ABSTRACT

EDITH NESBIT’S STORIES OF THE BASTABLES: CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW GENRE

OF LITERATURE FOR CHILDREN

Through the examination of E. Nesbit’s tales of the Bastable children, this

thesis explores the innovative content and literary methods in Nesbit’s texts,

methods resulting in the solidification of Nesbit’s credibility and value as a

woman writer for children as a result of her new avenue of children’s literature.

Nesbit employs a distinctive voice of a child-narrator to accomplish her goals of

breaking free from the constraints that bound female writers in Victorian England

and communicating her mixed social and political stances. She creates a space for

herself in which to vocalize her positions on British imperialism and the role and

value of children and childhood in society. Although Nesbit seemingly conforms

to the restrictive genre of children’s literature as one of the only literary

opportunities for women, in reality she utilizes this apparent submission to grant

herself a voice in a society that silenced and marginalized women. In this way, E.

Nesbit constructs a new way of writing for children that better serves both female

authorship as well as a child-audience.

Corinth Ann Gibbs May 2010

EDITH NESBIT’S STORIES OF THE BASTABLES:

CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW GENRE OF

LITERATURE FOR CHILDREN

by

Corinth Ann Gibbs

A thesis

submitted in partial

fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts in English

in the College of Arts and Humanities

California State University, Fresno

May 2010

APPROVED

For the Department of English:

We, the undersigned, certify that the thesis of the following student meets the required standards of scholarship, format, and style of the university and the student's graduate degree program for the awarding of the master's degree. Corinth Ann Gibbs Thesis Author

Ruth Jenkins (Chair) English

Laurel Hendrix English

Toni Wein English

For the University Graduate Committee:

Dean, Division of Graduate Studies

AUTHORIZATION FOR REPRODUCTION

OF MASTER’S THESIS X I grant permission for the reproduction of this thesis in part or in

its entirety without further authorization from me, on the condition that the person or agency requesting reproduction absorbs the cost and provides proper acknowledgment of authorship.

Permission to reproduce this thesis in part or in its entirety must

be obtained from me. Signature of thesis author:

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

It has been a long road to finally completing my MA Thesis and there are

quite a few people I am indebted to. I want to thank all my instructors for the

wonderful experiences I had in the coursework for my master’s degree. Dr. Ruth

Jenkins, Dr. Laurel Hendrix, Dr. Rick Hansen, and Dr. Magda Gilewicz

significantly influenced the ways I read literature, write and revise, and teach. A

huge thank you goes to my thesis readers for the time and effort put into getting

this done!

I’ve been blessed with some really great colleagues and friends who have

also helped this thesis come to be. Andria Osteen-Chinn and Jaclyn Hardy read

my writing and responded as only true friends do....over and over and over again.

Thank you!

My family and friends have stood by me and encouraged me throughout

this long process. I owe my parents, Michael and Barbara Potts, grandparents,

Larry and Marquita Taylor, and sisters Jen and Ally for their love, support, and the

hours of babysitting so that I could read, write, and think! Thank you for always

believing I could do it, even when “one more semester” turned into years. Thank

you for keeping me motivated. Thank you to my extended family, especially Aunt

Kathy for always asking about it and Uncle Larry, for the Uncle Larry

Scholarship. My friends – Sarah, Leslie, Andria – thanks for listening to me

complain and for distracting me when I needed it. Thank you to Gary Brown for

financially supporting my education, as well.

My love and appreciation goes especially to my husband, Kaleb, for his

love, encouragement, and (almost) endless patience, as well as to my daughters

v

Nevaeh and Taylor for being so sweet even when Mommy had to work on her

thesis when they wanted playtime, or lunch. I did it for you. I love you.

To anyone who played a role in my education and completion of this thesis,

thank you.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page

1. INTRODUCTION AND HISTORICAL CONTEXT . . . . . 1

Introduction: Nesbit’s Contribution to Children’s Literature . . 1

Situating Children’s Literature . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Victorian Society and British Imperialism . . . . . . . 11

E. Nesbit’s Biographical Information . . . . . . . . . 16

2. VICTORIAN CHILDHOOD AND CHILDREN’S LITERATURE . 30

Children and Childhood in Victorian England . . . . . . 30

Victorian Children’s Literature and Childhood . . . . . . 43

3. NESBIT’S MANIPULATION OF OSWALD BASTABLE AS NARRATOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

4. NESBIT’S INTEGRATION OF BRITISH IMPERIALISM INTO LITERATURE FOR CHILDREN . . . . . . . . . . 79

5. CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

WORKS CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION AND HISTORICAL CONTEXT

“A story, even a children’s story, is more than just a story, no matter how

simple it may seem” (Kutzer xiii).

Introduction: Nesbit’s Contribution to Children’s Literature

In The Story of the Treasure Seekers, The Would-Be-Goods, The New

Treasure Seekers, and Oswald Bastable and Others, Edith Nesbit utilizes various

literary methods to comment on the society of the Victorian era, effectively

subverting the social restraints that bound and silenced women. She employs

techniques such as creating an obscure as well as child-narrator, directly

addressing her reader, and providing humor, asides, and references to various

literary works. These methods work to Nesbit’s advantage by enabling her to

branch out from the socially accepted genres and manners of writing that women

were subjected to and confined by. In reflecting on British colonialism, the value

and role of literature in Victorian society, and the role of children and childhood in

her society, Nesbit addresses imperialism, childhood and literary value, all topics

which women in Victorian England were discouraged from addressing or

remarking. “Despite the numerous oppositions . . . in her life and children’s

stories, Nesbit managed to liberate herself and her children’s books from Victorian

constraints” establishing herself as an important contributor to the Golden Age of

children’s literature, despite critical perceptions of her as a conservative imitator

of more prominent Victorian authors (Moss, “E. Nesbit’s Romantic Child” 107).

Nesbit, “having conceived of Oswald Bastable, was able to use him to speak for

2

her,” which allowed her to censure the society that she was a part of, without

being condemned and ostracized (Streatfeild 83). The use of a child voice as

narrator sets Nesbit apart from her Victorian contemporaries due to the originality

of Oswald’s tone, humor, and attempted ambiguity, masking Nesbit’s emerging

ideals. Her utilization of a child’s voice also affirms the role of children in

Victorian society as more than vessels to simply be controlled and filled with

information; instead, she gives them value and purpose, intelligence and

autonomy. Her parody of the literary language and content reveals her bias

towards texts offering entertainment and promoting imagination above training

and regulation. With writing for children being one of the few acceptable genres

for women writers, Nesbit resorted to incorporating her more adult views, about

imperialism for example, into her children’s texts. She used child-play to

represent imperialistic endeavors, allowing her to discuss such controversial,

male-dominated issues. Her inclusion of imperialistic games in the Bastable

children’s activities demonstrated her promotion of colonist expansion. Analyzing

Edith Nesbit’s unique literary techniques and the originality of her writing and

ideals, this thesis seeks to validate her as a prominent predecessor of children’s

literature worthy of in-depth study and illustrate how she creates a new avenue of

children’s literature. By including the social implications surrounding imperialism

and the role and status of children as well as authentic representations of children,

Nesbit uses her unique voice of a child-narrator and the realistic games, thoughts,

and attitudes of children to create original and provocative literature.

Situating Children’s Literature

Although writings for children can be traced back before the time of the

Romantics, the widespread, rapid increase in texts for children became apparent

3

towards the end of the Romantic period (late 1700s, early 1800s) and beginning of

the Victorian period. According to Anita Moss, a prominent Nesbit scholar,

Nesbit began writing The Story of the Treasure Seekers in 1898. It first appeared

serially in the Pall Mall Magazine and the Windsor Magazine. Nesbit wrote about

the adventures of the Bastable children in The Would-Be-Goods (1901) and The

New Treasure Seekers (1904), including some tales about the Bastables in Oswald

Bastable and Others in 1905 (Moss, “Story” 188). When she created the Bastable

children, perceptions of children and their role in society ranged from the ideal

obedient and moral child to the glorification of and nostalgia for childhood

imagination and innocence of the Romantics to the wage-earning, slave-like child

of the Industrial Revolution. These images of children dominated children’s

literature and dictated how texts were written for children. Colin Manlove

explains the shift toward the more imaginative children’s literature to which

Nesbit contributed: “by the 1860s the shifting duality of morality and imagination

was on the whole veering to the latter side. The ideas of the ‘beautiful child,’ and

of childhood itself as a separate state, were beginning to take wider hold” and as

that took place, “imagination, not morality [took] the dominant role” (21). Both in

content and style, Nesbit serves as an originator of these more creative and

different ways to view and treat children, and thus, write for them.

Children’s literature emerged as a distinct literary genre and market

predominantly in the Victorian era, during a time commonly referred to as the

“Golden Age” of children’s literature; this results, in part, in response to these

changing perceptions of children and their place in society. According to Jo-Ann

Wallace, “The ‘golden age’ is typically regarded as beginning in the 1860’s with

the almost simultaneous publication of Kingsley’s The Water-Babies (1863) and

Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland (1865), and drawing to a close

4

in the late 1920s with the publication of A.A. Milne’s Winnie-the-Pooh (1926) and

The House at Pooh Corner” (172). She also states that this emergence of

children’s literature is “coincident with the establishment of English Studies and

the rise of nineteenth-century colonial imperialism” (172). As the study of

literature increases, authors find in their texts a means of expressing their stances

on issues that confront them. Colonial imperialism, with its apex during the same

time period, became one of those prevalent issues concerning Victorian writers.

Edith Nesbit’s fiction reflects this combination of English Studies and British

colonialism, but she is unique in a significant respect. She writes not for adults

but for children, linking the emergence of children’s literature and textual analysis.

The significance of this parallel between the development of English Studies and

the rise of colonialism influences the relevance of Nesbit’s texts and also the

importance of studying children’s literature as a whole because it demonstrates

how literature can be an avenue to new understandings and perspectives. Edith

Nesbit epitomizes the fusion of children’s literature with English Studies and

imperialism in that through careful study of her writing, readers gain insight into

imperialism from a perspective that differs from the dominant Victorian outlook.

Edith Nesbit, despite her remarkably progressive texts, has been

marginalized to the point of near-exclusion from literary study due to the fact that

her targeted audience consisted of children. Children’s literature in general has

been devalued to the point of existing along the fringes of critical study, much as

children were marginalized in Victorian times. Neither children nor texts written

for them were held in high esteem, and they have largely remained categorized as

insignificant and lacking in depth and value to society resulting from the continued

marginalization of children and lack of significance prescribed to children. At the

time, efforts were made to “designate children’s literature as pre-literary. It

5

quickly came to be associated with popular culture and uncanonised writing”

(Reynolds 15). Nesbit challenges this limiting perception of texts for children as

she demonstrates that stories for children, while intentionally unpretentious at a

surface level, can be equally radical and innovative in content, form, and structure.

The influence of society and culture on literary texts for children acts as

justification for the study of these works, and the subsequent relevance in studying

Nesbit’s texts specifically; they demonstrate other concerns, attitudes, and issues

we may not otherwise encounter or understand such as the opinions, outlooks,

experiences, and thoughts of children of that era, as well as those of the authors

who wrote for them. The study of this genre, especially when children’s literature

increased in popularity for a wide range of authors, provides readers now with

knowledge of society and humanity over time. It often involves family

relationships giving glimpses into a variety of familial dynamics. As Colin

Manlove, author of From Alice to Harry Potter: Children’s Fantasy in England,

says, children’s texts “often have the amount of depth and literary skill we find in

more evidently sophisticated texts” but are limited only by the condescension

imposed upon them by literary scholars, students, and instructors (7). “The

exclusion of children’s literature from the class of serious literature” when it first

appeared “has of course resulted in its being classified as a branch of popular

literature” resulting in limited study and scholarly credibility (Hughes 550).

However, it is through the examination of this marginalized genre that we are able

to discover themes addressed by the less-noted authors of the nineteenth-century.

More recent examination of these texts demonstrates how authors broke through

the constraints that bound them in order to express their viewpoints, and the

viewpoints of their fellow marginalized groups, allowing for the broadening of

outlooks differing from those of the dominant class. While publishers appreciated

6

the new market of texts for children, it was as a pop culture genre rather than as a

new literary genre intended for study and worthy of merit. Publishers enjoyed the

financial profitability of children’s texts and moralists pushed for obedience and

subservience through conduct books, and although they were widely read,

children’s texts were enjoyed on a merely superficial level, with no consideration

for literary technique, complexity, and magnitude. As Victorian children’s stories

were classified as part of popular culture, they became ignored based on the

supposition that, having been written for children, they were unworthy of any

recognition by those in academia. Children were seen as empty vessels, to be seen

and not heard, lesser citizens. Many adopted the Lockean belief that children were

moldable, like wax, and should be fashioned into an acceptable ornament, while

others aligned themselves with Rousseau in thinking that children were living

beings in need of cultivation.

In either case, both perceptions of children played a role in impacting how

Victorians viewed children and childhood. In discussions on why stories for

children were written, “two contrary impulses have often fairly been said to

dominate in children’s literature, particularly during the nineteenth century – the

wish to instruct, and the wish to amuse” (Manlove 18). Nesbit exists on the

periphery of these dual methods of targeting children through literature, making

her views individual and worthy of study. This collaboration from both sides of

the issue set Nesbit apart from other writers of the Victorian period. Earlier in

children’s literature the writing of texts revolved around the goal of moral

instruction, teaching children how to obey and behave. As the perception of

children changed along with Victorian England, authors began to see writing for

children as a way of entertainment, rather than purely as a means of controlling

and manipulating children into submission to adults. Manlove informs us that

7

although early literature for children threatened imagination by its existence as a

source of moral truth and religious understanding, it has come to be seen primarily

as a form of entertainment (40). This stance becomes problematic when children’s

literature is stripped of its relevance, credibility, and its literary value as we see in

its identification with women’s and popular-literature.

Another way society separated children’s literature from high culture and

more valued literature was by labeling it as women’s literature because, in some

cases, it stemmed from small groups of women exchanging stories with each

other. In addition, a majority of the authors of children’s stories were women.

Because the Victorian society prescribed passivity and a secondary place for

women, texts associated with them also became marginalized and devalued. As

Felicity Hughes states in her text on the theory and practice of children’s literature,

“the achievements of the writers [of children’s texts] . . . has been remarkable and

provided a challenge to the critic” creating a “state of confusion” surrounding

children’s literature which led to the “lack of critical and theoretical support”

(560). Authors for children accomplished feats such as reaching both adolescents

and adults through their writing, addressing taboo issues through subtexts without

fear of marginalization, and breaking free from traditional literary conventions.

These successes created struggles for the literary critic in determining whether or

not texts for children were deserving of examination and in understanding how to

confront and respond to children’s texts, resulting in limited literary scholarship

addressing children’s literature. This process led to Nesbit’s exclusion from

serious academic study, even more so than other female writers due to her goal of

writing for a readership of children. Although other serious women writers were

also marginalized and their writing disguised or dismissed during the Victorian

era, works for children that were written by women had two strikes against them,

8

so to speak. It is quite likely then that Nesbit’s sex and decision to write

children’s texts has contributed to her work being discredited; consequently, her

work remains largely unexamined from a critical and theoretical perspective while

other texts by women of the same time have been given credibility and studied

extensively. Nesbit’s Bastable tales suffered from “the exclusion of children’s

literature from the class of serious literature” which “resulted in its being classed

as a branch of popular literature” as well as consigned to another literary

classification also seen as insignificant – women’s literature – which devalued it

even further (Hughes 550). Even so, the triumphs and exploitations of authors of

literature for children, especially Edith Nesbit, have made it increasingly difficult

for scholars to ignore.

Nesbit challenges the marginalization of children and texts written for

them, especially by women, through her use of a child narrator and through her

inclusion of literary texts for children as catalysts for the Bastable children’s

games and experiences. “Female fictions ask us to learn new ways of reading –

and of teaching” based on the fact that female fiction “considers issues of adult

authority and child empowerment and explored what it’s like for juveniles who

seek both separation and relation,” as Nesbit’s writing does (Myers 134, 136).

Edith Nesbit’s texts “raise cultural, political, and maturational issues from a

woman’s point of view;” they challenge the prevailing adult, male slant on

Victorian society (Myers 136). She further demonstrates her validity as a writer

for children worthy of critical study and analysis because careful consideration of

her texts forces critics to “think about how men and women address similar issues,

why they choose certain literary forms, and how some forms get canonized and

others become marginal” (Myers 136). These benefits to society and literary

arenas such as awareness of gender differences in writing, vocalization of the

9

social views of minority and marginalized groups, and discussion of what is

valued in literary study, were not apparent in the Victorian period, and yet are

important to recognize and understand in order to grasp a bigger picture of the

Victorian era than what is set forth in dominant upper-class white male

perspectives.

Edith Nesbit, and other authors of children’s books, suffered from their

“relegation to the ranks of second-class literary citizenship” by being considered

inconsequential in the literary arena (Foster and Simons 127). Because Nesbit’s

Bastable stories were written between 1899 (The Story of the Treasure Seekers)

and 1904 (short stories for magazines about the Bastables turned into The New

Treasure Seekers), they were perceived to be mediocre and subjected to the

resulting marginalization Victorians prescribed to women and children. That

attitude towards texts written by women and/or for children has dominated the

genre until recently. Critical study of the fantasy, adventure, and bildungsroman

narratives has greatly increased as scholars begin to see relevance and insight into

past societies in children’s stories. The inferior position in which some scholars

place texts for children still limits further investigation into this genre of literature.

Those who prescribe children’s literature a lesser value question its relevance and

the depth and scope of its content, and view its literary technique as juvenile,

immature, and unsophisticated. In his text, Sticks and Stones: The Troublesome

Success of Children’s Literature from Slovenly Peter to Harry Potter, Jack Zipes

comments: “There is still a certain sentiment or ideological attitude that the work

in the field [of children’s literature] is not as demanding and deserving of

recognition as the work in other areas” (73). Despite these somewhat prevailing

beliefs, there are various themes now being explored in these stories such as

gender roles, religious and instructional versus entertainment goals of the authors,

10

and other social issues predominant in the Victorian era. Furthermore, “though

some things could not be said at all or only indirectly [in children’s books], the

lack of fully developed rules and patterns left children’s fiction as one of the freest

and most versatile forms of the nineteenth century” (Briggs 401). As a result,

Nesbit became less inhibited by the conventions of Victorian society, like the

subjugation of women and children, that otherwise would have limited her ability

to comment on the society of her time.

E. Nesbit emerges as a Victorian children’s author worthy of critical study

because she creates new literary techniques and purposes and integrates into her

literature for children a unique mix of liberal and conservative ideals. Humphrey

Carpenter, a leading critic of Nesbit’s fiction, acknowledges a lack of significant

study of the depth and individuality of her viewpoints claiming that “any deep

concern with changing the existing social order is notably lacking from the Nesbit

books” (128). In truth, Nesbit suffers marginalization due to the fact that her

literature resists easy categorization within pre-existing genres which critics

mistake for submissive conformity to Victorian ideals. Despite her strong

convictions, awareness of social wrongs, and literary intelligence, her culture, and

current literary theorists limit her by constantly trying to categorize and thus,

constrain her. Instead of appreciating and commenting on the uniqueness of her

writing techniques and social views on children and imperialism, critics dismiss

her when efforts fail to identify her with a major group. When they are unable to

contain her in one set classification, scholars highlight not the tension that Nesbit’s

work create but the seemingly conformist front Nesbit disguises her commentary

behind. As a result, her work is seen as lacking in any social or political

relevance. It has been said that she “seems to be at least partially responsible for

the extraordinarily narrow social compass of English juvenile fiction for the first

11

half of the twentieth century” (Carpenter 128). In reality her work displays an

abundance of social commentary that she enables herself to express by masking it

with acceptable subject matter and literary conventions.

I would argue that Edith Nesbit is a significant forerunner of authors of

modern texts for children. By close and thorough study of her various standpoints

and her manipulation of children’s literature as a means of voicing those opinions

in a society that subjugated women, I challenge these erroneous and limiting

perceptions of Nesbit. Her ability to voice her opinions through writing despite

being a female writer, new modes of writing and storytelling such as Oswald

Bastable as narrator and realistic portrayal of children and their thoughts and

actions act as evidence of her status and momentous influence on the genre of

children’s literature as a whole. Before considering her life experiences and how

they informed her writing, however, the historical context that influenced her must

be established.

Victorian Society and British Imperialism

Edith Nesbit establishes a nuanced stance on imperialism in her literature

that cannot be reduced to the general binaries of endorsing or rejecting British

expansion. Although Nesbit’s attitude towards imperialism aligns with more

conservative views, as we will see through her Bastable stories, the belief that

some of her more traditional stances make her an apologist for imperialism

remains false. Although some critics contend that “adults who produce children’s

books are . . . conscious of conveying morals and values to their young audience,

and want to ensure that those morals and values are culturally acceptable . . . [and

that] the role of children’s texts, both fictional and non-fictional, is to help

acculturate children into society and to teach them to behave and believe in

12

acceptable ways,” Nesbit disrupts this by not only presenting seemingly

conformist ideals to her child-characters and child-readers but also uses those

conservative leanings to allow for more progressive perceptions to be transferred

to them (Kutzer xv). Nesbit creates her own social and political identity, as her

ideology breaks free from the more limiting party views of the time. Instead,

Nesbit masks herself as both a progressive and a traditionalist, effectively giving

herself more freedom to explore the issues important to her, rather than limiting

herself to the issues and concerns of a specific confined group. She uses her

writing to challenge the social constraints of her time, even if the ideas were not in

direct defiance of her government’s policies. Nesbit also refuses to remain in one

classification by expressing more liberal stances in other aspects of Victorian life,

including types of literature and its role in childhood, the state of childhood and

the significance of children in Victorian society. This mixing of viewpoints from

both conservative and liberal thinking groups further reveals the complexity of

Nesbit’s writing and the need for more critical study of her works.

In order to understand Edith Nesbit’s texts and the positions she takes in

regard to imperialism, how children were viewed and treated, and the role and

value of literature that she portrays as subtexts in her writing, we must familiarize

ourselves with the social, political, and even religious attitudes prevalent in

Victorian England. British relationships with other nations expanded during the

Victorian era due to territorial acquisition, leisure travel, exploration of new places

and cultures, and religious conversion. However, despite these positive aspects for

England, many people including abolitionists and feminists objected to those

actions. In fact, “by the mid-1700’s, when literature specifically for children

began to appear with regularity, the British West Indies was already being

depicted as an often-questionable asset,” as were other colonies the British

13

pursued (Sands-O’Connor 2). These political activists objected to the overtaking

of other nations, the subjugation of people of other lands, the “stealing” of goods

and labor, the bringing of foreign customs, art, and behaviors back to England, and

the “waste of energy, population, and money” of colonial expansion (Mermin and

Tucker 106). Many British authors responded negatively to British expansion

explaining that the colonies “[were] filled with invisible danger” not necessarily

Britain’s responsibility to overcome (Sands-O’Connor 10). Other authors, such as

Thomas Macaulay, supported the growth and advancement of the British empire

as a means of civilizing the world. However, unlike Macaulay and others like

him, who supported British imperialism out of racism and a sense of superiority,

Nesbit took a more complex and tolerant stance on imperialism. In her Bastable

stories Edith Nesbit endorses imperialism and employs her literature to support

expansion, and enrichment, of the nation, despite it being a more conservative

outlook. Nesbit complicates the issue of British imperialism by challenging the

racism and bigotry of one side and the close-mindedness of the other.

In her Bastable stories, Nesbit confronts British expansion, one of the most

significant and complex social and political questions that dominated the Victorian

period, by meshing the nationalism of some with the desire of others to “live and

let live.” Nesbit’s writing took place in a time marked by change as “Romantic

nationalism gave way to Victorian reformism” but “the prospect of changing

things, be they legislatures, schools, or sewage systems, aroused the concern of an

entire public” and caused turbulence and complications (Mermin and Tucker 3).

The blurring in Nesbit’s texts of progressive and conventional perspectives mirrors

the apprehension that existed over the changing empire as a whole infiltrating all

of society, from military action to literary topics during this transitional period.

Britain’s citizens began to realize the costs of being “fully extended in the last

14

quarter of the century” as “the tally of lives lost and families broken in missionary

or merchant or colonial service kept before everyone’s mind the high cost of

policing foreign frontiers” (Mermin and Tucker 4). Britons became aware of the

costs of their colonial endeavors and not all were eager to accept them, especially

considering the other risks brought about by their militaristic efforts. Not only did

these endeavors risk the lives of soldiers and others in service to the nation, but

also the safety of the entire nation as their forces became spread thin and doubt

emerged as to whether the British military could protect all their original and

newly acquired territory. At the same time Britons were dealing with these

negative consequences, “British power and influence spread outward around the

globe until it could routinely be remarked that ‘the sun never sets on the British

Empire’” (Mermin and Tucker 105). With the aid of “improvements in

steamships, railroads, the telegraph, bookkeeping, and finance – and also guns –

British people and practices and industrial products flowed outward, as raw

materials, profits, and data flowed back” (Mermin and Tucker 105). This debate

about the advantages and disadvantages of imperialization dominated the period.

The objection to colonizing the other lands “reflected a growing apprehension

concerning Britain’s hegemony, and anxiety linked to a radical and moral decline

which made the nation vulnerable to attack by forces whose brutality was merely a

monstrous reworking of Britain’s own imperial practices” (Bar-Yosef 4). The

“prospect of ‘savage’ forces invading and taking over ‘civilized’ world, colonizing

the colonizers, exploiting the exploiters” was the real concern of those who

frowned upon the expansion (Bar-Yosef 4). While anti-imperialistic citizens

“suggest[ed] that the climate of the West Indies [brought] people closer to their

animal nature (in a negative way)” those in support of the expansion of British

influence argued against this saying “only British intervention [could] reverse the

15

degeneration” of other nations” (Sands-O’Connor 14). This is merely one

component of the debate voiced concerning British growth for, with every

negative element presented by those opposed, supporters countered with

compelling advantages resulting from the expansion.

Nesbit incorporates into her Bastable stories benefits such as employment,

charitable organizations, excitement and adventure, and opportunity for

evangelism provided by Britain’s expansion, stressing their importance to the

nation. A variety of these benefits contributed to Nesbit’s pro-imperialistic

attitude, such as the idea of aiding other people, experiencing and learning from

other cultures and religions, and, as conventional as it sounds, a sense of pride in

her country. Nesbit illustrates, through the lens of a child, the benefits to multiple

generations of British citizens. There existed a wide range of benefits to counteract

the objections to imperialism. The colonies provided options for many different

groups of British citizens. Young men of upper class status “found employment

and scope for ambition in military or government service or commercial

enterprises abroad” (Mermin and Tucker 105). Other wealthy families “sent their

black sheep to the colonies and paid them to stay there” (Mermin and Tucker 105).

Criminals and troublesome citizens were sent to penal colonies such as Australia

while charities were established to transport the impoverished to the new lands in

search of opportunity and prosperity. Furthermore, according to Mermin and

Tucker, “restless spirits traveled in search of excitement and adventure;

missionaries sought to spread Christianity and ‘civilization;’ scientists and artists

pursued materials for their work” (105). As colonies developed, “information was

accumulated and organized . . . explorers ‘discovered’ and mapped regions . . .

painstakingly acquired botanical and zoological specimens . . . cultural artifacts,

ancient and modern . . . fashion” (105). Nesbit references these further benefits

16

through the games, activities, conversations, and the imaginations of Oswald

Bastable and his siblings, illustrating her stance on the issue, thereby providing a

glimpse into the perspectives of marginalized voices like hers through the Bastable

tales. As we will see more in the following chapter on imperialism, the Bastable

children incorporate the excitement and adventure of imperialism, evangelism, and

potential for personal and financial success, among other benefits, into the games

and activities that they engage in which emulate the actions and behaviors of

British imperialists. In this way, Nesbit illustrates not only the progression of

child’s play as preparation for adult life, but also her support of the endeavors of

both the Bastable children and the British colonists.

E. Nesbit’s Biographical Information

Edith Nesbit represents the complexities that accompany being female and

an author at the end of the nineteenth-century as she constructs an identity that

neither conforms to the conservative understanding of women nor completely

abandons that idea. As with British imperialism, Nesbit elicits tensions as she is

neither for nor against cultural prescriptions for women, but rather creates a

middle space for herself and her texts. Nesbit’s literary output, although largely

limited to writing for children, gave her an avenue to express in new and creative

ways her new and original opinions on elements of Victorian culture. Her

biographical details, including her childhood, family, personal interests and

involvements influenced and helped shape the direction of her unique branch of

children’s literature that addressed concerns regarding British imperialism and the

role and status of children through her realistic child characters and narrator and

their activities, perspectives, and attitudes. Nesbit’s personal life and activities

demonstrate even further her refusal to align herself with one extreme or another

17

as she situates herself between conservative and radical standpoints with respect to

her marriage, involvement with the Fabian Society, and personal convictions

drawn from her childhood and youth. Julia Briggs explains that “even fifty years

ago, E. Nesbit’s life presented a number of baffling gaps to her biographer: no one

seemed to know much about her childhood or adolescence, and it was particularly

difficult to establish a definite chronology of the events leading up to her marriage

in 1880” yet despite all the unknown, there are specific elements and events that

unmistakably influence Nesbit’s texts such as her siblings and childhood, her

interaction with her husband, Hubert Bland, her involvement in the Fabian

Society, and some of her other political and moral standpoints (xiii). Eleanor

Graham describes Edith Nesbit in the Introduction to The Story of the Treasure

Seekers saying:

She listened, argued, and learned, thrilled to be in at the birth of a

new epoch. She became the modern woman of her time, cut her hair

short, threw away her corsets, revelled in physical fitness, walked a

great deal and leaped over gates when she had a mind to. She wore

Liberty dresses and refused to adopt fashions that were

uncomfortable. She smoked a great deal, carrying about an old

cardboard corset box with a roller, tobacco, and papers so that she

could make her own cigarettes. (2)

Her lifestyle established her disdain for conformity, and her writing style further

emphasized that resistance. Each stage in her life foreshadows some element of

her texts for children, from how she chooses and describes characters to the

decisions to include certain details including references to other literature and the

integration of British values and ideology.

18

Although little is known regarding the specifics of her childhood years, her

writing evidences the pleasures she enjoyed, and the experiences attributed to

growing up in a healthy, encouraging environment. Nesbit’s ability to write for

children stemmed from her memory of what it was like to be a child: “her love of

parties, games, bicycling, boating, bathing and adventures of all kinds” are evident

in the actions of her child characters, her sympathetic adult narrators, and the

extraordinarily accurate voice of Oswald Bastable as a child-narrator (Briggs xvii).

As Julia Briggs explains, “When [Nesbit] first began to fictionalize her childhood

experiences through the adventures of the Bastables, she seems to have portrayed

herself as twins – as the courageous, lovable Alice and her timid, highly-strung

brother Noel” and “her success as a writer for children is closely bound up with

her peculiarly vivid memories of the joys, pains and passions of childhood” (2).

Nesbit incorporates her own familiarity with childhood into her texts through her

child-characters and all their emotions, activities, encounters, and even their

reactions to each other and adult figures. A further testament to her combining of

her childhood and her texts comes with the inclusion of her siblings (Harry,

Alfred, and Mary) as the other Bastable children. The Bastable family consisted

of five children, with Dora as the oldest, followed by Oswald, Dicky, and twins

Alice and Noel. So “as a family, the Bastables strongly suggest the young

Nesbits, with Mary a little old for Dora, Alfred and Harry translated into Oswald

and Dicky, and the Alice/Noel twins standing for Edith herself” as Edith Nesbit

was the youngest child in her family (Briggs 5). Furthermore, chronicled events

from their childhood translate into some of the amusements and mischief of the

Bastable children. Although not much is known about this time in Edith Nesbit’s

life, there are accounts that “she always had happy memories of the Bastable-like

activities of her brother and herself – the shooting of the fox and the search for the

19

source of the stream in The Wouldbegoods were closely based on episodes

involving her brothers Alfred and Harry” (Carpenter 127). Even some of the

poetry Nesbit penned as a young child “sounds remarkably like the work of the

fictional Noel Bastable,” demonstrating how in touch with her upbringing Nesbit

remained throughout her life, to incorporate it into her writing under the guise of

one of her characters (Briggs 29). We must also remember that this is something

she utilizes, also, to incorporate her adult experiences and judgments into the

Bastable stories, again under the guise of a child character. Critics of E. Nesbit

must remember that “while she identified with children, in writing for them, as she

had identified with Oswald, her books only sold because they appealed to adult

buyers” through Oswald Bastable’s narrative voice, humor, reader-addresses and

appeals (Briggs 400). Nesbit accomplishes this, in part, due to her familiarity with

the thoughts, feelings, and activities of children as well as an adult’s insight into

social issues. In addition to the bond she portrays with her childhood family,

Nesbit’s adult relationships also offer context for, and insight into, the children’s

experiences.

Nesbit’s relationship with her husband also impacted her perceptions of

social issues like class and the demonstration of status in society, and she

demonstrates these aspects of their relationship in her texts, specifically how they

mocked and disregarded ostentatious language some Victorians employed to

display intelligence and social standing. His “ability to ‘talk like a book’ when he

wanted to amuse her, in an absurd parody of the pretentious literary language of

the day” is a “trait inherited by Oswald, Albert’s uncle, and many another young

Nesbit hero” which Nesbit uses to comment on the pompous language in literature

of the time (Briggs 42). She mocks this manner of writing through the characters

that utilize or comment on it. She challenges more formalist and instructional

20

methods of writing which encourage limiting views on children’s thinking,

writing, and overall communication. In some instances Oswald begins to narrate

in that affected way, but soon abandons it due to its complexity, difficulty to use

and difficulty to understand, demonstrating Nesbit’s aversion to that pretentious

style of writing. For example, in The Would-Be-Goods, Oswald begins to tell the

story of how they went on adventures to discover the source of the Nile and/or the

North Pole (because some of them wanted to find one location while the rest

wanted to travel to the other) by saying “I am going to try to write in a different

way . . . ‘Ah, me!’ sighed a slender maiden of twelve summers, removing her

elegant hat . . . through her fair tresses, ‘how sad it is – is it not? – to see such

able-bodied youths and young ladies wasting the precious summer hours in

idleness and luxury’” (Nesbit, “The Would-Be-Goods” 355). After a short while

of writing in this affected style Oswald states, “It’s no use. I can’t write like these

books. I wonder how the books’ authors can keep it up. What really happened

was that . . .” and he goes on to use more colloquial and child-appropriate

language to describe their expeditions (Nesbit, “The Would-Be-Goods” 356). His

use and subsequent rejection of the language of that time again demonstrates how

Nesbit inserts herself into her literature to comment on her society. This

effectively demonstrates that “behind the facade of loyal acquiescent supporter or

a charismatic husband was a deeply unconventional woman” who knew how to

disguise and relate her stances without fear of reprimand or rejection from the

conservative British public through her children’s literature (Foster and Simons

129). Further discussion of Oswald’s narrative strategies and unique traits are

explored in a later chapter, but before then we must continue to consider Nesbit’s

associations to understand the arguments her narrator makes between the lines of

the text. In addition to the impact of Hubert Bland’s affected diction on Nesbit’s

21

writing, his political views introduced E. Nesbit to the circle of friends who

greatly influenced her, the Fabian Society.

Edith Nesbit’s political stances extended beyond simply being a member of

the Fabian Society in that her perspectives often meshed both radical and

conservative leanings, just as her children’s literature thrived on tensions between

differing views and facilitated her ability to comment on societal issues without

immediate ostracism. In fact, she was a “founding member of the Fabian Society

(established 1884),” a socialist organization and thus began “introducing socialist

propaganda in her children’s stories” (Knowles and Malmkjaer 204). This radical

group drew Nesbit and her husband, Hubert Bland, into their “circle of lively,

unconventional friends” (Bell 29) and she “remained a committed, if distinctly

eccentric, socialist all her life” (Briggs xii). Despite this involvement, however,

Nesbit did not strictly conform to their values. For instance, she did not actively

seek women’s suffrage, and apparently had little problem with inequality of class

and the disproportionate distribution of money between those classes, even though

“the injustice of the class system as a whole, and the exploitation of servants in

particular, had always posed a problem for serious socialists” (Briggs xix).

Although Nesbit rejected the stereotype common among the Victorians that

women were “angels of the household,” there existed women who were far more

extreme in their rejection of that title than Nesbit, women who participated in the

Women’s Movement and fought for equality. Although well “aware of all the

controversies subsumed under the woman question” Nesbit “refrained from active

participation beyond her membership in the Fabian Society and her limited

association with its Women’s Group” (Rutledge 225). Nesbit opted to accept the

views of her husband, Hubert Bland, that nature established differences between

man and woman, and that “political and economic equality was unnatural and

22

undesirable, and would undermine family life” (Briggs xviii). This decision to

pursue other areas of commentary in her society caused some scholars to comment

negatively on “Nesbit’s ambivalence toward . . . conventional female roles,”

causing some to perceive her as simply conservative in nature and in writing

(Rutledge 223). Also, “the Blands’ socialist principles and sympathy for the

oppressed never prevented them from enjoying a thoroughly bourgeois affluence,

reflected in their increasingly grand houses, growing numbers of servants and their

practice of philanthropy in the best Victorian traditions” (Briggs 77). This rather

conservative way of living, despite their radical involvements, causes numerous

critics and scholars to immediately write her off as all talk and no action in terms

of more liberal politics. This semblance of conformity, however, worked to her

advantage, allowing for widespread acceptance of her stories for children which

contained her voice, her beliefs, and her values. Amelia Rutledge, in her article

“E. Nesbit and the Woman Question” explains that “Nesbit seems to have been

caught in a double bind . . . in evading any real confrontation with New Woman

issues in her fiction, she was unlikely to receive much critical notice, and the

critics’ general tendency to dismiss women’s fiction insured that little notice was

taken of her work” (235). However had she come across as entirely extremist, her

writings would have been rejected by the more traditional Victorians right from

the beginning. British society tolerated very little in terms of divergence from the

values and opinions of the wealthy, upper-class, choosing instead to marginalize

those perspectives. In an effort to avoid ostracism that would have resulted from

blatant opposition, Nesbit chose to disguise her dissension. As a result of this

calculated manipulation of her society, a free-thinking woman was able to give

herself a voice in the Victorian society that otherwise silenced or marginalized

23

texts by women. Nesbit, aware of her risks, created a new means of expressing

her opinions by mixing radical views with conformity.

Edith Nesbit did not wholly conform to either the radical, New Woman

female or to the conservative, silent and submissive model of women. Her social

positions, marriage, and outspoken, free-thinking personality all disrupted the

Victorian woman ideal. She “demonstrated her own essentially willful character

by marrying Hubert Bland despite her mother’s suspicious disapproval” and “she

had already flouted convention, being seven months pregnant when she married”

(Rutledge 226). In addition, she

was alternately amused and intrigued by the new life-styles that she

came across at the Fabian. Some of those who were in revolt against

the dominant capitalist ethos of Victorian England had rejected more

than its economics: the richly cluttered decor of the period, the

mahogany and thick Turkey carpets were being replaced with

distempered walls, scrubbed deal and coconut matting; the stiffly

boned costumes gave place to flowing Liberty gowns and the heavy

meals to “plain living and high thinking.” (Briggs 66)

Her refusal to align herself with either of the extremes illustrates her complexity

and demonstrates the necessity of studying her works. Nesbit demonstrates the

unique character of a woman who highlighted issues most pressing to her and used

conformity in other areas to emphasize her topics of choice without being

classified as overly liberal and progressive. She was an active, independent,

selective woman who had the individuality to choose what interested and appealed

to her from both sides of the social pendulum, and to apply those things to her life

while standing against those she did not endorse. Nesbit represents the

complexities that accompany being female at the end of the nineteenth-century

24

and constructing an identity that neither conforms to the conservative

understanding of women nor abandons that idea.

