Keely's Reviews > Alice in Wonderland
Alice in Wonderland (Alice, #1)
by Lewis Carroll, Rene Cloke
by Lewis Carroll, Rene Cloke
I think that the failure not only of Children's Literature as a whole, but of our very concept of children and the child's mind is that we think it a crime to challenge and confront that mind. Children are first protected from their culture--kept remote and safe--and then they are thrust incongruously into a world that they have been told is unsafe and unsavory; and we expected them not to blanch.
It has been my policy that the best literature for children is not a trifling thing, not a simplification of the adult or a sillier take on the world. Good Children's literature is some of the most difficult literature to write because one must challenge, engage, please, and awe a mind without resorting to archetypes or life experience.
Once a body grows old enough, we are all saddened by the thought of a breakup. We have a set of knowledge and memories. The pain returns to the surface. Children are not born with these understandings, so to make them understand pain, fear, and loss is no trivial thing. The education of children is the transformation of an erratic and hedonistic little beast into a creature with a rational method by which to judge the world.
A child must be taught not to fear monsters but to fear instead electrical outlets, pink slips, poor people, and lack of social acceptance. The former is frightening in and of itself, the latter for complex, internal reasons. I think the real reason that culture often fears sexuality and violence in children is because they are such natural urges. We fear to trigger them because we cannot control the little beasts. We cannot watch them every minute.
So, to write Children's Literature, an author must create something complex and challenging, something that the child can turn over in their mind without accidentally revealing some terrible aspect of the world that the child is not yet capable of dealing with. Carroll did this by basing his fantasies off of complex, impersonal structures: linguistics and mathematical theory. These things have all the ambiguity, uncertainty, and structure of the grown-up world without the messy, human parts.
This is also why the Alice stories fulfill another requirement I have for Children's Lit: that it be just as intriguing and rewarding for adults. There is no need to limit the depth in books for children, because each reader will come away with whatever they are capable of finding. Fill an attic with treasures and the child who enters it may find any number of things--put a single coin in a room and you ensure that the child will find it, but nothing more.
Of course, we must remember that nothing we can write will ever be more strange or disturbing to a child than the pure, unadulterated world that we will always have failed to prepare them for. However, perhaps we can fail a little less and give them Alice. Not all outlets are to be feared, despite what your parents taught you. In fact, some should be prodded with regularity, and if you dare, not a little joy.
It has been my policy that the best literature for children is not a trifling thing, not a simplification of the adult or a sillier take on the world. Good Children's literature is some of the most difficult literature to write because one must challenge, engage, please, and awe a mind without resorting to archetypes or life experience.
Once a body grows old enough, we are all saddened by the thought of a breakup. We have a set of knowledge and memories. The pain returns to the surface. Children are not born with these understandings, so to make them understand pain, fear, and loss is no trivial thing. The education of children is the transformation of an erratic and hedonistic little beast into a creature with a rational method by which to judge the world.
A child must be taught not to fear monsters but to fear instead electrical outlets, pink slips, poor people, and lack of social acceptance. The former is frightening in and of itself, the latter for complex, internal reasons. I think the real reason that culture often fears sexuality and violence in children is because they are such natural urges. We fear to trigger them because we cannot control the little beasts. We cannot watch them every minute.
So, to write Children's Literature, an author must create something complex and challenging, something that the child can turn over in their mind without accidentally revealing some terrible aspect of the world that the child is not yet capable of dealing with. Carroll did this by basing his fantasies off of complex, impersonal structures: linguistics and mathematical theory. These things have all the ambiguity, uncertainty, and structure of the grown-up world without the messy, human parts.
This is also why the Alice stories fulfill another requirement I have for Children's Lit: that it be just as intriguing and rewarding for adults. There is no need to limit the depth in books for children, because each reader will come away with whatever they are capable of finding. Fill an attic with treasures and the child who enters it may find any number of things--put a single coin in a room and you ensure that the child will find it, but nothing more.
Of course, we must remember that nothing we can write will ever be more strange or disturbing to a child than the pure, unadulterated world that we will always have failed to prepare them for. However, perhaps we can fail a little less and give them Alice. Not all outlets are to be feared, despite what your parents taught you. In fact, some should be prodded with regularity, and if you dare, not a little joy.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read Alice in Wonderland.
sign in »
Comments (showing 1-12 of 12) (12 new)
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
D.M.
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
26. Dezember, 07:07 Uhr
A fascinating and thoughtful essay, if not necessarily a review. Thanks for taking the time to have something more to say than why you liked (or disliked) the book!
reply
|
flag
*
"A child must be taught not to fear monsters but to fear instead electrical outlets, pink slips, poor people, and lack of social acceptance."Why poor people?
Hey everyone, sorry I didn't notice these comments before, must have missed the update.I meant poor people--like hobos, slum dwellers, 'white trash', minorities, pan-handlers, &c. I'm sure we've all seen a mother snatch her child away from talking to someone on the street and tell them "don't talk to people like that, it isn't safe".
I'm not saying parents should do this, just commenting that it is one of the everyday things that children are taught to fear, but which we don't always fear instinctively. I'm also being a bit tongue-in-cheek, suggesting the things we are taught to fear are not always actualy worthy of that fear.
Regarding the comments above: Yes, I think the allusion to "pink slips" and "lack of social acceptance" made it clear (to me anyway), that you were talking tongue-in-cheek there, like you often do. Although I find many of your reviews thoughtful, intelligent, well-constructed and erudite, some of them really stand out for me because you put something of yourself into them.
This is one of them. Thanks!
Keely wrote: "Hey everyone, sorry I didn't notice these comments before, must have missed the update.I meant poor people--like hobos, slum dwellers, 'white trash', minorities, pan-handlers, &c. I'm sure we've ..."
Yeah but when you say: "A child must be taught not to fear monsters but to fear instead electrical outlets, pink slips, poor people, and lack of social acceptance.", it sure sounds as though you're implying as though it is our compulsion that children are definitely taught to fear poor people. If it was a sarcastic comment then I understand.



