Template talk:18CBritChildrensLiterature

Some Remarks

 * Please feel welcome to add both authors and books; however, please do explain what you are doing in the edit summaries.
 * If and when the number of authors/books becomes large, I will make the template more modular as in: Template:19CBritChildrensLiterature and Template:Early20CBritChildrensLiterature.
 * The authors are arranged by their birth year. The books (usually one (the most notable) per author) are arranged in the same order as the authors.

Thanks, Sanjay Tiwari 02:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I took Wollstonecraft's Maria off as it is not a children's book. Do you really think that Wollstonecraft is appropriate for this template? She is not a representative writer and she only wrote one children's book. Awadewit 09:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Someone again added Wollstonecraft commenting that "one classic book" makes her worthy. I would agree, if her book was a "classic," but I can't really see that it is. It was never as popular as other late eighteenth-century children's literature and did not have the kind of influence onlater writers like Barbauld or Kilner to necessitate a place here.Awadewit 10:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant to reply earlier, but got sidetracked. I am the one who put it back.  It's true that W. wasn't as popular as Barbauld and Kilner, but her book did make a come back in the 20th century (unlike Barbauld), and, as far as I'm aware, the book is still in print.  I am in a bit of a hurry right now, but I'll post the 20th century publishing history later today.


 * What to include or exclude in a template is a continuing problem. I had a similar problem with Stevenson in the 19th century template (for different reasons though): some people felt that including him in a children's lit. template would compromise his recently revived major neorealist status etc.  The way I look at it is that a template is meant to be a selection to guide a Wikipedia reader, not an imprimatur of final literary worth.  One compromise would be to change the template to a modular format and then include the book, but not the author (i.e. W.).  More of all this later.  Sanjay Tiwari 17:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

To include or not to include
Hi Awadewit, Well, I changed the template to the modular format, and it looks much better than its unsightly multicolored banner-like predecessor. I agree with you that Wollstonecraft shouldn't be included in the list of children's authors. As for "Original Stories," I think it should be included for the following reasons:


 * The book is still in print. Here is the late 20th century history from LOC:


 * Main Title: The history of little Jack / by Thomas Day ; with a pref. for the Garland ed. by Isaac Kramnick. Original stories from real life / by Mary Wollstonecraft ; with 6 engravings by William Blake from the 2d ed. ; with a pref. for the Garland ed. by Miriam Brody Kramnick. Published/Created:    New York : Garland Pub., 1977. Description:     310 p. in various pagings : ill. ; 16 cm. ISBN 0824022637


 * Wollstonecraft, Mary, 1759-1797. Original stories from real life Main Title: Mary Wollstonecraft’s Original stories / with five ill. by William Blake ; with an introd. by E. V. Lucas. Published/Created:    Norwood, Pa. : Norwood Editions, 1977. Description:     xxiv, 88 p., [4] leaves of plates : ill. ; 23 cm. ISBN 0848203429


 * Original stories from real life / Mary Wollstonecraft. Published/Created:    Oxford [England] ; New York : Woodstock Books, 1990. Description:     viii, 177 p. : ill. ; 19 cm. ISBN 1854770578 :


 * Original stories from real life,/ Mary Wollstonecraft. Published/Created:    Washington, D.C. : Woodstock Books, 2001. Description:     viii, 177 p. : ill. ; 19 cm. ISBN 1854772619 (hbk : alk. paper)


 * This book has been republished for scholars and not for children (the Garland facsimiles are a good example of this). You would not find these texts in the children's section of a bookstore. Usually when people use the phrase "still in print" they also mean that the original intended audience is still reading the book. That is not the case here.Awadewit 09:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It is included in the course: Studies in Eighteenth century literature: Books for Children, at the University of Toronto. (See 7th December.)


 * This is a very specialized course. If you check syllabi for more introductory courses on the history of children's literature, you will generally not find Wollstonecraft. I tend to feel that non-specialist courses are more equivalent to wikipedia's stated goals. Awadewit 09:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Although it didn't get a rave review, it was included in C. M. Hewins' The History of Children's Books, published in The Atlantic Monthly in January 1888, a full 100 years after its publication. Here is the excerpt: "'In 1791, Johnson, the London bookseller, employed William Blake to design and engrave six plates to a series of tales for children, in the then prevailing Berquin school, by Johnson's favorite and protegé, Mary Wollstonecraft; tales new and in demand in the autumn of that year, now unknown to the bookstalls. They are called 'Original stories from real life, with conversations calculated to regulate the affections and form the mind to truth and goodness.' The book never went to a second edition. Blake had already written, designed, printed, and engraved his Songs of Innocence, and was to publish before many years his Songs of Experience, both of which contain some of the loveliest child poems in the language.""Mary Wollstonecraft's stories attack cruelty to animals, peevishness, lying, greediness, indolence, procrastination, and other faults of children. Every chapter has an illustrative story. Crazy Robin, which Mrs. Pennell quotes in her life of Mary Wollstonecraft, is powerfully conceived and told. At about this time, while Mary was doing literary hack-work for Johnson, she translated, and Blake illustrated, Salzmann's Elements of Morality, which went through several editions, and was republished in Baltimore in 1811. Miss Yonge has revived it in her Storehouse of Stories for the present generation.""Mary Wollstonecraft died in 1797, not long after her marriage to William Godwin. He married again within a few years, and his wife, a woman with a fondness for business, but without much experience in managing a publishing-house, formed the plan of opening what he calls 'a magazine of books for the use and amusement of children.'"

The way I look at it is that if a book was deemed worthy of being included in a "History of Children's Lit." published in the Atlantic Monthly a hundred years later, worthy of remaining in print 200 years later, and worthy of being included in a course on 18th century children's literature at a major university, then it is probably worthy of inclusion in a Wikipedia template. :) What do you think?  Regards,  Sanjay Tiwari 22:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * PS It is also included in: From Instruction to Delight: An Anthology of Children's Literature to 1850 edited by Patricia Demmers, Oxford University Press, 2003. See Table of Contents.  Sanjay Tiwari 22:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please note the "now unknown to the bookstalls" part of the review. Also, Wollstonecraft is often included in histories of children's literature to legitimate the field. She is a more respected writer than some of the other eighteenth-century writers of children's literature and thus including her, even though she was not that important in the history of children's literature per se, legitimates one's work. Wollstonecraft may have had fascinating things to say in Original Stories but the text has not yet been established as a critical part of the children's literature timeline. Its interest at this juncture mainly lies in its author. See Jackson's Engines of Instruction and Darton's Children's Books in England.Awadewit 09:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I understand what you are saying. I think part of the problem might be that you view the template as a "timeline," which is understandable, since in its first incarnation it certainly gave the appearance of a timeline.  In light of what you say above, I agree that the book doesn't belong in a timeline.  However, I think of the template (especially in its new incarnation) as a more inclusive list of notables (which stresses diversity).  I think Original Stories would (or perhaps, should) belong to that list.  However, I won't argue over it.  If you don't think it belongs, please take it off.  Thanks for writing.  Sanjay Tiwari 13:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Publishers
Might we consider including a publishers category? For 18c children's literature, publishers are quite important since oftentimes we do not know authors' names and since it was often publishers who recruited "hacks" to write children's literature. I am thinking especially of John Newbery, Elizabeth Newbery, John Marshall and John Harris here. By the way, when are we going to start filling in the template? I know that there used to be people and texts in it, but then they disappeared. Awadewit 13:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)