mark_asphodel (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
mark_asphodel) wrote2011-12-27 04:47 pm
mark_asphodel) wrote2011-12-27 04:47 pm
Entry tags:
In Celebration of Magic
Discussion on Raphi's LJ on relatable characters and Harry Potter and such made me want to dive back into the "magic" books that enthralled me as a child.
See, I wasn't remotely charmed by the first two HP books, and other acclaimed modern series like His Dark Materials really haven't worked for me. I grew up reading the sort of books that are the foundation of kiddie fantasy lit, like the E. Nesbit Psammead trilogy, not to mention lots of Roald Dahl. If that's what you start out reading, J.K. Rowling and her generation don't seem like much of anything special. Now, I think Rowling got her groove on with Prisoner of Azkaban, which actually got me invested in her series and characters, but the first two books are pretty standard school-story formula with bonus Dalhian grotesquerie, IMO.
[I also realize that part of the cultural impact of the Potter books was that, for many kids, that was the first series of books they ever read or wanted to read. That's a valuable role. They were NOT the first books I ever read and that's all I have to say about that angle.]
Not that derivative works can't be amazing.
The #1 fantasy series of my childhood, the books of Edward Eager, wears its Nesbit influence openly, proudly. The books are intentional "gateway drugs" to the works of the woman that Eager called the "Master" of their trade. The seven books that Eager penned for children are a positive celebration of the power of literature, from Plato to Sir Walter Scott to Longfellow to Laura Ingalls Wilder. Prose and poetry transport the children as powerfully as the magic does-- the magic is often a portal into the fictional worlds they love. His characters are, in essence, little proto-fanficcers, trying to hook up Ivanhoe with Rebecca and Laurie with Jo because it's better that way! To fully appreciate the worlds that Eager constructs, it really helps to know what he's building upon, and I don't consider that a shortcoming of the books in the slightest. Reading Eager drove me to pursue the works of Nesbit and Alcott (thumbs up) and to read Ivanhoe and Evangeline (thumbs down, way down); they make themselves part of a literary tradition that stretches back to ancient Greece and Babylon.
That wasn't enough to make the books great, though. The prose style is clear and engaging, humorous and memorable (I can quote many passages from memory, with relish), and the characters are some of the best and most convincing children in Stateside kiddie lit. Boys and girls shine alike in Eager's books, and they were children I could sympathize with, children who loved reading as much as I did. Eager doesn't fall into the trap of making the "active" kid, the "motherly" kid, the "bookish" kid, and the "stupid" kid. All the kids (except Gordy from Magic or Not?) are bright, curious, engaged with the world around them. I was completely in tune with them-- with Ann when she orders pickled mangoes in the Pullman car, with Mark when he gets excited about a town called Angola because he recognizes the name from his stamp collection, with Laura and James when they discuss why their parents didn't buy the house where George Washington slept. And I was with them when they were being bratty and petty and occasionally cruel, because they were, well, kids.
The books aren't perfect. Artifacts of their time, they have some depictions of Arabs and "cannibals" that were still borderline acceptable in my 1980s childhood but are decidedly not so today. But for 1950s kiddie lit, the evenhanded portrayal of boys and girls, sisters and brothers and friends-- intelligent, active, independent, interesting kids-- is pretty impressive. Eager's standout character is probably Roger, the main hero of Knight's Castle, which might be the best book of the seven, but the supporting cast (with the possible exception of Gordy) is always solid and memorable. I loved characters like Roger and Mark, bookish boys who weren't in any sense the "nerds" that filled 1980s TV and movies, and I equally loved poetry-quoting Katherine, artsy Lydia, headstrong little Martha and her future daughter Ann.
[I was less sympathetic toward "bossy" types Eliza and Jane; as a very bossy child, I think I resented the accuracy of the portrayals! But I warmed up to them, and to the "stoic leader" character James as I grew older.]
Eager's books were not available for a long time, if I recall. I grew up reading my mother's battered old copies. They were re-issued when I was in university, and judging from the increase in "web presence" from 2000 (one little fansite) to today (articles, blogs, Amazon reviews) they've penetrated more of the public consciousness. I hope so.
If I have children, I may or may not insist upon introducing them to Harry Potter. I'm still deeply ambivalent about a series that, IMO, peaked in the third of seven installments. But I will definitely be reading them Half-Magic and Knight's Castle when they're tots, and then Magic or Not? when they're a little older and can handle its harder-edged, more ambiguous take on magic. I want them to have the same "friends" that I did as a child-- not Harry, Hermione, and Ron, but Roger and Ann, James and Laura, Mark and Katherine.
I want them to experience Edward Eager's "gateway" into literature-- not a portal into one sealed-off world ruled by a single author, but a thousand different doors and windows into all that myth and history, prose, and poetry can offer.
See, I wasn't remotely charmed by the first two HP books, and other acclaimed modern series like His Dark Materials really haven't worked for me. I grew up reading the sort of books that are the foundation of kiddie fantasy lit, like the E. Nesbit Psammead trilogy, not to mention lots of Roald Dahl. If that's what you start out reading, J.K. Rowling and her generation don't seem like much of anything special. Now, I think Rowling got her groove on with Prisoner of Azkaban, which actually got me invested in her series and characters, but the first two books are pretty standard school-story formula with bonus Dalhian grotesquerie, IMO.
