The Golden Compast

There seems to be a trend in children's literature that the book's protagonist must be somewhat of a spy.  We saw this in Harriet the Spy, Eloise, and yet again in this week's novel The Golden Compast.  Children are and must be naturally curious, they need to explore their world to better understand it.  However, when natural curiosity turns to spying, I begin asking questions.  Although Lyra saves her uncles life when she hides out in the closet and observes the master putting poison in the canister from which he would drink, Lyra was somewhere where she shouldn't been.  Are we then teaching young people that all adults are untrustworthy?  That spying is okay because the possibly of overting danger may be the benefit?  Are we teaching our children that bounderies are non-existent as long as they are not caught?
Again, for the record, I am not a fan of the fantasy genre.  I don't like witches, the supernatural, ghost, gobblins, and especially the idea that the soul exists apart from the individual in what is termed a daemon.  I am not sure why it was necessary to refer to the soul as a daemon.  I get that the author was suggesting that the person is the only human that truly knows his or her own inner thoughts and motivations.  I get that the author was affirming that part of the self regulating process, self discipline process, requires us to talk to ourselves as it were, and figure things out.  I just disagree with the terminology used to refer to the human soul.  Perhaps, this fundamental difference has everything to do with my Christian faith, and how Christians view the existence of demons.  I would not want to be associated with one, neither would I want my child reading a book that suggest that an animal that accompanies them everywhere, can be an extension of their internal self.  I believe that the human soul is the individual, nothing more, nothing less.  I believe that when I die, my soul dies.  It does not survive and exist apart from me in a separate form.  I couldn't get past the idea of the external soul personified as animals to really analyze the novel for its literary value, I must admit.  I understand however, that the novel has more to do with free will and very little in common with religion.  I just find it difficult to talk about one aside from the other. 
Lastly, I found this novel a little scary (I don't like horror either).  A parent's biggest fear is for a child to be stolen away, kidnapped, or missing.  It makes no difference, we want to know our children are safe because they are so very precious to us.  I didn't like the storyline where the children are taken by the Gob's and used to conduct experiments on.  In the back of my mind, I kept thinking about the Holocaust, and reacted deeply to the abduction plot-line.  Although this novel is extremely well written, and the characters are fully developed, it was problematic for me in a number of ways.  The Golden Compass, though not my least favorite this semester, has truly been a challenge for me to read.  I enjoyed the parallel universe, journeying to the north and the dangerous adventures by necessity, I just found it difficult to get beyond the idea of the soul being in the form of an aminal, existing outside the physical body of the individual.  I subscribe to the Genesis account "He blew into his nostrils and he became a living soul," for me any other explaination is a contrary explaination.

