The Clerical Strain in British Children's Literature

While in London last summer, I visited the Science Museum's exhibit on British technological progress in the 1950s and 1960s, which was "branded" with the characters of the Dan Dare comics series.

I didn't think the exhibit made a good case for linking the comics' sci-fi with the creation of radios only slightly larger than shoeboxes, even if they did appear at the same time. But I suppose the familiar faces made the exhibit more interesting for people who grew up reading Dan Dare.

The thought that struck me hardest as I learned about Eagle, the magazine that published that comic, is how the line of British fantastic literature for children includes several notable books from clergymen:

• Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, better known as Lewis Carroll, author of Alice in Wonderland. (I should note that Dodgson worked as a college professor rather than a minister, but he was ordained.)
• George McDonald, author of The Light Princess and The Princess and the Goblin and a Congregationalist minister.
  
• Marcus Morris, vicar and founder of Eagle magazine.
• W. V. Awdry, vicar and creator of Thomas the Tank Engine.
• G. P. Taylor, retired vicar, author of Shadowmancer and numerous press releases.

In addition, these British authors of Very Important children's novels also published widely read books of theology:

• Thomas Hughes, author of Tom Brown's Schooldays.
• C. S. Lewis, author of the Narnia series.

And there might be more.

I can't think of any equivalents in American children's literature. I'm not thinking about people who wrote religious books for captive young audiences, but authors who were either religious professionals or respected theologians and also created books that a significant number of children from other faiths have enjoyed.

“Alec Baldwin Has Never Been Funnier”

A few years ago, I recall, television ads for a Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends DVD were quoting this critic's gush: "Alec Baldwin has never been funnier!"

That became one of my favorite deadpan quotations. For one thing, the common perception that Baldwin is unremittingly intense and serious makes the line seem like the epitome of faint praise, as in "Ken Burns's most exciting action sequences!" or "The best tacos in Maine!"

Yet on another level the quotation offered even more delicious irony because Alec Baldwin really is funny. I don't know about his performance as Mr. Conductor, though this dad gave him a really good review. But I chortled at Baldwin's early performance in Miami Blues, in which he played a sociopath and was funny. He's delivered comedy through many characters, from his early movie Beetle Juice to many appearances on Saturday Night Live.

For years Baldwin was a character actor trapped in a leading man's body, and he worked against his looks mainly by playing dark, as in Glengarry Glen Ross. Now he's spread out a bit, and the industry is asking for more of his range. He did fine supporting work in The Depahted. And the sitcom 30 Rock has given Baldwin great lines to deliver, the space for his comedic talents, and a mildly growing audience.

Which brings me to a highlight of the past year's cultural news. Lots of folks probably remember how, in the midst of Baldwin's long court battle with ex-wife Kim Basinger over child custody, a gossip website got a recording of him lambasting their daughter for missing a scheduled phone call. Several end-of-year gossip round-ups recall Baldwin's behavior for anyone who's forgotten.

But nobody seems to be mentioning how after a week of nationwide criticism Baldwin went on The View and announced that he was going to give up acting to spend more time “to devote myself to the cause of parental alienation." He spoke of lobbying for new laws and finishing a book on divorce that would come out in September. He left his long-time agents, and asked to be released from his 30 Rock contract. Disaster loomed on all sides.

And then Baldwin changed his mind. He went back to his agents. He went back to 30 Rock, filming some magnificent scenes for this season. He went back to court with Basinger, where they remain.

And America collectively decided to forget about Baldwin's announcement that he was leaving show biz. We appear to have come to a tacit culture-wide agreement never to mention that moment again. Because we don't want Baldwin to stop performing and get serious, not now. We can't afford that.

Because Alec Baldwin has never been funnier.

Thomas the Tank Engine's Special Connection?

Recent reports from the British Daily Mail and the Canadian Broadcasting Company (alert by Book Moot) have discussed the popularity of the Thomas the Tank Engine stories and toys for children with autism.

I know a couple of little boys who have been fascinated beyond reason (at least my reason) by Thomas, so I thought this was an interesting report. But the more I looked into the news, the less it looked like news and the more it smelled like marketing.

News outlets have carried stories about a “special connection” between the Thomas the Tank Engine stories and children with autism since 2000, if not before. Websites cite an article that appeared in the New York Post that year on 26 July, headlined “Autistic Kids Make Connection with Thomas.”

