Ivy and Bean

From the outset, Barrows establishes the theme of Judging a Person Versus Knowing Them and the underlying motif of differences in the story. The two titular girls ostensibly symbolize opposites. Bean represents the outgoing and adventurous girl, while Ivy is the quiet, less sociable child. About Ivy, the narrator writes, “She never played with anyone,” and concerning Bean, the narrator says, “Big kids, little kids, all the kids in the neighborhood played with Bean” (25). Barrows advances the juxtaposition by having Ivy read big books and making Bean “jumpy” about reading big books. In Chapters 1-3, the narrator provides the reader with a handful of facts about each girl. From these character traits, the narrative establishes that Ivy and Bean are different. However, it is not yet clear that Ivy and Bean don’t know each other, and their oppositional nature is theoretical. Thus, the dissimilar traits function as red herrings. They make it look like Bean and Ivy won’t get along, and Bean reinforces the misleading verdict by regularly referring to Ivy as “boring.” In Chapters 4-10, however, Barrows establishes that Ivy and Bean are similar and can get along without much tension.

The style of Ivy and Beans sharpens their oppositional characterization. With Sophie Blackall’s illustrations, Bean is shown with short hair and a preference for shorts and t-shirts, and Ivy has longer hair and a fondness for dresses. Barrows’s text also contains imagery in that she provides a clear picture of the girls to complement the literal pictures. Her narrator notes, “Ivy had long, curly red hair pushed back with a sparkly headband. Bean's hair was black, and it only came to her chin.” The narrator adds, “Ivy wore a dress every day. Bean wore a dress when her mother made her” (8-9). Through the two main characters' dissimilar looks, Barrows gives the reader further reasons to assume Ivy and Bean are antithetical.

In this section, Barrows also establishes the motif of differences between Bean and Nancy. While Bean assumes she and Ivy are different, Bean knows she and her older sister are different. The shopping scene provides proof, and Barrows builds the tension by having Nancy deliberate the pros and cons of buying the skirt before switching to trying on tops. The narrator explains, “Bean knew then that Nancy was being slow on purpose. Just to drive her crazy” (18). Bean and Nancy are both siblings and antagonists whereas, in Chapters 1-3, Bean and Ivy are only supposed rivals.

By judging Ivy, Bean temporarily denies herself from The Benefits of Cooperation. By presuming Ivy is “boring” and different from her, Bean loses a crucial ally early in the story. Without Ivy, Bean must retaliate against her sister alone. On her own, Bean tries to punish Nancy with the taped $20, but the plan doesn’t work. To accomplish her goal of punishing Nancy, Bean needs an ally, and in the next set of chapters, Ivy becomes her partner in action.

Though The Drama of Preparation manifests more explicitly in the following chapters, Barrows foreshadows the theme with Bean’s plan to get back at Nancy for the elongated shopping excursion. The narrator says, “Bean thought about kicking her in the shin. But then she got the idea” (18). Instead of reacting immediately, Bean creates suspense by building a multidimensional plan with the string and money. The preparation doesn’t pay off, but it creates tension and establishes that Bean prefers devising elaborate plans over impulsive action—a tendency that will continue to manifest throughout Ivy and Bean.

Ivy and Bean additionally feature humor through names. The name Bean is comedic because it connects the imaginative seven-year-old girl to a no-frills food, creating a humorous juxtaposition. Likewise, the name Pancake Court is comedic because Ivy and Bean’s street is neither a pancake nor a prestigious “court”—it’s a typical street in a generic-looking upper-middle-class neighborhood. Humor also appears via comedic irony. After Bean tells Ivy that Mr. Killiop died in Ivy’s house and that she’s his ghost, the narrator clarifies, “Mr. Killiop had actually moved to Ohio” (27). The truth about Mr. Killiop functions as a narrative twist. The clear gulf between death and the banality of moving to a different state generates a humorous twist.