Defining children’s literature is
unexpectedly tricky. “To begin with, what is a children’s book?" asks F.
Gordon Roe. It is not, it seems, simply a book written for children. Talking of
childhood reading in Victorian times, Roe continues:
Some of the works I shall
mention were not primarily written for children at all. So far from the works
of Scott and Dickens being looked upon as impositions, they were read eagerly
by many juveniles, though some of their elders were doubtful about Mr Dickens, who
wrote about quite vulgar folk — even pickpockets!
Just as “adult" books like Redgauntlet,
say, or Oliver Twist were appropriated by children, books
written for children reached an adult audience too, and not only through the
business side of things, either. Having been selected by the publisher or his
reader, books were then selected by parents and teachers for individual
children (certainly until the later decades of the century), and often read
aloud to the youngest of those children. Children’s writers have always been
very much aware of the adults reading over children’s shoulders. Then, books
that enthralled in childhood stayed with their readers into adulthood. Thackeray explains,
“The boy-critic loves the story: grown up, he loves the author who wrote the
story. Hence the kindly tie is established between writer and reader, and lasts
pretty nearly for life" (“De Juventute"). Thackeray is talking mainly
of Sir Walter Scott here, but he also refers to “Frank" in Maria
Edgeworth’s Moral Tales for Young Children (1801). Perhaps
most importantly, some of the greatest children’s books of the
mid-nineteenth-century onwards seem to have been written, at least
subconsciously, to satisfy the needs of adults. U. C. Knoepflmacher feels that
Thackeray, George
MacDonald, Lewis Carroll, Jean
Ingelow, Christina
Rossetti and Mrs
Ewing all
owed much toRuskin, explaining that:
The double perspective of child and adult he
had implanted in his 1841 text [The King of the Golden River]
would be perfected in their more complicated fantasies for young readers of
both sexes. By turning to such child readers, these writers tried, as had
Ruskin, to confront their own self-division between adult and child selves.
Books that addressed such a fundamental
psychological dilemma inevitably appealed to adult readers as well as children.
An example here is Rossetti’s Goblin Market (1862),
which was quickly perceived to have two levels of meaning for the two distinct
audiences (see Knoepflmacher, Ch. 9).
The parameters of
children’s literature are blurred in another way. When can this amorphous body
of literature be said to have begun? In the later medieval period, perhaps,
with hornbooks (which
carried The Lord’s Prayer or sometimes a religious verse), or conduct books for
young courtiers? Or in the sixteenth century, with chapbooks,
however bawdy and probably forbidden? Chapbooks were still circulating into the
nineteenth century, by which time some were being specifically put out for
children, an interesting proof that children could drive the book market even
then. These cheap popular tales were precursors of the Penny
Dreadfuls. Or did children’s literature start, in the same century, with the
publication of the old romance, Sir Bevis of Hampton, which Bunyan
loved as a child? A version of Sir Bevis of Hampton was
published for children in 1846; Richard
Jefferies’ young hero in the children’s classic Wood
Magic (1881) and its sequel Bevis: The Story of a Boy (1882), is
nicknamed “Sir Bevis" as a small child (Wood Magic, Ch. 1). Or did
children’s literature really take off later in the seventeenth century, with James
Janeway’s A Token for Children and Henry Jessey and Abraham
Chear’s A Looking-Glass for Children (both of which appeared
in 1672)? Some might prefer to point to Bunyan’s much-loved Pilgrim’s
Progress (1678): the preface to Part II (1684), in which Christian’s
wife Christiana and their four sons set out to follow in Christian’s footsteps,
suggests that Bunyan had child readers in mind by now. He went on to write “A
Book for Boys and Girls (later entitled Divine Emblems) in
1686. But the legacy of instructional writing faded in the later Victorian
period, while Britain’s strong nursery
rhyme tradition proved to be an important influence on future nonsense
writing, so might not the appearance of Tommy Thumb’s Song Book in
1744 mark a better starting point?
Most children’s literature
researchers settle on the two sets of religious tracts published in 1672, for
they set the tone for what Sylvia Kasey Marks describes as the first real
“burst" of writing for children — and a grim, moralistic tone it was too.
