What I researched and why: In looking over the course materials, I noticed that, for me, they fell into two categories. There were stories that I wasn't familiar with because they came far before my time (Little King Pippin; A Dialogue Between Christ, Youth, and the Devil) and there were children's books that I, or members of my immediate family, was raised reading (Where the Wild Things Are; 17 Things I'm Not Allowed to Do). However, The Adventures of Tom Sawyer fell squarely in the middle of these two categories. As a child, I was familiar with the story (do we all remember Wishbone?) but the book wasn't something that I was actually exposed to until high school, when I read it in an English course. It's on the boundary between the two categories: something I can examine as an integral part of my childhood, and something I can examine as a part of history. The fact that I never really read the book but was familiar with the story and its characters intrigued me, particularly as American society today is accused of being "illiterate." Even if books are being steadily devalued, how much has their influence permeated into the new, technological culture that seems to be rising?

What I Found: I began by searching Digg, a popular social networking and news site. I found an interesting article about how the phrase "Tom Sawyer" is used in reference to websites who, essentially, get their users to do their dirty work for them (a la Aunt Polly's fence). However, a more relevant site talks about how Disney replaced their Tom Sawyer attraction with one dedicated to Pirates of the Caribbean. On the opposite side of the fence, I found several instances of Tom Sawyer in children's media in the last few years, including a children's cartoon and, of course, our beloved Jonathan Taylor Thomas.

My Interpretation: It seems to me that in all the to-do about literature's disappearance in the western world over the last few decades ignores one of the largest demographics affected by its loss: children. As a child, I was raised on Where the Wild Things Are, Winnie the Pooh, the Nancy Drew series, and many more terrific books geared toward young readers. However, with the exception of Harry Potter, the amount of reading children seem to be doing has been dropping dramatically. I've seen this in my own younger brothers; my 11-year-old brother spends approximately 8 hours a day in front of the television. A quote in an article on a different site about Disney's actions sums this transition up quite succinctly: "That's very valuable real estate [in the theme park], and if you ask a hundred kids who Jack Sparrow and Tom Sawyer are, what do you think they're going to say?"

The question I propose is whether it does more harm than good to adapt books to other forms of media rather than in their original form. As a child, one of the most aspects of reading a book was the fact that visually, you were forced to imagine the scene, rather than having it presented to you preformed. I feel that, particularly in Tom Sawyer, this removes a valuable part of the book; in addition, it takes away a lot of the subtleties of Tom's thinking process as well, which children grasp better than we may anticipate.

What I Think it Adds to Our Discussion: We've talked a lot about the question of what's appropriate to present to children: which version of Little Red Riding Hood is the least destructive? However, in a culture where literature and media are becoming integrated in the way I've presented, the question must be taken a step further: Is it enough to present an interpretation of the work, or do we need to stress presentation of the original? Here's an example of an issue to take into consideration: Tom Sawyer deals with a lot of very real, serious issues: sickness, death, and religion are just a few examples. Can we really get these points across to children in a 1.5 hour, animated, anthropomorphic TV special? Does presenting classic literature in this way undermine the value of the work itself? However, have we come too far to go back and encourage our children to read without alienating them from their culture?

Little Lord Fauntleroy and Boyhood

Since we're talking more about boyhood today, I thought I would post the images that I mentioned last class--of boys being dressed as children's book character, Little Lord Fauntleroy. Fauntleroy is portrayed as masculine throughout Burnett's text, but, as you can see, the image associated with him is rather feminized, very different from our Tom Sawyer.

Fauntleoy is also generally understood as an apologist for certain 19c social values, including charity, civilized behavior, and democratic justice. It might be useful to think about how Twain interacts with both this other dominant portrayal of boyhood and with these social values. If his boyhood is not about civilized manners, what kinds of things does he want boyhood to be or represent?

Romantic Child

What I researched and why: I wanted to post on Tom Sawyer because I remember very fondly being read/reading this story many times when I was a child . When looking back on it I think I really got a kick out of hearing about when Tom would be so close to getting caught, but somehow managing to escape. I think I also enjoyed the friendship that Tom and Huck shared, and the knack for mischief that they shared. So when I began to look for related material on Tom Sawyer and found that there was not a lot there, I immediately started to look for things about Tom and Huck.

What I found: After searching around a little bit I came across a web site that has letters sent between Mark Twain and a librarian at Brooklyn College: http://www.twainquotes.com/19351102.html I think this is an article from the New York Times in 1935. This article is talking about how the head librarian at this particular college disagreed with his colleague that was trying to get the characters of Tom and Huck banned from the children’s department. To show his concern he sent a letter to Twain to tell him what they did and why. Twain’s response is hilarious, absolutely dripping with sarcasm. After his letter they were removed from the children’s department but put on shelves accessible to children and adults. Also at the end of the article it cites Twain talking about how the people in Concord, Massachusetts despised Huck because he lied and swore.

My interpretation and how this relates to our discussion in class: I found this article particularly interesting because it shows the nineteenth century view of the romantic child. This is made clear when they claim that Tom and Huck were “bad examples for ingenuous youth.” At first I was not sure what ingenuous meant, after looking it up I found out it means innocent; and just last class we were discussing the view of the romantic child being pure and innocent. The people at the Brooklyn Library were concerned that Tom and Huck would spoil the innocent minds of the children, and turn them into bad little boys and girls because they claimed these characters were coarse, deceitful and mischievous.
I also found the letter that he wrote to the professor to be really funny. Although in the preface of Tom Sawyer he states that the book is “intended mainly for the entertainment of boys and girls” in the letter to the professor he claims that he wrote the books for adults only. He relays across the message of the romantic child saying, “The mind that becomes soiled in youth can never again be washed clean.” Although he used heavy sarcasm here just to get some people worked up I assume; these are exactly the ideas of childhood in the nineteenth century. People believed that children were born with the mark of God, and they did not want them to be tainted; and this idea was very different from the earlier views of children. It is easy to see that Mark Twain does not agree with that view, and only wrote the book to entertain children and maybe even some adults.

