I originally planned to tell you about a new literary journal from the University of Winchester called Write4Children: The International Journal for the Practice and Theories of Writing for Children and Children’s Literature. The journal is available free online as a pdf and its editors seem particularly eager to spread the word and have everyone who is interested in children’s literature involved somehow. The following is from the editorial of the inaugural issue:

What do you do when you spot a gap? You take the initiative and fill it. That is precisely what we did when we realised the academic journals that combined research on writing for children with research on children’s literature were very thin on the ground . . . Our aim for this ground breaking scholastic venture is to produce an e-journal that provides a forum for critical and creative debate and discussion that acts as an accessible resource for academics, tutors, writers, practitioners, librarians and students alike.

This is a noble goal, and one that excited me at first. There aren’t many academic journals available free, online, to anyone. This is very democratic of the University of Winchester. The fact that they wish to address issues pertinent to writers of children’s literature makes it potentially valuable to a wide audience. Volume I, Issues I and II are now available and I have perused the first. I’ll try to give a sense of what it contains.

1. “Reading Children’s Literature and Writing for Children” by Peter Hunt — I’ll get back to this one. It’s the crux of my problem with the issue.

2. “Inaugural Speech for Birkbeck College as Visiting Professor” by Michael Rosen — This is an absolutely delightful piece and I highly recommend reading it, especially those who love poetry for children.

3. “Creative Writing for Us or Them: What’s the Difference?” by Graeme Harper — This is for those with an inclination to refer to writing for children and children’s literature as “the activities of creative writing . . . as well as the artefacts.” This piece about the “compartmentalization of knowledge” says nothing new in my opinion. I vote to relegate it to the Mad Tea Party (though it will have to take a back seat to Peter Hunt’s article). To be fair, I would recommend it as a read to those who care about some of the intricacies of the history of copyright (though I found it to point in a direction in which one could travel while failing to provide a map).

4. “Creating a Picture, Story, Reading Book” by Kareanne Knight — This is an overview of Knight’s PhD thesis and a survey of children’s reading preferences in elementary schools. It’s a decent read for picture book authors and illustrators, though the application of the findings to teaching methodology leads one to the very heart of an academic wasteland (my opinion only – please take with a grain of salt).

5. “Writing Conventions – What’s New?” by Alison Boyle — The author says, “I wanted to understand what kind of impact digital technologies were having in the processes and protocols of print-based publishing. My investigation explored the ways in which comments about a text written for a young adult readership can be elicited through an online readership.”

A discussion paper and book review follow.

Let’s get back to the Mad Tea Party, i.e., Peter Hunt’s article (#2). Take a deep breath.

2. “Reading Children’s Literature and Writing for Children” by Peter Hunt — OMG. I’m going to begin with how I felt after reading this article. I felt an overall sense of despair, as if any adult arrogant enough to believe that she is capable of cobbling together sentences, paragraphs and even (she wouldn’t dare) entire stories that might appeal to, and be good for, children, ought to be flogged. Heaven help me. I may never pick up a pen again. Let me turn this over to Peter Hunt to give you an idea of what we’re up against here.

. . . children’s literature needs not only to use relevant theories from the broader field of literary research, but also to locate a specific theory of children’s literature. [It was] proposed that such a theory should be rooted in the notion of ETANORMATIVITY [emphasis mine]: a theory based upon the key characteristic of children’s literature, the presumed age of its audience.

Etanormativity?? Check the submission guidelines of any reputable publisher of children’s literature and you’ll find an exhortation to make sure one’s writing is suitable for a given age group. There are variations on the theme, and overlapping groups, but one of the most primitive tools in a writer’s kit is the notion of age appropriate material.

Hunt categorizes creative writers into four main groups.
1. Those who write for therapy. Examples of this type are Kenneth Grahame (The Wind in The Willows) and Lewis Carroll, among others. Hunt says, “The fact that a large number of readers and critics have found this type of writing sinister, exploitative, violating, and generally undesirable [no reference here] might give writers of this type pause.” I know Mr. Toad can be a bit of an ass, but really, he means well.
2. Those who “must write or die” are featured next. No examples of this type of creative writer are given.
3. Those who write for children if, and only if, it is the best format for communicating the central idea. C.S. Lewis is used as an example, and Peter Hunt makes it clear that he thinks this is the only type of creative writer who should ever write for children.
4. Those who are “practical” (translation: motivated by greed) and seek to fulfill market demands for books for children. No examples are given.

Despite Peter Hunt’s semi-upbeat abstract in which he claims to want to help creative writers identify their type, thereby enabling their development, his thesis is fundamentally a downer. He is formally relegated to the Mad Tea Party.

On another note, this issue has more than three typos. I think they could do a little better given their status as a ground breaking literary journal. For those of you reading this who don’t know me very well, my acidic humor can be a little misleading – I’m really a softy. I’m grateful for this new journal and I plan to keep reading it. I’ll read the next issue soon and will post about it if I feel inclined to do so. Michael Rosen’s article alone is worth the download. He is whimsical, intelligent and inspirational. I won’t relegate him to the Mad Tea Party, though, on second thought, I’ve got it all backward. Michael Rosen would likely be the one to enjoy the Mad Tea Party. Peter Hunt may not. Oh well, I’m awfully fond of my post title, and I’m not going to change it now.