The Hidden Hand

We have talked about the innocence of children and how that innocence can be related to God and His son when He said, “let the little children come to me”. This struck out to me in the text on page 179 when Old Hurricane first found out that the “newsboy, [his] saucy little prince of patches” was in fact actually Capitola who dressed as a boy in order to succeed in finding work to earn money for food. Old Hurricane, under his violent and stubborn exterior actually feels for her when she looked at him and her expression “appealed to the rugged heart of the old man.” We are taught that children are the innocence of life and are to be protected at all costs. Well, Old Hurricane definitely puts his protection in action when he defends Capitola saying that the Recorder that a young girl dressed any way should be treated “with the delicacy due to womanhood…and the tenderness owed to childhood…for she is but a bit of a poor, friendless, motherless, fatherless child, lost and wandering in your great Babylon!” Old Hurricane’s defense is somewhat of showing him as a Savior. He, like Jesus, is not only defending Capitola from her persecutors because she is but an innocent girl, but also claiming her as his own, which is like when Jesus said, “let the little children come to me.” Old Hurricane becomes the protection and shelter that Capitola has been waiting for and deserves. He did not judge her, but invited her to all he had, just as God tells us in the Bible; and Old Hurricane, like God, is the Hidden Hand that helps those innocents in need.

Lamplighter

Depictions of girls. That is some concept that actually seemed to stump me. I guess I never really thought about it before. Throughout Gerty’s life in the story, Lamplighter, I felt mostly sympathy for her. She had it so rough, it was depressing that the people said she “look[ed] like a witch!” (p 81). Then True took notice of her and she became “the apple of [his] eye” (p110). Amy Pholer asked “This show is about girls being themselves, what advice would you give?” (or at least something along those lines). The girl on the video answers “Don’t think about what you have to do for people to like you, you want people to like you for who you are”. If Gerty had been asked this she may have answered differently or even oppositely given what she has been through. She has hidden herself for so long that it is all she knows. Even with True, she still seems to hide herself. Once exposed to God and religion she still is somewhat negative and resistant because she doesn’t think that the other girls should be treated fairly since she never was. It’s a constant battle within herself that she may or may not know about. This is happening with contemporary girls today also, especially since today’s society seems to value looks even more. Girls today feel as though they need to prove themselves in order to be liked and accepted. I don’t agree with it, nor would I think most people, but just as it happened in the past, it is happening now as well.

Uncle Tom's Cabin

Yes, there is a lot of things about this text that go against the didactic purposes of children's literature. However, IF we look at Tom, as discussed in class, as a representation of Jesus Christ, then the hidden message is somewhat clear. Tom was the one that everyone seemed to go to for help, like Jesus Christ who said “let the little children come to me.” Tom did not discourage or encourage them in their own disobedience but instead, like Jesus Christ, he accepted them and gave them what they needed. Tom never went through the abuse from his masters. This could be seen as: he was never disobedient or disrespectful so therefore he was never punished. Tom’s obedience is seen when he is talking with his master and that ever since he “jist eight years old when ole Missis put [his master] into [his] arms, and [his master] wasn't a year old.” And the Misses said “Tom, that's to be your young Mas'r; take good care on him” (p 112). Tom’s then asks his master if he “ever broke word to [him], or gone contrary to [him], 'specially since [Tom] was a Christian?” (p 112). The message here would be that if children/people are obedient to their masters (elders, etc.) then they will not be punished. Therefore there is a didactic purpose that can be drawn from this story. Since Stowe wrote to upper class women (as mentioned in class), and since women were the main caregivers of the children, reading this could also be seen as a concept for the mothers to teach their children; the concept of obedience. This is somewhat of a far fetched idea, but I liked it and thought it to be very plausible.

The Wide, Wide World

The text comes off as viewing parents on separate levels. The first being the father, whose role was that of the bread winner and dictator of the household. He actually seemed relieved to be rid of his daughter by his comment to his wife that he was “…very glad of it, indeed…it’s quite a load off [his] mind” (p 70), and since he is the one in charge, the wife could not argue with him. My first reaction was a very negative one because I just couldn’t believe a father would feel that way, given that I am very much a “daddy’s girl”. My second thought was that maybe he had a purpose for feeling a sense of relief. Maybe he did not want to see his daughter go through the pain of actually losing her mother to the sickness. Maybe the thought of her just being gone on a “trip” would be easier to handle for an 8 year old girl who is devoted to her mother. When he entered her room to tell her she must leave that morning he saw her sleeping peacefully and “it touched him…it made him loth to say the word that could drive all that sweet expression so quickly and completely away” (p 74). Once again, he is the one in charge and had to make the difficult decision to send Ellen away.