The Psychology of Boys

What I Researched and Why:
When I was reading about Tom Sawyer, Huck Finn and all of the mischievious adventures they got themselves into, I immediately thought of the 1986 movie, "Stand By Me." The four boys in the movie leave their town for a night to find "something" (I don't want to spoil it if you haven't seen the movie). They end up getting themselves into a situation that they might not be mature enough to handle, just as Tom and Huck did when they witnessed the act done by Injun Joe in the cemetery. Tom and Huck made a pact never to tell anyone what they saw and at the end of "Stand By Me", the boys end up coming back to town and going their separate ways without discussing what they found, much like the pact between Tom and Huck. These two works were so similar that it made me think about why when we think of "boys" and boy culture we often find them getting into situations like this, and how much boys' curiousity and big imaginations are to blame for their getting into these situations. It made me wonder what really lies in the psychology of boys, especially mischievious ones and to what extent the pranks and situations that boys get themselves into in childhood is "innocent." I also touched upon the differences between what "bad" was considered to be in the nineteenth century and how different those standards might be today.

What I Found:
I searched the internet for anything I could find about the psychology of children, particularly boys. I felt that this website "Boys Don't Cry" was the one that portrayed the characters of Tom Sawyer, Huck Finn and the boys from "Stand By Me" the best. It had a pretty interesting explanation for the supposed "mischieviousness" of boys and what might really lie behind it. I also found the website about the movie "Stand By Me", and that also includes a link on the left side of the website to view a trailer of the movie if you're unfamiliar with it.

My Interpretation:
I felt that the author of the article "Boys Don't Cry" had some really interesting points that could be valid and some that were just reading into the behavior of boys way too much. It also really showed the changing of the times in both parental ways and how seriously violence and "badness" is taken today in contrast to the past. It explained the gender roles that boys must fill by avoiding a title such as, "Mama's Boy" or by the cultural influence for a boy to grow up quickly and take on the position of manhood. Neither Tom nor Huck are "Mama's Boys" and they could be said to be culturally shaped by gender roles; they do mischievious things that most boys do. Joe Harper could be seen as a little bit more of a "Mama's Boy" though, especially when he was the first to decide to leave the island and he said in response to Tom's teasing ways, "Yes, I do want to see my mother- and you would too, if you had one" (p. 87) His response touches upon the next idea that Lawson brings up in his article "Boys Don't Cry" in that "Boys are yearning for adult connection." Neither Huck nor Tom are "Mama's Boys" like Joe, but then again, neither of them have real mothers. Huck is an outcast of society with no one to care for him but a drunken father who in fact doesn't care, and Tom, even though he has Aunt Polly, it's just probably not the same as having a real, biological mom, just like Joe claims in the story. Is it due to parental absence that Tom and Huck are so mischievious? Tom does have parental guidance through Aunt Polly, but is she too strict? These are all problems that are felt by parents, the problems of how children will develop if a parent is too strict or too lenient. Similarly in the movie, "Stand By Me," both Chris and Teddy's fathers are alcoholics, and these two boys are the ones who can be seen as the "bad influences" on Gordie and Vern. Gordie's father and mother are still mourning the past death of their older son, therefore completely forgetting about him, he's a bit mischievious, somewhere in between, and Vern's mother is so oppressive that the boy can't even stay one night out in the woods without getting nervous and upset, kind of like Joe.
The article "Boys Don't Cry" goes on to argue that violence is the result in boys like these, the mischievious boys that are always getting into trouble and just being excused by the phrase "boys will be boys." The violence is the result of depression and vulnerability hidden by a rough exterior. I feel it's a bit extreme to include all boys in this description, but it just goes to show that some behavior just can't be taken so lightly nowadays. On the other end of the spectrum was the section about "Boy Culture" by E. Anthony Rotundo in the back of Twain's book. It shows how violent boys were more a part of the cultural norm in the nineteenth century than they are today. He felt that boys acted the way they did to acheive "independence and character." Often times their games involved pain, but it was just merely "bonds that held boy culture together." If most parents today saw their children inflicting pain on another child, they probably wouldn't just pass it off as a part of boy culture. They would most likely set up an appointment for their child with a child psychologist the next day. The movie "Stand By Me" has a setting in the 1950's and goes to show that just up until recently, most things boys did were considered mischievious, not really bad, like they might seem in today's standards. Boys actions and gender roles haven't changed much, but the perception of bad surely has.

What I Think It Adds To Our Discussion:

Our whole course is devoted to looking at children's books and examining what lies within them to see not only how much they have been changed throughout history, but what lessons they are teaching children and if they are appropriate for children to read. I felt that this post sort of reversed that position and made the reader learn a lesson about parenting and teaching skills that we may one day utilize. The articles that I have presented in this have shown how both parenting skills have changed and how violence in children has taken on a whole new meaning. It presents parents with the problem of "how strict?" or how lenient?" should I be with my child. Will he actually mature one day and should I be taking his "boyish" ways more seriously? Boyhood is a complicated thing to understand, but I feel that mostly every boy will probably go through some part of this life being mischevious and curious, no matter what type of discipline or non-discipline his parents exert. It is only through experience that we learn.

What I researched and why: I decided to snatch up this blog entry because I thought it would be relatively easy compared to my other blog on "A Dialogue Between Christ, Youth, and the Devil." As it turns out, it's often the stories you are familiar with that you end up learning the most about as you re-read and analyze what is behind the cover. This definitely ended up being the case as I looked into "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer" several years after my first time reading it as a child. As I looked over the options of short stories, books, and articles from which we could choose to write a blog entry Tom Sawyer's name popped out along with some mental pictures that go hand-in-hand with what this story was and still is for me to this day. Having this in mind I thought it may be interesting to target the illustrations that have accompanied this tale from its beginning till now.

What I found: The first thing I stumbled upon was: http://etext.virginia.edu/railton/tomsawye/tomillhp.html
Here I was able to find various pictures from the very original copy of the book in which Mark Twain himself talks about his appreciation for the artists work. What is compelling to me is that M.T. seemed to have very little if any say in what the illustrations were going to look like, he is quoted saying, "Poor devil, what a genius he has & how he does murder it with rum. He takes a book of mine, & without suggestion from anybody builds no end of pictures just from his reading of it." This link led me to an website where a drawing of a house supposedly drawn by Tom Sawyer in the book, but probably drawn by Mark Twain himself is shown. This is the link with the picture and bit of information; http://etext.virginia.edu/railton/sc_as_mt/househp.html
I thought this was especially informative because according to the website this house represented something more than just a house. Go figure right? After taking this class I swear there is something behind everything! (: The house that is drawn is apparently a glimpse into the authors history and perhaps a psychological glimpse into what Mark Twain's thoughts about what a man's house represented. Check out the website to gain a little more information on the topic.


