Writer's Block: Reconsidering Children's Books

[author_by_night]

[Error: unknown template qotd]Disney. The sexism - it burns.

Actually, I think "sexism" is a bit unfair, just because a, they're simplistic because they're for kids, and b, they weren't exactly written in progressive times. Still, one of the reasons I liked Enchanted was because it pretty much parodied all those themes. Not just that, but it was by Disney itself. (Granted, Disney decades later after these books and movies were written/made.) But old school Disney is just filled with anti "ugly" women themes and "ditch it all for lurve" themes.

And then there's The Baby-Sitter's Club books - not because they were sexist or anything, but the idea of a bunch of thirteen year old girls being trusted to take kids through NYC alone and stuff... *shudders*

Also, Harry Potter... though in that case, it was on purpose. But back when I first read them, I didn't think anything of a bunch of preteens fighting three headed dogs and dark lords and dealing with attempted mass murder. I mean, I always thought the books got darker in the third book, but when I think about it... yikes. O_o Obviously it was Jo Rowling's point, but I don't think I really got how chilling it was until later.

Comments

[vegablack62.livejournal.com]

I agree that the creepiest thing about Disney movies is that they make the story more sexist not less, sometimes they make the story worse in their attempts to make it more enlightened. It's weird. Their addiction to weak plot cliches is what does it.

"Harry Potter... though in that case, it was on purpose. But back when I first read them, I didn't think anything of a bunch of preteens fighting three headed dogs and dark lords and dealing with attempted mass murder. I mean, I always thought the books got darker in the third book, but when I think about it... yikes. O_o Obviously it was Jo Rowling's point, but I don't think I really got how chilling it was until later."

I read Potter for the first time as a grown woman with children the ages of the characters. (My youngest so graduated high school the year DH came out.)

I used words like sinister to discribe Dumbledore because that is the way he is to a parent. I finished the first books wondering what kind of strange headmaster allows a preteen to have invisibity cloaks or wander the school in search of adventure, or punishes kids by having them roam at night in forests filled with dangerous creatures. I felt JKR hinted that Dumbledore knew about Harry's adventures. I was confused by his portrayal and wondered if it was a hole in the characterization. In the end we found out that he did plot it and saw endangering a 11-12 year old
as part of his plan to prepare him to die fighting Voldemort. That's just cold, however charming the man was.

Children's literature is filled with disturbing stories that touch on cruelty, violence, failure, callousness and the inhumanity of humans. IN some ways they are more frank about it than adult lit. That's why kids like them. I'd say more books deal with it than those that don't. My feelings about Dumbledore didn't make the books bad kids Lit. I think the first three Harry Potters were great examples of kid lit. The first book was a perfect example; the ending was perfectly satisfying from the perspective of a child. Harry's winning the class cup for Gryffindor from Slytherin would have pleased a ten year old more than finding the Philosopher's stone. I just don't see Dumbledore as such a wonderful character. One of the things kids learn from books is that things and people aren't always what they seem.

[author-by-night.livejournal.com]

Harry's winning the class cup for Gryffindor from Slytherin would have pleased a ten year old more than finding the Philosopher's stone.

And to a kid, the mean, bad bullies didn't win after all. Whereas I don't know about you, but I find taking away a prize from a bunch of kids like that rather harsh. Yet maybe it's good for young kids to be exposed to the idea that if you're a good person, you'll be rewarded, NOT if you're mean and stuck up to people who aren't "cool." Even Neville got an award. The scene still bugs me, but at least I can sort of see the rationale.

[vegablack62.livejournal.com]

A kid would think of it this way. Slytherin was winning because The trio and Neville lost all those points when they got caught roaming the halls at night attempting to do something good. They lost more points than Draco who was being mean. That would all seem very unfair. Nothing bothers a kid more than to be punished unfairly for something that they hadn't meant to be bad. That injustice bothers them more than anything. The time you were accused of stealing but you just forgot, or the time you were accused of lying etc.

The Slytherins in book one are every kids image of horrible kids who pick on them and laugh at them and win unfairly. Preteens relate to Gryffindor. Gryffindor fits the preteen ethic.

Then they think Harry earned the points fairly from Slytherin. He should be rewarded for finding the stone and saving it from evil. Ron and Hermione should be rewarded for helping him. The reward of receiving House cup points would be more important to them than praise or a medal or money. That's the reward a ten year old would want. That Neville got the final wining points would seem just to a kid. He had done something that is extremely hard for a ten year old to do. Many of them would have been mad at him for doing it. Seeing that rewarded would be a good thing. Plus the Slytherins were mean to him all year a kid would have been glad he got his own back.