Over there in the sidebar is the reading for Monday (an excerpt from Hester Thrale's Family Book and the Child's New Play-Thing) and Wednesday (an Evening at Home by John Aikin, "Dirty Boots," and some "Rules for Behavior'). Our topic: children's literature.
Is this material, properly speaking, literature? What objections might one legitimately raise to this unit on the syllabus? Why should or shouldn't those objections matter?
Deadline: Monday (3/14), 1pm.
13 comments:
I'm also in a Children's Literature course this semester (with a few people in our class as well) and I'm pretty sure our teacher would castrate me if I didn't say that this is proper literature, and I agree. I can understand that the Child's New Play-Thing does not have the same depth that affords complex analysis. In some schools of criticism, I can understand how examining children's literature is less useful- although I'm sure you could still find the roots of a Marxist criticism or a psychoanalytical criticism within the Child's New Play-Thing's few words. But from any social/political/historical standpoints, children's literature is juts as important- if not more important- to examine. In looking at that text, a modern reader can see what ideology was considered most vital for the youngest learners to know, as well as what was considered the most basic of information and the most simple facts.
Some are silly: "B was a Butcher, and had a great Dog."
Some indicate, however, social standing: "C was a Captain, all cover'd with Lace."
Some are political or religious: "Q was a Quaker, and would not bow down."
All of these things would to the young reader be accepted as fact, and thus shape the ideologies of the next generation, which I would consider worth studying.
I just read the two readings for Monday, and they are very different from the other topics' readings. The story from Hester Maria Thrale cites all of these incredibly smart things a 2-year-old can do at such a young age. It was really interesting to see, not only what she could do, but how it different from the learning experiences I had at that age. The except lists things such as, reading and referencing a map, knowing all the capitals of Europe, knowing the compass perfectly, knowing the zodiac sign, and being very observant. Sadly, I am 21-years-old and I can not do some of those things. This is interesting for two reasons. One, it is interesting to see what was emphasized for children to learn at that age. Because, what children learn at a young age isn't completely what they observe, but there is strongly influenced by what their parents teach them and make them learn. Secondly, the mother (Hester Salusbury) seems very concerned that her daughter is not reading and retaining information as quickly as she would like. This is noteworthy because today it seems like that is focused on the most by parents in their child's learning scheme. Maybe this is because there are many tangible objects to teach her daughter about maps, compasses, and other grown-up literature, but not many children books like we have today.
I like the Child's New Play-Thing because it is similar to some some children books now. It is very simplistic and self-explanatory for all the letters of the alphabet. The thing that caught my attention was that there were no pictures for the letter-blocks. Instead of saying "A is for apple" and there being a picture of an apple, it just has words and the letters. Also, the second alphabetical rhyming letters struck me as odd because you read it from right to left. ( B A, D C, etc.) One other thing that might be confusing for a child is having multiple-lettered subjects in each phrase of the poem. Instead of saying "B- Was a Butcher, and had great bee," he says "butcher" and "dog" in the same sentence. This might confuse a child about the different sounds one letter can make. But, I wonder how much that had to be done to get the poem to rhyme.
For the question about if this is really literature, I would say yes. Of course it is not compelling, has poetic feel, or a moral to the story; but, they are stories for children. Adults of course do not find them mentally stimulating because our minds have far surpassed that level of mental capacity. But, for a child, he or she is as equally engrossed in a child's story as an adult's mind to be enthralled in Samuel Johnson.
One legitimate objection for our class might be that children literature can be covered in one day. Do we really need to spend an entire week exploring the way children learn to read and become educated in C18?
I think that this material should be considered literature. On the surface it seems very simplistic because there is not much to it. However, from a historical standpoint, reviewing The Child's New Play Thing is useful. We are able to get a better understanding of the 18th century culture and moral system. For example, they are associating negative qualities with drunkards, robbers, and gamblers. While the importance of social order can be seen with the reference to Nobleman. The Nobleman was "gallant and bold." Furthermore, there were other cultural aspects that I found interesting. I was surprised to see that the word rod given as an example for the letter R. It seems that a more appropriate word for children would be rabbit. However, after reading Thrale's Family Book, it appears that the kids know the word rod because rods were used for punishment.
