I very much so enjoyed our conversation on Monday about whether or not Through the Looking-Glass is children’s literature. Just to preface my thoughts- I love children’s literature. Carroll and Roald Dahl are two of my favorite authors of all time. I haven’t read any of Dahl’s children stories since I was a child, but I read Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland last year. Not to say that Dahl does not (again- I’m obsessed with him), but Carroll really transcends these categories.
Why would we call Through the Looking-Glass a story for children? Because of the nonsense? The rhymes? The fairy-tale elements? To be totally honest, I think some people may want to label this as children’s literature because the main character is a young girl, which is painfully nonsensical. If you think you’re somehow above reading Lewis Carroll because you’re in college, you’re kidding yourself. I’ve read plenty of writing that was meant for adults but seemingly written at a grade-school level. I am honestly intimidated from reading the Harry Potter series because it’s just so much.
Carroll’s writing has mature structure, references, dramatic tension, etc., but it also has childish characters and dialogue in the story itself. We must be careful not to label something as childish when perhaps surreal or absurd are more accurate terms.
The truth is that these categories are sloppy and simply a distraction. This story is for anyone between 1 and 100 years of age. Children can enjoy it, but adults can truly understand it (maybe).
Grant, your post really touches on some vital points in our discussion of children’s literature. Often times it seems our most formative experiences come when we are most vulnerable – as children. Perhaps this is why some adults feel that children’s literature negates adult experience – “It’s too silly! It’s too playful!” despite the stories as kids inform and shape us into the adults that we become. I felt a similar way upon re-thinking the Chronicles of Narnia series. I became especially distressed about the series when i started to view the books as a big metaphor for a dream and death – as many of the kids are on on the train in which their parents die. I also may be painfully mistaken about Narnia (I’ve never been, sadly), but I think the point can be translated into the world of Alice. If we proceed to go through life without understanding what makes us who we are, as basically just older, more “responsible” children, we never understand the power that things have to us as kids. Kids think differently – we’ve all seen kids be incredibly interested and obsessed by something seemingly normal. I think your points are well thought out, cogent, and inform my own reading of the world of Alice.
I think that the age of the characters is generally what defines books into their categories, although this is not universal. That is because readers, especially younger readers, tend to enjoy stories about characters that they can relate to, and age is an important factor in that. A kid in elementary school would not be able to relate to a high school student easily, no matter how the book is written. There are exceptions to this, of course. Something like Ender’s Game is technically about children and is written for an older audience, but the children in the book are so brilliant that they act like little adults.
Just because a book is written for children does not meet that adults cannot read and enjoy it, however. The idea that adults cannot and should not read children’s books is rubbish. Just because a book is aimed for a different audience does not mean there is not lasting value inherent in these books. Just because someone is not the intended target for a book does not mean that they should not read and enjoy it.