CCBC-Net Archives
[CCBC-Net] Hidden Adult and Adult Agenda
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Perry Nodelman <perry_nodelman>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:13:26 -0500
On 17-Jul-09, at 12:31 PM, Megan Schliesman wrote:
>
>
> Perry Nodelman wrote:
>
> "I find myself having to admit that some of the things i like about
> those likeable texts are exactly the ways in which they work to
> manipulate their readers, including me."
>
> Perry, I'm curious about whether you see this manipulation as being
> conscious, or whether it has become subconsciously imbedded in our
> understanding of the genre, so that authors and artists may in fact
> be--at least at times--unwitting participants. Of course, we can all
> think of books where the manipulation is obvious rather than artful,
> but
> it is those artful books--the ones that manage to be well written,
> sometimes beautifully written, and child-centered--that I find
> myself thinking in terms of this idea of the manipulation of the
> child reader.
Hmm. I'm wondering if it's a combination of both conscious manipulation and unconscious embedding.
A lot of it is, of course, conscious. We do tend almost always to talk about children's books almost exclusively in terms of their pedagogical effects on children--and not always just in relation to their obvious didactic contents. For instance, we say things like,
"It's a funny book, so it'll help children to develop a sense of humour," or, "it's a fun read, which will encourage children to think positively abut literacy" (University students I taught in children's lit courses were always saying things like that, and I hard to read then that a good enough reason for children to read a fun book would be simply that it was fun.).
Also, most of our endless worrying about which books to keep out of children's hands is a concern with what the books might teach or how they might manipulate pliable young minds. Our current North American discourse about children and books is almost a hundred percent about how the books can or should or shouldn't or will or won't manipulate young readers. And when I say "our" here, i don't mean just adults-- how often have you heard a child say something like, "It's a good book, but not for little kids younger than me because they might get nightmares from it." These children have already learned the acceptable way to talk about children's books--in terms of going through all the reasons for keeping them out of vulnerable younger hands before actually recommending them as safely okay.
And in that context, then, it'd be almost impossible for anyone with much knowledge of children's books not to be engaged in unconscious thinking about how the books might effect or manipulate young readers, without any even awareness of doing so. From its beginning, children's literature has been defined as a literature which both educates young readers and, just as significantly, leaves things out-- things children ought not to know about in order to preserve their childlikeness. If you know your business as a writer or editor or publisher or library purchaser, then, and you know what makes a children's book a children's book and what makes a saleable children's book, then you're probably unconsciously operating with ideas about children's literature based on your previous experience of it that emerge from those primal concerns. (Your own description, Megan, of books that "well written, sometimes beautifully written, and child- centered," for instance--how much are our idea of good writing in texts for young people tied up with ideas of suitable simplicity, and how much is "child-centered" understood in terms of how well the book evokes the right kind of utopian childhood?)
As far as I can see, all the qualities characteristic or even just typical of texts for young people that I describe in The Hidden Adult emerge from and relate to efforts to manipulate of child readers, to create a safe version of childhood for children to imagine as being where they are and who they are. As I say in The Hidden Adult, children's literature is like the home that so many of its conventional texts insist is the best place for children to be--a haven protected against the dangers of the bigger world out there. And in our time, especially, childhood is increasingly understood by far too many parents, teachers, librarians, and others as a state of constantly being under siege by the dark forces of out there--and therefore, for many children nowadays, a prison of constant adult surveillance and never being very far away from the world-views of the Disney folk and their cronies in the kid's entertainment biz and never going outside to play unsupervised with your friends and without an appropriately age-rated video game in your hand. Childhood IS, more and more constantly, a state of being under authority and manipulation? And so children's literature is that, too?
Cheerily on the edge of doom, Perry
_____________ Perry Nodelman http://pernodel.wordpress.com/
Book Trailers: The Hidden Adult: Defining Children's Literature http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3t7JAfPQeA The Ghosthunters2: The Curse of the Evening Eye http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qapDE1Kwnis The Ghosthunters I: The Proof that Ghosts Exist http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sw0ow7oQV7k
> Perry Nodelman wrote:
>
> "I find myself having to admit that some of the things i like about
> those likeable texts are exactly the ways in which they work to
> manipulate their readers, including me."
>
> Perry, I'm curious about whether you see this manipulation as being
> conscious, or whether it has become subconsciously imbedded in our
> understanding of the genre, so that authors and artists may in fact
> be--at least at times--unwitting participants. Of course, we can all
> think of books where the manipulation is obvious rather than artful,
> but
> it is those artful books--the ones that manage to be well written,
> sometimes beautifully written, and child-centered--that I find myself
> thinking in terms of this idea of the manipulation of the child
> reader.
>
> Your discussion of A Very Special House by Maurice Sendak suggests a
> concsiousness to this. Would you say that is typically true?
>
> And what do others of you-- readers, and writers or illustrators--
> think
> about this?
>
> Megan
>
>
> --
> Megan Schliesman, Librarian
> Cooperative Children's Book Center
> School of Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison
> 600 N. Park Street, Room 4290
> Madison, WI 53706
>
> 608/262-9503
> schliesman at education.wisc.edu
>
> www.education.wisc.edu/ccbc/
>
> _______________________________________________
> CCBC-Net mailing list
> CCBC-Net at lists.education.wisc.edu
> Visit this link to read archives or to unsubscribe...