My Interpretation and how this relates to what we've discussed in class: There are two parts that I want to discuss included in my search for information on Tom Sawyer. First is the illustrations that went along with the book, these are obviously a very important part of the message that is being portrayed to readers. Through the artists drawings we see certain parts of the book that we may not without them. It's interesting how the characters clothes, tools, and even the landscape can say a lot about the time period which this book was published. Through this we are opened a door into the historical analysis of the book. I'm also curious about the connection between the circular hybrid factor that illustrations may be able to unveil for the reader. This being through clothes, housing, or the general culture, the pictures certainly give us a better perspective on the story as a whole, and therefor would help us to see the impact differing groups of people existing in this civilization had impacted each other.

The connections with the drawing of the house connects with the analysis of children's literature from a psychological stance because it is moving from the characters of the book to the authors perspective of his ideal living situation. As we've been talking about social class through the past few classes this really hit me as thought provoking. How did Mark Twain's social standing affect the book that he wrote?

Mark Twain has come under much scrutiny for his now deemed racist texts. At the time he was writing, the terminologies used to describe African Americans were considered socially acceptable. Today, however, they are considered reprehensible. I feel that when reading The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, we must address the racial issues present there.

Although The Adventures of Tom Sawyer is not a “picture book,” it is often accompanied by illustrations. I find it especially interesting to look at the drawings of Jim, since they are very telling of race relations at the time. Most of these drawings are from Huck Finn, but related to The Adventures of Tom Sawyer.

As the author suggests, many of the pictures of Jim seem to portray him as more of a caricature than as a character. He is also presented this way in the text. His manner of speaking is much more broken than the other characters. This could be contributed to the lack of education at the time. Twain also uses the n-word rather liberally. In his defense, Twain wrote for the common people, and this is how they related to African-Americans. Unfortunately, it would not be believable to the common (white) person that slaves would be articulate.

The Adventures of Tom Sawyer did not have as much blatant racism as The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn did. This is because Jim was a much more prominent character in the sequel. However, the presentations of Jim that we did encounter were still rife with racist undertones. In Chapter 2, the narrator states “although the pump was only a hundred and fifty yards off, Jim never got back with a bucket of water under an hour—and even then somebody generally had to go after him.” This could be viewed as a character flaw of Jim’s, or it could be viewed as a white author calling African Americans lazy, easily distracted, and irresponsible. I think it is worthwhile to address these texts as partners and to discuss them side-by-side. The questions that the reader is left with after reading Tom Sawyer can be answered by Huck Finn. As a reader, I am curious about Jim when he is mentioned in Tom Sawyer, so I appreciate exploring his character more in Huck Finn.

The racism that Twain is usually under attack for involves his portrayal of Jim, but equally important is his portrayal of Injun Joe. Even his name is derogatory. He is seen as a scary and possibly harmful man, and although tales of him are plentiful, we do not have genuine proof that he is dangerous. His race is seen as a mark against him and contributing to his reputation, especially since it is part of his nickname. It is also interesting to notice that Joe’s race is placed before his birth name, that which represents his actual identity. It could be argued, however, that the “Injun” part of his name was used to differentiate between him and Tom’s friend Joe.

I think it is important to address these issues, but I think it is also important to credit Twain for including African-American and Native American characters. He allowed us this opportunity to discuss past and present racism by placing it in a children’s book. He also gave parents the opportunity to explain race relations.

Tom Sawyer in Song

What I researched and Why: Growing up, I was read bedtime stories by my mother and father, one of which was "Adventures of Huckleberry Finn," the brother story to Mark Twain's "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer." I don't remember much of the story besides various anecdotes but I do remember enjoying it very much. So, when considering which topic/story to blog about I immediately rushed to Tom Sawyer because of my enjoyment of Huck Finn. After reading the first few chapters, my fondness for the rebellious characters of Twain's creation has been rekindled, with what I hope is a more mature understanding and appreciation of the themes than I had as a young child.

What I found: Searching the internet for relevant Tom Sawyer media proved harder than I would have expected. Most websites were places to read the full text, or an excerpt of the text (the whitewashing section from chapter 2 being particularly popular), or finally a location to buy various versions of the text. What I did stumble across was a music video of the song Tom Sawyer by the classic 80's band Rush, the lyrics of which are obviously inspired by our character Tom Sawyer.

My Interpretation: My interpretation of this little gem is two fold. Firstly, the lyrics of the song hold what I feel like is a good representation of the basic character of Tom Sawyer (at least as much as I have read) , along with using Tom as a way of describing various characteristic of society. The line "Always hopeful, yet discontent," is an almost perfect portrayal of Tom through the first 6 chapters of the book. One passage which illustrates this most clearly is when he talks about wishing he could die without acknowledging his aunt when she hits him for breaking the sugar bowl, he wallows in self pity wishing that he could teach her a lesson despite the fact that his desired lesson would leave him dead. Another instance where he lives up to the hopeful yet discontent paradigm is when he "shows off" outside of the new girls house, unhappy that she is not visible to him, but hopeful that she is watching from behind closed windows. Rush also uses the character of Tom Sawyer to criticize society, saying "And what you say about his company, Is what you say about society." A clever analogy which I read as, we may enjoy or trust some facet of society, but at the same time we feel like it is getting the better of us somehow (take the television we watch or magazines we read as examples, and then think of the advertising that bombards us in both forms), and we only realize that it has duped us when it laughs in our faces or shows us how wrong it was to be so trusting and easily persuaded. This is something Tom does masterfully in the opening chapters, tricking the other children into whitewashing the fence, and trading them their own things back to get a coveted Bible.

A second form of interpretation is in the existence of the song itself and how Tom, a classic literary character, can jump into mainstream popular culture. This I think is a virtue of Tom's character and the ease with which so many of us can identify with various aspects of his personality, which Mark Twain describes in his preface as a combination of three boys he grew up knowing.

