Jack Tworkov and Roger Duboisin have given us a real treat in "The Camel Who Took a Walk". They begin the story in the early moring in a forest, where a tiger lies wait, deceptively still. Then, as day breaks, the tiger's attention is grabbed by a camel who is coming down the road. Being a tiger, he prepares to ambush her. A nearby monkey sees this and prepares to drop a cocoanut on the tiger's head right before he pounces. Yet a squirrrel, seeing the monkey, prepares to bite his tail right before he drops the cocoanut. Meanwhile, however, a nearby bird spots the squirrel and also prepares to swoop down on him and grab him right before he bites the monkey's tail. (Ok, SPOILER ALERT: if you haven't read the book, go out and read it. I'm about to spoil the best part. Consider yourselves warned). Then, just as all of the creatures are on the verge of executing their plans, the camel suddenly stops, yawns, and decides to go back the way she came. And nothing happens. There are no pouncing tigers, no falling cocoanuts, no bitten tails, and no swooping birds. That is the story. The forest explodes in confusion and laughter, and the camel just walks away. I love it.
Honestly, I did not expect such a post-modern twist from this book. From the peritext, it looked like any other book. Yet I discovered that, instead of using foreshadowing and tension to build-up to a predictable action-filled climax, Tworkov and Duvosing build us up to the utter lack of what the reader was expecting! They manage to make it so surprising in part by using the reader's past experience in literature. Usually, when we read a book, we see most of the building action pointing to a specific future event. Tragedies and events are foreshadowed explicitly or implicitly. So, obviously, as we read about the animals' preparations, we expect a rather large and stunning sequence of events to occur. That is why we are so surprised when it doesn't happen. Note that, obviousely, someone with literary background focused in plot twists and juked foreshadowing would not be as surprised. Yet the majority of literature does not containg such twists as are shown in this book, so Tworkov's and Duvoisin's device works the majority of the time.
Also, I would like to note Tworkov's tone. It is much like that of a close relative telling a story. He creates this tone by using statements that they would make in his story. When describing the forest in the beginning, he speaks directly at with the reader with the question "And do you know why this was so?" and then he answers his own question directly afterward, like many grandparents do when storytelling. This style of direct contact with the reader continues as he explains what it meands when a tiger's eye is "open the tiniest crack" (that he is "watching and thinking"), and when he breaks the story rythm to explain the definition of flabbergasted. Such a tone contributes greatly to the book because it prepares us for the twist. Yes, if the narrator were more formal we would less expect the twist, perhaps making it more surprising. However, we would also probably reject it. A personal, informal narrator can comment on surprising nature of the twist, and coerce us into believing it, a feat made more difficult for formal voices because we expect them to be straightforward and predictable. We are much more susceptible to spontaneity when we hear it from informal voices, which is why such a tone is perfect for this book.
I strongly recommend "The Camel Who Took a Walk" for anyone. It is fun and timeless. I will certainly be sharing it with my brothers soon.