Oh, Erica. You've been with us less than a week and already you've uncovered our guilty little secret -- which is the fact that "Um... what's the definition of Children's Literature, again?" is the central question of our discipline, and one that makes for hours of entertaining disagreement. One interesting "definition" comes from Perry Nodelman, who's a wicked smaht critic and who wrote a terrific article called "The Other: Orientalism, Colonialism, and Children's Literature." (It appears in the vol 17.1 -- Spring 1992 issue of the journal Children's Literature Association Quarterly, which I can't find in a full-text version in the Simmons Library database, but I have a hardcopy of it somewhere if you're interested.) Basically, he argues that Children's Literature is a body of work in which adult authors (often "unknowingly") "colonize" child readers by presenting an image of childhood that:
1) Depicts children as "the other:" i.e, everything that adults are not. This usually means children appear somewhat irrational, often passionately so, they are innocent in their motivations, close to nature, suffused with the power of the imagination, etc.
2) In doing so, satisfies adult dreams and notions about childhood without necessarily depicting a "true" image of what children are really like (is that possible, anyway?).
Although there are other ways I like to think about defining Children's Literature, I think this is a fun way to look at Hoot (maybe because I am really disliking it at the moment, and am pleased by the opportunity to describe its flaws as hostile acts of colonization). Some aspects of it fit fairly obviously into Nodelman's definition, most notably the environmental crusade that irks Erica (here we have kids understanding the meaning and importance of nature, and Mullet Boy seems almost like a "noble savage" character who has a Dickonesque* way with animals). Roy also strikes me as a "perfect" child in a lot of ways -- funny, smart, responsible, loving, brave, blah blah boring blah.
I have more to say but it is 1:30am and I should sleep. More tomorrow when I actually finish listening to Hoot. ;-) (By the way, the narrator on the audiobook is ghastly. Maybe I'd feel differently if I'd had a more traditional experience of the book.)
P.S. I don't think you have to hate a book to apply Nodelman's ideas to it, and some of my favourite books seem to do the "colonizing" he describes.
P.P.S. Why yes, I did have all that citation information just laying around in my head. Why do you ask?
*Secret Garden
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Thank you, Meera, for answering the question that none of us wanted to answer (and would have given a similar answer, I'm sure). Cathie would be proud.
And also, Erica, I think there's another question we have to consider for this book, with an already established author attempting a foray into children's literature. I wish I had read some of his adult books so I could tell you for a fact that he's an arrogant piece of poop who thinks he can just wing out a children's book because they're sooo much easier.
I have classified Roy in my head, just so you know, as the cool, ever-ready government spy-in-training, exactly what a young kid may fantasize, or exactly how an adult writer may rewrite his own childhood? Nothing seems to disturb Roy (no sincere disturbance, if you ask me), because he always has an answer, always has had previous training, always has morality on his side, and doggoneit, he WILL expose the liars and thieves in the end. And then he will saunter off into his own version of a sunset, turning for a quick wink at the camera, tossing his hair and walking tall. Aaaaand fade to black.
Not that every adult author attempting children's lit has this attitude. Umm. I can't think of a counter proof though. Help? Anyone?
Jo, I can't think of a specific example, but I checked Hoot out of my library (you all may recall Kristin hijacked my copy to California) and can make some comments - random comments.
I found Roy's way of dealing with the bully wholly unrealistic - yes, this is FICTION, but their relationship seemed way out there. Like Nelson on The Simpsons.
Completely cliche in the world of children's books: the discovery that Beatrice was Mullet's sister. YOU DON'T SAY! That came out of nowhere! Wowee!
Like Dana, I would like to know how this compares with Hiaasen's adult writings. (That was Dana, yes?) The quirkyness level was a smidge too high for me, and I LIKE quirky. For instance, pg. 41 where we get way too much info about Officer Delinko's morning routine. I think that whole page needed severe editing. The Mother Paula actress bit was also exceedingly weird. It was like Hiaasen thought, "This is weird, but kids LIKE weird! Yeah, that's the ticket!"
I like it less now than when I finished the book. Basic, run-of the mill stuff. But why so well-received?
Kudos on the book design.
Also, as I said on the first day of Crit, (the day I decided I wanted to work with Meera because she carried herself so intelligently and elegantly) many child lit books are classified as so because the main character is a young person. Not all, as Cathie clarified and I concede, but many. I do think regular Hiaasen fans would snatch Hoot up and enjoy it. I however, do not plan on reading anything else of his, child-oriented or not.
I've read Stormy Weather, and just so you know, it's WAY more quirky and weird than Hoot. It's also woven in a similar way (getting different perspectives), but way more complicated, and the different perspectives don't come together for a long time. It seemed to me that in Hoot, Hiaasen was writing one of his typical books, only more simply and about a kid. :shrug:
Post a Comment