Death Of Children 's Literature

Children’s literature is the precedent for the development of all children. Children’s literature varies from poetry to children’s picture books. Every aspect of children’s literature gives an ability to grow a child mentally and develop their ideas and imagination. In early literature, children were romanized to be perfect and well behaved. Author Maurice Sendak counters the idea of a perfect child in his book “Where The Wild Things Are”. Sendak uses his picture book to illustrate a child’s ability to have feelings of anger, resentment, and frustration. The interviewer, Patrick F. Roughen of Red Feather Journal states that“Where the Wild Things Are (1963) contains some of the earliest attempts in children’s literature to represent the intrapsychic challenges of the lives of children. Anger, frustration, and the complexities of parent-child relationships can be found throughout its pages”. “Where the Wild Things Are” reinforces the idea that children are capable of emotions that one would imagine are only depicted in the adult world.

According to the American Library Association (ALA), young adult novels are challenged with the best intentions. In most cases a parent will read a book that their child might be reading in class to find out if the book is hazardous to their child’s well-being. If the novel seems problematic, the parent then challenges the book. Even though the purpose of challenging a novel is to keep children from reading about issues that may not be seen as appropriate for their age group, censoring children from difficult subject matter is not always the solution. There is always controversy when difficult issues arise in adolescent geared novels. Even though there are many concerns with Lois Lowry’s The Giver,

It is agreed that if an author is stating his assertion to a topic, then he should incorporate what the opposing view has to say; therefore, without the other view he writes nothing but fallacies. However, in Gurdon’s case she offers support from the other side allowing them to state their claim. She recognizes the use of first person in these particular YA books, permitting the reader to take on the “persona of the narrator” (Gurdon 2). Then, she detects the claim of the book industry writing that “kids have a right to read whatever they want” and that “the world is a tough place; and that there’s no point shielding children from reality” (Gurdon 3). Refuting this assertion she calls out the incorrect logic of the claim stating that in other words the authority adults have over the content children absorb should “somehow vaporize when it comes in contact with the printed word” (Gurdon 3). The things children read teach them what to presume about the world around them, and that “books don’t just cater to tastes. They form tastes” (Gurdon 4). Subsequently, she offers her proposal that people associated with the publication of books would “exercise better taste” (Gurdon 2) than that of every teen experience. The comprehension of Gurdon’s claim becomes clearer after integrating the opposing view and using it to support her

In doing so, parents feel as if they are guarding their children of knowledge that their children may not be capable of handling. Originally, dystopian novels such as The Giver were solely written for adults. Many parents feel that Lois Lowry’s The Giver attracts attention to taboo issues such as sex, drugs and infanticide. Ironically, children will inevitably learn about these topics through exposure, regardless of how hard parents try to shelter them from reality. Lois Lowry sheds a light on these topics in hopes of eliciting conversation among children. It is ridiculous to censor The Giver; it handles these topics in an engaging and appropriate manner designed to make readers think. It is important to allow children to acknowledge and understand these topics in a healthy and safe manner, rather than through potentially dangerous

In the past five years, children’s literature has had many common themes. Bullying has been a popular subject of interest at all levels of reading. This trend reflects a rising concern about cyberbullying and the sometimes dramatic effects it can have on a child’s life. Writers and parents are making an effort to show children that what they do to their peers has real consequences and to be mindful with their words and actions. Another popular subject is dystopian futures. This interest is in part due to the success of The Hunger Games trilogy, children have become interested in the future of their planet.

From the very beginnings of literature, the act of banning books has long been a heated controversy. While almost everyone can say that there are definitely books that they do not want their children reading, the line between what is acceptable and what is not is much harder to define, especially in today’s world. In “How Banning Books Marginalizes Children” (2016), Paul Ringel argues that the current policy of banning books has had a negative impact on children because it has conveyed a message that rebuffs diversity and has contradicted the fact that the power to ban books should be used to “curate children’s choices with the goals of inspiring rather than obscuring new ideas.”

