Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Children's Books?

lrb.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 78 posts

Re: Why Children's Books?

#51

Post by throwaway638637 »

fergie wrote: post #37
graemep wrote: post #20

I think she places too much importance on this: "British children’s books have often taught other truths – that the best thing you can be is white, upper or middle class, and if you are a girl, quiet. " Firstly, there are many exceptions. For example, Aravis in CS Lewis's The Horse and His Boy is neither white nor remotely quiet - she is aristocratic. The Telmarine descended characters in the later books in the serie…

When I was at school in Scotland in the 80s it was a recognised problem that too much of the available childrens literature centred on wealthy kids who went to boarding school. Its ironic therefore that when an impoverished Scottish single mother, JK Rowling, wrote the most successful childrens books of all time in the ´90s, that they centred on wealthy kids who went to boarding school.

Hardly wealthy, I would say. The Weasleys lack of money and second hand clothes were an important subtheme..

Re: Why Children's Books?

#52

Post by red_admiral »

fergie wrote: post #37
graemep wrote: post #20

I think she places too much importance on this: "British children’s books have often taught other truths – that the best thing you can be is white, upper or middle class, and if you are a girl, quiet. " Firstly, there are many exceptions. For example, Aravis in CS Lewis's The Horse and His Boy is neither white nor remotely quiet - she is aristocratic. The Telmarine descended characters in the later books in the serie…

When I was at school in Scotland in the 80s it was a recognised problem that too much of the available childrens literature centred on wealthy kids who went to boarding school. Its ironic therefore that when an impoverished Scottish single mother, JK Rowling, wrote the most successful childrens books of all time in the ´90s, that they centred on wealthy kids who went to boarding school.

I think several publishers rejected HP for being too "traditional": who wants to read about a boarding school these days?

Re: Why Children's Books?

#53

Post by ghc »

jmkd wrote: post #24

Great essay, I was disappointed to find no reference to the best-selling author Julia Donaldson, or her masterwork, The Gruffalo. The Gruffalo inhabits a territory never before seen in children's literature. It goes beyond existentialism and metaphysics and yet retains an adorable accessibility that a 2 year old can understand. Spoilers follow if you are still in the pre-Gruffalo phase of your life. Already in line t…

"The Gruffalo" is fine, but literature is more about depth than novelty. A book like Eoin McLaughlin's "The Hug" is just as easy to understand and also has a unique construction that makes it like "no other children's book".

That doesn't make either "The Gruffalo" or "The Hug" comparable to the depth of works like "Winnie the Pooh", "Where the Wild Things Are", or "The Story of Ferdinand".

Re: Why Children's Books?

#54

Post by miltonlost »

graemep wrote: post #20

I think she places too much importance on this: "British children’s books have often taught other truths – that the best thing you can be is white, upper or middle class, and if you are a girl, quiet. " Firstly, there are many exceptions. For example, Aravis in CS Lewis's The Horse and His Boy is neither white nor remotely quiet - she is aristocratic. The Telmarine descended characters in the later books in the serie…

> Even Kipling is better than the article gives him credit for "You’re a better man than I am, Gunga Din!"

No, Kipling was still super racist, even if you can cherry-pick one quote out of his oeuvre and ignore "White-Man's Burden" and like everything else about him.

I think you place too much importance on your thinking she places a lot of importance on one line/paragraph out of a much larger essay.

> Three British authors!

Yes, and the article is from a magazine in the UK, from the London Review of Books? Why would she not focus on British authors then?

Re: Why Children's Books?

#55

Post by red_admiral »

graemep wrote: post #20

I think she places too much importance on this: "British children’s books have often taught other truths – that the best thing you can be is white, upper or middle class, and if you are a girl, quiet. " Firstly, there are many exceptions. For example, Aravis in CS Lewis's The Horse and His Boy is neither white nor remotely quiet - she is aristocratic. The Telmarine descended characters in the later books in the serie…

> BS, as a non-white kid growing up in 70s and 80s Britain I never felt this. The author thinks people can only identify with characters like themselves, which is condescending.

Indeed.