The difficulty here is that their legacy did fade. According to Marks herself,
in 1839 this type of writing for children came “full circle" (12) with the
publication of Catherine Sinclair’s Holiday House. Not
everyone would agree with the placing of Holiday House at the
end of that tradition; it can be put instead at the beginning of another. But
at any rate it was clearly pivotal. For by now the whole concept of childhood
was in flux. As one social historian has said, thanks to the "veritable
explosion of information about this period of physiological and cognitive
development in human beings [i.e., childhood]," the material used in the
literary child figure was changing irrevocably, enabling it to function as
"a central vehicle for expressing ideas about the self and its
history" (Steedman 5). Like any new departure, this one "established
itself by publicly annihilating its predecessors. This meant Victorian moralism
generally, and the exemplary children of religious tracts in particular…"
(Keating 219).
Different critics may
choose different books to illustrate this "annihilation," but the
appearance of fantasy probably dealt the fatal blow, with Lewis
Carroll’s Alice driving
it home: here is a child character unlike any who had gone before, who had
once, we are told, "really frightened her old nurse by shouting suddenly
in her ear, ‘Nurse! Do let’s pretend that I’m a hungry hyaena, and you’re a
bone’" (Through the Looking Glass, 1871, Ch.1). It must be
admitted, however, that this kind of thing gets much of its charge from its
rebellion against the past. In other words, the voices of the earlier moralists
were, in a sense, still being heard (see Bratton 208).
As regards dating, there is
also the commercial aspect. John Sutherland says that "It was not until
the 1850s that a stable commercial infrastructure for children’s fiction was
established." He would date the enterprise of children’s fiction, as an enterprise,
from the setting up of magazines such as the RTS’s Sunday at Home and
the emergence of ‘name’ novelists such as George E. Sargent whose Roland
Leigh, The Story of a City Arab (1857) pioneered a string of similar
chronicles of ragged but indomitably virtuous heroes. The 1850s also saw the
emergence of Charlotte Maria Tucker (‘ALOE’), the most gifted writer of
children’s fiction to date. (122-23)
This overlooks some earlier commercial
successes, such as Mrs
Sherwood’s, but it is certainly true that sales of
children’s books now became an important part of the publisher’s trade. From
1875 to 1885, for example, the average number of new adult fiction titles
appearing each year was 429, while the figure for "juvenile works"
was 470 (Keating 32). Interestingly (and substantiating my earlier point about
adults reading children’s books), in 1894 the Publisher’s Circular announced
that it would stop counting the juvenile titles separately, because
"so-called juvenile works are nowadays so well written, that often they
suit older readers quite as well as those for whom they are primarily
intended" (qtd. in Keating 32).
Finally, how do we
categorise children’s literature? Can it really be called a genre, when it
includes so many different types of writing for such a wide range of ages, from
toddlers on the brink of comprehension to teenagers on the brink of adulthood?
As the inside front-jacket blurb of the indispensable Oxford Companion
to Children’s Literature, by Humphrey Carpenter and Mari Prichard, puts it:
The range of literature
covered includes traditional narrative materials such as legends and romances;fairy
tales; chapbooks; genres such as school stories, adventure stories, doll
stories, and science fiction;ABC and
other learning books; children’s
magazines, comics and story papers; picture books; teenage novels; children’s
hymns…
And so on. Animal stories, nonsense
writing, poetry and plays are not even mentioned here, though well represented
in the book itself.
Hard as it is to define,
children’s literature is now recognized as an important field of study, both in
itself and for the insights it yields into literature as a whole — as well as
into the family life, society and thinking of any given period, and the minds
of the many major authors influenced by it. On all counts, it is a fascinating
and rewarding subject.
References
Bratton,
J. S. The Impact of Victorian Children’s Fiction. London: Croom
Helm, 1981.
Carroll,
Lewis. Adventures of Alice in Wonderland & Through the Looking
Glass. London: Heirloom, 1949.
Keating,
Peter. The Haunted Study. London: Secker & Warburg, 1989.
Knoepflmacher,
U. C. Ventures in to Childland: Victorians, Fairy Tales, and Femininity.
Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1998.
Marks,
Sylvia Kasey. Writing For the Rising Generation: British Fiction for
Young People, 1672-1839. Victoria, BC: University of Victoria (ELS
Monograph Series No. 89), 2003.
The
Oxford Companion to Children’s Literature, by Humphrey Carpenter and
Mari Prichard. Oxford & New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1995 impression.
Carolyn
Steedman. Strange Dislocations: Childhood and the Idea of Human
Interiority, 1780-1930. London: Virago, 1995.
Sutherland,
John. The Longman Companion to Victorian Fiction. London: Longman,
pbk ed. 1990.
Thackeray,
William Makepeace. "De Juventute." Roundabout Papers. The
Complete Works. Vol. 22. New York:
Harrap, 1903. Text available here.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario