In this look at Australian librarians’ taste in children’s literature we see that things down under are pretty much the same as in the States. Ugh. In regards to Enid Blyton, the article claims:
Blyton has no place in contemporary Australian children’s literature. She has been killed off by political correctness and altruistic school librarians. Blyton is an anathema but curiously not to children. Australian children didn’t drift away from Enid Blyton. They were told not to read her.
Australian children’s fiction is a lot more explicit, less funny, less friendly and family oriented than Blyton’s English world….
Some librarians and booksellers, can do more harm than good by suggesting children read beyond their years and experience for the sake of a good book. Moreover, some children who are thrust books about dysfunctional families, abusive parents, incest, same-sex relationships, drug addiction or adoption can be confused and emotionally destabilised.
If a child wants to read Enid Blyton, Biggles or Anne of Green Gables they should not have to feel that they are somehow missing out.
Blyton’s books are still relevant to some Australian children and the reason is clear. The Famous Five took risks and did stuff. They did not sit in front of television to be entertained. Blyton offers escapism and novelty. Moreover, the Famous Five children were happy. For some children, this is an appealing fantasy.
Enid Blyton “is one of the most successful childrens writers ever. Her prolific output of 700 books has been translated into more than 40 languages and sold in excess of 400 million copies worldwide.”
Another article says, “She could write 10,000 words a day, which enabled her to keep her prodigous output. In 1940 eleven books were published under her name,” so it’s not too surprising to read further, that, “In the 1950s and 1960s Blyton was attacked by critics and librarians imposed sanctions on her writings owing to the books’ limited vocabulary. Main target for anti-Blytons was Noddy, ‘the most egocentric, joyless, snivelling and pious anti-hero in the history of British fiction.’ Rumours were spread, that she did not write all her stories.”
I’m reading all this and thinking that her work must be something like Hardy Boys/Nancy Drew stuff. I’m thinking anything written this fast has to be poor quality, and I’m not recommending them. (Though I am going to buy one to see for myself.) What I am doing is remarking on the fact that readers don’t necessarily want same-sex and suicide. They don’t necessarily want real and gritty and edgy when they read novels. Many of them want the stories about the happy elf family that Lemony Snicket urges us to try.
Ideally? I think we need to deal with today’s issues using plenty of humor along the way and in a way that leaves the reader full of hope. I don’t agree with librarians who think that suicidal homosexual kids need to have literary heroes who come out the closet and have wonderful sexual romps. What suicidal homosexual kids need in literary heroes are High Kings like Peter, and repentant brothers and cousins, like Edmund and Eustace.
To glorify sinful sex in books aimed at the sexually sinful is like giving a bunch of thieves books that glorify stealing. What’s the good in that? Why not give them books that tell them to quit stealing and be noble? Why not stir up longings for God in their little hearts by giving them heroes that are noble, and honest, and true?
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