What I think it adds to our discussion: In class we have discussed the various ways in which a text can be analyzed, we have also talked about whether all texts which are considered children's literature are truly appropriate for them. This song, I think, does a good job of hitting upon both of those issues. It clearly uses the character of Tom Sawyer to make a political sort of commentary, which I think goes hand in hand with a historical analysis, because politics cannot be taken out of context with the history in which they fall. Rush uses Tom to make their own criticism of society and my guess is that Mark Twain did the same thing when writing the book back in his own time. Another aspect of the song is the universality of the lyrics with respect to an audience, not singling out a particular group of people, and therefore making it enjoyable to a wide audience (provided you like the style of music). Tom and his book are similar with respect to the universality of their target audience and how they can be enjoyed and interpreted by all ages. Mark Twain specifically says that he writes not only for the enjoyment of children but also for adults to remember childhood with fondness.

A Dialogue Between Christ, Youth and the Devil

What I researched and why: Before this class I had never read or even heard of A Dialogue Between Christ, Youth and the Devil. After reading the piece I was interested, excited to learn more and slightly disturbed all at the same time. The text is not something I would ever give to my own children or to any children that I would teach in a school. Yet, the piece can be found in the 1777 edition of the New England Primer. This book was like a Bible to the Puritans at the time and was the main textbook for private and public schools alike. Even children who were home schooled used this book. It was meant to teach not only what was right and wrong, but things such as the alphabet and simple math as well. Appropriate? I am not so convinced.

What I found: Ok. So, after researching this for about two hours I gave in to the fact that there may not be any other versions or interesting revelations about this text. Everything I looked at related to the New England Primer (1777). This website http://public.gettysburg.edu/~tshannon/his341/nep05pg56.htm
will take you to the page in the 1805 New England Primer where A Dialogue Between Christ, Youth and the Devil is located. There you can look at the entire book and see how it was used to teach many different subjects. The fact that this book was used to teach young children is just terrible in my opinion. I look at this book and see an almost cult-like approach to education. The poems and readings in the book are more like warnings. For example, A Dialogue Between Christ, Youth and the Devil ends with a warning when death comes and says, “Thus end the days of wicked youth, Who won’t obey nor mind he truth…” I think this type of approach to teaching young children would be overwhelming for them and somewhat scary at times.

My interpretation: As I said, my interpretation of this text is that it is warning children about what will happen if they disobey their parents or commit other “wrong doings”. The fact is that children can’t handle this type of text. If a teacher was to give this to a young child, I think they would be terrified. The text is interesting for our class to look at. I think there are many ways that it could be interpreted and many meanings behind each word. Yet, even as I was reading it I thought that it was slightly frightening. The child is literally being told that he is going to die that very day because he insulted Christ. He begs for his life and is denied forgiveness. Were we not brought up to believe that Christ is forgiving and if you ask for forgiveness you shall receive it? This dialogue goes against the things I, and likely many of us, have been told since childhood.

How this relates to our class: For the past few weeks, we have been learning that there are many different ways to analyze every text. A Dialogue Between Christ, Youth and the Devil can be analyzed in many different ways. One way would be psychologically. How does this conversation affect the child? How does his attitude change when he realizes what his fate will be? It is an interesting text with many different possibilities for discussion.

The History of Little King Pippin

What I researched and why/What I found: Well for starters, I wanted to find a clearer version of The History of Little King Pippin before I started blogging about it. For all of you with bad eyes like me, this site helped me get through the story without wondering what every 5th word was. http://www.openlibrary.org/details/historyoflittlek00bewiiala Then I moved on to try to find more information about the story. Sadly, it doesn't really seem to be that popular of a piece. Every article I found merely had a brief mention of the title in it, without a whole lot of information.

My interpretation: Fortunately, what this story does have are very interesting parallels between this story and "The Dialogue Between Christ, a Youth, and the Devil." There were varying dates which the story was reportedly published, however, from my best estimation the original was published somewhere around 1786. While "The Dialogue" was somewhere around 1777...making them not too far apart in terms of the time in which they were published. However, where the two stories are different is in the idea that a sinner may be saved. For example, the story states,

"But oh, shame to tell, not one of them, except harry Harmless himself, could
repeat, or indeed had ever learned a singly prayer; upon which, Harry, justly
concluding, that those naughty boys who had so totally neglected their duty to
their Creator, could have no claim whatever to his protection, thought he should
be in more safety alone that in such wicked company, therefore moved to a
distance from them, and kneeled down to prayer himself; and he had not left hem
but a few minutes before two monstrous lions came and devoured every one of
them: after they had eaten these wicked boys, they went up to Harry Harmless but
instead of devouring him, as they had the others, they seemed as fond of him as
a dam of her young, licked his face and hands with their tongues, and then lay
down quietly upon the ground by his side; for God Almighty had heard his
prayers, as he always will those of all good little boys and girls, and had
converted the natural rage and fierceness of these dreadful bests into the
meekness and gentleness of lambs" (21).

Here, we see a "bad" child, (though he was not wicked in the sense that the other boys were wicked) being saved as a result of begging God's forgiveness. Whereas, in "The Dialogue" when the youth begs Gods forgiveness, Christ turns away and offers him to Death. Additionally, we see a purely "Good" character in Little King Pippin, (as is made abundantly clear through the repetition) who never falters. Let me just say, that if I was a child in this era, I would be pretty frightened. One either must be perfect and good, or wretchedly bad and going to hell. The characters offer little room for interpretation otherwise. Only Harry Harmless is saved even though he has a fault, however, his only fault was that he was associated with the "wicked" boys. The only thing that saved him was that he repented and remembered his prayers.

What this has to contribute to our discussion: The idea of the perfect child with absolutely no room for interpretation also reminded me of the Harry Potter post. Little King Pippin is the literal representation of what the author of that post wants Harry Potter to be...perfect, with absolutely no room for flaws. Good is always good, and bad is always bad (unless it's not THAT bad, in which case it can repent and become completely good, without ever making a mistake again). In my opinion, there is nothing to learn from a story like that...characters have flaws, just as people do...and we learn from their flaws just as we learn from our own. As Bettleheim mentioned, stories with blatant morals (such as Perrault's LRRH) don't offer as much for children to learn as stories which can be interpreted. This is because as the children grow up, so do their interpretations of stories. I'm quite certain my 13 year old sister doesn't read Harry Potter and take the same things from it that I do...but the important thing is that we can both read it, AND take something from it. The main thing I would take from Little King Pippin if I had read it in it's original time period, would be to be very afraid of making mistakes.