I am probably biased when it comes to answering this question since I am in the group participating in this presentation. Ignoring this fact, I do feel as though children's literature is a "real" type of literature and does matter. Although many times it is shorter than literature than adults would read, one has to remember that it is geared towards a different audience. It is literature in the sense that it is generally meant to reveal ways to live in society, especially when it was originally written, during the 18th century. I think it also counts as legitimate literature because although it may be easier and not as dense as items adults would read, readings needs to start somewhere to advance, and that starting point needs to be easy. Children's literature is essentially a stepping stone to achieving the goal of being able to read later in life.
Of course children’s literature counts! (But of course, I too, like Westyn, am a bit biased in regards to this topic. Hah.) In all seriousness though, I do very much believe that the children’s stories of this period (and even onward) can be considered legitimate literature; as Michelle pointed out, it gives us further insight into C18 culture, and personally I think that’s one of the most important functions literature has.
Literature, to me, typically involves a number of similar texts that are reflective of the times/social situations/anxieties/changes/etc. of a particular moment, texts that, additionally, have a broader message or implication to convey; and children’s stories for me fit those criteria. Again, as Michelle said, this literature is reflective of the period, as well as serves a specific societal function. In the C18, it very obviously served the purpose of teaching children both instructional and moral lessons, as well as how to become proper, “qualified” members of society. I think it’s important to note that literature also evolves over time, and I don’t think any of us can deny how many changes children’s literature has undergone over the centuries. How it’s changed and why is vital to understanding not only how the child population has altered, but also how our general thinking of them and how to teach them has also.
I think the main reason the legitimacy of children’s literature is questioned, though, is because (as it’s been mentioned a few times above) it’s too simplistic and there seemingly aren’t any deeper messages to take away; but as “Play-Thing” (and hopefully our readings for Wednesday) prove, there are many underlying messages and ideas we can take away from these reading materials that can help us understand this literature and the societies they were written in as a whole. Now whether these messages are actually embedded within the text (intentionally, by the author) or we’re just extracting them because we, as English majors, know we have to, is up for debate. But then again isn’t that the question of all literature?
(And as a random, afterthought: Maybe we should consider what types of people would have read this—children’s stories in this era (the later 1700s), would’ve served as reading materials for people like Austen as well as Romantic poets like Wordsworth, Shelley, Keats [whose childhood readings, we could argue, must’ve had SOME influence on them [consciously or otherwise]]. The same goes for all famous and influential people throughout the ages, even today. If we’re keeping this in mind, would it still matter whether or not “kids’ stories” are considered “proper literature”? Hmm…)
To say children's literature is not real literature is quite unfair. How is one to teach skills such as reading and writing to the young generation if there are no books geared towards children? Every author we have read in this class started as a child and I believe would have gotten no where if it weren't for books such as Child's New Play-Thing. Children are a blank slate and their ability to learn at such a quick pace (as Hester Thrale's daughter demonstrated) makes them the perfect audience for literature.
Like some of my classmates have pointed out above, paying close attention to the word choice used in Child's New Play-Thing can really emphasize the importance of certain things in 18th century culture. This isn't a nonsense slew of words meant to teach you the alphabet. Some of the words here are quite difficult in fact and so it makes one wonder why do children need to know what an osyter-wench is or a vintner is or a parson is. Each alphabetical statement also has moral value to it, such as "R was a Robber and wanted a Whip." One would think such an image as compared to our modern "R for Rabbit" statement is a little harsh, but what better way to emphasize the immorality of thieving by saying one who steals is asking for a whipping? Coming up with such phrases takes a great deal of talent because not only did children's literature of the 18th century teach children to read and write, but it taught children their culture in a creative and poetic way. In a way, children's literature then becomes a gel of all the types of literature we've studied so far--it is sentimental in that it wants to bring out emotion in its child reader and that child reader's parent, it must be dramatic like the theater was to grab the child's attention, and it must be entertaining like the Gothic...anything and everything was put into these pieces to make them valuable.
