Speaking at an event organised by Children in Scotland, called Compelling Novels, Vulnerable Children, she told The Times: “In the Fifties, when a strong child was dealing with difficult circumstances, there was always a rescue at the end of the book and it was always a middle-class rescue.
“The child would win a scholarship to Roedean or something, and go on to do very well. That was felt to be unrealistic and so there was a move away from that. Books for children became much more concerned with realism, or what we see as realism.
“But where is the hope? How do we offer them hope within that? It may be that realism has gone too far in literature for children. I am not sure that we are opening doors for children who read these books, or helping them to develop their aspirations.”
However, she added: “I can’t see how we roll back from this without returning to the sort of fiction that is no longer credible – books with a Blyton-ish view of things.”
(I could have linked to the Daily Mail article, but that would have been too easy.) Good lord, where to start with this crap. Let’s shelter our little cherubs from the real world, because we want the middle-class gene-pool to ignore the kind of bad stuff that happens to kids from, you know, poor places. (If we close our eyes it doesn’t happen.) Let’s whisk them brainwashed by gentle wish-fulfillment into the real world where bad things never happen.
As Bookninja says, “Your ideal is the Fifties? Need I remind you that the children of that decade are the Boomers currently in charge of the planet? Case closed.”