, eyes shut, towards some location beyond the silhouette of the cover. The title? You Can’t Get There From Here. Ogden Nash wrote the book but what truly piqued my interest was that Maurice Sendak illustrated it.

My only encounter with Sendak is, of course, Where the Wild Things Are. I can never quite remember how many times I read it, but I don’t think I read it as much as other children claim. But quite recently, I’d found a new interest in several illustrators from Sendak’s era, or perhaps those who preceded him. I’d become affixed to the elegant line drawings and incredible draughtsmanship of E.H. Shephard, Saul Steinberg, Jean-Jacques Sempe, Ronald Searle, and Tomi Ungerer just to name a few. So it was only natural for me to pick this book up.

The entire book is composed of several poems, most of which are comedic, while some are sublime, but all of them are whimsical. One particular poem I find quite coincidental is titled, No Woe is Gossamer to Mr. Bessemer. The poem describes, not a pessimist, but a man who always expects the worst, and one of the lines is, “He is certain that the train he must catch will leave early, / and that, once caught, it will arrive late, / And, as a Michigan alumnus, that the Big Ten title will / go to Ohio State.” The illustration accompanying this poem features a man in a raincoat, holding an umbrella, sun hanging high, walking past a group of puzzled children, one sticking out his hand waiting for a drop of rain that is not coming anytime soon. Ha Ha. chuckle chuckle. Turn the page.

Now, as I write this article, I wonder, should I not be reading “children’s books”? I’m not too sure if such a thing even exists actually. Or at least, the books that I remember reading as a child and still loving are those that are timeless. Even now, I pick up books I never read as a child and find them fascinating. So it sort of comes back to that word (doesn’t it?) – timeless. Does that just mean a book is re-readable? Not quite. Or maybe it suggests something like what Calvin and Hobbes does so well, each time you revisit a strip by Bill Watterson, you appreciate it in a different way.

Then, naturally, I guess the proceeding question might be, how do these illustrators/writers create something that is timeless? Perhaps I can explain it this way, by introducing a bit of unrelated yet related information, Ungerer used to draw illustrations for a children’s book on his desk while nearby, he had his stove on, with a pan filled with Barbie dolls that he was melting in the heat. And of course, he wrote incredibly famous children’s books while also creating art books like The Underground Sketchbook of Tomi Ungerer – a book that features a naked woman on the cover, with no head, and in the cave like entrance of her bleeding neck, sits, huddled, a man with a bloody knife.

I’m not suggesting that this is the only answer, but it may be a answer. Yes, it is a far cry from the pairing of pessimistic poetry and whimsical illustration, if anything, a lot of wild illustrations seem restrained compared to what Ungerer did. How does a man, who drew the adorable, Moon Man draw a man using a woman as a vacuum at the same time. Honestly, although it may seem ludicrous to the public eye, upon consider what Ungerer went through, his history, his context, and a variety of other “character building elements” it doesn’t seem all that crazy. I’d like to suggest that perhaps his inclination towards drawing images of manipulated bodies, both man and woman, isn’t all that unique. Perhaps he is just more honest than the average individual. Is that what it takes? Honesty?

The terms introversion and extraversion are tools that Carl Jung popularized to explain the different types of gratification that individuals try to obtain. They were a shorthand to help explain complex issues. To explain these complex topics simply, introversion in being primarily interested in one’s own psyche, whereas extraversion is motivation stemming from outside gratification. This allowed psychologists to more easily analyze patients and theorize about the machinations of the mind. These concepts, however, have been bastardized by pop culture to segregate people into two groups whether it’s actually applicable or not.

There are two ways that professionals actually view these concepts: as a continuum to explain a person’s general motivations, or as an explanation of the motivations behind a single action. This is important to realize as a professional would not label someone as an “extravert” or an “introvert”. Either they generally act in an extraverted/introverted way (but is not solely extraverted/introverted) or that a particular action was motivated by introversion/extraversion. This dichotomy that pop culture subscribes to, like most dichotomies, is a false one. Actions and people exist on a gradient.

Extraversion and introversion have had positive effects, though. It has allowed people to better understand themselves and their motivations. In addition, they enable people to easily discuss what they are mentally experiencing, thereby facilitating understanding among people. This can lead to higher sympathy and less taxing demand for conformity to other people’s attitudes. However, they have become labels that divide people and create animosity between the groups.

According to pop culture extravert and introvert are opposite and opposing labels. You are either one or the other. With this comes ingroup and outgroup dynamics. You highly favor those that share the same label and act derogatorily towards those of the other label. Introverts see themselves as intellectuals and extraverts as vapid. Meanwhile, extraverts see themselves as sociable and introverts as awkward. This especially prevalent among people that hold the label extremely personally as if that label is everything that they are. These group dynamics are obviously harmful as they perpetuate stereotypes and ignore issues that could be resolved.

Like almost everything else, introversion and extraversion exist on a scale. We act extraverted in some instances and introverted in others. Labelling oneself as one or the other only serves to diminish the complexity of human experience. One learns to ignore the individuality of experience, rather than embracing it. Through this, we actually come to learn less about ourselves, rather than more. Introversion and extraversion can be helpful to explain specific instance and analyze them, but labelling an entire personality as just one or the other is ineffective.

The terms extraversion and introversion can be extremely useful when used correctly. They can establish connection, elicit sympathy, and enable discussion. Unfortunately, these terms have been co-opted by pop culture to take advantage of ingroup and outgroup dynamics. This labeling, when used in this way is ultimately harmful and should be reconsidered. In the future, do not label yourself as an extravert or introvert, instead, you are a person with complex motivations.