Welcome to the course blog for English 427: Literature of the Later Eighteenth Century.
Didst thou ever see a white bear? cried my father, turning his head round to Trim, who stood at the back of his chair:——No, an' please your honor, replied the corporal.——But thou could'st discourse about one, Trim, said my father, in case of need?——How is it possible, brother, quoth my uncle Toby, if the corporal never saw one?——'Tis the fact I want, said my father—and the possibility of it, is as follows. (Sterne, The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy V:xlii.)
Friday, March 18, 2011
For Credit: Final Thoughts on Print Culture, Children's Literature, Our Emerging Big Picture of Later C18 Lit. or Anything Else that Comes to Mind over Spring Break...
Yeah.
Posts before midnight on Saturday (3/26) will count towards Week 9. Posts after midnight and before class on Monday (3/18) will count towards Week 10.
After having discussed children's literature in class I'm still interested by the idea that wealthy young children, while perhaps not literally being taught to have to do things like black their own shoes, were encouraged by their parents to be virtuous and respectful toward their "inferiors." It interests me for two reasons: The first being that this virtuous model being given to children doesn't seem to be employed by the parents. For example, in the play we acted out in class a few weeks ago the adults were gossiping and talking behind each others backs, and for the most part seemed to be really enjoying themselves. Also, at a time when class conflict is at an all time high, and lower class revolution is brewing around the world I find it difficult to believe that children actually were raised to respect their inferiors. I wonder if this value taught to them, that they should appreciate the work of the lower classes that benefits the upper classes, was rooted in cautionary prudence and awareness that the upper classes needed the lower classes, or if it was genuinely rooted in traditional Christian values.
Both in response to the post above and the ambiguity left from our presentation of children's literature, I feel the need to clear things up a little bit.
First of all, that didactic reading that you should respect everyone else was more extrapolated than it was intended by the author (referring to "Dirty Boots). That's a sort of reading that we gathered from what we're used to being taught as schoolchildren in this day and age. We're taught to respect others, regardless of gender, race, class, creed, etc. And while it does seem like the text is operating on a level of equality, it's actually not very interested in that sort of equality.
Instead, children's literature during this time hid behind this guise of being good-natured and helpful for children and had its own intentions for being produced. Publishers wanted consumers (children and their parents) to believe that these books were training them to be civilized adults with nice morals and lessons. However, what it was really intent on doing was maintaining the lines of separation between class and gender; a sort of maintenance of the social status quo. It wasn't until texts like Sandford and Merton that introduced more progressive blurring of these social boundaries in children's literature. But let's just be clear: Dirty Boots was not a text on equality, but rather separation.
I found the week we spent investigating children's literature extremely interesting. It was a rather refreshing topic, as it is rarely touched on in schools of any level. We just kind of assume that children's books have always been about fuzzy rabbits going on a wild adventure to discover the true meaning of friendship in a kid-friendly and unrealistic environment. In a more no-nonsense period, children's literature was published with the intentions to shape minds-in a rather different way than are the intentions of modern day children's books. Back then, they wanted to create the perfect child, and encourage them to go forward and learn and be a responsible, sensible human being. The books encouraged the readers to excel in many different areas, and was more to the point. Now, everything is all rainbows and butterflies, with a solid moral or academic message hidden within. It is extremely intriguing to see how far this genre of literature has come, and to really recognize all of the subliminal messages that are packed within children's books of all periods. It truly was an interesting unit.
Additionally, the inner kid in me automatically thought of those little babies on the (e-trade?) commercials who wear suits and speak intellectually about business and adult matters when we were reading some of the readings that were about the child geniuses. I guess that shows how media can really create a lasting impression on young, impressionable minds.
