(me, when I was in university)
I did not read this article against the grain. Far from it. I felt Rumer Godwin was writing directly to me.
In class we have discussed how tales can mean different things to different people due to the different lessons experience teaches. Perhaps this is why when Godwin writes of his experiences as a non-father writer, he writes to me of my experience as a non-mother child care worker.
My closest friends in the class are mothers. They have personally gone through the perils and pleasures of parenthood. They earned their stripes on the battle lines. I can not claim this experience.
Sometimes in the deepest darkest depths of night I lie awake worrying: how can I claim to be a child care worker without a child? Godwin addresses these worries. He says he came to the writing discipline out of love for it 'and not because I had acquired children of my own and started to tell them stories. I know this is a more common reason, but I don't believe it is a good one, nor is it one that often meets with success. This lack of success is puzzling, but perhaps it is because one's own children are not really a reliable measure. They speak the same, sometimes intimate, family language...
Being a parent, even a writer-parent, is no qualification for writing children's book; it needs a stronger spring, a greater impetus than that. Without that spring no one can become a children's writer.'
Ask a child care worker what makes a good child care worker and the answer is likely to closely reassemble the above.
Having a child does not necessarily equip you to care for someone else's children. Non-mothers and mothers alike who enjoy children have something special to share.
Godwin continues with his article by saying: 'I believe, too, that there are musts for children's books. Please remember, it is only what I believe. Another writer will think quite differently, for each is a law unto himself, and when I write must, I mean must for me.' Godwin is able to see how others could disagree with him. He does not imply the inclusive all but rather allows for disagreement by stating I. Godwin's attitude makes it easier to learn. We are not irritated by his whitewashing but rather intrigued by his views. (Professors comment: Good point. I think you're right that this is often the effect of a first-person pronoun.) His views are intriguing indeed. They helped me to come to a clearer understanding as to what I value in children's literature. He writes: 'I...believe a book for children should be unconsciously ethical. Not consciously so, because then it becomes something verging on propaganda or that horror of Victorian nurseries, "a book with a moral," or, of our own time, "a book with a message". But it should be freshly and clearly sure so what is right and wrong; cynicism should not touch children's books, as it so firmly governs our own.
Life, most people tell us, is cynical. I believe, rather, that is is paradoxical. Perhaps what is wrong with so many of our lives now is that they have lost the fairy-tale element: that belief in life, in its transcendental quality; a belief in more than seems possible; a belief that holds good through rebuffs (there are always rebuffs in fairy tales)--because it is not bound by what we see and touch and hear.' Though I do wonder why a book with a message is black listed, I must state firmly that I strongly agree with the rest of his statement.
(Professor comment: It's always gratifying to read something you can second heartily, but I suspect you would have gotten more mileage out of this article had you started with your query above and spent some time thinking about it.)
But if, unlike my professor, you are actually interested in this topic here's more...
5 Childless Children's Book Authors
Dr. Seuss Didn't Have Kids
Sharing my author journey...
