Theories in Children's Literature

After reading MacLeod’s and Sanchez-Eppler’s narratives about children and childhood in nineteenth century American literature, there can be many theories draw from their work as to how the image of the child was used. For starters, both MacLeod and Sanchez-Eppler noted how children’s stories were always designed with children acting like little adults. Sanchez-Eppler stated that “they are objects of socialization” (p.7) meaning that childhood was not about playing games and having fun, but more about learning to become an adult, by working on the farm or respecting one’s elders. Considering that America was still a young and slowly developing country, it was quite forward thinking of authors and adults to see children as the future; a lesson that has lasted for over a century.

The second theory that I came across was that children were always being taught a moral lesson, but they rarely noticed it. According to MacLeod (p.91), “Since complexity could only have obscured the messages, characterization was simple and it was always easy to identify the good and bad models. Lazy, fretful Louisa was contrasted with her cheerful, industrious cousin, and the story showed how the differences in their temperaments shaped their lives”. Over the past week, I have been reading Louisa May Alcott’s Little Women and since the beginning of this course I have been paying attention to little bits and pieces of the book that I would normally disregard. The girls are heavy characterized in the first few pages, with many good qualities and of course having one disagreeable quality as many child characters did in early 1800’s literature, but past the characterization, the girls verbalize these negative qualities and how they wish to change them. Normally, I would think to myself that their continually positive attitude is a little exhausting, but it makes sense that was the way authors were able to convey their message. Having children constantly working to better themselves was their didactic purpose.

Thirdly is the theory that a lot of political issues were swept under the rug so to speak, regardless of the fact that authors were trying to transform their intended reader into little adults. In MacLeod’s piece Children’s Literature for a New Nation, he explains “Except for frequent and pious references to George Washington, the American past was largely ignored” (p.92). He later goes on to say, “In the same way, slavery was all but invisible in juvenile fiction, though it was the issue that dominated American political debate from 1820, the year of the Missouri Compromise, to 1860, the eve of the Civil War”. It seems almost hypocritical that these writers were instruction children on how they should be responsible little adults and yet they completely disregard some of the major issues that were occurring. If these writers were so bent on making sure that children were morally sound and good people, then why would they ignore issues of slavery, racism, and even women’s rights? Does being an adult not also include understand and dealing with social and political issues?

The last two theories that I came across seem to go hand-in-hand, so it makes sense to put them together. First off, these children’s books tried to convey the message that they should be willing to “put the wishes of others above one’s own” (MacLeod p. 95). I’d have to say that this didactic lesson is still a big part of many children’s books today. And the second theory is that authors wanted children to appreciate what they had and to not “chase after the uncertain rewards of fame and fortune” (MacLeod p.95). This might be the lesson that has totally been lost on my generation, but none the less valuable or important.

These theories only scratch the surface of nineteenth century children’s literature, but they are still important to think about.

How do ya do?

Hello friends and classmates out in bloggerland! For those of you I don't know, my name is Kristin and I am a 5th year Senior Nutrition major/Business minor. Woot victory lap! I am from Round Rock, TX which is right above Austin. For any baseball fans out there, Round Rock is home to the Express which is one of the farm teams for the Astros. And for the foodies, Round Rock donuts has also been featured on Man vs. Food.

I would say that I always knew that I was going to be a horned frog. I have an aunt and uncle who are both TCU alumni and it just always seemed like the perfect fit. If I became Chancellor of TCU, first and foremost I would definitely tackle the issue of tuition. From my freshman year to now, tuition has gone up more than 30%. TCU is a fantastic school and I could not have asked for a better experience, but the tuition is a little off-putting. And for anyone who lives off campus, I would absolutely ramp up the amount of parking that TCU offers for commuters. We really need a parking garage and I would work my tush off to make it happen.

What I think makes for a good student/teacher relationship is number one, an obvious passion from the professor for what he or she is teaching. I became a nutrition major after taking a nutrition class my freshman year and was completely consumed by the amount of passion my professor had for what she was teaching. A professor should also be easily approachable and does not belittle their students. As for a good student, there needs to be a desire to learn what is being taught as well as having an open mind.

If I could have dinner with any three people in the world, without a doubt Jimmy Buffet, Jessica Simpson, and my Uncle James. Jimmy's songs made me fall in love with music, I adore Jessica Simpson even though some people think she is off her rocker, and my Uncle James because he died before I was born and I wish I could have known him.

Three things about me, hmmmmm. My ultimate dream would be to have a show on the Food Network. If I could move to Grand Cayman tomorrow, I would. And finally, I am getting married in June! Now that you know three random facts about me, this is what I would like to know about you. For starters, what is your ultimate dream or goal? Second, what would you say is the one song/album that could be the soundtrack to your life? Finally, if you could trade places with anyone in the world, who would it be and why?

My interest in this course, honestly, was because I was told I was missing a Humanities, so this course was what I picked. But I am excited that the theme for this class is about children/childhood. As college students, we are half-way between being a kid and being an adult, so it is a bittersweet time. It seems appropriate that we will be considering what that means within literature this semester.

When it comes to reading, I have spent the last 4 years absorbed into science textbooks, so I do tend to gravitate toward books about medicine and nutrition outside of the classroom, but 9 times out of 10 I am most likely reading the books that are on the most popular list (i.e. Harry Potter, Twilight, etc.). And just an extra tid-bit about me, I actually like re-reading books that I have already read. As far as types of writing that I prefer, I like all different types from texting to emails to blogging; I do not have a preference. I feel pretty confident in my writing abilities, but my senior AP English class has sort of put a gray cloud over writing itself. I had a teacher who was more concerned about the punctuation and margin sizes of my papers rather than the actual content, so needless to say I am very apprehensive before I write a paper.

When I was choosing the design of this blog, I wanted something that was straight forward and to the point, but still classy. I'd say that I gave an "in a nutshell" introduction which I hope to continue this semester in my other entries. Hopefully I can give observations/opinions that tell it like it is rather than try to fluff up my writing with word vomit.

Last, but certainly not least, I have read, understand and agree to the term of the course syllabus