Why the British Tell Better Children's Stories

[Lucy the Valiant]

From the Atlantic: http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/01/why-the-british-tell-better-childrens-stories/422859/

 

 

I don't fully agree with all of her points, but I enjoyed the article and thought others here (both American and British - and probably some "neithers") might also.

 

I also feel pretty lucky indeed to live in a world where I have such rich and free access to these beautiful stories in the first place, both British AND American. (My $.02 considers the world in need of both "fantastical myths and legends" AND "tales of moral realism.")

 

 

[maize]

Haven't read the article yet, but if I had to come up with a reason off the top of my head it's that grand old British tradition of shipping kids away--off to stay with relativese, off to boarding school for the winter--and of taking long vacations away from home in the summer. All that going away, going places, kids outside of the mundane world of home and maybe out from under parental supervision, so much room for adventure.

 

Really, so many stories seem to start with kids going away; it sets the stage and gets the story moving. Harry Potter going to Hogwarts, the Pevensy (sp?) kids being sent into the countryside, then in later books going away to school or staying with relatives, the kids in Five Children and It at the seaside, Sara Crewe in school in London, kids traveling all over the place in The Dark is Rising series...

Edited January 18, 2016 by maize

[Ellesmere]

I had also thought about how much easier it was for me to get access to books that weren't as easily available in my childhood.

It also reminds me of a lovely book a friend lent to me because the author is quoted in the article - - Enchanted Hunters by Maria Tatar.

[maize]

Thanks, this was a very interesting article.

 

I find myself agreeing with this from the comments section "But I agree with a lot in this article -- but I think that the dichotomy between British fantasy and American realism is simplistic. It's ignoring the contributions of Madeleine L'Engle and her science fiction/fantasy mash-up of A WRINKLE IN TIME, the stories of Washington Irving, and the charmingly haunting fantasies of Ray Bradbury. Or American fantasy writers such a Maurice Sendak, Jane Yolen, Robin McKinley? Mine their writing and see if American children stories are still moralistic."

 

To that list of authors I would add Ursula LeGuin and Lloyd Alexander.

 

What stood out to me while reading the article: American children grow up on European fairy tales; we don't have the deep local mythology that exists in Britain and other parts of Europe, culture in the United States developed largely from a mish-mash of European and other transplants, it is true that very little of Native American mythology and folklore has found its way into modern mainstream culture. So American fantasy stories are often set elsewhere. Some, like Lloyd Alexander's Prydain chronicles or Nancy Bond's A String in the Harp, take us back to our British roots by setting the story in some part of Britain or a fantasy land based on Britain. Others, like Ursula LeGuin or L. Frank Baum invent an imaginary world. Speaking of Baum, I disagree entirely with the article's assessment of Oz; while the Wizard was indeed a charlatan, there is real magic in Oz and it doesn't end back in Kansas--there were many more books and adventures after the first.

 

I admit though that nothing the United States has produced quite matches up to Narnia or Middle Earth in my own estimation. 

[Aiden]

I read the article a couple of days ago. Although I largely agreed, I couldn't quite get on board with it fully. I love both forms of children's literature--the wonderful fantasy and the more true-to-life morality tales. But there was more to it that I couldn't articulate well. Maize just articulated it perfectly.

[Monica_in_Switzerland]

Interesting article!

 

 

[Laura Corin]

The article didn't recognise that there was an awful lot of didactic children's literature produced in the Britain in the 19th C that has been quietly forgotten about.  You see traces in the poem parodies in Alice.

[stutterfish]

I suspect there's a little grain of truth in the article, in terms of the Brit's mythological heritage and culture (I'm thinking Knights of the round table for starters). However, as a Brit, even though I've not been as exposed to US children's literature as much as British, there are plenty of US children's novels and stories that I've loved. The Little House on the Prairie series, for example, has a great narrative as a read aloud. I probably like it more *because* I'm not from the US and haven't had it thrust at me from early childhood!

 

I agree with one of the above comments, that the best children's stories are usually those where adults aren't present and children can get up to pretty much what they want. It's a classic basic plot for most children's authors: put the main (child) character in a situation where there are no/few adults (boarding school/summer holidays/child orphan) and give them obstacles to overcome. What child doesn't dream of the things they might get up to in a world without adult supervision? ;)

 

I think Harry Potter is quite an exceptional series, so I'm not sure it's fair to hold up all children's novels to the HP gold standard. The early books certainly have some faults in terms of writing (which I realised when I read them aloud), but the narrative and characters are so compelling, it really is a one-of-a-kind series. I think we should probably cut children's authors some slack. They can't all be the next J.K.Rowling :hat:  

 

Edited January 18, 2016 by stutterfish

[Tanaqui]

That article has an awful lot of cherrypicking.

