When I was a kid, I always felt vaguely humiliated that my life didn't work like the lives of the protagonists of my books. They got to have their own independent adventures. They got to go to the park or walk in the woods or go to a friend's house or be home alone, all without adult supervision. Sometimes they even bought things at stores or went to the library or went to the doctor without an adult. And I wasn't allowed to do anything! What was wrong with me? Why wasn't I worthy of this basic human independence that all my protagonists got to enjoy??
Reading a recent article where "free range" children got picked up by the police, I find myself wondering how 21st-century kids feel about this.
I was feeling humiliated because my parents wouldn't allow me the freedom of the protagonists in my books, but today it's even worse - it's not just that your parents say no, it's that the police will come and arrest you! (Yes, the police didn't technically arrest the kids, but I'm sure it feels to the kids like they did.)
But then it occurred to me that maybe this very serious sense of "You can't go to the park alone or the police will come and arrest you" might actually make it feel less bad for the kids. It's not that you aren't allowed because you aren't good enough, it's that no one is allowed because it's against the law. But, on the other hand, that might just cause confusion. Peter and Jane did it, so why can't I? If it's against the law, why didn't the policeman arrest Peter and Jane when he was talking to them?
Another possibility that I hadn't considered is that children's books may have caught up with reality. Perhaps the protagonists of today's children's books are supervised at all times? That would certainly make it more difficult to come up with a workable story, but so do cellphones and they appear in fiction. (Or maybe that's why so many of my early children's books were populated by anthropomorphic animals living in the quaint, non-specific past?)
This all made me realize that children's books are in fact the original media that influences impressionable children! People always talk about TV and movies and video games, but far, far more of my idea of How The World Is or Should Be were formed by the books I read at a very young age. I think I was far more influenced by the idea that I should be able to ride a zebra because that's what a character in a book was doing than by anything I saw on TV.
5 comments:
The freedom those protagonists have, all those adventures, is a way for young readers to experience risk and freedom vicariously. (The same goes for adults and many fantasy or action books and movies.)
That's how it's supposed to work, anyway. The book, even if it's a "realistic" novel (as opposed to fantasy), it's still a fantasy for the person reading it.
For kids and teens, it's supposed to be a safe way to imagine different scenarios, think about what you would do, test your courage, etc etc, without actually leaving safety.
I grew up in a time when kids had more freedom and more unstructured play time, but still no one had the kind of solo adventures that kids had in our books. I was envious of the kids in those books.
Children's books don't usually reflect helicopter parenting, though - not that I've seen, anyway.
I legit never knew that solo adventures weren't realistic in the past! I kind of felt like they must be realistic, because they're treated so matter-of-factly and not commented upon. (Like how if everyone in every book is shown in passing eating cake for breakfast without anyone actually making any sort of big deal out of it, you'd think it's normal for people to eat cake for breakfast.)
I guess now the gulf between reader and protagonist is even greater. Plus the adventures have gotten wilder. Compare Eloise or Harriet the Spy to Percy Jackson!
I had to google Percy Jackson, but yeah, that's a whole other level of adventure!
Post a Comment