I read (and write about) children's literature because so many works reflect so much weird stuff in the world. The Emperor's New Clothes? Anxieties about transparent government. Babar the Elephant? The opportunities from translating local culture to oppressors (a green suit!. Maria Edgeworth's "A Purple Jar"? The anxieties of menstruation and teaching it to growing girls.
"And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,
And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven."
(Also - the 'opaque' critics often seem to think the degree of opacity they can muster in what they themselves have to say is some sort of measure of insightfulness. I have never understood that. It outsources the burden of understanding to their readers - like how a gull thrusts semi-digested food down a chick's throat. And we often chirp appreciation in response.)
Very apposite! I know what you mean but I think opaque criticism is done like that so there’s a way of talking about technical things like genre etc in a unified way, though it can be a struggle for the common reader if you don’t know the lingo (many scowling hours I have spent piecing such things together and still I find things I do not know!). The quoted sentence about King Lear for example gets more and more insightful the more you know about the back ground of its terminology. I prefer criticism that blends the two, and that explains patiently to me what I don’t know, but that’s a big ask!
There's certainly a place for commentary of that kind, I agree. In both cases, however, clarity is the key. In the case of 'opaque' criticism and critics, they sometimes tend to opacity of a sort that sheds very little light. A few of my friends at college some decades ago seemed to wear the post-structuralist canon in order to better wear snazzy black turtleneck sweaters. The latter no longer fit, and arguably the former never did in the first place.
I watched a bunch of the BBC Narnia adaptations when I was a kid in the early 90s. They did the furthest thing from ruining the books for me. I'm not quite trying to argue with your resolution about the movies, but if you hadn't heard of these, you might consider at least knowing about them.
My husband read Charlotte's Web to our children when they were little. He would come in so excited about the story. I had more fun watching him to that.
I read (and write about) children's literature because so many works reflect so much weird stuff in the world. The Emperor's New Clothes? Anxieties about transparent government. Babar the Elephant? The opportunities from translating local culture to oppressors (a green suit!. Maria Edgeworth's "A Purple Jar"? The anxieties of menstruation and teaching it to growing girls.
I’m going to be writing more about children’s literature and this is one of my topics!
"And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,
And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven."
(Also - the 'opaque' critics often seem to think the degree of opacity they can muster in what they themselves have to say is some sort of measure of insightfulness. I have never understood that. It outsources the burden of understanding to their readers - like how a gull thrusts semi-digested food down a chick's throat. And we often chirp appreciation in response.)
Very apposite! I know what you mean but I think opaque criticism is done like that so there’s a way of talking about technical things like genre etc in a unified way, though it can be a struggle for the common reader if you don’t know the lingo (many scowling hours I have spent piecing such things together and still I find things I do not know!). The quoted sentence about King Lear for example gets more and more insightful the more you know about the back ground of its terminology. I prefer criticism that blends the two, and that explains patiently to me what I don’t know, but that’s a big ask!
There's certainly a place for commentary of that kind, I agree. In both cases, however, clarity is the key. In the case of 'opaque' criticism and critics, they sometimes tend to opacity of a sort that sheds very little light. A few of my friends at college some decades ago seemed to wear the post-structuralist canon in order to better wear snazzy black turtleneck sweaters. The latter no longer fit, and arguably the former never did in the first place.
I watched a bunch of the BBC Narnia adaptations when I was a kid in the early 90s. They did the furthest thing from ruining the books for me. I'm not quite trying to argue with your resolution about the movies, but if you hadn't heard of these, you might consider at least knowing about them.
My husband read Charlotte's Web to our children when they were little. He would come in so excited about the story. I had more fun watching him to that.
I grew up on The Thirteen Clocks - wonderful book for kids! My edition also included Thurber's The Wonderful O.