Lion-Witch-Wardrobe

This book is interesting on many levels.  I though appreciate the backstory from which it arose.  C.S. Lewis incorporates real world elements into his fantasy tale.  I remember reading in history about the relocation of English children from the city of London to the countryside shortly before World War II erupts.  This is what first captured my interest with the book.  Fantasy for me was always difficult because it was so other-wordly.  Fantasy required me to believe in the make believe, and being a realist makes that extremly challenging.  So the fact that the author uses real world conditions of the 1940 as a springboard for this fantasy book makes it that much more appealing.  I enjoy history and historic fiction is my favorite genre of literature, so naturally when even small historic connections can be made it provides me with a possible reason 'to buy into' the fantasy tale and not discount it because of my personal beliefs and values. 
That being said, the novel is packed with allusions popular in Christiandom.  I won't ascribe all the allusions to Christianity because the book also borrows from Greek Mythology (I have in mine, the witch's ability to turn her enemies into stone; sounds like Medousa, the Gorgon, who could turn a person into stone with a simple glance).  The book also contains elements commonly associated with paganism ( I'm reminded of comsuption and the importance of food in pagan festivals).  For all intended purposes, the Turkish Delight becomes Edmund's god and he betrays his siblings in exchange for it.  In ancient Rome, paganist delighted in sensual pleasures and hedonism.  Edmund succombs to gluttony, which essentially makes him the pagan character of the book. But mostly I asking whether readers would have to already be aware of these earlier writings to recognize the allusions?  I wondering if it is difficult for all adults, as it has been for me, to put aside what we know in favor of having new experiences while reading books designed for children.  I really didn't want to compare Aslan with Jesus Christ, nor did I want to see the White Witch as the representation of evil, namely Satan the Devil in the Christian tradition.  So I decided that the White Witch would for me be more closely associated with Greek Mythology and would then be a sort of demi-god, because while she is not human, she is not all powerful either.  But as I think about it now, that same connection is made in the Bible book of Genesis.  Before the flood of Noah's day, wicked angels who forsook their natural place in Heaven, came down to the earth and took wives for themselves.  The offspring of the fallen angels or demons and the daughters of men were the Nephilim.  These characters were wicked individuals and coincidently, were the giants in the earth.  Similar to the White Witch, the Nephilim used their brute force and took whatever they liked.  Their badness was not allowed to go on indefinetly and neither was that of the White Witch.  See, I'm doing it again.  While attempting to analyze the reading, I am guilty of bringing in  my previous knowledge and understanding.  I cannot ignor all the obvious allusions to earlier writings of a religious or secular nature.  Did C. S. Lewis intend that to be the case? Where children suppose to read the novel in a similar way?  How would this be beneficial?  I'm left with more questions than answers.

The Appeal of Children Literature

This week's selections reminded me of how expansive the umbrella for Children's Literature is.  Over the last several weeks we have read and discussed what may be described as classical children's literature.  But as the weeks rolled by, I've found myself increasingly asking, 'What exactly constitutes Children's Literature?'  So, I set out in search of a definitive answer.  I began my search the old fashion way and consulted my favorite dictionary, my Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, copyright 1973, for a working definition.  I always understood that literature in the archaic sense refers to "literary culture", but while the definition is substantive, it is problematic in scope.  I decided that I would settle on the 'a' part of the third definition and adopt it as my working definiton for the purpose of the tasks set before me.  So here it goes,  literature is "writings in prose or verse; esp: writing having excellence of form or expresssion and expressing ideas of permanent or universal interest".   I'm thrilled with this definition.  It helps me to better conceptualize the appeal of two children's classics-The Cat In the Hat and Where the Wild Things Are.
Although it may cause me some ridicule, I'll be very honest, I never particularly liked The Cat In The Hat (I am a fan of Dr. Seuss of course, just not this book).  As a former Education Major, I recognize the book for its genius, in that it is an excellent tool to teach beginning readers vocabulary, about rhyme, and even older students about omniscient narrators.  However, I always read this book and questioned why the children seemed to be unattended for so long.  Now as I think about it, I'm sort of reminded of Harriet the Spy, which leads me to a different point , chaos results when children are left to their own devices.  Anyway, as an English Major, I at least see the appeal of the book.  When I reread it along with Where the Wild Things Are, I better appreciate it's appeal as a picture book.  Reviewed in this context, I more fully understand that the illustrations too, are a feat of skill.  The illustrations for these two books leave a permanent impression on the readers mind.  Literally, the cat in the hat looks unlike any cat i've ever seen, yet the image is immediately evolked by the title alone.  On the other hand, I always liked Where the Wild Things Are.  The book is totally relatable.  This book teaches internal and external conflict to children.  Most have had issues with a parent and dealt with their own anger.  But it is the pictures in this book that I believe help reconcile the conflict.  So, the appeal, well I'd have to say, each book expresses "excellence of form" in art and treats children as they naturally are, curious and full of the same emotions as every other person.

