eBook - ePub
Seriality and Texts for Young People
The Compulsion to Repeat
M. Reimer,N. Ali,D. England,M. Dennis Unrau,Kenneth A. Loparo
This is a test
- English
- ePUB (mobile friendly)
- Available on iOS & Android
eBook - ePub
Seriality and Texts for Young People
The Compulsion to Repeat
M. Reimer,N. Ali,D. England,M. Dennis Unrau,Kenneth A. Loparo
Book details
Book preview
Table of contents
Citations
About This Book
Seriality and Texts for Young People is a collection of thirteen scholarly essays about series and serial texts directed to children and youth, each of which begins from the premise that a basic principle of seriality is repetition.
Frequently asked questions
How do I cancel my subscription?
Can/how do I download books?
At the moment all of our mobile-responsive ePub books are available to download via the app. Most of our PDFs are also available to download and we're working on making the final remaining ones downloadable now. Learn more here.
What is the difference between the pricing plans?
Both plans give you full access to the library and all of Perlegoâs features. The only differences are the price and subscription period: With the annual plan youâll save around 30% compared to 12 months on the monthly plan.
What is Perlego?
We are an online textbook subscription service, where you can get access to an entire online library for less than the price of a single book per month. With over 1 million books across 1000+ topics, weâve got you covered! Learn more here.
Do you support text-to-speech?
Look out for the read-aloud symbol on your next book to see if you can listen to it. The read-aloud tool reads text aloud for you, highlighting the text as it is being read. You can pause it, speed it up and slow it down. Learn more here.
Is Seriality and Texts for Young People an online PDF/ePUB?
Yes, you can access Seriality and Texts for Young People by M. Reimer,N. Ali,D. England,M. Dennis Unrau,Kenneth A. Loparo in PDF and/or ePUB format, as well as other popular books in Literature & Literary Criticism. We have over one million books available in our catalogue for you to explore.
Information
1
Off to See the Wizard Again and Again
Laurie Langbauer
I
This paper focuses on L. Frank Baumâs character the Tin Woodman. It considers repetition in childrenâs series fiction by reading the Oz series through some well-known theorists of repetition and serial production â Walter Benjamin on mechanical reproduction, Sigmund Freud on the uncanny â along with work on the uncanny by Ernst Jentsch and Masahiro Mori. It locates series fiction in relation to other popular forms of the early twentieth century that work through repetition: dime novels and comic strips. These different forms of seriality were widely read and enormously popular. That was their threat. Childrenâs series fiction during the machine age was also scapegoated as debased because it was popular. For the first sixty years or so of its reception, various social critics, educators, and librarians dismissed the Oz series in particular as cheap, repetitive, perfunctory, too accessible and common. That response arose from a cultural ambivalence throughout the industrialized twentieth century about art in general as increasingly technologically produced and mechanically delivered.
As a character, the Tin Woodman cuts to the heart of that response and exposes childrenâs series fiction as working within a complex cultural register. The Oz series captures the ambivalence that led to its own dismissal, but it also counters that dismissal by emphasizing the potential of mechanical reproduction. The emphasis on mechanization and repetition in Oz at one and the same time reflects its serial impulse and advances series fiction as the epitome of modern literary possibilities.
The theorists I cite wrote at different moments during the twentieth century: in 1936, Benjamin responds retroactively to changes in print technology in the nineteenth century that established newspapers and periodicals as central modes of technological production. Mori, in 1970, turns to robotics rather than print technology to reflect on contemporary mechanical means of representation. Yet both are connected by an interest in mechanical reproduction as part of an industrial (rather than an informational) understanding of technology.1 Freud and Jentsch offer the uncanny as a tool to register the ambivalence within the suspicion that industrialism turned people into machines: a simultaneous dis-ease about and inescapable familiarity with mechanization as the route to modern identity.
The Oz series is rich in representing not just the horrors but also the generative nature of modern identity. The Tin Man is an apt symbol for the complications of art and identity, which, at the time Baum wrote, were increasingly understood as mechanically reproduced.2 He is apt because he is himself (in part) a mechanical man and also one whom Baum could not stop reproducing, repeating again and again in various avatars. The Tin Man has remained a generative source of artistic responses to mechanization, an iconic figure spinning off references to technology in movies, television, comic books, and sculpture, including the question of whether depicting technology as heartless tells the whole story.3
Late twentieth-century theorists of the visual emphasize the representational potential of mechanized reproduction. The rise of the newspaper comic strip at the beginning of the twentieth century, for instance, testifies to how mechanical repetition translates into modern âsequential form.â4 The art critic Craig Owens sees Allan McCollumâs oeuvre (various series of nearly identical objects) as reflecting the serial impulse of twentieth-century visual culture. Owens argues that it demonstrates that a âserial mode of productionâ is not simply an element of mass-produced forms, but âthe dominant model for artâ in general within late capitalist consumer society (118). Seriality reflects on mass production by providing only âthe illusion of choiceâ: it promises that the ânextâ it is always about to offer is meaningfully unlike what has come before (that is, it progresses through sequence), but it actually proffers only a âlimited gamut of differences,â Owens claims, not sequence so much as recurrence or replication (119). Yet Owens finds that foregrounding such iterations exposes their productive character: rather than being âmelancholicâ or âdiminished,â McCollumâs foregrounding of assembly-line production ârestores to repetition its critical â even revolutionary â powerâ (120). Seriality is revolutionary not just in de-privileging the individual, but in revalidating the repetition that also underlies the popular.
