The value of children's fiction

[french frank]

Much YA fiction [and even earlier] deals with pressing human problems, choices and dilemmas.

That merely confirms that such children's literature can be valuable, especially for children (adults can find the same qualities in adult fiction - why do they need to seek them out in children's books?).

The dividing line between that and 'adult fiction' is getting ever more blurred. In a way, it is perhaps even counter-productive and misleading to categorise in this way.

If only because adults are now devouring children's books. I don't know that there has been the same movement of children generally choosing adult fiction as their preferred reading.

To be really controversial (argumenti causa), I'd state that this was because young people, especially millennials, are taking longer to reach emotional maturity and cling much longer to their childhood tastes. I would theorise that this is because in ever greater numbers they continue with their education longer, remain, as a result, with their peers rather than entering the adult world of work and engaging with adults as equals. And perhaps also, for economic reasons, remain in the parental home, prolonging the child-parent experience and keeping them from shouldering their own responsibilities.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Incidentally, the Prof himself didn’t recognise what he was watching when his son (may have been a grandson) took him to the cinema (might have been the première).

Sorry, dovers - which "prof" and what did he go to see at the cinema?

The first Harry Potter book is a very well written children’s book in the sense as Enid Blyton’s books are good; it presses all the right buttons to get children excited. It seems that the author also discovered exactly how to get adults excited too. From that point, she is a highly talented writer. All the same, I think Harry Potter ‘boom’ is more a social phenomenon (it tells us about the society we live in now) than anything about literature.

Yes - it's not that the Potter books are "badly" written; they are very well written for the c10-14 year-old audience for whom they were originally intended. They are very well plotted, there is decent character development, and not nearly as formulaic as Blyton's stuff. When I did Supply work at Primary schools fifteen years ago and more, I was impressed with the way that the children engaged with the books - but I really didn't like reading them out to the class (the prose is a bit flat). They make very good films, and I've enjoyed watching them with kids - I feel the same way about The Lord of the Rings; for an author who did such a marvellous job with Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, the clay-caked clunky prose and stilted dialogue of Lord of the Rings is surprising. The Hobbit is much better written, but the films [and the R4 adaptation from 1980-ish, for that matter] distil the stories much better - and save so much time. I doubt that even Jackson could do anything to save The Silmarillion, though.

Reading Pullman to (slightly older) kids was always a pleasure for me, though - as were the wonderful Tiffany Aching novels of Terry Pratchett; the word-choice and word-play, the composition, the dancing prose, and the greater emotional range and maturity, have so very, very much more to offer. (Pratchett's works for younger kids are lovely, too - the "Nome" trilogy for 8-year-olds, the Johnny Maxwell "trilogy" for 10-12 year-olds.)

[greenilex]

Like “clay-caked clunky prose”.

Brill.

But as a teenager with the first edition it was the prose of my dreams...

[jayne lee wilson]

There is no reason why adults shouldn’t indulge themselves in escapist fantasies but the question about the value of adults reading children’s literature is an unrelated question to watching those f'antasy' films.

Incidentally, the Prof himself didn’t recognise what he was watching when his son (may have been a grandson) took him to the cinema (might have been the première).

The first Harry Potter book is a very well written children’s book in the sense as Enid Blyton’s books are good; it presses all the right buttons to get children excited. It seems that the author also discovered exactly how to get adults excited too. From that point, she is a highly talented writer. All the same, I think Harry Potter ‘boom’ is more a social phenomenon (it tells us about the society we live in now) than anything about literature.

But the films are not just "escapist fantasies...." ......they deal with the great universal themes of love and loss, facing death, friendship and betrayal, using the imagery of dream and nightmare....... for all I know, the books do too.

I love this bit of dialogue from The Return of the King.... I think it resonates powerfully in our own divisive times...

"Gimli: I never thought I’d die fighting side by side with an elf.
Legolas: How about side by side with a friend?
Gimli: Aye. I could do that. "
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

[french frank]

But the films are not just "escapist fantasies...." ......they deal with the great universal themes of love and loss, facing death, friendship and betrayal, using the imagery of dream and nightmare....... for all I know, the books do too.

Are we talking about Harry Potter here? - or Lord of the Rings?

