Discuss. Use a specific example from the stuff written for children (and then forgotten) that we read for Monday to support your claims.
Deadline: Friday (3/20), 10am.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Welcome to the course blog for English 427 (Later Eighteenth-Century Literature) at the University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign.
Contributors
Castle of Otranto Backgrounds and Context
Third Assignment
Unit 7: The Sublime
Unit 6: Rights of Women
Unit 5: Slavery and Abolition
Unit 4: Children's Literature
Unit 3: The Theater
Unit 2: Folklore and Fakery
Unit 1: Empire and Exploration
Independent Units
Course Readings
- Butler, Arts in the Age of Revolution
- Cowper on Omai
- Boswell on Johson, Omai, and savages
- Burney on Omai
- Brooke, Preface to The Excursion
- Johnson, Rambler No. 4
- Johnson, Rambler No. 23
- Johnson, By the River at Stowe Mill
- Sterne, The Northwest Passage to the Intellectual World
- Sterne, Obadiah's Cow
- Sterne, True Shandeism
- Sterne, Uncle Toby and the Fly
- Frye, "Towards Defining an Age of Sensibility"
- The Bard. A Pindaric Ode (Thomas Gray)
- Joseph Warton's Dying Indian
- Gray's Elegy 1751
- Gray's Elegy 1768
- Gray's Elegy modern edition
- Mary Jones, Holt Waters (1750)
- Minds of Winter (Seward and Stevens)
Second Assignment (due 2/18)
First Assignment (due 2/2)
The First Map
Map of Western North American, c. 1785
9 comments:
I would say that practically anything would count as literature. These are about as legitimate as any other work of fiction, regardless of their audience. I think that some of the criticism against these works are that they are very harsh and seem inappropriate for children. The clear shift in what was appropriate for children is evident here, and these represent the manner in which children were educated and also the things that they were expected to cope with and probably experienced as well.
In p1-5 of A pretty book for children we are shown things that are seemingly normal, bombs killing folks, "traytors" being hanged, wife's being scolds, zany people being looked down upon. These teach children definitions, what they will think of first when prompted with these ideas, a traitor SHOULD be hanged, a good wife is NOT a scold, a warrior should be respected for his positive attributes, etc.
I think understanding the way that children were reared gives a valuable resource for understanding the ways that adults behaved and society was shaped, because it is our formative years that do just that, form our values, beliefs, etc.
I agree with John because literature, as defined by our contemporary cannon is dynamic. For example we now consider the novel a high form of literature, where as in past concepts of literature, it was ignored. I do not think we would refer to the genre as "children's literature" if as consumers we did not believe it to be so. Although our conception of what is good and what is bad children's lit. has changed from the later C18, the works hold no less merit.
For example, as modern adult readers, the class found that Jack the Giant Killer's letter was somewhat harsh in its representation of reward as a penny and punishment with the threat of whipping compared to our PC version of the same theme. However this difference creates a sense of literature with in the realm of children's books. They themselves represent a facet of society that often gets left out of the canonical concept of literature, but do in fact, though words of expression, teach us about the human condition.
So, Here is just a funny clip about children's books that about trumps my argument but, I though who ever takes the time, might enjoy it. I wish i could find a better clip.
http://www.myxer.com/video:589057/
I agree with the two previous posts in that children's literature can be considered as a valid source of literature. The authors use creative and imaginative elements to write the stories, and the stories simply appeal to a different, younger audience.
The only piece of literature that we read for Monday that I have difficultly labeling as literature is the alphabet. I guess because the author used some creative ways to get the point across, "S was a slut who spoiled the roast meat," it can be considered literature. The craft is recognizable, but the credibility of it as a source of true reading becomes hazy for me. Little blurbs of words are not necessarily pieces of literature. As a whole, the collection could be considered literature and a piece to read, but defining as so leaves me a bit unsure.
