Criticism and Intent

Brian Alderson-- back in the late 60's said that when people evaluate children's literature they shouldn't care about children-- that although the evaluation would lack the influence of the intended audience and the authorial intention, it would remain non-subjective.

I disagree.

I don't think there can be non-subjective criticisms of literature. There can be objective evaluation-- Something is awkward, it doesn't flow, it is full of grammatical errors, the plot doesn't make sense. These things can be objectively determined. Criticism though, I believe, always has a bias. I am looking for the political undertone, the gender/class issues, the moral lesson. I'm not saying this is wrong-- and sometimes a message-- especially a moral message in a work for children seems obvious, but I think disregarding the child and disregarding the author's intent is not a way to be objective when looking at children's literature.

Dumbing Down Children?

It's interesting to me-- Stephen Johnson in _Everything Bad is Good for You_ talks about how so many people think that because kids play video games instead of reading books that we are dumbing kids down. He argues that that is not in fact the case-- but rather that video games bring about a higher level of thinking that kids participate in. Anne MacLeod in _American Childhood_ discusses how the books of the 50s and 60s encouraged girls to be content with their lives. She looks at American culture of the 50s and how for the first time teenagers had some of their own freedoms and were becoming their own culture and how that during that time they were marrying younger than ever before.

So, this is what I find interesting... If anything, it is the books of the 50s and 60s that are dumbing children down-- the books that no one censors because there is no violence and no controversy-- unless marrying young is considered "dangerous." These books show people going to school and going to college and living the American dream of mediocrity. Contemporary texts show students competing--striving to overcome the system--not being content with their lives the way they are. Or if the character is passive, that is considered a weakness.

Now I wonder, what is true dumbing down? Is it writing things in a particular way? Is it thinking about something in a particular way? Or, is it a perception of what this world should be like?

Children's Literature

It's been a while since I've posted anything-- not that I haven't been reading or thinking about stuff, but now isn't the time to catch all of that up.

Jack Zipes, and others--Beverly Lyon Clark, like to point out that there is no such thing as Children's Literature. Children's Literature should be literature by children for children. But, children aren't published writers. I think this is an interesting thought because I've been questioned when saying that I want to do childist criticism-- but really that's what people who look at books who are written by adults with child protagonists are doing. We cannot regress to the status of child again-- so we don't really know how children will perceive a certain text-- and good writers for children don't write thinking only a child will read the book. So, I think looking at the role of the child in the book is a good way to discuss what has popularly been termed children's literature.

In a different direction-- although related-- Zipes also says that children can't produce their own culture--they can only respond to things adults create for them-- but I think that is starting to change. In music now, there are kids singing, doing remakes of popular songs, on CD's. This is kids doing art for kids-- but it is still controlled by adults--who gets to decide which music is being played, listened to, recorded-- who decides which kid gets to make an album-- that is still adults. Whether or not we like it, adults control the culture of children. Maybe that is why teenagers like the web so much-- it gives them an opportunity to write their own story. Just a thought.