Harry Haters

Hi all,

I wanted to post the 10 Things to Hate About Harry Potter list that I mentioned in class. It is very interesting how arguments about children's literature tend to repeat themselves throughout history. Censorship/banned books debates in general tend to use the child as their "test case"--interestingly, given that not all of the books that are banned are actually meant for children in the first place.

In any case, the point that I was trying to make in class about evaluation is that the work we're doing in our class--that is, interpreting children's literature--is at the heart of these discussions about appropriateness for children. After all, one must decide what a text means, where it comes from, and what effect it is likely to have on children in order to come to a conclusion about what books are "good" or "bad." Being aware of the arguments that get made in the name of children's welfare helps us begin to situate ourselves critically vis a vis the texts we are reading.

BTW, you are allowed to comment on my posts, as well as those of your classmates, for credit. I'd love to hear what you think about the anti-Harry phenomenon.

The New England Primer

What I researched and why: After reading Anna Mae Duane’s article “Casualties of the Rod,” I was interested in learning about the types of literature and leisure that Puritan children would be permitted to engage in. The first thing I learned was that leisure was not permitted. I imagined that there might at least be some kind of Biblical game or activity, but was unable to find evidence of any such thing. As far as literature goes, it is obvious that the Bible would be the “NY Times Bestseller” of the day, even for children. I thought that this couldn’t possibly be the only book that they would read. This assumption was correct, though not entirely. The Bible influenced every aspect of Puritan life, including what I assume was the second source of written word accessed by children: textbooks.

What I found: After several searches involving the words “Puritan”, “children”, “stories”, and “literature,” I realized that each search led me to the same work, titled The New England Primer. It was originally written by Benjamin Larkin around 1700. The exact date of publication was not something I could easily find, as the primer was published in London before it was published in Boston. There are many editions of the primer. A partial facsimile of The New England Primer (created in 1901) can be found here. The facsimile does not illustrate the entire contents of the primer (which includes the famed alphabet, verses, catechism questions, and the poem A Dialogue Between Christ, Youth, and the Devil). A typed version of the contents of the primer from 1777 can be found here.

My interpretation: One of the aspects of Duane’s article that struck me the most was her discussion of Mather and his views on children and God. She writes, “According to Mather, God inflicts an astonishing variety of retributions upon the body of an insubordinate child” (71). She goes on to discuss a sermon in which Mather illustrated this point through the use of Proverbs 30:17. To be a child in the time period when you might hear things like this frightened me. I know that around the same time, the philosopher John Locke had suggested the idea of tabula rasa – that children were born into this world as “blank slates” waiting to be written on. It makes sense, then, that the Puritans would fear for the goodness of their children and surround them with cautionary Bible tales, as well as to guard them from what they felt was the wild abandon and sinfulness of the American Indians. But the poem A Dialogue between Christ, Youth and the Devil portrays such a hopeless situation: It is easier to follow the way of the Devil, but his way leads to pain and suffering; furthermore, following the way of Christ is difficult and most likely will lead to the same end. Surely, I thought, the entire childhood of a Puritan was not filled with such hopelessness and fear. Again, I was wrong - as is evidenced by the contents of the primer.

What I think this adds to our discussion: The Duane article and A Dialogue Between Christ, Youth, and the Devil alone paint us what I felt was an abstract picture of Puritan childhood. I feel that – especially for those students who are interested in the historical aspects of literature – The New England Primer offers a little bit of insight into the life of a Puritan child. Though it may be a life of fear, it is important to understand that children’s literature written during this time can most likely be read with the understanding that it was intended to keep Puritan children as sinless as possible.

Research and Why: Before this class I had never read or heard of “A Dialogue Between Christ, Youth, and the Devil.” I thought the title in itself sounded very interesting and figured it would be a good way to learn more about it by picking it as one of my blog entries. It certainly opened my eyes to how intense the New England Primer 1777 edition was, and in several ways I was amazed as to what was portrayed to young children as being sinful, wrong, or evil. The Devil’s response to the child talking about finding pleasure in playing and singing, is happiness. The Devil is glad because those things were portrayed as negative activities during this time. Some places in the writing made me laugh, while others were extremely frustrating. After our discussions in class I found using historical, political, psychological, and textual analysis was extremely helpful and interesting.

What I found: Unfortunately I could not find a lot of information on this piece, all of it’s connections were tied to the New England Primer (I included a picture of the book below if you are interested in what it looked like) where it was initially published. (http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/nep/1777/index.htm) This is a link to the website I looked at of the edition in which “A Dialogue Between Christ, Youth, and the Devil” was published initially. I think the additional material in the book gives a lot of information about the text we are looking at. This includes "An Alphabet of Lessons for Youth.", "Spiritual Milk for American BABES.", and "Some proper Names of MEN and WOMEN, to teach Children to spell their own."
My interpretation: “A Dialogue Between Christ, Youth, and the Devil” in my opinion was a result of the Puritan culture during the time frame it was written in. Education and religion went hand in hand as the alphabet, spelling, and English in general were taught to the youth. The fear entwined in the majority of this book was an attempt to create “good” and “moral” children. The two ways I thought were most helpful to analyze in this instance were psychologically and historically. There were obvious psychological messages that this text was trying to give the children who were being raised with this as one of their main educational texts. With lines from the Devil to the Youth like, "If thou wilt but be ruled by me, an artist thou shalt quickly be..." there pictures of the author's preconceived ideas about artist's and what type of person they were thought to be. The connections between playing, singing, art, and nature and death leading to eternal damnation were everywhere. How scary for a child! How scary for an adult! I found the ending to be the most interesting as Death joined the dialogue stating, "Youth, I am come to take thy breath, and carry thee to shades of death: No pity to thee I can show, thou hast thy God offended so." This clearly shows the cultural history of this time-frame. God was not a loving being, but a condemning being and one who should be feared.