[RoundAbout]

The article lost me in the opening sentence as I don't consider Huck Finn to be children's literature.  

[Storygirl]

I think there is a lot to love in children's literature from both sides of the Atlantic, so I disagree with the premise that British children's literature is better. I'm guessing you could choose a different selection of books and argue the same point from the other side.

 

I do agree that there is a richness in British fantasy that builds on British cultural heritage and folklore. But I think dismissing all American children's literature as Puritanical and moralistic is just plain wrong.

 

I don't see any reason to pit one against the other to see which is "better."

[Julie Smith]

One think I find is the French don't have much children literature.

[ReadingMama1214]

I read it a few days ago and was discussing it with a friend. We both agree with certain points and love British children's literature.

 

One thought we had was that the British have a much richer and longer history. They've had more events and history to speak into their stories than Americans have. I think this could impact the richness of our stories.

 

But I think of fantasy authors who I love (Andrew Peterson and N.D. Wilson) and they both credit British authors as their great influencers.

 

I think that British and American children's lit and fantasy are different. I found the discussion on the world views impacting the writing to be intriguing. After reading it, I could see the realism in American fantasy.

[Bluegoat]

I read this the other day.

 

I do think there are some differences in the two groups, and fantasy in NA seems to have got off to a later start.  But I thought there were generalizations that were so out of whack that I can't take the article seriously.

 

The most glaring one is this idea that British lit doesn't include realistic moral tales - what?  There is a reason Belloc write a whole send-up of the genre.  Has this guy never heard of Enid Blyton?  I read quite a lot of those as a child, and they were clearly moralistic tales.  Some were realistic and some were more fantastic, but they were realistic fantasy IYKWIM.

 

The fantasy tales aren't devoid of moral lessons either.  I'm not sure how one could read Lewis, or Tolkien, or McDonald, or even the Harry Potter books, and think there aren't moral messages.

 

And then - he contrasts Sendak's Where the Wild Things Are to fantasy - I am pretty sure it counts as fantasy - as do Stieg's books. 

 

[Lucy the Valiant]

Another interesting perspective is to consider American children's literature (and all American "literature," really) as one BRANCH of British lit; this makes sense from a historical perspective, but not from a fictional / fantastical perspective.

 

Children's literature as a genre isn't that old, really; it's interesting for me (personally) to consider the lens of how differing cultures in differing times have treated children.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Let's see. . . has anyone mentioned Rick Riordan yet?  An American author who has done a great job of fantasy tied to ancient myths.  (Which the British draw from too - and not only their own.)

[Bluegoat]

I think the fantasy genre these days includes a lot more North American elements.  Either pre-European stuff, sometimes early Viking related things, but also more fantasy is being set in non-medieval type settings.  There is a series by a Canadian author where several volumes are set in Ireland, but the final one is in Canada.  It has a number of very Canadian elements - First Nations tales, tall tales of the Paul Bunyan type, loup-garous, and flying canoes powered by demons.

 

There are a few differences I tend to notice with English children's lit, which are true generally of English books.  One is the sense of humour is rather different (which is something I appreciate, I think it is closer to the Canadian humour.)  Also - they often have a kind of village focus that doesn't have much to compare to in North American literature.  Rural stories here tend to have a different character than British ones, related I think to different settlement patterns, but they make the stories seem different too.

[SaraSM]

There is a series by a Canadian author where several volumes are set in Ireland, but the final one is in Canada. It has a number of very Canadian elements - First Nations tales, tall tales of the Paul Bunyan type, loup-garous, and flying canoes powered by demons.

 

Sounds intriguing. Who is this writer? Edited January 19, 2016 by SaraSM

[Faithr]

I have a collection of Victorian British children stories. All very didatic! I mean the British invented stuffy Victorian culture! I always thought the British had such good children's lit because they were so distant to their children, shipping them off to dreadful boarding schools where they were starved and beaten. No wonder they retreated into fantasy!

[Laura Corin]

I have a collection of Victorian British children stories. All very didatic! I mean the British invented stuffy Victorian culture! I always thought the British had such good children's lit because they were so distant to their children, shipping them off to dreadful boarding schools where they were starved and beaten. No wonder they retreated into fantasy!

 

I was actually going to make the same point.  A lot of British fantasy/animal writing/historical fiction came out of loneliness and fear.  Middle class children shipped off to boarding school at a young age; Gay writers unable to talk about their lives (TH White, Mary Renault, Gavin Maxwell); people isolated by illness (Rosemary Sutcliff) or social class (Beatrix Potter).

[Bluegoat]

Sounds intriguing. Who is this writer?

 

O.R. Melling.  The series starts with The Hunter's Moon.