4 ms·

I think she places too much importance on this: "British children’s books have often taught other truths – that the best thing you can be is white, upper or mi

I think she places too much importance on this: "British children’s books have often taught other truths – that the best thing you can be is white, upper or middle class, and if you are a girl, quiet. " Firstly, there are many exceptions. For example, Aravis in CS Lewis's The Horse and His Boy is neither white nor remotely quiet - she is aristocratic. The Telmarine descended characters in the later books in the series are (in our terms) mixed race, and this was one of the most successful chidlren's book series ever, written in the 1950s. The Family from One End Street (which i remember reading as a child) was published in 1937 and is about a working class family. Even Kipling is better than the article gives him credit for "You’re a better man than I am, Gunga Din!" I think some bias towards middle class[1] characters and settings is inevitable because authors are middle class and write about what they know. "You can only be a hero, we have told children, if you have that kind of name: names licked clean by kings and queens." BS, as a non-white kid growing up in 70s and 80s Britain I never felt this. The author thinks people can only identify with characters like themselves, which is condescending. "That is changing now, albeit slowly: books such as Malorie Blackman’s Pig Heart Boy, Patrice Lawrence’s triumphant People Like Stars and Tola Okogwu’s Onyeka and the Academy of the Sun" Three British authors! [1] the British definition of middle class.

nindalf 2y ago
I am not convinced by the author's thesis. But I'm also not convinced by your defence of Narnia. It's 4 white British middle class kids (Peter, Susan, Edmund and Lucy) who have the privilege of being sent to the country during a dangerous time. I'm happy that you were able to identify with these characters. But for the many, many people who prefer to read stories about people like themselves and can't identify with Peter and Susan, I'm glad there is something for them now. It won't last though. When you're used to privilege, equality feels like oppression. For people who've enjoyed characters who look just like them, who've grown up with experiences just like theirs, any change feels like oppression. See the vicious backlash to any female or gay or non-white video game character nowadays. Game, book and movie producers who want to play it safe will go back to white straight males to avoid that backlash.
- graemep 2y ago
  > It's 4 white British middle class kids (Peter, Susan, Edmund and Lucy) who have the privilege of being sent to the country during a dangerous time That is only true for one book in the series. What about Aravis and the Telmarines who were not white British? The very working class character who founds the original Narnian royal dynasty? Those are just the major characters, what about all the minor characters? Then there are the non-human characters who are not exactly like any of us. BTW a lot of kids of all classes were evacuated during the war AFAIK - it was not a privilege. > But for the many, many people who prefer to read stories about people like themselves and can't identify with Peter and Susan, I'm glad there is something for them now. One of the purposes of literature (and one endorsed by CS Lewis) is to identify and empathise with people unlike yourself. Anyone who only enjoys literature about people like themselves is missing out a lot.
  - nindalf 2y ago
    Any reasonable reader would conclude that the Pevensie children are the main characters in that series. Indeed, that was the whole point - Lewis wrote Narnia for his goddaughter Lucy. That's why she's the main character! He wrote it so she could enjoy a story about a girl just like herself! Fwiw, I've also enjoyed books and video games all my life, including Narnia. None of the characters have ever looked or spoken like me, unless they were a caricature to be made fun of. I still read a lot because that's my nature. That's fine, it is what it is. But I hope the next generation experiences something better than what I did. Frankly your comment sounds like cope. You so badly want to identify with this series so you decided that the main characters are the Telmarines.
    - graemep 2y ago
      > Any reasonable reader would conclude that the Pevensie children are the main characters in that series. The main characters even in books they do not appear in (The Magicians Nephew and The Silver Chair) or appear in only as minor characters (The Horse and His Boy and The Last Battle)? The older two Pevensies are only main characters in two books. > Frankly your comment sounds like cope. You so badly want to identify with this series so you decided that the main characters are the Telmarines. That comment is an ad hominem and does not relate to what I sad at all. I think the difference is that I am actually familiar with the books, and that you cannot let go of preconceived notions. > None of the characters have ever looked or spoken like me, unless they were a caricature to be made fun of I do not know enough about you to be able to evaluate that statement. Edit to add: > Indeed, that was the whole point - Lewis wrote Narnia for his goddaughter Lucy. He dedicated one book in the series to his god-daughter. he was written about his motives and inspirations for the series elsewhere and it goes far beyond "writing a book for Lucy".
fergie 2y ago
When I was at school in Scotland in the 80s it was a recognised problem that too much of the available childrens literature centred on wealthy kids who went to boarding school. Its ironic therefore that when an impoverished Scottish single mother, JK Rowling, wrote the most successful childrens books of all time in the ´90s, that they centred on wealthy kids who went to boarding school.
- dr-detroit 2y ago
  [dead]
- throwaway638637 2y ago
  Hardly wealthy, I would say. The Weasleys lack of money and second hand clothes were an important subtheme..
  - fergie 2y ago
    They are "boarding school poor" (ie not poor). The dad is high up in a ministry, where they have all gone to school with each other. The brother is on a tenure track at a major university. They are very well connected. They live in a massive house in the country, etc, etc.
- red_admiral 2y ago
  I think several publishers rejected HP for being too "traditional": who wants to read about a boarding school these days?
- joshuacc 2y ago
  Have you ever read the books? The main characters are middle class or poor.
  - GuB-42 2y ago
    In a sense, Harry Potter is the worst when it comes to class divide. What let the kids go to that boarding school is the innate ability to do magic. A privilege you are born with, and that is dependent on your ancestry. Even if "blood purity" is a recurring theme for the bad guys in the books, it is made clear that the ability to do magic is like a gene, and if you are born a muggle, you will stay a muggle. The reason it is worse than selection based on wealth or even nobility is that while it may be something you are born with, this is also something you can acquire, not so much with magic. Not only that but there is essentially no drawback to being a wizard. Wizards tend to dislike muggle tech, but there is effectively nothing preventing their use, it is just that they can do better with magic. In the same way that being born rich comes with a lot of advantages and very few disadvantages. The idea of innate magic ability that make those who have it strictly superior is extremely common, and honestly, it works, but if you want a story where the idea is that anyone have their chance, which is how I interpret the idea of "not just wealthy kids", then Harry Potter is not that. That being said, as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't take anything away from the story, not everything has to be a political statement, and in fact, making a political statement often makes the story worse.
oliwarner 2y ago
But if you look at the corpus of British children's literature from 1900-1980, generally the people who could afford to be authors were white, middle class men. Allowing that generalisations trample all over many superb exceptions, it's not a bad thing to recognise that representation matters. It matter that there be authors that you identify with, even if they aren't writing about you.
- vixen99 2y ago
  What's the surprise? Not easy to have the time and place to write interesting stories and adventures if you're preoccupied with a physically demanding job so that you can keep warm in the winter, feed yourself and your family and retain adequate accommodation. Generally speaking if you want to do something really significant in some field it's as well if you don't already have it, to ensure your own economic autonomy first. The exceptions are really exceptional people!
miltonlost 2y ago
> Even Kipling is better than the article gives him credit for "You’re a better man than I am, Gunga Din!" No, Kipling was still super racist, even if you can cherry-pick one quote out of his oeuvre and ignore "White-Man's Burden" and like everything else about him. I think you place too much importance on your thinking she places a lot of importance on one line/paragraph out of a much larger essay. > Three British authors! Yes, and the article is from a magazine in the UK, from the London Review of Books? Why would she not focus on British authors then?
- TRiG_Ireland 2y ago
  Kipling is, I think, in many ways hard to categorise. He loved India and its peoples, and did respect them, but in a rather condescending way. And he definitely believed in the "white man's burden". And yet apparently Kim is popular with Indian intellectuals.
red_admiral 2y ago
> BS, as a non-white kid growing up in 70s and 80s Britain I never felt this. The author thinks people can only identify with characters like themselves, which is condescending. Indeed. I know there has been criticism of Watership Down for gender roles that would apparently make it unappealing to girls - missing the point that Adams originally made it up for his two daughters who loved it so much they forced him to write it down. Also as far as identifying goes, the characters are RABBITS. And the railway children, a story also mentioned in the article, has that scene where the children steal some coal from the railway yard that the family otherwise wouldn't have been able to afford to keep their home warm in winter.
NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
>Firstly, there are many exceptions. For example, Aravis in CS Lewis's The Horse and His Boy is neither white nor remotely quiet - she is aristocratic. Lewis, being the genius that we're all acquainted with, discovered a subtler truth... that being aristocratic is best of all. Obvious to the aristocrats reading my comment, I think, but Lewis wasn't even landed gentry.

