“Children’s books are not real literature”?

John Hogan’s interview with Toon Books publisher and New Yorker art editor Françoise Mouly moves away from easy-reader comics for a while to discuss the larger question of how that literary magazine views children’s books:

I had a conversation with a colleague at the New Yorker where I was pushing and saying how come we don’t review more children’s books and more children’s literature? The only thing I can get the New Yorker to do is a yearly paper on it, but not on a regular basis. We don’t do book reviews in general, but still, we do mention books.

And my colleague was bluntly saying, “Well, it’s because children’s books are not real literature.”

I said, “Oh, okay. Explain that.” And he did.

He said, “Well, they are geared for a specific audience, and in literature, the author writes for himself, doesn’t have a specific audience in mind. But by definition, for children, you have to know who you are writing for and you have to take into account the limitations of your reader, and that makes it genre literature, not true literature.”

(I plan to discuss whether all children’s literature is genre literature in my workshop on what it means to write within genres at the SCBWI New England conference in May. But I think genres are defined by readership expectations, not limitations. And I suspect that authors who don’t write with the thought of communicating to their readers don’t get published by major presses or magazines. But back to Mouly.)

Now that’s interesting. To him, that’s obvious. To me, that made me realize even though it’s true we were specifically as editors trying to help the author come up with his or her best version of his strip, not worrying whether people would like it or how complex it might be, and that’s true for the New Yorker as well.

When you work for kids, especially the Toon books, for example, you have to take into account the reading level, not just the age, but the vocabulary, and we work within those limitations. I even had a conversation with my husband [Art Spiegelman], who wasn’t at first that interested in having to do something for kids because of those limitations. It’s only when he did it that he realized it’s akin to doing formal poetry. You have a set of limitations; you can only do your sonnet with so many beats—but then within that there is room for art.

Mouly has further interesting things to say about Jeff Smith’s Bone and Spiegelman’s Maus as unintended literature for young people, what defines a classic, and why major publishing corporations shy away from establishing new types of books.

“Utterly Bound Up in the Medieval”?

The following passage appeared in the middle of Jill Lepore's article in The New Yorker earlier this summer on the dispute between Anne Carroll Moore, founder of the American children's library and head of the New York exemplar of the form, and Ursula Nordstrom, publisher of E. B. White's Stuart Little.

Children’s literature, at least in the West, is utterly bound up in the medieval, as Seth Lerer, a Stanford literature professor, argues in “Children’s Literature: A Reader’s History from Aesop to Harry Potter.” Lots of books for kids are about the Middle Ages (everything from “The Hobbit” to “Robin Hood” and “Redwall”), but the conventions of the genre (allegory, moral fable, romance, and heavy-handed symbolism) are also themselves distinctly premodern.

It’s not only that many books we shelve as “children’s literature”--Grimms’ Fairy Tales or “Gulliver’s Travels” or “Huck Finn”--were born as biting political satire, for adults; it’s also that books written for children in the twentieth century tend to be distinctly, willfully, and often delightfully antimodern. “The Phantom Tollbooth” has more in common with “The Pilgrim’s Progress” than it does with “On the Road.”

Hmm. Does this explain the abiding need for a "sense of hope"? Hope is even a character in The Pilgrim's Progress.

More seriously, I think it's notable that almost all the examples Lepore lists--everything except Robin Hood tales (which are medieval by necessity) and Huck Finn--have some element of fantasy.

We're not seeing the Middle Ages in Harriet the Spy or The Mysterious Disappearance of Leon, I Mean Noel or Captain Underpants or Little House on the Prairie. They and most other new children's novels, I dare say, are based on common forms of adult literature, adapted for younger readers' interests.

Rather than say that western children's literature is bound up in the Middle Ages, it might be more accurate to say that only in children's literature are books allowed to retain what smell like medieval traits: magic, allegory, moral lessons, talking animals. And, as a consequence, a book that exhibits those traits is more likely to be classified or treated as children's literature.

Grimms and Gilded at Harvard

In a borrowed copy of the latest issue of Harvard Magazine I found a profile of Prof. Maria Tatar, known for her work on the Grimms' fairy tales.

