Bradford, Karleen. “Do You Want to Write for Children?” Writer 103.10 (1990): 22-26. Web. 22 Mar. 2010.
This article makes an argument about what type of books draw children in. It also explains what children look for in the books they read. It talks about the guidelines that are defining characteristics of all children’s literature such as, plot, characters, setting, etc. It also explains that although most people believe that writing a children’s book would be essentially easier than an adult novel, the writer must actually take many seemingly trivial things into consideration. It focuses on the fact that in order for children’s books to be successful, they must touch the child’s senses. Overall, the article summarizes what the writer must keep in mind when writing for children.
Hunt, Peter. “Defining Children’s Literature.” Only Connect: Readings on Children’s Literature. 3rd ed. Ed. Sheila Egoff, et al. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1996. 2-17. Print.
Children’s literature critic Peter Hunt is perhaps one of the most prolific scholars in this subject, and has written or edited many of the articles and books in this relatively young area of criticism. In this essay, Hunt discusses the issues he believes all critics and scholars of children’s literature must address before they can adequately define a book as “children’s literature.” He begins this process by talking about the ways in which an adult might read children’s literature, which are: “as if they were peer-texts,” “on behalf of a child” to recommend or censor for a personal or professional capacity, “with an eye to discussing it with other adults,” or to “surrender to the book on its own terms,” which Hunt views as the closest way of reading like a child might. However, the bulk of the essay is spent in defining “literature,” “the child,” and finally “children’s literature. This process of defining both terms separately before bringing them back together seems to be a fairly common practice amongst scholars in this field. On the first term, that of “literature,” Hunt discusses the ways in which other critics have defined it, either by its features, cultural norms, or according to the uses of the text by the individual, ultimately concludes that literature is a value-term and whatever the readers choose to make of it.
Besides the obvious physical and emotional differences between children and adults, Hunt finds that children also greatly differ in how they see the world and issues like death because of their lack of world experience. Likewise, the actual childhood of one child often differs greatly from person to person, depending on the generation they grow up in, racial identity, and place where they are raised. Thus, just as literature is a very unstable concept, so is that of the child reading that same literature. Ultimately, Hunt finds we must define children’s literature in terms of its implied reader and how that reader will be using the text.
Jones, Katharine. “Getting Rid of Children’s Literature.” The Lion and the Unicorn 30 (2006): 287–315. Web. 21 Mar. 2010.
Jones begins with asking what makes a book children’s literature. Jones criticizes A.S. Byatt’s article on Harry Potter in the New York Times by saying that Byatt’s idea that the children themselves are what makes literature “children’s literature” and that if adults read the same books that they are “childish.” She also writes that Byatt is trying to define children’s literature by saying children’s literature is divided into two categories, one being childish children’s literature and the other children’s literature that is not childish.
Jones continues on to question the term “children’s literature.” She writes that children’s literature from 1960 to 1985 was either defined as “child-centered” or “book-centered.” This concept is one that compares the way that much of adult literature is defined. Jones analyzes the way that many critics approach the definition of children’s literature and finds that while many of them make valid points, they all essentially fall into the issue of “what is children’s literature?” Many of the examples she provides focus on the idea that children’s literature is that which is read by children, but the argument arises that what if adults read the novel and get equal enjoyment from it?
Another option for defining the term is focusing on the “real child” and “fictional children,” both of which separate the novels by the characters and their realism. This idea of “fictional children” is often talked about in the discourse on children’s literature, as many critics, such as Perry Nodelman, differentiate between real children, with various backgrounds and experiences, and the “imagined” child audience of children’s literature. After her criticism of the many different definitions and categories of children’s literature, Jones comes to the conclusion that children’s literature should be renamed “child literature” because it can avoid many of the challenges faced with the term “children” and that it still keeps the critical discourse.
Lesnik-Oberstein, Karin. “Essentials: What is Children’s Literature? What is Childhood?” Understanding Children’s Literature: Key Essays From the International Companion Encyclopedia of Children’s Literature. Ed. Peter Hunt. London: Routledge, 1999. 15-29. Print.
Lesnik-Oberstein states early on in this essay that one of the main reasons critics want to define children’s literature is because they want to be able to say which children’s books are “good for” children—a process that becomes complicated when they don’t know which books qualify as “children’s literature,” and which ones don’t. The author also notes at several points what other critics like Peter Hunt (the editor of this anthology) and Jacqueline Rose have discussed—the fact that children are constructions of their backgrounds and environments, and are not an audience that is set in stone. Lesnik-Oberstein then presents the idea of some critics that you can tell whether or not a book is meant for children, because of the way the author writes “down” to their intended audience. However, she follows this by quotations from several beloved children’s authors, most of whom state that they in no way write down to their readers, but instead strive to do their best writing because a child reader demands just as much as an adult—if not more—from the books they read.