Back to The Family Book, I couldn't help but laugh at the great strides in education young Hester was making at the age of two. Why a child that young needs to know astronomy is baffling but it was reassuring to know that her mother was so concerned with her education and academic growth. I can't help but wonder why this piece is considered to be such an important piece of literature though. For our studies in this class of course it gives us a good window into the 18th century family life, but of what importance could it have been to Hester's peers?
Why would we not consider something like the Child's New Play-Thing to be literature when it's purpose is to form children into readers, therefore becoming the foundation of everything involved with reading and writing. In particular the Child's New Play-Thing is important because it directs the letters on its pages to be cut out for use by the children, so it is an interactive text. Before the children who used this text could even skillfully read or write they were already crafting things out of letters and developing a relationship with words.
I don't know much about the state of education during this time period, but I think I can safely assume that more boys than girls were familiar with this text or ones similar to it. I noted that the majority of names mentioned with each letter were male, except for "Kitty" and "Nanny," and the Lady associated with the letter L who "had a white hand," rather than a job or title worth discussing like the other figures included. The male presence is dominant and I wonder if is an effect of the alienation of females from education, or perhaps if it was a tool used to exclude them further.
First off, I have to say that I was very impressed by Hester Salsbury’s daughter’s academic abilities at the tender age of two, and quite frankly I was a bit jealous. Her knowledge of the constellations and the difference between the ecliptic and the equator, shows how children in the eighteenth century were expected to know concepts we don’t learn today until a later age. I hate to make a generalization, but I feel like people today rely too heavily on Dora the Explorer or Baby Einstein to teach their children, preventing them from experiencing interactions with books and real life experiences. For example, while a kid today watches another kid play with a ball on Teletubbies, a child from the 18th century would have actually physically been playing with the ball and thus gaining knowledge through experience, just as Hester’s daughter does.
In terms of whether or not Child’s New Plaything is a legitimate source of literature or not, I would definitely say that it is. It teaches children their letters, which is technically what all literature is formed with. By teaching them their letters it is preparing them to be able to read more complex forms of literature when they get older. The descriptions below each letter also incorporate a rhyme scheme which is a feature of literature. If you read all the descriptions it almost flows like a poem. Just because there isn’t much text on the page or there is no plot doesn’t mean it cannot constitute as literature.
As everyone seems to be saying so far, I also think children's literature should be considered literature and worth our time studying. It is very interesting to compare to modern ways of educating children. Modern children's educational tools are very censored. The first thing I noticed and was sort of shocked by was the references to gamblers, drunkards, robbers and a zany (in Child's New Play-Thing). Something like this makes you wonder how different other aspects of children's lives were different than today.
Another great reason to study children's literature is these children will be the audience for "adult" fiction in a short amount of time. Knowing what literature children grew up on can help us have a better understanding of how people during this time would interpret and absorb literature. It is just another piece to the puzzle, bringing us closer to being able to relate with readers from this time period.
I agree with what mostly everyone above has said, which is that Children's Literature definitely counts as literature; in fact, this is one of the presentations I was looking most forward to, just because so often Children's Literature is ignored, and therefore most of us know so little about it. Those who don't agree may say that children's literature is too simplistic, and that there is no "real material" within it available for analysis, but I disagree. I think the same themes and possibilities exist in children's texts as they do in other genre's of literature we study, you just may have to look a little bit harder or study from an angle that you are not necessarily used to.
