So my boyfriend went back to EFY and I started reading again. The summer is almost at an end and I barely made a dent in my reading list (which is currently 86 books long, but I haven't updated it recently); however, Andy does still have a couple summer trips so maybe I'll make a little bit more of a dent in it. We'll see. Once school starts though... this blog is definitely turning into a place for me to vent about books I'm reading in class (if only you could've experienced Wuthering Heights with me) and work out some ideas for papers. But back on track...
I read The Giver for the first time in my life last week. It brought me back to the question I partially addressed in my research paper on the His Dark Materials trilogy. Why do authors choose children's literature as a forum for adult ideas? I found a great quote while I was doing my research that said that children's literature is just adult literature with smaller words and more explanations (or something like that). My big question is how much do these children understand? I remember reading books like His Dark Materials as a child (before all the hype caused by the movies) and I loved them! I still love them! I never thought about the storyline as anything that had application to my life, I just read them to read them. When I read them again this last semester for my research project I started noticing all the little things that I had missed when I read them as a child... mostly allusions to other great works of literature. Anyways... back to the book at hand.
I found The Giver to be an interesting look at the only feasible way to have people be happy in such a utilarian society... take away their ability to think past the parameters set by the authorities. It's almost a 1984 for children. Take away someone's ability to give a name to a feeling and they'll stop feeling it (or at least acting on that feeling). By taking away people's ability to see color the authorities made it so that people couldn't discriminate based on those things. A red shirt wouldn't be better than a blue shirt... they were both just shirts. By taking away memories of the past and putting them all on one person, the general populace could have no word for oppression or tyrany because they knew of no other form of living.
But why is this a children's book? Why is it touted as one of the best children's books? Why is it that we as a society constantly hand our children these books that many adults may not understand the implications of? I guess that's the question that lies at the bottom of every other question I have about literature. What makes something adult literature vs. children or young adult? Obviously there are some thing such as blatant sexuality that set something off at adult literature, but there's always the grey area between childrens and young adult and young adult and adult. I guess if I could pick a question that summarizes my scholastic endevours and my contribution to the academic world that would be it. The question of what designates something as childrens/young adult/adult literature.
1 comment:
I loved The Giver. I didn't know it was considered a kids book. I thought it was very interesting though. I read it for a book club and someone brought up that it posed a possibility for what our lives would be like if Satan had won in the pre-existence. It was interesting to think about.
Post a Comment