CHAPTER ONE Playing Grown-Up: Complexity, Sophistication and Children's (Picture) Books
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of Pretoria etd – Kneen, B (2003) 1 CHAPTER ONE Playing grown-up: complexity, sophistication and children’s (picture) books Peter Hunt writes that a respected teacher of children’s literature in New Zealand has told him that “when she tells people what she does, they tend to think she is mentally retarded” (1991a:25). When I tell people that I am working towards a Master’s degree in English, they generally look quite impressed and somewhat intimidated. But when they learn that my dissertation is about children’s picture books, they invariably stop looking intimidated (which is good) or impressed (this is less satisfying). These people think it simply cannot be very difficult to study “kiddy books” – especially kiddy books with pictures. This is not surprising: most of them have read kiddy books themselves, and coped perfectly well without any degrees in English at all. (In fact, most of them succeeded in reading these books when they were kiddies!) What is perhaps more surprising is that the same idea is not uncommon in English academic circles either. There seems to be an “unexamined assumption that what is written for children must necessarily be simple – as though writing for juveniles were the literary equivalent of juvenilia…or as though a paediatrician were naturally inferior to any other kind of medical specialist”, as well as a conviction that “most of the texts are trivial, and perhaps that they are intended for a lesser culture” (Hunt 1991a:21). Hunt suggests that “in the critical hierarchy, children’s books are so trivial that to study them is not a legitimate activity” (1994:2). Furthermore, he says that to the academic, “children’s literature…is a non-subject. Its very subject-matter seems to University of Pretoria etd – Kneen, B (2003) 2 disqualify it from serious adult consideration; after all, it is simple, ephemeral, popular, and designed for an immature audience. It is not, as a university academic once put it to me, ‘a fit subject for academic study’” (1991a:6). “For those within the traditional literary establishment, ‘children’s literature’ is [thus] a straightforward contradiction in terms” (Hunt 1994:6). To make it “the site of wrangles over ideology or critical stances invites ridicule from some, and honest doubts from others” (Hunt 1994:25). Despite this very common dismissive attitude, however, children’s literature – by which is most commonly meant contemporary children’s books in general, rather than the two or perhaps three children’s books commonly accepted as part of the (adult) literary canon – is finally seeing growing recognition as an academic field of study. America led the way in the early seventies when, according to Watkins and Sutherland, children’s literature began being recognized as part of the mainstream of literature, and its study in colleges and universities grew rapidly. Although this was initially in library schools and education departments, children’s literature increasingly became a normal feature of English Literature departments…. A growing corpus of serious literary criticism has emerged and established authors of adult books have chosen to write for children…. Although academic recognition has taken longer in Britain, there are now established postgraduate courses, and the period from 1970 has been one of extraordinary activity in the discussion of the subject. (1995:293-294) Furthermore, it seems that as far as “reviewing and public recognition are concerned,” children’s books are more and more often “surrounded by informed discussion” (Hunt 1994:128). One response to the growing academic recognition of children’s literature is Maria Nikolajeva’s argument that University of Pretoria etd – Kneen, B (2003) 3 when we today begin to see children’s literature in a broader perspective, it is not only because we have become more clever, but because the object of study, that is, children’s literature, has undergone a remarkable change. Today we are slowly but surely becoming aware of a feature thus far entirely ignored by critics, namely that children’s and juvenile literature has grown more “literary” and artistically elaborate. (1996:6) Nikolajeva insists, also, that “during the last ten or twenty years children’s books around the world have become more sophisticated”, and that “children’s literature today is evolving towards complexity and sophistication on all narrative levels” (1996:7,207). In terms of form, she sees evidence of this growing sophistication in formal experiment, going so far as to speak of a “disintegration of traditional narrative structure” (1996:207). She identifies a move away from the traditional circular home- adventure-home structure of children’s books, towards a linear narrative that does away with the secure return to home and the known, and often even avoids resolution of any sort with an open ending (1996:79-82). In the content of children’s books, she says that “superficial renderings of events” are being replaced more and more by “deeper psychological insights”, and she