I know there has been criticism of Watership Down for gender roles that would apparently make it unappealing to girls - missing the point that Adams originally made it up for his two daughters who loved it so much they forced him to write it down. Also as far as identifying goes, the characters are RABBITS.

And the railway children, a story also mentioned in the article, has that scene where the children steal some coal from the railway yard that the family otherwise wouldn't have been able to afford to keep their home warm in winter.

Re: Why Children's Books?

#56

Post by giraffe_lady »

dang wrote: post #10
zabzonk wrote: post #2

[flagged]

Please let's not find the most ideologically provocative point in an article and make the thread be about that. This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html .

Hey dang have you noticed you have a bit of a nazi problem on your hands recently. Or is that not really a "problem" from YC's perspective these days.

Re: Why Children's Books?

#57

Post by nindalf »

sersi wrote: post #43
nindalf wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My Dear Lucy, I wrote this story for you, but when I began it I had not realised that girls grow quicker than books. As a result you are already too old for fairy tales, and by the time it is printed and bound you will be older still. But some day you will be old enough to start reading fairy tales again. You can then take it down from some upper shelf, dust it, and tell me what you think of it. I shall probably be t…

Yes, you're right about that specific dedication to Lewis' god daughter. But, you don't address the poster's point: > The main characters even in books they do not appear in (The Magicians Nephew and The Silver Chair) or appear in only as minor characters (The Horse and His Boy and The Last Battle)? He does have a point and you're not answering it at all.

The answer is obvious to anyone with a passing familiarity with Narnia - the first 3 books featuring the 4 Pevensie children as main characters are an order of magnitude more popular than the others.

On goodreads the first book has 2.96 million ratings. Horse and His Boy - 371k ratings.

When people think of Narnia they think of the first 3. That’s the reason only the first 3 were adapted to film. These 3 movies crossed $1.5 Billion worldwide. Movies based on the others? Nothing, they don’t exist.

In terms of cultural cachet the books not featuring the Pevensies are afterthoughts. Anyone would know this.

Since you’ve appointed yourself the judge of points not being addressed, could you go around asking for a response to my point. Being the main character of a book feels really special, and the series being written for Lucy clinches that.

Re: Why Children's Books?

#58

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

graemep wrote: post #20

I think she places too much importance on this: "British children’s books have often taught other truths – that the best thing you can be is white, upper or middle class, and if you are a girl, quiet. " Firstly, there are many exceptions. For example, Aravis in CS Lewis's The Horse and His Boy is neither white nor remotely quiet - she is aristocratic. The Telmarine descended characters in the later books in the serie…

>Firstly, there are many exceptions. For example, Aravis in CS Lewis's The Horse and His Boy is neither white nor remotely quiet - she is aristocratic.

Lewis, being the genius that we're all acquainted with, discovered a subtler truth... that being aristocratic is best of all. Obvious to the aristocrats reading my comment, I think, but Lewis wasn't even landed gentry.

Re: Why Children's Books?

#59

Post by tines »

jmkd wrote: post #24

Great essay, I was disappointed to find no reference to the best-selling author Julia Donaldson, or her masterwork, The Gruffalo. The Gruffalo inhabits a territory never before seen in children's literature. It goes beyond existentialism and metaphysics and yet retains an adorable accessibility that a 2 year old can understand. Spoilers follow if you are still in the pre-Gruffalo phase of your life. Already in line t…

I dunno man, the hero is a con artist?

Re: Why Children's Books?

#60

Post by joshuacc »

fergie wrote: post #37
graemep wrote: post #20

I think she places too much importance on this: "British children’s books have often taught other truths – that the best thing you can be is white, upper or middle class, and if you are a girl, quiet. " Firstly, there are many exceptions. For example, Aravis in CS Lewis's The Horse and His Boy is neither white nor remotely quiet - she is aristocratic. The Telmarine descended characters in the later books in the serie…

When I was at school in Scotland in the 80s it was a recognised problem that too much of the available childrens literature centred on wealthy kids who went to boarding school. Its ironic therefore that when an impoverished Scottish single mother, JK Rowling, wrote the most successful childrens books of all time in the ´90s, that they centred on wealthy kids who went to boarding school.

Have you ever read the books? The main characters are middle class or poor.
Post reply on HN