Child-Sized History: Fictions of the Past in U.S. Classrooms by Sara Schwebel (review)

As Sara Schwebel articulates in her book, Child-Sized History: Fictions of the Past in U.S. Classrooms, many teachers have turned to historical fiction as a way to make the past relatable and engage students in developing a historical perspective. Schwebel argues that many historical fiction titles, particularly those that have won awards, are so frequently used in classrooms that they constitute a canon of middle-level historical fiction. She asks us to examine the unintended consequences of the use of this canon in middle-level social studies and language arts classrooms, particularly when the books are used in the service of a grand narrative, or heritage, approach to learning history.

Schwebel's argument is that the application of historical thinking and critical historical analysis in grades 5-8 can be improved by the critical investigation of three interrelated topics: the books themselves, their authors' biographies and the cultural context at the time of the books' publication. Using a combination of literary and historical frameworks, she hopes to reinvigorate both the study of history and the titles in the canon. Is her argument successful?

The answer is mixed. In her initial and final chapters, Schwebel presents us with overviews of contributing factors to her argument. Readers looking for a comprehensive treatment of the numerous topics included in these chapters will have to look elsewhere. The first chapter treats influences on the construction of the so-called canon, including literary awards, federal monies to schools, the history of children's book publishing and even librarians. The last chapter discusses everything from classroom use of the books to flaws in the preparation of pre-service teachers.

The heart of Schwebel's book, however, lies in the chapters where she examines books from the canon through three lenses: literary analysis, author biography and cultural and intellectual history (8). She turns these three lenses on books within the canon that have themes that are common in US history: "the role of war in shaping American identity, the place slavery and its legacy hold within the American story, and the relationship between white settlers and Native Americans in the forging of an American nation and American identity" (33).

I found her analyses of the particular books in chapters two-five to be interesting and provocative. Examining the books and authors in the context of their times is one of her more valuable suggestions, but will middle level social studies teachers see this as a valuable part of developing a critical historical stance? Teachers would need to overcome the ingrained idea that the use of historical fiction should help in understanding the history of the era in the book, not the history of the author or of the time when it was published. Will middle-level social studies teachers feel comfortable in addressing what is essentially a literary analysis of the historical fiction they teach? Will language arts teachers take on the research that would place the book in its historical context in addition to researching the cultural and intellectual history at the time of the book's publication?

A brief examination of Sign of the Beaver illustrates some of the problems. In the book, the author uses an actual figure from history, but sets the story a half century earlier. The Maine woods were a much different place for both Penobscots (the "Indians" in the book) and Whites in 1769 (the time Speare's book took place) than they were in 1802 (when the historical Theophilus Sargent lived). In addition, Speare appears to know very little about Penobscot culture in either period. How does this lack of historical understanding affect the development of Speare's story and hence the understanding of the reader? Schwebel's analysis refers to "the complexity of the novel's layered meaning" (58), but this refers to its use of the historical narrative of White predominance over the so-called vanishing Indian. There is no complexity in the...