Harry Potter

[stacer]

OH, and I want to point out how Rowling, who writes for kids, gets considerably less criticism than either Terry Brooks or Robert Jordan, who are the more "serious" writers.

Okay, okay, remember--"serious" does not equal "not children's." There are some pretty serious things going on in children's lit nowadays. It's no easier to write a children's book than an adult book--might be a bit shorter, depending on the age group and whether, like Rowling, you can get away with such a ridiculous length, but that just makes it all the more important to choose your words wisely and economically.

I hope you weren't making that assumption, SE, because I could go ON and ON about the merits of children's lit. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, however. Mainly because I should be in bed and I don't want to spend anymore time writing this...  

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

No, I had no intention of slamming  children's lit. Quite the opposite. I use "serious" in quotes whenever I'm referring to what is typically considered worthwhile reading when the referrer is obviously ignorant of things outside that realm: such as graphic literature or childrens lit. Does that make sense?

[stacer]

Perfect sense. I thought at first that's what you were saying, but then I over-thunk it.

Speaking of serious children's lit, though, I'm going to be taking a class this summer (if i can afford it) discussing the theme of gardens in children's lit and how that relates to our cultural perceptions of childhood as close to nature. If we regard kids as close to nature, is that a good thing or a bad thing (i.e., original sin/beastliness or inherent innocence). It's a very interesting question. And there are a *lot* of gardens in children's books.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

When I think gardens and children I think innocence. Primarily because of Garden of Eden. Though closeness to nature certainly comes in, especially with a book like The Secret Garden with that boy who is assumed to talk to animals.

I'm not as familiar with children's literature though, so I'm not sure I have a lot more to contribute to that discussion without some prompting.

[stacer]

Well, if you're ever interested in contemplating more, here are a few samples from the reading list:

The Secret Garden
The Tale of Peter Rabbit
Sleeping Beauty (as in the Disney video version)
Weslandia--which is illustrated by BYU graduate Kevin Hawkes, written by Paul Fleishman

I tried to pick out titles that would be more well-known, but I don't recognize many of them. This should be an interesting summer. Cramming 20 books a week in, it seems like.

I think Peter Rabbit would probably be on the mischievous close to nature side, the side that demands that children tame that nature. Weslandia is a great book--you should read it sometime. It's a picture book, so it's a quick read. It's about this outcast kid who discovers a new plant in his backyard, then ends up learning to use it to make clothes, dyes, hats, buildings, food, and eventually an entire civilization. I can just see the guys on this board going gaga over it, "Now why couldn't *I* have had that plant when I was a kid?"  

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

Yes, I'd say that ranks right up there with a real lightsaber.

[Fellfrosch]

You realize that Kindergarten just means Garden of Children in German. In Mexico the really young kids go to Jardin do Ninos, which means...Garden of Children. Western civilization identifies children with gardens pretty constantly, and I'm interested to see what you come up with in this class.

I'd point out, though, the different between "nature" and "garden." One is wild and independent, the other is (usually) controlled and tamed. In The Secret Garden the situation is even more complicated--the garden moves from "dead" to "alive" while simultaneously going from "wild" to "tame" and "overgrown" to "pruned." The main reason for that, I imagine, stems from an unconscious attitude of British civilization--that you become powerful and alive only by reigning in yourself in--but there's plenty of other ideas to explore in there.

[Entsuropi]

The main reason for that, I imagine, stems from an unconscious attitude of British civilization--that you become powerful and alive only by reigning in yourself in

Don't suppose you could name some other examples to support this view?

Not arguing against yah, just interested to see what gave you that opinion.

[Mistress of Darkness]

I tend to see the garden as a microcosm for Mary's life. As she began to allow others into her life, she became kinder, prettier and more enjoyable. Mary started out in the book as a selfish little brat no one would want to spend time with and by the end she had friends and was a friend.

Though I won't deny that Bristish themes generally do point to the idea that the more you deny and discipline yourself, the better you are, I think you could easily also draw the conclusion that order in one's life means a greater chance for happiness. I'm not saying you have to be OC organized to be happy, but you do have to set priorities, find out what you enjoy and make time for it, and also be there for other people and other things as Mary was for Collin and the garden. She was much happier then, than when she spent her days ordering people around and play in the sand.

I want to see your papers Stacer. It sounds like a very interesting class. What about The Velveteen Rabbit? That was one of my favorites as a child, and it brings up all sorts of questions and implications.

[Fellfrosch]

I referred to it as a British attitude because the writer was British, but it's actually pretty prevalent in a lot of Western countries. It's obviously prevalent in Mistress of Darkness. In some ways you could argue that the garden, as a primal force of nature, is a sort of Id, and that you can only become truly happy (and mentally healthy) by cleaning it up and forcing it to follow rules. I don't deny that the garden is symbolic of Mary's life, because that's pretty explicit, but I'm saying that the contrast of happiness and order vs. despair and chaos is a theme that doesn't usually get explored in discussions of the novel. Is a garden an inherently better place than a forest? Is it possible to represent the emotional growth of a main character through an uncultivated forest, or is the concept of civilization and industrialism (at whatever level) inherent to the concept of maturity?

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

Doesn't Secret Garden also have that wild kid who lives essentially out on the heath and talks to animals? Yet he's the one who can cultivate a garden. That certainly complicates things, as the guy who can commune with the wild is the one who can restore the tame. Which is to say, perhaps it takes some wild to make things grow, even if they need the restraint.

[Mistress of Darkness]

Dicken is who SE is referring to.

I wonder if, going along with Fell point, it has something to do with the heath and the forests are supposed to be wild, but the garden is expected to be orderly. Something along the lines of "bloom where you are planted" or "maturity is the ability to handle your life as it is."

Conversely, what can be said about Collin? If civilization makes you happy, then why isn't he? He has rejected the outter world of "wild things" completely. I ask only for argument's sake.

[Spriggan]

Whoot another Happry Potte book theft.

http://entertainment.msn.com/news/article.aspx?news=125665

Kazza here I come. j/k

[Fellfrosch]

Perhaps his point is that you need elements of both. Mary begins the book essentially as a feral child (she follows no rules because she's never had any) while Collin begins as a lifeless corpse (so burdened with strict rules that he has come to identify himself in their terms). Mary has to learn to cultivate herself, using order to direct her energy into useful paths, while Collin has to learn to set himself free--loosening his order enough to allow in some life. Essentially there is a manor and a forest on opposite ends of the spectrum, and the garden is a hybrid of both.

There's plenty of wholes in that theory, most prominent of which is that I think Mary doesn't begin the book as a representation of wild growth--I think she comes from outside of the system altogether--but it's still pretty interesting.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

I was thinking about this after I went to bed last night and I think I rejected Fell's theory entirely. Mary is from this wasteland (India is hardly realisticaly a wasteland, but the book makes it seem like nothing but a festering source of disease). She comes to England, wehre the weather is more temperate. Collin encourages wild things but also can grow tame things. They just don't form that cohesively for me along those lines. I remain unconvinced.

I think the garden more represents privacy, hidden secrets (hence the SECRET Garden), and how growing things helps you grow. I don't think it has much to do with the relative tameness/wildness of hte character or the growing things.