The excerpt from Perry Nodelman and Mevis Reimer’s text focuses on the relationship children actually have with children’s literature. In addition, it also explores how adults interaction with children’s literature differs from that of children and what causes these differences. One of the main differences comes from the literary “repertoire” that adults have versus the one children have. Adults tend to have a greater understanding of both language and its use.Furthermore adults can apply their past knowledge and experience towards the literature. This causes adults to have a different understanding and view of the literature. Adults would would be able to draw more from a children’s text because they have the capacity to. Children do not or rather cannot see more in a children’s text because their literary “repertoire” is limited. In this sense, Nodelman and Reimer point out that it is actually to difficult to decide what kind of children’s literature should and should not be read to/by children. In addition adults are the ones who inevitably decide what is considered “appropriate” literature for children. They do so based on their own hypothetical guess’s of what children would like in literature. Nodelman and Reimer state this is not effective since the adults are making guess’s and cannot really know what the child might like in literature without actually being exposed to it. A child’s lack of knowledge allows him/her read any children’s literature and end up enjoying it. I think Nodelman and Reimer make an excellent point: adults should not decide what is considered “good” children’s literature for children. They themselves are no longer children and cannot interpret it the same way a child does. What adults may consider inappropriate is therefore irrelevant since a child may not even know that what they are reading can be viewed in that context.
Daily Archives: 9 Sep ’14
Little People: Thoughts
The article offers a somewhat informal timeline of the notion of “childhood”, which will help our class to better understand the modern definition of childhood and what children’s literature is truly about. Childhood did not always hold the same meaning as we know it today, there was a time where childhood was virtually nonexistent. The author reviews pieces of literature called the Yale series, which is a compilation of research and essays written by social scientist to examine how to notion of “childhood” came to be and its evolution through the years.
The first glimpse we get into the past is the Middle ages to the sixteenth century. This was a time where the average age to be married was quite young (preteens), and little to no consent was needed by parents for their children to be married; unless you were a daughter of nobel blood. It is logical to assume that when these “children” were wed, they would be off to start their own household. However, depending on what part of Europe you were from and your or your family’s profession, it was forbidden for households to be split up. Even before marriage, boys and girls were sent away for an average of five years to learn trades or mannerisms from higher classes. Children were basically seen and treated like adults.
In the eighteenth century, there was a boom in bastard children who were either murdered, abandoned, or left in special hospitals. Most of the children left in these special hospitals died for various reasons including poor sanitary practices, neglect, and even experimentation as we discussed in class. Later on in the nineteenth century in France, it was possible for a bastard child to seek child support from their fathers, so long as he was not married. This was the start of the realization that children ought to be cared for.
Relating this to the early twentieth century, many children worked in factories and sweat shops to help support their families, some were even as young as seven! according to the Yale series, children felt a sense of pride and independence in the work that they did. after child labor laws were set into practice, it was an extreme polar change for children. Whereas once they were able to support themselves and their families, they were now required to go to school, which did not really give them much freedom to experience “childhood” and play anyway. From then on innocence was instilled on children and the idea of “appropriateness” was brought into play.