Why do you think children don't play a huge role in any of the novels we have read? Are readers in this time quick to categorize young teenagers as adults, like in Pamela or Otranto, or is that just a 21C viewpoint?
Sort of going off the thread of sexuality that has been asked about, do you think authors at the time avoided writing about children in an effort to avoid people having sex, or to not promote the consequences of having sex?
Or are children just not that interesting?
I recall, now, something I learned in 202 this semester (Medieval Lit). Apparently, earlier in history parents would often wait years before even naming their children. Presumably, they wanted to avoid making a heavy emotional investment in their children because survival rates were so much lower. Our attitudes toward child rearing (like those we have about sex) are heavily informed by the cushy technicological bubble we live in. We place a higher value on young children as people today than ever before (it seems) because they have a better chance of becoming mature adults.
ReplyDeleteI find Jesse's point very interesting (as well as a little sad; the kids didn't even get names right away? bummer). I do think that in the 18C kids had to grow up very quickly; they either died young or started working/marrying in their teens and sometimes earlier. Maybe kids don't play a big role in 18C literature because they were irrelevant until they could serve a purposeful role in society, be it working or bearing more children. It's a little sad, I think kids are really interesting, but their lack of presence probably indicates how quickly they had to grow up.
ReplyDeleteI also find it interesting that there are virtually no children in the novels that we have read this semester and those characters that we would, by twenty-first century standards, consider children (those in their young teenage years) seem to be portrayed in very adult situations. I don't necessarily agree that authors would purposely left children out of their novels in order to encourage people from having sex or to promote the consequences of having sex; in the case of the unwed couple that had a child, I would have thought that the presence of a child would have put readers off from having sex. Also, I would have to agree that children really are not that interesting of characters in novels unless they are either the main or a central character in the novel. With most of the novels that we have read this semester dealing with sexual tensions, I don't see how children would have really added a lot to the plot line.
ReplyDeleteI agree with some of the points that have been stated earlier, like children not being particularly interesting or relevant, but I also think it has something to do with the connection between who is reading and who is being written about. It occurs today too. Books written for children have child protagonists. Books written for young adults have young adult protagonists. Books written for adults have adult protagonists. Children could be mentioned in passing or exist as minor characters, but I can't see a 18C reader being invested in a wholly developed child character, or their innermost thoughts. Because many of the novels provided some sort of moral or conduct advice, putting children into situations that test their virtuousness wouldn't hold much weight for an adolescent or adult reader. They have already learned the lessons that children would presumably be taught in books about them.
ReplyDeleteI think that one of the main reasons for not having children play a strong role if any in many of the novels we have read this semester is because children represent innocence, and having them present in these novels would in a way be like pushing them into society too early on. I would treat many of these novels in general as a stereotype of societal beliefs, and with that, having children present would only corrupt their innocence. Having a young girl present in something like Robinson Crusoe may gave a girl the wrong idea of independence and how to obtain religious freedom (in the sense of having a girl take off to obtain these things). Thus, I think that the idea of the presence of children also goes back to gender and what gender of the child to have present. Would it be okay for a young girl to interact in society the way many of the main characters are acting or would it be more suited for young boys?
ReplyDeleteHowever I do think that it is a little hypocritical to not have children in these novels because as I see children as innocent, I see many of the main characters, such as Pamela, as innocent. SO what makes it okay to have a character like Pamela in the novel versus not having children? I think a character like Pamela is pretty much like a child. It is interesting to see how this idea of children is not appreciated in 18C novels.
I am in a history of sexuality class and we talk a lot about silence. Sometimes silences in literature are most telling. For instance, school administrators dictating sleeping arrangements of children and not talking about child's sexuality actually indicates they were extremely concerned with children's sexuality for they were extremely concerned that children be separated during sleeping hours. I think this can be applied to the novels we have read. Children's sexuality has been a topic that has been historically curbed and restrained. I guess it seems more like authors are attempting to silence sexuality in children. It's more telling to me that children aren't included at all. Silences effectively remove their voice and therefore could mean that this society was greatly concerned with children's sexuality for it is silenced through these novels.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the idea that children in the 18th century were under pressure to grow up and become productive members of society, and agree even more with Krupa's idea that they represent innocence and don't really have a place in these stories. However, I don't think children are completely absent from these novels. Earlier in the semester, we constantly discussed the young age of some of the female characters. In these moments, we really see the idea that children are in need of growing up quickly because we don't even acknowledge their childhood in current times and criticisms. Overall, I agree with the idea that children really don't have a place in this type of novel because their characters can't really contribute things of their own, but I felt that the age of our early female protagonists is something that is being overlooked.
ReplyDeleteChildren are considered adults in terms of educating. the modern child is one that is currently in development. Evelina and Pamela are effectively at the peak of their adulthood, ready to find a husband to marry, to carry on the family name and procreate. There is no need for focus on "children" because adults viewed them as tiny adults, who are to be taught to fit into a set of ideals rather a child who is developing or discovering themselves. It has a lot to do with the idea of homunculus, where the child effectively already has all the info needed be a person, regardless of the environment or life experiences.
ReplyDeleteSomewhat going off what Krupa said about children and the whole innocence thing, I would agree with that to an extent. The idea that authors would avoid pushing otherwise innocent adolescents into roles that would bare too heavy a burden on them, makes literary sense.
ReplyDeleteBut to take it a step further, I think I'd also subscribe to the very tail end of what Sam wrote in his original post - maybe children simply just aren't that interesting.
Unless you have a novel that's entirely centered around a given child or an entire pack of children, it's hard to place them on the same level of relevance in an adult-oriented novel as, well....adults. In doing so, an author is asking a reader to essentially weigh a child's perspective the same way he would that of an adult, which isn't true to life. Thus, it's reasonable to argue that an author would avoid making children primary and relevant characters in their work because he doesn't wish to ask his reader to overstep the bounds of expected thinking - either in the literary sphere or that of real life. And to take it maybe one step further, an author might not wish to jeopardize a reader's opinion of him, if indeed he did ask his reader to take such a figurative leap.
I don't think any of the books we have read this semester had any need of children because the question is where would they be placed? I mean most of the stories we have read are centered around romance and falling in love and not giving it up before marriage, basically things that children (at least in the 18c time period) have no knowledge of yet. Most of what is said in these novels more than likely would go over the heads of small children anyway. Also the target audience for these novels are probably married women with children who more than likely read as a way to escape their normal everyday life (much like how TV is used today) and if this is the case they probably do not want to read about the antics of children due to the fact they have their own children who get up to antics everyday. Like Pat said stories that successfully incorporate children in them are usually centered around children and not the interaction between children and adults. I also think that children might be prevalent if the stories had epilogues to them seeing how so many marriages take place at the end of the novels we read because traditionally it is marriage first then children.
ReplyDelete