In Celebration of Magic
Dec. 27th, 2011 04:47 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mark_asphodelDiscussion 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
Date: 2011-12-27 11:40 pm (UTC)I'm sure that's a tremendous part of it-- being "in the middle" of it, speculating how it'll all shake out...
I'd rather chew off my hand than read the first two installments aloud to a child, though.
I was SO disappointed by HDM, as it came to me with many, many passionate recommendations. I didn't really like either of the kids and by the end I just didn't give a damn about anyone except the woman who made the amber spyglass. I actually gave the trilogy away, and I don't GIVE books away. Compared with the kids from the Psammead books, or the Eager books, or The Thursday Kidnapping, Lyra and Will felt so... unreal. I never bonded with them as characters.
I wanted to make spoiler T-shirts like the "Dumbledore Dies on Page Whatever" except saying "God Dies on Page Whatever," I really did.
Slap Bridge to Terabithia in there as well, while you're at it.
That was such a god-damn bait and switch. It made me very angry.
no subject
Date: 2011-12-28 12:10 am (UTC)But pffft, that would be kind of excellent. I'm not at all surprised it didn't do well in film form, though.
Even as a first grader, I felt cheated by Terabithia. Killing off characters=/=deep great literature, world.
no subject
Date: 2011-12-28 01:11 am (UTC)Killing off characters=/=deep great literature, world.
It's just a more sophisticated version of A Taste of Blackberries-- the only real value is to teach kids that random terrible things happen.
no subject
Date: 2011-12-28 04:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-12-28 05:09 pm (UTC)