The complexities of Nesbit’s fiction, which portrays a unique assemblage

of interests and values, were missed because she refused to follow the established,

generic literary patterns, causing some critics to see her position as nothing unique

and therefore not worthy of much attention, let alone in-depth study and

examination of her texts. For example, U.C. Knoepflmacher and other critics

regard her as “hardly different from her Victorian peers” and reputed as more

radical than she actually was (“Of Babylands and Babylons” 302).

Knoepflmacher admits, “E. Nesbit is occasionally regarded as the first woman

writer of children’s books able to free herself from the realistic conventions that

has still bound fantasists like Ewing, Molesworth, and Mulock” due to her

appearance as a

“New Woman,” far removed from her more straight-laced Victorian

sisters: in 1880 she defied conventionality by being seven months

pregnant when she married Hubert Bland, a womanizer who later

regaled her with two children whom she nurtured along with her

own, though they were born to another woman; she helped found the

Fabian Society; she supported other radical causes and esoteric cults.

(“Of Babylands and Babylons” 301)

Knoepflmacher goes on to argue that Nesbit’s stories do not continue that more

liberal inclination. Instead he compares Nesbit’s writing to that of George Eliot’s,

stating that their fiction “neither radically challenges a patriarchal order nor

sharply departs from the more pronounced moralism of earlier nineteenth-century

women writers” (“Of Babylands and Babylons” 302). However by stating this,

Knoepflmacher requires that Nesbit conforms to one of these two modes of

25

subverting the Victorian society rather than allowing her to challenge those criteria

and manipulate her texts in other ways to break free from social constraints. In

terms of the woman question, Amelia Rutledge adds that “Nesbit’s work

resembles what Ann Ardis calls ‘boomerang’ novels, i.e., those that present New

Woman elements but then subvert them by a reversion to the marriage-plot at the

end” (224). I maintain that this is exactly what Nesbit intended to do, and needed

to do, in order to advance those other radical issues her texts addressed – pro-

imperialism, child advocacy, and her opinion on texts of real literary merit. These

limiting views of Edith Nesbit’s writing ignore the barriers she has broken down

through her writing, such as the inclusion of her political standpoints entirely.

Edith Nesbit’s literary avenues, while limited, presented her with the

opportunity to present in her unique and different way the original opinions on

elements of her culture. She enjoyed many privileges women of Victorian

England were denied by using her Bastable stories as a means of making her views

known, her political associations in particular. “E. Nesbit’s political opinions

permeate[d] her work, sometimes surfacing as bubbles of high-minded propaganda

– on the horrors of industrial disease, the cruelty of poverty and slums and

(without any sense of inconsistence) the blight of urban development” but at the

same time, other attitudes toward British nationalism and imperialism, the status

of children in British society, and even the role of literature did not measure up to

the standards of the Fabian Society (Briggs xix). Still, she participated in many

social activities women were denied, such as engaging in friendship and

conversation with men she found interesting and educated. In addition, the

women she befriended from the Fabian Society represented an “‘advanced’

woman who wrote up her opinions in magazines, or spoke about them in public,

and who expected others to find her views worth hearing” (Briggs 68). So,

26

although her views may not be aligned with women who supported the Women’s

Movement and other radical (for the time) agendas, she still broke free from

traditional Victorianism by giving herself a voice and utilizing that voice to

comment on issues that she found particularly noteworthy. She represents an

alternative type of Victorian woman, unconfined by those who attempt to classify

women as either the submissive angel in the house or the rebellious, eccentric New

Woman. Nesbit’s literary outlet, largely limited to writing for children, gave her

an avenue to express in new and creative ways her new and original opinions on

elements of Victorian culture.

Despite Nesbit’s hesitancy to be fixed as a children’s writer alone, it was

her children’s stories that contributed to her financial success and enabled her to

write subversively. Nesbit herself wrote to her literary agent, JB Pinker, stating, “I

wish you could get me an order for a serial for grown-ups – something like the

Red House. I don’t think it is good for my style to write nothing but children’s

books” because she sought to incorporate more extremist ideals, and her own

stances in general (Foster and Simons 127). She felt constrained by the genre into

which she was placed; she became “wary of being permanently classified as a

literary lightweight” due to her marginalization resulting from the stigma

prescribed to writers of children’s stories (Foster and Simons 127). At the same

time, her consignment to children’s literature “paradoxically facilitated her release

from imposed traditions of canonical writing and allowed her to situate herself in

radical relation to establishment practice” in that she was able to mask “potentially

radical undercurrents by its reassuringly conventional framework” as we will see

through Oswald Bastable’s narratives, effectively involving those who classified

her as moderate and unprogressive (Foster and Simons 127, 129). Nesbit’s ability

to utilize the genre into which she was cast to voice her arguments demonstrates

27

her worthiness to be studied. And although she felt consigned to the genre, “and

knew the limited value placed on children’s books, it was nevertheless as a

children’s writer that she recognized her own achievement” (Briggs 401). Not

only did she speak out in a society that silenced women, but she also presented her

stances on topics of great relevance and debate at the time, issues such as British

imperialism, the role of children, and roles and purposes of literature. As Julia

Briggs explains, “while the marginality of children’s books kept them in low

esteem,” that dismissal also operated as a “source of strength,” especially for E.

Nesbit (401). She goes on to explain that “some things could not be said at all or

only indirectly, the lack of fully developed rules and patterns left children’s fiction

as one of the freest and most versatile forms of the nineteenth century” (401).

While other female authors for children may have taken offense to the category of

literature they were confined to, for Nesbit

it paradoxically facilitated her release from imposed traditions of

canonical writing and allowed her to situate herself in radical

relation to establishment practice [because] Nesbit’s texts are not

merely pieces of childish entertainment nor unthinking inventive

fantasies but highly sophisticated productions which continue to

enact the tensions shared by a number of nineteenth-century texts by

women writers . . . with particular reference to children’s literature.

(Foster and Simons 128-29)

Nesbit’s manipulation of the genre sets her apart from other female authors in that,

while they shared some similar concerns, unlike the others Nesbit broke free from

Victorian constraints and found liberation rather than confinement through her

children’s stories. This unique perspective on writing for children solidifies the

importance of in-depth study and analysis of her works.

28

Nesbit’s children’s stories result from her relegation to the genre of

children’s fiction and ironically that lower status ends up empowering her,

allowing her to address both child and adult, male and female, with her stances on

topics such as the aforementioned status and role of children and childhood and

significance of British imperialism. As a result, Edith Nesbit is found among

other brilliant writers for children who used marginal literary forms to explore

adult and child themes: “in folk tales, ghost stories or in children’s books [such as]

Lewis Carroll’s Alice, Thackeray’s The Rose and the Ring, Kingsley’s The Water-

Babies and much of George MacDonald’s fiction” the authors write “in daring and

experimental ways that point forward to more modernist freedoms” (Briggs 401).

By being classified into a genre that called for adult involvement in the selection

and reading of the texts, Nesbit engaged a wider audience than if she had written

solely for adults. Furthermore, disguising her writing as unassuming children’s

literature enabled her to confront more issues and articulate her opinions.

Evidence in support of this empowerment through a seemingly powerless genre

comes in the realization that “during her life-time the Bastable adventures always

sold significantly better than her fantasies” and her publisher “offered her better

royalties on them accordingly,” demonstrating the value actually given to her

children’s stories (Briggs 215). Nesbit’s personal attitude, involvements,

experiences and opinions appear more predominantly in her texts once we are

aware of her background and how it influenced her writing. As we have

discussed, Nesbit’s unique narrative voice in the Bastable texts acts as one mode

of writing that is influenced by her background, and that sets her apart from her

Victorian contemporaries and allows for her subversion of the restrictive society.

Equally important is the position of children and how they were viewed in

29

Victorian England, especially as it factors into Edith Nesbit’s most popular

writings, the stories of the Bastable children.

Chapter 2

VICTORIAN CHILDHOOD AND CHILDREN’S LITERATURE

Children and Childhood in Victorian England

The Victorian period was a transitional one, a time when childhood as we

recognize it first emerged and authors began to write literature that responded to

that new perception of children. Early on, children were seen as second-class

citizens, unworthy of much attention, and meant to be seen and not heard. As the

period progressed, children began to be addressed in ways more beneficial to the

purposes of the nation, manipulated to be always obedient, submissive, and

supportive of the predominant societal views. Edith Nesbit uses the tales of the

Bastables to combat the limiting aspects of both the traditional and emerging

views of children and the experiences of childhood. Some critics claim that Nesbit

“constructs childhood as a period of helplessness, ignorance, and incompetence”

(Gubar 417). I contend that, in actuality, Nesbit uses the child-like innocence,

imagination, and intuition to argue for children’s significance in their society. She

constructs them as worthy of consideration as her texts present “a group of spirited

and imaginative children engaged in adventures apart from adult,” rather than

disregarding them as uneducated, inept beings (Moss, “Story” 189). Edith Nesbit,

through the inclusion of other literary works and commentary on those texts in her

own writing, addresses children and the experiences of childhood positively,

viewing childhood as a valuable time of growth and exploration and children as

beings in need of respect, attention, freedom, and entertainment. In this way, what

may appear as inconsistent or contradictory in her fiction is really evidence of her

rich, complex construction of childhood in her era. She compounds the tensions in

31

her narrative, refusing to fit in and align herself with either the traditional or new

Victorian way of classifying and defining children and their experiences, for

instance, with the inclusion of the moral lessons the Bastables deliver that lack the

condescension and forcefulness of the conduct-type books of the time. Similarly,

her adult characters in the Bastable tales reveal and emphasize the potential and

relevance of children rather than minimizing the significance, an aspect of her

fiction that will be developed later in the chapter.

E. Nesbit finds in literature for children a means of amusement, and

challenges the prevailing belief of the Victorians that writing for children should

be limited to strict moral and instructional texts. Furthermore, while

“acknowledging the extent to which adults and their texts shape and influence

children, she nevertheless insists that such power does not preclude the possibility

that children can borrow, transform, and renew the scripts they are given,”

undermining the society that suppressed them and giving children credit for their

ability to think and make meaning for themselves (Gubar 426). This does not

simply apply to their involvement with literature, but also to their ability to

maneuver and negotiate other aspects of Victorian society. All of Nesbit’s texts

“explore the anarchic potential of childhood and in their identification with a

juvenile perspective gain a license to satirize adult mores and expose the disabling

effects of a patriarchal” and repressive society (Foster and Simons 129). By

presenting children in this manner, Nesbit gives them value and credit beyond

what they had traditionally been granted, presenting them as intelligent, creative,

and able to critique the world around them through the texts they are exposed to.

In contrast to the majority of the texts written for children during her era,

Nesbit creates narratives from the perspective of the child-character. The child-

characters engage in realistic rather than idealistic behavior. She even constructs

32

the narrative with the voice of Oswald Bastable, giving her texts an even more

authentic awareness and understanding of children and their experiences. Nesbit’s

texts challenge certain literature for children such as Victorian conduct books and

religious texts while endorsing other methods of writing for a child-audience, like

adventure and travel tales, based upon her sense of children and their interests,

values, and needs. Together, these elements of Edith Nesbit’s literature for

children demonstrate her uniqueness as an author, worthiness of study, and

significance to the genre of children’s literature as a whole.

Nesbit’s narratives present an alternative to moralist tales by creating

stories where the children are significant and important, and thrive upon action,

adventure and play. With the adventures the children engage in throughout her

books, Nesbit provides counter texts, “stressing the need for children to play

creatively and to develop their own individuality without the constrictions of adult

control” (Wall 154). As Nesbit states through Oswald Bastable in Oswald

Bastable and Others, “Adventures are the real business of life. The rest is only

inbetweenness” (35). Nesbit voices her belief that children need exploration and

excitement rather than structured teaching and observation. Nesbit’s Bastable

stories stand “squarely between Victorian and modern children’s literature and

[have] been acclaimed by critics as ushering in the ‘Nesbit Tradition’ in twentieth-

century children’s literature, a vision that owes much to the Romantic conceptions

of childhood and imagination” because she saw children as intelligent and

creative, not simply empty vessels to be filled with adult-accepted virtues,

experiences, and thoughts (Moss, “E. Nesbit’s Romantic Child” 107). Instead,

Nesbit’s child-characters, the Bastables, invent their own games and stories, use

imagination to enhance their experiences, and are able to think about and analyze

33

texts and the adult issues they encounter. As Anita Moss describes this shift in

childhood perception,

Nesbit’s child characters liberate themselves from the static myths of

childhood by seizing control of their own stories to become makers

and creators. Unlike Wordsworth’s child characters, Nesbit’s are

highly literate. Although they retain intuitive ways of knowing, the

activities of reading, thinking, fabricating, and even artful lying help

them to evade sentimentality, constraints, and aggressions of adults.

While Wordsworth and MacDonald celebrate the simplicity and

innocence of children, Lewis, Carroll and Nesbit rejoice in their

complexity, intelligence and experience. Nesbit encourages her

child characters and her readers to transcend literary and social

convention, to speak in radically new voices, and to create new

idioms and myths of childhood, just as Nesbit herself broke free of

some rather stifling Victorian children’s literature. (“E. Nesbit’s

Romantic Child” 107)

Nesbit’s realistic portrayal of children and their thoughts and actions and her first-

person child narration illuminate the differences in the outlook on children and the

role of childhood in Victorian between E. Nesbit and more traditionalist views.

Nesbit’s originality is also shown through her incorporation of works of literature

by other authors, some that she endorsed and others that she felt missed the true

interests and value of childhood, such as Kipling, Dickens, Dumas, and specific

texts like Ministering Children and What Katy Did into her works, as will be

discussed subsequently.

Nesbit provides her opinion on Victorian writing for children through her

own texts, and the serialization of the Bastable stories allowed her to communicate

34

to both adults and children. She “presents her critique of life in terms of a critique

of reading habits and the peculiar dangers and deceptions that reading can offer,”

especially texts meant to guide and form children, rather than allowing them

autonomy, entertainment, and imagination (Briggs 402). Throughout their

discussion of books and literary figures, it becomes apparent that “the Bastables

know and distrust moral stories,” as Nesbit also found them a limiting and flawed

way of writing to children (Bell 41). While society predominantly encouraged

educational and religious texts, Nesbit preferred giving children adventurous,

entertaining texts as shown through the Bastable texts. Not all critics have

recognized Nesbit’s critique of the predominantly moral tales offered to children.

Humphrey Carpenter, for instance, suggests that “the fact that Oswald is telling the

story, funny as it may be, disguises the true nature of The Treasure Seekers, which

is as condescending towards children as are any of the Beautiful Child books of

the Molesworth era” (132). He continues, “In fact, The Treasure Seekers is a

strikingly old-fashioned book. Underneath the comedy, the Bastables are steadily

being schooled in the accepted adult virtues. Not only do the adults patronise

them; they never hesitate to deliver more lectures” (134). Carpenter concludes

that “Oswald, H.O. Noel et al. are a far cry from the sharply observant, shrewd,

adult-criticizing children of The Golden Age and Dream Days” (133). He misses,

however, the nuances of her fiction such as where the children break free from

simply demonstrating obedience or where adults interact more with the children

than just to direct or correct. Although Doris Langley Moore, in her Nesbit

biography, agrees with Carpenter to some extent, she notes that Nesbit’s children

do differ from more conservative expressions of children:

The Bastables are perhaps nicer than most real children are – purer,

more honest, less greedy; ruinously destructive, terrifyingly

35

adventurous though they are, they yet provide for the child-reader a

“good example,” for they despise all forms of meanness and are

never consciously cruel. Yet the moral is implied, not preached.

(149)

What Carpenter misses is that although Nesbit’s child-characters do exhibit a

sense of right and wrong, they do not force it upon the reader, as conduct books of

the time articulated and advanced their purpose. Again, this subtlety reveals the

inherent tension created in the Bastable stories by E. Nesbit’s refusal to conform to

or be classified by any existing avenue of children’s literature. The Bastables

learn moral lessons on their own during their adventures and exploration rather

than solely through the instruction of strict, supervising adults. In addition, those

lessons on morality are secondary to the entertainment that the excursions provide.

Finally, while some of the concepts of right and wrong are in alignment with

Victorian standards, some, such as their high regard for the smuggler in The New

Treasure Seekers, complicate a simple enactment of those standards with the

observations of the children. Oswald concedes that “[they] saw that smuggling

must be wrong;” however, he continues, “but we have never been able to feel

really sorry” (Nesbit, New Treasure Seekers 213). The Bastables respond

similarly in their opinions of pirates saying, “For though of course it is very wrong

to be a pirate, it is very interesting too” (Nesbit, New Treasure Seekers 213).

These conflicting, paradoxical responses to people mainstream Victorians

immediately discounted as immoral demonstrate the freedom granted to the

children. It was that liberty which enabled them to draw such conclusions. So,

while the Bastable children address morality, it is on their own terms, not limited

to judgment based on acceptable Victorian conduct. It illustrates a morality

learned through experience, not rule books.

36

Edith Nesbit shows, through adult characters included in the Bastable tales

and the unspoken reality that adults are readers of children’s books, that adults

miss underlying messages about children and society when they minimize the

potential and significance of texts written for children. What Humphrey Carpenter

also fails to take into consideration in his condescending perceptions of Nesbit’s

works are the underlying subtexts of imperialism, the role and status of childhood,

and how literature for children should be written that she sends through these

seemingly conformist thoughts and actions. He does not account for the liberties

she takes, as a woman, in writing about certain issues, or the freedom she grants to

another marginalized group – the children. Despite their somewhat conservative

morals and behavioral limitations, these children remain vocal about their

opinions, and that is an attribute not often granted children at that time. Rather

than presenting her texts from an authoritarian adult perspective, Nesbit remains

completely dedicated to the child narrator and his opinion and perspectives. In

terms of Nesbit’s subversion of the genre, Margaret Meek writes, “During the

early part of childhood when children are discovering what books are and what

reading can be like, they are the implied audience. But the books themselves are

produced, sold, bought, read, and judged by adults” which is exactly what Nesbit

aimed at in writing stories for children, but with underlying adult assertions about

the role and status of children, literature, and imperialism (91). For example, as

Anita Moss puts it in “The Story of the Treasure Seekers: The Idiom of

Childhood”,

Nesbit’s subversively anarchic spirit and her deep suspicion of social

institutions are expressed in the Bastables’ rebellion against adult

institutions. The most sympathetic adults in the Bastable stories are

writers. The least sympathetic adults are associated with

37

bureaucracy: the clergyman and Lord Trottenham, M.P., in The

Story of the Treasure Seekers, and the rude policeman and sour

missionary in The Wouldbegoods. Association with bureaucracy,

Nesbit implies, may cause adults to forget what it is to think, feel,

and imagine as children and hence, to lose a vital part of themselves.

(196)

By presenting texts with a child narrator that is seemingly for children with adult-

themed undertones, Nesbit dismantles the Victorian standard of literature for

children by first presenting progressive, affirmative visions of Victorian children.

Unlike the more traditional stance of the time that children should be seen and not

heard, Nesbit gives her child characters center stage in her texts, imparts upon

them a voice of their own to tell their stories, and incorporates adult figures into

her writings who also view children with an outlook similar to Nesbit’s own.

E. Nesbit creates adult characters in her texts to demonstrate the way she

believes adults should treat children, lovingly and as intelligent, innovative

creatures. Albert-next-door’s uncle is the first adult shown in the Bastable stories

to treat children as equal human beings, thereby illustrating Nesbit’s regard for

children. In The Story of the Treasure Seekers Albert’s uncle, as he is titled by the

narrator, encourages the children in their imaginative and adventurous endeavors

by participating in these along with them. For instance, when the Bastables

attempt to restore the fortunes of their family by playing as bandits and kidnapping

Albert-next-door for ransom, Albert’s uncle plays along, exclaiming, “Alas, alas,

my nephew! Do I find you the prisoner of a desperate band of brigands? . . .

