A former UK children’s laureate is calling on authors to make children’s lit nicer. No, really! Honestly, she’s totally saying that. I don’t want to get all esoteric here in my rebuttal and make this an academic argument with too fine a point on it, but isn’t this THE MOST RETARDED THING YOU’VE EVER HEARD?
Too often they tended to veer towards bleak “realism” that had gone “too far”, which gave youngsters little hope and little aspiration, the best selling author commented.
While Fine insisted that she was not advocating a return to books with a “Blyton-ish view of things”, she said she was worried about the effects that so many downbeat stories were having on children.
Speaking at an event organised by Children in Scotland, called Compelling Novels, Vulnerable Children, she told The Times: “In the Fifties, when a strong child was dealing with difficult circumstances, there was always a rescue at the end of the book and it was always a middle-class rescue.
“The child would win a scholarship to Rodean or something, and go on to do very well. That was felt to be unrealistic and so there was a move away from that. Books for children became much more concerned with realism, or what we see as realism.
“But where is the hope? How do we offer them hope within that? It may be that realism has gone too far in literature for children. I am not sure that we are opening doors for children who read these books, or helping them to develop their aspirations.”
Jesus H. McGillicutty Christ. Your ideal is the Fifties? Need I remind you that the children of that decade are the Boomers currently in charge of the planet? Case closed.