discusses “the sophisticated treatment of space-time relations”, as well as a growing metafictional “questioning of conventional approaches to the relationship between text and reality” (1996:7,8,207). Stylistically, she uncovers an increasing “variety of literary devices and expressive means”, a “conscious striving to exploit the richness of language”, and new, experimental narrative techniques (1996:7,8). Overall, she argues that development in children’s literature is manifested in increasing multidimensionality, generic convergence, multivoicedness and intertextuality (1996:7,99,207). Nikolajeva’s work forms the foundation of this thesis, in which I analyse and theorize about complex, sophisticated aspects of several children’s picture books. The features that I identify as complex and sophisticated are not always widely recognized as such, University of Pretoria etd – Kneen, B (2003) 4 probably because, as Lewis argues, “we are limited in what we can say about picture books by our familiar ways of thinking and talking and writing about them”, or, in other words, by “forms of discourse that only provide a partial view of what is in fact a compound and complex whole” (1990:139,141). But, with Nikolajeva’s arguments and the manifestations of sophistication that she identifies as a springboard, I will proceed from the assumption that complexity and sophistication can indeed be found in contemporary children’s books, and, particularly, in children’s picture books. Representing a compound and complex whole, these books are difficult to define as a genre, and the term “picture book” is frequently used very imprecisely, not only by non-specialists, but also by academics and practitioners in the children’s book world. Marshall, for example, focuses her definition of the term on proportions, saying that picture books are illustrated books that have “more illustration than text” (1982:105). Townsend is less concerned with how many pictures there are than with their importance, saying that in a picture book “the artwork has at least an equal role to that of the text, very probably has the major part, and occasionally is unaccompanied by any text at all” (1974:308). Hunt, who makes a point of distinguishing between the picture book and the illustrated book, nevertheless uses the term “picture book”, in practice, to refer to anything from wordless books to the illustrated books of Shirley Hughes and Quentin Blake (1994:175,157,158). Such vague and indiscriminate uses of the term are confusing at best and, at worst, meaningless. For the purposes of this paper, therefore, I shall use a narrower – and thus more meaningful – definition of the picture book genre, based on the essential differences that have developed over time to distinguish it from books that are merely illustrated. University of Pretoria etd – Kneen, B (2003) 5 Illustrated books for children have existed since at least 1659, which saw the publication of “an illustrated language book for children which would teach them Latin through the study of familiar objects and occupations”, the Orbis Sensualium Pictus, by Comenius (Wooden 1986:16). Comenius’s book is “generally considered the fountainhead of illustrated books written especially for children” (Wooden 1986:2). The first step in the development of a special type of illustrated children’s book, however, came when the illustrated book “for delight came into its own in the late Victorian era with the works of Kate Greenaway, Randolph Caldecott, and Walter Crane….Caldecott’s nursery rhymes, Crane’s illustrated folktales, and Greenaway’s babies in baskets of roses…became a standard of excellence in what could almost be considered a new genre” (Egoff 1981:248). Briggs and Butts, in fact, say of Caldecott that “it is not going too far to say that in his sense of the relationship between text and illustration he helped to create the modern picture book” (1995:165). But it was the nineteen thirties that saw the development of the true picture book, as distinct from the illustrated book. The “bright colours and blending of text and pictures” of Jean de Brunhoff’s ‘Babar’ books, first published in English in 1934, were “very influential” (Hunt 1995:205-206). They encouraged “the increased use of lithography”, while the hand-lettered ‘Little Tim’ books published by Edward Ardizzone in the late thirties set “a trend for the interweaving of text and pictures” (Hunt 1994:124). Dr Seuss’s first book, And to Think That I Saw it on Mulberry Street, was published in 1937, and by the sixties Dr Seuss was “single-handedly changing the reading habits of hundreds of thousands of American children” (Fadiman 1962:283). Epstein describes him as “a genius − a sort of supercharged Edward Lear…whose books sell in the millions” (1963:86). University of Pretoria etd – Kneen, B (2003) 6 In the United States, therefore, “the proliferation of fine picture-books, immeasurably enriched by the contributions of European illustrators, had already begun” by the time the Second World War ended, but in Britain, “the picture-book for very young children was slow to get moving after the war” (Hollindale & Sutherland 1995:285).