On Not Defining Children's Literature

Author(s): MARAH GUBAR

Source: PMLA , January 2011, Vol. 126, No. 1 (January 2011), pp. 209-216
Published by: Modern Language Association

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41414094

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Modern Language Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to PMLA

This content downloaded from

108.61.242.12 on Thu, 27 Jul 2023 15:39:47 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
12 6.1 J

theories and
methodologies

On Not Defining
Children's Literature

AS ROGER SALE HAS WRYLY OBSERVED, "EVERYONE KNOWS WHAT CHIL-

MARAH GUBAR
DREN'S LITERATURE IS UNTIL ASKED TO DEFINE IT (1). THE REASONS WHY

this unruly subject is so hard to delimit have been well canvassed.

If we define it as literature read by young people, any text could po-
tentially count as children's literature, including Dickens novels and
pornography. That seems too broad, just as defining children's litera-
ture as anything that appears on a publisher- designated children's
or "young adult" list seems too narrow, since it would exclude titles
that appeared before eighteenth-century booksellers such as John
Newbery set up shop, including the Aesopica, chapbooks, and con-
duct books. As numerous critics have noted, we cannot simply say
that children's literature consists of literature written for children,
since many famous examples- Huckleberry Finn , Peter Pan , The Little
Prince- aimed to attract mixed audiences.1 And, in any case, "chil-
dren's literature is always written for both children and adults; to be
published it needs to please at least some adults" (Clark 96). We might
say that children's literature comprises texts addressed to children
(among others) by authors who conceptualize young people as a dis-
tinct audience, one that requires a form of literature different in kind
from that aimed at adults. Yet basing a definition on authorial inten-
tion seems problematic. Many famous children's writers have explic-
itly rejected the idea that they were writing for a particular age group,2
and many books that were not written with young people in mind
have nevertheless had their status as children's or young adult litera-
ture thrust upon them, either by publishers or by readers (or both).3
In his recent attempt to generate a working definition of this MARAH GUBAR, associate professor of

diverse group of texts, Perry Nodelman contends that "defining English and director of the Children's
Literature Program at the University of
children's literature has been a major activity of children's literature
Pittsburgh, is the author of Artful Dodg-
criticism throughout its history" ( Hidden Adult 136). I disagree.
ers: Reconceiving the Golden Age of Chil-
Certainly, influential children's literature critics have been arguing dren's Literature (Oxford UP, 2009). This
back and forth about whether or not it is possible to define their sub- essay is drawn from her new book proj-
ject of study since this academic field came into being in the 1970s. ect, "Acting Up: Children's Theatre and

But I would characterize these two groups- the definers and the the Case for Childhood Studies."

I © 2011 BY THE MODERN LANGUAGE ASSOCIATION OF AM

This content downloaded from

108.61.242.12 on Thu, 27 Jul 2023 15:39:47 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 210 On Not Defining Children's Literature [ PMLA
m
Ф antidefiners- as a small albeit vocal minority children are a homogenous group that can be
w
0
who tussle over this question while the vast, straightforwardly defined and addressed (1).
Õ silent majority of scholars cheerfully carry on The form and content of children's literature,
"Ö
0 with their scholarship on specific texts, types, she contends, are determined solely by adult
X
+* and eras of children's literature as though the needs and desires: "There is no child behind
V
E lack of an overarching definition constituted the category children's fiction,' other than the
"О no real impediment to their work. My pur- one which the category itself sets in place, the
с
(Q pose here is to justify this sanguine position one which it needs to believe is there for its
*л
by arguing that we can give up on the ardu- own purposes" (10). Karin Lesnik- Oberstein
Z ous and ultimately unenlightening task of not only rejects the categories "child" and
о
ф
generating a definition without giving up on "children's literature" but also characterizes
X
4*
the idea that "children's literature" is a coher- children's literature criticism as a deeply mis-
ent, viable category. More than that, I contend guided endeavor. She evinces frustration that
that we should abandon such activity, because most scholars who focus on this subject are
insisting that children's literature is a genre simply carrying on rather than acknowledg-
characterized by recurrent traits is damaging ing the force of these "important philosophi-
cal arguments" concerning the impossibility
to the field, obscuring rather than advancing
our knowledge of this richly heterogeneous of children's literature (229).
group of texts. Skeptical about such radical claims, de-
My argument hinges on the idea that a finers such as Myles McDowell, Zohar Shavit,
productive middle ground exists between the and Nodelman observe that the presence of
extreme positions adopted by the definers a muddy middle ground does not mean that
and the antidefiners. The antidefiners - John some texts do not fall clearly into the category
Rowe Townsend provides an early example - of children's literature. In 1973 McDowell
have suggested that it is impossible to define helpfully proposed the analogy of paint pots:
children's literature, raising serious objections "A pot of green and a pot of orange paint
to both the term and the concept. Regarding might be spilled on the floor

