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.