nindalf 2y ago

I am not convinced by the author's thesis. But I'm also not convinced by your defence of Narnia. It's 4 white British middle class kids (Peter, Susan, Edmund and Lucy) who have the privilege of being sent to the country during a dangerous time. I'm happy that you were able to identify with these characters. But for the many, many people who prefer to read stories about people like themselves and can't identify with Peter and Susan, I'm glad there is something for them now. It won't last though. When you're used to privilege, equality feels like oppression. For people who've enjoyed characters who look just like them, who've grown up with experiences just like theirs, any change feels like oppression. See the vicious backlash to any female or gay or non-white video game character nowadays. Game, book and movie producers who want to play it safe will go back to white straight males to avoid that backlash.

graemep 2y ago
> It's 4 white British middle class kids (Peter, Susan, Edmund and Lucy) who have the privilege of being sent to the country during a dangerous time That is only true for one book in the series. What about Aravis and the Telmarines who were not white British? The very working class character who founds the original Narnian royal dynasty? Those are just the major characters, what about all the minor characters? Then there are the non-human characters who are not exactly like any of us. BTW a lot of kids of all classes were evacuated during the war AFAIK - it was not a privilege. > But for the many, many people who prefer to read stories about people like themselves and can't identify with Peter and Susan, I'm glad there is something for them now. One of the purposes of literature (and one endorsed by CS Lewis) is to identify and empathise with people unlike yourself. Anyone who only enjoys literature about people like themselves is missing out a lot.
- nindalf 2y ago
  Any reasonable reader would conclude that the Pevensie children are the main characters in that series. Indeed, that was the whole point - Lewis wrote Narnia for his goddaughter Lucy. That's why she's the main character! He wrote it so she could enjoy a story about a girl just like herself! Fwiw, I've also enjoyed books and video games all my life, including Narnia. None of the characters have ever looked or spoken like me, unless they were a caricature to be made fun of. I still read a lot because that's my nature. That's fine, it is what it is. But I hope the next generation experiences something better than what I did. Frankly your comment sounds like cope. You so badly want to identify with this series so you decided that the main characters are the Telmarines.
  - graemep 2y ago
    > Any reasonable reader would conclude that the Pevensie children are the main characters in that series. The main characters even in books they do not appear in (The Magicians Nephew and The Silver Chair) or appear in only as minor characters (The Horse and His Boy and The Last Battle)? The older two Pevensies are only main characters in two books. > Frankly your comment sounds like cope. You so badly want to identify with this series so you decided that the main characters are the Telmarines. That comment is an ad hominem and does not relate to what I sad at all. I think the difference is that I am actually familiar with the books, and that you cannot let go of preconceived notions. > None of the characters have ever looked or spoken like me, unless they were a caricature to be made fun of I do not know enough about you to be able to evaluate that statement. Edit to add: > Indeed, that was the whole point - Lewis wrote Narnia for his goddaughter Lucy. He dedicated one book in the series to his god-daughter. he was written about his motives and inspirations for the series elsewhere and it goes far beyond "writing a book for Lucy".

fergie 2y ago

When I was at school in Scotland in the 80s it was a recognised problem that too much of the available childrens literature centred on wealthy kids who went to boarding school. Its ironic therefore that when an impoverished Scottish single mother, JK Rowling, wrote the most successful childrens books of all time in the ´90s, that they centred on wealthy kids who went to boarding school.