The mother on the other hand plays out the roles of nurturing Ellen as well as teaching her what it takes to be a woman on her own. She is notably much more loving and devoted to her daughter. She seems almost depressed at the thought of sending Ellen away knowing that she would never “see or touch even the little inanimate things that belonged to” Ellen and that “her heart failed her” (p 72) even as she tried to go into her room one last time. Throughout the reading she is constantly encouraging Ellen to hold her own composure and put faith in God, as well as teaching her the things a woman ought to know.

The non-parent of the story was the old man in the store who played out his role as the supportive, generous father or grandfatherly-like figure. He sees Ellen’s distress at the store “set himself in good earnest about righting the wrong” (p 61) that the store clerk had done to her. He then continues his kindness by generously spoils her throughout and after the whole ordeal in order to make her happy.

As I mentioned before in the first two paragraphs, the mother’s and father’s roles were very different. The author lets us know in the way that shows how the mother is always available to Ellen where as the father is hardly around to help out Ellen or her mother. He is the breadwinner and dictator of the household whereas the mother is the one who has the close bond with her daughter and shows her affection by ensuring that Ellen has everything she needs to be a successful, self-efficient woman.

Ellen’s perceptions of her parents seem to me to be completely opposite. She admires her mother and spends every minute with her or helping her or make her tea and toast “with the zeal that love gives” (p 26). However, she actually avoids her father as seen when she and her mother plan a shopping trip and went “upstairs to do some little matters of business in her own room” (p 39) until her father left. Again at the end after her father tells her she must leave with Mrs. Dunscombe, Ellen she takes her time getting ready in order to wait “to hear her father’s step come out of the room and go downstairs” (p 76) before she could even see her mother. The roles that they each play in her life is that of the one she can go to for everything and anything (her mother) and the one who she must respect and do what is told by him (her father).

There are so many theories for analyzing children and children's literature in both MacLeod's "Children's Literature for a New Nation" and Sanchez-Eppler's introduction to Dependent States: The Child's Part in Nineteenth-Centure American Culture, that it is difficult to aim at just five of them. However, I have managed to pick the ones that "stuck out in my mind" the most.

According to MacLeod, children's literature must have a didactic function to it. The literature is for entertaining the children audience however it also must teach a lesson or have a hidden meaning of some sort. The most prominent lesson or hidden message seems to be that of morality. MacLeod states that "all Americans of the period [agree] that a high level of individual morality was indispensable if the promise of the nation's future was to be fulfilled" (p 89).

This leads me into my next theory being that the "children are our future," which is a comment that I tend to hear a lot, from my parents, grandparents, teachers, even our president. This topic is mentioned a lot in many different literature pieces. MacLeod points out that there are "connections between an anxious, unsettled society and a didactic, moralizing literature for children" (p 97). By teaching morality, obedience, responisibility, etc., the children can learn and become better citizens and therefore the future has a chance of being greater than it is currently.

However, this thinking then brings up the topic of dependency. Sanchez-Eppler states that "childhood is not only culturally, but also legally and biologically understood as a period of dependency" (p xvi). Children depend on adults for care, instruction, and direction in their lives. On the opposite side of the coin, are adults depending on children to lead better lives so that the future for them and the adults will be greater? Are adults living through the children the way they would if they could change their past? As I read Sanchez-Eppler's introduction, I couldn't help but ask myself these questions and I must agree, this is what it seems like to me. Adults teach through their own experiences because they depend on the children to learn, make better lives, and then allow the adults to depend on them for quality of life as they get older.

On another note, adults in society tend to pride themselves on children being the future for all even though they "consistently [fail] to support the daily needs of children, underfunding schools, dismantling welfare programs, refusing to grant children's voices as assured rolde in the institutions that most directly impact their lives, and generally disregarding the rampant juvenilization of poverty" (p xv) according to Sanchez-Eppler. Society wants the children to better the future but is not providing the necessary steps, needs, etc. for the children to do so.

Lastly, I thought it was interesting what Sanchez-Eppler brings up the topic that "there are as yet no archives of children's writings" (p xvii). We have been talking about children and childhood in the literature that was written for mostly a child audience and in some cases an adult audience BUT what about the actual writings of a child about their own experiences, thoughts, etc.? How are we to know exactly what the child is learning unless we know what the child thinks? Of course we can always see by their actions but to read what a child puts on paper is to really get into their mind and understand childhood once again and then be able to better understand the liturature written for the child audience.