the term, they point out that the possessive run together a murky brown is form
"children's" falsely implies that young people doesn't happily belong to either pot, bu
own or control a body of texts that are gener- a fool who cannot distinguish the green
ally written, published, reviewed, and bought the orange" (51). Yet in responding so
by adults, and often read by them as well sively to the challenge posed by the ant
(Townsend, "Standards" 194). Regarding the ers, he and other definers go too far, i
concept, they note the existence of many texts that it is possible to articulate the "e
by authors such as Rudyard Kipling that re- ingredient [s]" of children's literatu
sist easy definition as one thing or the other, single out "defining characteristics" t
children's literature or not. "Since any line- genuine children's texts apart as bel
drawing must be arbitrary," Townsend con- to their own distinct genre (McDow
cludes, we should "abandon the attempt and Nodelman, Hidden Adult 188).
say that there is no such thing as children's While I am in sympathy with the
literature": just as "children are not a separate to hold on to the category, this appr
form of life from people," children's books are flawed, since the idea that all children's
not a discrete and distinctive type of literature share even a single trait that remain
(196-97). Jacqueline Rose similarly deems same over time and across cultures is unten-
children's fiction an "impossible" category able. Because the field of international texts
because it rests on the false assumption that that have historically been regarded as chil-

This content downloaded from

108.61.242.12 on Thu, 27 Jul 2023 15:39:47 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 12 6.1 J Marah Gubar 211
i*
and reduced"
dren's literature is so large andnature of children's
varied, itliterature
is too on y
ъ
"the binarism that
easy to find counterexamples for each of the underlies all adult think- 0
t

supposedly "universal ing structural

about children in the traits and
centuries in which лГ

patterns" proposed by a critics (Shavit

special children's literature hasxi).
existedIn-
- the su

deed, the only way thatunderstanding definers of childhood

can arrivepurely in terms
at 3
Û.
these traits in the first place
of its oppositionis to of,
to, lack rule huge
and subordination
3
amounts of relevant material out-of-bounds. to maturity" (Shavit 67; Nodelman, Hidden ft
e*

For example, Shavit and Nodelman suggest Adult 209). Instead of essentializing children, □Г
О
that the category "children's literature" can- such accounts stereotype adults, depicting a
0
not contain any text penned before the mod- them as beings who "always" insist on "the e

ern (Western) concept of childhood emerged, innocence and incapability" of children and
a presentisi conception of the subject that who create a literature to inculcate this state
</>