There seems to have been little doubt at the start as to whether LotR was intended as children's book. In 1954, the New Yorker review described The Fellowship of the Ring as 'a whimsical and sententious fairy story, which is intended for grownups', so it seems accidental that it appealed to younger readers then and later. To me, it seems like a modern version of the medieval literature that Tolkien wrote about professionally (and which the then adult audience would have heard - as an 'audio book' - rather than read). For Tolkien, I'd guess the creation of this 'fantasy' world was an enjoyable game - the magpie pursuit of various bits and pieces of academic and medieval paraphernalia with a plot woven into it. In which case it was written as much for his own enjoyment as for any particular audience.

The question remains: what is it that (good) children's literature is supposed to offer that adults somehow (in their fallen state?) need? Hope ('however childish') was one thing apparently suggested by the author of the book reviewed (see OP - Why You Should Read Children’s Books, Even Though You Are So Old and Wise) and 'to long for impossible and perhaps-not-impossible things' - in which case, isn't that just another aspect of escapism (sadly)?

[jayne lee wilson]

"...'to long for impossible and perhaps-not-impossible things'...."

Like ... creating an image of a Black Hole from a radio-telescope the size of a planet, perhaps...?


"in which case, isn't that just another aspect of escapism (sadly)?"

I there anything essentially wrong (or "sad") with escapism though? If you had a lot of stress in your life - whether from loss, illness, or life problems, maybe escapism is a good, even necessary thing sometimes... whether through Kid Fiction or GoT...or Marvel...

Aren't all those Crime Dramas like LoD another kind of escapism anyway....? Classical Music in many of its forms....?

[french frank]

I there anything essentially wrong (or "sad") with escapism though?

Whether or not, I wasn't meaning that escapism itself was sad but that things that would be a 'happy' reality are contemplated as hoped for, but not reality. The full context is:

'She thinks children’s books remind adults what it’s like “to long for impossible and perhaps-not-impossible things” like justice, love, adventure and happiness, and to feel a sense of hope, however childish'. In other words, it's sad if hoping for justice, love, adventure and happiness are escapist fantasy, rather reality to celebrate.

But, yes, I imagine a lot of TV drama is escapism, harmlessly focusing on unreality where one has no stake in the outcome, rather than worrying about how things really are.

[jayne lee wilson]

The serious/escapist distinction is often not easily made of course.... one escapes into the Fantasy World of Game of Thrones, but those who follow it usually have an intense emotional investment in its outcomes, and can be upset for days after a major event in the storyline, as I was when one of the Dragons was killed and then raised from the dead to fight for the dark side....how could they! I thought, how COULD they! ...

Rundell says:
"“I think there is a risk, in adulthood, through the compromises we make and the busyness of our lives, that we cease to cherish the imagination in the way we should. Because the imagination is absolutely essential for seeing the world truly.”

That appeal and archetypal power of myth and fantasy is evidently something she sees (and thinks others may find beneficial) in fiction supposedly written for children, and links with those various film fantasy franchises I mentioned above...
I'm not in the least surprised their popularity grows in our difficult world, the seemingly, endlessly complex and unfinished business of our lives. I need them more and more myself...

[doversoul1]

Much YA fiction [and even earlier] deals with pressing human problems, choices and dilemmas.
The dividing line between that and 'adult fiction' is getting ever more blurred. In a way, it is perhaps even counter-productive and misleading to categorise in this way.

The question is not what it (young adult fiction) deals with. That’s the ‘beauty’ of young adult fiction; unlike children’s fiction, authors of young adult fiction are not restricted at all in what they can write about. My point is not what but how the issues are dealt with and the narratives concluded.

Here is my question again; would you read them if they were published as novels for adult/general readers?

[Mary Chambers]

I was made to read The Lord Of the Rings by my English teacher, who had been taught by Tolkien and talked about him a great deal. This was in the late 1950s, so the books were fairly new. I ploughed through the three volumes one summer holiday, and I was far from enthralled. In fact, I found them boring, but I adored my English teacher, so did as I was told. To this day I remain totally unconverted.

[french frank]

The serious/escapist distinction is often not easily made of course.... one escapes into the Fantasy World of Game of Thrones, but those who follow it usually have an intense emotional investment in its outcomes, and can be upset for days after a major event in the storyline

Yes, I believe there are people still upset over the death of Nigel Pargetter when he fell from the roof. Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks. That's a kind of purgative I feel no need for. There aren't many subjects of which I feel no inclination whatever to remedy my total ignorance (in fact I feel a strong resistance to doing so). But Game of Thrones is one: I think it might be to do with the contexts in which it's mentioned.