Throughout time, countless great children’s books have been published and then loved by many. To name a few, Harry Potter by J.K. Rowling, Nancy Drew by Carolyn Keene and The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins. What do these three books have in common? They were all published as children’s books, then kept out of their hands for numerous reasons. Parents and teachers claimed these books were unfit for children’s reading. They either introduced topics that were not open to them yet or went against their lifestyle. All around the world, great books are being kept from children for doltish reasons. They are being censored, then banned from their eyes. Taking this literature from them is ruining their childhood; it is preventing children from learning about the world and being ready for it. Censoring in children’s books needs to become less harsh or else they are going to grow up in a sealed world.

In conclusion, books can affect children in both positive and negative ways and banning them can determine whether those affects go into play or not. Children can get confused on how they view things in life. This is why books should be given to kids are old enough to understand the content clearly. Although the opposing side would say that anyone should be able to read what they want, some content can damage the minds of those who don’t

Every fantasy child’s book known always has a happy ending, doesn’t it? But as the age range grew, there were those few, select books that ended

First, children being afraid, young, and clueless, leads to nothing but chaotic events. When it comes to death, what child would not be afraid? They do not know what’s going on and what’s happening. Especially children ages 5-14. They understand what people say and can talk, but that does not mean they choose right decisions, or the wrong ones intentionally. They do not what’s

People die everyday all over the world. In United States, people use hundreds of different words to describe death. Generally, people that grow up in the United States tend to view death as a taboo subject and are seen as a topic that should be kept behind closed doors and contracted with an individual or family. A belief system that so many individuals hold to be true has been shaped over the past century. In this culture, death has become something that is enormously feared and as a result, some people stop living their lives to his or her highest potential because of their fear of dying. The effect that death has pertains to individuals of all ages, gender and ethnicities. But unfortunately, how death is viewed it has become more and

Strongly opposing censorship, Jenkins claims, “According to this perspective, children can only respond to books by imitating what they read. If, for example, a book tells a story about a child getting lost in a store and getting an ice cream cone when they are finally found, young readers will respond by heading for a store so that they can get lost and have ice cream cones too. Children really have much more complicated minds than that – they aren’t just passive vessels. Books are really just one piece of their whole world” (University of Illinois). Jenkins comments on the impressionable youth and the impact that works of literature have on them to prove that the youth is more mature and sensible than certain institutions believe them to be. By removing questionable material from books, these institutions in which books are banned are removing all trust and confidence in readers. Hiding classic literature from children, again, sets boundaries on their knowledge and does not allow them to appreciate timeless works. Jenkins also says, “The act of banning a book is taking a public stance to intimidate potential readers. It’s almost as if they’re saying, ‘Read this, and you will meet with our disapproval.’ It’s definitely more of a symbolic act, in the same way that flag burning is a symbolic act” (University of

When librarians and teachers reject works that may be “emotionally inappropriate” for children (a common reason), they’re adhering to the traditional and mostly prevailing view that children’s literature should avoid controversial topics.” (“How Banning Books Marginalizes Children ”).We are emotionally protecting the children we ban books. Next, we are not exposing the harsh world that we live in. Instead, it means that librarians, teachers, and parents curate children’s choices with the goals of inspiring rather than obscuring new ideas. Such an approach allows kids to learn how to navigate imaginary worlds filled with differences, with the faith that they will apply those lessons to their own lives. ”

Elisabeth Kubler-Ross in On the Fear of Death claims that through the year’s death is becoming a taboo topic. No one likes to talk about it and no one wants to ever be around it. Kubler-Ross attributes this to a deep and ancient fear of death. She argues that children today, in particular, have been sheltered from death to the point that they cannot deal or even process death. Although I agree with her point that children cannot deal with death, I cannot not accept the overall conclusion that it comes from a deep ancient fear of death. It is a reaction to an observed behavior, in very present adults, who haven’t learned to deal with death themselves.

Educators have long been arguing that literary education, in school and beyond, is crucial for emotional development. However, until recently, very little evidence existed to scientifically support this idea. In his article, “This is How Literary Fiction Teaches Us to Be Human”, author Tom Blunt makes a concise but persuasive argument about why literature is essential for human emotional development. In order to effectively prove his point, Blunt cites both scientific and anecdotal evidence and emphasizes the essential nature of empathy, derived from reading literature, to future generations.