I think that the most interesting aspects of children's literature during the C18 was definitely the way they used very mature or articulate language (almost totally disregarding the age group of the audience they were targeting), and integrated various morals for children to learn from. I believe that instead of simply telling a child "No, you cannot do that." They actually took the time out to create scenarios within stories to allow children to further understand why it may or may not be good to conduct a particular behavior or mentality. I also think that the way that the C18 culture even viewed children was even more interesting in the sense that they believe that strict disciplinary actions or scare tactics (as we seen in the ABC poem) delivers the best results in guiding children down the right path. Whereas in our modern day, we as the products of the C21 culture frown upon such reinforcements/tactics. However, it was important to understand that the times were different and these individuals of the past simply acted upon a system that they believed work for their children's upbringing and overall well-being.
4 comments:
After having discussed children's literature in class I'm still interested by the idea that wealthy young children, while perhaps not literally being taught to have to do things like black their own shoes, were encouraged by their parents to be virtuous and respectful toward their "inferiors." It interests me for two reasons: The first being that this virtuous model being given to children doesn't seem to be employed by the parents. For example, in the play we acted out in class a few weeks ago the adults were gossiping and talking behind each others backs, and for the most part seemed to be really enjoying themselves. Also, at a time when class conflict is at an all time high, and lower class revolution is brewing around the world I find it difficult to believe that children actually were raised to respect their inferiors. I wonder if this value taught to them, that they should appreciate the work of the lower classes that benefits the upper classes, was rooted in cautionary prudence and awareness that the upper classes needed the lower classes, or if it was genuinely rooted in traditional Christian values.
Both in response to the post above and the ambiguity left from our presentation of children's literature, I feel the need to clear things up a little bit.
First of all, that didactic reading that you should respect everyone else was more extrapolated than it was intended by the author (referring to "Dirty Boots). That's a sort of reading that we gathered from what we're used to being taught as schoolchildren in this day and age. We're taught to respect others, regardless of gender, race, class, creed, etc. And while it does seem like the text is operating on a level of equality, it's actually not very interested in that sort of equality.
Instead, children's literature during this time hid behind this guise of being good-natured and helpful for children and had its own intentions for being produced. Publishers wanted consumers (children and their parents) to believe that these books were training them to be civilized adults with nice morals and lessons. However, what it was really intent on doing was maintaining the lines of separation between class and gender; a sort of maintenance of the social status quo. It wasn't until texts like Sandford and Merton that introduced more progressive blurring of these social boundaries in children's literature. But let's just be clear: Dirty Boots was not a text on equality, but rather separation.
I found the week we spent investigating children's literature extremely interesting. It was a rather refreshing topic, as it is rarely touched on in schools of any level. We just kind of assume that children's books have always been about fuzzy rabbits going on a wild adventure to discover the true meaning of friendship in a kid-friendly and unrealistic environment. In a more no-nonsense period, children's literature was published with the intentions to shape minds-in a rather different way than are the intentions of modern day children's books. Back then, they wanted to create the perfect child, and encourage them to go forward and learn and be a responsible, sensible human being. The books encouraged the readers to excel in many different areas, and was more to the point. Now, everything is all rainbows and butterflies, with a solid moral or academic message hidden within. It is extremely intriguing to see how far this genre of literature has come, and to really recognize all of the subliminal messages that are packed within children's books of all periods. It truly was an interesting unit.
Additionally, the inner kid in me automatically thought of those little babies on the (e-trade?) commercials who wear suits and speak intellectually about business and adult matters when we were reading some of the readings that were about the child geniuses. I guess that shows how media can really create a lasting impression on young, impressionable minds.
I think that the most interesting aspects of children's literature during the C18 was definitely the way they used very mature or articulate language (almost totally disregarding the age group of the audience they were targeting), and integrated various morals for children to learn from. I believe that instead of simply telling a child "No, you cannot do that." They actually took the time out to create scenarios within stories to allow children to further understand why it may or may not be good to conduct a particular behavior or mentality. I also think that the way that the C18 culture even viewed children was even more interesting in the sense that they believe that strict disciplinary actions or scare tactics (as we seen in the ABC poem) delivers the best results in guiding children down the right path. Whereas in our modern day, we as the products of the C21 culture frown upon such reinforcements/tactics. However, it was important to understand that the times were different and these individuals of the past simply acted upon a system that they believed work for their children's upbringing and overall well-being.
Post a Comment