Boys and girls

[ladyofastolat]

Ordering books today, I find these two books:

Illustrated Classics for Girls. Pink cover, edged with flowers, with Heidi frollicking with goats. "A collection of stories of adventure and magic suitable for girls. This delightful collection contains six timeless classic stories to enchant and delight." Contents are abridged versions of Heidi, Little Women, The Railway Children, Black Beauty, The Secret Garden, and The Wizard of Oz.

Illustrated Classics for Boys. Blue-ish cover, edged with black trees, showing a moonlit forest scene, with someone (a highwayman?) galloping through it. "A collection of stories of action, adventure and daring-do suitable for boys. This lively collection contains six thrilling classic stories of action and adventure." Contents are abridged versions of Moonfleet, Around the World in 80 Days, Gulliver's Travels, Robin Hood, The Canterville Ghost, and Robinson Crusoe.

Yes, yes, I know I'm ranted about this before. I know that children are usually the first to announce that something is "for boys" or "for girls." But... But...

I think it's the word "suitable" that particularly grates.

Comments

[phoebesmum.livejournal.com]

In my case it was the word 'abridged' that grated (and then the rest of it). I am such a snob. No, I don't really expect ten-year-olds to read the whole of - hang about; most of the books in the boys' section, but I would expect them to be able to read all the books in the girls' section.

Why are the girls' books actual children's books and the boys' books truncated adult reads?

(This is largely a rhetorical question, as it only hit me as I was typing, but if you have any theories ...)

[bunn.livejournal.com]

I wondered that too! Long time since I read it, but surely the language of Gulliver's Travels is not uber-accessible compared to say 'Heidi' (thought it's even longer since I read that, oh, how I hated it).

[segh.livejournal.com]

It's not just the language - Gulliver is a satire, after all, to get the cream of it you need to read it with footnotes (unless you're an expert in the period).

[ladyofastolat.livejournal.com]

I've often puzzled over the fact that so many nineteenth century adult novels have somehow become labelled as only for children. I suspect it's tied up with this silly idea that fantasy and science fiction is only for childish adults who refuse to grow up and do properly mature things like talk about mortgages and the price of carrots. Anything to do with galloping through forests, waving swords around, and thwarting villains, whether set in the past or in magical kingdoms, is "childish." While Victorian gentlefolk, while perfectly capable of being boring and starchy and horribly grown-up, saw nothing wrong with reading tales of high adventure.

[king-pellinor.livejournal.com]

No sex, limited violence.
Therefore not adult.
Ergo, for children.

I think it may also be that "not unsuitable for" has turned into suitable for". It's also perhaps a manifestation of the hand-me-down attitude that affects so many things. Fashion moves on, so adults don't want the old stuff, but it has sentimental value so they don't want it to disappear, so they pass it to the kids. Who don't want it, but have to look after it.

[wellinghall.livejournal.com]

See Tolkien's "On Fairy-Stories", passim ...

[adaese.livejournal.com]

Indeed - how and why would anyone abridge Canterville Ghost? It's not that long, but it's perfectly formed!