> http://lists.education.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/ccbc-net
Received on Fri 17 Jul 2009 04:13:26 PM CDT
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:13:26 -0500
On 17-Jul-09, at 12:31 PM, Megan Schliesman wrote:
>
>
> Perry Nodelman wrote:
>
> "I find myself having to admit that some of the things i like about
> those likeable texts are exactly the ways in which they work to
> manipulate their readers, including me."
>
> Perry, I'm curious about whether you see this manipulation as being
> conscious, or whether it has become subconsciously imbedded in our
> understanding of the genre, so that authors and artists may in fact
> be--at least at times--unwitting participants. Of course, we can all
> think of books where the manipulation is obvious rather than artful,
> but
> it is those artful books--the ones that manage to be well written,
> sometimes beautifully written, and child-centered--that I find
> myself thinking in terms of this idea of the manipulation of the
> child reader.
Hmm. I'm wondering if it's a combination of both conscious manipulation and unconscious embedding.
A lot of it is, of course, conscious. We do tend almost always to talk about children's books almost exclusively in terms of their pedagogical effects on children--and not always just in relation to their obvious didactic contents. For instance, we say things like,
"It's a funny book, so it'll help children to develop a sense of humour," or, "it's a fun read, which will encourage children to think positively abut literacy" (University students I taught in children's lit courses were always saying things like that, and I hard to read then that a good enough reason for children to read a fun book would be simply that it was fun.).
Also, most of our endless worrying about which books to keep out of children's hands is a concern with what the books might teach or how they might manipulate pliable young minds. Our current North American discourse about children and books is almost a hundred percent about how the books can or should or shouldn't or will or won't manipulate young readers. And when I say "our" here, i don't mean just adults-- how often have you heard a child say something like, "It's a good book, but not for little kids younger than me because they might get nightmares from it." These children have already learned the acceptable way to talk about children's books--in terms of going through all the reasons for keeping them out of vulnerable younger hands before actually recommending them as safely okay.
And in that context, then, it'd be almost impossible for anyone with much knowledge of children's books not to be engaged in unconscious thinking about how the books might effect or manipulate young readers, without any even awareness of doing so. From its beginning, children's literature has been defined as a literature which both educates young readers and, just as significantly, leaves things out-- things children ought not to know about in order to preserve their childlikeness. If you know your business as a writer or editor or publisher or library purchaser, then, and you know what makes a children's book a children's book and what makes a saleable children's book, then you're probably unconsciously operating with ideas about children's literature based on your previous experience of it that emerge from those primal concerns. (Your own description, Megan, of books that "well written, sometimes beautifully written, and child- centered," for instance--how much are our idea of good writing in texts for young people tied up with ideas of suitable simplicity, and how much is "child-centered" understood in terms of how well the book evokes the right kind of utopian childhood?)
As far as I can see, all the qualities characteristic or even just typical of texts for young people that I describe in The Hidden Adult emerge from and relate to efforts to manipulate of child readers, to create a safe version of childhood for children to imagine as being where they are and who they are. As I say in The Hidden Adult, children's literature is like the home that so many of its conventional texts insist is the best place for children to be--a haven protected against the dangers of the bigger world out there. And in our time, especially, childhood is increasingly understood by far too many parents, teachers, librarians, and others as a state of constantly being under siege by the dark forces of out there--and therefore, for many children nowadays, a prison of constant adult surveillance and never being very far away from the world-views of the Disney folk and their cronies in the kid's entertainment biz and never going outside to play unsupervised with your friends and without an appropriately age-rated video game in your hand. Childhood IS, more and more constantly, a state of being under authority and manipulation? And so children's literature is that, too?
Cheerily on the edge of doom, Perry
_____________ Perry Nodelman http://pernodel.wordpress.com/
Book Trailers: The Hidden Adult: Defining Children's Literature http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3t7JAfPQeA The Ghosthunters2: The Curse of the Evening Eye http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qapDE1Kwnis The Ghosthunters I: The Proof that Ghosts Exist http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sw0ow7oQV7k
> Perry Nodelman wrote:
>
> "I find myself having to admit that some of the things i like about
> those likeable texts are exactly the ways in which they work to
> manipulate their readers, including me."
>
> Perry, I'm curious about whether you see this manipulation as being
> conscious, or whether it has become subconsciously imbedded in our
> understanding of the genre, so that authors and artists may in fact
> be--at least at times--unwitting participants. Of course, we can all
> think of books where the manipulation is obvious rather than artful,
> but
> it is those artful books--the ones that manage to be well written,
> sometimes beautifully written, and child-centered--that I find myself
> thinking in terms of this idea of the manipulation of the child
> reader.
>
> Your discussion of A Very Special House by Maurice Sendak suggests a
> concsiousness to this. Would you say that is typically true?
>
> And what do others of you-- readers, and writers or illustrators--
> think
> about this?
>
> Megan
>
>
> --
> Megan Schliesman, Librarian
> Cooperative Children's Book Center
> School of Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison
> 600 N. Park Street, Room 4290
> Madison, WI 53706
>
> 608/262-9503
> schliesman at education.wisc.edu
>
> www.education.wisc.edu/ccbc/
>
> _______________________________________________
> CCBC-Net mailing list
> CCBC-Net at lists.education.wisc.edu
> Visit this link to read archives or to unsubscribe...
> http://lists.education.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/ccbc-net
Received on Fri 17 Jul 2009 04:13:26 PM CDT
