Windows and Words: A Look at Canadian Children's Literature in English

The Apprehension of Audience: The Difference Between Writing for Adults and Children

The Apprehension of Audience: The Difference Between Writing for Adults and Children TIM WYNNE-JONES A little spooky, perhaps, considering that the banner under which this annual spring event takes place is "Reappraisals: Canadian Writers." I don't feel quite dead enough yet to be reappraised, personally. But certainly there is a healthy body of Canadian children's literature out there very worthy of scholarly attention. Other speakers, this weekend, will be looking at subjects ranging all the way from L. M. Montgomery to ... well, L. M. Montgomery. A third of the presentations will deal in one way or another with the redoubtable Maud. I think Virginia Careless perfectly captures our enduring fascination with our greatest literary export in the title of her paper, "L. M. Montgomery and Everybody Else." My talk tonight, however, is entitled "The Apprehension of Audience : The Difference Between Writing for Adults and Children." When Ai'da Hudson invited me to this symposium, she asked specifically if I would address this topic. I am pleased to do so because it is a subject about which I am prone to prevaricate. Tonight I will attempt to tell all. "There is no difference; it's all just writing." I've been known to say that, with a defensive whinge in my voice, as if the question veils dreary implications. Of course there are differences. But I suppose I would rather people concentrate on the similarities: interesting and original characters, effective dialogue, a persuasivenarrativevoice, colourful figures of speech, T'SAAN HONOUR TO BE HERE FOR THIS SYMPOSIUM. i 12 and a well-turned story line. If, indeed, these are the ingredients of good fiction. We shall see .... In a less querulous frame of mind, I might say, "When I write for children, I leave out things they are not likely to find interesting, things like a morbid preoccupation with degenerative cartilage, for instance, or mutual funds." I do not say, mind you, things children will not understand . I can claim no expertise in what children may or may not understand and, for that matter, I'm only ever guessing when I make a decision about what children may or may not find interesting. Any adult who sets himself up as an expert in this regard is, I think, probably a charlatan, or writing curriculum for the Ontario Government. I recall sitting next to the noted children's illustrator, Ted Harrison, as we listened to a stirring speech by Monica Hughes. She was recalling the classics she had enjoyed as a child and there was a certain amount of sighing in the audience as nostalgic favourites were mentioned. Ted leaned over to me and said, behind his hand, something to the effect of, "When I was eleven, the only thing I wanted to read wasMein Kampf" Anything might interest one child or another. What's more, I'm quite certain anything can be made clear to a child by a diligent writer, if it suits his or her dramatic purposes. When I was at university, I lived with a gaggle of artsy-types in a house called The Toadstool. We had a good friend, Don Plewes, who was doing graduate work in physics and who visited The Toadstool when he needed distraction. We were genuinely interested in Don's work and he took great pains to explain it to us. No, I should say he took great joy explaining it to us. Indeed, he felt strongly that if he could not explain himself in a manner we could grasp, there was probably something fundamentally wrong with his approach to the work. This is an important point. Don did not assume, as specialists are wont to do, that his work was beyond our humble scope. It was his job as a storyteller to give us the goods in an accessible fashion. That is the job of a children's writer. As an addendum to this anecdote, I have to say that I visited Don recently, not having seen him in ten years. He is now internationally renowned in the field of cancer research. With great exuberance, he recalled his delivery of a paper at a conference held in Chicago. Although his audience was comprised entirely of scientists involved in similar research, there was a point he was not sure they would be able to understand if described 13 in words alone, since it involved some tricky molecular activity. So...