On framing the child in art
Some years ago, when I was working in a Sunday newspaper, I was asked
to do a story about children's literature. I was asked to interview some
prominent writers about the children's status. I remember what Ratna Sri
Wijesinha said.
'What is sold as children's literature is basically adult narratives
with child characters.' He is right. There are children, in text and
illustration, a dash of the magical and a splash of baby words (well,
the tone and language style can vary depending on the age of the
'intended' audience of course) in children's books, so-called, but this
doesn't make them suitable to be read by children or even useful for
them. Ratna Sri Wijesinha explained the reason for this state of affairs
thus:
"Those who write children's books forget that in order to write a
story that makes sense to children they have to first get inside the
mind and heart of a child. Instead of doing this, they focus on
'message'. This makes them preachy. It takes away something from the
story, the narrative, the whole unfolding which is what enchants the
child. "
I agreed back then. What we get are authors who use the genre
'children's story' to make a point, say, about morality, about good and
bad, right and wrong. What ought to happen is the opposite; a story that
is written and is loved for its narrative worth. The telling is not
framed by objective, rather the moral issues in an unobtrusive way which
is the better way of persuading reader to reflect and embrace.
It reminded me of the difference between children's literature that
came from the former Soviet Union and that from Mao's Culturally
Revolutionized China in the seventies. The stories from Russia, Ukrain
and other Soviet Republics were not injected with socialist propaganda.
There was no perceptible push to make the reader absorb ethic and values
associated with the socialist ideal. Folk tales. Princes. Princesses.
Witches. Wicked people. Good people. Strange animals. Magic.
The simple triumph of good over evil. All it did was to tell the
child which side it is better to take given circumstances. Sure, there
was the unabashed and life-misrepresenting lie: the good always emerges
victorious. Still, that is a 'truth' whose learning can be postponed
without harming a child too much.
The Chinese stories were different; at least the ones that my mother
brought home from exhibitions of Chinese books. There were no princes
and princesses that I can remember. No unheard of creatures. Nothing
magical.
|
Sybil Wettasinghe |
There was however heroism, the triumph of good over bad, the putting
down of the wicked and the consecration of righteousness All this,
however, was made insufferable by frequent references to Chairman Mao
and the Great Communist Party. I didn't know Mao was or what this Great
Communist Party was. I only remember my mother saying that she should
have been more careful when she picked those books.
It doesn't 'work' for children whether it is political propaganda or
morality lecture. They are interested in stories, not messages. That's
the bottom line. Ratna Sri mentioned, I remember, Sybil Wettasinghe. He
said that today we have so many who author children's stories and none
even close to the heights of creativity and charm reached by the Grand
Young Lady of Children's Fiction in Sinhala.
Today literature is not just about giving into creative urge or the
product of such engagement. It is business. There's something
production-line about it. You get one thing right and then its
'replication, baby' as far as author is concerned. Most, I should say,
since not everyone is that commercial-minded.
We are just a couple of days since the world celebrated Children's
Day. Today, when there's so much of children's literature, it is
ironical that there's very little for the child. We get tons of DVDs for
children.
There are hundreds of cartoons. Almost every TV channel has a
children's programme made of cartoons. What are these about? In a word,
violence! Someone tricking someone, someone bashing someone over his/her
head and a lot of little children being taught that this is good stuff,
this is RIGHT stuff, this is ought-to-do stuff.
Then we have children's theatre and film. Happily theatre appears to
have more than a 'fair' share of decent and sensitive individuals.
Children's plays are children's plays. They can't really be described as
the playing out of adult themes using children as actors and props. Film
however is a mixed bag.
We have had excellent films such as Udayakantha Warnasuriya's 'Ran
Kevita' and Somaratne Dissanayake's 'Siri Raja Siri'. They were truly
'family' films. There is drama, fantasy, a story line that was clear and
entertaining. There were 'dark' elements but nothing overdone to the
point of terrorizing the younger child in the audience. Indeed those
elements that are usually taken as 'bad/wicked/fearful' are in the end
turned into funny, human and even lovable creatures. This was
particularly evident in 'Ran Kevita'.
Somaratne Dissanayake proved in 'Siri Raja Siri' that he can do a
decent children's film. This came after the award-winning 'Suriya Arana'
which was a violent film that was totally unsuited for the younger
child. It was an adult-themed film that had a couple of children doing
their child-thing, but ought to have been tagged PG-13 (Parental
Guidance recommended for children under 13 years of age). It was
followed by several other 'children's films' including 'Bindu', again
touted as a 'family film' and therefore for 'children'. This too was
unsuited for younger children.
Right now we have 'Ira Handa Yata' (Under the sun and moon) by Bennet
Ratnayake, again a film made for the entire family. It is certainly
unsuited for small children. There is a lot of violence in the film. The
producers have carefully left out those colours in the advertising.
It appears, if you went purely by hoarding and poster, like a love
story in a stressful time with not a hint of the violence embedded in
the film. That's trickery. Cheap.
These films clearly indicate how parents are being duped and children
being abused for commercial gain. The business enterprises camouflaged
as art-productions need to be taken to task and so too the 'artists' who
are complicit in these 'projects'.
We are not talking about people who are engaged in the business of
providing entertainment for children and getting the wrong end of the
stick (like those children's authors mentioned earlier), but operators
who may even be quite aware of what's what in all this.
Here's the status report then. We have more child-material in all art
forms than we've ever had in our history. We got the volume sorted out.
We just don't have the quality. For this reason alone, volume is a
curse. It is an obliterating curse for nothing is more pernicious and
destructive than the trap that comes coloured as gift.
Our children are poor indeed in this regard. Some of them are lucky
to have grandparents, yes, but that's still only a consolation.
Malinda Seneviratne is a freelance writer who can be reached at
[email protected] |