Written for Children: An Outline of English-Language Children's Literature

by John Rowe Townsend

A critical survey of the best and most representative English-language children's literature and picture-books of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Literary Criticism, Books About Books

Paperback

First published January 1, 1974

About the author

John Rowe Townsend (born 1922) is a British children's author and academic. His best-known children's novel is The Intruder, which won a 1971 Edgar Award, and his best-known academic work is Written for Children: An Outline of English Language Children's Literature (1965), the definitive work of its time on the subject.

He was born in Leeds, and studied at Leeds Grammar School and Emmanuel College, Cambridge. Among his popular works are Gumble's Yard (his debut novel, published in 1961), Widdershins Crescent (1965), and The Intruder (1969), which won a 1971 Edgar Award from the Mystery Writers of America for Best Juvenile Mystery. In Britain, The Intruder was made into a children's TV series starring Milton Johns as the stranger. Noah's Castle was filmed by Southern television and transmitted in seven 25-minute episodes in 1980.

Reviews

[Wayne · Rating 1 out of 5]

What a Disappointment...TWO actually !!!!
The BOOK itself
...and the 27 readers who haven't written a single word !!!!!!
You MUST have SOME opinion ????
Even two lines can be sufficent to reveal love, loathing, praise or condemnation, n'est-ce pas !
Rise from Thy Creative Beds ...and SPEAK !!!

Here's My Turn !!!
Bought this back in the 1970's when I was teaching in primary school.
Never read it from cover to cover, something I am now CURIOUS to experience,
because I feel an Itch to get stuck into Mr John Rowe Townsend -
Some Variety of the British Snob or Well Reared in the British Class System ??

I dipped into it occasionally on and off over the years.
But when I came to review a life of Enid Blyton for Goodreads in recent years,
I whipped this off the shelf
and for the first time realised what a venomous and narrow little British book it was.
Enid is not mentioned once...or twice...or ever!!
...BUT in the final three and a half pages of the last chapter titled AFTERWORD comes:
"Biggles and the famous Five go down easily." midway in a paragraph that begins thus:

Besides the good books, children will also read the not-so-good ones.
This does not worry me greatly. It is a natural and healthy instinct to react
against parental taste and to forage for oneself. I have seen many lists of the
actual reading of individual children; and it is surprising how even the longest
and most interesting lists will include popular series-books and comics.

Well, NOT surprising AT ALL, Dear Fellow !!!
Proust is now being produced...dare I say it !!!...as a COMIC !!!!...and in ENGLISH !!
And the comics of yesterday had works of genius among them; one's that brought belly laughs too.
Walt Disney comics of Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse. Superman comics at the other end of a LONG Spectrum. Ideal for learning to read, these comics!! Classic Comics gave us a first way into Shakespeare, Classic Novels from Ben Hur to Dicken's Christmas Carol and so on !!!

But the European Witch Hunt dies hard...
Children were not reacting against Parental Taste when they read Enid Blyton. The children were GIVEN the books by Parents, Grannies, Aunts and Uncles!! And they were in school libraries too.
When the Witch Hunt began against Enid Blyton and her 'dangerous and destructive' books were banned from libraries, the children went off themselves to the book stores and Enid's sales skyrocketed.(Apparently Mr Townsend does NOT know his Book History, or only a manufactured one that suits him!! )
Her books are NOT "not-so-good" at all. The style is simple as is the vocabulary. But the plots and the stories are first rate for young readers. Finally Enid's books were readmitted to libraries as there was no other writer catering for children at that particular level...and series are IDEAL for this group as well. I recall vividly reading Enid's "The Treasure Hunters" (NOT a series) to my Year 4 Class over a few weeks just for the pleasure of a rattling good yarn...the day we finished it there was a spontaneous outbreak I have never experienced before or after ...READ IT AGAIN !! READ IT AGAIN !!!!! What a thrilling "reading moment"!!!

There are many paragraphs that are open to analysis in this book...UNfavourable analysis.
I will leave that up to the 27 posted here and to new readers of this faulty book.
It is selling on some sites for over $100.

[Sula · Rating 4 out of 5]

It was interesting to see how children's literature has evolved from Stuart primers to the wide and varied selection of books that has come available in the last fifty years. The nature of such a book is that at times it tends to list which is less engaging, and I felt the second half suffered more for this, perhaps assuming people's knowledge of the books. It was enjoyable to come across familiar faces throughout the eras. Also interesting was seeing what were big names, either a long time ago, or at the time John Rowe Townsend was writing, and now are not recognisable.

While authors often stray from this now, this is opinionated, not heavily so but enough to add some interest to the book. He does appear to have missed some potentially significant authors (one reviewer has mentioned the absence of Enid Blyton), but says himself in the introduction 'I have preferred selection to compression'. While I might have included her myself, on the whole he has managed to give a good overview of children's literature without trying to cover everything. As with all these things, there are always going to be arguments on who should and shouldn't be included.

[Trevor Harvey · Rating 1 out of 5]

This survey of children's literature covering the first three quarters of the 20th century is narrow in scope.

It focuses on what the author perceives as good, uplifting reading so popular authors such as Anthony Buckeridge, Enid Blyton and Malcolm Saville are ignored.

Townsend does not consider the growth of paperback publishing in the 195os and 1960s. Puffin paperbacks gets a brief mention, but Armada or Knight paperbacks – nothing.

The revised edition includes new material on books written in the English language published in the USA and Commonwealth countries. This has a jarring effect in that readers of books published in the UK won't have much interest in books published outside the country.

Some of Townsend's analyses of books are good, but there is a patronising tone to the whole construct.

[Ian Banks · Rating 5 out of 5]

Mr Townsend conducts a survey of children’s literature that is concise and broad and general and specific all at the same time. His knowledge is extraordinary and his erudition is worn quite thinly, disguised with a superb wit that had me reading a few passages to my wife who, alas, does not share my love of lit history. He limits himself, wisely I think, to the exemplars of the field and the qualities that make a classic. He is shrewd about what sort of book he thinks may last - several of his choices of potential classic have indeed come to become so - but doesn’t completely dismiss popular opinion or ignore the potential of technology to distract readers away from books.

[Hannah · Rating 4 out of 5]

First two thirds 5⭐️, final third: disproportionate weight given to contemporary fiction. Interesting and humorous.

[Hayley · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a must read for anyone interested in the theory and history of children's literature. Townsend smoothly guides readers through the evolution of writing for the young, mentioning classics from each decade, why they were written, and why they were successful. Written for Children is informative as well as entertaining--Townsend's personality, insights, and sense of humor all come through in his writing. I learned a lot and enjoyed myself in the process.

[Snail in Danger (Sid) Nicolaides]

I think his introductory remarks about childhood in Tudor England might be an overly broad treatment, but the book as a whole looks interesting.