Children's Books: American vs. British

[galanx]

A new article in the Atlantic on the difference between American and British children's books.
(Note: the author doesn't say better; that's the editor or whoever's responsible for the title).

If Harry Potter and Huckleberry Finn were each to represent British versus American children’s literature, a curious dynamic would emerge: In a literary duel for the hearts and minds of children, one is a wizard-in-training at a boarding school in the Scottish Highlands, while the other is a barefoot boy drifting down the Mississippi, beset by con artists, slave hunters, and thieves. One defeats evil with a wand, the other takes to a raft to right a social wrong. Both orphans took over the world of English-language children’s literature, but their stories unfold in noticeably different ways.

The small island of Great Britain is an undisputed powerhouse of children’s bestsellers: The Wind in the Willows, Alice in Wonderland, Winnie-the-Pooh, Peter Pan, The Hobbit, James and the Giant Peach, Harry Potter, and The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. Significantly, all are fantasies. Meanwhile, the United States, also a major player in the field of children’s classics, deals much less in magic. Stories like Little House in the Big Woods, The Call of the Wild, Charlotte’s Web, The Yearling, Little Women, and The Adventures of Tom Sawyer are more notable for their realistic portraits of day-to-day life in the towns and farmlands on the growing frontier.

Why the British Tell Better Children’s Stories

There is a current of truth in this, but the author basically mucks it up by carelessly comparing across genres, ages and times, as if it's okay to not bother with this because, hey, kids are kids, right?

I mean can you imagine doing this by comparing Dickens to Toni Morrison as typical British and US writers; or Melville and Ian McEwan?

 

[Brian G Turner]

Yeah, comparing an early 19th century story to a late 20th century one is probably not the wisest comparison. The themes in Tom Sawyer would have been relevant to Mark Twain's original audience.

 

[aThenian]

I've heard the "British write fantasy, Americans write realism" thing repeated quite often re children's books.

It may be true that there's more history, folklore etc in the UK and so that enriches the tradition of fantasy writing.

But I also think it's an American-centric view. I think British fantasy gains a readier audience in the US than British realism, because children probably prefer "realistic" stories set within their own culture - after all the whole point of them is that they reflect ordinary life. I suspect for that reason many "realistic" British authors don't do well in the States - e.g. Jacqueline Wilson, who is enormously popular in the UK, and who writes about contemporary children and ordinary life.

But equally, in Britain, children don't particularly turn to American authors when they want real-life stories - yes, there are classics like Little Women, The Little House on the Prairie etc, but I'd still say most-read authors of realistic stories are British. Maybe one exception to that when I was growing up was Judy Blume, because she tackled issues like puberty that were largely ignored by contemporary British authors at the time, but otherwise I'd say that British kids are probably reading a fair amount of American books (unsurprisingly) but not gravitating towards "realistic" ones any more than fantasy. To put it another way, I think British kids are probably just as likely to be reading Earthsea or Wrinkle in Time as "realistic" books like Judy Moody or Ramona and Beezus. (And I doubt British kids have been reading Mark Twain in any numbers for a LONG time.)

So the "Brits write fantasy, American write realism" thing might seem true if you were browsing an American library, but wouldn't in a British library.

(Having said all that, I'm a huge fan of certain American realist writers and think their work is not as well as well known in the UK as it should be - I especially love the humour of writers like Blume, Beverley Cleary, Barbara Robinson etc. But if you referred to their work as classic I think a lot of people actually wouldn't know who they were.)

 

[aThenian]

A new article in the Atlantic on the difference between American and British children's books.
(Note: the author doesn't say better; that's the editor or whoever's responsible for the title).
There is a current of truth in this, but the author basically mucks it up by carelessly comparing across genres, ages and times, as if it's okay to not bother with this because, hey, kids are kids, right?

Oh yes, and one author that the article totally leaves out is E. Nesbit (British). She was huge, probably one of the most influential fantasy writers (had a big influence on CS Lewis for example) and her fantasy is of exactly the kind that the piece is claiming is typically American rather than British - i.e. domestic, very much grounded in ordinary kids and ordinary everyday life.

 

[hitmouse]

The flaw in the article is the extremely selective examples used, in order to justify the thesis.
Where is Arthur Ransome, or Enid Blyton?
Where is Robert Heinlein, or Percy Jackson?
I am sure I could go on.

 

[aThenian]

The flaw in the article is the extremely selective examples used, in order to justify the thesis.
Where is Arthur Ransome, or Enid Blyton?
Where is Robert Heinlein, or Percy Jackson?

Yes, Enid Blyton is a good example - British, and wrote loads of "realistic" (well, sort of) children's books, which were immensely successful in the UK (still are) but not so known in the States. She also wrote a lot of fantasy (Magic Faraway Tree, one of the UK's favourite ever children's books) which again, don't fit the model of "British fantasy" writing described in the article - not at all rooted in the landscape, or folklore, history or legend. (An aside - apparently she got the idea of the Faraway Tree from Yggdrasil the World Tree but I must say, you'd never pick that up reading the book).

And Swallows and Amazons - yes, the prime example of the sort of outdoorsy camping/tramping realistic book which was incredibly popular in the children's fiction in the UK mid century, but obviously doesn't fit with the scheme of the article.

Percy Jackson - yes indeed - very popular in the UK as well as the UK (unlike some of the realist American books mentioned in the article - e.g. Sarah Plain and Tall which I doubt most Brits have ever heard of.)

I also thought the "Americans aren't interested in aristocrats" line was pretty funny - how about Frances Hodgson Burnett (Little Lord Fauntleroy), the Princess Diaries or the fact that a British film or actor massively more likely to get an Oscar if they are playing a Royal, not to mention Downton Abbey...I'd argue American are, and always have been, fascinated by aristocracy.

 

[tinkerdan]

It's an interesting article; but starting out comparing British fantasy to the more realistic American fiction novels seems more an apples and oranges thing to me.

It does eventually start comparing fantasy to fantasy and I would give a nod to some of those points.

By the time I reached the end of the article I was lost as to what the real point being made was and that lost me in being able to determine just how close or far off their notions were.

But I do tend to get confused easily.

 

[aThenian]

Also the Wind In the Willows is cited as British fantasy, and Charlotte's Web as among the "realistic portraits of day-to-day life". They are both talking animals stories.

And why is Caleb, 8 the one kid that gets to give an opinion... Yes, it's all confusing.