The National Autism Society undertook a survey about Thomas the Tank Engine in the summer of 2001. It worked through Aidan Prior Communications, a London public relations firm; Prior is listed as coauthor of some other NAS reports. The NAS issued this study in February 2002, and its four-page summary can be downloaded from the group’s webpage. However, the actual data from the survey and information about the methodology aren't included.

This survey heard from 81 parents of children with autism--not a large sample. There’s no indication of a control group of parents whose children don’t have an autism diagnosis, so as to set a baseline for comparison. The summary doesn’t explain how researchers determined that respondents were even typical of parents with autistic children rather than self-selected Thomas fans.

The survey was undertaken based on an “assumption from anecdotal evidence that children with autism spectrum disorders associate far more strongly with Thomas the Tank Engine than with other children’s characters.” There’s no indication that the researchers tried to protect their results against that assumption from the start.

In April 2007, the NAS conducted a new survey “with support from HIT Entertainment, producers and rights-owners of Thomas & Friends.” This survey had a larger sample: “748 U.K. parents of children under 10 with autism,” the CBC reports. (The Daily Mail says 750, but that’s close enough for a tabloid.) Its summary can be downloaded here.

Here are the top findings from the 2002 report:

Children on the autism spectrum associate with Thomas before any other children’s character (57%).

These children maintain their association with Thomas longer than for other characters, commonly two years longer than their typically developing siblings.

The latest report echoes the earlier findings with uncanny precision.

58% of parents reported that Thomas & Friends was the first children’s character their child liked.

Almost 39% of parents reported that their child’s interest in Thomas & Friends lasted over two years longer than siblings’ interest in the character.

So a survey of 81 parents in 2001 and a survey of 748 parents in 2007 produce the same answer to the same question within a single percentage point? Is that how social science usually works? Blogging Autism shares my skepticism.

Of course, the NAS doesn’t claim that these surveys are scientifically valid. Instead, there are signs on the group’s website of a mutually beneficial publicity relationship between it and HIT Entertainment, owners of the Thomas brand. On its page seeking corporate support, the NAS lists among the advantages it offers, “Experience of managing high profile campaigns including Barclays, HIT Entertainment, House of Fraser, Supercook, Tesco, T-Mobile and Vodafone.”

HIT has allowed/encouraged the NAS to use its popular characters in fundraising. In return, the page thanking HIT Entertainment also tells us, “There are now two new characters to collect, Mavis and Percy, who will join Thomas, James, Henry and Gordon in this highly collectable series.”

In May 2006, the NAS recommended a new picture book titled How Do You Feel, Thomas? The NAS’s page of “Ideas for toys and leisure activities” singles out “train toys (especially Thomas the Tank Engine)” and “videos, especially Thomas the Tank Engine,” along with other products from Tomy, Duplo, Lego, Disney, Microsoft, and other corporations.

And speaking of Lego, in February the NAS announced:

LEGO UK has donated LEGO construction sets to The National Autistic Society (NAS), the UK's leading charity for people with autism, as part of a year-long partnership. The venture will see the company working closely with the NAS in a variety of ways to help raise awareness of the disability. . . .

Products including LEGO Classic House Building and LEGO Quad Bike have been distributed to NAS services around the UK, as well as to each of the Society's six schools.

A research project is also currently underway by the Cambridge Autism Research Centre into 'LEGO Therapy'.

Should we expect press releases about the effectiveness of "LEGO Therapy" for children with autism in a few months?

Now I have nothing against Thomas the Tank Engine stories and toys, though I don't personally feel the appeal. Millions of kids have gotten lots of pleasure out of those books, models, videos, goodness-knows-what-else. In the UK, the Thomas show is a mainstay of the BBC children's programming. It's possible that most British children, regardless of their brain chemistry, like Thomas first.

Naturally, some of those young Thomas fans would also have conditions on the autism spectrum. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if a disproportionate fraction of them did. And if some of those kids learn to read emotional facial expressions from Thomas and his friends, the more power to them. Similarly, the National Autism Society apparently does good work, including funding solid research and treatment, so I don't begrudge the organization its corporate sponsors.

But to posit a “special connection” between kids with autistic conditions and a specific brand should require a more scientific basis than these surveys. In particular, to suggest that that brand's books and toys are especially helpful for autistic kids may create false hopes for parents, or needless worries if their kids feel drawn to other characters or topics instead.

Furthermore, the notion of a “special connection” carries the implication that children who get all excited about Thomas might have some sort of autism spectrum disorder--another possible source of needless worry. Perhaps getting excited beyond reason about the world of a TV show is a common part of modern early childhood. Without a control group and a real study, we can't know.