Welcome Guest 

Register

Forum Home » Off Topic » The Palantí­r » Children's books...
Author Topic:
pv
Council Member
Posts: 523
Send Message
Avatar
Post Children's books...
on: February 28, 2005 02:48
Taking a look at the work of J. K. Rowling, Lemony Snicket, etc. I was shocked to find a strong emphasis on negative family relationships - am I in a minority or does anyone agree with me?
http://monstersandcritics.wordpress.com/
Annûniel
CoE Volunteer
Posts: 417
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Children's books...
on: February 28, 2005 02:53
Yes, that does seem "normal." But the idea creates conflict in the book. Lets face it, what other kind of major conflict occurs in a child's life if not negative family relationships? The local bully taking your lunch money? That's not exactly a superbly deep plot.

Besides, broken families are common today, as unfortunate as that is.
foolofatook~
Council Member
Posts: 778
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Children's books...
on: February 28, 2005 04:48
I'm with Annuniel. Unfortunately, it happens....alot. It gives a "steadier", "stronger" subplot/plot, which keeps the story moving. Sometimes, without it, there "is no story".
pv
Council Member
Posts: 523
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Children's books...
on: March 01, 2005 01:42
I agree, but some modern children's writers don't even use conventional plots, with a conflict and a resolution of the conflict. They only seem to have a "series of unfortunate events" with the same villains picking on the same heroes, over and over again
http://monstersandcritics.wordpress.com/
RiverWoman
Council Member
Posts: 120
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Children's books...
on: March 30, 2005 05:32
The negative family relationships in these books come about because the paretns are dead. I think that is a normal idea that kids in happy families have - that if their parents were gone everything would be terrible and dangerous. In order for kids to be the protaganists in the story, they have to be separated from their parents somehow, or else normally the parents would be the ones to handle the situation. Even in Narnia, the adventure starts when the children are evacuated to the country and leave their parents behind.
Nick_5
Council Member
Posts: 364
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Children's books...
on: March 30, 2005 06:59
Negative family relationships as someone already said are very common and they make the story more interesting. I guess that people are just going to have to accpect the fact that that's the way authors are writing. Hey, if you don't want your kid reading that kind of stuff don't let them. My aunt doesn't let my cousins read Harry Potter because it's about magic.

[Edited on 30/3/2005 by CountNick]
RiverWoman
Council Member
Posts: 120
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Children's books...
on: March 30, 2005 07:27
I can't think of any real popular children's books where the negative relationship is between the child and his natural parents if both are alive. Harry Potter and Unfortunate Events are relatives who take over after the parents are gone - this is NOT a new theme. Think Cinderella, or David Coperfield, oliver Twist.
k
Cavegirl
Posts: 1572
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Children's books...
on: March 31, 2005 07:40
Well it depends on how you look at it doesnt it.... In alot of cases the hero or heroine of the book isnt part of a "nuclear family" (two married parents, and usually one or two brothers or sisters) but thats true for many fantasy and other books.... In Lord of the Rings Frodo is an orphan and lives with his strange batchelor cousin, in Harry Potter harry is an orphan and lives with his not very nice uncle, in A Series of Unfortunate events the children are orphaned and keep being attacked by their not very nice relative, in Artemis Fowl his father is missing and mother is mad, in Tracey Beaker stories she is in care, in Phillip Pullman's trilogy the children have either no parents or parents that dont care for them.....

But they arent necessarily part of the plot as such, the lack of parental influence often just allows the character to do much more than may otherwise be allowed. These kids go running off on adventures for weeks at a time... surely a protective and close family might have something to say about that.

However, to take the case of Harry Potter since you mentioned it... the emphasis is far away from the negative side of the family. Much emphasis is given to the relationship between Ron's family, which is a very positive one. Hermione has (as far as we can tell) caring parents. Draco even, comes from what you might consider a normal family. And Harry craves a positive family relationship... he doesnt delight in being an orphan.

I think its less an emphasis on negative aspects of family life (conflict and argument, abuse etc), as an emphasis on the effect a lack of parents may have on the child and as others have mentioned, this is not a new thing and often necessary for plot.
Isafjordur
Council Member
Posts: 72
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Children's books...
on: April 02, 2005 09:07

But they arent necessarily part of the plot as such, the lack of parental influence often just allows the character to do much more than may otherwise be allowed. These kids go running off on adventures for weeks at a time... surely a protective and close family might have something to say about that.



