Such a childish mistake

Wizard of Oz: no easy task to write
The Weekender

Sign up to our free weekly newsletter for exclusive competitions, offers and theatre ticket deals

I would like to be emailed about offers, event and updates from Evening Standard. Read our privacy notice.

Chldren's literature, as well as being literature for children, has an unfortunate second identity as an enthusiasm for adults who don't want to think too hard. Ever since it got going as a genre in the 19th century, there have been people who turn to it as a break from all the more taxing and difficult things adult fiction does. This is forgivable, but it is a mistake, and it makes for bad reading of what is actually there on the pages of children's books.

Yes, writing for children avoids some kinds of upfront difficulty, but that does not mean that it is charmingly simple, or that it is just a cutdown version of adult fiction. It is its own thing, with its own riches and its own complications.

For reasons I can't quite fathom, Alison Lurie has joined the ranks of those who treat the whole genre as a kind of model village, where even the biggest monuments are only knee-high. She ought to know better. In fact, she used to know better. She is a novelist with a nicely acidulous understanding of the human condition, as manifested in both tall and short people, and she wrote Don't Tell the Grown-Ups, a good book about the way children's stories create subversive pleasures for their readers.

But here she has written a set of essays about the Oz books, and Harry Potter, and the great John Masefield, and Tove Jansson's Moomin series, which are pleasant and agreeable and utterly unchallenging. Worse, they are devoted to the frankly silly proposition that the most gifted authors of books for children are not like other writers: in some essential way, they are children themselves.

Well, no. Gifted writers for children have to be able to remember childhood vividly, and they have to be in sympathy with the child's eye-view of the world. The material of children's lives has to be somehow prominent in their imaginations.

But then they have to apply to that material the qualities of emotional assessment and shaping craft that come with adulthood, in accordance with the unique status of children's writing as the only kind of literature that is, by definition, not written by the kind of people who read it.

As evidence of E Nesbit's childlikeness, Lurie says that she spent "weeks building a toy town out of blocks and kitchenware". True, and if she hadn't enjoyed it she wouldn't have been able to write The Magic City; but the toy town in question was built for an exhibition at Olympia, and Nesbit was also the person who brought subtle, observational social comedy into children's books.

Lurie's evidence of TH White's childlikeness is that he "preferred the company of animals", and "lived alone with his hawks and his hounds". But White lived alone because he was grievously miserable with his sexuality. To see The Sword in the Stone as a natural expression of a childlike spirit is to underestimate it as an achievement, as something hard-won.

Over and over, in these essays, Lurie gets stuck at the beginning of an explanation. What she says is fine, so far as it goes, but she stops just as she gets to the point where there is a chance to say something distinctive. She tells us that, in Charlotte's Web, "nature is magical and can be life-changing".

She points out that a fairy tale "presents experience in vivid symbolic form". She remarks that the box in Masefield's Box of Delights is like a book, or rather "all books. The person who owns it has the power to bring the world to life through imagination ..."

Unless you then engage with the particular intentions of an author, or the particular set of their mind, "imagination" and "magic" are empty terms. They're the children's-lit equivalent of motherhood and apple pie, which everyone is in favour of.

If you are going to write about children's books, you owe it to them to pay attention to specifics, to put some energy into getting across the full-sized creativity and idiosyncrasy that went into making them.

Otherwise, you end up praising them in a way that makes it quite clear you don't think real literary standards apply. "JK Rowling describes her characters with a psychological subtlety rare in children's books, and even in much adult fiction," says Lurie, giving as her instance the way that in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, Dobby, the house-elf, "hits himself over the head with the nearest blunt object, repeating 'Bad Dobby'!"

Ah, yes, psychological subtlety. Just like that memorable scene in Middlemarch when Mr Casaubon beats his head against a doorpost, crying "Bad Casaubon! Bad Casaubon!", or the tender moment in Pride and Prejudice when Elizabeth nuts Darcy ...

Francis Spufford is the author of The Child That Books Built (Faber, £7.99).

Create a FREE account to continue reading

eros

Registration is a free and easy way to support our journalism.

Join our community where you can: comment on stories; sign up to newsletters; enter competitions and access content on our app.

Your email address

Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number

You must be at least 18 years old to create an account

* Required fields

Already have an account? SIGN IN

By clicking Create Account you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use , Cookie policy and Privacy policy .

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged in