Despiterepresentingadiverserangeofexperiencesandtheories,thetextsoftheLiterary TextsandCriticalMethodssyllabusshareanotablesimilarity:allare“adult”textsthatprovide “adult”perspectives.Evenwhenthesetextsprovideacommentaryonyouth,authorssuchas JustinTorresin We the Animals emphasizethepowerofchildhoodinretrospectandtheir perceptionsofadolescenceuponexitingit.ThisnotionisnotlimitedtotheLitCMcourse,and maybeappliedtoliteratureinacademiawritlarge.
Consequently,twocentralquestionsmaybeasked.Firstly,whattextsareworth theorizingwithinanacademicsetting?And,ifscholarlydiscussionsaretotranscendthesole perspectiveofadults,thenwhatistheliterarylens,perspective,andsignificanceofachild?In approachingthesetwoquestions,Iattemptedtochallengestrictlyadultperspectivesby analyzingchildren’sliteraturewithinanacademiccontext.Bytheorizingwithchildren’s literature,Iattemptedtoidentifythelensofachildwithincontentiousenvironmentsand contexts.
ForthisprojectIexamined The Giving Tree byShelSilverstein,abookwhichwas publishedin1964attheprecipiceoftheWarinVietnamandgainedpopularityastheconflict progressed.Bytreating The Giving Tree asacasestudy,Iattemptedtoassesshowachildmay haveviewedthetextinrelationtoanabnormalenvironment,andultimatelyconsiderif “childhood”maybedeemedaliterarytheoryinitself.
Inordertoaccomplishthis,itwasnecessarytoestablishwithsomeprecisionwhatthe perspectiveofachildduringtheVietnamWaryearsencompassed.Consequently,muchofthe researchconductedforthisprojectwasplacedwithinthearchiveofa“mindset”andspecifically consideredhowthelensofachildmaybeshapedinreactiontoshiftingenvironments.
Afirstcomponentofthisresearchwasthebook The Vietnam War in American Childhood byJoelP.RhodeswhichanalyzeschildhoodreactionstoVietnamthroughasetofpublished letterstoPresidentLyndonB.Johnsonthatwerewrittenbyelementaryschoolstudents.
Additionally,RhodesexaminesVietnam’sstatusasthefirst“televisedwar”inAmericanhistory
Tofurtherestablishabenchmarkforachild,Ianalyzedarepositoryofhandwritten, kindergartenbookreportspublishedonablogforelementaryschoolteachers.Byreadingthese reports,Iattemptedtouncoverthelanguageofachild,limitationsthatmightexistintheway whichachildcommunicates,andhowchildrenmightinteractwithcomplexideaswithoutactual words.
Developinguponthelanguageofchildrenwithinschool,Iadditionallyresearchedthe pedagogyofelementaryschoolteachersduringVietnam,andhowteachingplansrevealed certainextentsofachild’sknowledgeoftheWar.IspecificallyincorporatedtheworkofStephen Pottsfromhisarticle Teach Your Children Well: Raising the Next Generation on the Vietnam War and Literary theory and children's literature: Interpreting ourselves and our worlds byTheresa Rogers.
Ultimately,thisresearchculminatedinanalternativeviewof The Giving Tree where selectpagesfromthebookweredrawnovertoreflecttheenvironmentsandperspectivesofan AmericanchildduringVietnam.
Inordertodeveloparepresentationofachild’smindduringtheWar,itwasessentialthat Iplacedboundariesonthelanguageandsymbolismofthework.AsarguedbyRhodes,“preand earlyelementaryschoolagechildren(duringVietnam)werenotequippeddevelopmentallyto understandthecomplexityofwarissues.”
2Rhodes,JoelP 2019 The Vietnam War in American Childhood Np:UniversityofGeorgiaPress
Thisconceptoflimitedunderstandingisfurther1 Rogers,Theresa 2009 “Literarytheoryandchildren'sliterature:Interpretingourselvesandourworlds”Theory IntoPractice.10.1080/00405849909543845.
supportedbythekindergartenbookreports3 fromtheteachingblogwhichcontainedsimple wordingandillegiblewriting.Inordertobeconsistentwiththedevelopmentofachild,I employeda“methodoflimitation”whichincludedrestrictingtheamountofcomplexlanguageI coulduse,relyingheavilyontheuseofpicturesoverwrittenannotations,andusingmy non-dominanthandwhendrawingcertainportionsoftheworktomimicthefinemotorskillsofa youngchild.