forecloses analysis of texts composed for chil- of subjectivity into young minds (Nodelman,
dren in earlier eras, such as The Babees Book Hidden Adult 45).
(c. 1475) and Derjungenknabenspiegel ("The By characterizing children's literature in
Boys' Mirror"; 1554). Similarly, Maria Niko- this reductive way, definers accept a key te-
lajeva excludes folktales, fairy tales, and "clas- net of their opponents' argument: basing her
sics" such as the Arabian Nights and Robinson case on Peter Pan , Rose famously depicted
Crusoe - even those editions that were simpli- children's fiction as an adult-run activity that
fied and sanitized for young readers- on the attempts to impose a static ideal of childhood
grounds that they were not originally created purity on young people, and other antidefin-
for children, as if no amount of adaptation ers quickly followed suit.4 Yet scholars have
could transform an adult- oriented text into recently begun to question whether the ide-
children's literature (14-20, 43). ology of innocence spread as quickly and
comprehensively as such accounts suggest,
In their drive to generalize, definers rely
too heavily on authorial intention and often even in the Anglo-American context from
end up essentializing children or adults. For which Rose and others draw their exemplary
instance, McDowell declares that children's texts.5 In fact, Nodelman himself made this
books differ from texts aimed at adults because objection in 1985, before he embarked on his
"children think quantitatively differently than quest to determine the defining characteris-
adults" (52): since children share a "schematic tics of children's literature. Reviewing Rose's
moral view of life," children's fiction is simple The Case of Peter Pan; ory The Impossibility of
and formulaic (54); since children "are more Children's Fiction , he protested that her rep-
active than ruminant," children's fiction is resentation of children's books as "simple,
full of action, not description or introspection straightforward, unambiguous, and devoid
(55). More recent definers carefully refrain of sexual content" was not just "limited" but
from generalizing about children yet end up "seriously wrong," since the very texts she
making the same argument, contending that focuses on -Peter Pan , Alan Garner's Stone
children's literature is "simpler and less com- Book Quartet - reveal that children's litera-
plete than adult literature": children's books ture is often "rich in irony, in ambiguity, in
feature "plots that do not diverge greatly from linguistic subtlety, [and] even in truthful evo-
the same basic story patterns" and eschew am- cations of childhood sexuality" ("Case").
biguity, irony, sexual content, open-endedness, Nodelman's about-face on this issue il-
and moral equivocation (Nodelman, Hidden lustrates how the attempt to find essential
Adult 264-65, 154-55). The difference is that traits tends to narrow our vision, leading
contemporary critics blame the "simplified us to ignore, misread, or arbitrarily rule

This content downloaded from

108.61.242.12 on Thu, 27 Jul 2023 15:39:47 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 212 On Not Defining Children's Literature [ PMLA
out-of-bounds texts that do not share these Dont say: "There must be something in com-
M
qualities. For instance, once scholars of Anglo- mon, or they would not be called 'games'"-
О

О
American children's literature convinced but look and see whether there is anything
■о common to all. - For if you look at them you
о themselves that "golden age" texts were devoid
of sex and satire, unconventional authors such will not see something that is common to all ,
JZ
ы
(У but similarities, relationships, and a whole
E as Tom Hood, E. L. Blanchard, and F. Anstey
series of them at that. To repeat: don't think,
-и garnered no attention, despite their popular
с but look! - Look for example at board-games
<ü success. Similarly, because scholars presume . . . [or] ball games . . . [or] games like ring-a-
(А that children's literature is an adult-run ac-
ring-a-roses
♦ï.шш
.шш

tivity, the fascinating phenomenon of texts

о

X
OJ
written by young people for young people hasWhat games share, Wittgenste
4«#
been excluded from serious study.6 Overcor- not an essential, universal trait
recting for past accounts that took for granted resemblance" that manifests its
children's involvement in children's litera- in specific cases, just as membe
ture, both definers and antidefiners cut young family are linked by various
people out of the picture entirely: by their kinds of likenesses (31-32; pt.
reckoning, nothing that actual children write, Wittgenstein's family-rese
say, or do has any place in discussions of what proach enables us to stake
constitutes children's literature.7 How, then, to ground between the antidefin
account for a story such as Orson Scott Card's finers: we have neither to throw
Enders Game , which was not written for chil- cept of children's literature n
dren yet garnered such enthusiastic responses common trait exhibited by all (
from young readers that it was eventually re- dren's texts. lhe fact that som
published as a children's book (xi-xviii)? difficult to define - even "impo
The definers and the antidefiners agree exactly" - does not mean that it
on another central and equally problematicor cannot be talked about. In
point: both sides presume that the absence of simply have to accept that the
a working definition of children's literatureconsideration is complex an
constitutes a major problem, undermining may also be unstable (its meanin
the validity of the category itself (Jones 288). time and across different cultu
But, as philosophers of language remind us,at the edges (its boundaries are
the idea that all viable concepts have defi- exact). Childhood is one such
nitions is profoundly controversial. In his dren's literature is another. Tru
Philosophical Investigations , Ludwig Witt-eternal essence that all children share - not
genstein famously denies this very point. Heeven youth. (To a parent, a forty-year-old can
uses the example of games to illustrate how a be a child.) But it does not follow that the des-
category can exist even when the diverse ar-
ignation "child" has no meaning, that we can-
ray of things belonging to it - board games,not know anything about the lives, practices,
Olympic games, the game of catch - have noand discourse of individual children from dif-
one thing in common; rather, a complicatedferent times and places. Similarly, in order to
network of similarities crop up and disap-expand our knowledge of children's literature
pear as we compare and contrast differentas a whole, the best approach we can take is
types of games. Faced with complex phenom- to proceed piecemeal, focusing our attention
ena of this kind, Wittgenstein says, we shouldon different subareas and continually striv-
eschew grand attempts to define or theorize
ing to characterize our subject in ways that
about the category as a whole. acknowledge its messiness and diversity.

