The Hidden Hand

As most students in this class will probably do, I have decided to use the excerpt from The Hidden Hand on page 179 that says, "...whether a girl in boy's clothes, or men's clothes, or soldier's clothes...treat her with the delicacy due to womanhood, sir! ay, and the tenderness owed to childhood! for she is but a bit of poor, friendless, motherless, fatherless child, lost and wandering in your great Babylon!" In this one excerpt, there is so much of the quintessential characterstics of the typical nineteenth century children's novel. For starters, Southworth of course bring up the typical stereotypes that surround gender roles, and how girls and boys should be raised differently. Girls are not supposed to do any work using their hands and are not supposed to partake in hard, blue-coller labor. This is why poor Capitola had to disguise herself as a boy so she could make an independent living for herself because she was an orphan in the city. Society wanted to teach girls to be like little Ellen Montgomery, who did as she was told, wore pretty dresses, and took care of the home. Independent figures like Capitola were unheard of until this novel, which was probably very refreshing for readers. Along with the assumed gender roles, this passage also references the Bible by talking about Babylon. Yet another important characterstic of novels written at this time, faith was of the upmost importance. And while the story doesn't quote it quite as directly as other works of literature, there are still subtle undertones that tell teh audience that Christian values must be enstilled. This was probably my favorite book to read in this class simply because it finally showcased a young girl with some sass and gumption.

Girls in Today's World

I agree that young girls are dealing with the same issues today as in the nineteenth century, however I feel like we have taught them new ways in becoming the modern version of a "lady". Rather than preach to them the importance of being the passive, Christian, women- without- opinions that used to be important, parents today teach their daughters how to be strong and independent and proud of their thoughts. In the novel The Lamplighter, the main character, Gerty, is taught how to clean the house and get dressed in nice clothes for when the men get home. On page 106 it says, "Women's hands had evidently been at work, clearing up and setting to rights." Obviously it was assumed that the women were meant to only do chores like housework and Christian work, rather than think for themselves. In our society today, I feel like more parents are encouraging their young girls to speak their mind, form their own opinions, and compete with men in the business world. Just like in the video clip with Amy Poehler, what is important to Anna is the need for her to find balance in everyday life. That means working hard, doing what you want to do, and somehow allevitating the stress that can build up form trying to do all things at once, like yoga. Most women in this day and age are expected to get a decent education, get a competative job, raise a family, and still be able to make dinner and keep her sanity. Raising a well-rounded woman is more important than raising a "lady" who just stands placidly behind a man (as nineteenth century authors liked to think of them). Things have changed in the aspect of what we are teaching our children, but they are still dealing with the issues of adolescnece, like low self-esteem like Gerty had, or uncontrolled spouts of anger. Parents just deal with them a different way. On page 90, Gerty threw a piece of wood at Nan Grant's head, which was an inappropriate and juvenile way of dealing with her emotions. Parents teach children to harness that anger and talk about it in a calm manner without acting like a toddler. Things are not different, but the way parents raise their girls is different.

Uncle Tom's Cabin

How does a text based on the institution of slavery complicate these theories and ideas? I believe that a text based on the institution of slavery complicates the basic theories of children literature's by contradicting all normal themes of hope and happiness found in those stories like The Wide, Wide World or Rip Van Winkle. It shows children the dark side to life that usually only adults experience. Children, I think, would have been both shocked and upset by the idea that the world isn't always candy coated. The dehumanizing act of slavery does in fact go against all the messages we are trying to teach children, especially when it comes to faith and family, since slavery is both non-Christian (contrary to the belief at the time) and tears families apart. What I make of this though is that children look at the horrors of slavery and see what they do NOT want to do. So in essence, it is teaching children how to live their life, by telling them what not to do. While it isn't told inexplicably in the text, it is assumed because children understand what it would be like to have to been taken from their parents, or sold off like cattle to a "master". In the text, on page 105 of Uncle Tom's Cabin, Uncle Tom reprimands the children for wishing evil against their tormentors, and tells them to pray for them. The children readers see here that forgiveness that is so prominent in Christian faith, and can learn from that. I think that while it goes against all typical structure of a children's novel, it essentially still teaches children. While it is more of a reverse way of teaching, it may be a more effective way because they see the consequence and the other side of the matter.