Developinguponthe“limited”drawingsofthework,theuseofvisualrepresentationsof Vietnamandchildhoodasopposedtowrittenannotationsorclosereadingsof The Giving Tree’s languagefurtherrestrictsthemethodsoftheworktothecapabilitiesofachild.Whilethe aforementionedbookreportswerenotlinguisticallycomplex,itisimportanttonotethatthey containednumerousdrawingswherestudentsconveyedtheirphysical“views”ofthesubject matterindetail.Theconceptofthe“visual”mayevenbeextendedtothefindingsofRhodes whoarguedthatbecauseVietnamwasAmerica’sfirst“TVwar,”theimagesthatchildrenwere exposedtothroughtelevision“providedthebackgroundcontexttoeverything.”4
Moreover,these“visualintroductions”arefurthercomplicatedwhenoneconsidersthe educationalmaterialonVietnamavailabletochildrenatthetime.AsexplainedbyPottsinhis article,whilediscussionsofVietnamwereregularlyintegratedintomiddleandhighschool classroomcurricula,Vietnamwasscarcelymentionedattheelementaryschoollevel.Potts contendsthatthisdiscrepancyhaspersistedtothepresent,andthatfor“teachersinthese classrooms,merelyfindingresourcesthatareappropriatetotheageandabilitiesoftheirstudents isachallenge.”
5 Thus,whilethechildrenoftheVietnamerawereawareofthewartoacertain
3 Anisnest 2011 “Kindergartenbookreports”Anisnet
https://anisnestwordpresscom/books-we-read/kindergarten-book-reports/
4 Rhodes,JoelP 2019 TheVietnamWarinAmericanChildhood Np:UniversityofGeorgiaPress
5 Potts,Steve 1992 “TeachYourChildrenWell:RaisingtheNextGenerationontheVietNamWar1”Vietnam GenerationJournal4(Number3-4).
http://www2iathvirginiaedu/sixties/HTML docs/Texts/Scholarly/Potts Teach Childrenhtml
extent,asenseofconfusiondevelopedwhenattemptingtonavigatethelandscapeofthe homefrontandtherealitiesofviolenceabroad.Inturn,youngerchildrenweremorelikelyto blendfamiliarTVshowsandbooks(suchas The Giving Tree)withimageryofthewarinorder tofillaneducationalvoid.Toreflectthesegapsofunderstanding,Iincorporatedanadditional “limitationofunderstanding”intothemethodofthiswork.
Whenapplyingthis“limitedmethod”toboth The Giving Tree andtheproject,atension developedbetweenthecontentsofthestoryandtherealityofthewar;while The Giving Tree largelyfollowstheagingofayoungboy,manyAmericanchildrenduringthewaryearsequated “growingup”with“goingtoVietnam.”AsobservedbyRhodesinalettertoLBJ,achildin Californiawrotethat“Iwishtherewasn’tawar,”because“inafewyearsIwillbegoingtoViet Nam.”6 Intheproject,thistroublingperceptionof“growth”maybeviewedinaredrawingof oneofthefinalpagesofthebookwheretheagedboyisdepictedinmilitarygear,alongsidea gun.Additionally,typical“dreamjobs”ofayoungboyarewritteninachildishfontthatimitates thetextofthekindergartenbookreports,butarecrossedouttorepresentthemoodof inevitabilitymanychildrenheld.Thisthemeisalsoportrayedinaredrawingofanearlierpage wheretheyoungerboyisdepictedplaying“kingoftheforest.”However,thispageisredrawnto depicttheVietnamesejungle,andtheboyisshownwalkingtowardsitwearingamilitaryhelmet thathasreplacedhisflowercrown.Thisisfurtherjuxtaposedbyascribbleddrawingofanature scenebehindhim,representingachildhoodleftbehind.
Inanotherportionoftheproject,thetext“grewold”fromtheinitialpublicationiseven crossedoutentirelyandreplacedinchildishfontwith“wenttoVietnam.”However,thispage alsodrawsinspirationfromanotherletterwrittentoLBJwhereayoungstudentremarked,"I thinkyouaredoingthebestyoucantostopthewarinVietnam.Iamsorrywehavetogoon
livingwithwars.Ihopethiswillbeourlastwar.”7 Itisnotabletoconsiderthatthisletterplaces anemphasison“stopping”war,ratherthanreachingtemporarypeaceorwinning–inthiscase, thechildseemstochallengethenotionofwarasa“livedreality”thatmaypersistasheages.
Thispagehighlightsthis“wish”viaanotherhandwrittenannotationina“bookreportstyle,” alongsideamoreharshexpectationforthefutureshownbythedeletionof“grewolder.”
Furthermore,adoodleofasonandhisfatherareshownwhichsymbolizesachildhoodsenseof “inheritance”inregardstothewarthatwouldcarryonasone“grewolder”and“wentto Vietnam.”Theconfusionandtensionthiscontrastmayhavepotentiallycausedisadditionally symbolizedbyasetofquestionmarksintheleaves.
TheclashbetweentheinnocenceofchildhoodandtheviolenceoftheWarisperhaps mostprominentinaredrawingofapageoriginallydepictingtheyoungboyplaying hide-and-go-seekwiththetree.Intheredrawing,whilethetreereachesovertofindtheboy, headlinesofthewarlurkbehindthetrunkastheyslowlyenterthechild’sworld.However,the headlinesarepresentedinascrambledmassindicativeofthechildhoodconfusionofthewar.
Thepresenceofmediaisfurtherexaminedinthispageandispresentedasheavily permeatingtheyoungboy’syouthfulbliss.Rhodesspecificallyexaminedthisinfiltrationthrough thewar’sTVpresence,andinaninterviewpublishedinhisbook,amanwhogrewupduringthe Warmentionedthat “IdefinitelyhadanawarenessofthewaronTVeverynight,ifonlythe scatteredsnapshotimagesandunderstandingthatitwasatopiccoveredalotbythenews.”8 On theredrawnpage,aTVantennareachingtowardstheboyalongsidethetreebranchrepresents thewarreachingchildrenthroughtelevision,andFredFlinstoneandtheJetson’sUFOareshown holdingagunanddroppingamissile,symbolizingthemixingof“kid-friendly”mediawiththe
ubiquityofviolentimagery.AsstatedbyanotherofPotts’interviewees,theconstantimageryof thewar“becamepartofnormallife”andchildrenbecamedesensitized,justasthenormal“play” oftheboyisredrawntoconveythebrutalityhewasnormallyexposedto.
Ultimately,eachpageculminatestoshowthedeteriorationofchildhoodamidstthe horrorsofawar,andtheabnormalnatureofchildhood“growth”and“aging”atthetimeof The Giving Tree’spublication.Theredrawingofthebookservesasarepresentationofachild’s perspectivethatisphysicallyimposedonawareratext.Whilethelensofachildiscertainly limitedatatechnicallevel,thelinguisticsimplicityofachildisrepletewithemotionaltraumas andsingularunderstandingsofanadultworld.Theliterarytheoryof“childhood”isthusa reckoningofcertainlimitationswiththebroadambiguitiesofinnocenceandtheevenbroader notionof“growingup.”
References
Anisnest.2011.“Kindergartenbookreports.”Anisnet.
https://anisnest.wordpress.com/books-we-read/kindergarten-book-reports/.
Potts,Steve.1992.“TeachYourChildrenWell:RaisingtheNextGenerationontheVietNam War1.” Vietnam Generation Journal 4(Number3-4).
http://www2.iath.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Texts/Scholarly/Potts_Teach_Children .html.
Rhodes,JoelP.2019. The Vietnam War in American Childhood.N.p.:UniversityofGeorgia Press.
Rogers,Theresa.2009.“Literarytheoryandchildren'sliterature:Interpretingourselvesandour worlds.” Theory Into Practice.10.1080/00405849909543845.