This content downloaded from

108.61.242.12 on Thu, 27 Jul 2023 15:39:47 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 12 6.1 j Marah Gubar 213
i*
The case of children's and,
theater
indeed, thecan be
best way to used
figure out what T
ф
constitutes a children's play in a given ap-
to illustrate how the family-resemblance time 0
■t

and place is to study

proach works and why it is needed. Until thea wide range of produc- ST
и
tions that
twentieth century, drama was either represented
the main themselves
form or cu

were widely
of public entertainment regarded as belonging
available to all to this
agescat- 3
о.
and classes, and someegory.
of While
the earliest
doing works
so, we can generate a list
3
of textual
written especially for the and extratextual
young in traits common to
countries ft

dramas that
such as England, Germany, and Franceaddress themselves to children,
were
□Г
0

plays. Yet most accounts which canofin turn

the helphistory
us to identify other
and
a
0

development of children's possible examples of this theatrical

literature paysubgenre
no õ
attention to what is now called "theater for (which may then yield up still more charac- ÏL
ST

young audiences." Numerous factors have teristic traits). What we end up with is not a
«/i

contributed to the neglect of this subfield, set definition of the term "children's play" but
but one of them is that the rigidity of the two rather a constellation of criteria that we can

positions outlined above virtually ensures its refer to as we attempt to make distinctions
exclusion from serious study. Antidefiners among different kinds of productions.
who mention this topic argue that dramas If my investigation of the emergence of
such as Peter Pan were created by and for professional children's theater in England and
adults; accordingly, there is no way to iso- the United States is any guide, the flexible list
late children's theater as a dramatic category of criteria we can use to determine whether
in its own right and thus no way to trace its a drama counts as a children's play can be
history or contextualize individual plays. As roughly divided into three groups. First, para-
for the definers, they ignore children's drama or peritextual aspects of a drama sometimes
(and poetry, and nonfiction) in their drive to attest to children's status as a primary target
generalize; like their opponents, they have a audience, as when children are mentioned in
bad habit of using "children's literature" and a play's subtitle or in the preface to the pub-
"children's fiction" as interchangeable terms. lished version of the script. Second, textual
Drama in particular upsets their paradigm: and generic aspects of the play often prove in-
both the format and the content of profes- formative: lines of dialogue addressed to chil-
sional children's theater tend to subvert gen- dren; stage directions that presume children
eralizations about the triumph of innocence will be in the audience; scenes, characters, or
in nineteenth-century children's literature, plot lines copied from previous productions
and figuring out which plays count as chil- aimed explicitly at children; or the fact that a
dren's dramas often involves attending to the drama was adapted from a book widely con-
theatergoing practices of actual children. sidered to be for children.

Like children's literature in general, chil- Third, extratextual and intertheatrical

dren's theater resists definition because it of- information can reveal a great deal about
ten appeals to mixed audiences of children the intended and actual audiences of a given
and adults. Playwrights and producers know production.8 Did the show's creators- play-
that adults are often the ones who bank- wright, composer, choreographer, director,
producer- leave a record of their intentions,
roll children's trips to the theater, and they
shape their shows accordingly. How, then, do in correspondence, memoirs, or public state-
we decide if a given drama should count asments? Did they advertise the show as a chil-
children's theater? The family-resemblancedren's play, mentioning daytime performances
approach proves useful here. Wittgensteinand reduced prices? Did peripheral events
surrounding the show cater to children,9 or
exhorts us to look first at specific examples,

