In the most recent issue of Kirkus, there are two reviews for books that feature Laika, the dog who was sent into space by the Soviet space program and died there (a return trip was never planned). Laika’s life (and death) is dealt with sensitively and realistically in Nick Abadzis’ 2007 graphic novel, simply titled Laika.

Stories about dogs dying are not new for kids. In fact, I’d say that children’s books where the dog dies have a long and storied history in the English-speaking world, from Old Yeller to Where the Red Fern Grows to Sharon Creech’s Love That Dog. There’s even a joke that people often tell: If the children’s book has a picture of a dog on it, that dog is a goner. (“Go to the library and pick out a book with an award sticker and a dog on the cover. Trust me, that dog is going down.” -Gordan Korman’s No More Dead Dogs). Dog deaths are painful, naturally, but kids aren’t unaccustomed to reading about them.

I was a little surprised, then, to pick up the latest issue of Kirkus and read about two books being published in October that give a much more, shall we say, creative ending to Laika’s story. One seems to outright lie; the other is a bit more of a fantasy. In both of these stories, the author imagines a happier end for Laika.

In Laika: Astronaut Dog by Owen Davey (picture book, Candlewick), Laika ends up living on an alien spaceship. What really happened is mentioned in a more text-heavy author’s note, and as we know, author’s notes are often skipped. Most kids will probably know that the alien spaceship is not real, but Davey doesn’t tell us Laika’s true end in the story proper, either. Fanciful, yes. Honest? Not so much.

In A Curious Robot on Mars by James Duffett-Smith (picture book, Sky Pony Press), Laika is not the primary character. That honor belongs to the Mars rover, who discovers, after its own mission ends, that Sputnik and Laika are living on Mars and makes friends with them. Unlike Davey’s book, the entire story here is clearly a fantasy, but it doesn’t erase the fact that Laika’s true fate isn’t mentioned. Does it need to be?

I wonder what motivates this kind of historical revision. We want to save our children from pain, certainly, but that doesn’t explain why we keep publishing novels where the dog dies, where such an event is most likely meant to elicit pain. Perhaps it’s easier to deal with if it’s fictional, since we can tell our children “It’s just a story. It’s not real.” Laika’s death is real, and perhaps that makes it harder.

I can’t completely buy that argument, though, since kids whose families have dogs will most likely experience their pet’s death before they get too old. Dogs simply don’t live very long when compared to humans. Dog deaths are real; they happen to kids every day.

Perhaps it’s because Laika’s death was intentional, planned. Perhaps it’s because her story shows how adults use other living things for their own advancement, with little to no regard for that living thing’s well-being or ultimate fate. Perhaps it’s because it reveals the deliberate and casual cruelty of grown-ups, and that makes people uncomfortable. I’m not entirely sure.

I should note that the Kirkus reviewer calls out the first title as “cowardly.” (The second title is dismissed more for its artwork.) I haven’t read it myself, but it seems altogether too disingenuous. When we write about hard and painful things that happened in the past, we need to be truthful. There’s a way to do it gently and sensitively, to make it appropriate for children at different ages and maturity levels. Lying (even by omission) isn’t the way to do it.

What do you think about these stories, and others like them that sugarcoat or even rewrite unpleasant parts of history for kids?