Mechanical reproduction is a strategy of art in the modern machine age to which some fine artists tie their products, but many also reflect on that element within popular forms. In fact, âserial production does not recognize the fine art/mass culture distinction (and is partly responsible for its dissolution)â (Owens 119). In Owensâs analysis, when revealing its own machinery, the seriesâ self-referentiality transforms the loss of meaningful difference into its most significant distinguishing characteristic. Likewise, the Tin Man reflects on Ozâs serial character, asserting the mass cultural identity of childrenâs series fiction as one important arena for complicating the supposed certainties that underlie value and meaning.
As a reflection of industrial times, seriality constitutes rather than diminishes artistic possibility. To the philosopher Giorgio Agamben, the repeated visual images that make up another modern twentieth-century form, moving pictures, provide a âstrategicâ metadiscourse about mechanized repetition (313). The modern image âis no longer something immobileâ (314) but repeats, Agamben asserts, and from that repetition takes its âforceâ and âgraceâ (315): âRepetition restores the possibility of what was, renders it anew; itâs almost a paradox. To repeat something is to make it possible anewâ (316). Standardization, the loss of difference, becomes a structural element rather than a liability. Precisely because each instalment calls up what has gone before â the previous always gesturing to the next iteration, the next always recalling the prior â this linkage âopens up a zone of undecidability between the real and the possible,â in which âyou understand that yes, everything is possibleâ (316), including the horrific but also exceeding it (âeverything is possibleâ is Hannah Arendtâs phrase about the horrors of the Holocaust). Repeated images keep possibilities ongoing and open. Defining serial publication as âa single work distributed incrementally in time,â art critic Victor Brand captures this potentiality in a nutshell: as a modern principle of art, serial publication relies upon âthe notion of futurityâ (28). What defines the series is the constant promise of âthe next oneâ (29).
In the Oz series, those meta-images are characteristically images of mechanical men. They stand for automatic repetition and they explicitly gesture to the future. Benjamin, Freud, Jentsch, and Mori explore how mechanical men provide an illusion of choice that actually enables new possibilities; they look like people, but not quite, unsettling boundaries between the animate and inanimate, the human and mechanical. By simultaneously defamiliarizing the category of art and the identity of people, they point to how meaning is made. Comics scholar Tim Blackmore, writing about the early comics of Winsor McCay, observes that Baumâs world is âfull of polished surfaces which cover complex gear mechanismsâ (34). Popular forms such as comics and series fiction not only depend upon such clockwork; they let the gears show through.
Art, in its inventiveness and gadgetry, makes the familiar strange but also the uncanny pleasurable. During the first half of the twentieth century, pundits in venues such as the New York Times, North American Review, or Bookman often denied the value and often the pleasure of forms associated with seriality: how could anyone enjoy something so repetitive and rote as dime novels, comic strips, and juvenile series fiction? Only seldom did the debate consider these forms as sophisticated, self-aware, and self-questioning. And, if a supposedly bankrupt form âadmits of this doubt,â Freud writes about what seems comic, âthe reason can only be that it has a façade â in these instances a comic one â in the contemplation of which one person is satiated while another may try to peer behind it. A suspicion may arise, moreover, that this façade is intended to dazzle the examining eye and that these stories have therefore something to concealâ (âJokesâ 105â6). The significance they conceal may lie in what seems most apparent â the form in which they were conducted, the rote repetitions that, writing in 1924, both Ernest Brennecke and Gilbert Seldes admired as sophisticated analysis encoded into their very form. To these critics, and (they argued) more to the point to their artists, the value of comics was their winking self-knowledge.
In comics, in dime novels, in series fiction like Oz, the queasy ambiguity of mechanical doppelgĂ€ngers and the luridness of pulp illustrations engage the eye and direct it to what is right in front of it â not some hidden content but the open secret of form itself. Oz seems to be about mechanical men â and it is â but it is also about itself as a series, about seriality itself. Mechanical men are part of the story, but they also embody the machinery that makes the story work. Benjamin claims that new approaches such as psychoanalysis discover new ways to see, and his observations might apply to new mass forms like series fiction as well. Each helped âisolat[e] and ma[k]e analyzable things which had heretofore floated along unnoticed in the broad stream of perceptionâ (235). Like Baumâs green-coloured spectacles, as a new apparatus through which to perceive, optics like seriality change the character of what has been before our eyes all along, revealing the ways we bring meaning to it.5 Mechanical men in Oz supply the instrument that reveals seriality as fundamental to the meaning of art in the modern age.
