Education; Educational psychology; Moral education
Children who take part in performing _Julius Cæsar_ or _The Merchant
of Venice_ or any other suitable play will not only know their own
parts, but most of the other parts as well. The play will be in their
thoughts for a long time, and all by way of enjoyment. After all, good
literature is intended to give pleasure, and if children cannot be got
to derive pleasure from it they are hardly likely to derive benefit
either. For these reasons, I should confine the teaching of literature,
in early years, to the learning of parts for acting. The rest should
consist of voluntary reading of well-written stories, obtainable in
the school library. People nowadays write silly sentimental stuff for
children, which insults them by not taking them seriously. Contrast
the intense seriousness of “Robinson Crusoe”. Sentimentality, in
dealing with children and elsewhere, is a failure of dramatic sympathy.
No child thinks it charming to be childish; he wants, as soon as
possible, to learn to behave like a grown-up person. Therefore a book
for children ought never to display a patronizing pleasure in childish
ways. The artificial silliness of many modern children’s books is
disgusting. It must either annoy a child, or puzzle and confuse his
impulse towards mental growth. For this reason, the best books for
children are those that happen to suit them, though written for
grown-up people. The only exceptions are books written for children but
delightful also to grown-up people, such as Lear and Lewis Carroll.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account