I agree with this point. Somehow it would not be believable for a family to let their kids go off on wild and dangerous adventures. Even in some books I have read where the child's family is not dead, something happens to separate the kids from the family so they can have their adventures- such as parents sending the children off to be safe during a war (The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe) or the young hero/heroine having something happen to him/her during a trip to or from visiting relatives. An example of the latter is in the adventure novel "The Black Stallion" The teenage hero is in a shipwreck on the way back from a working vacation to help his missionary uncle in India. It seems Alec has to be literally taken out of his family environment for his extraordinary adventure of survival with the wild black stallion. This paves the way for him to become a jockey. The idea of a suburban New York teenager taming a wild black horse against the backdrop of 1940s New York city would not be believable . The horse would have been captured by Animal Control and Alec's parents would do everything to keep him away from the horse. So the boy has to be away from his family and home environment in a totally unfamiliar setting so that he and the Black can become friends. When he returns to his family alive and with the Black, his parents are so grateful for his return, grateful to the horse for saving him from drowning, and impressed by how much he has matured that they accept he and the horse must stay together. I just liked that Alec's experiences with his uncle gave him the skills he needed to survive. The movie played this differently by having Alec much younger than in the book and traveling with his father, who is killed in the shipwreck- the more conventional Hollywood view of the child hero losing a parent before the plot starts to build.

I think this is also an idea that has its roots back in fairy tales. Many of them also have a child who is orphaned or being raised by a step-parent.

[Edited on 2/4/2005 by Isafjordur]

[Edited on 2/4/2005 by Isafjordur]

[Edited on 2/4/2005 by Isafjordur]
Valderra
Council Member
Posts: 56
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Children's books...
on: May 06, 2005 04:26
Taking a look at the work of J. K. Rowling, Lemony Snicket, etc. I was shocked to find a strong emphasis on negative family relationships - am I in a minority or does anyone agree with me?


This is not a new concept. Look at Snow White, Cinderella, Hansel and Gretel, to name but a few. None of them had a wonderful childhood. So I guess that modern authors are just using an old concept that has proven to work.
Manephelien
Council Member
Posts: 189
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Children's books...
on: May 06, 2005 06:55
The old fairy tales (not the Disneyfied versions) depict a time when men died in war and women in childbirth, many children were orphaned young, and times of trouble meant that people starved to death, no social services then. This would mean that people would naturally favor their own children over others' and lots would live on sufferance, as long as there was food and they could contribute to the family, with relatives.

Today nuclear families break up for perhaps less dramatic reasons, nonetheless a sizable percentage of the world's children have been and continue to be raised in other environments.

[Edited on 6/5/2005 by Manephelien]
Precious!
pv
Council Member
Posts: 523
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Children's books...
on: May 06, 2005 09:35
Today nuclear families break up for perhaps less dramatic reasons, nonetheless a sizable percentage of the world's children have been and continue to be raised in other environments.


There are two types of authors - some show the world as it is, with all the malfunctioning relationships, etc. and leave it at that. Others paint a picture of the world as it could be - an ideal to strive towards, and these authors show us how a good relationship can work.

For adult literature, either viewpoint is fine. But for kids, wouldn't it be more appropriate to paint a positive picture of adult--child relationships? Things are difficult enough for parents as it is, and I suspect that the Rowlings and Lemony Snickets make their megabucks by irresponsibly tapping into the natural sense of mistrust that children feel towards adults. Authors like these can cause perfectly normal parents to be viewed as a bunch of Dursleys by their kids.



[Edited on 6/5/2005 by pv]
http://monstersandcritics.wordpress.com/
Valderra
Council Member
Posts: 56
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Children's books...
on: May 06, 2005 10:05
But for kids, wouldn't it be more appropriate to paint a positive picture of adult--child relationships?


I don't think that children are disturbed by the way the parent-child relationships are portrayed. I have been reading books since I was able to read and have read many fairy tale and other stories. Never once did I think, "oooh, what a ghastly story".
I, like all the other children, just enjoyed the stories for what they were, and when the evil witch(es) - mostly stepmothers - got their deserved ending - even though it might have been horrid - I was happy with the result.
As an adult we see things in a much more serious and definitely different light than children do. They are able to digest many things that we find horrid.
pv
Council Member
Posts: 523
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Children's books...
on: May 06, 2005 05:19
I don't think that children are disturbed by the way the parent-child relationships are portrayed.


You're right - kids are not disturbed by it. It's the adults who are disturbed by it.

The way I see it, children's literature interprets real life to children, just as a tennis commentator interprets a player's game to tennis viewers.

So if we were talking about John McEnroe, for instance, there are many ways in which he may be interpreted to viewers:

Commentator 1
"He is the most brilliant exponent of tennis of all time. His serve is brilliant. His forhand volley is brilliant. His backhand volley is brilliant. His forehand is brilliant. His backhand is brilliant. And did I mention his volley? It's a stroke of genius..."

Commentator 2
"This is Mac the Brat. The Bad Boy of tennis. He has paid more money in fines than most tennis stars have earned in their entire careers. He bad mouths the linesmen. He abuses all tennis officials. He even shouts at airplanes that that dare to disturb his concentration by flying overhead during matches..."

Commentator 3
"This man is a genius with the racquet. You can learn a lot from from watching his game. You can even learn how not to behave on a tennis court..."