Harriet The Spy

I've been trying to decide, who or what exactly has the greatest influence upon our children?  Is it the parent, the schools, social environment, peers? The classic children's book Harriet The Spy, started me thinking along these lines.
The book's protagonist is a quirky eleven year old girl who pretends to be a spy and gathers information about those around her.  Some of the gathering requires Harriet to be a bit of a sleuth, most of what she garthers requires her to be just plain noisy.  Harriet records all her finding, whether they are factual or conjecture, in her secret notebook.  Writing it down, seems to help Harriet to process and understand people and by extension the world.  However, whatever is written, becomes the truth.  This is problematic for me.  Opinion seems to have equal footing with truth within the pages of the novel.  I realize it is a children's book, yet I question what the takeaway will be?  Will a young reader discern that truth and what is means to be honest is somewhat skewed within the pages of the book?   Consider the statement: "Sometimes you have to lie. But to yourself you must always tell the truth."  Will the young reader understand that a lie is never anything but a lie?  Or rather will they reason that "Little lies that make people feel better are not bad, like thanking someone for a meal they made even if you hated it, or telling a sick person they look better when they don't, or someone with a hideous new hat that it's lovely.  But to yourself you must tell the truth."  I want my two year old son to understand clearly, that there are not good lies and bad lies, there are simply lies.  
I guess I'm a little nervous about a book's influence upon its readers.  Will the message and values put forth within the pages of a book carry more weight than the words spoken by a parent?  Harriet The Spy, has a reading level of 6.2 but an intereest level for children in grades 3-5.  My hope is that younger readers will recognize the character Ole Golly as the sage of the book.  The lessons she teach, especially about lonliness and understanding self, are the ones I hope they remember, long after they have put the book aside.  I like how Ole Golly and her words of wisdom; "You know what? You're an individual, and that makes people nervous.  And it's gonna keep making people nervous for the rest of your life."  This is the message I would hope children get from the book, that self awareness is important, but so are good manners and conduct. I hope the young readers understands that just because you think or feel something, doesn't mean others have to accept it as their truth. 

Hear My Cry

""Baby, you had to grow up a little today. I wish...well, no matter what I wish.  It happened and you have to accept the fact that in the world outside this house, things are not always as we would have them to be.""  This quote is from the book Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry, the selection for this weeks class and was stated by Mama Logan to her daughter Cassie.  These words resonate with readers like myself, African Americans, who as young children were themselves little Cassie's.  Children who innocently questioned the status quo, often recognizing the wrongness of it, and suffered the consequences.  These words reminded me of the words my own father shared with me as a young girl first suffering the humiliation of being referred to as a "nigger".  My father told me, rather matter of factly, that I was no better than anyone else, certainly no worse, but equally as good.  He explained that sometimes people fear what they don't understand and can't control.  He explained that people behave the way they do because they feel powerless, and that sometimes all they know how to do well -is hate.  My dad explained to an eight-year-old, third grade student, that 'outside our home' was a harsh world, that cared very little about a young girl's feelings or innocence.
That is why novels such as Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry, have an important and proper place in Children's literature.  While the novel is realistic fiction, it could easily be non-fiction.  These stories are real and passed down in the oral tradition.  I heard similar stories from my grandparents after my own experience with racism.  My grandfather James was born in 1902 and my grandmother Julia in 1914, so you can imagine the struggles they had raising their nine children in the backwoods of South Carolina during the great depression era the book is set in, on their own ten acres I might add.  I'll not digress to much, but I think it necessary to say, for many, land ownership affords people a sense of pride and satisfaction they might not have otherwise experienced.  That was true of my family and certainly true of the Logan family in the the novel Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry.  I get that, and understand why it was hard for Cassie's character to not know her place.  She was equally as good as her white counterparts. 
Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry, is classic literature and succeeds on many levels to impart historical knowledge in an engaging narrative.  It should be required reading. 

