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.
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.
Post Class Thoughts
We just got a taste of discussion in today, but hopefully on Wednesday, we can finally plunge into that discussion.
—
To that end, please keep in mind the two questions I posed in class:
1) What do children read? (posed on the screen before class)
2) What would it really mean to think of childish as not a denigrating term? [along with that: is embracing childishness as not denigrating -perhaps even a generative quality- what Beverly Lyon Clark actually trying to do?
–Also all the links at least up September 24th, should be working now. If you ever encounter a link that goes bad on me, you should be able to google the title and author and find a pdf.
Jackson’s Blog “Kiddie Lit” Preface and Chapter 1
The Author, Beverly Leon Clark, underwent an enormous change of opinion regarding her thought on children’s literature. She mentioned that as a graduate student she “wouldn’t be caught dead reading children’s literature.” (Clark, Kiddie Lit, Preface). Clark’s friend, who became president of the Children’s Literature Association, was influential in changing her mind about how she viewed that genre of literature.
The author ironically titles her book Kiddie Lit, highlighting the juxtaposition of the word kiddie- a “condescending and more than a little supercilious” term with the abbreviation lit- short for literature, a classic and noteworthy piece of written text (Clark, Chapter 1). Children hate being referred to as kids, or even worse kiddies, because they feel demeaned. Likewise, literature, or “lit” as Clark writes, infers higher level, complex prose – something that seems beyond the comprehension and appreciation of children. By no means is this Clark’s intention from the title.
Another unlikely comparison is introduced when Clark goes on to compare women in patriarchal society to children. She states the fact that they are both often ignored and overlooked. However, Clark points out that there is one important distinction to be made about children: where male children can grow out of childhood the females may grow to be women, yet are stuck in their lesser, societal roles.
Historically, women like children were viewed as “innocent, fragile, temptable, and therefore in need of molding.” (Acocella, Little People) Times are changing. People’s attitudes toward women and children have changed as well. Likewise, people’s attitudes toward Kiddie Lit have changed. Clark states “My aim here is not to be comprehensive but to offer comprehensive case studies, in-depth analysis that, in concert, reveal the complexity of changing attitude towards children and children’s literature.” (Clark, Chapter 1).
Jackson’s Blog on “Little People”
This article goes to great lengths to compare the theories and research of several major sociologists and anthropologists on when we started treating children like children. At one point they were viewed as mini-adults with responsibilities and roles to play. Then they became “innocent, fragile, and temptable” beings (Joan Acocella, Little People) who needed protection and guidance. One might ask- what sparked this transition from independent being, to practically helpless individual? The author suggests that in reality kids have always been kids. Society and it’s flaws have determined whether or not they had the freedom to act like children. Infant mortality, poverty, illegitimacy, religion, even marriage norms all contributed to the quality of life of children throughout history.
I found that I appreciated the author’s perspective and sense of irony when he wrote “while disposing of your child was easy, getting rid of your spouse was next to impossible.” (Joan Acocella, Little People). After all, what did it matter if one author believed children were too coddled and another disagreed. Societal factors such as; poverty, fear of social stigma, and religious constraints caused women to abandon or dispose permanently of their children. And that was okay. Yet, marriage was to be endured regardless of abuse, infidelity or incompatibility.
Joan Acocella makes sure that the reader not only remembers the continuity or sentimentalist theory, but that historical factors determined the lifestyle of children.
How to Post
1. Log in to your blogs@baruch account.
2. Navigate to our class site blogs.baruch.cuny.edu/childishness
3. Click New Post or Add Post.
4. Type in your post (or cut and paste from a word document).
5. Ignore the categories sections.
6. Add 2-3 tags. To add a tag, write a word or phrase in the “tag” box, and click add. To add the second tag, repeat that process. A tag is a word or phrase that you want to be associated with your post. So if you write about the casual cops, you might use the tags “walking” and “police”. I imagine that most of you will use “walking,” which is great. But you should probably one or two other tags specific to your post.
7. Click “publish.” If you don’t click “publish,” your post will not show on the cite.
POST GROUPS
This information will also be available at the bottom of the schedule of assignments.
GROUP A
Asano, Oriana
Ayala, Kimberly
Bauer, Corey
Chancy, Natasia
Chang, Jaime
Chen, Mason
Cummings, Chiffon
Digrazia, Christopher
Dilillo, Nicole
Frost, Laura
GROUP B
Kovalchuk, Artem
Zeng, Sherry
Urrutia, Raymond
Gomes, Oishi
Hughes, Stephanie
Jimenez, Kristine
Lee, Jasmine
Lee, William
Marienfeld, Jackson
Mohan, James
GROUP C
Ng, Donald
Parietti, Charles
Perez, Jason
Ross, Joshua
Shallcross, Annalea
Siragusa, Nikko
Sooklall, Serena
Torres, Jaclyn
Vasquez, Vanessa
White, Dominique
Wong, Christopher
Wu, Maggie
Readings
remember the readings for Monday are the “preface” and chapter one to Kiddie Lit AND the NYT article “Little People”. The links should work on the schedule of assignments/readings page.