Where’s the dungeon?” (90-91). He even goes so far as to say, “Albert really is

not worth three thousand pounds” but instead offers to pay them some loose

change from his pockets for his release (91). In this way he rewards them for their

38

creativity and play. This attitude differs from the more conservative Victorians

who emphasized work, moral teaching and guidance, and obedience. Oswald also

relates to his audience that “it was Albert’s uncle who thought of our trying a

newspaper . . . he thought we should not find the bandit business a paying

industry, as a permanency, and that journalism might be” (94). The Bastables took

that into consideration and decided to try it, and “when it was done Albert-next-

door’s uncle had it copied for [them] in typewriting” (96). This involvement

portrays Nesbit’s belief that children need to be encouraged in their games and

ideas. Nesbit subtly promotes this though her writing by giving the Bastable

children success in their activities: they earn money from Albert’s uncle for

releasing him from captivity and eventually earn money by selling Noel’s poem,

The Wreck of the Malabar, which they first included in their newspaper. Yet even

with Albert’s uncle’s advocacy of the children and their activities, Oswald still

relates, “We don’t mind Albert’s uncle chipping in sometimes when the things

going on, but we are glad he never asked us to promise to consult him about

anything” (159). By making this statement through Oswald, Nesbit maintains that

while there exists a positive way to appreciate and encourage children (as we will

see more in adults other than Albert’s uncle as well) it remains necessary to give

them freedom and opportunity to exercise their thoughts and ideas.

Another example of Nesbit’s ideal adult interaction with the Bastable

children is found with Mrs. Leslie, an author whom the Bastable children meet on

their trip to sell Noel’s poem, The Wreck of the Malabar to an editor in a further

attempt to restore their fallen fortunes. H.O. Bastable accompanies them to the

train station and “called out ‘Good Hunting!’ as the train started” which Mrs.

Leslie recognized as coming from Kipling’s The Jungle Book (Nesbit, Story of the

Treasure Seekers 54). She remarks, “That’s very pleasant to hear . . . I am very

39

pleased to meet people who know their Jungle Book. And where are you off to –

the Zoological Gardens to look for Baghera?” (54). They were “pleased . . . to

meet someone who knew the Jungle Book” and so started up a conversation with

her and she ended up being a famous poet who helped them succeed in selling

Noel’s poetry (54). The attraction the Bastables feel for Mrs. Leslie, and their

subsequent success in attaining wealth through their association with her,

demonstrates Nesbit’s endorsement of those who read and write texts that she

values and who treat children as she feels they should be treated, as ingenious

readers and learners. Mrs. Leslie demonstrates this as she engages the children in

conversation around the text and encourages their pretending with reference to

another character from the book and a way they could potentially personalize the

tale.

Nesbit incorporates other adults throughout the other Bastable tales who

also enact Nesbit’s attitude towards children and their childhood experiences. In

The New Treasure Seekers the Bastable children go to stay at the Red House, and

so they give their guardians there the names Mr. and Mrs. Red House. Oswald

describes them saying, “As far as a married lady can possibly be a regular brick,

Mrs. Red House is one. And Mr. Red House is not half bad, and knows how to

talk about interesting things like sieges, and cricket, and foreign postage stamps”

(105). Nesbit, through Oswald, describes them as such because of the way they

interact with the children, playing and conversing with them as equals, not simply

as beings to be tolerated and controlled. Later in the text the children go to stay

with another woman whose cousin, Mrs. Bax, comes to stay with them. Their

father writes to them stating that “she is going to Lymchurch to rest” and he wants

them all to “be very quiet” and not “bother her to tell [them] stories” despite that

she “has traveled a great deal” (235). Oswald explains that “if he had not been

40

told how quiet she wanted to be he would have thought she looked rather jolly.

She has short hair and gold spectacles. Her skirts were short, and she carried a

parrot-cage in her hand” (238). Not only does this appearance fit Nesbit’s

description, but as we will find out, she too fits the profile of positive adult

company for children. Although she looked like an adult they would have fun

with, they remembered their father’s request:

Mrs Bax seemed very noble. She kept trying to talk to us about

Pincher, and trains and Australia, but we were determined she

should be quiet, as she wished it so much, and we restrained our

brimming curiosity about oppossums up gum-trees, and about emus

and kangaroos and wattles, and only said “Yes” or “No,” or, more

often, nothing at all. (Nesbit, New Treasure Seekers 240-41)

While this shows their obedience to Father, it also demonstrates the restraint that

being quiet, submissive children has on their learning and activities. It is not

nearly as entertaining, educational, or interesting when they follow the “seen-and-

not-heard” model. Later, when the children get into an altercation with the police

for playing at being peddlers without a license, Mrs. Red House comes to their

rescue along with her friend, Mrs. Bax. The children were shocked to see them

together because Mrs. Red House exemplified one type of adult and Mrs. Bax

represented the less-appealing adult to the adventurous, questioning Bastables.

When Mrs. Bax sees how they respond to Mrs. Red House she exclaims, “Chloe,

you seem to be a witch. How have you galvanized my six rag dolls into life like

this?” because with her they had been quiet and reserved (256). To answer Mrs.

Red House’s inquiries regarding their behavior towards Mrs. Bax “[they] told how

Father had begged [them] to be quiet, and how [they] had earnestly tried to” (257).

Once the truth emerges, Mrs. Bax exclaims,

41

Oh, my dears! You don’t know how glad I am that you’re really

alive! I began to think – oh – I don’t know what I thought! And

you’re not rag dolls. You’re heroes and heroines, every man jack of

you. And I do thank you. But I never wanted to be quiet like that. I

just didn’t want to be bothered with London and tiresome grown-up

people. (257)

Through Mrs. Bax, Edith Nesbit presents the dichotomy of adult perspectives

towards children at that time. Originally she stood for the more rigid, suppressive

adults, but, as Oswald put it, “Mrs. Bax, now that her true nature was revealed,

proved to be A1. The author does not ask for a jollier person to be in the house

with. We had rare larks the whole time she stayed with us” (257). Nesbit utilizes

the character of Mrs. Bax to demonstrate Nesbit’s belief in the beneficial ways for

adults to interact with children. Oswald tells the reader,

We had discovered her true nature but three days ago, and already

she had taken us out in a sailing-boat and in a motor car, had given

us sweets every day, and taught us eleven new games that we had

not known before; and only four of the new games were rotters.

How seldom can as much be said for the games of a grown-up,

however gifted! (258)

He reveals their positive estimation of her, as well as her obvious affirmation and

enjoyment of the children. Mrs. Bax is an exemplary model of the adult

perceptions of and responses to children and childhood that Nesbit desires to draw

attention to and support. The similarities between Mrs. Bax and Edith Nesbit are

evident given Anita Moss’s description of Nesbit in her article, “The Story of the

Treasure Seekers: The Idiom of Childhood” that says, “An unconventional

Bohemian who refused to wear corsets, E. Nesbit went about in flowing, aesthetic

42

gowns with bracelets to her elbows, wore knickers, rode the bicycle, jumped

fences, smoked in public, adopted two of her husband’s illegitimate children as her

own, and tolerated a highly unconventional household” (188). Nesbit makes her

views on children and their experiences known through the Bastable children’s

opinions on the adults in their lives. Those characters such as Mrs. Leslie, Mrs.

Red House, and Mrs. Bax demonstrate how, according to Nesbit, adults should

give children freedom while also encouraging them to use their imaginations, play

games, and voice their thoughts and feelings on different subjects.

In addition to writing with the goal of changing how children and childhood

were viewed by her society, Nesbit wrote to effect change in how people wrote for

children. She models this in her own texts by presenting the Bastable children as

unique, independent, and intelligent beings deserving of books that entertain and

allow them to develop their imaginations and make their own meaning of what

they read and experience. In the Bastable stories, Nesbit showed herself clearly

aware of the reader at the receiving end of her tale-telling and she wrote to benefit

them. Instead of simply aiming to guide and instruct, she sought to entertain,

educate, and relate childhood experiences, a strategy that will be developed in the

next section of this chapter. Throughout the Bastable stories, Nesbit uses her

unique literary techniques to endorse imaginative and entertaining texts, while

parodying the more rigid religious and instructional writings, revealing the

restrictive and stifling effects of those texts. Nesbit used the literary avenue as her

means of participating in the conversation surrounding the role of children and

significance of childhood in Victorian England. In order to give herself a voice in

the discussion Nesbit disguises her commentary as children’s literature, while it

seemed

43

to belong in tone with the adult stories of the time rather than the

work specially written for children. Indeed, the Bastable stories

made their appearance in magazines where they would be read by

adults before being passed on to the children. There was a spirit of

jovial comedy in many adult stories of the time . . . and E. Nesbit

took it over into children’s books when she invented the Bastables

getting involved in their well-meant mistakes. (Bell 36-37)

This act of presenting children’s stories to adults not only served her purpose of

commenting on her society to an audience who would otherwise ignore or dismiss

her, but it also allowed her to present her views on the quality of certain writing

and ways of composing texts for children, and through them reiterating the

significance she granted children and their childhood experiences. As we will see,

within her own texts Nesbit refers to other literary works in an effort to comment

on those that influence children positively and those that limit their potential.

Victorian Children’s Literature and Childhood

Through her stories Nesbit creates a new genre within the scope of

children’s literature, one that encourages and facilitates literary analysis by

children. Nesbit made literature and its relationship to childhood a predominant

theme as the children analyze, mirror, and even challenge and criticize various

literary works throughout the Bastable texts. Julia Briggs informs us that “The

Treasure Seekers is above all a book about books, for the children’s literary

expectations govern many, perhaps most of their adventures, which are themselves

conveyed in parodies of contemporary literary cliches” (187). The children base

their excursions on elements of various texts they have read, and even their “many

efforts to garner funds derive from ideas they have taken from various texts”

44

(Gubar 411). Nesbit incorporated a number of important texts into her writing to

show its significance to children such as, but not limited to

La Motte Fouqué’s Sintram (1814), Dumas’s The Count of Monte

Cristo (1845), Captain Maryat’s The Children of the New Forest

(1847), Charlotte M. Yonge’s The Daisy Chain (1865), Dickens,

and, more recently, Kipling’s Jungle Books and Stalky, Kenneth

Grahame’s The Golden Age and Sherlock Holmes, as well as books

written in the mid-century evangelical tradition, such as Ministering

Children (1854), and What Katy Did (1872). (Briggs 402)

Through allusion to these texts, “Nesbit . . . explores the place of writing,

publication, and reading in the child’s imaginative life, and suggests ways that

children use reading and writing to make sense of their experience and to survive

both pain and benumbing boredom” (Moss, “Story” 189). The Bastable children

use the texts they encounter to create entertainment and make sense of the world

around them.

Nesbit uses other literature as examples throughout her Bastable stories to

demonstrate her support of, and the value of an emphasis on imagination and

adventure in texts for children. She presents her position on important texts for

children as the Bastables tend to have success in their endeavors that mirror the

more entertaining and less instructive texts. These interesting and stimulating

texts are those the children find most appealing. The most common references

come from Rudyard Kipling’s texts of adventure and exploration. For instance,

the Bastable children mimic The Jungle Book by Rudyard Kipling when they

pretend to be Mowgli and the animals, and their efforts are successful in that they

are sent to the country where they have more freedom and inspiration to exert their

imaginations and explore around them. This benefit to the children resulting from

45

their Jungle Book antics illuminates Nesbit’s endorsement of Kipling’s writings.

Nesbit’s esteem for Kipling’s texts, as evidenced by the Bastables’ imitation of his

works as well as their repeated praise of his tales, developed for the following

reasons:

Rudyard Kipling’s Jungle Books (1895) tell of the Indian boy

Mowgli who [is] brought up in the jungle by beasts . . . In his Indian

jungle, Kipling created one of the first secondary worlds with its

own laws in children’s fantasy; and he also married the pastoral

impulse of The Water Babies, the Alice books . . . to the savage facts

of wild animal life. The books were instantly popular, for they

united fantasy with the adventure story of faraway lands; though

secretly they were also an allegory of the way Europeans should try

to relate to the culture and variety of the Indian peoples. (Manlove

37)

Edith Nesbit appreciated Kipling’s work and showed her support for his writings

through the Bastable children’s appreciation for the Mowgli stories, and the

victories they reap from imitating those texts. In The Would-Be-Goods the

Bastables “play Jungle Book” and “the lawn under the cedar was transformed into

a dream of beauty, what with the stuffed creatures and the paper-tailed things and

the waterfall” (325, 326). She reveals the benefits he bestows on children through

his literary works: new places, experiences, creatures, and excitement. Nesbit did

not limit her commentary on literature for children entirely to allusions to Kipling,

however. The Bastable children consistently refer to imaginative games about

pirates, smugglers, Indians, and savages inspired by their other readings. Oswald

and his siblings play at savages when they incorporate Rudyard Kipling’s texts

and others, such as The Last of the Mohicans that referenced Indians and natives

46

of the British colonies, into their make-believe. “H.O. painted his legs and his

hands with Condy’s fluid – to make him brown” and then during the game Oswald

“sprang forward with the native bow and arrows out of uncle’s study” to protect a

“gentle Indian maid” (326). The children enjoy the excitement and independence

of the Indian people they have read about. Nesbit’s purpose behind such

references is clear: “Savages have a kind of freedom that most children long for,

but rarely achieve” and as is evidenced in her texts, Nesbit felt children were

entitled to that sense of independence (Kutzer 8). M. Daphne Kutzer continues by

saying, “Pirates are also common characters in children’s fiction, and are

appealing for many of the same reasons natives are: they live by their own rules,

are seemingly free of authority, and have many more adventures than children

restricted to nursery, garden, and school can have” (8). This adequately explains

why Edith Nesbit incorporated those types of characters to prompt the children’s

play. Their entertainment, enthusiasm, and learning in games taken from stories

about those types of people expresses Nesbit’s beliefs concerning positive texts for

children.

Nesbit illustrates her support of realistic writing for children through

instances when the children imitate authentically written texts. For instance, when

the children go for a boat ride and witness a snake slithering through the water,

Oswald describes it saying, “it swam with four inches of itself – the head reared up

out of the water, exactly like Kaa in the Jungle Book – so we know Kipling is a

true author and no rotter” (Nesbit, Would-Be-Goods 344). The Bastables trust his

writing as genuine and attentive to the child-reader. Oswald goes on to repeatedly

uphold Kipling’s value by referring to him as “that great and good writer” (Nesbit,

New Treasure Seekers 48). Edith Nesbit reveals her partiality for Kipling in that

she refers to him and his texts more than any other author throughout the Bastable

47

stories and the Bastable children hold him and his texts in high regard, beginning

in The Story of the Treasure Seekers and continuing throughout the Bastable

series. However, she does integrate other authors who write realistically into her

texts to further support that method of writing for children. Nesbit and other

authors she references write faithful representations of children, their thoughts,

and their experiences rather than idealizing or dismissing them. Nesbit validates

this manner of writing through her texts, instead of those less accurate or true-to-

life. In The Would-Be-Goods, Oswald becomes so overwhelmed by their activities

and the results of those endeavors that “he sat down suddenly, just like Betsy

Trotwood did in David Copperfield, which just shows what a true author Dickens

is” (363). Nesbit’s approval of different authors and their writings hinges on the

children’s ability to authentically relate to the texts when they read them. Nesbit

illustrates her support of some texts by drawing similarities or parallels between

literary works and the Bastable adventures. She expresses the children’s interest

in and amusement from stories by authors such as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle by the

fact that Oswald exclaims, “Good old Sherlock Holmes!” when their adventures

resemble those of the famous literary figure, again due to the realistic nature of the

writing and how it comes to life in their own experiences (New Treasure Seekers

134).

Through references to the narrative techniques of other literary works of the

time Nesbit reveals her approval and disapproval of different ways of telling a

story. Not only does Nesbit divulge her regard for Kipling’s texts due to their

adventurous elements such as exotic settings, characters, and plotlines, but she

highly values his methods for writing for children as well. When Oswald has a

difficult time thinking of a way to best end his story he uses a technique of

Kipling’s and credits him saying, “I think that is such a useful way to know when

48

you can’t think how to end up a chapter. I learnt it from another writer named

Kipling. I’ve mentioned him before, I believe, but he deserves it!” (Nesbit, Story

212-13). This reference to Kipling and blatant admiration on Oswald’s part

illustrates Nesbit’s own endorsement of him and his techniques for writing for

children. Nesbit incorporates this type of endorsement for Kipling throughout the

Bastables stories when Oswald reflects on Kipling and what he has learned from

his texts. For instance, in The New Treasure Seekers Oswald starts to tell the story

but then regresses explaining that “the next Christmas saw us the affluent nephews

and nieces of an Indian uncle – but that is quite another story, as good old Kipling

says” (22). Oswald utilizes the same methods of storytelling as Kipling, further

revealing Nesbit’s appreciation for Kipling and his techniques.

She further emphasizes her position that literature for children should

address the real interests and concerns of children by referencing conduct books of

the era and associating them with failures of the Bastables because of the focus on

adult affairs and anxieties rather than those of the children. She incorporates other

readings when they intend to save a gentleman from deadly peril in The Story of

the Treasure Seekers and in The Would-Be-Goods when they try (unsuccessfully)

to live up to the children of the conduct books. Their “efforts to emulate the

virtuous child heroes of texts like Ministering Children prove equally disastrous . .

. in stories like ‘The Benevolent Bar’ and ‘The Conscience-Pudding’” (Gubar

419). In both tales the Bastable children attempt to provide food or drink to those

less fortunate and instead, end up offending those they were trying to serve. They

fail to achieve the goal of being good little British children. The Would-Be-Goods

revolves around the children’s idea to “propose to get up a society . . . and keep a

journal-book saying what [they’ve] done . . . The aim of the society is nobleness

and goodness, and great and unselfish deeds. We wish not to be such a nuisance

49

to grown-up people and to perform prodigies of real goodness” (328-29). They

wanted to “rise above the kind of interesting things that you ought not to do, but to

do kindness to all” (329). When all of their well-intentioned efforts at acceptable,

gentlemanly and gentlewomanly behavior fail, the audience realizes how futile,

limiting, and dull those traits, and the books that endorse them, are. Oswald

informs the reader that the actions they engaged in as a result of their British sense

of duty were not done to please themselves, but because it was their responsibility

but, “that made no difference to [their] punishment” and illustrates the negativity

of the British obligation to be good (332-33).

Nesbit reveals her repugnance for conduct books and religious literature

through the negative results the Bastables experience in impersonating children of

those texts. They not only do not accomplish their goals, but often their attempts

lead to catastrophe and punishment. She even portrays the religious and

instructional books negatively through Oswald’s explanation that “the backs of

them were beautiful – leather and gold – but inside they were like whited

sepulchres, full of poetry and improving reading” (Nesbit, New Treasure Seekers

216). In The Would-Be-Goods Oswald again states his revulsion at the thought of

reading and imitating the contents of conduct books when he says, “I’m not going

to smooth the pillows of the sick, or read to the aged poor, or any rot out of

Ministering Children” (329). The children thwart the deceptive appearance of

merit of the conduct books by first failing at anything they do that conforms to the

acceptable British standards, and then, through description, presenting the content

as worthless, boring and archaic. On the other hand, when the Bastables replicate

tales from Kipling’s The Jungle Book the results, while initially appear negative in

that “[their] extended reenactment of Mowgi’s experiences in the jungle leads

them to be beaten and banished to the country at the beginning of The

50

Wouldbegoods,” the actual outcome is positive because the children are able to

enjoy more freedom and other experiences (Gubar 419). Marah Gubar elaborates

on the practice of imitating occurrences in other literature:

A number of critics have noted the extraordinary extent to which

Nesbit’s child characters are saturated in and fascinated by all kinds

of literature. In book after book, Nesbit portrays young people as

irrepressible mimics who shape their games, ideals, behavior, and

even speech around texts created by adults. In The Story of the

Treasure Seekers, for example, the Bastable children swipe

scenarios for their activities from Kipling, Conan Doyle, Marryat

Edgeworth, de la Motte Fouque, Pope, and the Arabian Nights, as

well as assorted picture books, newspaper stories, and

advertisements. (411)

As a result of the incorporation of other texts into her own literature, Nesbit

reinforces the significance of written works for children, demonstrating their

influence on the attitudes and behaviors of children. She also addresses the

consequences of what can be gained or lost by association with different types of

texts in that the imaginative texts provide experience and reference for the children

while conduct books are uninspiring and off-putting. Nesbit, in her Bastable

stories as well as her other texts, “takes for granted that children, whether

characters or readers, are intelligent, independent beings, capable of following

suggestions and acting on their own initiative” and she uses the inclusion of other

works to demonstrate their abilities (Wall 154).

