Thursday, August 30, 2007
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Sample Blog Post: Nursery Rhymes
What I researched and why: When I read Roderick McGillis's essay on "The Nimble Reader," I knew right away that I wanted to know more about the history of nursery rhymes. I have always been amazed by the stories behind deceptively simple children's folkstories and traditions--I almost feel like it's breaking a centuries-old code! The resonances and meanings are mostly lost on current children, who encounter the rhymes in new historical contexts. This shows the importance of context in creating meaning. But I also imagine that the meanings are still in there somewhere, on a deeper level. I agree with McGillis that we have to consider the origins of these tales before we present them to children as something of value.
What I found: Rutgers University has an incredible website on Mother Goose. The site has multiple variants of all of the original Mother Goose rhymes, along with illustrations from different periods, historical information, links, and critical commentary. It's very fun to surf around!
My interpretation: Since this is a class on naughty children, I chose to zero in on a rhyme that presents an ambiguously naughty character: "Little Jack Horner." He says he is a "good boy," yet he is in a corner, the place where naughty children are sent when they are bad, and he sticks his thumb in a pie, which sounds like bad manners to me. Also, where did he get the pie? Has he stolen it? I found out that there is a historical controversy about Jack Horner--it is supposedly a reference to a servant named Thomas Horner (servants were commonly called Jack) whose master sent him to London with a pie, in which were hidden the deeds to several estates. He opened the pie and ended up getting quite a bit of land! His estate exists to this day, though the family denies the story. Quite naughty, but very good for him!
What this adds to our discussion: McGillis spends quite a bit of time talking about how nursery rhymes are a part of the oral culture of the lower classes. I wonder, then, what purpose the rhyme about Jack Horner served. Clearly, there is an element of celebration and even instigation--here is a servant who has rebelled against his master and has not suffered any punishment. Yet, Thomas has been tranformed into a child (and a punished one, if my "corner" theory is true). Does this diminish his rebellion by turning it into a mere child's story? Is Thomas being symbolically punished? The whole thing also has sort of a tabloid quality--the teller seems to be mocking the real Thomas Horner, as well as publicizing the story. What do you think?
What I found: Rutgers University has an incredible website on Mother Goose. The site has multiple variants of all of the original Mother Goose rhymes, along with illustrations from different periods, historical information, links, and critical commentary. It's very fun to surf around!
My interpretation: Since this is a class on naughty children, I chose to zero in on a rhyme that presents an ambiguously naughty character: "Little Jack Horner." He says he is a "good boy," yet he is in a corner, the place where naughty children are sent when they are bad, and he sticks his thumb in a pie, which sounds like bad manners to me. Also, where did he get the pie? Has he stolen it? I found out that there is a historical controversy about Jack Horner--it is supposedly a reference to a servant named Thomas Horner (servants were commonly called Jack) whose master sent him to London with a pie, in which were hidden the deeds to several estates. He opened the pie and ended up getting quite a bit of land! His estate exists to this day, though the family denies the story. Quite naughty, but very good for him!
What this adds to our discussion: McGillis spends quite a bit of time talking about how nursery rhymes are a part of the oral culture of the lower classes. I wonder, then, what purpose the rhyme about Jack Horner served. Clearly, there is an element of celebration and even instigation--here is a servant who has rebelled against his master and has not suffered any punishment. Yet, Thomas has been tranformed into a child (and a punished one, if my "corner" theory is true). Does this diminish his rebellion by turning it into a mere child's story? Is Thomas being symbolically punished? The whole thing also has sort of a tabloid quality--the teller seems to be mocking the real Thomas Horner, as well as publicizing the story. What do you think?
Monday, August 20, 2007
Welcome!
Hello, Pitt students! Welcome to your English 1645 Critical Approaches to Children's Literature course blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)