This content downloaded from

108.61.242.12 on Thu, 27 Jul 2023 15:39:47 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 214 On Not Defining Children's Literature [ PMLA
«л
<D did the program refer to their presence? Was children's plays that decisively differenti-
M
the production part of a series that was under- ates them from dramas aimed at adults. And
О

Õ stood as being for children or housed in a spe- plays produced professionally constitute only
О cially designated children's theater? All these one small subcategory of children's theater.
£
•м questions relate to the issue of intention; other At least in the United States and the United
4)
E queries put the spotlight on reception. Did Kingdom, a thriving tradition of home and
-о reviewers emphasize how child-oriented the school theatricals performed by and for chil-
с
а performance was and dwell on the question of dren preceded and paved the way for pro-
{л
how children might (or did) react? Do we have fessional productions (Gubar, "Peter Pan ').
2
и
proof of various kinds that children attended Catering to this craze, publishers issued many
О
Ф
X
in large numbers? Did young people write fan volumes of dramas composed for children to
+*
letters to actors performing in the production enact at home, school, and church for an in-
or describe their reactions to the production tergenerational audience of peers, relatives,
in diaries, letters, statements to journalists, or and acquaintances. Further study of these
writing contests run by periodicals? amateur children's plays will likely reveal that
Such competitions, which occurred in En- they exhibit some (but not all) of the features
gland and the United States at the turn of the common to professional plays, while sharing
twentieth century, may have been unique to other qualities that their commercial counter-
the Anglo-American scene; scholars studying parts lack. "In spinning a thread," Wittgen-
Russian or Japanese children's theater might stein observes, "we twist fibre on fibre. And
turn up a different list of recurring traits. This the strength of the thread does not reside in
is a key benefit of the family-resemblance ap- the fact that some one fibre runs through its
proach: its flexibility allows critics to attend whole length, but in the overlapping of many
to cultural and temporal diversity while still fibres" (32; pt. 1, sec. 67). If even one small
borrowing from the work others have done subcategory of children's literature can only
on the same general topic. This approach also be defined in a loose, inexact way - by giving
allows categories- "children's theater," 4 chil- rise to a list of characteristics no one of which
dren's literature" - to remain fuzzy at the is shared by all children's plays - it seems evi-
edges. Plays, stories, and poems do exist that dent that we should not waste our energy try-
resist simple categorization as one thing or ing to generate a set definition of children's
the other, children's fare or not. The family- literature as a whole. The point is not that it
resemblance approach makes room for these is impossible to do but rather that any defini-
borderline cases, since the list of character- tion attentive to the glorious messiness and
istics generated need not coalesce into a set multiplicity of children's literature would be
definition that triggers a simple thumbs-up or so long, complicated, and qualified that it
thumbs-down decision. It might - but if not, would be of no value to us.

this model enables scholars to weigh the evi- A final benefit of the family-resemblance
dence for and against inclusion and engage in approach is that it does not automatically
subjective interpretation: to decide, for exam- deem the reading, writing, and viewing prac-
ple, that some traits count for more than oth- tices of children "irrelevant" and "impossible
ers or to determine that the evidence for and to gauge" (Hunt 120; Rose 9). To be sure, it is
against inclusion of a given text is so evenly tempting to rule out-of-bounds any reference
balanced that no firm decision can be made. to actual children in scholarly discussions of
While studying Anglo-American chil- children's literature because it allows us to
dren's theater, I have not discovered a single avoid addressing the complex methodological
characteristic shared by all professional and epistemologica! questions that inevitably