In addition to using conduct books, Nesbit incorporates other types of

writing for children that fails to engage, enlighten, educate and entertain children

as a means of presenting her views that literature for children should not be merely

51

superfluous and instructional. She endorses some authors and texts over others

through how her child-characters and unique child-narrator refer to and use the

writings they encounter. When the selling of Noel’s poetry earns more than

Oswald expected in their efforts at reestablishing the Bastable fortunes, he

explains by saying, “I believe nobody really likes poetry, and yet everyone

pretends they do, either so as not to hurt Noel’s feelings, or because they think

well-brought-up people ought to like poetry, even Noel’s. Of course, Macaulay

and Kipling are different. I don’t mind them so much myself” (Nesbit, Oswald

Bastable 24). Through this assertion Oswald reveals his own, as well as Nesbit’s,

repugnance for more austere and formal texts. He refers to poetry as a genre that,

rather than being engaging and entertaining, attracts an audience only because it is

associated with the Victorian aristocracy, education, and acceptability. The poets

whose work Oswald and Nesbit approve of are those with a goal more to amuse

than to lecture, instruct, morally advise, or fit into the realm of the upper classes.

Dull, pompous, or strictly religious writings do not appeal to the Bastables or to

Nesbit as is evident when Oswald tells of a book Uncle sent to them. He describes

it saying, “It was The Golden Age and is A1 except where it gets mixed up with

grown-up nonsense” (Nesbit, Would-Be-Goods 344). Their preference for

adventure, exploration, discovery and entertainment mirrors those elements of

literature that Nesbit herself values and deemed appropriate and important for

children. Oswald and his siblings come across as well-read and knowledgeable,

but resist teaching lessons to the reader, especially at moments during the stories

where Oswald reveals some of their learning and natural intelligence. One such

instance was when Oswald announces that “the girls picked a lot of flowers. I

know the names of some of them” (Nesbit, Would-Be-Goods 359). But then tells

the reader, “I will not tell you them because this is not meant to be instructing”

52

(Nesbit, Would-Be-Goods 359). He does not want his stories to resemble those

purely instructive and informative writings he loathes. Oswald’s aim remains to

entertain and engage his readers, not to teach lessons or morality, or to simply

appeal intelligent and of a high social status. Nesbit allows Oswald’s opinion and

use of and relationship to specific literary texts and styles to speak on her behalf,

upholding those values she endorses and degrading and dismissing those she finds

offensive, dangerous, or simply boring to children.

Nesbit also uses her allusions to this range of written works to portray other

unique and positive qualities of the Bastable children such as their charming,

enterprising, and creative characteristics versus the plain, uninspiring traits of

characters more in line with children of religious and instructional texts. Nesbit

associates the Bastables with active imaginations and abundant creativity and

juxtaposes them with other child-characters in the texts who are lacking in

inventiveness. The Bastables, who have more appreciation for the adventurous,

imaginative texts, are juxtaposed against Albert-next-door in The Story of the

Treasure Seekers and Daisy and Denny, children of a business partner of the

Bastable’s father in The Would-Be-Goods, who are prone to reading and behaving

like the children of religious conduct books. As a result, Albert-next-door and

Daisy and Denny are seen as meek and dull while the Bastables thrive through

entertainment, learning, imagination, and creativity. For example, when Albert-

next-door does not understand their games adapted from literature they have read,

Oswald makes excuses for him stating, “You see, Albert-next-door doesn’t care

for reading, and he has not read nearly so many books as we have, so he is very

foolish and ignorant, but it cannot be helped, and you just have to put up with it

when you want him to do anything” (Nesbit, Story 23). Similarly, in describing

Daisy and Denny, it is much the same: “The newcomers (Daisy and Denny) would

53

never have done for knight-errants, or to carry the Cardinal’s sealed message . . .

they would never have thought of anything to say to throw the enemy off the scent

when they got into a tight place” because according to Oswald they did not have

the imagination the Bastables had, resulting from their lack of familiarity with the

imaginative, entertaining texts Nesbit herself endorsed (Nesbit, Would-Be-Goods

324). This lack of originality on the part of the Bastable children’s playmates

stems from their lack of familiarity with the kind of works Nesbit endorses.

Nesbit highlights the benefits of abundant reading of texts that inspire and elicit

original thoughts, games, and perspectives.

Nesbit opens specific conduct texts up to criticism when she situates the

less appealing child-characters in relation to those texts, and associates the more

charming Bastables with the adventure and amusing texts. Not only does this

establish the importance of literature as entertainment for the children, rather than

educational instruction or moral guidance, but “The Treasure Seekers keeps the

relationship between life and books under continual scrutiny, and this is made

possible by the use of children’s play and games as central themes” (Briggs 188).

By creating children who are interested in literature, Nesbit creates a context that

allows for Oswald to voice his (and Nesbit’s) appreciation for and integration of

some written works such as texts by Kipling and Dickens. At the same time,

Oswald (and Nesbit) is able to disparage other writing as dull, pompous, and

written with outdated perspectives of children in mind. An illustration of this

comes from Oswald’s complaint concerning Daisy’s lack of imagination and

adventurous play. Oswald explains that Albert’s uncle “said it came from reading

the wrong sorts of books partly-she has read Ministering Children, and Anna Ross,

or The Orphan of Waterloo, and Ready Work for Willing Hands, and Elsie, or

Like a Little Candle, and even a horrid little blue book about like something or

54

other of Little Sins” (Nesbit, Would-Be-Goods 338). Once he hears this dreadful

news “Oswald took care she had plenty of the right sorts of books to read, and he

was surprised and pleased when she got up early one morning to finish Monte

Cristo. Oswald felt that he was really being useful to a suffering fellow-creature

when he gave Daisy books that were not at all about being good” (Nesbit, Would-

Be-Goods 338). Through this interaction Nesbit presents her standard for good

children’s stories, while also identifying those that do not interest or benefit

children. She establishes her stance on quality literature for children which

challenged the dominant views of traditional Victorian opinion on literary value.

Through the Bastable children Nesbit gives herself a forum for commenting

on not only the types of writing for children that she considered beneficial, but

also on the importance of reading and analyzing various texts. While critics like

Carpenter minimize Nesbit’s abilities, it remains true that “like a number of major

nineteenth-century writers – among them Jane Austen and Flaubert – E. Nesbit

presents her critique of life in terms of a critique of reading habits and the peculiar

dangers and deceptions that reading can offer” (Briggs 402). As Oswald states in

regards to the turnaround of their fortunes at the end of The Story of the Treasure

Seekers, “I can’t help it if it is like Dickens, because it happens this way. Real life

is often something like books” (Nesbit 238). The Bastables analyze and interpret

much of what they think about and experience in terms of the literature they are

familiar with. When the Bastables read and attempt to imitate the religious and

instructional texts, it dampens their fun-filled experiences, damaging their

freedom, creativity, and good intentions. Conversely, when they engage in active,

imaginative play they find that life is often exciting and stimulating, just like the

entertaining books Nesbit endorses for and through them.

55

Through Nesbit’s distinct intertwining of the Bastable children’s childhood

and the literature they read she challenges the belief that all adult influence stifles

and controls children. She disrupts “the colonization paradigm that has proven so

popular and influential with theorists of childhood and children’s literature

[which] assumes that all acts of influence are oppressive, one-way transactions in

which adults exploit and manipulate the child” (Gubar 426). Instead, Nesbit

allows her child-characters’ liberation through the texts she find acceptable. They

only endure constraints and captivity through the works Nesbit resists and combats

in her Bastables’ tales, such as conduct books, religious writings, and texts with

superfluous language to demonstrate social status, refinement, and culture. It is

these works which jeopardize the childhood Nesbit asserts that children require.

However, by praising some styles of literature and allowing the children success

and diversion through some texts, Nesbit’s Bastable children illustrate that

children can usurp power and authority through texts rather than meekly

submitting to adult assumptions and rule.

Edith Nesbit’s child-characters are well-read and demonstrate the ability to

actively engage in other writings by comparing, imitating, and creating meaning

and relevance through them, which expresses further the significance of the

intersection between literature and childhood. In her texts, Nesbit conceptualizes

the Bastable children as “active receivers of texts, capable of improvising on – not

just slavishly adhering to – other people’s stories” (Gubar 413). She presents this

as the children copy activities from texts while altering them to suit their situation.

For example, when Oswald “[feels] quite certain that the books were right, and

that the best way to restore fallen fortunes was to rescue an old gentleman from

distress” the children decide to embark on that adventure (Nesbit, Story 127).

However, when there “are no highwayman on Blackheath” to rescue the

56

gentleman (Lord Trottenham) from, the Bastables take it upon themselves to

create their own dangerous situation from which to rescue him (129). The

Bastable children demonstrate the ability to improve on their readings by creating

for themselves activities derived from texts they encounter, but not simply

extracted from the texts. When the Bastables read The Daisy Chain, they discuss

how the children “dug in a Roman encampment and the children went first and put

some pottery there they’d made themselves” as a possible endeavor for them to

embark on when the Maidstone Society of Antiquities and Field Club come to

their residence (Nesbit, Would-Be-Goods 374). However, Oswald is clear and

firm in stating that they “weren’t going to do EXACTLY like those Daisy Chain

kids,” his tone implying that he saw his siblings and himself as capable of even

better ideas (374). Accordingly, they select parts of the texts that suit their

purpose and improve on the ideas to better achieve their goals. In this way Nesbit

discloses “her belief that literary exploitation goes both ways,” that children “use

texts penned by adults to entertain themselves, while adults use children as

material for their literary efforts” (Gubar 416).

By drawing this parallel she places children and adults on the same level,

refusing to accept that children were inferior beings. Rather, the Bastables

demonstrate their ability to imagine and execute plans to achieve their goals.

Nesbit further presents glimpses of their intellect in their dealings with the “robber

and burglar” in The Story of the Treasure Seekers. Oswald and his siblings muster

up the courage to confront the robber and “their refusal to fall victim to the plot of

a scheming adult – the burglar – parallels their ability to resist the limiting and/or

condescending picture of themselves presented to them by texts” (Gubar 415).

Oswald further expresses Nesbit’s view of children as active readers of texts when

he refers to himself in third-person narration saying, “But he (Oswald) sat up in

57

bed and read The Last of the Mohicans, and then he began to think” (Nesbit,

“Would-Be-Goods” 396). Nesbit implies that by reading, Oswald and children in

general are encouraged to think for themselves. The text that inspires Oswald’s

thoughts, being one of British colonial expansion, adventure, and journeying,

epitomizes the types of books that provoke meaningful perception and

examination. Edith Nesbit associates an actively analytical and engaged mind

with texts that evoke excitement, intrigue, and discovery. She found in children’s

literature a means of communicating her views of children and their intellect to a

society that found them void of useful and clever thought. As Marcus Crouch

explains in Treasure Seekers and Borrowers: Children’s Books in Britain 1900-

1960, “Unlike most fictional families, the Bastables were readers, and critics of

what they read. Oswald was outspoken about his contempt for some

contemporary writers” as well as assertive about those he respected and admired

(19). Nesbit subverted the genre of children’s literature in a way that allowed for

her to voice her belief that children were active readers and engagers of texts and

deserving of works that evoked and facilitated critical thought, imagination, and

entertainment.

Nesbit wrote with the goal of not only changing how children and

childhood experiences were viewed by society, but to effect change in how people

wrote for children based on her assertion of their significance to society. Instead

of simply aiming to guide and instruct, she sought to entertain, educate, and relate

childhood experiences. Aside from Lewis Carroll whose Alice, in the beginning

of Alice in Wonderland, doubtfully ponders the usefulness and appeal of a book

without pictures or conversation, “no other author has been able to lay down so

clearly what in their opinion a children’s book should be, as E. Nesbit” (Streatfeild

83). Unlike the conduct books of the time, Nesbit emphasized the importance of

58

children’s being able to think for themselves for, “even as she encourages children

to take pleasure from reading and make use of texts” as she does when the

children imitate the texts they enjoy, Nesbit also “coaxes them to become more

critical readers” (Gubar 411). Oswald Bastable and his siblings become analytical

with the texts they encounter. For example, in describing his experiences with

authors of texts for children Oswald states,

I have often thought that is the people who write books for children

knew a little more it would be better. I shall not tell you anything

about us except what I should like to know if I was reading the story

and you were writing it. Albert’s uncle says I ought to just put this

in the preface, but I never read prefaces, and it is not much good

writing things just for people to skip. I wonder other authors have

never thought of this. (Nesbit, Story of Treasure Seekers 21-22)

Nesbit “pays her young readers a great compliment, assuming they are able to

understand linguistic challenges like irony and parody. They are able to share in

the joke” (Wall 154). She counters the dominant perception of the time that

children are simple readers, and engages them in more complicated elements of

literature. “Nesbit found in diction a convenient vehicle for articulating dissent

opinions in an acceptably packaged form” and expressed it through the language

of Oswald Bastable as he narrates the adventures of himself and his siblings

(Foster and Simons 129). Nesbit’s satire comes through as Oswald addresses the

conduct book types of literature and demonstrates a trait contributing to Nesbit’s

designation as a forerunner of modern children’s literature. Edith Nesbit made

conscious decisions to control the effects of her texts and the messages she sent

through those texts on different levels. This leads us into another use of literature

for children that Nesbit addresses within her Bastable tales.

59

As a result of the changing views of children in Victorian England from

silent outcasts to future citizens of the nation, children were bombarded with

literature meant to shape them into model citizens, as we have seen through the

instructional and moral stories. As evidenced in her texts, Nesbit writes against

didacticism and authorial intrusion and for a more realistic portrayal of the voice

of children, their childhood experiences and their interests and values. In this she

is certainly writing against the didacticism of the nineteenth-century evangelical

writing and for a children’s literature more concerned with the delight and

enjoyment of children rather than the objectives of the adults that create the

literary works.

Chapter 3

NESBIT’S MANIPULATION OF OSWALD BASTABLE AS NARRATOR

E. Nesbit’s creation of an authentic child-narrator through which to tell her

stories and ultimately remark on social issues of her day sets her apart from her

Victorian contemporaries and other children’s authors, establishing Nesbit as a

writer worthy of critical attention. The Story of the Treasure Seekers, The Would-

Be-Goods, The New Treasure Seekers, and Oswald Bastable and Others are all

texts revolving around the Bastable children: Dora, Oswald, Dicky, Alice, and

Noel. The stories are narrated by Oswald, although he initially attempts to

disguise his identity as he tells of their adventures restoring their fallen fortunes

(when their father fails in his business ventures and they are left in a lower

financial class than previously accustomed to), attempting to “be good” and follow

the rules, and in their general activities as young children in Victorian England.

Nesbit’s Bastable texts “[capture] a genuine sense of the child’s ‘voice’ for the

first time in children’s fiction” (Moss, “Story” 188). In fact, numerous scholars

agree that “Nesbit is very nearly the first to tell her stories in the voice of a child,

not an adult” (Kutzer 63). She is deserving of the credit “for addressing her child

audience in its own colloquial idiom” while attracting adults through the humor

and suspense she creates, thereby gaining readership consisting of both grown-ups

and children alike (Moss, “Story” 189). The voice of Oswald Bastable as narrator

“becomes an important aesthetic feature of the three volumes [and collection of

short stories in Oswald Bastable and Others] devoted to the adventures of the

61

Bastables, since it is the element which unifies the episodic stories” (Moss,

“Story” 190). Barbara Wall also points out the novelty of Nesbit’s child-narrator:

Traditionally, defining books as children’s literature has focused on

subject matter and readability: that is, on questions of simplicity,

both of style – of vocabulary, syntax, sentence length – and of

content, with concentration of action and brevity. The development

in the last decade of the theory of narratology has provided a new set

of terms for the criticism of fiction and has made possible the precise

and methodical examination of an aspect of fiction until recently

almost totally ignored – the relationship between narrator and

narratee, a relationship which is of fundamental importance in

identifying fiction for children and distinguishing it from fiction for

adults. (3)

As, at times, the tales of the Bastable children are related in a disjointed fashion,

Oswald’s unique tone, personality, and attitude become the seam throughout each

circumstance of each text, serving to maintain readership and support through

literary devices simultaneous to his narration. Nesbit’s use of tools relating to

narration such as the vague narrator, asides, reader-addresses, self-disclosure and

blunt honesty create an affinity on the part of the audience for the Bastable

children, and especially Oswald, which allows Nesbit to manipulate the genre and

provide her own unique and subversive commentary.

Edith Nesbit semi-disguises the identity of her narrator, Oswald, in order to

disguise her own voice, gender, and the social commentary she makes through the

Bastable children and their experiences. The texts are “realistic and entertaining

family chronicles narrated by Oswald Bastable” that present Nesbit as an

innovative and creative author (Lockhead 59). Nesbit “makes use of a complex

62

narrative technique by which Oswald relates much of the story in the third person,

and often in a self-congratulatory and ‘literary’ style, every now and then slipping

back into the first person” (Briggs 186). In Oswald Bastable and Others, for

instance, Oswald addresses the reader with, “Perhaps you will think I do not say

enough about Oswald’s quickness of sight, so I had better tell you that is only

because Oswald is . . . very modest” (Nesbit 38). Oswald also hints at his identity

through references to himself such as in The Story of the Treasure Seekers when

he writes, “Oswald always tries to make up quarrels” (Nesbit 115).

She maintains that the identity will remain unknown, even as she artfully

reveals the speaker shortly thereafter through not-so-discreet mix-ups in narration

point-of-view, references to himself, and even praises of Oswald’s character and

behaviors. From early on in The Story of the Treasure Seekers, Oswald makes

comments like “H.O. is eight years old, but he cannot tell the clock yet. Oswald

could tell the clock when he was six” (Nesbit 16). Another incidence of this self-

exaltation comes when he explains, “Oswald is a very modest boy, I believe, but

even he would not deny that he has an active brain. The author has heard both his

father and Albert’s uncle say so” (Nesbit, New Treasure Seekers 65). Oswald

takes the opportunity to commend himself, through which Nesbit ingeniously

reveals her narrator’s identity. Oswald goes on to explain that “the words

‘tenacious of purpose’ mean sticking to things, and these words always make me

think of the character of the young hero of these pages . . . I suppose his brothers

Dicky and Noel and H.O. are heroes too, in a way, but somehow the author of

these lines knows more about Oswald’s inside realness than he does about the

others. But I am getting too deep for words” (Nesbit, New Treasure Seekers 65).

