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.