After
contemplating all of the readings from this semester so far I have found
interesting the broad range of purpose behind each text. The readings from the
beginning of the semester to the middle seemed to been very didactic in nature
and somewhat one-dimensional. After some further scrutiny I have found that
that was not always the case. The fairy tales were all very moralistic and
usually had a harsh lesson for children to learn. There could be multiple
readings of the fairy tales but such as the case in Little Red Riding Hood and
Hansel and Gretel the lessons to be taught were by instilling fear into the
child. After the fairy tales we had some readings that were either moralistic
or didactic from the Christian point of view.
The hornbooks and some of the ABC books had Christian notions built
right into them. After we read some about some of the different concepts of the
child we finally got around to what I think was the first modern piece of
literature in our Class; Kim. Kim also comes across as the most ambiguous of
the readings as far as what the author’s purpose may be. Although a case can be
made for Kipling representing being an imperialist sympathizer, I would not say
that that was an explicit purpose for this story. And I don’t think that Kipling
was trying to advocate one religion or culture as superior than the other but I
do think he may have had a slight cultural bias that he just couldn’t shake in
the writing of Kim. The next two texts, Little house on the Prairie and The
Birchbark House, were interesting because they represented different cultures
point of view during the frontier period in America. The last two books that we
have read, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe and The Golden Compass seem so
similar but at the same time opposites. C. S. Lewis’ book is a Christian
advocate while Pullman’s Golden Compass has an anti organized religion slant to
it. I have found it very interesting so far that much of the purpose behind the
creating all of the texts we have read is to instill some sort of ideal or
lesson that the adult writers feel they must convey onto children. Sometimes
the writes seem to feel like they have to correct a wrong of a past author by writing
a story from their own point of view.
The sentiment behind righting our pasts wrongs is a pretty prevalent idea within our culture. People are paid money or given items to help them "heal" from the wounds that their ancestors gained from other ancestors. So it's not surprising that writers fell this same pull to do it as well. Since it is writing, however, I feel compelled to call it "sharing opposing views". Blame it on the fact that the written word is not money, items, or forced upon any one. Or something. I digress
ReplyDeleteI like your point about writing back to the past in order to correct problematic themes and ideas. For me, the best part about Pullman's novel (though I have only read the first)is that it operates as a story that encourages criticism of stories. The narrative of The Church is sketchy and encourages hierarchies of sex and class while discouraging intellectual debate. Lyra's greatest power is that she is an expert liar and can thus frame people's perspectives in order to trick them. This rather postmodern suspicion of authoritative metanarrative and centralized perspective encourages children that "you shouldn't believe everything you read." Personally I think this is an excellent message for children, and anybody. This story about stories is a great way to follow LWW.
ReplyDelete