This self-praise, while revealing the character behind the disguised narration, also

serves a deeper purpose. By hiding and then subtly revealing Oswald’s identity

63

“unintentionally,” Nesbit masks even further her voice behind the writing. This

emphasizes the reader’s tendency to follow along with Oswald, granting him

liberties in what he says and does that would not have been granted to the female

author hidden behind him. “Complimenting Nesbit on her seamless channeling of

a child’s voice” Marah Gubar cites W.W. Robson who claims that “in the Bastable

books there seems to be no storyteller behind Oswald” which allows for the subtle

inclusion of Nesbit’s ideals, and solidifies Nesbit’s credibility as a unique literary

figure worthy of examination and esteem (421). Nesbit takes further advantage of

Oswald as the narrator of the texts by commenting on various elements of

childhood through his voice. As Anita Moss states, “As Nesbit’s own rhetorical

device, Oswald-as-narrator molds the child reader’s beliefs by endorsing the

childhood values of honesty, courage, and imagination, and reprehending

excessive piety, sneakiness, lying and lack of imagination” (“Story” 193). Also,

by targeting the child-audience, Nesbit takes into account that she will gain adult

readers as well, resulting in the expression of these values to her peers. Despite

using an ambiguous narrator, Nesbit takes authority over the writing by making

clear criticism of the treatment of children as sub-citizens, the instructional and

condescending literature for children, and the anti-imperialistic sentiment of some

of her contemporaries, as we discussed in more depth in the previous chapter.

Nesbit constructs, though her use of Oswald as narrator, his voice and the

persona it expresses, a narration that draws readers into the text and into alignment

and agreement with Oswald’s (and through him, Nesbit’s) perspective. Nesbit

enables herself to both criticize and commend the adult audiences that she

previously captivated by using Oswald Bastable’s characterization as her

mouthpiece. Oswald’s initially ambiguous and complicated narration serves to

captivate the audience, challenging them to discover his identity. When we first

64

encounter Oswald in The Story of the Treasure Seekers, he introduces himself and

his brothers and sisters claiming simply, “It is one of us that tells this story – but I

shall not tell you which; only at the very end perhaps I will. While the story is

going on you may be trying to guess, only I bet you don’t” (11). Right from the

beginning this vague identity creates a sense of longing in the reader to discover

the narrator’s identity, because it is unknown and because he sets it up as a test to

see who can distinguish who recounts the events of the children. In addition, the

blunt honestly and candid relaying of information inevitably creates a sense of

familiarity and camaraderie between storyteller and reader. In “The Story of the

Treasure Seekers: The Idiom of Childhood,” Anita Moss explains that “while

Oswald pretends to hide his identity, he soon gives the secret away through his

glorification of ‘the noble Oswald’ or by lapsing into first person narration when

recounting Oswald’s adventures. The author freely admits that he knows more

about Oswald’s thoughts and experiences than he knows about the other Bastable

children” (190). This insight into his person further engages the reader in the

Bastable texts as the bond between the narrator and audience solidifies. Oswald,

as a narrator, “has many virtues. He is direct and efficient . . . ready to take his

reader into his confidence” as “he frequently addresses a narratee” (Wall 152).

Furthermore, “he is his own man and speaks – politely, it is true – to everyone

alike” which increases his likeability and acceptance (Wall 152). By creating and

establishing this close connection between the two, Nesbit sets up the reader to

support Oswald and his siblings in their endeavors to “restore the fallen fortunes

of . . . the ancient House of Bastable” (Nesbit, Story 11). His narrative voice

taunts the readers with, “I think when you have read it you will see that we were

not lazy about looking” which encourages the reader to continue the text in order

to discover the means of treasure-hunting, and how the children showed diligence

65

and hard-work in their efforts to re-attain financial stability (Nesbit, Story 10). We

increasingly find ourselves not only wanting to continue the story but also hoping

that the Bastable children have success in discovering treasure that will indeed

restore them to their former status in society. As Julia Briggs has commented,

“Nesbit’s ‘creative use of child’s play as a potentially critical imitation of the adult

world’ set[s] the reader up for how the child games will symbolically represent

some aspect of the real, and adult like in the Victorian period” (Foster and Simon

129). This allows Nesbit to ridicule and condemn the rules and values of

Victorian England that she opposed, as well as to praise and endorse those she

aligned herself with, through her stories for children.

Nesbit further experiments with narrative techniques for the purpose of

appealing to the audience and then making her claims, criticisms, and praises.

Nesbit directly addresses the reader at first, but then also comments to the reader

through asides, and honest and humorous self-disclosure. “Oswald continues to

display his awareness of making rhetorical choices and of experimenting with

narrative technique, a device which seems to reveal Nesbit’s own awareness that

she is also making choices as she experiments” by using a child-narrator in order

to express individual ideals to a society not open to heeding the words of a woman

(Moss, “Story” 191). For instance, when the children are playing, Oswald not

only directly refers to the reader through a reader-address but also includes the

reader in their games and discussions through an aside. When Dora asserts that

they are not playing Babel, and need to stop talking all at once, Oswald brings the

reader in by saying, “It is a very good game. Did you ever play it?” urging the

reader to participate in the dialogue and activities, as they continue on in their

games directly following (Nesbit, Story 16). He further engages the reader when

he defines a word for his audience and explains, “I tell you this because it is so

66

sickening to have words you don’t know in a story, and to be told to look it up in

the dicker” (Nesbit, Would-Be-Goods 323). This honesty and concern for the

reader creates an affinity for Oswald that allows for his later actions that may

challenge conservative values. It also challenges the limited regard traditional

Victorians held for children as the reader through insight into the mind of a child.

Later, when the children get into trouble Oswald relates, “Gentle reader, I will not

conceal from you what Oswald did” and goes on to admit fault and explain his

actions (Nesbit, Story 175). This endearing address coaxes the audience to support

Oswald despite his occasional shortcomings. Furthermore, this direct and honest

approach serves to win over the audience and gain acceptance for Oswald’s (and

Nesbit’s) simultaneous rejection of traditional Victorian values.

Nesbit writes Oswald in such an honest way that he is the first to disclose

important information and admit error or wrongdoing, effectively engaging the

reader and establishing a unique tie that forces the audience to accept what

transpired without negative judgment or rejection of his actions. Oswald directly

addresses the reader with such openness and a straightforward tone when he says,

“Now what I am going to tell you is a very strange and wonderful thing, and I

hope you will be able to believe it. I should not, if a boy told me, unless I knew

him to be a man of honour, and perhaps not then unless he gave his sacred word”

(Nesbit, Story 181). He then proceeds with the story as though his reader trusts

what he says completely. In this way Nesbit reveals her assumption that through

her likable narrator she makes way for her commentary to be accepted and

endorsed, all because Oswald is honorable, trustworthy, and attempts to obey

Victorian standards of conduct. In one instance of admitting imperfection, the

Bastable children are debating who it was who made the suggestion of playing as

detectives and Oswald narrates, “I wish to be quite fair, but I cannot remember

67

exactly who said it. Oswald thinks he said it, and Dora says it was Dicky, but

Oswald is too much of a man to quarrel about a little thing like that” (Nesbit, Story

34). Through this honest admission that Oswald, himself, might be incorrect

Nesbit draws the reader into support of and trust in Oswald and the ideals he

presents. He does this again when he and his siblings suspect they are at fault for

setting a fire but do not come forward to admit guilt. “We had not done this, and

the reason, the author is ashamed to say, was . . . very selfish” he explains (Nesbit,

Oswald Bastable 73).

Not only does Oswald engage readers in the texts through his integrity, but

he also encourages child and adult acceptance of Nesbit’s texts through moments

like these that reflect conservative British morals. Nesbit further exemplifies the

moral standard of Victorian England through Oswald’s narration of a time when

he did wrong and did not admit to it. He implores the reader to understand by

exhorting, “I hope you will try to not think foul scorn of Oswald because of this

story. Perhaps you have done things nearly as bad yourself sometimes. If you

have, you will know how ‘owning up’ soothes the savage beast and alleviates the

gnawings of remorse. If you have never done naughty acts I expect it is only

because you never had the sense to think of anything” (Nesbit, Would-Be-Goods

349). Nesbit purposely aligns Oswald’s sense of right and wrong with the moral

compass of her day. It allows her more freedom where she disrupts British values:

when she, as a female writer, touches on social issues in her texts. This self-

disclosure further exemplifies the reader’s close ties to Oswald and his tale,

especially when he admits to their wrong actions. He admits to their fault in trying

to rescue a gentleman from deadly peril (danger that they inflicted upon him) and

preaches to his audience with, “Always remember never to do a dishonorable

thing, for money or for anything else in the world,” the same lesson the Bastable

68

children were just taught, creating solidarity between each other (Nesbit, Story

137). The combination of honesty, self-disclosure, humor, and a petition to the

reader to respond with understanding and empathy demonstrates the ingenuity of

E. Nesbit’s narrative choice. Furthermore, Oswald “is his own man and speaks . .

. to everyone alike,” avoiding distancing any readers for any reason (Wall 152).

He speaks to child and adult audiences alike, further endearing him to the reader,

as well as demonstrating Nesbit’s versatility in her writing style of meshing

attention to purpose and audience. Through these techniques, Nesbit (through

Oswald) engages the reader and sets him/her up to accept what the children do,

even their behaviors that challenge the status quo of Victorian society. As the

reader becomes invested in the well-being and success of the Bastables, Nesbit

succeeds in her goal of eliciting hope in the audience that the Bastables thrive in

their endeavors.

Edith Nesbit empowered herself to endorse societal appreciation of and

respect for children and childhood adventures, and she furthers that endorsement

through the child-narration of Oswald Bastable. E. Nesbit portrays Oswald who,

while being instructed in conforming to acceptable Victorian standards, reveals

some of the contradictions and duplicitous nature of those upstanding British

citizens, thereby giving himself (and all children, through his example) the

intelligence to critique and respond to the society around him. Some examples of

this emerge in The Story of the Treasure Seekers when the children attempt to

secure a business partnership with the Generous Benefactor and later, when they

attempt to sell Castilian Amoroso, a wine. First, the advertisement for the

partnership reads that there are no fees involved, but then the GB tells them,

“When you can, you shall pay me back the pound (they borrow) and sixty per cent

interest” (Nesbit 123). Through this interaction Nesbit reveals the lack of integrity

69

and honesty in the loan businesses of the time. The children were deceived by the

false advertisement, and they represent others who were manipulated by the vague

or misleading notice. Another demonstration of this immorality of Victorian

adults takes place when the children attempt to sell wine to a clergyman. Mr.

Mallow asks them, “Have you never been taught that it is the drinking of wine and

spirits – yes, and BEER, which makes half the homes in England full of wretched

little children, and degraded, MISERABLE parents” (Nesbit 153). While his

words denounce the selling and consumption of alcohol, he simultaneously

portrayed “conflicting emotions” and when they got up to leave with the drink told

them, “‘No; you can leave that’” subtly revealing his interest in the wine (Nesbit

155). In these instances, Nesbit makes the reader aware of the contradictory

words and actions of British adults who interacted with the Bastable family,

demonstrating the innocence of the children and iniquity of the more strict and

demeaning British adults who express condescension towards children.

Through Oswald’s unique narrator-narratee relationship, Nesbit provides

herself with the opportunity to comment on the role of children and childhood in

Victorian England and to create a new sense of children and establish children as

autonomous, creative, and intelligent, and to argue for the importance of a

nurturing, encouraging childhood that promotes critical thinking, inventiveness

and individuality. Due to the still lingering doubt as to the status of children in

Victorian society, “few writers had experimented extensively with the use of first

person child narrator in realistic fiction for young readers” except for E. Nesbit

(Otten and Schmidt 188). Victorian society was still situating children, either as

needing of pastimes and entertainment, or moral direction and guidance as we

discussed in the previous chapter. As

70

Oswald’s narrative shifts ingenuously between first and third person

narration . . . [it] sets him in an ironic perspective and also solves

one of the most fundamental problems of children’s books – the

question of ‘Who is speaking, and to whom?’ Oswald’s transparent

device means that Edith is not obliged to decide whether she

approaches her reader as a child or an adult – she can do both.

(Briggs 186)

This creates an ambiguity in the narration and intended audience. Establishing the

vague narration, and thus vague readership, Nesbit grants herself the liberty to

challenge restrictive views of children and their role in Victorian society. Nesbit,

unlike the society around her, not only saw children and their thoughts and

experiences as valid and worthy of critical attention, but also viewed a child’s

voice as a means of providing subversive discourse without it being detected, as

well as to engage and captivate the reader so as to, later, take liberty with the

textual content. Nesbit’s “very act of delegating the power of narration to a child

surrogate reveals Nesbit’s interest in dissolving any strict division between author

and audience” or adult and child, effectively eliminating the Victorian perceptions

of the superiority of the adult and inferiority of the child (Gubar 412).

Nesbit uses Oswald’s child-narration to discuss further the accepted literary

works of the era subtly commenting that literary works for children should target

their real interests when it comes to language, topic, and overall purpose. This

assertion made through her children’s literature successfully challenged Victorian

literary traditions and created Nesbit’s own. As Julia Briggs explains, “Edith was

always much amused by literary clichés, and Oswald’s childish desire to sound

‘grown-up’ gave her ample scope to parody some of these” methods of writing

(186). Nesbit integrated this into The Would-Be-Goods when Oswald explains,

71

“Let me to my narrating. I hope you will like it. I am going to try to write it a

different way, like the books they give you for a prize at a girls’ school” (355). He

goes on to write in an affected way, followed by an explanation of what actually

took place in his own, more colloquial, conversational language and tone. He

repeats this again in The Would-Be-Goods when he recounts:

In a very short space of time we should be wending our way back to

Blackheath, and all the variegated delightfulness of the country

would soon by only preserved in memory’s faded flowers. (I don’t

care for that way of writing very much. It would be awful swat to

keep it up-looking out the words and all that). (395)

Then to clarify for his readers, Oswald narrates that “to speak in the language of

everyday, our holiday was jolly nearly up. We had had a ripping time, but it was

all but over” (395).

Nesbit demonstrates Oswald’s awkwardness with more formal, abstract

writing styles and thus, her own aversion to such literature. She also evidences her

ability to manipulate writing conventions to suit her purposes. She mocks more

formalist writing by making it sound absurd in Oswald’s voice, and accentuates

the simplicity and honesty of Oswald’s writing. Oswald attempts to sound grown

up and literary when he describes their experience one night during a storm. He

says:

And through the night, and the wind, and the rain, our dreadful

destiny drew nearer and nearer. I wish this to sound as if something

was going to happen, and I hope it does. I hope the reader’s heart is

now standing still with apprehensionness on our account, but I do

not want it to stop altogether, so I will tell you that we were not all

going to be murdered in our beds, or pass peacefully away in our

72

sleeps with angel-like smiles on our young and beautiful faces. Not

at all. What really happened was this . . . and he finished with the

real events of the evening. (Nesbit, Oswald Bastable 47)

As he tries to sound sophisticated, writing with affected diction and form, Oswald

misuses words and phrases, making the text sound ridiculous. In relating to his

audience their discoveries during one of their outings, Oswald writes, “I have not

yet told you about the finest find of all the fine finds we found (that looks very

odd, and I am not sure it is it allity-what’s-its-name, or only carelessness. I

wonder whether other authors are ever a prey to these devastating doubts)”

(Nesbit, Oswald Bastable 102-03). In this way, “through her stories, E. Nesbit

mocks literary traditions and works that she disliked such as the ‘Ministering

Children’ genre, popular around the mid-century” (Briggs 189). Furthermore,

Oswald’s unique switching between “a chatty, informal tone and one of deliberate

‘literariness’” demonstrates the different methods of writing for children, one

Nesbit endorses and one she sees as pretentious (Briggs 186). It is from very early

on in the Bastable stories that the reader understands that Oswald’s writing

subjects and techniques are shaped, predominantly, by the texts that he has come

into contact with. Oswald clearly writes in response to what attracts and distances

himself from different literary works. The manner in which he relates the Bastable

tales shows careful consideration of his audience. In one instance he writes, “I

will not tell you about the picnic on the river because the happiest times form but

dull reading when they are written down” (Nesbit, Would-Be-Goods 344). Oswald

remains diligent in his attempts to be engaging and interesting, as are the texts

which he esteems. Similarly, he explains, “I have not numerated Noel’s birthday

presents because I wish to leave something to the imagination of my young

readers. (The best authors always do this)” (Nesbit, Would-Be-Goods 344).

73

Oswald never fails to integrate his literary preferences into his storytelling.

In doing so he also reveals Nesbit’s opinions on elements of great texts: creative,

thought provoking, captivating. In another instance he references his readings

saying, “I hope you do not think that the words I use are getting too long. I know

they are the right words. And Albert’s uncle says your style is always altered by

what you read. And I have been reading the Vicomte de Bragelonne. Nearly all

my new words come out of those” (Nesbit, Would-Be-Goods 351). Oswald

repeatedly and consistently associates what he relays to the reader in terms of the

texts he has read. His opinion on quality works of literature emerges through the

comments he makes regarding those writings, and the elements he imitates in his

own narratives. Nesbit allows Oswald great freedom to comment on the types of

books he prefers – “And there were lots of books – not just the sawdusty, dry kind

. . . but jolly good books, the kind you can’t put down till you’ve finished” he

explains (Nesbit, Oswald Bastable 67). He goes on to voice their disappointment

in the literary choices at their nurse’s house saying, “There were no books except

sermons and the Wesleyan Magazine” (Nesbit, Oswald Bastable 89). They go on

to use the books to steady an uneven table they needed for their games, revealing

their disregard for that type of writing.

Nesbit’s lack of interest in and respect for the more instructional and

religious books comes out as the children respond to those simple, monotonous

works. The styles Nesbit supports are those that appeal to the reader, and draw

readers into Oswald’s confidence, whereas the modes she opposes are those that

frustrate Oswald, create confusion and distance the reader. Despite Humphrey

Carpenter’s adamant stance that “the sustained humour of The Treasure Seekers

may be original; the device of child narrator is not,” we find Nesbit worthy of

credit for manipulating the child narrator in a manner conducive to the expression

74

of her social critiques (132). While the use of a child narrator extends beyond

Nesbit’s work alone, never before had a humorous, authentic, and analytical child

narration like Oswald Bastable been created. This originality establishes Nesbit as

a forerunner in modern children’s literature as more and more attention and

experimentation with child narration exists in response to her conception of

Oswald.

Overall, E. Nesbit’s use of Oswald as her narrator enables her to confront

Victorian adults while also disguising the commentary as mere children’s

literature to avoid even further marginalization. Nesbit’s narration, although

written from a child’s voice, must not be discounted for its seemingly submissive

and conservative tone. She had to keep in mind that it is “adults who choose

which books are to be published for children, adults who review, [criticize], and

buy those books. Adults, then, as well as children, are readers of children’s

books” and she needed to remember that in order to get her texts published and

distributed (Wall 18). She also took that into account when she decided what

issues in Victorian society to address and challenge in her texts. While some may

discredit Nesbit as a copy-cat children’s author, we need to remind ourselves that

“[Rudyard] Kipling and [Kenneth] Grahame, even in their children’s stories, wrote

as much for adults as they did for children,” and, in her own way, so did Edith

Nesbit (Wall 118). In her case, however, her commentary to adults had to be more

disguised in order to be acceptable to Victorian readership as a result of the gender

biases of the era. Nesbit’s contributed to “the evolution of freer narrator-narratee

relationships” in children’s literature through her use of Oswald Bastable and his

seemingly conformist yet subversive narration (Wall 118).

Nesbit simultaneously conforms to and subverts elements of Victorian

society to avoid being classified as an inconsequential female author. She follows

75

convention by writing children’s literature, one of the only genres of literature

open to women of the Victorian era. Her lack of blatant social commentary or

liberal ideals further positions her to be socially acceptable, earning approval from

the more traditional, conservative Victorian masses. Simultaneously, Nesbit

manipulates and subverts her apparently conformist texts by incorporating

subtexts of dissent and presenting her own female opinions and perspectives

through the writings. In doing so Nesbit undermines the Victorian practice of

silencing and marginalizing women, especially women authors. This nuanced

stance created tensions surrounding her works as critics limit and minimize her

ingenuity in an effort to contain her in one defined, pre-existent group. Rather

than facing the challenge of creating a new classification of children’s literature

for someone so unique and original in her positions, critics look only to the surface

level writing of Nesbit’s work and subsequently align her with merely

conventional writings for children.

