Talk:Children's literature/Archive 4

"Problems" of children's literature

I found this statement a bit strange: "There are a number of problems inherent in children’s literature". The items then listed such as meanings on multiple levels and ideologies that are no longer accepted are not necessarily "problems." I think that there is a POV issue here - shouldn't the page describe children's literature rather than identify its "problems"? Moreover the statement "many critics regard such multiplicity as having drawbacks" is stunningly wrong - literary scholars and reviewers alike clearly prefer books such as Alice in Wonderland that appeal to both children and adults. The whole section is riddled with "many people" and "others" - who are these "many people" and these "others"? Perhaps some credible sources would be in order. Awadewit 20:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

While you do have a point, the approach which the writer took for that portion is ok. If you read it, which you have, you'll notice the neutral way it tackles those problems. The first statement is a little POVish, however, the text to follow utilizes that idea to make it safe. It states that yes there are problems in Children's literature, only if you see them as problems. The inability to grasp the subtle moments of Alice and Wonderland. Flipping through Pullman's Dark Material's Trilogy, and not grasping the ideas of atheism, and how it's theories would be 'blasphemous' to the Spiritually Guided. Accepting Twain's use of the word 'nigger' so much as to put the reader in that exact time of history. What we have here is a definition through attack and defense. It's not wrong to present it as 'problems' for there are problems with Children's literature. Not everyone wants to draw the line between content, and meaning, you know? It's for that reason that a book like 'Snow falling on Cedars' was banned in Peel Region's (Mississauga and Brampton, Ontario) Catholic District School Board. Parents didn't like the content, and the Board couldn't justify it through the use of meaning beyond the content. So the way this article was written does exactly that. It presents it as a problem, only if one can't get past the concrete content, and realize the greater point: It's not the content that is important, only what the content is there to prove.

As for the credible sources? Well, pick up a newspaper sometimes, and hunt for any articles about Children's Lit. If those articles don't hit the marker, then I don't know what to say. (For the record, those articles usually talk about exactly what I did. Content and how it's unexceptable to some parents, regardless of the meaning it may provide. Similar to the example I've just gien. If you want to research it, the book is 'Snow falling on Cedars', and it was banned in the Dufferin Peel Roman Catholic Seperate School Board, of the Peel Region of Ontario. There's your 'others' and 'many people', if you care enough. *smiles* 74.12.10.186 13:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Great Contributions to Children's Literature, yet again

What we need to do with this section is to reference/quote some major lists of award winners, best-sellers, etc. In other words, cite examples which are verifiable and notable (those qualities which together constitute Wikipedia's proxy for "objective". See WP:VERIFY and WP:NOTE ). -- 201.50.248.179 11:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

How about classics from the 18th and 19th century, which precede literary awards and/or bestseller lists? "Pinnochio", "Alice in Wonderland", "Peter Pan", "The Wizard of Oz" - none of these books won the Newbery or made it to the NYTimes bestseller list. --woggly 13:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

A fair point. I'd suggest that we reference some big-name lists of such works ("New York Public Library's list of most popular children's books" or some such), again as a proxy for "objectivity". -- 201.50.248.179 02:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, I do occasionally see the high sales figures of such works the McGuffey Readers, Pilgrim's Progress, Uncle Tom's Cabin, or Common Sense mentioned, so somebody keeps track of such things at least some of the time, and there's some possibility of referencing these numbers in the article. -- 201.50.248.179 02:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Something definitely needs to be done: currently it has no more encyclopedic validity than a list saying "my favorite books". A list of award winners might be good, so long as it was presented as "a list of award winners", not something more. If a list such as the one is to appear, it is very tricky: a respected source needs to be found which singles out those books for those reasons. (And then we need to be sure we aren't violating list copyright). Putting things into subjective categories isn't what Wikipedia is for. Notinasnaid 14:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"A list of award winners might be good, so long as it was presented as 'a list of award winners', not something more." -- Agreed. I'd say that we want several (ideally "many") such lists, so readers can both get a diversity of opinions and see which books appear on several lists. -- 201.50.248.179 02:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Content of this Article

All the people of Wikipedia who threw this article together should be absolutely proud. You've done an amazing job at not only keeping it neutral (Your focus on certain problems in Children's Lit, the argument against the content, but the point of the content's placement and it's importance) but using that same neutrality insomuch that it defends the books for their content. I thank you guys because for once someone, rather many ones, understand the point to children's literature. Notably, your connection of the use of the word 'nigger' within Huckleberry Finn. This is a very key element to the book's setting, themes, and the mindset of that era. You've managed to get one of the most important literature-based articles dead on. Be proud guys: Considering the number of fucked up articles on this website, this is one more that should be put on the good list.

Removal of sentence

I am sure this sentence means something to the person who added it, but it doesn't read well to me:

Promoting and book talking children's literature has produced several websites, blogs, and podcasts devoted to the subject.

"Book talking" is not a verb. None of this gives a citation. And what is notable about the fact that children's literature (or the analysis of it, not clear from context) now has websites devoted to it? There are movies based on kidslit, and litcrit adult books as well. How does this sentence add to our understanding of the subject? I am open to persuasion and welcome clarification. BrainyBabe 15:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Good article

Shame about the tag in the middle. I think it is well structured and should get a bit more attention. If I had added the quotes on the subject, I would put them at Wikiquote and link to a page there. It would be improper of me to do this without a check on each quote, the original editor would have that info presumably. So close to really good, I will try to come back to it. Fred ☻ 11:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Quotations

There are a number of quotations that have nothing to do with children's literature specifically. Shouldn't those be trimmed? Joyous! | Talk 03:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

In fact, there are too many quotes in this article. 219.74.231.132 (talk) 09:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Portal

Is it just my browser, or is the portal link covered by the columns at the bottom of the page? --Kenneth M Burke 02:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Overgeneralization

The article says that "Huckleberry Finn was after all one of the first American books in which a black character is portrayed as someone to be emulated." Twain's book, whatever it's virtues, is a late-comer to the field. It was published after a number of books in which Blacks were seen as admirable, among them _Uncle Tom's Cabin_ and some of the stories of George Washington Cable. So I'm changing the passage to erase any question of time. Perhaps something like, "X is shown to be a character to be emulated by . . . " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.147.28.1 (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)