So if we're talking about children's literature, Commentator 1 would be like all the preachy, boring books that depict wonderful but boring relationships between incredibly wise adults and incredibly angelic children.

Commentator 2 - this is JK Rowling, this is Lemony Snicket. These books are extremely entertaining to children. But if you listen to Commentator 2, you may never learn that John McEnroe is actually a brilliant exponent of tennis, which is the most important fact about him that a commentator ought to convey.

Commentator 3 gives you a balanced picture - presenting both the positive and negative aspects. This is the interpretation of life that I personally would like kids to have in the books they read.


As a parent, I openly admit that when I choose a book for a kid, I am also looking for some good advertising for myself.
I look for interpreters of life who would present me to a child as a Gandalf or an Obi-Wan Kenobi. I am extremely suspicious of those interpreters of life who present me to them as Vernon Dursley, Dolores Umbridge or Count Olaf.
As Rabbi Hillel said, "If I am not for myself, who will be for me?"



[Edited on 7/5/2005 by pv]
http://monstersandcritics.wordpress.com/
Valderra
Council Member
Posts: 56
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Children's books...
on: May 07, 2005 12:14
Well said, pv. And I liked your comparison to John McEnroe. LOL

I don't know whether my mother ever thought the way you do when buying books for me. All I know is that they were wonderfully entertaining.
Alas, my own son (who is now an adult himself) never liked to read, which I thought was a pitty. So I was never able to buy, let alone choose books for him. So I don't really know by what criteria I would have gone when selecting a book for him.
I also think that sometimes we can be a little overprotective towards our children, not wanting them to get to know things that might portray us in a less than perfect light. The thing is, what they don't learn at home, they will definitely learn outside the house, and I always preferred my son heard the story from me first rather than from someone else.
Hmmm... am I now getting away from the topic? LOL
pv
Council Member
Posts: 523
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Children's books...
on: May 07, 2005 04:52
I also think that sometimes we can be a little overprotective towards our children, not wanting them to get to know things that might portray us in a less than perfect light. The thing is, what they don't learn at home, they will definitely learn outside the house, and I always preferred my son heard the story from me first rather than from someone else.


You're right - books that deal with real problems can even offer you an opportunity to discuss these problems with your kids. It's important for kids to know that there are many villainous adults in the world that they need to be wary of. But they should also know that it is (occasionally) possible for an adult to help them, too. And many modern authors neglect to mention this important point.

In the Harry Potter books, Dumbledore hovers benevolently in the background, but does not have the impact on Harry's life that Obi Wan has on Luke Skywalker, or Mr. Miyagi has on the Karate Kid.

I liked the third Harry Potter book, because of the presence of Prof. Lupin and Sirius Black. Lupin offers Harry some very tangible help at school, and Sirius Black offers to adopt him - which will transform his family life.

But somewhere in between the third and fourth books, J K Rowling seems to have asked herself whether her fans would enjoy reading about a Harry Potter who is happy at home and at school. And she seems to have felt that she should not risk such an experiment.

Her popularity with kids rests on the fact that she makes fun of adult ineptitude. So when her artistic instinct leads her to create fine mentor figures like Lupin & Sirius Black, she has to get rid of them as soon as possible, before they become too influential and take over her story.

In my own opinion, I think that it would be reassuring for kids to see their favourite characters' problems being solved. (Even adults like to see their favourite characters' problems being solved. How would you have felt, if at the end of LotR, Sauron had got back the One Ring?) And I don't think that it is unrealistic to say to a kid that "If you have a problem, there are older people around who care about you and are ready to help you."
http://monstersandcritics.wordpress.com/
Valderra
Council Member
Posts: 56
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Children's books...
on: May 08, 2005 02:28
In the Harry Potter books, Dumbledore hovers benevolently in the background, but does not have the impact on Harry's life that Obi Wan has on Luke Skywalker, or Mr. Miyagi has on the Karate Kid.

In my own opinion, I think that it would be reassuring for kids to see their favourite characters' problems being solved. (Even adults like to see their favourite characters' problems being solved. How would you have felt, if at the end of LotR, Sauron had got back the One Ring?) And I don't think that it is unrealistic to say to a kid that "If you have a problem, there are older people around who care about you and are ready to help you."


Yes, Obi Wan has pushed Luke in the right direction, although there were others who helped him, Yoda not the least, especially since Obi Wan died rather quick.

And I agree, I prefer a happy ending and like to think that the good is victorious over the evil, although in real life it doesn't always happen that way. So children should know that, no matter what, there is always someone around to give them a helping hand but should also not be shielded from the reality. After all, we teach our children not to talk to strangers, but do we also tell them why, or do we just say: "well, because you just don't". And saying there are "bad men" out there, isn't really giving a child enough insight to act on our warning not to talk to strangers.
Ummm... am I still on the subject of children's books? LOL
Members Online
Print Friendly, PDF & Email