The interesting thing I noticed while reading the story Rollo at Play in the Woods by James Abott was the use of the word penitent at the beginning of the story on page 11 and towards the end of the story on page 23. I think this one word stuck to me because to me it was the meaning of the whole story where one experiences regret and learns how to set things right. Penitent means the regret one feels when they did something wrong and in this story Rollo and his cousin James felt just that. In the story the mother of Rollo and the character that seems to be a more mature play the role of leading Rollo into what the moral of the story is. On page 9 the mother says to Rollo, “Now it is my duty not to yield to such feelings as you have now, but to punish them” shows that she’s guiding him to what is perceived to be the right thing to do. I think that the moral of the story is to get children to right their wrongs and understand what it means to be fair.
Daily Archives: 12 Sep ’14
A new way to read Children’s Literature
In this passage, I came across an experiment that Perry Nodelman had administered. He read a poem to his class and asked for their opinion. To his surprise, they said they would not share the poem with children. He asked if they enjoyed the poem and they replied with a yes. So why would they not share this enjoyable poem? According to the passage, “In thinking about the poem as a text for children, they had ignored their own responses and, instead, guessed how some hypothetical children might respond. Many adults base their judgments of children’s literature upon such guesses” (Page 1, Seeing Beyond an Adult Perspective). That made me wonder why Children’s Literature is created mostly by adults. Sure–they could definitely use their childhood experiences to imagine what a child would want to read. But, that child (who is the adult now) was born in the past. What do children want to see now? Wouldn’t it be better to actually ask children what they want to see? There are more young authors creating Children’s Literature now. I haven’t read any of their works yet, but would it be any better than the children’s books we grew up with? It’s something I’m curious about.
The Dark Side of Peter Pan
As many people did, I grew up watching Peter Pan as a kid and wanting to be part of never land myself. As I got older, I realized that there is was always a deeper meaning behind the innocence of these Disney movies filled with adult lessons and sexual humor that I didn’t understand back then. A child is simply drawn to the animations of the story and the desire to be part of it, the last thing any of them would expect is that they are watching real life lessons unfold before them as they go into adulthood and realize it themselves. While I knew Peter Pan was fictional and that never land didn’t exist in reality, it was disturbing to see Peter Pan as well as many other childhood Disney movies I grew up watching in a whole new light, and in a disturbing way strong enough to ruin some childhood memories.
As Jacqueline Rose pointed out in in the class reading of “ The Case of Peter Pan” the twist is that the author of Peter Pan is actually just a man who had a desire and interest in little boys himself. This is what I meant by disturbing memories strong enough to ruin a childhood memory, because the whole image of Peter Pan is now seen as something different and not in a good way. Especially in today’s society, where problems like that happen daily, it doesn’t paint a good image for the author or the fans who grew up wanting to be part of Pan’s fictional life. Now I see that this story wasn’t meant for children at all but rather for adults to know, the worst part is knowing that this story probably would of never existed if it wasn’t for possibly the authors interest to possess these little boys. I’m sure everyone who is familiar with the story of Peter Pan has the same question in mind, and I’m not sure exactly myself either.
Imposed Immaturity
During class discussion of Jacqueline Rose’s The Case of Peter Pan or the Impossibility of Children, there was a lot of talk about children’s literature having to entertain both children and adult audiences, which I didn’t find that shocking. When taking the class I imagined the books we were to read would be geared towards adults, as well as children, and hold a deeper meaning for the adults that would go right over the heads of these “little people”. Otherwise we would be studying picturebooks with 17 max. pages all semester. What I did find interesting was the part about how “the family” evolved. In the article, Little People: When Did We Start Treating Children like Children?, by Joan Accocella, she discusses how the concept of children is relatively new. Which i related to the books that I’m reading now, which are from A Song of Ice and Fire. In these books, there are children from 8-years-old doing ridiculous things and I usually had to suspend my disbelief that a 10-year old girl* is out their stabbing the hearts of knighted men while riding horseback while trying to navigate a map. After reading the article, I can see how the author of the books I’m reading did some extensive research on the era. The idea that children were not regarded as children clears up a lot of my questions in my own reading.
“Children gradually came to be seen as creatures of a different order from adults: innocent, fragile, temptable, and therefore in need of molding….The ‘discovery of childhood,’ Ariès says, deprived the child of all that and ‘inflicted on him the birch, the prison cell—in a word, the punishments usually reserved for convicts.’ At the same time, children became the objects of ‘obsessive love,’ together with incessant demands for conformity to a family ideal.“
These lines hold true in present day. Many parents that oppose marriage equality will say it is because having two gay parents in a family would pass the “gayness” on to their children—if they can manage to adopt some. Meanwhile, a baby boy can’t even look in the direction of a woman without his parents calling him a little lady’s man, or passing down some other archaic gender roles to their pretty little princesses and tough little men. The innocence of children that is so sort after to protect is sullied by the parents themselves. But then again parents aren’t the only ones to participate in such irony, teachers also play their part. Teaching children on the cusps of their sexuality not to have sex instead of giving them information about what sex is and how to do it safe.
How to Read Children’s Literature. In: The Pleasures of Children’s Literature
Adult readers who select the books for the children, usually connect with their selections. There’s some underlying root cause for their choice. It could be attractiveness or how the words make them feel or perhaps they think it’s on the child’s level; there are many reasons it could be. I’ve been working with preschool children for a few years and during this time period I’ve learned that though all children are at a particular stage of development, they’re definitely not all the same. Just because a child is 3 years old, it doesn’t mean that they don’t have the capacity or interest in learning about other cultures, for example. The place i’m currently working at is very different from the last preschool I worked at. Both treat children as “children,” in the sense that they’re younger than us and don’t have the experience or level of comprehension that we have, however, I believe the first place limited children. The place where i’m working at now, introduces many subject matters and allows the children to simply ask questions about vocabulary or whatever they don’t understand. In fact, it is encouraged. Many times the children know and understand a lot more than I anticipated they would. The children sometimes even teach the teachers and one another new things. The children are also allowed to use scissors and glue and many things that I didn’t think children should be allowed to handled independently at this age. They are also spoken to with respect and not as “children” who need to be ordered around. The first place I worked at, didn’t really teach the children anything beyond the basics. I think that many adults just assume that children are less intelligent, less capable and inferior to them because they,much like myself can’t really remember understanding sophisticated language or concepts at that age. I can understand the assumption that many children won’t be able to understand certain things because lack of experience but I think that this applies to adults too. Something i’m still puzzled by is how writers know how to write for specific audiences but I believe that’s a gift that can’t be taught and perhaps actually more simple than anyone would think, because it comes so naturally to them.
Intro to kiddie lit- Donald Ng
Kiddie Lit by Beverly Lyon Clark explains the struggle of kiddie literature books. Lyon states the complications between childhood and feminism. Being called girl in a certain point is offending like what we discussed in class. I believe that when people are called girl or kid, it really depends on how it said. I wouldn’t call somebody I wouldn’t know well a girl or kid. I would sometimes call my friends “what sup boy” and it would be okay. It also depends on how people define the words. I have a friend who calls people boy or kid but doesn’t like to be called back a boy or kid. I think that he feels superior over everyone or better than everyone because he thinks everyone is there kid. That also might mean that he care of his friends because he always puts us over him. For woman being called as girls it also relates to being called a kid. As professor Curseen discussed in class saying that she liked to be called baby because she likes to be held. It is nice to call someone girl or baby because it shows how much the person cares as it is closed to being held. Overall, it depends on how people perceives the word and the content that is in. In my opinion, being called a kid or a boy doesn’t bother me unless I know if someone is trying to offend me with the word.
Lyon explains that “today children are to stupid to know how to be children” I think what he means by this is that children believe that kiddie lit books are simple and not as complex as an adult book. He explains also how children’s literature has low literary criticism. He believes that writers don’t consider making deeper knowledge in children book which it seems like children’s books are handicapped. I believe that it is handicapped because before i read this article, i thought that children literature class is going to be really easy because children books can’t be interpreted to a certain extent as adult books but this article changed my mind.
The Story Behind Peter Pan
When I was young, around 10 years of age or so, I remember watching commercials on t.v featuring Peter Pan. I never actually saw the movie or read the story, but I got the gist of it. It was about a young boy who could fly and never had to grow up. I thought that was a fantastic idea, what child didn’t want to stay young and carefree forever. I knew even then that Peter Pan was a story meant for young children. However, after reading “The Case of Peter Pan” I am very surprised to discover that Peter Pan was actually never a character intended for children. Instead, Peter Pan was a story written by a man (Barrie) who had a secret desire to “steal and possess” young boys. It was, instead, originally meant for young adults, because back then children could not even afford to buy the book or even understand it’s contents. I also learned that children’s books can be a form of “seduction”, not in a sexual or erotic way though. In the sense that these books entice and draw children into the story, I can see how children’s books might be considered a “seduction” of sorts. The story of Peter Pan also had to go through many revisions in order to make it more appropriate for children. In the words of Rose “there is no child behind the category ‘children’s fiction’….” This quote shows us how adults have a different purpose for writing children’s books, purposes that children do not actually understand, because they are just taking the books for face value. The real reason that adults write children books is probably something that young children can’t grasp, and in the case of Peter Pan, the reason is darker and more “troubled” then children realize.
More questions than answers
What I found truly interesting about most of the texts we had to read so far is that none of them really factored in the opinion of the child in any ideas presented. Beverly Lyon Clark didn’t ask whether children disliked being treated like children she just stated they should be seen as “peers”. Ms. Rose clearly states that she won’t address the opinion of the child but she never really explains why not. I was really bothered as to why that was. Mr. Nodelman, unlike the other two authors, seems to address this concept of an implied reader- that most texts are crafted towards a certain reader: adult fiction is written for adults and children Literature is written for the child as much as for the adult. This seems like something somewhat easy to reason out so why then is it that Ms. Rose in her second chapter and even Ms. Clark in her introduction and first chapter seem to ignore the child’s seemingly obvious and important opinion? Honestly I think it comes down to two things.
Number 1: No one is created equal. Meaning to say no adult thinks the same so who could say that any child does? There is no one hive mind for children dictating what is this and what is that. Each child becomes different in their different cultures, religions, social class…the list could go on and on.
Number 2: Branding of literature into separate categories is a trial. Saying that “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland” is a children’s book is somewhat pushing it considering the symbolism strewn throughout the pages. As Ms. Rose pointed out, the same goes for “Peter Pan” with its sexual undertones. In the end then, who is it really that picks up a children’s book and says “I want this one!” and walks out of the store with it. Is it the child? Perhaps, but as it turns out it seems to be only after the adult has taken a good look at it and said either, “Hmmm Mary, I don’t believe you’ll like this book,” or “Sure honey lets go get it.”
One final issue arises however from both of these possible explanations that is contrary to Mr. Nodelman‘s exclamations. If the adult, in the end, has the final say, is there really an audience of children out there to write literature for or is it really the parents one has to win over? And even building on that if there is no hive mind for children then what can we say about adults? Meaning to say isn’t all literature really written for no one except for the author to express something they couldn’t in life?? I am unsure of the answer to either issue.
First Post
After our class discussions, I noticed that I’ve been analyzing children’s literature and movies in a whole new light. I recently watched Disney’s Frozen with my roommate, and while she was laughing and loving it, I was asking questions such as “How would a child understand that?” and “Does that not sound like it has underlying sexual context?” In the Case Of Peter Pan, the reader gets a glimpse into what truly motivated the author the write Peter Pan. Though the authors perverse love for little boys is enough to make your skin crawl, is it really surprising? Almost all Disney movies have some level of perversion in it. Even today, while watching Frozen I noticed sexual puns! Typically children as associated with innocence, so why add sexual puns into stories meant for innocent children? Perhaps it is because children’s stories are not just meant for children. Who reads the children their bed time stories? Adults. Who watches these movies with the children? Adults. The perversion that is sometimes weeded into these Disney movies are not meant to corrupt the children, but to merely entertain the adults. Maybe the need to add perversion into something so innocent says more about our society than it does about children’s literature as a genre.
Little People
“Little People” discusses the evolution of not only what it means to be a child, but also the evolution of family life in general. The article gives examples of how a so called “childhood” differs from different generations. Starting in the middle ages, the article discusses how a childhood was seen as working on a farm, to eventually being married off before one turns a teenager. Kids would be sent off from their homes for years at a time to work for someone else only to return home for a little before being married and moving out once again. Then their is a jump in the way children were treated during the 18th century. During this time a large amount of illegitimate babies, and at times these babies would be either killed or abandoned by the woman who gave birth to them. This dramatic shift continues during the late 19th century and 20th century as children were used more as workers in factories to help support their families. Today children are not expected to serve as workers for their families, but are still controlled in a way by their families as they are forced to go off to school to get an education. Even though the lifestyle of children has changed over the centuries, their freedom has not. They’re fates are tied to that of their parents and it has been the same since the beginning of this whole “childhood” society.
Not only has the evolution of childhood changed, but so has divorce. Their was a time back was divorce was not even seen as an option to men or women. Then when it became an option it was only granted under extremely drastic measures. Nowadays, divorce is a part of our society, people now don’t even get shocked when they hear that someone is divorced or getting a divorce because it has become something we have accepted into our culture.
Childhood and divorce will continue to evolve over time and in centuries from now they will look back at how children’s lives were during our time and how divorce was as well.