Craig Lambert's article "The Horror and the Beauty" states:

Tatar is trying to escape the adult perspective on children’s literature. (“The psychosexual readings have become predictable,” she says.) “I’m trying to capture what happens in the child,” she explains. That’s an ambitious goal, because children themselves are not particularly articulate on such matters, and adult recollections brim with distortions and idealizations. So Tatar also goes directly to the literary texts, mining her insights from words on the page, an admittedly speculative enterprise.

This approach has led her to consider magical thinking and how stories teach children that you don’t need wands--just words--to do things. The so-called classics are classics for a reason: they have powerful language, and use not just sparkle and shine but also gothic gloom to get children hooked on a story and on reading. The marvels that tumble thick and fast through these narratives lead readers to wonder not just about the world of fiction but also about the world they inhabit.

“The radical view is that it doesn’t matter what story a kid reads,” she continues. “In some ways, children’s literature is pulp fiction: it’s melodramatic. John Updike called fairy tales ‘the television and pornography of their day, the life-lightening trash of preliterate peoples.’ Children who read escape not just from reality but into opportunity: they learn how to navigate in the larger world; they become more connected and curious, energized by the propulsive wonders of Narnia, Oz, or Never Land.”

Also in this issue is a very intriguing article illustrated with photos about an exhibit now at Harvard showing how Greek statuary probably looked when it was all painted and gilded. In a word, different. (For Oz fans, the technical term for that style of sculpture was "polychrome.")

The Wizarding World Beyond the Books

Back in August I discussed J. K. Rowling's pattern of revealing additional information about her characters during interviews and author appearances. Her statement last week about Dumbledore's love life, as well as similar remarks about Neville Longbottom marrying and lesser details, obviously extends that behavior.

Rowling has made most of these statements in response to questions from her readers, not spontaneously. And she's often prefaced them by saying some variation on "I think...," perhaps hinting that the words that follow aren't as authoritative as those she's authored on paper.

Nevertheless, I think that it will be very hard for fans or interpreters of the books to ignore Rowling's statements, to insist that if a particular "fact" about characters isn't in the novels themselves then we can ignore it.

That's because Rowling has produced two overlapping accomplishments.

• The first consists of her seven novels, plus two ancillary books. In the terminology of current literary criticism, these are the "texts," and they stand above all.
• Rowling has also created a "world," mostly through those books but also through her collaboration with filmmakers and artists in other media, and through her public remarks about the characters and places in her books.

Indeed, I think Rowling has been more successful in imagining her "world" than in getting it down on paper--hence the need for these interviews to address unanswered questions.

Rowling is obviously aware that her "world" stretches beyond her books, and in some ways beyond her control. Right after her Dumbledore revelation, she said, "You needed something to keep you going for the next 10 years! ... Oh, my god, the fan fiction now, eh?" (I don't know when she became Canadian.) There are already thousands of unauthorized, unofficial stories about Harry Potter characters, including probably every variation on romances and sexual relationships that one would want (or not want) to imagine. There are Harry Potter movies and video games enjoyed by people who have never read or plan to read the books.

I see three qualities of Rowling's work making her "world" more important to fans than the texts which convey that "world":

• She wrote in the fantasy genre. As in science fiction, her "world" doesn't have to match the objective world, making it an independent universe to explore.
• Her storytelling style relies on a large cast of characters, myriad details, and complex storylines. At the same time, her prose is straightforward and often undistinguished, not drawing attention to itself.
  
• When the first Harry Potter book arrived, the internet was waiting. It allowed fans to create a worldwide community that no previous new fantasy series had enjoyed.

Other authors before Rowling have clearly felt the wish to say more about their characters than got into their books. That is, after all, the motivation for sequels. J. R. R. Tolkien wrote a great deal of tedious background material, and his family continues to squeeze books out of those manuscripts. More recently, Philip Pullman has, like Rowling, published a small guide to part of his Dark Materials world, and clarified his intentions and thoughts in interviews.

Other authors before Rowling have also seen their fantasy worlds become widely known through avenues other than their books. My favorite fantasy universe, Oz, is an obvious example. A century ago, more Americans probably knew of it through a wildly successful stage extravaganza than through L. Frank Baum's books. For the last few decades, it's best known through the 1939 MGM movie. Both of those adaptations made significant changes from Baum's original, but the books' core mythology remains intact.