How this relates to what we've been discussing in class: Over the past three weeks we have discussed the four main ways it is beneficial to analyze children's literature. These being textual, historical, political, and psychological. Although I could find ways in which each of these could be used as tools to discover more about "A Dialogue Between Christ, Youth, and the Devil" I found historical and psychological to be particularly helpful. Just as the authors for "Little Red Riding Hood" wrote their versions of the story differently depending on the time which it was written and the cultural ideas and morals held in that time, the text I focused on was written similarly. This applies and can be used to further our class discussions, it is actually a very strong piece because a lot of the psychological aspects are so strong. There is no beating around the bush with this piece of literature and the points it is trying to make.

a "forgotten" story

I set out looking for other interpretations of the dialogue between children, the devil, and Christ. I found an interesting web page, which addresses how children's books have changed from dealing exclusively with Biblical matters to sometimes nonsense. What initially interested me was the first illustration shown, "The Devil and the Disobedient Child."
I researched this relationship because I find the relationship between children and religion especially interesting. The Bible puts such a fear of the Devil into children's hearts, and many fairy tales aim to further this fear. Children are taught that the devil is present in almost all situations and to always be alert. I found the reading especially interesting because the child engages in conversation with the devil, which could be construed as a sin within itself.
I would like to contrast this to the reading for today. Although there are no illustrations in the reading, it seems that the child knows with whom he is talking to. Both the devil and Christ seem to be forthcoming with their identities. In the illustration that I found, the devil seems to be a shadowed figure who perhaps could assume any form. Also, I think it is of note that the disobedient child is a female, which we'll cover more in depth as the semester continues.
I also found it interesting that "The Devil and the Disobedient Child" is considered a forgotten book of the American Nursery. Although the plot may be lost, the general lesson is very much remembered and present in current children's literature. It can easily be seen in Little Red Riding Hood, as we discussed in class.
I think it is also important to discuss the fact that in children's literature the devil is often portrayed as a man. This could be related to the fact that early children's literature was based in biblical texts, and the Bible refers to the devil as a male figure. I could also see the devil as a male, especially in Little Red Riding Hood, when looking at Perrault's version as a cautionary tale perhaps related to male pedophiles.
I think when reading a text, it can prove insightful to look at different illustrations that relate to the text. This can help visual learners and can also showcase different interpretations of a relationship, as shown in this case.
I was trying to figure out which interpretation strategy religion would fit into, and perhaps it could be rooted in political criticism. And perhaps even further distilled into Christian Criticism. This also led me to look at the other reading in relation to the dialogue between Christ, the child, and the devil. In the "Casualties of the Rod" reading, children's bodies are viewed as places where God's disappointment materializes. Does this mean that children are closer to God/Christ than adults are?

Another Illustration

Thanks, Molly, for looking at Little Red illustrations!

Here's another one from an 1867 Perrault edition. It's probably the most famous older illustration, and it's the one that Bettelheim talks about on page 176 of his essay. This one is frequently read as sexual, but you may have differing interpretations. I thought I'd add it to the mix!

Interviews with Jack Zipes

Hi all,

I'm loving all of the blog activity! I didn't get the Jack Zipes article to you in time to read for today, but I will be sending it as optional reading in case you are interested in feminist/political approaches to Little Red. I was initially interested in pairing Zipes with Bettelheim because Zipes has been one of the most outspoken critics to disagree with Bettelheim's famous reading of Little Red Riding Hood. Yet, they actually have some things in common, including their distaste with a lot of present-day children's culture.

In any case, I thought I'd post links to two really interesting interviews with Zipes (not required reading, but fascinating stuff!). He has quite a bit to say about the historical, political, and even psychological uses of fairy tales. One appears on the website of an independent horror fiction press. The other on a website that deals with children's cinema. Thus, they present interesting perspectives about genres that we have not considered in class thus far.

A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words

I decided to look and see how "Little Red" is portrayed in pictures in children's books. I always had the depiction in my own head of a girl around six or seven with a bright red cape and blonde hair. She was always very innocent and naive.
The first four pictures I have included (#1, #2, #3, #4) all came from children's books and were what I expected. There were sweet looking girls in blue dresses and red capes with their hoods up. None of the girls appeared to be from this time period, they all looked like they were from the past with their modest dress and aprons. These girls seems to be the standard girl portrayed to children in picture books.
My ideas on why the girl is portrayed as young is that children of the age of this girl are able to identify with her. Despite the time difference the girl seems to be just like a normal 6, 7 or eight year old. This day in age children of the age of this girl could identify with the idea of "Never talk to strangers". This phrase is drilled into the heads of children in our society. I do not think the illustrators meant to portray any messages of puberty or sex. If they had I believe the girl would have been shown in a different light. Even in picture five (#5) the wolf is shown as a definite threat, but not as a sexual predator. Little Red is so young that the threat doesn't seem like it could possibly be related to sexuality.
These ideas can contribute to our discussion of Little Red Riding Hood because we must look at the reader's response to a story to obtain a current meaning of that story. The reader's response though, is greatly influenced by the way the character is portrayed. The reader has to make assumptions based on what they are given from the author (storyteller), illustrator, and his or her own life experiences.
It is difficult to tell if the illustrators grew up on the same portrayal of this character or if their own life experiences influenced their depiction of her. Did the illustrator draw a young girl because in his mind he saw her as six or because that is the age she tend to be portrayed? Did both things have an influence on the outcome of the picture?

Jigsaw's Little Red Riding Hood

What I researched and why:
When I started this I really wanted to find an example of how we have turned the Red Riding Hood story into a "sexy" image. Red is often portrayed as a sort of temptress, walking through the woods and luring the wolves to come and get her if they dare. The concept of Red intentionally calling the wolves out was interesting to me. I was looking for TV commercials with this image other than the ones mentioned in the last half of the Orenstein book. After I came across the clip I chose to put up, I switched my focus more to the woodcutter's role in the story because it seemed like a valid course to switch to. Usually, the woodcutter's interest in Red is not at all sexual, but rather very paternal. He rescues her from the wolf and makes her safe again. In this version of the story, the opposite is true. Without the woodcutter's intervention, we can assume that Red never would have even come across the wolf, let alone need his protection.

