Children's Literature and Literary Theory

~ "And I'll huff and I'll puff
and I'll blow your house down" ~

Is children's literature really as innocent as we may believe?

The talking animals, princesses and the happy endings may fill children with happiness and excitement; however, these stories may have wider implications than the morals we think they teach our children. Literary criticism, today, whether Feminist, Marxist or Psychoanalytical, suggests that there are even cultural and political implications in books for children.

MARXISM AND THE THREE LITTLE PIGS

It may seem that The Three Little Pigs is a simple story which teaches an invaluable moral: Hard work and planning always makes a difference and triumphs over misfortune, in this case the brick using pig triumphs over the wolf. But... is this piece of children's literature really about our oppression in society and how our social status as bourgeoisie or proletariat is determined? There are two main possibilities of Marxist implications in the story of The Three Little Pigs. Consider these reworked versions:

1) The wolf is the government who can control and rule the citizens of the land; in this case, the pigs are an example of the government's power over the population. Due to the power the wolf holds as the government, he is able to help or hinder the pigs in their attempts to build stable homes. The first pig finds that after all his hard work and effort, the wolf destroys his home, virtually leaving him with nothing. A Marxist critic may suggest that this is representative of an unfair Welfare State, as the proletariat work very hard only to further be exploited and gain little or even nothing as a reward.

As the story continues, it seems that the same happens to the second pig, who spends time and effort building his shelter, his haven... his home. Again, a Marxist critic may argue that the welfare and livelihood of the proletariat are not considered by the bourgeoisie, as those with power view the proletariat as a cheap and easy means of labour. However, the ending may be viewed more positively from a Marxist perspective.

The third pig, who went to extra lengths to create his home, manages to survive the threat from the wolf/government, supporting the two other pigs as well. Surprisingly, the pigs manage to completely destroy the wolf as he tries to sneak his way into the house through the chimney. Some Marxist critics would suggest that hard work and effort, along with working together with those in the same situation, often has positive consequences and does pay off, even if it is after several attempts. Although, more left wing Marxists would strongly argue against the story having a positive ending. They may suggest that the only reason the pigs defeated the bourgeoisie was because the third pig was rather rich and powerful himself, much like the bourgeoisie. The third pig could afford to build a large, brick house, whereas the other pigs could only reach to sticks and straw. Furthermore, piggy number three had the means to defeat the wolf because he had such luxuries as a chimney.

2) Although the wolf, rightly so, is always portrayed as the 'bad guy', might it be that there is a more underlying, Marxist reason for his behaviour? When we consider the story from the following Marxist perspective, our visions of an evil, hungry wolf may change.

In this version, the wolf is the proletariat - he is homeless, hungry and fed up of not having access to the basic rights he needs, such as food, shelter and protection from harm. Unfortunately for the wolf, his circumstances have led him to behave in such a way which is damaging to others (in this case, the pigs). The pigs, here, are the bourgeoisie. They are all able to build their own homes, provide for themselves and lead, therefore, a happy and comfortable life.

As the wolf sees the first piggy erecting his home, he feels a wave of jealousy and destroys it - 'After all', he feels, 'If I can't have basic rights, why should the bourgeoisie?' From a Marxist perspective, it may be argued that the wolf, as the proletariat, would not actually have enough power or even energy to be able to destroy something belonging to the bourgeoisie. Marxists would possibly view it as a celebration of proletariat strength. Along with the wolf destroying the second pig's home too, Marxists may suggest that life for the proletariat is becoming more fair - the wolf finally has some of his own control. However, the ending would engulf the positivity of these suggestions.

Once the third pig, the wealthiest of all the bourgeoisie, has built his brick house, the wolf attempts to complete his jealous rage. Although, the brick of the third pig's home is much too strong. The proletariat wolf attempts to force his way inside the home, only to be foiled by the luxuries of the bourgeoisie (specifically, the chimney). The life of the wolf is taken by the pigs, a Marxist metaphor for the bourgeoisie ALWAYS being 'better' and more powerful than the vulnerable proletariat.

La Belle Dame Sans Merci - John Keats

~ I saw pale kings and Princes too,
Pale warriors, death pale were they all;
They cried 'La belle dame sans merci
Thee hath in thrall' ~

 

The beginning of 'La Belle Dame Sans Merci', although not necessarily an event, is very significant. In the poem, it is immediately suggested that the "knight-at-arms" has been enchanted, as he is wandering in a desolate wasteland where the plant life has withered "and no birds sing." The knight is pale and the rose in his cheeks, like the sedge, is withering. As he tries to explain his state to the unknown narrator, he makes us highly suspicious of the lady he encountered. He identifies her as supernatural being a "faery's child". This suggests she may be powerful and able to put people 'under her spell'. The description of the knight is a complete contrast to the stereotypical definition of a knight, in which the adjectives "pale" and "haggard" would not be seen. Our expectations of his character are a strong, handsome knight reflected nowhere in 'La Belle Dame Sans Merci'.

The second significant event in the poem is when the lady takes the knight to her "elfin grot". Here, she lulls the knight to sleep. The past tense verb "lulled" can denote an attempt to calm someone's fears or suspicions by deception, suggesting that La Belle Dame is potentially treacherous. It seems to be confirmed that the "faery's child" has caused the knight's condition in the dream he has of the "pale kings and princes too". Therefore, she is presented as a femme fatale - a femme fatale conventionally tempts men with her beauty, and we are informed that she is "full beautiful". She, then, ultimately causes his destruction. However, it is the knight who tells the story and who describes the lady. As we are only offered his interpretation, we do not see the lady's perspective - when reading the poem from her perspective, there is no clear evidence to suggest that she is a femme fatale, suggesting that the knight may not be a helpless victim. The word "lulled" has another meaning, to innocently mean to soothe with soft sounds and motions, as a mother might soother her child to sleep. Therefore, we may read the poem as a representation of a patriarchal society.