[I also realize that part of the cultural impact of the Potter books was that, for many kids, that was the first series of books they ever read or wanted to read. That's a valuable role. They were NOT the first books I ever read and that's all I have to say about that angle.]
Not that derivative works can't be amazing.
The #1 fantasy series of my childhood, the books of Edward Eager, wears its Nesbit influence openly, proudly. The books are intentional "gateway drugs" to the works of the woman that Eager called the "Master" of their trade. The seven books that Eager penned for children are a positive celebration of the power of literature, from Plato to Sir Walter Scott to Longfellow to Laura Ingalls Wilder. Prose and poetry transport the children as powerfully as the magic does-- the magic is often a portal into the fictional worlds they love. His characters are, in essence, little proto-fanficcers, trying to hook up Ivanhoe with Rebecca and Laurie with Jo because it's better that way! To fully appreciate the worlds that Eager constructs, it really helps to know what he's building upon, and I don't consider that a shortcoming of the books in the slightest. Reading Eager drove me to pursue the works of Nesbit and Alcott (thumbs up) and to read Ivanhoe and Evangeline (thumbs down, way down); they make themselves part of a literary tradition that stretches back to ancient Greece and Babylon.
That wasn't enough to make the books great, though. The prose style is clear and engaging, humorous and memorable (I can quote many passages from memory, with relish), and the characters are some of the best and most convincing children in Stateside kiddie lit. Boys and girls shine alike in Eager's books, and they were children I could sympathize with, children who loved reading as much as I did. Eager doesn't fall into the trap of making the "active" kid, the "motherly" kid, the "bookish" kid, and the "stupid" kid. All the kids (except Gordy from Magic or Not?) are bright, curious, engaged with the world around them. I was completely in tune with them-- with Ann when she orders pickled mangoes in the Pullman car, with Mark when he gets excited about a town called Angola because he recognizes the name from his stamp collection, with Laura and James when they discuss why their parents didn't buy the house where George Washington slept. And I was with them when they were being bratty and petty and occasionally cruel, because they were, well, kids.
The books aren't perfect. Artifacts of their time, they have some depictions of Arabs and "cannibals" that were still borderline acceptable in my 1980s childhood but are decidedly not so today. But for 1950s kiddie lit, the evenhanded portrayal of boys and girls, sisters and brothers and friends-- intelligent, active, independent, interesting kids-- is pretty impressive. Eager's standout character is probably Roger, the main hero of Knight's Castle, which might be the best book of the seven, but the supporting cast (with the possible exception of Gordy) is always solid and memorable. I loved characters like Roger and Mark, bookish boys who weren't in any sense the "nerds" that filled 1980s TV and movies, and I equally loved poetry-quoting Katherine, artsy Lydia, headstrong little Martha and her future daughter Ann.
[I was less sympathetic toward "bossy" types Eliza and Jane; as a very bossy child, I think I resented the accuracy of the portrayals! But I warmed up to them, and to the "stoic leader" character James as I grew older.]
Eager's books were not available for a long time, if I recall. I grew up reading my mother's battered old copies. They were re-issued when I was in university, and judging from the increase in "web presence" from 2000 (one little fansite) to today (articles, blogs, Amazon reviews) they've penetrated more of the public consciousness. I hope so.
If I have children, I may or may not insist upon introducing them to Harry Potter. I'm still deeply ambivalent about a series that, IMO, peaked in the third of seven installments. But I will definitely be reading them Half-Magic and Knight's Castle when they're tots, and then Magic or Not? when they're a little older and can handle its harder-edged, more ambiguous take on magic. I want them to have the same "friends" that I did as a child-- not Harry, Hermione, and Ron, but Roger and Ann, James and Laura, Mark and Katherine.
I want them to experience Edward Eager's "gateway" into literature-- not a portal into one sealed-off world ruled by a single author, but a thousand different doors and windows into all that myth and history, prose, and poetry can offer.
no subject
But I think the books are still enjoyable, in the same way the Star Wars movies are (probably) still enjoyable. (I haven't seen the original trilogy, oops.) If nothing else, there are piles of people to talk about it with, even if it isn't the same shiny new discussion. :D
no subject
When I was a young kid eeeeeeeveryone talked about the...uh... oh! the Power Rangers. I literally had no idea what that crap was about (and when I found out I thought it was stupid-- I was such a nerdy little weirdo I thought little House on the Prairie was cooler okay) and I could not discuss or play "let's be power rangers" with my peers. <--one of the reasons I was a friendless bookworm, probably. I had NOTHING in common with these kids.
I imagine HP must have been the same way for a lot of folks. It's a LOT more fun when you can speculate and squee over things with friends! Which is why FE fandom > the actual FE games. Not that the games aren't good-- but if I had nobody to talk with about them...the squeeing would end after a few days of beating the game and shutting it off, most likely.