| Children's Literature: New Approaches London: Pargrave-Macmillan, 2004. Review by Lydia Kokkola, Department of English, University of Turku, Finland. The publishers, Palgrave-Macmillan, bill Karín Lesnik-Oberstein's edited volume, Children's Literature: New Approaches as “a guide for graduate and upper-level undergraduate students of children's literature.” Since this 221 page volume retails at an affordable £16.99 in the UK (although it is more expensive in central Europe and the USA), it is more likely than books published in the Routledge series edited by Jack Zipes or Scarecrow's children's literature series to reach its intended readership. The novice scholars for whom this text has been produced are, however, likely to be confused by the “new approaches” Lesnik-Oberstein outlines in the introduction to this volume since familiarity with the history of children's literature criticism is assumed. So what is “new” about the approaches offered by this volume? For once, the adjective is not merely a marketing device. In the first chapter, Lesnik-Oberstein critiques established ways of studying children's literature. Although her arguments will not be “new” to those who are familiar with her earlier works, they do depart from the approaches offered by numerous other critics (with the possible exception of Jacqueline Rose). Lesnik-Oberstein suggests that there is a lack of clarity as to “what . . . constitutes an ‘academic' study of children's literature and its criticism as opposed to, say, educational or librarianship courses and publications on children's fiction” (1). In other words, she regards educational and librarianship scholarship as non-academic and is dismissive of the possibility that the intersections between these various disciplines might be a source of value (see also Lesnik-Oberstein 2004b). Instead she deconstructs well-known works of children's literary criticism, particularly focussing on Rod McGillis's The Nimble Reader and David Rudd's Enid Blyton and the Mystery of Children's Literature, in order to define her position as one of opposition. Lesnik-Oberstein suggests that the main goal of children's literature criticism to date has been “the choosing of good books for children” through a thorough knowledge of both the child and the book (4). She builds her argument by questioning whether either of these entities is ‘knowable', and is particularly keen to point out the ways in which critics have conflated real, flesh-and-blood children with generalised notions of the child, the child reader and childhood. Her argumentation relies on what at first appears to be hair-splitting distinctions in the search of flaws in various critics' presentations of their ideas, but gradually builds towards identifying a central problem in the criticism of children's literature: There is, after all, of course, no conclusive evidence of which critic predicts better than which other critic which children will like which book and why; or a critical method that addresses once and for all the demands made by children's literature of itself to find the way to improved literacy, education, morality and emotional well-being through the reading of suitable children's books. Indeed, how could there be? (19) In a text intended for novice critics, Lesnik-Oberstein is undoubtedly right to begin by questioning the purpose of literary criticism in general and the criticism of children's literature in particular. Many established critics would do well to return to this basic question. It seems to me that Lesnik-Oberstein's comment on the lack of evidence as to the success of existing criticism is something all literary critics would do well to address. And this is why I find myself so disappointed by her own response. Instead of considering ways in which children's literature scholars might seek the evidence she has established is lacking, Lesnik-Oberstein's solution is to give up and declare the task impossible. She concludes: “children's literature as it stands, and as it defines itself, cannot succeed in achieving its own aim: finding the good book for the child, through knowing the child and the book” (19). Having followed her detailed arguments and critiques of why critics such as Rudd, McGillis, Sell and Hunt are wrongheaded in their pursuit of finding ways of choosing good books for children, I think readers should be forgiven for expecting an equally detailed explication of Lesnik-Oberstein's own goals and an overview of what she considers to be the purpose of literary criticism. Such readers will be disappointed. The only solution that is offered is a single sentence stating that the authors of the papers in the volume write and think about children's literature without “re-introduc[ing] at some point, overtly or indirectly - the real child, and a wider real of which it is a part” (19). What this statement does not explain is how critics taking this approach will define their field. Indeed I look forwards to seeing how Lesnik-Oberstein and her followers will define children's literature without referring to children, child readers, implied readers or childhood in future publications as none of them has undertaken this task in the volume under review. And even if it were possible to define children's literature without making real world references, the purpose of such forms of criticism remain a mystery. I understand Lesnik-Oberstein's statement as proposing that the academic study of children's literature should in some way sever itself from its pedagogical roots, almost as if there were something rather shameful or inappropriate about the history of children's literature criticism. Lesnik-Oberstein's onslaught into the various works she cites implies that there is something fundamentally wrong with the premise of trying to find ways of matching children and books. Not only does this devalue some of the finest work of children's literary criticism, it dismisses something that children's literature scholars have to offer to the wider field of literary criticism. Critics of mainstream literature have much to learn from the anti-elitism and celebration of the reader found in children's literature research. For this reason, I find her critique of David Rudd's Enid Blyton and the Mystery of Children's Literature particularly unfortunate since this work goes further than most in seeking a method of evaluating what constitutes finding good books for children. But enough. The criticism of children's literature will certainly not develop if critics merely pick holes in one another's arguments or attempt to substitute one set of beliefs for another. A more productive way to evaluate the value of this ‘new' approach is to see how effectively the articles in the collection manage to do what Lesnik-Oberstein claims they do: offer insights into children's literature without making references to the real world. The first article by Sue Walsh certainly lives up to Lesnik-Oberstein's claims. Walsh provides a detailed and illuminating investigation of the ways in which critics have conflated biographical studies of Kipling with studies of his Just So Stories in order to expose some of the sloppy argumentation that has arisen in this type of criticism. However, after this good start, the remaining articles in the volume return to making conventional references to children, child readers and the real world. Hillis Miller's article on The Swiss Family Robinson , for example, returns to the forms of criticism that Walsh criticises as he weaves biographical information about Wyss's life and the production the novel as well as autobiographical information about his own childhood reading into his discussion. The result is an article that plots changes in the reading processes that is valuable precisely because it makes references to a particular real world reader: Hillis Miller himself. The remaining seven articles, most of which have been written by less well established scholars than those mentioned so far, offer detailed, interesting analyses of a range of topics relevant for graduate studies of children's literature. All of them are worth reading; all of them make references to real world phenomena. A particularly noteworthy argument is Christine Sutphin's interrogation of existing scholarly generalisations about Victorian views of childhood. She draws attention to the ways in which a collection of illustrated poetry, Home Thoughts and Home Scenes, contradicts these generalisations. She then goes on to offer her own view of how Victorians viewed childhood, and in the process makes real world references of the kind that Lesnik-Oberstein eschews. Children's Literature: New Approaches offers food for thought. If we can regard Lesnik-Oberstein's new approaches as a complement to other approaches within a growing and divergent field of scholarship, we should welcome the appearance of this volume. Even if we do not agree with the solutions it offers, we must accept that it is posing serious questions that critics need to address. In time, I believe that Lesnik-Oberstein's introduction will become a classic article which will enable future scholars of children's literature to define their position on various debates in a more precise manner. The questions she poses and the critique of existing criticism she offers may prove helpful for those who seek answers. What the collection of articles included in this volume demonstrate, however, is the difficulty of producing criticism without making real world references. Given the generally high quality of these articles, I think we can also question what the value of forms of criticism that do live up to Lesnik-Oberstein's ideals might be. ReferencesLesnik-Oberstein, Karín (ed.) 2004a. Children's Literature: New Approaches. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Lesnik-Oberstein, Karín. 2004b. Review: Children's Literature ans Communication: The ChiLPA Project. The Modern Language Review p. 445. McGillis, Roderick. 1996. The Nimble Reader: Literary Theory and Children's Literature. New York: Twayne Publishers. Rudd, David. 2000. Enid Blyton and the Mystery of Children's Literature. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Lydia Kokkola |