|
|
|
 I love writing about naughty children. I loved reading about their exploits as a child – whether it was Anne of Green Gables walking the roof-pole, Daisy Bagthorpe setting fire to the dining-room, or Laura Ingalls giving her prissy sister a good slap. So naturally I wanted to create my own fictional little demon. But writing about naughty children is harder than it looks. Too wild – and the adult world of parents and schools will be down upon you. Too tame – and your readers will lose interest. And unfortunately that balance is harder to find now than it has ever been. How so, I hear you say. Isn’t children’s literature more embracing, and less preachy, than it has ever been? Not really. Just look at this example: A boy keeps kicking footballs over the garden fence. His crusty neighbour refuses to give them back. So that night he dons a mask, and breaks into her house. He finds the ball in her living-room, and when she comes into the room, he pretends to have a gun and threaten her, thus making his escape. She reports the incident to the police – exaggerating the circumstances – and he blackmails her into never keeping his ball again.
Which child is this? Horrid Henry or Dirty Bertie? No. This school boy rogue is Just William. First appearing in print in the 1930s, naughty William is able to do things that no contemporary child hero would be able to get away with. (Leading a gang, and regularly setting fire to things, being two others I can think of.) Naughty William may still be in print – but only because he is so wrapped around in the glow of nostalgia. Otherwise, just imagine the outcry! For all the talk about liberal parenting, and “anything goes”, it just ain’t so. Most modern  children do not go far afield compared to previous generations; they do very little without adult supervision. And horror of children running amok will be even greater after the recent riots. If you want to write about a contemporary child is a realistic setting you have to take this into account. And yet every new generation needs new anti-heroes. They need to see child heroes push the boundaries – if only in fantasy-land. It’s an form of escape. And it’s good fun. So, how to make it work? Here are some thoughts – using as examples some wonderful, classic anti-heroes. 1) Keep the protagonist young. Younger children have the “Get Out of Jail Free” Card in that they can’t be blamed. Judy Blume’s Fudge falls into this category. When he eats his older brother’s pet turtle, it’s OK, because he really doesn’t know any better. 2) Keep it to home and school.<
By: Wendy in Editorial,
on 7/29/2010
Blog: Albert Whitman & Company Blog
( Login to Add to MyJacketFlap)
JacketFlap tags:
Children's Books, Book News, Editorializing is what editors do!, Authors and Illustrators, Dori Hillestad Butler, classic books, Boxcar Children, Buddy Files, Getrude Chandler Warner, Add a tag
Years ago, I remember reading a post on children’s writers’ online message board (yes, we editors lurk) about how slow things are at publishing houses during the summer months. “All the editors are at their vacation houses in the Hamptons!” a writer complained.
HA. Here in Chicago, there are no jaunts to the Hamptons for us, only trips to the Lake Michigan beaches. But sometimes we manage to escape to other fabulous Midwest destinations, such as Mankato, Minnesota. I’m a big fan of the Little House books by Laura Ingalls Wilder, so when the first-ever LauraPalooza academic conference and fan fair was announced at Minnesota State University, I knew I had to go.
 A LauraPalooza Lecture The conference was everything I’d hoped it would be and then some, with more than two dozen presentations and a field trip to one of the Little House homesites in Walnut Grove, MN. I met scholars, book authors, independent researchers, teachers, illustrators, librarians, and even a meterologist who gave a great talk on the weather conditions behind The Long Winter. (And yes, I met some people who were wearing sunbonnets, too.)
 Betsy's House As a bonus, the conference offered a free visit to another beloved children’s book destination—the childhood neighborhood of Maud Hart Lovelace, AKA the setting of the Betsy-Tacy books. Of course I couldn’t miss the opportunity to be led around by a Maud Hart Lovelace impersonator (dressed in excellent 1940s garb!) and see where Betsy, Tacy and Tib lived. All this children’s literary tourism is making me resolve to get out to Putnam, Connecticut to see Gertrude Chandler Warner’s home town and the Boxcar Children Museum. (Josalyn is planning a trip there; she’ll report back!)
 Dori Hillestad Butler On my way back from Minnesota I stopped in Iowa City, Iowa, not far from where Dori Hillestad Butler, author of The Buddy Files series, lives.
(Quick quiz: what are TWO things all the authors mentioned in this blog entry have in common?*)
I answered the query letter for Dori’s first book with us nearly a decade ago, and since then we’ve worked on several novels, including The Truth Abou
Query letter update: With my revision done (yay!), I’m back to working on my query letter story pitch. So far, I’ve got 17 versions, some similar with minor tweaks, some with more major differences. This is a process I started a couple weeks ago, and I did maybe four or five versions yesterday. Good news is, I think I’m finally in the right direction. A few more tweaks and I think I’ll be there. Fingers crossed.
Publishers Weekly put up a great article this week giving sales numbers of the biggest titles from 2009. (Thanks to Gregory for the link.) PW says series are still the biggest sellers, and all the usual suspects are there topping the list, Twilight, Percy Jackson, Wimpy Kid.
What’s wonderful is to see Aprilynne Pike’s Wings in the 100,000 copies on hardcover sold. Wings is her debut novel, and it’s great to see a debut novel do so well. Encouraging too. It’s also the first in a series, so expect to keep seeing them on this list.
The other intersting thing is in the hardcover backlist titles, which are mostly the older classics, like the Dr. Seuss titles and Golden Books’ everlasting The Poky Little Puppy. It’s wonderful that these books are still being celebrated in new generations. It’s something we should strive for with our own titles.
If you’re looking for books to read, this is a great way to find them.
Write On!
     
 Wouldn't it be nice to write a classic of children's literature?
Well, yes, of course it would. You know that. I know that. Those people who, on discovering you write for children, chuckle, 'Ah, the next JK Rowling, eh?' know that. The question, of course, is: how do you do it?
Actually, even before you ask how to write one you have to define what we mean by 'a classic'. My MacBook's onboard dictionary tells me that it's 'a work of art of recognised and established value'. I suppose on that basis I could argue all my books are classics: their value has long been both recognised and established as £3.99 (well, except for Bansi O'Hara and the Bloodline Prophecy, which is £5.99). I don't think that's quite what the dictionary means, though.
Wikipedia takes an interesting approach; its list of children's classics is defined as 'A list of the most important children's books, which were published at least 90 years ago, and were written for children and/or are still enjoyed by children today'. The 90-year limit suggests the author of this sentence believes either that a book has to stand the test of time before it can be considered a classic, or that classics can only be written by dead people; assuming it's the first, I think perhaps (s)he has a point. I personally think it's highly likely that some at least of the Harry Potter series, for instance, will come to be considered classics, but I think it's too early to start calling them that yet. The point that a book doesn't have to have been written for children to be a children's classic is a good one, too.
I wonder if we need to go back as far as 90 years to find classics, though. What about, say, CS Lewis's Narnia stories? They're over 50 years old, and still in print and loved by children. I'd like to think they qualify for classic status. I suppose by those criteria you'd have to count the Reverend W Awdry's Railway Series as classics, too. And the Famous Five, for that matter.
My musing on this point was inspired by the fact that I've recently been reading Alice's Adventures In Wonderland (one of the obvious classics) to my daughter for her bedtime story (although she's currently taking a break from Alice for a quick whizz through one of the Rainbow Fairies books). She's loving Alice; but one of the interesting things I've noticed is that she's clearly not getting all of it; and in fact, I'm spotting quite a bit that I didn't get when I read it as a child. Winnie-the-Pooh, likewise. There's a lot in the stories of the Bear of Very Little Brain that is actually adult-level (or at least teen-level) humour; when, in my teaching days, I read it to my Year 3 class they completely missed a lot of what, to me, were the funniest bits.
Which makes me wonder: to write a classic, do you actually have to appeal to adults, too? Does there have to be something in there to make parents want to share it with their children - or perhaps to make children keep coming back to it as they grow up, as I did with the Narnia stories? But then - and I speak as one whose son was utterly obsessed with the wretched Thomas between ages 2 and 6 - wouldn't that disqualify the Railway Series (except in the eyes of ardent train-spotters)?
Perhaps there's no one answer. Perhaps there's a certain amount of serendipity involved for the books that rise to the top and stay there to become classics, just as we all know of books that we think are fantastically good but that somehow never got noticed. Maybe many of us who post on here have written books that have already become recognised classics in another universe even though, in this one, they are barely managing to stay in print. It would be nice to think so.
It'll be interesting to see what thoughtful comments members of the ABBA community have to make on the theme of what makes a children's classic. It'll also be interesting to see who is first to get the reference in the title to this piece...
Oh - and: Happy Valentine's Day, book lovers.
|
.jpg?picon=1806)
This is very thought-provoking, Emma.
I think the issue has become more complex because the way we discipline children has changed.
In the past, a child who burnt down a shed - an action more dangerous and destructive than the label 'naughty' suggests - would expect a good beating at the very least. Perhaps that put really bad behaviour into the realm of fantasy and escapism for most kids. But now it might result in a stern talk about respecting the property of others and endangering the self it is more of an option - and so less acceptable in fiction, perhaps?
Interesting post, Emma. Just William for me, I guess. Despite the bad reviews (by adults) the most recent BBC adaptation had our four year old granddaughter glued to the screen, her mouth wide open in disbelief.
Spot on, Emma! We often listen to William audiobooks (read by the incomparable Martin Jarvis) on long journeys, and more than once I've thought, "You'd never get away with that these days!"
Really interesting, Emma. I used to love Jennings and Darbishire as a child, but now would probably opt for William - very much enjoyed the tapes with our kids.
I'd never thought about this but you're quite right. That was a great post, very thought-provoking.
Like Sue, I loved the Jennings stories. But I never got on with Just William, for some reason. I also loved Katy in the Susan Coolidge books.
Hello Stroppy - actually the children who burned down the shed (the Herdmanns) got away with it - they even got some dough-nuts, as they snaffled the ones sent over for the police! But, the authors explained, they were lucky - they burnt down a shed everybody hated and thought should be condemned. (I don't know how she got that past her editors - and American editors too, especially alert for the moral messages.)
I loved the recent Just William adaptation, but like Sue and Nicola, I have always loved Jennings more...I wish the BBC would make a TV adaptation of them. They are pure genius! And today's children still enjoy them...when they are given the chance.
Just William, absolutely! Though maybe I should revist Jennings...