This content downloaded from

108.61.242.12 on Thu, 27 Jul 2023 15:39:47 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 12 6.1 ] Marah Gubar 215
i*

arise when we seek out tion,"

and critics have disregarded this evidence
interpret statement because she ST
ft
immediately adds that an investment in the child's inno-
about the opinions, habits, and activities of О
cent simplicity not only recurs but "predominate [s]" in the t

young people. But although

Anglo-Americanwe cannot
tradition gen-
(59). She also repeatedly gener- 5*

eralize about how children as fiction

alizes about children's a group
as a whole in the react
course of
Ш
to literature, we can and
making her should
argument (1-2,make
8-9, 40-41). room 3
a
5. Watson 4-10; of
for more particular discussions Roth 160-64,
how 173;young
Reynolds 5-9; and
Gubar, Artful Dodgers 3-38, 149-79. 3
people have responded to individual texts.10 »
r*
6. Young authors of youth literature include Mimpsy 7
Cutting children out of
Rhys,the loop
David Binney closes
Putnam, down
Louise Abeita, Katharine О
&
inquiry, whereas acknowledging that
Hull, Pamela Whitlock, Pamela Brown, S. their
E. Hinton, and О

reading, viewing, and playing practices tocan

Alexandra Elizabeth Sheedy. Many thanks Anna Red- о
cay, who is completing a dissertation on child writers at ÏL
function as one of the fibers that help deter- л
the University of Pittsburgh, for compiling this list.
mine whether a text counts as children's lit- &

7. E.g., Nodelman, Hidden Adult 164, 148-49, and

erature opens it up.11 Instead of broadening Rose 9.

our knowledge of the field, decades of debate 8. Taking an intertheatrical approach involves look-
driven by anxiety over the absence of an over- ing beyond the specific occasion of a single performance
"to include an awareness of the elements and interactions
arching definition of children's literature have
that make up the whole web of mutual understanding be-
resulted in the adoption of rigid and reduc- tween potential audiences and their players" (Bratton 37).
tive accounts that contribute to the neglect Just as an intertextual interpretation insists that no act
of children's theater, children's writing, and of reading or writing occurs in isolation from others, an
other subareas in children's literature studies, intertheatrical reading "seeks to articulate the mesh of
connections between all kinds of theatre texts, and be-
while doing little to encourage the compara- tween texts and their users" (37).
tive study of children's texts from different 9. Examples include toy and book giveaways, writing
cultural traditions (O'Sullivan). It is time to and designing contests, and the decoration of offstage ar-
try a different approach. eas (the box office, the house of the theater) to resemble
playhouses or nurseries.
10. Obviously, not all children's literature scholars
need engage in this type of work. Those who do must ar-
ticulate their methodology clearly and acknowledge its
limits repeatedly. Because the temptation to generalize
Notes about children is so strong, rigorous humility is required.

Thanks to Laurie Langbauer for inspiring me to take up As Karen Coats observes, "[R]eal children always exceed
this topic and to Kieran Setiya for showing me how. I am the sum total of our inquiry," so those of us who study the

also grateful for the thoughtful comments and sugges- reading, writing, and viewing practices of young people
tions made by Robin Bernstein, Troy Boone, Don Gray, should "endeavor to know as little as possible about our
Erik Gray, Edward Gubar, Susan Gubar, John Hay, Ken- subject and to treat what knowledge we do have as provi-
sional" (142, 148).
neth Kidd, Jeanne Klein, Sharon Marcus, Daniel Morgan,
11. For more on the connection between children's
and Courtney Weikle-Mills.
1. For Huckleberry Finn , see Clark 80-83; for Peter Pan , play and children's literature, see Robin Bernstein's ar-
ticle in this issue of PMLA.
see Gubar, " Peter Pan"; for Little Prince, see Schiff 400.

2. Examples include P. L. Travers, Susan Cooper,

Madeleine L'Engle, Rosemary Sutcliff, Scott O'Dell, and
L. M. Boston (Honeyman 7; Cooper 98; Townsend, Sense Works Cited
127, 201, 160, 36).
3. Shel Silverstein, Orson Scott Card, Frank and Er- Bratton, Jacky. New Readings in Theatre History. Cam-
nestine Gilbreth, and Leon Garfield all wrote texts aimed bridge: Cambridge UP, 2003. Print.
at adults that later became known as children's books. Card, Orson Scott. Introduction. Enders Game. Rev. ed.
This phenomenon is even more common in the world of New York: Tom Doherty-Tor, 1991. xi-xxi. Print.
young adult literature; see Rabb for examples. Clark, Beverly Lyon. Kiddie Lit: The Cultural Construc-
4. Although Rose issues the disclaimer that her account tion of Children's Literature in America. Baltimore:
"makes no claim to be a complete history of children's fic- Johns Hopkins UP, 2003. Print.