Lesnik-Oberstein goes on to say that the first step many critics take, is to differentiate the “literature” from those books with a didactic purpose. “Literature,” she discusses, is not necessarily meant to make a child smarter, but is instead supposed to have “amusement and inherent appeal.” The rest of the essay is spent in large part by discussing the idea that children’s literature is often talked about by critics as if the child was “in the book.” This is the idea that either the book itself (as far as content, pacing, etc) is reflective of the way a child experiences life, or that it follows the same norms of format and content as an adult book. Lesnik-Oberstein concludes her essay without really giving a definitive answer as to how critics should define children’s literature, but she does say that they must keep in mind the idea that each child experiences childhood differently, and perhaps as a result, there is no consistent way to define children’s literature.
Nikolajeva, Maria. “World Literature for Children.” Children’s Literature Comes of Age: Toward a New Aesthetic. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1996. 13-37. Print.
Nikolajeva’s “World Literature for Children” focuses on the worldviews of children’s literature. Many Americans make the assumption that literature for children is the same around the world. Literature is a reflection of culture; values, morals, and traditions are mirrored in the works that are produced for children. Children’s literature is seeing a decrease in works created around the world and translated and shared with the rest of the literary community. Nikolajeva’s work touches on the cornerstone works of literature in the American society such as The Tale of Peter Rabbit and Charlotte’s Web. Basically, the book reveals the similarities and differences in children’s literature around the world.
Nodelman, Perry. “Defining Children’s Literature.” Children’s Literature 8 (1980): (184-190). Web. 21 Mar. 2010.
Nodelman, quoting critic Roger Sale, opens his article by stating that “everyone knows what children’s literature is until asked to define it,” a sentiment expressed by many critics. Nodelman then chooses to focus his idea and criticism of others’ categorization of children’s literature on fantasy. He says that children’s literature describes circumstances and the “world” of the novel in a way that children are able to relate to. He argues that while the formats of most children’s novels are based on the structure of fairy tales, they also include parts of the real world so the child does not become completely numb to reality. He also refers to the timeframe of when works were written. He says that much of children’s literature in the past has focused primarily on a fantasy level with very few “real world” events, while now, more authors believe that they must include realistic circumstances with a little bit of fantasy thrown in.
Nodelman also argues that while it is nearly impossible to classify or define children’s literature, it is common for teachers to focus strictly on what books they are fond of, without choosing them for learning purposes. Nodelman writes that the classification of children’s literature is far too vague because of the immense topics and writing styles that are covered under the definition of “children’s literature.”
Roxburgh, Stephen, et al. “Defining a Good Children’s Book.” Theory Into Practice 21.4 (1982): 262-267. Web. 22 Mar. 2010.
This article focuses on four critics’ opinions on what makes a good children’s book. The first critic, Roxburgh, asks the question, “Why define what makes children’s books at all?” He states that by defining them, guidelines are being set which must be followed in order to be considered a children’s book. He also explains that this limits the potential of writers, by forcing them to follow a particular pattern. Another critic, Zolotow argues that children’s books are very similar to adults except for the “voice.” She also states that children’s books tend to make a child feel less lonely by drawing them closer to understanding themselves because of what they have read. She defines a good children’s book to be one that sends the child on a journey to discover themselves and better understand the world.
The third critic, L’Engle, interprets that one cannot define a book, or its characteristics as good or bad. She says that each book is unique and cannot be determined as what is bad vs. good, thus she says she could not fathom constructing a definition for what makes a “good” children’s book. Finally, the fourth author, Kruse, explains a case study that is going to be carried out regarding children’s books. Children will read an assortment of books and determine if they liked them and what exactly they liked about them in order to present more evidence on the parallels of “good” children’s books.
Temple, Charles, et al. “Children’s Books in Children’s Hand.” Children’s Books in Children’s Hands. 2nd ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1998. 4-27. Print.
Children’s Books in Children’s Hands is a textbook-type work that gives insight to what children’s literature means. Many of the other articles I read discussed how there isn’t really a good definition that accurately depicts children’s lit. However, this article gives a broad definition stating that children’s literature is anything read by or to children. This makes it the largest category of literature in existence. There are also books that were intended for adults that slip through the cracks and are enjoyed by children as well, such as Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe.
14 years ago
