Discuss:
“The artist…must retain the vision which includes angels and dragons and unicorns and all the lovely creatures which our world put in a box and marked Children Only. ~ Madeleine L’Engle, Walking on Water
- Why are supernatural beings considered kids’ stuff?
- What benefit does the adult derive from these “lovely creatures”?
- What do you say to people who think you’re nuts for liking “kids’ stories”?
revgeorge on 
Arabella Figg on 
Fricka on 
Lynn on 
Steve Morrison on 
Ally on 
Joivre on 
Loading ...
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
I like Madeleine L’Engle, though she is not my favorite fantasy writer. I actually like the other two books I’ve read better, where she sometimes talks about the writing process, and mostly talks about her life. (A Circle of Quiet and Friends for the Journey, co-authored with her friend Lucy Shaw) Her insights about writing, for the most part, are better than her actual fantasy books, in my opinion. But that’s probably because I’ve only read the Time books and they have a lot of sci fi mixed with the fantasy, and that’s not really my cup of tea.
But reading the above quote, perhaps that’s the reason she didn’t like Harry Potter. She saw it only as a children’s story and didn’t read enough of it to see that it was so much more. I wonder if it ever surprised her to learn that adults also read her books, and not just as children. I didn’t read the Time books until about a year ago. But from her comments it sounds like she very intentionally wrote for children, whereas Rowling wrote the story that she envisioned and it turned out to appeal to children – and everyone else.
Why are supernatural beings considered kids’ stuff?
Well, I suppose it’s that we are supposed to stop doing kid things when we grow up. However, it’s rather odd that it’s perfectly OK for adults to watch fantasy/sci fi movies. Somehow it’s not OK for us to read about them. Maybe it’s the idea that sometimes kid’s books have pictures and when we were younger it was a sign that you had progressed in your reading when your books no longer had pictures in them.
What benefit does the adult derive from these “lovely creatures”?
I think the real benefit is that it lets us explore things of the real world in a way that we can’t when we only see things through the adult “reality” eyes that we all develope as we grow older. What’s real and what is fantasy is something we all learn, and we should, but it’s the fantasy that gives us insight into our spiritual nature, our emotions. When we lose touch with our own “inner child” we lose more than just the fun of a good story. We lose that ability to imagine something more than what we see in real life; we lose our capacity for hope of a better world. The “lovely creatures” keep us connected to our imagination.
What do you say to people who think you’re nuts for liking “kids’ stories”?
This one is easy for me. I’ve spent so much time working with kids, first as a teacher, then volunteering in classrooms and at day camp for 21 years, that no one thinks it’s odd for me to be interested in kid’s stories. And besides, they all know I’m nuts anyway, so they’re not surprised to learn I love children’s books.
Pat
Pat, L’Engle, of course, is criticizing the “Children Only” label, not saying that there actually should be such a thing; so I obviously think that HP belongs in the “vision” that the artist must retain. But perhaps upon reading the first book alone, she did think that Rowling was targeting only children, and operating under a “children only” mentality? It’s possible, I suppose, that that’s what she meant when she said she didn’t think the first book had anything “under it.”
Thanks Travis for calling them supernatural beings and not imaginary because they’re certainly not imaginary. I watch my children interact with their ‘imaginary’ friends and pets and I get the sneaking suspicion that they can see things I cannot, or have lost the ability to see.
In church I see adults pay more attention to the ‘children’s’ talk than they do the sermon. Everyone (secretly) loves children’s stories. And they often pack a sharper punch than adults’ conversations and stories.
Jesus’ parables were short, pithy, engaging. Almost like children’s stories in their apparent simplicity and vividness. But they get under your skin, or smack you upside the head when you least expect it.
Often children’s stories speak about the aspects of Truth adults are too afraid to go near. In Ring a ring o’ rosy children rehearse the Black Death. Sleeping Beauty describes the battle between Eve/Woman and Satan. And of course HP, the ‘kid’s story’ deals with elements of Truth our society just doesn’t want to acknowledge at the moment.
That’s why I want to read them.
Why are supernatural beings considered kids’ stuff?
I think that line, at least, is getting a bit blurred; thanks in part to Rowling, in larger part to Hollywood. But perhaps that delineation has less to do with the lovely creatures themselves and more to do with our concept of what is “adult”. Stories involving angels and unicorns don’t generally carry either the bitterness or the baseness of entertainment directed at the “mature” audience.
That’s just me brainstorming, though. I could be way off.
What benefit does the adult derive from these “lovely creatures”?
If I had to put it in one word, I’d say “perspective”. An adult novel like Hemingway’s For Whom the Bell Tolls focuses hard on intense human suffering and intense adult pleasure, without drawing a lot of lines around which side anyone ought to take (if I remember correctly; it’s been a few years since I read that.) Harry Potter and other fairy tales, on the other hand, show the battle between good and evil we all fight within ourselves and in the world, and anyone who bothers to look can at the very least take those concepts and put them in the context of whatever morality they recognize. Not that everybody will interpret “good” and “evil” to mean the same set of intents or actions.
What do you say to people who think you’re nuts for liking “kids’ stories”?
Nobody tells me I’m nuts.
They look it now and again, but maybe I’m just so happy about the whole thing they haven’t the heart to argue.
Why are supernatural beings considered kids’ stuff?
Because at some point it’s accepted that you stop believing in them. The Enlightenment has told us these things don’t exist because they cannot be scientifically proven, so it is not logical to believe in them. It’s acceptable to enjoy stories with these elements, but at a distance. For adults, that distance is considering it “Kids’s Stuff.”
What benefit does the adult derive from these “lovely creatures”?
Metaphor, and the ability to remove themselves from a familiar setting. Both of these can have untold benefits. I think part of why fantasy and other genres get stuck as “kids” genres is because the adult has decided that since it cannot be “real,” nothing can be learned from it.
What do you say to people who think you’re nuts for liking “kids’ stories”?
At least “kids” stories and other stories with fantasy have their admissions up front: It’s not every day you’re presented with a man who is so strong he can throw people through multiple walls or his wife who can stretch the length of a football field (even though their story is ultimately about a man and woman attempting to keep their family strong in the midst of change and struggles). Those non-kids stories don’t like to admit they may be pretend: The hottest girl in the room will want to sleep with you simply because you exist, and if it’s a one time hookup the emotional repercussions will be nominal. A lot of “grown up” stories are quite childish in their thinking.