dr-detroit 2y ago
[dead]
throwaway638637 2y ago
Hardly wealthy, I would say. The Weasleys lack of money and second hand clothes were an important subtheme..
- fergie 2y ago
  They are "boarding school poor" (ie not poor). The dad is high up in a ministry, where they have all gone to school with each other. The brother is on a tenure track at a major university. They are very well connected. They live in a massive house in the country, etc, etc.
red_admiral 2y ago
I think several publishers rejected HP for being too "traditional": who wants to read about a boarding school these days?
joshuacc 2y ago
Have you ever read the books? The main characters are middle class or poor.
- GuB-42 2y ago
  In a sense, Harry Potter is the worst when it comes to class divide. What let the kids go to that boarding school is the innate ability to do magic. A privilege you are born with, and that is dependent on your ancestry. Even if "blood purity" is a recurring theme for the bad guys in the books, it is made clear that the ability to do magic is like a gene, and if you are born a muggle, you will stay a muggle. The reason it is worse than selection based on wealth or even nobility is that while it may be something you are born with, this is also something you can acquire, not so much with magic. Not only that but there is essentially no drawback to being a wizard. Wizards tend to dislike muggle tech, but there is effectively nothing preventing their use, it is just that they can do better with magic. In the same way that being born rich comes with a lot of advantages and very few disadvantages. The idea of innate magic ability that make those who have it strictly superior is extremely common, and honestly, it works, but if you want a story where the idea is that anyone have their chance, which is how I interpret the idea of "not just wealthy kids", then Harry Potter is not that. That being said, as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't take anything away from the story, not everything has to be a political statement, and in fact, making a political statement often makes the story worse.

oliwarner 2y ago

But if you look at the corpus of British children's literature from 1900-1980, generally the people who could afford to be authors were white, middle class men. Allowing that generalisations trample all over many superb exceptions, it's not a bad thing to recognise that representation matters. It matter that there be authors that you identify with, even if they aren't writing about you.

vixen99 2y ago
What's the surprise? Not easy to have the time and place to write interesting stories and adventures if you're preoccupied with a physically demanding job so that you can keep warm in the winter, feed yourself and your family and retain adequate accommodation. Generally speaking if you want to do something really significant in some field it's as well if you don't already have it, to ensure your own economic autonomy first. The exceptions are really exceptional people!

miltonlost 2y ago

> Even Kipling is better than the article gives him credit for "You’re a better man than I am, Gunga Din!" No, Kipling was still super racist, even if you can cherry-pick one quote out of his oeuvre and ignore "White-Man's Burden" and like everything else about him. I think you place too much importance on your thinking she places a lot of importance on one line/paragraph out of a much larger essay. > Three British authors! Yes, and the article is from a magazine in the UK, from the London Review of Books? Why would she not focus on British authors then?

TRiG_Ireland 2y ago
Kipling is, I think, in many ways hard to categorise. He loved India and its peoples, and did respect them, but in a rather condescending way. And he definitely believed in the "white man's burden". And yet apparently Kim is popular with Indian intellectuals.

red_admiral 2y ago

> BS, as a non-white kid growing up in 70s and 80s Britain I never felt this. The author thinks people can only identify with characters like themselves, which is condescending. Indeed. I know there has been criticism of Watership Down for gender roles that would apparently make it unappealing to girls - missing the point that Adams originally made it up for his two daughters who loved it so much they forced him to write it down. Also as far as identifying goes, the characters are RABBITS. And the railway children, a story also mentioned in the article, has that scene where the children steal some coal from the railway yard that the family otherwise wouldn't have been able to afford to keep their home warm in winter.

NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago

>Firstly, there are many exceptions. For example, Aravis in CS Lewis's The Horse and His Boy is neither white nor remotely quiet - she is aristocratic. Lewis, being the genius that we're all acquainted with, discovered a subtler truth... that being aristocratic is best of all. Obvious to the aristocrats reading my comment, I think, but Lewis wasn't even landed gentry.