There were two comments about the rise of print culture and the novel that I found particularly interesting. The first, is his discussion of book agents as people that were suspicious and perhaps, untrustworthy. There seemed to be no system of checks and balances and no way to really know if you were going to actually be published and or paid. Yikes!
Secondly, one of my areas of interest is Children's Literature; I find it fascinating that it took longer for American children's literature to develop. I took a course entitled The Golden Age of Children's Literature in which we read the following Children's books: Little Women (1868-9), Little Lord Fauntleroy (1885), The Adventures of Tom Sawyer (1876), The Jungle Book (1894), The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (1900), Alice in Wonderland (1865), Peter and Wendy (1911), The Wind in the Willows (1908), A Little Princess (1905), Tarzan of the Apes (1914), The Voyages of Dr. Dolittle (1920), The House at Pooh Corner (1928). I find it interesting that of the 13 'classics' we read for class only 4 were American (even in the late 1800s- early 1900s)! I found the discussion on pages 30-32 fascinating and think I might want to do some more research on popular children's texts during the time period listed for our course. Most of the books discussed I've never even heard of an certainly never read. I also found the rise in children's fiction chart of particular interest, since there is a rise and fall, but overall a steady increase (much like there has been the last 10 years).
I couldn't agree with you more. Most of the facts and history from this week's reading just felt like recycled information from the previous two authors we've read. But, maybe that means we're just becoming experts on the Early Republic, and any history is just boring information that we already know.
ReplyDeleteI'm obviously kidding, but I think you're right about the style and tone of the book. Even the appearance of the front cover make it feel like an encyclopedia entry. I felt that Starr and Davidson had a story to tell, and their writing was much more stylized and literary. For me, this reads like a text book.
Not that there is anything wrong with that, but it doesn't make for the most captivating read.
-Klay
Hi Kandace,I agree with both you and Klay. There is some overlap with material we have touched upon before, and at times I longed for Starr's stronger prose. But this was not too bad, at least for me. More to the point, it is a recent, oft quoted, and oft referred to book by a powerful organization. And thus it's a standard in the field, so we have to deal with it. dw
ReplyDeleteHi Kandace,
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed the little snippets in Gross's introduction on Children's Literature as well. Children's Literature, like much of the print culture, was very transatlantic. What, for instance, were children learning about England, in America, from Little Lord Flaunteroy? How was children's literature forming a type of national identity in the minds of an up and coming generation. Did children even realize what books were "foreign" or not? Just as you mentioned, when I was little and read those books, I would not have known the difference between and English book and an American book.
Mary, I love the questions you are asking. It's funny that you asked specifically about LLF because everyone in my CL class told Graeme Wend-Walker (did you have him at TxState) not to teach it again, so he switched to A Little Princess the next semester. All of us found it harder to relate to than the other texts because it was SO BRITISH. I mean...woah. And LLF is kind-of a jerk of a kid. Not my favorite, obviously; perhaps, American children of that time understood how much more freedom they had in America? Even though religious and pious teachings were enforced, I kind-of doubt it was quite and uptight as what LLF goes through. I also think asking whether or not children realized books were foreign or not is a good question. I don't think I really realized the difference between American and other lits until high school. I remember finding out that Winnie The Pooh was not an American text. Now it seems so obvious because Christopher Robin is clearly British, but as a child, I didn't see it so clearly. Also, the Disneyfication/Americanization of Pooh makes it all the more confusing. Love your insights Mary. Thanks for making me think more about this!
ReplyDelete