Despite Nesbit’s obvious use of her children’s text to promote children and

their experiences as such to her traditionalist society, some of Nesbit’s critics

disagree that she makes any new claims concerning children. For example,

although she presents children as readers and interpreters of texts, imaginative and

playful beings, Humphrey Carpenter states that

Nesbit’s Bastables are fools from the beginning, albeit holy fools,

foolish through extreme innocence. Their understanding of the

world around them is simply naive, and the comedy derives from the

collision between their idealism and the naivety with which they try

to carry out their ideals. (133)

Unlike Carpenter, however, Lloyd Alexander thanks Nesbit for “her voice. That

is, her tone, her personality” and he goes on to state that “E. Nesbit has a

76

freshness, tartness, without gushing or talking down. Today’s writers owe her a

debt. We are modern thanks largely to her. As much as anyone, perhaps more,

she helped us find our twentieth century voices” (Wall 148). He credits Nesbit for

her distinguished contribution to children’s literature through Oswald Bastable’s

narration, rather than seeing it as a limitation. Barbara Wall goes on to explain

that,

although superficially her narrative manner seems light-hearted and

playful, her address to her narratee casual and familiar, in reality she

treated child readers with a new seriousness, for she placed them

first, and in doing so gave the act of communicating with children,

or writing to them, a new significance. (148)

Carpenter fails to take her new attitude and means of speaking to children into

consideration when he dismisses Nesbit’s creativity and ingenuity. Instead of

realizing Nesbit’s more realistic and accurate portrayal of children and childhood,

as well as her attitude of affirmation and admiration toward children as readers,

writers, thinkers while disguising her more radical standpoints, Carpenter degrades

Nesbit’s texts by arguing that Nesbit’s portrayal of Oswald and his siblings hardly

differs from the Victorian concepts of children as oblivious of and unable to

contribute in a meaningful way to the world around them. As a result he limits

Nesbit by classifying her as “a late Victorian writer, who accepted the attitude,

prevalent in the 1870s and 1880s, that children are delightfully naive” (135). This

perspective, and others like it, fail to take into account that Nesbit undermines

society and disrupts prevalent views of children despite her, at times, conforming

ideals. As we have seen, Nesbit uses Oswald Bastable and her texts as wholes to

disrupt the values and principles of Victorian England by disguising her

77

commentary behind seemingly conformist characters and plot, enabling her to

voice those otherwise controversial ideals.

Edith Nesbit’s use of the child-narrator in the Bastable stories allows for

her to comment on issues prevalent in her society-issues, such as British

imperialism and the importance of children and the experiences of childhood,

which she aims to confront and debate, voicing her views through the avenue of

literature available to her. Oswald’s narration “permits Nesbit not only to create a

more convincing rendering of childhood experience” drawing readers into the

texts, “but also to discover her own voice as a children’s author” and express her

voice to the suppressive Victorian audience (Moss, “Story” 191). Nesbit uses her

dual-authorship to attract, win over, and influence her audience as well as give

herself a voice in a time when women were silenced. However, that alone is not

what sets her apart and makes her credible. Instead, it is in conjunction with the

fact that “many of the twentieth century’s finest children’s authors . . . continued

to appeal to a dual authorship” in their own texts, carrying forth the trend that

Edith Nesbit set (Knoepflmacher, Ventures into Childland xiii). Exploring her use

of the Bastable texts reveals Nesbit’s promotion of the significance of children and

their childhood experiences and the role of literature in a child’s life.

Also applicable to recognizing Nesbit’s contributions to children’s

literature is to see how her creation of an amiable and magnetic narrator like

Oswald Bastable enabled her to break down conversational barriers that prevented

women from publicly participating in the most significant issues of the day,

including one of the most pressing concerns of the nation, British imperialism.

For instance, as we noted earlier in Nesbit’s references to Rudyard Kipling and his

works in her Bastable stories, she writes “for Kipling” (Kutzer 64). By addressing

him and his literature in this manner “Nesbit is also espousing the values of

78

imperialism” and creating works that incorporate those ideals (Kutzer 64). For

example, texts for children were set “against a background of territorial expansion

. . . the propagandists of imperialism turned their attention to elementary

education. Their aim was to give the nation’s children a sense of patriotic mission

. . . which would enable them to sustain Britain’s position in the world” (Horn 40).

Nesbit responds to this emergence of politics in children’s stories by endorsing

colonialism, but also remaining true to the belief that children should be

entertained, use their imaginations, and have fun being active, thinking for

themselves, and enjoy works of literature. So, not only does she reference Kipling

to show support for imperialism, but she identifies works for children that merge

the political and the entertaining, creating a new genre of children’s literature into

which she writes the tales of the Bastable children.

Chapter 4

NESBIT’S INTEGRATION OF BRITISH IMPERIALISM INTO LITERATURE FOR CHILDREN

Nesbit’s imperialistic attitudes and behaviors in her children’s fiction

demonstrate her unique avenue of children’s literature and intentions for the

Bastable tales. The inclusion of the dynamics of imperialism facilitates the

revelation of Nesbit’s contributions to and improvement of literature for children

such as her combination of conservative and radical ideals, new literary techniques

and purposes of stories for children, and her new concept of portraying children

and their activities authentically and as worthy of critical evaluation and

recognition. Because “the rise of imperialism is roughly contemporaneous with

the golden age of children’s literature (approximately 1860-1930), and the two

grew up together” it remains a topic of great importance and significance in

reading Nesbit’s stories for children critically (Kutzer 10). Attention to how she

addresses imperialism and why explains and demonstrates her contributions to

children’s literature as a whole.

Nesbit incorporates the world of British imperialism into her texts for

children by aligning herself with the pro-imperialism views; this can be seen

through the Bastables’ child-play, as she simultaneously disguises her commentary

as simple stories meant to entertain children, allowing Nesbit to situate herself

between conservative and radical groups. By both appearing to conform to the

social prescriptions for women writers and also to challenge them through

alternative subtexts in her writing, Nesbit creates a new avenue for female writers

and a new facet of children’s literature, validating herself as an ingenious author

80

worthy of critical attention and study. In the tales of the Bastables, E. Nesbit

utilizes the Bastable children’s inappropriate behavior during their play to

symbolize the actions of imperialists who were detested and opposed by critics

who disagreed with British expansion. However, ultimately Nesbit portrays these

child-games and the imperialistic acts they represent humorously and as well-

intentioned and successful in defense of British imperialism. The games she

includes consists of “going off to soldier, or to administer to colonial subjects, or

to explore and appropriate new lands” all of which “struck children as being

delightful prospects, promising action, power over others, and status as

discoverers of a new world, all things guaranteed to appeal to children” (Kutzer

65). Not only do these pastimes reiterate what we have learned concerning

Nesbit’s affinity for children and texts that promote their imaginations and

amusement, but they demonstrate alignment with British imperialism by the

Bastable children.

Nesbit engages the reader to the point where allowances are made for the

children’s, at times, immoral and even criminal pursuits, thus justifying the

corresponding actions of British colonialists through her use of a seemingly

ambiguous narrator and narrative devices we have previously discussed such as

reader-addresses, asides, humor, and self-disclosure. However, despite this

assertion of a female perspective, Nesbit avoids ostracism by writing under the

guise of children’s stories, effectively turning her literature into a form of social

commentary as well as a new facet of literature by women for children. By the

conclusion of the Bastable stories, Nesbit makes her defense of colonial expansion

known through references to the Indian uncle and other aspects indicative of the

colonies, revealing how the reader’s acceptance of the child-play mirrors the

necessary acceptance of those aspects of imperialism previously criticized and

81

condemned. By sympathizing with the plight of the Bastable children, the reader

simultaneously sympathizes with the acts of the British in their development of the

nations through other colonies.

Edith Nesbit further reveals her stance as she allows the children to

experiment with more traditional British endeavors in addition to the activities that

mimicked the British imperialists in their play. In these instances, however, the

children experience failure, disappointment, and reprimand, drastically departing

from the success, delight, and diversion they enjoy in participating in the

imperialistic activities. The children demonstrate the British beliefs that “they

represent a superior power, ideologically as well as materially, and their actions

are driven on by a sense of mission which embraces, legitimises and uplifts their

private ambitions” (Cain and Hopkins 43). While they are compelled to make

attempts at these occupations at home rather than abroad, they do not get the

desired results. Throughout The Story of the Treasure Seekers there exists an

assumption “that treasure, for Britain, is to be found not at home, but in the

colonies, and that removing treasure from the colonies and bringing it home to

England is both good and natural,” validating the efforts of British colonists

(Kutzer 68-69). They gain wealth and sport by mimicking British travelers and

adventurers. The children further demonstrate the increasing attention to

colonialism in the sequel to their adventures, The Would-Be-Goods, for “when

[they] are not playing at soldiers and empire, they are playing at being explorers”

(Kutzer 74). The children have decreased interest in role-playing at common

British professions resulting from the lack of success they achieve when they do

engage in those trades. This reference to, and subsequent acceptance of

colonialism, and rejection of occupations “at home” in Britain, illustrates Nesbit’s

personal agenda and overall subversion of the purpose of children’s literature,

82

expanding it to include her goals of creating a new way of writing for children and

new avenues of writing by women, affirming her state as one of the foremost

contributors to the Golden Age of children’s literature as well as one of the most

innovative in that her children model through their child-play adult professions,

values, and consequences.

The nation’s acquisition of colonies and the emergence of texts for children

take place, predominantly, during the same time frame in British history. While

some wrote to inform, direct, and manipulate children regarding imperialism and

others wrote to entertain, Nesbit, in her unique mindset, wrote to accomplish a

variety of these goals in ways that, rather than trivialize and marginalize the child-

readership, encouraged and empowered them. As Karen Sands-O’Connor states in

her article Soon Come Home to This Island: West Indians in British Children’s

Literature, “the fact that children’s literature developed as a market at about the

time of imperial expansion and its sustained development is no accident of fate”

(2). Although Nesbit challenges the predominant Victorian view of children and

childhood, the fact remains that society saw them as empty vessels to be filled

with specific, approved knowledge, attitudes, and assumptions. This purpose

explains why “children were being sold a very specific idea of the West Indies that

would shape future British colonial ventures” (Sands-O’Connor 2). In order to

reinforce the status quo, children’s texts that commented on imperialism contained

moral lessons intended for the British child reader. As a result, “empire,

colonization, and white superiority [were] directly linked to the early development

of children’s literature” because it was through that means that the adult views on

imperialism were passed down to the future generations (Sands-O’Connor 10).

Because texts intended for child-readers “increasingly presented fantastic

versions of the [colonies]” the works “reinforced stereotypical images of [the

83

colonial natives] and strengthened the cultural myth of British supremacy” that

society wanted projected onto the future generations of Englishmen (Sands-

O’Connor 42). At the same time, other authors “prepared their readers for the

potential dangers, and perhaps the impossibility, of controlling the British Empire”

if they continued to add more colonies to their nation (Sands-O’Connor 21).

These contrasting viewpoints establish one element of the significance of

children’s literature, explaining the purpose behind the writing of some texts for

children. Nesbit responded by addressing the issue through the lens of a child’s

point of view, challenging to some extent both binaries of the imperialism

question. The Bastables neither struggle to remain in control when they mimic

colonization nor submit to all stereotypical judgments of colonial natives. In this

way Nesbit reveals her goal of entertaining and educating without instructing and

stifling the children. Through her child-characters Nesbit situates herself between

conservative and revolutionary ideals allowing for her acceptance by groups like

the Fabian Society and the more traditional Victorian readership even as she

addresses the controversial issue of British expansion and empire.

Nesbit references imperialism to demonstrate the value she placed on

adventure, entertainment, and exploration for children. She engages the Bastable

children in a variety of games and make-believe, some demonstrating British

undertakings at home while others illustrated endeavors abroad in British colonies

and she aligns their more successful, innovative, and entertaining schemes with

colonialism in order to subtly support those activities over more traditional British

occupations. The Bastable children first play at restoring their fortunes, which

have been reduced due to the failed business ventures of their father. The first

solution they come up with involves traveling to a foreign land to discover buried

or long-lost treasure, illustrating the desire and intentions of those colonists who

84

sought similar wealth in places such as India, Japan, and China. As Oswald

explains to his siblings, “I’ll tell you what, we must go and seek for treasure: it is

always what you do to restore the fallen fortunes of your House” (Nesbit, Story

11). This solution to their lack of monetary support also reflects the solution of

British citizens for restoring and enriching their nation. This play of digging for

treasure in a far-off place aligns the actions of the Bastables with those of British

colonists. Oswald related Dora’s plan saying, “Let’s dig for treasure . . . just plain

digging” and so they “dug and dug and dug, it was jolly hard work!” (Nesbit,

Story 19, 23). The children soon tire of doing the work themselves and ask

Albert-next-door to assist them, ignoring the fact that he protests: “I shan’t – I

don’t like digging – and I’m just going in to my tea” (24). They soon “enslave”

him and Oswald states, “But Albert wouldn’t [help]. So we had to make him,

because it was only fair” (25). Symbolically, this represents the European

explorers who colonized foreign lands, enslaved the natives, and forced them into

work, usually to benefit themselves financially. In matters of defining

imperialism, “one power has the will, and, if it is to succeed, the capacity to shape

the affairs of another by imposing upon it,” and that is precisely what the Bastable

children do to Albert-next-door (Cain and Hopkins 43). As we do not condemn

the children for their exploitation of Albert, we cannot criticize British colonists

for their similar actions. Furthermore, Albert-next-door literally is “next door,” as

in he is British through and through. He does not delight in the same acts as the

more progressive Bastable children; instead, he represents those who oppose what

Nesbit is advancing through the symbolic actions of the children. This explains

their lack of interest in him, except as a victim when one is needed. The Bastable

children engage in imaginative, adventurous games and play due to the

incorporation of imperialistic elements into their daily activities resulting in the

85

achievement of Nesbit’s goal of writing entertainingly for children and

authentically about them.

Nesbit uses Albert-next-door to further illustrate the benefits of

colonization while disguising her supportive commentary on imperialism as

simple childhood mischief in order to avoid ostracism by those with opposing

standpoints, breaking free from the restrictions imposed on women writers in

Victorian England and thus creating a new component to children’s literature.

Alice’s statement regarding Albert-next-door, “Of course . . . he was buried after

all. Why shouldn’t we let him have the odd somethings, and we’ll have fourpence

each” shows how not only the British (Bastables), but also those being

imperialized (Albert-next-door in this instance) benefited from the acquisition of

new territories (Nesbit, Story 30). By giving some of the “earnings” to Albert-

next-door, the Bastable children demonstrate the advantages the colonies

experienced through British imperialism, as well as the “enlarged moral purpose in

the late-Victorian decades” of the British Empire (Eldridge 187). The emphasis

on “the idea of ‘character’ and the notion of ‘duty’” spread to include benevolence

to the colonies as the duty of Britain came to include “defending kith and kin and

protecting, education and converting the half-savage and half-child” (Eldridge 180

and 186). “In the late-Victorian period the sense of mission was strong” and so

many people “endorse[d] the moral view of empire that Britain had an obligation

to bring the benefits of civilisation to the backward parts of the world” through

imperialization (Eldridge 183). Nesbit asserts the benefits of imperialism through

the Bastables’ interaction with the neighbor, an affirmation she would not have

been able to make in any other circumstances. “Although many authors of the

time seemed uneasy about Britain’s colonizing efforts,” Nesbit’s literature

“emphasizes Britain’s ownership of and responsibility to its islands across the

86

seas” (Sands-O’Connor 20). While some “early British children’s literature about

the West Indies depicted a definite unease about the colonizing imperative,” and

focused on placing all effort on maintaining control of the land already belonging

to the English, some (like Nesbit) found aiding other nations a duty (Sands-

O’Connor 19). Those authors who involved themselves and their writing in the

abolitionist movement had much in common with authors who promoted

imperialism: “most were women, often daughters of dissenting ministers or

politicians; most had an interest in education and were motivated by a desire to

further the cause of women through a promotion of charitable causes” (Sands-

O’Connor 26). What this signifies is Nesbit’s multifaceted views on the nation,

imperialism, and even the rights of women, a cause she is sometimes criticized for

responding to passively. Through the use of her texts for children as a means of

entering these conversations, Nesbit firmly establishes herself as not only both

progressive and conservative, but also one-of-a-kind in how she goes about

addressing those issues. Once again, she breaks free of boundaries that would

limit her to certain groups and takes the liberty in her writing to voice exactly

where she situates herself.

The presence of the theme of British expansion in Nesbit’s writing exists to

demonstrate the importance and value of travel literature and adventure stories for

children that were written as a result of British endeavors overseas. Due to British

imperialism, much travel literature and corresponding adventure stories were

being written, familiarizing the masses with knowledge of other land, cultures, and

information about the world in which they existed while also providing

entertainment to younger audiences; Noel Bastable’s suggestion to use his poetry

as a means of reviving their fortune further represents these benefits of British

involvement in other lands and subsequently, Nesbit’s own stance on the

87

advantages of colonial expansion. The advantages of British imperialism are

revealed, here, through a more artistic means. Noel’s poetry, primarily The Wreck

of the Malabar revolves around a “full-rigged schooner” and idealizes those who

ventured across the seas in ships to influence people of other nations. When the

children venture into the city to try to sell Noel’s poetry and make money to

restore their fortunes, they wish each other “Good hunting,” a quote from Rudyard

Kipling’s The Jungle Book, one of the famous pieces of exotic-setting literature of

the time (Nesbit, Story 54). As a result of this well-wishing, the children capture

the attention of Miss Leslie, a famous writer of the time, whose reference brings

them into two shillings. This attainment of money for Oswald and his siblings

through benefits reaped from their “colonial” endeavor, or travel literature, further

demonstrates the benefits of British travel. Not only did they bring back wealth

from conquered colonies, foreign mines, and the reproduction of exotic trinkets

and decorations, but they increased the wealth of the nation by advancing their

own arts, further developing the literary arena. Through this exchange Nesbit

furthers her endorsement of Kipling’s literature, as we discussed earlier, when

Oswald remarks, “Good old Kipling! We owe him those two shillings, as well as

the Jungle books” (Nesbit, Story 58). She attributes the children’s earnings to

their imitation of his stories, as well as crediting him with entertaining texts that

they are also thankful for. “Adventure stories set in exotic locations, especially for

boys, were immensely popular, as were the innumerable books of travel that

appeared throughout the century” bringing even more wealth to the nations

(Mermin and Tucker 106). Noel’s poem about a boat that enabled British travel is

the work sold to restore their fortunes, mirroring the British tales sold, especially

those of Rudyard Kipling who totally immersed himself in his travel and foreign

cultures, illustrating the benefits of colonialism. Here Nesbit validates Kipling

88

who was ostracized for his complete adoption of foreign living, choosing to reside

in India rather than his native land, while yet again illustrating the prosperous

results of colonialism and its resulting efforts. The Bastable children also

entertained themselves with imitations of pirates, and “indeed, pirates and pirate

stories appeared with great regularity in fiction for boys” (Sands-O’Connor 82).

Nesbit demonstrates, through her new, created space in children’s literature that

allowed for her commentary hidden behind the voice of a child-narrator, the

positive effects of stories for children that highlighted travel and adventure. She

presents different ways of writing for children that elicit positive and beneficial

characteristics in children such as critical thinking, duty and honor, and bravery

while also projecting children as worthy of such attention and concern.