II
Repetition and ongoingness seem to be the hallmark of the cultural presence of Oz. Baum strung out the first book (1900) into a series of 14. After Baumâs death, the series was extended to a total of 40 books produced by different writers. It continues still in seemingly endless unauthorized sequels and modern avatars. Ozâs character was defined as much by its look as its content. William Wallace Denslow illustrated only the first Oz book, but he determined how we would continue to see Oz by influencing subsequent illustrators â John R. Neill the most long-standing â and by designing the costumes for the wildly successful musical spin-off (1902), which was just the first of Ozâs multimedia reproductions, including early movie travelogues and a series of silent films. The 1939 MGM movie, indebted to Denslowâs earlier costumes, is the best known in this series of ongoing visual stagings.
Enduringly popular with readers, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz was initially heralded by reviewers as charming and original, but âas the series continued,â Suzanne Rahn writes in her summary of Ozâs reception, âand began to seem repetitious, reviews became few and perfunctory ⊠[and] no longer bothered to distinguish between one Oz book and anotherâ (xi). Anne Carroll Moore, the influential childrenâs librarian at the New York Public Library from 1906â41, notoriously swept all the Oz books off her shelves in the 1930s, and librarians throughout the country followed suit. They thought that series fiction (mass-produced, commercial, interminable, formulaic, and repetitive) had no redeeming value and would harm any children exposed to it. In 1948, South Carolina libraries put Oz at the top of a list of âbooks not to be purchased, not to be accepted as gifts, not to be processed and not to be circulatedâ: âThese âseries typeâ books are ⊠unwholesome for the childrenâ (âBooksâ 3) and their presence âindicates ⊠lack of interest in [childrenâs] welfareâ (4).6
By Ozâs centenary in 2000, Rahn observes, critics had generally come to see Oz in particular and series fiction in general as deserving of analysis, because the critical climate had changed to recognize how popular literature revealed the ways in which changing historical context determines changing value. But that did not necessarily mean a revaluation of the popular. In a 1996 essay, Richard Flynn still finds in Ozâs serial identity the destructive by-product of mechanical reproduction: it stimulates ongoing avidity for endless new instalments, enforcing the logic of planned obsolescence. Rereading (Flynn cites Roland Barthes) should radically refuse consumerist logic (125), but, by selling new instalments that take over its logic, âthe purveyors of child-culture ⊠condition the marginalized desire for repetition (rereading) into the more acceptable desire for serial commodities (the sequel)â (125).
Flynnâs essay is a modern statement of a persistent condemnation of Oz and series fiction: the worry that its purveyors corrupt children into benighted consumers by recycling the same empty product. When it comes to their profits, those purveyors cynically believe that â[s]erial consumption is a small price to pay for [childrenâs] âreal happinessâ â a small trouble, and well worth takingâ (125). â[T]he window-dresser had deliberately aroused the cupidity of the child consumersâ (124), Flynn accuses Baum, converting childrenâs desire not into ârealâ happiness but âa kind of brand loyaltyâ that perpetuates Ozâs line of goods (124). Ozâs critics indict it for the logic of modern advertising that delivers nothing more than its own self-perpetuating greed.
That seriality capitalizes on and exploits children remains a criticism that, if anything, relies on evidence of childrenâs ongoing desire for serial fiction as confirmation. But focusing on the symbolic range of the mechanical reproduction within such new forms points to another way entirely to read The Wonderful Wizard of Oz and the series form. Freud, in his 1919 essay âThe Uncanny,â for instance, supplies a different perspective by highlighting images of the mechanical.7 E. T. A. Hoffmanâs 1814 story âThe Sandman,â in which the heroâs love for the clockwork puppet Olympia reveals his repressed childhood terrors, demonstrates why we feel horror at involuntary repetition. The jerky wind-up deformities of clockwork figures â like but disturbingly different from us â point adults to our childhoods â like but disturbingly different from what we have become. Automata, machines that look like people, represent the return of the familiar made st...
Table of contents
Citation styles for Seriality and Texts for Young People
APA 6 Citation
[author missing]. (2014). Seriality and Texts for Young People ([edition unavailable]). Palgrave Macmillan UK. Retrieved from https://www.perlego.com/book/3486192/seriality-and-texts-for-young-people-the-compulsion-to-repeat-pdf (Original work published 2014)
Chicago Citation
[author missing]. (2014) 2014. Seriality and Texts for Young People. [Edition unavailable]. Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://www.perlego.com/book/3486192/seriality-and-texts-for-young-people-the-compulsion-to-repeat-pdf.
Harvard Citation
[author missing] (2014) Seriality and Texts for Young People. [edition unavailable]. Palgrave Macmillan UK. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/3486192/seriality-and-texts-for-young-people-the-compulsion-to-repeat-pdf (Accessed: 15 October 2022).
MLA 7 Citation
[author missing]. Seriality and Texts for Young People. [edition unavailable]. Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2014. Web. 15 Oct. 2022.