Jeeves vs. Pooh

[pegkerr]

I had included a link earlier to the story of J.M. Barrie. Here's an intriguing link about the literary rivalry between two other authors coming from the same period: A.A. Milne and P.G. Wodehouse.

Edited to add: Thanks to baldanders for providing the link to George Orwell's defense of P.G. Wodehouse here.

Comments

[charlietudor.livejournal.com]

Oooh, sweet, thanks for the link--I just got the Wodehouse bio from the library and this is good stuff.

[pied-piper70.livejournal.com]

That's a great article; thanks for linking it...

However, I have to take acception to the author's conceit at the very end of the article that "history would avenge him over and over -- remembering Milne as a writer for the nursery, and Wodehouse as one for the ages." I know the author might be also alluding to Milne's desire to be a "serious playwright", but I can't
help but conclude that he is insinuating that prose written "for the nursery" is somehow less important or even of less value than prose written "for the ages"...and I think that's a disservice to the many readers of children's literature (who aren't all children) and a disservice to the many authors of children's literature...I mean, are Jane Yolen's writings of less value because she writes for children? Of course not...

It's a conceit that I disagree with strongly, obviously...and I'm sorry that such a good article had to end as the authors themselves ended: in a competition...because, really, literature isn't about competition; it's about imagination...and comparing Jeeves and Wooster to Winnie the Pooh, to see which one is better, is ludicrous...

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

That is really an excellent point and thank you for pointing it out. Certainly as a Harry Potter fan, it's one I've been aware of (e.g., New York Times taking J.K. Rowling off the NYT best-seller list and sticking her on the newly created specially for her NYT Children's best-seller list, mostly because they were annoyed with her for having her books take all the available spaces for too long. As if adults don't read her books too. As if.

[baldanders.livejournal.com]

But the greatest children's literature is readable by everyone. Whether or not one agrees with the assessment of Milne, I think that being "a writer for the nursery" is a limitation to greatness, if nothing of the magic survives beyond childhood. Dr. Seuss is a great writer, while Richard Scarry, however much I enjoyed him as a child, is not. I adored Enid Blyton above almost all else when I was young, but I wouldn't put her anywhere near Joan Aiken now. And Milne, as the essayist points out, makes most adult sensibilities wince in a way that Kenneth Grahame does not. In short -- if I may use that phrase after this many words -- I don't think the essayist's last sentence is a dismissal of children's literature: just of Milne.

[pied-piper70.livejournal.com]

I think that being "a writer for the nursery" is a limitation to greatness, if nothing of the magic survives beyond childhood.

Therefore, those classic children's books can't be seen as greatness, even if they have survived over many decades? Nope, I don't buy that...I still think that's a blanket dismissal of the creativity involved and of the durability of the material...

And for the record, reading Milne does not make me wince...then again, I'm not "most adults"...

[baldanders.livejournal.com]

I didn't say they can't be seen as great; I am saying it is a reasonable position to think they're not great, and that to say their appeal is limited to the nursery is not a blanket dismissal of children's literature, unless you want it to be.

Nor do I think that durability means something must be great. That's just one part of greatness, neither required nor sufficient.

[pied-piper70.livejournal.com]

I didn't say they can't be seen as great; I am saying it is a reasonable position to think they're not great, and that to say their appeal is limited to the nursery is not a blanket dismissal of children's literature, unless you want it to be.

I'm afraid that we'll have to agree to disagree on this one...in my opinion (and it's just my opinion, mind you), to create some sort of hierarchy between "serious" literature and "children's" literature is missing the point...is writing a piece for a six year old any less of a creative endeavor than writing a piece for a fifteen year old or an adult? Just because you may not relate to that piece now as you did when you were six does not necessarily make it any less an achievement NOR does it make it any less great...does a piece of literature HAVE to relate to ALL ages in order to be taken seriously? I personally believe that it doesn't...

Again, my opinion...your mileage may vary...

Nor do I think that durability means something must be great. That's just one part of greatness, neither required nor sufficient.

Nursery Rhymes are incredibly durable and aren't necessarily great, I'll grant you that...but damn, they're catchy...

[baldanders.livejournal.com]

If I intended to create a hierarchy between children's literature and serious literature, I wouldn't have said Dr. Seuss was a great writer. And if the essayist intended to make such a distinction, he probably would have avoided using Kenneth Grahame as a stick to beat Milne with.

is writing a piece for a six year old any less of a creative endeavor than writing a piece for a fifteen year old or an adult?

I may not make your friendship by saying this. But while I don't know how to measure the volume of a creative endeavor, so can't answer the question as posed, I will say that it is more difficult -- please note I am not saying impossible -- to create children's literature with the complexity and depth of adult fiction, because children do not have the depth and complexity of adults (which is not to say that children are not amazingly complex and deep. I just want to avoid any potential straw men up front, if I can).

This is why I think that the greatest children's literature can be read at any age. The greatest children's literature speaks to children but also has the learning of the adult, and can grow with the reader. Any great book had better be re-readable, with new depths and pleasures and lessons, whenever the reader approaches it again as an aolder and different person.

I think Milne suffers very badly in re-reading, and gains almost nothing; you feel differently, and there we indeed must agree to disagree.

[baldanders.livejournal.com]

Something important I have left out here: it is also uncommonly difficult for an adult to remember how a child reads, and to understand how to write to a child. When I say that it is difficult to write a children's book that has the complexity and depth of adult fiction, I do not mean that it is easier to write children's literature. I think it's harder; harder to write well, and hardest of all to write on every level at once, to write the book that grows with the reader.

[huladavid.livejournal.com]

I think that this might be a case of a society saying that children aren't important, rather than a particular type of writing isn't important.

[baldanders.livejournal.com]

George Orwell, correctly intuiting the political background to the broadcasts, would write a thoughtful defense before the war was over

It's a superb piece, an example both of Orwell's great human decency and his clearsightedness. Besides defending Wodehouse from the charge of treason, Orwell also explains how Americans tend to misread Wodehouse as an anti-class subversive.

You can read it here, along with much else excellent Orwell.

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

Thank you!

[huladavid.livejournal.com]

I haven't read a great deal of Wodehouse, but really don't care for his writing, maybe because of - wait, "an anti-class subversive"?

Huh... If that was the case I'd _love_ his stuff.

(Going off to read the Orwell article)

passing on a link

[shusu.livejournal.com]

What if Harry Potter were written by a different author?