Role of Parents

The text encourages us to view the role of parents as something that is very structured and set. Mothers are supposed to care for the children and fathers are supposed to provide for the family, even if it means never being home. And in this particular novel, The Wide, Wide World, Ellen, the child, is considered a parental figure as well even though she is only eight years old. She has to care for her ill mother and that can take a toll on a child. She has more responsibilities than most children because she does not have the option to go out and play because she must be the "Nurse" for her mom. The novel does stress the importance of parental roles, because it is essentially the glue that holds a family together, especially in the nineteenth century. The text clearly divides the roles of mothers versus fathers and it illustrates how the world was when Ellen is growing up in the story. Mrs. Montgomery, even if she wasn't sick, is expected to remain at home and raise her child because that's just the way things are. And Mr. Montgomery is rarely mentioned or seen in the story, which symbolizes the fact that fathers were never really around. They had to make money for the family, and if that meant never being home then so be it. I consider Mr. Montgomery to be very neglecting towards his daughter, and I don't necessarily think it was uncommon back then for fathers to not know their children. On page 75 Warner says, "She (Mrs. Montgomery) understood far better than her husband what Ellen's feelings were, and could interpret much more truly then he the signs of them..." In this one sentence, the reader is plainly told that the mother knows her child inside and out, verbally and nonverbally, and the father knows nothing about her. Ellen perceives her parents as people she aspires to be, mostly her mother for her courage, faith in God, and undying love for her. She sees them as teachers, even friends, and she expects the roles of the father and mother in her family. She expects the father to never be around and she expects the mother to be the primary caretaker. But even still, Ellen thinks that her own rol ein te family is normal, she thinks all children help out their mothers as much as she does whch is simply not true because Ellen has much more responsibility than any 8 year old in her time or circumstance. Even in the laborious task of fixing her mother tea and toast she claims, " It was a real pleasure; she had the greatest satisfaction..she knew her hands made it better..." (26.) She has no clue that what she does for her mother, the way she cares for her mother, is almost a role reversal because normally the mother does that for her child. Poor Ellen had to grow up too fast and play the role of "mother"and "nurse" in the household because of her circumstance and I think she broke towards the end because of it (even though we don't know the real ending).

Theories

There are many theories that can be discussed when analyzing children literature in the 19th century. I feel that these five are the most prominent and most useful in approaching and understanding children literature. The first is that every main character has mostly good attributes with one major character flaw in order to teach children what they must do in order to fix the flaw and realize there are consequences for these flaws. According to Children's Literature for a New Nation, "each tale centered on a child in need of some moral correction: the correction of this...constituted the whole plot." A second theory I have formulated is that all children's stories are family oriented because the authors want to seem relaatable to the readers and stress the importance of a family unit. According to MacLeod, "physical migration separated families and splintered communities, the fiction urged children to stay close to home." The idea of moving away from your comfort zone was completely unheard of, and families were encouraged to stick together, as shown in books like Rip Van Winkle and Little Women. A third theory is children's writing is not generally written by children because adults didn't trust that children had substantial opinions or thoughts, rather they were sponges to draw in knowledge. As Sanchez claims, "there are no archives of children's writing, and most documents penned by children are scattered, often unmarked..." Society does not see children as capable of producing feelings or ideas and most often adults are telling children what they think they should know rather than what the children themselves think. Which brings me to my fourth theory: children literature is dominated by what adults deem important, not what the children are actually interested in, which can tarnish a child's innate creativity, curiousity, and imagination. in Dependent States it is written that "adult goals and expectations discerned something of value ...this practice in writing and making order." Children are almost brainwashed to act and communicate like little versions of their parents, with their parents giving no room for indepentdent growth. It is important for children to think about what they find interesting, without their parents just simply feeding them information. And my final theory in studying children's literature in the 19th century is that all stories are written in order to explain and justify a moral lesson in order to teach kids to be good Americans and upstanding citizens because they wanted the future of their country to be "American" not "British" or any other ethnicity. MacLeod references that "foreign books...are not to be perscribed" in order to teach American morals and American ideals. It's strange that, in this new democratic government, literature was still being dictated and children were not allowed to choose for themselves what books they ought to read.