But the clearest analogues to what Rowling has created, I think, are George Lucas's Star Wars universe and the two "universes" created over several decades by DC and Marvel Comics. (The Star Trek universe might fit the bill as well, but I'm not as familiar with it.) All of these "worlds" exist in many media: movies, comics, prose stories, TV shows, video games, and more. All contain many stories, indeed many somewhat contradictory or alternative versions of stories. But each has a core of characters, settings, and "rules" defined by the creators/copyright-holders.

Under this approach, Rowling's books are merely one manifestation of the "world" she's created. On the one hand, we can admire that "world" and how she produced single-handed what's previously taken a large corporation or two. On the other hand, a good measure of Rowling's books might be how well they reveal that "world": imperfectly at best.

In any event, I suspect that understanding the difference between "world" and texts will only become more important in our multimedia world. We critics and interpreters of fantasy literature will have to get used to the idea that universes aren't contained within two covers, or even (in this case) fourteen covers.

Problematizing The Wonderful Wizard of Oz

Prof. Waller Hastings has issued this call for mini-papers to be presented at a special session of the Children’s Literature Association conference in Bloomington, Illinois, on 12-15 June 2008. (This is not Bloomington, Indiana, site of the Oz Club's centenary conference.)

Interrogations of Oz

Proposals for short papers problematizing The Wonderful Wizard of Oz are solicited for an experimental session at the Children’s Literature Association. Rather than fully developed papers presenting an argument about the text, this call seeks short presentations (5-10 minutes maximum) that lay out a question or problem about the text. These short working papers should elicit contributions from attendees at the session, generating a collective examination of the points that are raised.

The idea is to develop a different sort of conference session where problematics of a text are worked out collectively by presenters and attendees.

Please send proposals by December 10, 2007, to:

A. Waller Hastings
Visiting Professor, LIS
School of Communications, Information and Library Studies
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
4 Huntington Street
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1071

Prof. Hastings's home website at Northern State University does the valuable service of sharing L. Frank Baum's editorial comments on the Sioux from 1890-91. These certainly present a problem for fans who wish to see Baum as gentle-hearted at all times and in all aspects of life. At the same time, far more people have probably read those words on the web than saw them in Baum's failing weekly newspaper, the Aberdeen Saturday Pioneer. (See my earlier Oz and Ends thoughts on those editorials.)

Fantasy Matters Conference, Minnesota, Nov 2007

With the wind chill hovering about zero in the mornings here, this is not the best time to get a New Englander excited about visiting Minnesota, even for a fantasy conference. Savannah, San Antonio, Honolulu--that would be a fantasy! But here’s the call for papers for the Fantasy Matters conference, scheduled for 16-18 November 2007 at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities.

Fantasy literature is everywhere these days. Whether it’s Eragon at the box office or the latest Harry Potter at the bookstore, fantasy literature seems to have captured the public’s imagination and run away with it. In spite of, or perhaps because of this popularity, however, fantasy literature still isn’t taken as seriously as other, more “canonical” literature.

This conference takes the position that fantasy literature does matter, and plays an important role not only in popular culture, but also in the realm of literature itself. Neil Gaiman, author of the Sandman series of graphic novels, and Jack Zipes, noted scholar of fairy tales and folklore, will be the keynote speakers at the conference.

All papers related to fantasy literature are welcome, but participants are encouraged to consider the question of the importance of fantasy literature when forming their submissions. We also welcome authors to participate in this discussion, either by serving on panels or by sharing their own creative works.

Potential panel discussions include:

• The relationship between fantasy literature and "canonical" literature
• The role of fantasy literature in childhood
• Narrative strategies in fantasy literature
• Issues of race, gender, and sexuality in fantasy literature
• The use of source material in fantasy literature
• The relationship between fantasy literature and its adaptation(s) in film

Scholars of fantasy literature at any level (fan, undergraduate, graduate, or professional) are invited to submit abstract proposals of 250 words. Scholars should plan for a 15-minute presentation with 5 minutes for questions; they may also submit entire panels for consideration, planning for three 15-minute papers per panel.

Authors of fantasy literature who would like to present their work are encouraged to submit a 5-page sample of the piece they intend to read. Authors should plan for a 30-minute reading.

