Summarize it please ------------------------------------------------------------

Question

Summarize it please

----------------------------------------------------------------

Cultural studies has enabled literary critics to recognize the ideological influence of all texts, from classics to mail-order catalogues and tattoos. It would seem, then, that the function of children's books as the first print texts used to assimilate the modern child into literacy, and consequently into culture, should guarantee a central place in cultural studies for children's literature. But the long-established myth of the innocence and transparency of the children's book, particularly the picture book, works as powerfully today as it has in the past to designate children's literature a genre worthy of only marginal critical attention.1 As Jacqueline Rose explains, "Children's fiction has never completely severed its links with a philosophy which sets up the child as a pure point of origin in relation to language, sexuality and the state" (8). Ironically, this myth of the purity of children and the consequent innocence of children's books has given the picture book an ideological scope of influence far exceeding that of any "fallen," and therefore critically scrutinized, literary domain.        

Take Maurice Sendak's Where the Wild Things Are, which holds a treasured position on perhaps more bookshelves than any other American picture book in history. It depicts young Max's rebellion against the restraints of civilization, his consequent voyage to freedom in an exotic land, his subjugation of the Wild Things that live there, and his triumphant return home. Wild Things has received an unprecedented amount of critical attention since its publication in 1963. But it has been interpreted in almost exclusively psychoanalytic terms, an approach foregrounding the internal struggles of early childhood development.2 On the one hand, psychological explanations of the book are especially appropriate given Sendak's own concept of his art as "a dream or fantasy" (Lanes 85). Moreover, Sendak explicitly considers Wild Things an exploration of "my great curiosity about childhood as a state of being, and how all children manage to get through childhood from one day to the next, how they defeat boredom, fear, pain and anxiety, and find joy" (qtd. in Lanes 85). On the other hand, such psychological critiques accept—and even further reify—the ahistoricism of the book. As an artist, of course, Sendak pleases by creating a timeless, internally focused narrative. Nevertheless, it is one obligation of criticism to tease out the historical and ideological roots within seemingly ahistorical and apolitical narratives. In this respect, the existing psychological criticism of Wild Things falls short and requires a more culturally oriented critical supplement.

Explanation / Answer

Summary

The article deals with the aspect of culturally oriented literary criticism of children’s literature, the role of children’s books to assimilate children into literacy and culture as a part of cultural studies for children’s literature. Children’s literature, especially picture book is generally considered as innocent and transparent, which is a myth and because of this myth, children literature is not given the appropriate critical attention. Children’s fiction is based on the philosophy that child is the original of language, sexuality and state in its purest form. And this philosophy of purity about children makes picture book important for having ideological influence and therefore picture book received significant critical scrutiny as a literary domain.

Next, the article deals with a popular picture book - Maurice Sendak’s Where the Wild Things Are. It’s a story of Young Max who rebels against civilization to seek freedom, and comes back after successfully conquering wild things in an exotic land. The book received a lot of critical attention, but in psychoanalytic terms rather than critical influence. The type of literary criticism it received again proved the point that children’s literature is perceived as transparent and innocent, and therefore does not get the appropriate attention. So critics did not recognize the historical significance of this book, which was wrong. Critics should try to find the historical and ideological roots in children’s literature.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse S
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.