What I found:
I found a variety of adds that use this temptress image of Little Red Riding Hood, including a Chanel 5 and a Pepsi commercial, but accidentally stumbled across this video. It comes from the Saw II DVD, but no worries it's actually a shadow puppet show so there's no gore or anything like that. Here is the link to the video: http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIB1R-pGVD0

My interpretation:
In this version, the woodcutter is in love with Red, a self-assured and strong woman who relies on no one but herself. The woodcutter is a stalker; a man obsessed with Red and determined to have her despite her repeated refusal to accept his advances. He is no longer the paternal savior at the end of the story, but now is the engineer of her downfall. This story actually has two wolves, the wild animal that desires Red solely for the purpose of devouring her, and the human who desires Red in a very different and much more twisted way. The wolf only wants to eat her, but the woodcutter intends to keep her even after death and continue using her as he pleases once she is completely under his control. It is implied at the beginning that the woodcutter loves and wants to protect Red, but in truth, he is perhaps even more evil than the wolf. Red, surprisingly is not at fault in this particular version. Usually she stops to talk to the wolf, but here she never even speaks to the wolf. Even when talking with the woodcutter, she only speaks once when she tells him that she's not interested. She doesn't stray from the path and she doesn't talk to strangers. Despite the way that her image is represented (very curvaceous), Red is essentially a complete innocent in this story, and still she is taken advantage of, not by an outside, wild threat, but rather by a man who is always near her and would be expected to protect her.

What this adds to our discussion:
So far in class, we have mainly discussed the woodcutter as being the positive male role who comes in at the end to save Red from her folly and to set the world right again. He comes in at the end, after the story has been told and only by good luck is he close enough to even notice that anything is wrong. The woodcutter in this story is present from the beginning, but instead of being a protective role, he instead is a very dangerous character. His presence in the story completely changes the way that the story ends and what the moral of the story is, if we can really call the ending a moral.

The PC Little Red Riding Hood

What I researched and why: My favorite thing about reading the different versions (and interpretations) of “Little Red Riding Hood” was seeing how each version both emphasized and left out certain things, namely what the particular teller thought should be emphasized, and what he/she thought should be left out. What is strengthened and cut out of each version lets us know what was important to the teller, the author, or the times in which they lived, what they thought to be good and what they thought to be bad. It also shows us that notions of “goodness” and “badness” change, as all of the versions have different ideas about morality. I wanted to find a modern version that didn’t deviate in an outrageous way from the original storyline, but that presented yet another different idea about what is good and what is bad.

What I found: A writer named James Finn Garner wrote a book called Politically Correct Bedtime Stories: Modern tales for our life and times which contains a politically correct version of Little Red Riding Hood.

My interpretation: I thought that this story was incredibly clever and funny. I know that it is meant to be taken as a joke, but just like the other versions of the story that we have read, this version has its own particular idea about what is good and what is not. It has its own morality, namely, political correctness to the extreme. In this version, Little Red Riding Hood is not the “prettiest” girl in the village (as she is in Perrault’s version), nor is she “sweet” (as she is in the Grimms’s tale), she is merely a “young person” who is not at all innocent, but rather “confident…in her own budding sexuality” (she is so well-informed that she is familiar with “Freudian imagery”). The wolf is not evil but rather an “outcast” with a “unique worldview.” The grandmother is not old and weak but “mature” and “fully capable.” And it is the “woodchopper-person”—the one who is usually the ideal savior, the “most attractive figure…because he rescues the good and punishes the bad” (Bettelheim 177)— who is violently dispatched at the end, which fits into the particular morality of this story. The “woodchopper-person,” after all, represents the patronizing and all-powerful patriarchal figure, an ideal that is passé and offensive to some people, and therefore not politically correct, and therefore, according to this story, not good.

What I think this adds to our discussion: We discussed New Historicism in class on Thursday, and I think that this story, which exhibits our current culture’s concern with political correctness, emphasizes a need to study tales in light of their particular contexts, to trace how morals in stories have changed according to the times in which they were written. Just as we learned that Perrault’s story emphasizes the virtues of the French court culture (the unchaste girl is eaten up), and the Grimms’s tale emphasizes the 19^th century virtue of obedience in children (the little girl disobeys, is eaten, is saved, and vows never to disobey mother again), this modern story emphasizes certain virtues that exist in our present time, like political correctness. Today, very generally speaking, progressiveness and open-mindedness are viewed as good, while things that are backward or rigidly traditional are viewed as bad. This is why when Little Red, her grandmother, and the wolf set up “an alternative household based on mutual respect” while the man who “assumes” he needs to save the day is vanquished is, according to the morals of this story, a good, happy ending. Even though what is bad is different in these different versions of the tale, what the versions have in common is the violence with which the “badness” is dealt with—these stories seem to teach us that “badness,” no matter what it is, needs to be done away with completely, needs to be devoured, killed. But with the extent to which historical perspectives show us how much ideas of “goodness” and “badness” change over time, it is just interesting to think about why these three stories, separated by centuries and vastly different ideals, all felt the need to represent the triumph over evil by stamping out the “evil” so violently and completely.

Some Additional Background

Great posts so far!! (Remember everyone that part of your grade comes from responding to other students on the blog via the "comments" button, so let our first posters know what you think of their findings.)

I wanted to also post an article from The Journal of Mythic Arts as optional reading. It provides an alternate ending to The Grandmother's Tale, additional historical context, and some useful lists of modern adaptations and criticism.

Into the Woods

What I Researched, and What I Found: I researched the musical Into the Woods because I have heard the music before, and I was curious to see how the lyrics compared to the versions we read in class. I feel that the visual portrayal of the interaction between Little Red Riding Hood and the Wolf is very interesting, and somewhat different from the versions we were exposed to. There are two songs dealing specifically with Little Red Riding Hood and the Wolf. The first song is called Hello Little Girl, which is a dialog between Little Red Riding Hood and the Wolf. The second number is I Know Things Now, which is sung by Little Red Riding Hood after she is saved by the woodsman. I have posted the links to the lyrics, and have also posted video clips of the musical numbers. (Just to warn everyone, the Wolf's costume in the best clip I could find is a little...revealing, but symbolic.)
Hello Little Girl: Video

I know Things Now: Video

How I Interpret It: In this version, the Wolf's intentions are plainly stated. The versions we read in Orenstein's book all portray the wolf as evil and provocative, but only in the Grimm's' version did the wolf verbalize his true intentions. The wolf is obviously presented as the villain, and Red Riding Hood as the naive victim of seduction. The wolf expresses his incredible, lusty desire to make the "soft and supple" Red Riding Hood his snack, in a sort of sexual way. By reading the lyrics, this symbolism may not be as apparent as it is in the video. The wolf is wearing a tight jacket, showing his muscular physique, and though Red Riding Hood tries to stick to the path her mother ordered her to follow, her curiosity, intrigue, and lust cause her to stray. After Red Riding Hood is eaten by the wolf, and then saved by the woodsman, she sings I Know Things Now in response to her experience. I think it's very interesting that she was grateful to be alive, but also regretted the fact that she involuntarily gained so much knowledge from her experience. She seems to waver a lot in her reasoning. Statements such as, "I should have heeded her advice...but he seemed so nice," "He made me feel excited-well, excited and scared," and "Isn't it nice to know a lot! But sometimes not," imply that Red Riding Hood may have matured too early. She wishes that she had not been forced to grow up so quickly, and that she still had the privilege of being naive, as she was before. In this aspect, this version ties in very well with the "coming of age" theme we discussed in class.

