"The Pet Shop" by Allan Ahlberg tells the tale of two skeletons who continuously make trips to the pet shop to trade their pets for new ones that they perceive to be better than the last.
Ahlberg's history of writing children's books dates back to the mid 1970's when much of his written work was in collaboration to his wife's illustrations. "The Pet Shop" is a work of Ahlberg's from 1990 that is part of a series of children's books entitled "Funnybones", featuring the same two skeletons as the main characters. The series, though sometimes written alongside his wife, is illustrated by Andre Amstutz - as is with "The Pet Shop", which is not noted as a collaborative work with his wife.
The story is told in an interesting way: third person narrative is the primary mode of narration, but the text also contains the incorporation of animal sounds and interruptive noises midtext, creating a more immersive experience than typical of third person narrative. The story is also told through the illustrations, both mirroring the text and deriving from it. For example, when the two skeletons arrive at the pet shop for the second time, the text describes the skeletons trading their goldfish for a parrot with the simple sentence of "The big skeleton and the little skeleton swap the goldfish - Bubble, bubble! - skeleton... for a parrot". The illustrations depict this scene by showing the two skeletons looking at the parrot while one holds the goldfish, linking it to the text. However, the illustrations of the skeletons also contain speech bubbles in which one of the skeletons is saying "Can he talk?", deriving from the content of the written text of the story. The use of language in the narrative is an incorporation of simple words structured in more complex sentences - differing from many of his other written works which use much simpler structure of words and sentences. Though the words are not written in a rhyming pattern, it can be read in a poetic way because of its use of repeating words and onomatopoeia.
The book also follows some of the picturebook codes - in particular, its use of color and the framing of the text and illustration. The colors of the book tell a great deal about the tone of the story. The background is almost always entirely black, save for a few depictions of green fencing, implying the intended spooky nature of the story - what with its portrayal of skeletons as characters and use of language ("In a dark, dark... street there is a dark, dark... house"). Contrasting to this dark element and black background is the use of bright, vivid colors in the depiction of foreground, objects, and speech bubbles. The colors create a much more playful atmosphere than the dark background implies, correlating with the seemingly-failed narrative of a spooky story, instead offering humor and ironies. The framing of the book also correlates to the way in which the story is told. Much of the story (text and illustration) is framed into colorful outlines of boxes, indicating a sense of disconnect between the story and the reader. However, the frame is broken on various occasions, particularly when something loud or exciting happens. For example, when the skeletons bring home a parrot, the frame is broken by the various speech bubbles of the parrot, indicating loud and persistent noises, as opposed to noises that fit nicely within the frame. On some pages there is no frame at all; the illustrations bleed beyond the doublespread pages. This lack of framing is often present in scenes which depict large or mass quanities of pets that the skeletons adopt. For example, the doublespread bleed is present when the skeletons adopt a hippo, displaying its hugeness in the way it is illustrated as taking up the entire two pages.
The story ends when the two skeletons return their final pet and are given their original pet in return (a dog skeleton) by the shop owner. The final illustration (within the story) is of the dog sitting in the open box and being patted on the head by one of the skeletons, implying an acceptance or love for the animal that they had not originally had when the story began. Because of this ending, it would appear that Ahlberg intended to teach the moral lesson of satisfaction for what one has, rather than dissatisfaction and the desire to possess something more or different.