Jacqueline Wilson

[Wayne Pyer]

It's on Sky next Friday.

[Boatbuilder]

Further to Wayne's post, here is some other detail including channel and time.

[Fiona1986]

No wonder I was having trouble, I was searching for the wrong title! My laptop seems to be behaving for the moment, but we'll see.

[Anita Bensoussane]

I found this article in The Guardian interesting, in which Jacqueline Wilson talks (among many other things) of the editing - or even banning - of various children's books:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... p-and-love

To quote an extract:

Is she [Jacqueline Wilson] worried about the increasing censorship of children’s books? A report from the writers’ organisation Pen America said book bans in US public schools increased by 28% in the first half of the 2022-23 academic year. Of the 1,477 books banned, 30% were about race, racism or include characters of colour, while 26% had LGBTQ+ characters or themes. Research carried out by the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals in the UK this year found that a third of librarians had been asked by members of the public to censor or remove books, with the most targeted books involving empire, race and LGBTQ+ themes.

“This is a huge worry,” Wilson says. “We are not America, but we do follow American trends and this is becoming scary.” Intolerance terrifies her. “One of the worst things is there’s no reasoned debate. It’s black or it’s white.” The inevitable result is cancel culture, she says. “People are getting cancelled in cruel and horrible ways. I don’t like the idea of anybody being cancelled because we live in a country where we’ve always taken pride in free speech.” But, she says, censorship is a complex issue. For example, books by Roald Dahl and Enid Blyton have been updated to remove inappropriate and dated language. “Publishers do have a social conscience – life has changed.” She’s happy with this so long as original versions are still available for those who want to read them. Last year, Wilson wrote The Magic Faraway Tree, “inspired” by the Blyton original. She kept true to the tone of the original, but stamped out Blyton’s sexist stereotypes.

Wilson admits one of her own books troubles her today. In 2005, she wrote Love Lessons about 14-year-old Prue falling in love with an art teacher who partly reciprocates. They kiss, and he admits he loves her, too. Would she write the book today? “No. It’s so different now.” She pauses. “Well, I did have my doubts then.” Nowadays, I say, you’d see Prue as a victim even if she had initiated it, and the teacher as a paedophile because he responded to her. “Yes, that’s very true. And it does change things around so much.”

I note that Jacqueline Wilson doesn't mind updates, including to her own work, "so long as original versions are still available for those who want to read them." That's an important point. Books are part of our history - our literary heritage - and much is distorted or lost altogether if original texts are not available. Owing to pressure from the general public, Roald Dahl's publishers have agreed to continue printing the older versions of his books alongside the newer ones. I wish the same could be done for Enid Blyton, but she wrote so prolifically that I doubt that would be viable financially. At least Hachette have moved away from modernising for the sake of it, and have reinstated some of the original language in the short stories, the Famous Five series and perhaps elsewhere. I'm glad Jacqueline Wilson hasn't jumped on the bandwagon (or banned-wagon!) regarding cancel culture, etc.


It's good too to learn that Jacqueline Wilson is doing well after having gone through some major health issues. I hadn't heard of the kidney donation scheme mentioned in the article but it sounds very practical:

It’s 15 years now since Wilson suffered heart failure, nine since she was on dialysis and had a kidney replacement. “I sat for months in dialysis with Jackie,” Trish says. “It was a terrifying time. Terrifying.” She could not give Wilson her kidney because their blood types weren’t compatible (the only way they do seem incompatible). They joined a scheme for people with a failing kidney and a partner with a healthy one to match other couples in the same situation. Trish gave her kidney to someone in need, while the recipient’s partner donated to Wilson.

I don't agree with what Jacqueline Wilson says about modern children's books:

“What’s missing some of the time is books that require stamina to read. I loved books that kept you going, and if you didn’t understand a word you just learned to get the gist of it and carry on, and if it was vital you looked it up. Now, there is a tendency to make children’s books so easy to read that it makes it hard to imagine most children would go on to read complex wonderful literary novels as they get older. There are a lot of books kids like now because you can read them in an hour.”

Not everything is being dumbed down: “I’m a huge fan of Katherine Rundell, who is one of the most exciting children’s writers ever. But I do think texts nowadays do tend to not be quite as subtle as they used to be and plots are not quite as complex. When you look at children’s classics like Little Women and Treasure Island, it would be odd to find a seven- or eight-year-old reading them happily now. I didn’t come from a posh background, but lots of kids were reading those books in junior school without thinking about it.”

I can't help wondering whether Jacqueline Wilson has tried authors like Lucy Strange, Pari Thomson, Julia Golding, Emma Carroll, Judith Eagle and Natasha Farrant. Their books are beautifully written and are wide-ranging and quite complex, with imaginative plots full of twists and turns, and engaging characters. Reading them is an exciting, enriching experience - there's nothing "dumbed down" about them at all.

Jacqueline Wilson's bookcases look very well-stocked as expected, and I like her dolls and soft toys too. This article has reminded me that I must read the third Hetty Feather book, as it's some years since I read and enjoyed the first two.

[Moonraker]

Very interesting and she raises many valid points.

[Debbie]

Wilson admits one of her own books troubles her today. In 2005, she wrote Love Lessons about 14-year-old Prue falling in love with an art teacher who partly reciprocates. They kiss, and he admits he loves her, too. Would she write the book today? “No. It’s so different now.” She pauses. “Well, I did have my doubts then.” Nowadays, I say, you’d see Prue as a victim even if she had initiated it, and the teacher as a paedophile because he responded to her. “Yes, that’s very true. And it does change things around so much.”

This is one of the few books that I ever censored my children from reading. When I removed it I was astonished to find that it had been published in 2005-I assumed it was a 1970s book when it would have been acceptable, even romantic. In 2005 it wouldn't have been acceptable, so I'm amazed both that she thought it was appropriate to write and a publisher thought they could publish it.

But this is an example of how the cancel culture works. One author writes one book like that and they find it hits social media, and all their books are then scrutinised by people eager to read into them things that weren't intended at the time, and pillory the author until all their books are considered unacceptable.
Another author writes a book or says something that is, or later becomes, inappropriate and they get a response of "it was of its time", and no more.

That's why EB gets accused of all sorts while similar era writers who said similar things don't.

[Courtenay]

Wilson admits one of her own books troubles her today. In 2005, she wrote Love Lessons about 14-year-old Prue falling in love with an art teacher who partly reciprocates. They kiss, and he admits he loves her, too. Would she write the book today? “No. It’s so different now.” She pauses. “Well, I did have my doubts then.” Nowadays, I say, you’d see Prue as a victim even if she had initiated it, and the teacher as a paedophile because he responded to her. “Yes, that’s very true. And it does change things around so much.”

I was astonished just now at this too — I haven't read that particular book, but I'm dumbfounded that it could have been deemed "acceptable" in 2005, either for an author to write or a publisher to publish. Even in the 1990s, when I was a teenager, I knew very well that the age of consent was 16 (it's the same in Australia as it is here) and the teacher in that scenario would have been committing a very serious crime — which any teacher would know very well too, however naive the love-struck 14-year-old might be about it. And even if the young person wasn't underage, for a high school teacher to have intimate relations with a student is an incredibly stupid and career-destroying move in real life, not something that ought to be romanticised and encouraged as a teenage fantasy for young readers. (I might add that this did happen for real at one of my high schools — between a 17-year-old girl and a male sports teacher, whose wife was also a teacher at the same school — and it wasn't amusing, let alone romantic, for anyone involved when it all came out. )

I should also add that to me the difference between "cancelling" or censoring this, and censoring books with (say) racist or sexist stereotypes, is that the Jacqueline Wilson book comes across as advocating something that is actually outright illegal, not just socially unacceptable, and which was so even at the time when the book was written. That is just not a good thing to support in children's fiction.

That aside, though, very interesting to read a current popular author's comments about the "cancellation" of books and she does make some good points. I definitely agree with the original text being kept in print — perhaps with a publisher's note to point out that there are elements in this story that reflect the time they were written in and they should be understood in that light. Young readers can learn a lot from reading books that reflect different societal norms from the world we live in now. I know I've commented before that if I hadn't read uncensored Enid Blyton books as a child and got indignant about the "girls should stay home and do the housework and shouldn't be allowed to go on dangerous adventures with the boys" attitudes, and if my parents hadn't explained to me that that really WAS the way many people thought back then (when my parents were children themselves), I wouldn't have realised at such an early age just how much I had to be grateful for, as a girl growing up in a family and society that assured me that girls can be and do anything they want!!