What I Think it Adds to Discussion: All of the stories we have read so far have morals; some more obvious than others. I think that this is an interesting take on the story, in that Red Riding Hood expresses her understanding of the moral, and promises that she will not stray from the path again, but it seems as though she still has reservations. She doesn't seem completely content with her ending, and I think she may have enjoyed a more positive encounter with the wolf. This reveals that Little Red Riding Hood may not be as innocent as she seems. I would like to compare this version to the other versions we read, and see if any of the other stories imply that the Little Red Riding Hood character may not be so innocent either. It would be interesting for the class to discuss their take on this version, and to see if they view the symbolism as I do. I would especially like to hear everyone's take on the last two lines of I Know Things Now.

The Woodsman's First Tale

What I researched and Why/What I found: I looked up a version of Little Red Riding Hood I had heard in an audio book because I thought it put a very unique and sinister twist on the story. While the original versions of this tale involved everything from cannibalism to self deification to possible implications of sex with children, I think this version gives it a very different, and perhaps even more sinister for its subtlety, tint to the tale. I've tried twice now to get the file on the site, but I can't seem to figure it out. I'll be bringing my mp3 player and little speakers to class as well as the CD in case we can play it in the class computer. The rest of this might not make so much sense until you hear the story.

The story is part of the novel The Book of Lost Things by John Connolly. If you are interested in new and disturbing, and often hilariously so, twists on old stories, then I highly recommend this novel: it is one of my favorites. The story refers to creatures called the Lou (I'm not sure if I spelled that correctly since I've only ever listened to this book) and in particular a male named La Roy. These creatures are some of the most sinister in the novel.

My interpretation: I think this version casts the girl as the villain in a superb way. The chase and subsequent seduction reflects the temptation of the original tales, yet in reverse: she has literally gone searching for her demise. Perhaps my favorite part of this story is later when she calls other girls to her in the forest. This continues the reversal, with the wolf being inactive, even docile, and a near non-participant. With the Lou acting as villains in the novel, with their main flaw and defining 'evil' feature being unending hunger and greed, the question comes up several times whether this feature comes from the Lou's wolf heritage, or their human heritage, asking us to look within ourselves for the hunger/greed of the beast. I think this question is at the core of both the original versions and this revised version and that the reversal of positions Connolly presents brings that question of humanity to the surface of the story.

What I think it adds to our discussion: One thing I think this story can really contribute, especially so early in the semester, is to help dispel the idea of children's stories as 'innocent.' This story is very dark, with no happily ever after, and the result of the story is the creation of the most foul creatures in the novel. I also think on a purely literary note that the efficiency of language in this piece is, well, top notch. I also think it would be interesting to look at the affective influence of this piece on its readers: how does an audience respond to a story, one that is seemingly sacred in our social script, being torn apart before their eyes?

A Not So Evil Wolf

What I researched and why: My choice to look deeper into the world of Little Red Ridding Hood comes not so much from an interest in the tale itself but rather a curiosity about the extent to which this story has been told, retold, and told yet again. Before this class, I was unaware of the massive following and intrigue a tale such as Little Red Ridding Hood could and does possess, and so my interest was sparked to see what I could find to broaden my understanding and that of the class with respect to the phenomenon that is Little Red Ridding Hood.

What I found: In searching the Internet the best way I know how (google), I entered the key words "little red ridding hood modern day," and after a page or so of searching I came across what I found to be a different and interesting interpretation or reflection on Little Red Ridding Hood. The poem entitled, "The Wolf's Postscript to 'Little Red Ridding Hood'," can be found at this link and was written by a Kashmiri exiled poet named Agha Shahid Ali. He lived in the US and was a member of the Academy of American Poets. Along with teaching at many esteemed universities, he published many works of poetry before his death in 2001 (more on Ali can be found at by surfing around the site at which the poem can be found).

My interpretation: Ali, while not going so far as to say that the wolf is "good," does make the reader see a different side to the wolf and the entire story of Little Red Ridding Hood. Firstly, in reading a classic version of the tale, the character of the wolf is considered to be an evil and manipulative character, yet this poem paints him as more compassionate while still admitting his evil deeds. Ali also points out some common sense discrepancies in the story which one does not consider because of the presupposed notion of an evil wolf (not having eaten the grandmother in the past). The issue of molestation which he brings up can, in my eyes, be disputed based on which version of the story is being read, but to discredit this poem for not taking into account Red's original nakedness would be a mistake. Finally the wolf pleads for sympathy by pointing out that it was completely unnecessary to fill his bowels with rocks, as it is in the Grimm's version, because he would surely die anyways after being cut open. Upon finishing the reading of this poem, I found myself sympathetic to some of the wolf's claims and found his arguments well structured and logical. In this sense, the wolf, to me, is less of a savage evildoer and more of a semi-compassionate and reasonable teacher.

What I think it adds to our discussion: During Tuesday's class, the discussion towards the end of class turned to the deconstructionists approach to literature. In this discussion it was said that "all words have meaning only in relation to opposites." This concept implies that the nature of the duality of themes requires that opposing concepts overlap at least to the point of making the other relevant. I think that this poem is a great example of just that. While the wolf does not leave the poem completely redeemed of his sins, he does walk away with some dignity restored, and the heroine, Little Red Ridding Hood, can be seen as a bit cruel in the fact that she helped to stuff the wolf with rocks and garbage. In this way, the apparent "good one" in the story shares a small amount of evil with which to contrast the massive evil done by the "bad one". At the same time, the "bad one" salvages enough goodness to exemplify the shining innocence that Little Red Ridding Hood so clearly possesses.

P.S. Thank you for taking the time to read this, I hope you enjoyed the poem. I look forward to your comments.