[jayne lee wilson]

I was made to read The Lord Of the Rings by my English teacher, who had been taught by Tolkien and talked about him a great deal. This was in the late 1950s, so the books were fairly new. I ploughed through the three volumes one summer holiday, and I was far from enthralled. In fact, I found them boring, but I adored my English teacher, so did as I was told. To this day I remain totally unconverted.

Sorry to repeat myself... but the films may make more sense for you (Fantasy as a genre often goes better On Screen... why d'you think those computer games sell so well?...), and be a joyful very moving experience....

Why not try the film trilogy one day?

[jayne lee wilson]

Yes, I believe there are people still upset over the death of Nigel Pargetter when he fell from the roof. Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks. That's a kind of purgative I feel no need for. There aren't many subjects of which I feel no inclination whatever to remedy my total ignorance (in fact I feel a strong resistance to doing so). But Game of Thrones is one: I think it might be to do with the contexts in which it's mentioned.

Which contexts do you mean here?

(I often think of the famous EM Forster quote: "only connect"..... for me, Art matters most intensely if I can find that connection, from The Life to The Art, somewhere...
...with the GoT dragons, I think it goes back to a protective love of, & connection with, animals... )

[doversoul1]

Sorry, dovers - which "prof" and what did he go to see at the cinema?


Yes - it's not that the Potter books are "badly" written; they are very well written for the c10-14 year-old audience for whom they were originally intended. They are very well plotted, there is decent character development, and not nearly as formulaic as Blyton's stuff. When I did Supply work at Primary schools fifteen years ago and more, I was impressed with the way that the children engaged with the books - but I really didn't like reading them out to the class (the prose is a bit flat). They make very good films, and I've enjoyed watching them with kids - I feel the same way about The Lord of the Rings; for an author who did such a marvellous job with Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, the clay-caked clunky prose and stilted dialogue of Lord of the Rings is surprising. The Hobbit is much better written, but the films [and the R4 adaptation from 1980-ish, for that matter] distil the stories much better - and save so much time. I doubt that even Jackson could do anything to save The Silmarillion, though.

Reading Pullman to (slightly older) kids was always a pleasure for me, though - as were the wonderful Tiffany Aching novels of Terry Pratchett; the word-choice and word-play, the composition, the dancing prose, and the greater emotional range and maturity, have so very, very much more to offer. (Pratchett's works for younger kids are lovely, too - the "Nome" trilogy for 8-year-olds, the Johnny Maxwell "trilogy" for 10-12 year-olds.)

Oh, sorry, the Merton Professor of English Language and Literature, John Ronald Reuel Tolkien.

The following points are all my personal views, so please don’t take it too seriously.

The first Harry Potter book was a perfect read for 8/9 to 10/11 the age range now sometimes referred to as middle years when children are not yet (usually) seriously interested in the life beyond their school centred lives. The basic plot is perfectly formulaic and the characters are all stereotypical (with many clever decorations) which children can recognise what they are supposed to understand without making very much effort. As you say yourself that you didn’t like reading it aloud very much because it isn’t ‘well written’ in the way the children’s books by, say, Penelope Lively are.

Pullman’s trilogy is the most traditional story written for children for decades which was why it became so popular. Children’s literature had been seriously addressing the issue about child-adult relationship since 1960’s. Into this world where children and adults had to work hard, came a heroin who never resented, suspected, or got fed up with adults unless the adult is an obvious villain. Then she stood up to them like a true heroin with all the adults (and angels and bears) cheering on. All very comforting to adult readers. The trilogy is a great fun but I wouldn’t take it seriously. The story is full of holes (cheat) if you look at it a bit carefully.

All very unlike Terry Pratchett who took child readers seriously. He demanded his child readers to think hard and when they did, offered them new ways of looking at things.

[doversoul1]

But the films are not just "escapist fantasies...." ......they deal with the great universal themes of love and loss, facing death, friendship and betrayal, using the imagery of dream and nightmare....... for all I know, the books do too.

I love this bit of dialogue from The Return of the King.... I think it resonates powerfully in our own divisive times...

"Gimli: I never thought I’d die fighting side by side with an elf.
Legolas: How about side by side with a friend?
Gimli: Aye. I could do that. "
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

You can’t be serious. This is pop stuff. Spice Girls could have done better than this. Surely you know that one of the values of literature is to make you see something you have not seen before. Not to read what you know and feel good about it.