 

An Unstamped Letter in Our Rural Letterbox - Robert Frost

~ No, in your rural letter box
I leave this note without a stamp
To tell you it was just a tramp ~

In An Unstamped Letter in Our Rural Letter Box, Frost constructs a narrative to tell the story of a tramp who spends a night in a pasture, on a farmer’s land, and experiences an epiphany, despite his dark, hostile surroundings. The homeless man experiences two stars conjoining, which encourages the moment of revelation and he leaves a letter in the farmer’s letterbox. The poem also has a wider narrative of positions and roles of people and objects in the universe and our perception of them.

There are several aspects of narrative that play a part in allowing the reader to understand the poem and relating to the wider narrative constructed. Characterisation is a key aspect of narrative in An Unstamped Letter in Our Rural Letter Box. The beginning of the poem displays the homeless man as worthless and inferior: “To tell you it was just a tramp”. The keyword ‘just’ implies that the man feels that he does not have an important position in society and maybe that he is useless. This also links to the wider narrative, as in a world where prejudice is rife, it is a given that a homeless person may feel outcast and like a ‘nobody’ in society as he does not meet social expectations. This is also evident at the end of the poem in the line “Myself, in forma pauperis” which translates as ‘in the form of a pauper’. The fact that he addresses himself as in the form of a pauper, rather than admitting that he is, after his epiphany, shows that he realises he is of some value and does have a place in society. It also suggests that our perception of others can have an impact upon them and make them feel that they are of no worth in the universe. This also links to the wider narrative – along the path of our lives in the vast universe, we may be perceived by others in different ways. These perceptions may be distorted and wrong, putting us down and making us feel worthless; furthermore, it could leave us feeling unsure of our role in society. However, these hardships may encourage us to experience a revelation and fully understand and realise our position and purpose in the universe.

Another important aspect of narrative is scenes and places. The homeless man’s epiphany is brought on by “two stars having coalesced”. The natural beauty of the stars may have encouraged him to appreciate the world around us and realise that being homeless doesn’t matter so much when we are blessed to have a world as beautiful as it is. This links to the wider narrative of the role of objects in the universe; nature (the stars) has a great influence on human perception and can allow us to comprehend situations and their meaning or purpose. The homeless man’s description of the stars, “The largest firedrop ever formed”, contrasts with his situation. The keyword ‘firedrop’ evokes the thought of warmth and therefore comfort, however the man is sleeping outside in a cold, harsh climate. Although, experiencing the two stars joining together makes his perception of the world different as he no longer views it as such a bad place, even for someone who is homeless: “And then your tramp astrologer”. An astrologer is someone who uses the stars to find meaning and signs about our journey in life, suggesting that the tramp is able to find meaning in his situation. Ironically, the homeless man asks for forgiveness “if [he] seems to boast”. Being a tramp must be extremely difficult and miserable, but he seems to be fine with his circumstances, suggesting that he now has a better understanding of the world and his life’s experiences have made him a better person. His whole perception of the world appears to have changed, linking to the wider narrative, just because he experienced a moment of intense, natural beauty.

The Great Gatsby

Then wear the gold hat, if it will move her;
                If you can bounce high, bounce for her too;
Till she cry ‘Lover, gold-hatted, high bouncing lover,
                I must have you!’

Thomas Parke D’invilliers

The Great Gatsby is a fictional representation of 1920s America – consumerism, colour and chaos. Fitzgerald’s writing is evocative, highlighting the darker side of the Jazz Age and the apparent illusion that was the American Dream.

Jay Gatsby is a powerful vessel, embodying all the aspects of the American Dream – money, wealth and popularity. Gatsby’s values do not appear to lie beyond the American Dream, as he hosts extravagant parties without a care in the world. There is an air of mystery about Jay Gatsby, as his background is unclear. There is much gossip about him, with a common rumour suggesting that he has killed a man. Even Nick, Gatsby’s only real friend, states that young men didn’t just ‘drift coolly out of nowhere and buy a palace on Long Island Sound.’ But Gatsby’s frivolity is soon uncovered. The reality is that Gatsby is simply trying to win over a past lover, Daisy Buchanan.

Daisy is solely influenced by materialism. Daisy claims to love Gatsby, but, after his death, she turns to her everyday affairs with her husband, Tom Buchanan, and ignores the tragic events that have taken place. It may be that Daisy’s love for Gatsby is idealised and the fact that her main desire is wealth has influenced her view of their romance. Furthermore, as Daisy seems to be stuck in an unhappy marriage with Tom (who is involved in an affair with Myrtle, who Daisy eventually kills), it may be that she just loves being adored and fawned over.

The main characters in the novel illustrate the corruption that was produced as a result of the unhealthy greed many Americans had, in the decade of the 20s. Fitzgerald uncovers the beauty and the horror of the 1920s through Gatsby. The novel is bipolar and this emphasises the harsh reality of the decade.

I would recommend reading The Great Gatsby, as Fitzgerald’s writing is captivating. His own experiences of the time are highlighted in the novel, through his understanding of the corruption beneath the illusional ‘roaring’ 20s.