Spufford on American Literature

I really enjoyed Spufford's chapter "The Town" and his discussion of both Laura Ingalls Wilder and a British perspective on American literature. His anecdotes of his own experiences in America were amusing, and his reflection on his ideas of what America looked and felt like (I especially enjoyed his ideas about Southern towns) were insightful. I also thought his discussion of the differences in American and British ideas of patriotism were interesting. Spufford argues that for Americans, the revolutionary model or feeling is not as wrapped up in the government or the system, but instead in the individual. Each individual life is a practice of liberty and the pursuit of happiness. He links these ideas to the literature when he says that, "the picture that characteristically emerges from American storytelling is one of people making deliberate experiments with their destinies" (121). He goes on to say that in comparison with Balzac and Dickens, Tom Wolfe's characters "are far more self-determined, more self-invented than theirs" (121).

I think Spufford brings up an important argument in attempting to determine what is different between American and British literature, and specifically literature for children. Bruce A. Ronda is exploring a similar idea in his article "An American Canon of Children's Literature." By questioning and examining what is the American canon of children's literature, Ronda is consequently determining what is distinctive about that literature. Ronda also gives insight into why these questions and distinctions are important when he writes, "the deliberate linking of American and canon promises to lift us beyond repetitious debates over strictly literary and intrinsic merit into a deeper consideration of cultural criticism" (33). Determining what is different in the literature of one nation or culture tells us something about the culture itself, and if we are members of that culture we should also discover something about ourselves. I think this is the reward of questioning what we really mean when we discuss American literature or American children's literature. We gain insight into the values and assumptions of our culture.

Spufford's determination that about what is different about American literature would take a considerable amount of insight and reflection to either prove or refute. I first thought of Charlotte's Web and how Charlotte is experimenting with Wilbur's destiny by her tricks with her web. I also thought of Dicey, and although I'm not sure that I would initially use the word "experiment" to describe Dicey's attempts to salvage her family and their destiny, I think one could make a case that her daily attempts in light of her inexperience is an experiment of sorts. But in comparison with the British books we have read, I am not entirely sure what to make of how those characters are interacting with their destinies. Lyra's and Harry's lives seem rather experimental in that they are different and innovative, but they also have predetermined destinies. I think one could argue that Wendy is experimenting with her destiny in following Peter to Neverland, but I would not call Wendy "self-determined." I do think, however, that I would need to read more realistic British children's fiction to gain a clearer picture of how characters who do not have such fantastic destinies shape their futures.

Do you agree with Spufford? Can you think of any examples that would disprove his determination? What is distinctive about American children's literature?

Works Cited:

Ronda, Bruce A. "An American Canon of Children's Literature." Teaching Children's Literature. Ed. Glenn Edward Sadler. New York: The Modern Language Association of America, 1992. 32-40.

Spufford, Francis. The Child That Books Built. New York: Picador, 2002.

Realistic Fiction--Dicey's Song

Although children's literature may be one of the less developed areas of literature in the academy, there are textbooks out there that seek to define children's literature and all of its sub-genres. One such useful book is David Russell's Literature for Children. He discusses both realistic and historical fiction in one of his chapters, and I thought his definition of realistic fiction might be helpful to our discussion of realism in relation to Dicey's Song. He says that realistic fiction "attempts to portray the world as we know it--filled with real people engaged in real-life activities" (209). He also identifies the bildungsroman as a common type of realistic fiction. We did not specifically call Dicey's Song a bildungsroman in class today, but I think that one could definitely make that argument as we see Dicey mature and learn about letting go while still holding on and reaching out. Dr. McMillan talked about how he thought the ending of the book was profound because of the insight it gave. It seems that these ideas are linked; perhaps the realism of a bildungsroman, of the coming-of-aged that we all do, is part of what makes this work profound. That's not to say that fantasies cannot be coming-of-age stories or that they cannot be profound, but perhaps a realistic bildungsroman is particularly profound or meaningful because of the truth it gives us in every-day circumstances. For me, it is more striking or profound that Dicey learns in matures in her unglamorous, unexciting circumstances of school and work and siblings than if she had magical powers to assist her.

Russell further classifies Voigt and the Tillman series with domestic and family stories or realism. Russell points out that Voigt, along with other writers of the past fifty years or so, have made an effort to show different kinds of families. Partly, this effort has been made because it is more realistic than only supplying children only with Leave it to Beaver families. Fantasies and historical novels can display alternative families as well, but I think that this novel at least makes particular effort to show the day-to-day realities, joys, and trials of the family unit. Harry Potter, for example, comes from an unusual family that is certainly not ideal, but he escapes from them and instead of eventually adjusting to or incorporating himself into the Dursley family, he escapes into the magical community. Dicey has no alternative to escape to, so instead she gets a job, get involved, and adjusts to Gram's moods and rules.

There are many elements of this novel that make it realistic, but I think two striking aspects of its realism are Dicey's maturity and her family interaction. What makes this novel realistic to you? Why does it matter?

Works Cited:

Russell, David L. Literature for Children: A Short Introduction. 4th Edition. New York: Longman, Inc., 2001.

Fear

In elementary school I read The Giver and Number the Stars, but never any other of Lois Lowry's books. After reading Gathering Blue this past weekend I now wonder why in the world I stopped reading Lowry. Her creation of future societies is fascinating. I think it was a marvelous idea to create a technologically advanced utopian society in The Giver and then an almost archaic, primitive community in Gathering Blue.

The village in Gathering Blue also strikingly reminded me of the village in the M Night Shyamalan film The Village. Both communities lack modern technology, and the people stay within the village boundaries because of a fear of beasts in the forest. When Shyamalan's movie was released, many people noticed the similarities between the color-coded system of fear that his fictional village had created and the color-coded system of warning (or fear) created by the Bush administration after September 11th. That movie made many viewers (or at least this one) think critically about communal fear and how societies both protect individuals from danger and also create panic and fear. Likewise, Lowry shows how political leaders can maintain power by creating fear within the community. The guardians in Kira's village want to maintain the fear of beasts so that they can control the inhabitants of the village. Jamison fears people learning the truth about the beasts so much he has Annabella killed for telling Kira that "there be no beasts."

Lowry states early on that fear is the primary motivator for this society: "She felt a small shudder of fear. Fear was always a part of life for the people. Because of fear, they made shelter and found food and grew things. For the same reason, weapons were stored, waiting. There was fear of cold, of sickness, and hunger. There was fear of beasts" (2-3). I would like to hope that our society is not like this one, and for the most part, I think we are different. Although we could certainly use more compassion and acceptance, our society values these qualities and praises people who demonstrate selflessness, like Mother Theresa. Lowry does show, however, how much of our actions and motivations are centered around fear. We also obsess over food and shelter because of fear of not having these essentials. Our country certainly knows something about storing weapons and creating armies because of fear. I think our obsession with insurance of various forms is a symptom of our fear of sickness and loss. We may not be at the point of abandoning the lame and weak to beasts, but Lowry shows how close we may be to such truly frightening practices. I am thankful for a great piece of literature that not only entertains, but also addresses complicated ideas and helps the reader think more critically.

Art and Writing

This semester I am taking a graduate course on authorship with Dr. Sarah Robbins. In that course, we look at different aspects of writing and authorship as they are portrayed in literature. Because of my interest in children's literature, I have been examining authors, writers, and authorship in children's literature. The descriptions of art and artistry in A Single Shard remind me of some of the descriptions of authorship I have read in other texts and experiences I have had with my own writing. I want to look at some of these passages and examine what Park might be saying about creating a literary piece as she discusses the creation of ceramic works of art.

At the end of the novel, Tree-ear looks ahead to his career as a potter with both delight and anxiety. Park writes, "He could almost feel the clay under his hands, rising on the wheel--his own wheel!--into a shape that was grace itself" (147). Reading this, I was especially struck by that description of the the clay "rising" on the wheel. Throwing pots is fluid work. The clay bends and folds with the slight touch of a hand, almost moving by itself. Sometimes this is how writing can be. Sometimes, either through inspiration, genius, or profound research, writing can be fluid, almost easy, and exciting. In an interview I found with Park, she mentions the inspiration she found through researching Korean history. That research led eventually to her writing A Single Shard. I can imagine the satisfaction of finding inspiration, and then seeing that inspiration take form into something graceful and powerful, such as this novel.

Writing is also deeply frustrating and intimidating. Tree-ear expresses a sense of intimidation and anxiety just a few paragraphs after he looks forward with joy to having control of his own wheel. Park writes, "How long would it be before he had skill enough to create a design worthy of such a vase? One hill, one valley... One day at a time, he would journey through the years until he came upon the perfect design" (148). In the same interview mentioned previously, Park also talks about her struggles with writing this novel. The same history that inspired her also caused her difficulties as she could not, for a time, find information about the land Tree-ear must cover to deliver his vases. Eventually she found a book about one man's journey across Korea. That man just happened to travel on the exact route Tree-ear needed to go on. Writing a novel is a day by day journey. We, as students, know that sometimes (or often; always?) writing is a sentence by sentence journey. Tree-ear listens to the wisdom of Crane-man in taking everything a step at a time and not becoming overwhelmed by the unknown. Park, like all authors, had to allow her work to grow on her "wheel," to have fluidity, in order to become a graceful work.

I think looking at and thinking about Park's authorship is important because of the value it places on her and her work. My studies of children's literature and authorship has shown me how often children's literature is not valued, or is not valued as highly as "adult" literature. Park examines aspects of art in her novel, and through this examination reveals some of her own artistry/authorship as well.

Works Cited:
Johnson, Nancy J. "Interview with the 2002 Newbery Medal Winner, Linda Sue Park." Reading Teacher 56.4 (2003): 394-9.

Park, Linda Sue. A Single Shard. New York: Yearling, 2001.