I read my first novel length book when I was about 7 years old. I actually even remember what it was: Five Go Off in a Caravan, followed by Five Go Off to Camp. This was the beginning of my Enid Blyton phase, which I think lasted till I was about 11 and then I discoved the joys of Sweet Valley. I refuse to rant about Sweet Valley in this post because I think that its so bad that it deserves a post of its own. Of course, I did read a LOT of other stuff between that but never stuck to a specific author. I have probably read every series that Enid Blyton wrote (and trust me there were a lot and yes, I do remember them clearly and no, I refuse to write them down).
So the point of all these books is that now I look at them and think about how hypocritical they all were. They were manipulating children. Georgina, a girl in the Famous Five series, wants to desperately be a boy, so she dresses up like a boy and is the coolest character in the whole series along with her cousins, Julian and Dick (obviously male). Anne, is the wimp who like to stay at home and cook food for them and play the mother to the group. Isn't it nice that she's got her priorities as a woman sorted out from a tender age of 10? This realization actually made me feel worse than the time I realized that C.S Lewis was manipulating children with his Narnia books because Aslan was meant to represent Jesus, Narnia as heaven, everyone suddenly dies and goes to heaven apart from Susan who couldn't enter Narnia anymore and was going to go to hell because she used make-up.
When it wasn't the sexism in the books, it was perfection and the lack of feasible characters that completely ruined them.
'Oh look at me, I'm Nancy Drew, I am a detective at 18, I'm hot with blond hair, I'm really smart too. I have a hot boyfriend and millions of other love interests in every book that's written about me. I'm always right and the police love me because I'm so much smarter than everybody else in the entire American Police.'
'Oh look at us, we're Frank and Joe Hardy, we're Nancy Drew's male counterparts and love interests in crossover books. We're exactly like her, but male.'
'I'm Katie, my father's rich and my mother's dead and so I was naughty little girl who didn't listen to her elders that's why God punished me by crippling me. When I was in my wheelchair, I realized my past mistakes and became a good little girl and that's why I can miraculously walk again.'
'I'm Heidi. I'm perfect and there's nothing more to say apart from the fact that everybody who meets me loves me. I also happen to live in Switzerland.'
'I'm Sarah. I'm so good. I make up stories. Now I'm a poor orphan because my father made a bad business deal and then died. I'm mistreated by everyone and made to work as a servant in my old boarding school but I'm still so good and not bitter. Oh, the business deal my father made was not all that bad after all. I'm rich again but I'm still so good'
'I'm Cedric and I'm so good that even my grumpy grandfather who hates the world loves me. Everyone who meets me loves me. I might as well be a reincarnation of God on Earth with my goodness, blond curls that make a halo around my face and I also have an angelic smile.'
I still don't get what was the point of all these books? Was the authors' intention to make us all realize what bad little children we were? If that was it then all I can say is it that they succeeded in making me feel like a (forgive me for using the word) shitty little child, that I was. I don't think it was fair on us children to read all this junk. Of course I loved these books. Who wouldn't? They represented people who I aspired to be, people who behaved in a manner which adults would have liked me to behave. But now even thinking about them just irritates me so much.
No wonder I preferred books like Just William, The Secret Garden (without that idiot, Dickon), The Naughtiest Girl. Actually I never realized why I liked them so much more than the other books I used to read till I got a little older. It was because I guess I could relate to the protagonists. At least they were normal, believable children.
My rant ends here but I still feel a little cheated!
8 comments:
that was beautiful! bravo!!!! i have never been so proud to call you my friend! oh man, i remember the cartoon heidi that used to come on tv. oh heidi! oh clara! oh heidi! oh peter! yay threesome!
lol. well done!
I think you're being a little harsh. Hypocracy (sp?) isn't the right word here. The authors were trying to create the most interesting, exciting and readable stories possible. This is fiction, after all. They have no obligation to stay true to "reality." It's not about manipulation; it's about creating characters that people (children, in this case) will want to read.
Stories which figure larger-than-life archetypical characters have been the most popular since people started relating stories in the first place. Ooo, look at me, I'm Gilgamesh, the king! Also, I don't think that intended audience of the work makes the criticism any more valid. In fact, given that children tend to have shorter attention spans, compelling, yet easy to understand characters become even more important elements of the author's toolbox.
yay i get to write the first comment.
honey, the funny thing is that you are still into those books... when are you giving me "The three investigators - The mystery of the stuttering parrot" back?!
I would add the three investigators to the perfect kids list. Still, they were fun.
Harry
joko londo - Thanks for your comment. Well, I do agree that you have a point that the whole point of fiction may not be to stay true to reality, as you said but it’s the audience that makes the difference. Children, most of the times don’t really know that they are being manipulated. On the other hand ‘adults’ do have the ability to make this distinction. For example, if you read His Dark Materials by Pullman, you see a lot of strong views being
expressed but the book is in fact aimed for young adults who I think probably understand the nature of fiction. Then it is up to them whether to choose to agree with Pullman’s views or not.
When I made the post, I wasn’t trying to criticize the books from the point of view of a child. As a child, I loved them. What I’m complaining about is that the characters were not easy to understand as a child. Children understand people who behave in a manner closest to what they would have behaved if they were in that situation and these characters not behave in that kind of a childish manner.
Sorry, that was long!
Harry - hmm, the three investigators was different because everyone in the books hated them and very often, the focus of the stories was on the plot rather than the characters and I always harboured a secret srush on Jupiter, so I can't bear to criticize them.
Sorry Harry, you werent the first!
Cookie - OMG, i used to watch the cartoon religiously every afternoon. I still maintain Clara is prettiest cartoon girl I have ever seen. hmm, clara, heidi and peter threesome..i hadnt thought of that one, although I always wanted Peter and Clara to get together and make Heidi cry.
Forgotten about Polyanna, have we?
'Look at me, I'm always happy and always cheerful and always, always perfect!'
Bleah.
Hmmm. Joko Londo, it is true that stories where characters are perfect are usually very popular, and that's why authors write perfect characters. But that doesn't mean they're not manipulative; on the contrary, their popularity simply enhances the reach of their manipulatory influences, don't you think? Maybe what you mean is that they're not intentionally manipulative, but somehow, I find that hard to believe.
As for fiction not having to stay true to reality, I think that the closer fiction is to reality, the longer it'll live in collective memory. Think about it: the Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew remain very much the domain of pre-teens. On the other hand, The Secret Garden, with its less-than-perfect heroine, still has appeal (to me, at least), and I doubt that books containing unrealistically perfect characters will live very long in literary history.
Anyways, Pan, hilarious post. Oh, let me add a rant: 'Oooh, look at me, I'm Hermione Granger, smartest girl in Hogwarts, but guess what? I get consistently shoved aside by two dunderheads. Oh, and I further the misconception that people who're good in school have to be nerdy.'
HERMIONE RULES!
wait.... you actually liked that cartoon??? wait!!! you're actually *admitting* that you liked that cartoon?????????? gag!!! yuck! i take it all back. you suck!!clara got on my bloody nerves. yikes, i wanted peter and her to go jump off a cliff. do me a favour, dont tell people you know me.
Frankengirl - I guess I see your point. I hadn't considered that aspect before, it is true that parents choose the books their children would like to read. I'm sure my parents wouldnt have chosen the books me with children like me in it :D
Also the messages that these books give out seem much more clearer as you grow up. As I previously mentioned, as a child I hardly realized them and happily enjoyed anything I read.
Post a Comment