I've not yet read the readings for Wednesday, but I feel like the readings we had for today might be considered outliers in terms of being "Children's Lit." Hester's account of her daughter's growing abilities is interesting to read, but I'm not sure if it really fits in with the genre. However, Child's New Play-Thing is a great choice because we get to see how children's ideas about literature and reading are shaped at an early age. This alphabet reader influences children's feelings on what they are reading, and may be the first printed example they receive about the alphabet and simple vocabulary words.
As much as I would like to play devil's advocate here, I agree with everyone else in the belief that children's literature does matter and is worth studying. You can learn a lot about the culture of a time period by studying how the adult writers of that society imagined the children and determined what they should learn and how they should learn it.
For example, The Child's New Play-Thing is not too different from our own time where we want our children to learn the alphabet and how to read (think Sesame Street); however, as others have mentioned above, there are certain 18th century idiosyncrasies here that are different from modern children's literature and are worth studying. For instance, many of the names, which Sam M has noted, are mostly male, and many of them are references to biblical figures: Abraham, Balaam, David, Obadiah, etc. Additionally, it is clear in The Family Book that relgion is a very important concept to learn as a child. The author repeatedly mentions Hester's progress in understanding religious concepts such as,"the Pater Noster, the Nicene Creed and the Devalogue," and "the story of the Fall of Man" (2860). In order to truly understand another culture or a historical time period, I believe it is important to study how people thought of and educated (or not) their children. The Child's New Play-Thing is a relic that illustrates the types of ideas that played an impactful role in in the development of an 18th century young person's mind.
I like SMR's idea that Jane Austen or other future writers were perhaps readers of this text, and their parents were readers of The Family Book and may have compared their child's progress to Hester's. This goes along with Aaron White's idea that we can look at children's literature from the lenses of Marxist criticism or a psychoanalytical criticism, for example. To add on to this, SMR is suggesting the literary theory of New Historicism that accounts for all the influences that may have had an impact on a writer like Jane Austen, including what she may have read as a child.
One objection that could be raised to this unit of the syllabus regards the readings for today and for Wednesday which were intended for children. While we get a good understanding of the concepts that children learned through this literature and the notions embedded into them that are unique or important to that time period, we do not get much out of it for ourselves. That is to say, while reading a poem from the 18th century still offers some sort of pleasure, these readings, besides being a slightly comical, really do not offer much for ourselves.
I believe that these children texts are literature. While, they differ from what we are used to, the texts still have themes and content worth analyzing. In "Child's New Play-Thing," the alphabet and the sentences used to describe each letter provide insight children's lives. The terms they are learning about at these young ages such as "sailors, merchants, and robbers" are things that I learned about as a child. These texts allow readers to conceptualize what childhood was like in these times, and why they are worthy literature.
In "The Family Book," the child is exposed to a lot of different things well beyond my knowledge at that age. She is able to read astronomical charts, zodiac signs, etc. This text like the other one allows us to have a better understanding of 18th culture, which all the other texts we have read have also accomplished. This component of literature is why these texts are valuable and cannot be dismissed
Is it literature? I think so. The word "literature" has far too many assumed definitions for me to form a more definitive opinion. In the academic world, literature, as I understand it, connotes some aspect of worth; however, it's difficult to differentiate the values of separate works of literature. "Child's New Play Thing" can be considered literature, but not be worthy of canonical consideration due to it's possibly weaker portrayal of 18th century sentiments than other works of the era. It should be considered, however, that there aren't many alternative sources that can give a clear depiction of the childrens' role within 18th century society. So, I guess, the syllable-worthiness of the text depends on how important the understanding of a society's sentiment towards children is to understanding the society as a whole. After reading the text, I did, indeed, come away with a better understanding of the conventional mindset of 18th century society and can now incorporate these new ideas when analyzing the era's texts in the future. The biblical teachings, the emphasis on science, and the child's development of an irascible disposition is definitely telling of the times. But I am uncertain as to whether more could have been accomplished by instead reading a more profound text from the time period.
Post a Comment