This content downloaded from

108.61.242.12 on Thu, 27 Jul 2023 15:39:47 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 2i6 On Not Defining Children's Literature [ P M L A
Coats, Karen S. "Keepin' It Plural: Children's Studies in Companion Encyclopedia of Children's
Ü 2nd ed. Vol. 1. Ed. Peter Hunt. New York
M the Academy." Children's Literature Association Quar-
0
terly 26.3 (2001): 140-50. Print. 2004. Print.
Õ Cooper, Susan. "In Defense of the Artist." Signposts toRabb, Margo. "I'm Y.A. and I'm O.K." New York Times.
"Ü
о Criticism of Children's Literature. Ed. Robert Bator. New York Times, 20 July 2008. Web. 27 Jan. 2010.
JZ
+* Chicago: Amer. Lib. Assn., 1983. 98-108. Print. Reynolds, Kimberley. Radical Children's Literature: Fu-
Gubar, Marah. Artful Dodgers: Reconceiving the Golden ture Visions and Aesthetic Transformations in Juvenile
E
Age of Children's Literature . New York: Oxford UP, Fiction. New York: Palgrave, 2007. Print.
"О
с
2009. Print. Rose, Jacqueline. The Case of Peter Pan; or, The Impossi-
«
bility of Children's Fiction. 1984. Rev. ed. Philadelphia:
U of Pennsylvania P, of
Audience." The Oxford Handbook 1993. Print.
Children's Lit-
...

erature. Ed. Julia Mickenberg and

Roth, Christine. "ErnestLynn
Dowson and Vallone. New
the Duality of Late-
о
а} York: Oxford UP, forthcoming 2011.
Victorian Girlhood: 'Her Double Perversity.'" English
£
Literature in Transition
Honeyman, Susan. Elusive Childhood : ,Impossible
1880-1920 45.2 (2002): 158-
Repre-
sentations in Modern Fiction. Columbus: Ohio State 75. Print.

UP, 2005. Print. Sale, Roger. Fairy Tales and After: From Snow White to
Hunt, Peter. "Criticism and Children's Literature." Sig- E. B. White. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1978. Print.
nal 15(1974): 117-30. Print. Schiff, Stacy. Saint-Exupéry : A Biography. New York:
Jones, Katharine. "Getting Rid of Children's Literature." Knopf, 1994. Print.
The Lion and the Unicorn 30 (2006): 287-315. Print. Shavit, Zohar. The Poetics of Children's Literature. Ath-
Lesnik-Oberstein, Karin. "The Psychopathology of Ev- ens: U of Georgia P, 1986. Print.
eryday Children's Literature Criticism." Cultural Cri- Townsend, John Rowe. A Sense of Story: Essays on Con-
tique 45 (2000): 222-42. Print. temporary Writers for Children. Philadelphia: Lippin-
McDowell, Myles. "Fiction for Children and Adults: cott, 1971. Print.
Some Essential Différences." Children's Literature in
Education 4.1 (1973): 50-63. Print. The Signal Approach to Children's
Nikolajeva, Maria. Children's Literature Comes of Age: To- Chambers. Harmondsworth: Kestre
ward a New Aesthetic. New York: Garland, 1996. Print. Print.

Nodelman, Perry. "The Case of Children's Fiction; or, The Watson, Victor. "Innocent Children a
Impossibility of Jacqueline Rose." Children's Litera- ture." Introduction. Voices Off: Te
ture Association Quarterly 10.3 (1985): 98-100. Print. Readers. Ed. Morag Styles, Eve Be
London: Cassell, 1996. 1-15. Print.
Wittgenstein,
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 2008. Print. Ludwig. Philosoph
O'Sullivan, Emer. "Internationalism,Trans.
theG.Universal
E. M. Anscombe. Child,
3rd ed. Maiden: Black-
and the World of Children's Literature." International
well, 2003. Print.

This content downloaded from

108.61.242.12 on Thu, 27 Jul 2023 15:39:47 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms