Hello my friends of the Omschool, teacher Omi (grama) here with some thoughts on reading vintage children's literature. There are certain mindsets one must have and preconceived notions to do away with when reading books not set in a familiar time or place. Or books about unfamiliar subject matter, especially different cultures, traditions and peoples.
I have an advantage here because I am vintage and much of what I have read, even as a child, far predates me, timewise and in content. I was born in 1964 and learned to read about 4. I got left alone to read what I wanted. So I often ended up reading books that were too mature for me. I have also read books that take place within different cultural milieu. Scholastic Books was very good at presenting different times and cultures sensitively and accurately. And I was a diehard Scholastic fangirl.
All this was so good for me because it broadened my mind, deepened my empathy and and prevented me from developing a lot of ethno-centric stereotypes and prejudices. I've always had intense respect and appreciation for people's differing ways of doing things. If anything, I wanted to leave the US and move to those places I read about.
But back to topic, mindsets we need for reading vintage literature. Maybe mindset is the wrong word because it implies inflexibility and we need flexibility and tolerance to understand things outside our ken. It's crucial to accept that not everyone does things or understands things as I do. My culture, upbringing, background, society and age play a huge role.
I got to thinking about this reading a blog post about a book called "Dinky Hocker Shoots Smack" (M.E. Kerr). I'm not sure the blogger's age but guessing they weren't reading this book when it was written in 1972 (set in 71). There are many criticisms about its many "wacky" references.
However the wacky references, such as the cat's name being Ralph Nader, wasn't wacky at all in 1971. Ralph Nader was a household name. It would be like naming a cat Steve Jobs now. It was also deemed strange that main character Tucker's mom wrote for a true confessions magazine. In 1971, the grocery store aisle was papered in such magazines, the National Enquirer being the best known.
Then there's discussion on quirky ways parents behaved which, though it might sound made-up was actually pretty normal, especially in larger cities like L.A. People did go to shrinks and join trendy and fad religious groups. Many of the biggest named diets like South Beach and Scarsdale came out at that time. Moms did do charity work and called it that. The word Ghetto was in common parlance.
There's also commentary on odd things different characters say which to someone living in those times sounds completely normal. Not acceptable but certainly common. Racism, misogyny, religious and lifestyle bigotry was on prime-time with Archie Bunker. He openly attacked liberals, Jews and "pinkos" and was applauded for it. Kids got used to hearing their parents say things and use terms that make us cringe today. It made some of us cringe then too.
And then there is the mention of Dinky Hocker's BMI, 5'4" 165#, which makes the author very uncomfortable. But this BMI WAS considered very overweight back then. I was put on a 1,000 calorie a day diet at age 8 because I weighed 100 pounds. I never gained more than 25 pounds or so and just hit max weight more quickly. Then when I gained weight in high school, I was called fat at 138 pounds. It may not be right but it is how it was. People were smaller back then, it's just a fact.
Why do I bring these points up? Because they highlight how important it is, when reading books in different time periods, to understand that what we do and think now isn't always how it's been. And that authors are writing in the time they live to audiences of the time. Agatha Christie used the N-word in a play because it was acceptable then.
Even beloved Nancy Drew was a condescending racist bigot with a bad case of white savior complex, in her earlier incarnations. But she was reflecting the time and place she lived in. So to understand a novel, we have to understand what the time was like, as odd as it may seem. We don't have to like or agree. But we have to understand.
We can note what's wrong but we also have to be careful not to be too judgmental of authors reflecting their own time and experience. Some of them were breaking ground just by mentioning these things. And future generations will look back on us and have a lot to find fault with too (current Trump regime springs to mind). Not all change is progress. Nor was the past a unilaterally better time and place. Some things are better, some worse, some just different.
.jpg)
_cover.jpg)