[Judith Crabb]

Plenty of valid points made. The question of protecting children by censoring their reading is an interesting one, especially considering what is available on screen. Since Adam and Eve the forbidden has had an attraction all its own. Has a survey been done of the readers of 'Love Lessons' to discover how many entered into illicit relations with their school teachers? Even if examples were found would there be a comparable proportion of victims among those who hadn't read the book? And how many (admittedly very literate) teenagers read 'Lolita', readily available on most library shelves? Are they more likely to succumb to the Humberts of the world?

[Courtenay]

Hmmm, I wasn't suggesting that reading Love Lessons or similar books could outright "cause" readers to try to enter into illicit relations with school teachers — goodness knows, probably plenty of hormonal teenagers fantasise about doing so even without encouragement. And to be fair, I haven't read or even seen that particular book, so I can't judge it properly. What I was concerned about is that, going by the description of the book, the teacher in question is portrayed as at least partly reciprocating the student's affections, apparently not realising (or else not caring) that he's essentially stepping over the line into criminal activity — soliciting / grooming an underage person. It just doesn't sound like a good thing to portray in a book that's specifically aimed at teenagers, who at the very least need to know what the law says about the age of consent — especially when there ARE creeps out there who would be happy to exploit a naive young person.

[Anita Bensoussane]

Yes, the fact that Jacqueline Wilson now has reservations about the book suggests that she feels she romanticised things and didn't hammer home the illegality of such a relationship, or the far-reaching consequences. I hadn't actually heard of Love Lessons before reading the article in The Guardian but it's still in print:

https://www.waterstones.com/books/searc ... ons+wilson

I definitely agree with the original text being kept in print — perhaps with a publisher's note to point out that there are elements in this story that reflect the time they were written in and they should be understood in that light. Young readers can learn a lot from reading books that reflect different societal norms from the world we live in now.

I feel the same and would be happy for notes to be added to older books as needed (in the form of a foreword).

[Debbie]

I'm astonished that it's still in print. It is one that I would see the argument for rewriting and making it clear that it is both wrong and the teacher's responsibility too.

It is, from my memory, very much presented as from the girl's point of view and as a love story. There is no hint that it is not just wrong, but the teacher was very much wrong. If anything the impression I remember was that the child was wrong for chasing the teacher.
I had no worry that my child would chase a teacher after reading it, I just felt it blurred boundaries and, at the impressionable age my child was, could have left her vulnerable and not feeling that she could ask for help if something inappropriate was said/done by an adult in her life because she could be seen as the one who had forced it.

I've only, to my memory censored two other books for my children. One was a ghost story, for a child who currently was having difficulty sleeping and having enough thoughts as to what could walk round in the darkness. I just thought it was unhelpful. In all cases what I've done is offered another book and quietly removed the one I didn't want them reading, normally in the bin-I very rarely bin books, even that are falling apart, but I can't in all conscious give a book I don't want my child reading to another.
The other, interestingly, was another Jacqueline Wilson book. I think it was "Girls in love" or one of that set. One of the main characters develops an eating disorder. I'm sure it was intended to raise awareness, but to me, it crossed the very thin line between awareness and glorifying it, along with enough information to potentially act as a manual too.
I've had two good friends who have suffered from anorexia, one died two years ago not so much from it, but because of it, so I will admit to potentially being over sensitive though.

[Courtenay]

It is, from my memory, very much presented as from the girl's point of view and as a love story. There is no hint that it is not just wrong, but the teacher was very much wrong. If anything the impression I remember was that the child was wrong for chasing the teacher.
I had no worry that my child would chase a teacher after reading it, I just felt it blurred boundaries and, at the impressionable age my child was, could have left her vulnerable and not feeling that she could ask for help if something inappropriate was said/done by an adult in her life because she could be seen as the one who had forced it.

Yes, that's what I was trying to get at last night, writing very late (as I am again) on the fly! It's not that it would somehow encourage young readers to start hitting on their teachers, but that young people definitely do need to know there ARE boundaries that shouldn't be crossed, on the adult's part.

[Wolfgang]

That makes someone wonder if Police's "Don't stand so close to me" should also be banned...