Based on MacLeod's "Children's Literature for a New Nation" and Sanchez-Eppler's introduction to Dependent States: The Child's Part in Nineteenth-Century American Culture, five theories for analyzing children‘s literature can be formed. Most children’s literature will contain morals, political statements, little to no setting, simple plotlines, and gender division.
In almost every children’s book we read a lesson is there to be learned. People wrote these books to teach their children how to behave and often these books “offer insight to what Americans wanted of and for their own society” (MacLeod pg 3). All the stories written were there to “provide children with models of virtuous living” (MacLeod pg 4).
Children in literature were also used to make political statements and move the society. They were “attempts to reform, direct, or influence the nation” ( Sanchez pg 7). Books portrayed a “poster child” to show not only kids but adults the direction that America should be moving in. Children were used to evoke certain emotions and make the readers feel a certain way about an issue but in reality the society “consistently fail[ed] to support the daily needs of children…” (Sanchez pg7).
The “authors gave scant attention to the settings in their narratives…” because they were placing emphasis on other things such as morals and such. By not placing a lot of focus on where they story was they were making the story more universal. People could identify with the characters because they could be anywhere, therefore they could be anyone.
Plotlines were made simple so that any child could understand what was going on. It was believed that children “learned much better by example than by precept” so authors filled their stories with predictable example of good triumphing over evil (MacLeod pg 5). The good characters were always rewarded and the bad characters always suffered dire consequences.
And lastly, children’s literature taught most of America some pretty distinct gender divisions. The stories showed us “a mix of behavior and ideals” for specific genders to follow whether it was a child or not (Sanchez pg 15). It taught little girls how to be little girls and little boys how to be little boys. Women and children were portrayed as subservient to the man of the house, and this was the social norm back then.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I had completely forgot to consider how gender roles play into children’s literature until you mentioned it. Many of the stories do focus on teaching little girls how to be girls and little boys how to be boys. There is a lot to be said for these types of teachings and how they still have an effect on society today.
ReplyDeleteI agree, I forgot about the gender roles, but they are clearly distinct in the literature. In modern times people seem to be pushing for equal treatment of genders, but certain gender roles still exist and much of what we think about differences in how boy and girls should act could very well have been preserved through these children's novels.
ReplyDeleteI agree with there being a definite predictability of the plot lines. I think by writers having for the most part only two basic outcomes in their stories (the good prosper, and the bad suffer) allowed for a pretty well defined line between how one should be and shouldn't be. By being so cut and dry, I think the authors cut out the gray area of right and wrong, which could have otherwise confused the child.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with there being tendencies to teach some kind of lesson. Every piece of literature was focused on educating the future of America on the morals needed to maintain a successful country. Since they were just beginning to understand the idea that the children will be who remains to continue in their footsteps, authors began writing for instruction and not entertainment.
ReplyDeletei like that you touched on the gender divisions in children's literature
ReplyDelete