I am shocked, and I do not mean that in a good way, to see that Flayrah's links to Wikipedia's entries of "Ben and Me" by Robert Lawson (1939) indicate that Wikipedia considers Lawson's children's novel about Benjamin Franklin and Amos Mouse to be worthwhile only as the basis for the later Walt Disney animated short. Lawson's novel was one of the first talking-animal fantasies that I read, and I still consider it a very good book to this day. I am writing this comment in outrage just after seeing Flayrah's post of my review of Anglin's "Silver Foxes" series in which "Ben and Me" is mentioned; I have not checked the Internet yet to see if Lawson's "Ben and Me" is still in the bookshops and public libraries. If it is, I urge everyone to read it. Lawson's novel is one of those children's novels that adults will enjoy. While the Disney animated featurette is fun, the novel is different enough that it should not be considered as only the forgotten origin of the Disney cartoon.
I am shocked, and I do not mean that in a good way, to see that Flayrah's links to Wikipedia's entries of "Ben and Me" by Robert Lawson (1939) indicate that Wikipedia considers Lawson's children's novel about Benjamin Franklin and Amos Mouse to be worthwhile only as the basis for the later Walt Disney animated short. Lawson's novel was one of the first talking-animal fantasies that I read, and I still consider it a very good book to this day. I am writing this comment in outrage just after seeing Flayrah's post of my review of Anglin's "Silver Foxes" series in which "Ben and Me" is mentioned; I have not checked the Internet yet to see if Lawson's "Ben and Me" is still in the bookshops and public libraries. If it is, I urge everyone to read it. Lawson's novel is one of those children's novels that adults will enjoy. While the Disney animated featurette is fun, the novel is different enough that it should not be considered as only the forgotten origin of the Disney cartoon.
Fred Patten