Derek Price Childrens Literature Craig Svonkin Due: 4/1/2014 Ideology of Subversion and Didacticism It is hard to define exactly

what childrens literature consists of; there are no real generalizable rules, no codifiable process for creation, and no definitive taboos. In Alison Luries critical essay A Childs Garden of Subversion, Lurie states that the division between childrens books and adult fiction is vague; though most childrens books are about children, there are also adult fictions where the protagonists are children as well. Typically, childrens literature does not deal with themes like sexuality, and whenever it is about money or death the themes are much muted if present at all. A lot of books considered good for children often have some sort or moralistic or didactic intention, following the status quo of the society for guidelines into the ideology behind the didacticism. This is one type of literature for Ms. Lurie that she remembers reading in her childhood, the type that followed an ideology fashioned by what grown-ups had decided [she] ought to know or believe about the world. They were the types of books that taught children to be hardworking, responsible and practical; to stay on the track and be content with their lot in life. The other category of books was the sacred texts of childhood, the subversive. These books do not coincide with the dominant ideology of the current hegemonic paradigm, often mock[ing] the current assumptions and [instead] express the imaginative, unconventional, noncommercial view of the world in its simplest and purest form. They appeal to the questioning, rebellious child within all of us. The categories of didactic and subversive can be fluid, and a fixed interpretation of each type of literature is not constant,

though the subversive texts tend to be iconoclastic towards the modern ideals of the specific era, dealing with philosophical and aesthetic issues within their respective positions in history, whereas the didactic literature supports the egocentric and often phallocratic ideology of authoritarian figures that constitute the societal norms. Classic Dick and Jane books are the archetype of didactic beginning reader books. They were meant to teach children how to read, though these books do not even try to emulate how reading actually takes place in later literature. There is a strong emphasis on repetition, but not the kind we would expect. In oral traditions, repetition of words phrases are common, for narratological and structural purposes, and also used to keep the listener engaged within the story so they dont become lost, and also for the orator to be able to follow a common structure while story-telling. These books instead use the same word repeatedly, sometimes constructing entire sentences and pages with the same word, and an entire story with only five words. See. See, see. Jane! Look, see Jane? See Jane look! The pictures are often of happy children who dont really cause any mischief, but instead get into childish scenarios where Jane steps in a puddle. All of the children in Dick and Jane books are white. Their families are stereotypically structured around the idyllic 1950s cookie-cutter premise, where the father is a hard working figure and the mother is a caretaker, with two beautiful children that only have structured fun and never cause much trouble. This show the ideological claims that society valued during this era of time. The parents are the moderators and gatekeepers of morality and knowledge, where the children are these ignorant infants who must be taught to read by repetition. They cannot be shown images of children doing naughty things, or participating in activities that are not considered acceptable means of play or interaction by the cultural norms of the times.

In the mid/late 1950s, there were studies being done on literacy that were coming to the conclusion that stated children were not learning to read well because the books they were being forced to read were not engaging and entertaining. This is around the time when Theodore Giesel, Dr. Seuss, was beginning to write childrens books full time after drawing political propaganda cartoons during World War II. Dr. Seuss had enjoyed a good amount of success from his childrens literature, but it was The Cat in the Hat that sparked a massive public interest into the works of Geisel. By only using a word list that was shorter than 250 (which is still monsterously larger than the lexicon of Dick and Jane books) he wrote his meticulously constructed book, and possibly has some intertextual allusions to how didactic literature of the time worked. When we begin The Cat in the Hat, the main characters, Sally and the unnamed protagonist, are sitting inside of a gloomy house as it rains. There are minimal lines drawn, with straight edges and nothing much fun to look at. The meter is pretty consistent and almost formulaic, with a repetitive sit, sit, sit, sit, sit, mocking how previous literatures defined childrens ability to read and interact with text and pictoral images. When the cat comes, the meter shifts to unorthodox patterns, and lines start to shift and contort. From a critical psycho analytic lens, the didactic D&J is all about the suppression of the ID. It is inappropriate to act on hedonistic or impulsive actions according to D&J ideology, and instead you should only participate in pre-conditioned activities that are appropriate. Dr. Seusss writing would be considered sacred and subversive by Lurie because it says quite the opposite. The Cat is trying to the get the children to release their inhibitions and have fun. Though he does say try to balance things, saying that simply releasing the ID completely is not a good thing, and that the ego and superego allow for balance, there is a strong message that the ID is far too oppressed in these childrens lives. He literally releases their IDs for them in the form of Thing 1 and Thing 2. This

is the kind of story that would make the child who has been conditioned to think that being bad is horrendous, and that you should always follow the rules and never make a mess of the house when mother is away. For me, this kind of story helped me feel that I was a normal child, because I was constantly challenging social norms and rules. These subversive texts let me know as a child that I truly was human, and that others share my ideology and world view, though of course I was not yet thinking is quite as sophisticated terminology, the concepts behind the words were emotionally felt. When speaking of how ideology affects societal values, according to Theodore Adorno and Walter Benjamin, aesthetics become a powerful indicator of what a society values and how they function. Art, to these philosophers, is a reflection of the society, and the artist reflects their ideologies in their art. When we look at Maria Edgeworths The Purple Jar, we see the how the mother tries to persuasively (romantically) impart her system of values upon the child when young Rosamond is looking at things to buy. The writer wants the children to see the value of usefulness as trumping impulsive desires to buy useless objects. The mother predicts that buying the shoes would be a much better object to buy than the Purple Jar with flowers because the shoes that little Rosamond has on are just about worn to the sole, and when they break it will be awhile before she may get a new pair. Edgeworth is a huge proponent of didactic literature, and from her standpoint she wants young learners to think about commodity and usefulness of objects and their relations to the future. This is a common ideology of even our modern time, though this story was written near the beginning of the 1800s. By creating a dichotomy between the useful shoes and the useless art, Maria also attacks the value of aesthetic objects by perpetuating the idea that these shoes have inherently more good in them than the art. But wont this new pair of shoes eventually wear out too? Would the jar of flowers not last much

longer if taken care of and used for its inherent artistic appeal? This idea of degrading art for commodity shows the system of mechanical and subservient ideology that Edgeworth wishes to impart on her young learning subjects. Dav Pilkey argues quite the opposite in his series Captain Underpants. George Beard and Harold Hutchins are two fourth graders who are constantly getting into trouble by the oppressive authorities. They are described as not necessarily bad children, though they are responsible for much of the troubles and mischief that happens around Horowitz Elementary school. They are not very good at paying attention in class, and are instead more excited about going home to write their comic books about the amazing Captain Underpants when they get home. They would spend hours creating these comics for the mere purpose of creating them. They would sell their comics on the playground, but all of the monetary gain would simply be put into buying more supplies so they can keep their craft going. These children are trouble makers, but they are good hearted kids, much like Dav was when he was a child. Growing up, Dav was constantly making a mockery of the educational institution, so much so that he had a special desk moved outside for him in elementary school where he would be dismissed from class to almost on a daily basis. He was always doodling, and this is where his ideas for Captain Underpants actually originated from. His teachers specifically told him that he should stop wasting his time drawing sill comics because he would never be able to make a living doing these things. Because he was not a very good listener, he is now a millionaire because he writes stories for children like him. These were book that I could relate too. They are fun, using intertextuality, breaking the fourth wall, making references to pop culture, and using pictures as literary narrative devices instead of just relying on words with accompanying pictures to go along with it. Subversion helps students learn, and

gives aesthetics a proper place amongst patriarchal degradation of Arts in our modern society, and is what gives them their feeling of sacredness amongst child readers.