I agree that Children's literature should be counted in the literary world. As my peers have mentioned, childrens lit still contains a plot, has a purpose, and can often times be written in a witty and intelligent way. Also, it seems as though this form of literature may be one of the most important forms considering it is intended to teach the minds of our "future." The children who read these books may of course learn everyday lessons, but more importantly be influenced to become similar to a character within the book. For example, a story may introduce the profession of a doctor, dentist, police officer, teacher, and not to mention an author; all needed professions in our world. What I am basically trying to get across is that I believe good literature leaves its mark, influences, and serves a purpose. Children's literature has the ability to do all of that and to do so in the mind of a child who is still being shaped to me is extremely important.
Sorry to repost but i would like to add to the previous comment that "forgotten" literature most likely served a purpose in the period it was created. Also, paved the way for new literature to come; authors learned from these works so it wasn't forgotten just included into the "cycle" of the literature process :-)
I like that comment about the cycle of the literature process. And I agree with Rachel that the forgotten literature has it's place because at one point, it was probably used as a counter example for producing literature, which is important.
That said, I have a pretty broad range of what literature is. If I can consider comic books and graphic novels as literature, then I most certainly consider Jack the Giant Killer literature. I don't necessarily consider it 'high' literature, but I'm sure if someone like Umberto Eco tried, he could probably make Jack the Giant Killer a memorable high literary protagonist.
I guess just to play the devil's advocate, I have to point out that the concept of literature and those things that have been added to the literary canon have not been considered literary in their time. In the 18th century, these children's stories and alphabet books were most certainly not considered literature, but the consensus here seems to be that we consider this to be literature today. People also consider advertisements and personal letters from famous figures in history to be part of the literary canon, but during the time they were just personal correspondence. It kind of worries me that in 200 years people could be reading Facebook posts and gossip blogs as literature of the 21st century. If something was produced in the 18th century for the purpose of a silly children's tale is it fair to now elevate it to the level of literature, which endows a certain artistic and cultured meaning that the authors certainly never intended.
Obviously, these texts can tell us a lot about education, children, and parenting of the 18th century, but I just don't know that I would go so far as to label them as literature. Interesting and insightful, yes. Fine examples of the literature produced in the 18th century, not so much.
I would agree with everyone and say that yes it does count as literature. I would agree with John pretty much anything can be considered literature. It is very fluid, chapbooks for example were little more than sheets of paper bound together and handed out by peddlers and yet they were wildly popular and read by many children. John Newbery's books were at first chapbooks, and so while people nowadays would consider this odd it was in perfect keeping with the period.
Even though Goody Two Shoes and Jack the Giant Killer aren't read anymore they are still incredibly important. It provides a window into understanding the values of this time period. It allows us to see that punishment and reward were still being used as means of illustrating wrong and right to children.
It also reveals that imagination was fostered in children, Jack is a giant killer and Goody Two Shoes spits jewels. There is this fantasy aspect that is very apparent and so it reveals to us the importance of fantasy for children at this time. I know that before taking the course I assumed that children of this period were working on the farm from age five. But as this forgotten literature demonstrates it was still very important to maintain this sense of wonder and curiosity and faithfulness to one's imagination that is only found in childhood.
I think that it is still literature regardless of it is still popular simply because it was once read by someone at a point in time. If we only read literature that was popular then people wouldn't get a full picture of what a time period is like. The forgotten literature often illuminates a forgotten or little known about aspect of society from the time period in which it is written. I think its important that these writings still have a place in anthologies or compilations even if they are not widely popular.
I'm really back and forth about the issue. On the one hand, I'd be suspect of any class years from now that engaged in a serious discussion about the content of a Hardy Boys book. On the other hand, though, I think there's a lot going on in some of the readings we saw in this unit.
We discussed how works like the alphabet were a tool to teach children values. Having all these values distilled for children in short books could be a very valid tool for understanding the beliefs of society at large. You can get an impression about what these people thought about various subjects by seeing how they sought to get later generations to believe that. The fact that some of these texts were later forgotten could help show changing beliefs. Did a generation of people who grew up hoping to puke precious metals feel that their children should be raised the same way?
Post a Comment