Connectedness

I really enjoyed this week's reading of The Birchbark House.  While I realize that the book is a work of fiction, I felt an overwhelming sense of connectedness to Omakayas story.  This is the sort of literature that I'd want my children to read, but not just read, to experience, as I did.  I began reading the acknowledgment (something I don't usually do) and was pleased to learn that the author, Louise Erdrich, is a decendant of the Ojibwa peoples, somehow that gave the novel more weight, made it more authentic.  I especially enjoyed Erdrick's plea to the reader to 'speak the Ojibwa girl, Omakayas, name aloud so as to honour her life.  As I did, Omakayas became more real.  The character was totally relatable, and easy to identify with. Her character is very well developed.  Many parents will recognize the sibling dynamics at play within the novel.  Omakayas character was humerous, honest, but at the same time flawed, all which contributed to the stories believeablity.  She was very much a child, possessing the feelings, rational, and reactions of a child, which makes the character endearing to readers.
Similar to Little House on the Prairie, The Birchbark House is packed with lots of  informational about the day to day activities of the Ojibwa tribe, without being boring.  This I believe is accomplished because Endrick crafts a story where both the main character, her family, and the reader by extension all feel connected.  Omakayas and her family are connected to each other.  They are connected not simply through blood or marriage, but joined and linked together with one another and the land for survival.  The family is an interdependent unit, everyone has a clearly defined role and sees the importance of fulfilling that role.  Omakayas and her family co-exist with the land and respect all life on it, from the least to the greatest.  This people are not dwelling in fear, infact they have a remarkable connection to all the animals. They take only what is necessary for survival.  They eat to be sustained, they store up for the winter, and are not wasteful.  Every part of the animal is used for nourishment, clothing, blankets, etc., anything that cannot be used is ceremoniously buried.  The author presents the tribe in a very respectful and dignified manner, these people are not savages.
This novel is an excellant tool for teaching about native cultures and perhaps the native peoples' attitudes respecting forced migration to reservations.  I appreciated that the whites were not portrayed unfavorably, they needn't be.  That is one very noticeable strength of the novel.  The family survives inspite of trying circumstances.  Omakayas herself is a survivor, she becomes one with nature and those who nurture her.  Her survival is connected to theirs.  This reader inturn feels deeply connected to Omakayas and her family especially after the loss of the baby boy Neewo (I got up from reading to go kiss my sleeping 2 year son Christopher) because not matter our differences, death is always mankind's common enemy.

After reading Little House on the Prairie I'm feeling nostalgic for the period in my life when I felt safe and secure.  For me, those were the years I spent with my grandparents, James and Julia Flint.  My grandparentss were very much my Charles and Caroline Ingalls.  They had a remarkable ability to make any difficult circumstance seem surmountable.  This book gave me that same feeling. I just knew that the Ingalls' would  fair well, despite contant danger.   Little House on the Prairie was a fast and easy read, a book that until very recently, I didn't know existed.  I wish I had been introduced to the series years ago as I spent countless hours, week in and week out, year after year, watching the television series of the same name.  Before reading this book, I mistakenly believed that theirs was a simplier time, a safer time, turns out I couldn't been more wrong.
Each chapter of the book presents its own set of very real dangers or difficulties.  The family faced the possibility of death repeatedly.  The courage required to leave one's established homestead for unsettled territory is now so poignant in my mind.  From the families decision to move, to crossing the creek, to believing themselves to have lost Jack the dog, they had to make constant adjustments.  Life was not simple, infact, I believe that it may have been harsher.  It is so easy to take things for granted today. I've never given any thought to what people in the past slept on.  This book made me realize that they stuffed their own mattresses.  I know that this fails in comparison to say, building ones own logcabin home, but just the same, for me this is enormous.  I wouldn't have survived anypart of this journey. 
The threat of wolf attacks, the fear of Indians, screaming panthars, individually these things are overwhelming to me, collectively, they seem unbearable. The Ingalls and families liked theirs confronted these dangers everyday.  Though they didn't have a right to this territory legally, I admire their desire to settle it. Their American dream is not very different from our own, we all want to benefit from the work of our own hands.  We want to build homes and have occupancy, live in peace and security with our neighbors, and be happy in the pursuit of these dreams.l