The submission deadline is 31 May 2007. For further information, including the address for submissions and queries, visit the Fantasy Matters conference website.

The Post-Modernization of Fairy Tales?

Yet another children’s-literature conference coming here to Boston, and here's an interesting call for papers:

The Children’s Literature Society of the ALA seeks abstracts for its panel on “Fairy Tales and Children’s Literature” at the American Literature Association Conference to be held May 24-27, 2007, at The Westin Copley Place in Boston, MA.

Fairy tales have long been a staple of children’s literature, both in and of themselves and in the way they are used throughout the body of children’s literature. For this reason, the Children’s Literature Society of ALA is looking for proposals for papers that discuss the way fairy tales continue to play an important role in children’s literature. Papers or panels are welcome and can address any facet of fairy tales and American children’s literature, including, but not limited to the following:

• Novel retellings of fairy tales such as Zel, Beauty, Ella Enchanted
• Picture book retellings such as in David Wiesner's The Three Pigs
• More subtle ways uses of fairy tales, as in Lois Lowry's Number the Stars or Katherine Paterson's The Great Gilly Hopkins
• The post-modernization of fairy tales
• Fairy tales and children’s films

Please send panel proposals or paper abstracts (250-500 words) to:

Michelle Pagni Stewart
[mstewart and the at-sign msjc and then a dot and edu]
Department of English
Mt. San Jacinto College
28237 La Piedra Rd
Menifee, CA 92584

Deadline for proposals and abstracts: January 25, 2007

Fantasy as a Privileged Genre

Jackie C. Horne, former book editor and now professor at the Center for the Study of Children’s Literature at Simmons College in Boston, has issued a call for panelists at the Modern Languages Association (MLA) conference in 2007. This panel would be sponsored by the Children’s Literature Association. Horne's CFP states:

Beyond Harry Potter: Theorizing Fantasy for Children

In the 1970’s, when the study of children’s literature first began to be regarded as a serious academic pursuit, fantasy held a privileged place in the children’s literature canon. Much of the earliest theoretical work in the field focused on key Victorian works of fantasy, and emphasized the importance of the imaginative worlds such books created for child readers. Yet much of this criticism, relying as it does upon Romantic constructs of the child, fails to persuade the post-Romantic critic.

With the reemergence of fantasy as a privileged genre in the wake of the popularity of the Harry Potter books, many articles and books have been published on individual fantasy titles, but few works that attempt to theorize children’s fantasy as a whole have emerged to take the place of earlier, often dated, ideas. How can we as a field begin to theorize the genre of fantasy, rather than simply analyzing individual titles?

This panel will examine new theoretical approaches to the study of the genre of children’s fantasy. Papers that address the following are encouraged:

• How as the emergence of technology influenced children’s fantasy, a genre with strong roots in an anti-industrial, anti-urban vision?
• Has the longing for a lost hierarchical society so common in high fantasy, with its trope of the return of the lost king and the lost social order, been replaced as global capitalism and corporations become the dominant players in Western social organization?
• How has commercial culture impacted fantasy, a genre with a strong anti-materialistic history?
• Have the feminist quest heroines of the 1980s and 90s been replaced or re-imagined for our “post”-feminist culture?
• Can recent developments in cognitive theory or neurobiology lead us to new insights about the importance of fantasy in children’s development?
• What is the link between religion and fantasy?
• What narrative strategies do contemporary fantasy writers employ, and how are such strategies different from those of writers in the past?
• What characterizes a contemporary fantasy hero/heroine?
• How do sub-genres specific to children’s fantasy (animal stories; toy and doll stories; magical adventure tales) relate to the more familiar sub-genres of quest fantasy and travel to other worlds?

Papers that look broadly at the genre, rather than narrowly at individual books, are most welcome.

Submit 1-2 page abstracts or 8-page papers by March 1, 2007 to Jackie DOT Horne, followed by the at-sign and the domain name Simmons DOT edu. [I render her email address in that unhelpful way to fool the spambots.]

Horne suggests that in the 1970s, theories about children's fantasy were treated as applicable to all of children's literature. Now, apparently, we know better. But what theories arose while fantasy was in a sales doldrum, and are they applicable to fantasy, or do different types of literature work in completely different and separate ways?