Nesbit incorporates enslavement into a child-game to represent British

actions towards natives of other colonies in an effort to counteract the protests

made by abolitionists who condemned slavery and the slave trade as cruel and

abusive, showing instead how a sense of British honor and duty in terms of

imperialism instilled in children results in benefits to both Britain and the peoples

of the developing nations. H.O. Bastable’s idea for restoring their finances was to

become bandits, and they “were to lurk in ambush . . . and waylay an unwary

traveler . . . call upon him to surrender his arms, and then bring him home and put

him in the deepest dungeon blow the castle moat . . . load him with chains and

send to his friends for ransom” (Nesbit, Story 83). This parallel forces the reader

to sympathize with the Bastable children, and while one may doubt the morality of

their actions, one still desires success and wealth for them. In their bandit game,

Albert-next-door again becomes the target and “resistance was useless” and he

“saw that from the first” just as Nesbit sees opposition to British imperialism as

obsolete (Nesbit, Story 85). A note is sent to his uncle and mother asking for a

89

ransom in exchange for his life and freedom saying, “Albert Morrison is held a

prisoner by Bandits. On payment of three thousand pounds he will be restored to

his sorrowing relatives, and all will be forgotten and forgiven” (90). Again their

actions comment on those of British citizens who trapped natives after the

conquest of their nation, and promised them freedom and other positive influences

in exchange for their land, riches, women, and labor. Albert embodies those

entrapped people, and yet Oswald claims that “nobody could have had a nicer

prison that he had” (87). Even his uncle asserts that Albert’s conditions were

“very pretty and complete,” nothing worth complaining about, and that he had

never had that same treatment (91). Albert-next-door was given treats like dried

fruit, apricot jam, and bread; he was bedded on relatively clean straw, in the

nursery. While some may have condemned the actions on grounds of cruelty and

inhumane conditions, Nesbit points out through the children’s treatment of Albert,

that that was not always the case. Through this illustration, she counteracts the

complaints of her society that colonization is brutal and inappropriate by

suggesting that there are manners with which to go about expanding territories

without crossing the boundaries into callous mistreatment. She urges the changing

of their minds through the close narrator’s honest assertions, and the evidence of

decent treatment and positive outcomes on behalf of those mirroring British

imperialists and Albert-next-door who symbolized the people of colonial

conquests. Nesbit’s use of the Bastables here achieves the goal of commenting on

the societal issues of her time while avoiding rejection from society by masking

her viewpoints. At the same time she reveals her contrasting conservative and

subversive ideals by both undermining the restrictions while superficially aligning

herself and her Bastable works with those Victorian restraints.

90

By inserting elements of other cultures into the successful endeavors of the

Bastable children, Nesbit reveals her regard for the traditions of other societies and

how they provided advantages to Britain while also benefiting from British

imperialism. In doing so, Nesbit once again utilizes her new genre of children’s

literature to demonstrate her unique assemblage of social values and political

stances, break free from Victorian constraints on women writers, and pose

children and their activities and texts as meaningful and intentional. The child-

play of the Bastables once again leads them into money when they mimic the

rituals of foreign nations to discover their fortune, once again asserting the

benefits of British exploration and control of other people and places and masking

Nesbit’s subversion of the genre of literature to which she was relegated and

confined. Alice’s contribution to the children’s efforts at financial success was

through a divining rod, a ritual with allusions to cultures valuing magic and myth.

Oswald makes a request to the “fair priestess” saying “we do greatly desire to find

gold beneath our land, therefore we pray thee practise with the divining rod, and

tell us where we can find it” (Nesbit, Story 203). Alice then chants a hymn,

“Ashen rod cold/That ere I hold/Teach me where to find the gold,” and walks

around, being led by a rod to a place in the floorboards where they discover a half-

sovereign (205). She is dressed in priestess garb, and her speech is of another

culture. Nesbit incorporates this into the Bastable adventures to illustrate that

“imperialism impacted Britain not only economically, but also culturally” (Kutzer

68). The divining rod is obviously not an original British ceremony, a Christian

doctrine would condemn such actions; it is instead a component of British folk

history in England due to contact with other cultures and societies. Instead, Nesbit

validates the rituals and spiritual beliefs of foreign nations. They are, as the

Bastable children portray, of value and deserving of respect, but also only made

91

familiar and/or attained through colonization. “As these brief examples indicate,

much of what the children find intriguing lies not within the borders of England,

but overseas in Britain’s imperial possessions,” showing that Nesbit considered

those territories worthy of requisition, exploration, and value (Kutzer 65).

She refutes the assumption by British colonists and their supporters that

other nations needed to be overtaken and their unique customs and characteristics

squelched. Rather, she uses the child-games of the Bastables to illustrate a

combination that endorses British expansion as well as preservation of and respect

for other societies while solidifying Nesbit’s distinctive social and political

position. The children play as though they are gypsies with an outcome that

exemplifies this belief. Alice pretends to tell fortunes, saying, “‘You will travel in

distant lands . . . you will marry a beautiful lady – a very fine woman, it says in the

book, but I think beautiful lady sounds nicer, don’t you?’” (Nesbit, New Treasure

Seekers 229). Their deviation from British normalcy resulted in “two quid and

something to talk about” (234). Through the Bastable children Nesbit

demonstrates the value and success to be found in non-traditional, and even

unacceptable forms of play, while reiterating the importance of children making

their own meaning through texts they engage in. They gain financially, socially,

and enjoy entertainment simultaneously through their alignment with traits of

foreign lands. What is exotic to them is more interesting and has more benefits to

the Bastable siblings than the everyday British ventures. Nesbit does not neglect

presenting conventional British enterprises, however. Conversely, she presents

them as sources of trouble and failure for the children, effectively demonstrating

the pro-imperialism stance through her child-characters.

Although the Bastable children engage in symbolically “colonialist” games,

some of their ideas are predominantly associated with British who remain at home,

92

and those are the schemes that fail miserably, illustrating, through the realistic

activities of the Bastable children and Nesbit’s new place in children’s literature,

her alignment with the imperialistic endeavors over the traditional British

occupations in England. However, by including these British livelihoods and

involvements, Nesbit successfully disguises the Bastables as proper English

children who simply make childish, immaterial and easily overlooked errors in

judgment because of their age. In this way Nesbit appeals to both the established

and changing perceptions of children, childhood, and the British empire, all

through a marginalized, discredited and neglected genre of literature. Nesbit

presents conventional British enterprises at home as sources of trouble and failure

for the children, effectively demonstrating the pro-imperialism stance through her

child-characters. They intend to be bandits, take out loans, and sell alcohol, all of

which conclude with negative consequences. The children set their dog after Lord

Trottenham in order to then rescue him and “he would say, ‘How can I reward

you, my noble young preservers?’” (Nesbit, Story 130). But he discovers their

plan and exclaims, “You set your dog on me, and you tried to make me believe

you were saving me from it. And you would have taken my half-sovereign. Such

conduct is – No – you shall tell me what it is, sir, and speak the truth” to which

Oswald acknowledges that they were in the wrong (135). Representative of the

“deceit and trickery” that prevailed in English businesses and on the streets, Nesbit

makes her sentiments known – that although there are occupations available in the

nation before or without imperialism, many are dishonest and shameful (136).

The children later decide to engage in something less morally

reprehensible, borrowing from a Generous Benefactor, but they come to realize

that that British means of acquiring money was also undesirable and unethical.

They travel into town in search of the Generous Benefactor whose advertisement

93

reads “Advances cash from L20 to L10,000 on ladies’ or gentlemen’s not of hand

alone, without security. No fees. No inquiries. Absolute privacy guaranteed” and

yet, when they find him and ask for money, he brings up the topic of paying

interest on the loan (Nesbit, Story 114). This undermines the “no fees” statement

on the advertisement. As a result, the reader sees that he really is not generous,

but only out to make money off of unsuspecting, desperate individuals. This is the

model of a British occupation, which Nesbit portrays in a much more negative

light than those imperialistic positions the Bastables (and through them, Nesbit

herself) highly praise such as the soldier, sailor, etc. The children fail to get their

loan and so their plan to rebuild their financial status is foiled. Once again, their

actions aligning to strictly British behaviors are ineffectual and reflect negatively

on traditional “acceptable” British employment and career options.

Similarly, when the Bastables decide to save up money and then purchase a

sample to sell as a means of making money, the children’s plan backfires and

reveals the flawed characteristics of common British enterprises yet again.

Oswald and his siblings save up their money and Oswald informs the reader, “So

we decided to dally no longer with being journalists and bandits and things like

them, but to send for sample and instructions how to earn two pounds a week each

in our spare time” (Nesbit, Story 139). Unfortunately for them, this plan also

represented British endeavors, failures from the start. They did not know what

they were involving themselves in, nor were they prepared to sell wine.

Furthermore, once their plan was made known to their father, he simply tells them

that “the wine trade is overcrowded” and to avoid it (Nesbit, Story 158). This

illuminates the problematic state in England during that time: the lack of work and

the dishonest paths people did take to secure money. Unlike their actions

mirroring those of colonists, these more “British” avenues consistently failed to

94

secure them funds to restore their fallen fortunes. Instead they end up scolded,

disheartened, and with less money than they had when they went into the plan.

Nesbit’s intentionality with the activities of the Bastables allows her the forum to

situate herself between political extremes while also asserting the value of children

and their experiences, as it is through youthful games and behaviors that these

lessons emerge.

Nesbit uniquely ties all of her critiques of her society into the characters

and adventures of the Bastables, including their interactions with adults during

their day-to-day experiences. Adults in Nesbit’s Bastable stories demonstrate the

value and worth of children and childhood by how they respond to the children

and then, in turn, how the children interact with and relate to them. Rather than

being amused by their fellow children like Albert-next-door, the Bastables find

other adults interesting who are traveled and familiar with British colonies and

oftentimes, in addition to this attention to imperialism they possess other attributes

Nesbit supports such as being well-read and encouraging to children’s imagination

and play. For example, the Bastables are more attracted to Albert-next-door’s

uncle “who has been to sea, but now he writes books” (Nesbit, Story 27). He is

traveled and intelligent, while his nephew is portrayed as wimpy, sniveling, and

boring as a result of his lack of travel and absence of the desire to experience those

exotic locations. Albert-next-door’s uncle is a favorite of Oswald’s because, as he

explains, “He always talks like a book, and yet you can always understand what he

means. I think he is more like us, inside of his mind, than most grown-up people

are. He can pretend beautifully” (209). Oswald goes on to explain that “it was

Albert’s uncle who first taught us how to make people talk like books when you’re

playing things, and he made us learn to tell a story straight from the beginning, not

starting in the middle like most people do” (210). Albert’s uncle possesses many

95

characteristics the children admire and seek to emulate such as his interest in and

travel to other territories, knowledge and experience of other cultures, attention to

children and their need for amusement through activity and literature. His worldly

knowledge enables him to engage in the imperialistic games along with the

children, as he does when they are playing at the divining rod. Albert’s uncle

gives himself the title of “the great high priest” and he offers to “bite into [the

half-sovereign] to see if it is good” (210). He finds that it is real and remarks, “‘I

congratulate you . . . you are indeed among those favoured by the Immortals”

demonstrating his ability to participate in the imaginative games of the children

(210-11). Albert-next-door’s uncle epitomizes the traits that Nesbit, herself,

possesses and strongly advocates for through her literature. While Albert-next-

door’s uncle demonstrates a variety of Nesbit’s assertions made throughout her

Bastable stories especially in relation to the impact if children and childhood and

Nesbit’s new avenue of children’s literature that stresses authenticity,

entertainment, and the merit of texts for children, the Indian uncle’s portrayal

focuses on the impact of the British imperialism and through that Nesbit’s unique

conservative-radical stances and her agenda to “imperialize” children’s literature

and change it to better suit and serve women writers as well as the child-audience.

Through the Indian uncle, Nesbit ties all her previous assertions about the

benefits of imperialistic travel together as all his wealth and possessions were

attained through imperial acts and worldly travels and it is he and his vast wealth

that saves the children from destitution and restores their fortune. Nesbit makes

her assertions about the similarities between the Bastables’ games and

imperialization obvious as the purpose of their games, restoring the Bastable

fortunes, is finally achieved through association with an imperialistic and

adventurous individual. “Although Britain’s empire extended to the Caribbean, to

96

South America, and to Southeast Asia, it was primarily India and Africa that

captured the imaginations of writers for both children and adults,” explaining

Nesbit’s incorporating of an Indian uncle and through him, the influence of India’s

unique culture (Kutzer 1). Utilizing the uncle, Nesbit reinforces the benefits of

imperialism and stresses British dependence upon colonization. “India and other

imperial holdings being wealth to the Bastables as they did for Britain as a whole,”

and Nesbit shows this through the games the Bastables play, culminating in their

relationship to their “Indian Uncle” as we will see in their first meeting with him

and throughout the Bastable tales (Kutzer 68). It is through the Indian Uncle that

they achieve access to the adventures related in The Would-Be-Goods, The New

Treasure Seekers, and Oswald Bastable and Others. When the uncle first agrees

to come their father tells them to avoid being detected because their “dear

Mother’s Indian Uncle is coming to dinner” and they must not be making noise

overhead (Nesbit, Story 211). Automatically the reader detects the importance of

this man, When the children hear the term “Indian” they think of Native

Americans, so when they see their uncle, they are shocked to describe him as “just

like a kind of brown, big Englishman” who they assume to be poor (215). As a

result of the children’s blunt honesty and friendliness, the uncle comes back to

dine with them alone when they invite him. At this point Oswald discloses his

identity when he answers the uncle’s question about his identity with, “‘Oswald

Bastable’” he says, “and I do hope you people who are reading this story have not

guessed before that I was Oswald all the time” much as Nesbit begins to disclose

the agenda behind her writing (220).

As we discover our narrator, we also learn the author’s intention to

emphasize the salvation found only through the Indian uncle. From little money,

bland foods, worn clothing, and the loss of their pretty possessions, Uncle brings

97

toys for all the kids and model engines for Dick and me, and a lot of

books, and Japanese china tea-sets for the girls, red and white and

gold – there were sweets by the pound and by the box – and long

yards of soft silk from India, to make frocks for the girls – and a real

Indian sword for Oswald and a book of Japanese pictures for Noel,

and some ivory chess men for Dicky: the castles of the chessmen are

elephant-and-castles . . . big cases of preserved fruits and things . . .

there were carved fans and silver bangles and strings of amber

beads, and necklaces of uncut gems – turquoises and garnets, the

Uncle said they were – and shawls and scarves of silk, and cabinets

of brown and gold, and ivory boxes and silvery trays, and brass

things. (Nesbit, Story 232)

From this increase of wealth and goods brought from the uncle, the children as

well as the reader are made privy to the information that colonization is vital to the

well-being of England. Without it they would lack not only all these material

goods but also the cultural and artistic benefits it brought to the nation. “The lists

of presents the Indian Uncle gives to the children suggests that India is both a

source of British wealth and a shaper of British culture” and signifies the benefit

of other imperial conquests, as well (Kutzer 68). As the Uncle demonstrates,

“many of the travelers returned, often with money acquired abroad – sometimes

large fortunes, more often government or military pensions or the modest fruits of

labor and trade – as well as new and less insular ideas” (Mermin and Tucker 105).

The Indian Uncle, representative of British colonists, and the child-play illustrative

of colonial expansion and actions combine to form the evidence for Nesbit’s

justification of, and support of, British colonialism. Mavis Reimer, “observing the

colonist nature of the games the children play with their newfound relative,”

98

suggests that Nesbit ignores the exploitative nature of imperialists (Gubar 423).

However, as we have seen through her utilization of other games and activities the

children partake in, Nesbit instead focuses on the bettering of other nations

through their contact and relationship with Britain. “Just as Nesbit insists on

blurring the line between adult and child, writer and reader, she also appears to

downplay the division between colonizer and colonized, by setting up a finale [to

The Story of the Treasure Seekers] that depends on and celebrates the idea of

perfect reciprocity,” so instead of ignoring one element critics emphasize, Nesbit

in her unique and specific way, presents and argues her case differently (Gubar

423). Her subversion of the narrator’s voice and the purpose of children’s

literature is made blatantly obvious as these final assertions are made involving the

Uncle without much effort at disguising her perspective. Because she engages the

reader throughout the text utilizing Oswald Bastable’s voice, convincing them to

support the Bastable children, she can depart from that vague narration and more

obviously present her stance on imperialism now that she is sure of her reader’s

attention and approval.

Nesbit consistently references through her authentic child-narrator, child-

characters and their experiences, imperialistic components as a means of

commenting on Britain expansion as a whole. Contrary critics believe that “little

has been said . . . about [Nesbit’s] radical view of the imperial crisis,” believing

that rather than endorsing Britain’s expansion, Nesbit presents the endeavors of

imperialists as mere child games (Bar-Yosef 5). Instead of viewing the Bastable

stories as a means of “[charging] young Britons with the energy to go out into the

world and explore, conquer and rule” they see them as “[rejoicing] in exposing the

state’s political and social crises, celebrating the withdrawal into the domestic, the

homely, the familiar” (Bar-Yosef 5). In actuality Edith Nesbit repeatedly

99

comments on the importance of travel, exploration, conquering, and controlling

other territories through the games and perspectives of the Bastable children. In

Nesbit’s works, “sometimes militaristic overtones were added to the general

patriotic mixture” (Horn 49). In The Would-Be-Goods the children went to

welcome soldiers as they arrived, with Oswald saying, “We all drew up in a

line . . . and saluted as they went by” shouting “Three cheers for the Queen and the

British Army!” (Nesbit 333). They waved the flag and cheered and the next day

“got up as much like soldiers as we could,” demonstrating their admiration for and

imitation of those who aid in British expansion (333). Oswald stresses his

appreciation of them and their duties by saying, “I should like to be a soldier. It is

better than going to the best schools” (333). Through assertions such as this

Nesbit endorses the political climate of the Victorian period that depended upon

soldiers and explorers to claim and maintain territories around the world. They

take joy out of presenting the soldiers with gifts, conversing with them, and

examining their guns. Oswald “looked with envy on those who would soon be

allowed-being grown up, and no nonsense about your education-to go and fight for

their Queen and country” demonstrating his alliance with British imperialists

(334). By linking the Bastable children with the British soldiers and their colonial

acts, Nesbit reveals her own support of their goals.

While Nesbit comments on the reverence the children have for the military,

she also incorporates the other stances she has taken in her works such as the

importance of childhood, the value of children, and the role of children in

Victorian Britain’s society. During a military assault that was staged for their

benefit, the Bastable siblings unwittingly played into it, fighting off the enemy

with Oswald declaring that “it felt fine, marching at the head of a regiment” and

“lead[ing] the foe astray at great peril (Nesbit, Would-Be-Goods 393, 394). He

100

remarks that “it is a terrible thing to a loyal and patriotic youth to see an enemy

cleaning a pot in an English field, with English sand, and looking as much at home

as if he was in his foreign [home]” (390). The feeling that evoked in such a loyal

patriot caused Oswald’s determination to “teach them England’s might and

supremeness” (393). Edith Nesbit’s texts mirror “the elementary school

curriculum [that] was adjusted to emphasize the desired message and a range of

youth organizations [that were] promoted which inculcated a love of country and

of Empire, and a willingness to sacrifice self for the common good” (Horn 52).

Yet, while Nesbit accomplishes some of the same goals as the school texts,

she does so in a manner that targets children’s interests and experiences above a

simple obedience to adults and loyalty to one’s country. Her manner of addressing

children regarding Britain and their status as citizens further epitomizes the

uniqueness of her perceptions of children and how to write for them. It is for the

contribution of these influences and changes on children’s literature that Nesbit

remains deserving of critical study and merit. Oswald goes so far as to exclaim,

“Oswald only hopes that if he falls on the wild battlefield, which is his highest

ambition, that somebody will be as sorry about him as he was about Bill,” their

neighbor who was presumed killed in battle (Nesbit, Would-Be-Goods 337).

Oswald demonstrates here, the love and dedication to the British Empire that was

instilled in children once they began to be seen as the future of the nation. They

further express that reverence when they encounter deserters who are punished for

their abandonment and Noel writes a poem about the experience: “Poor soldiers,

learn a lesson from to-day/It is very wrong to runaway/It is better to stay/And

serve your King and Country—hurray!” (Nesbit, Oswald Bastable 45). As Nesbit

uses her literature to endorse British imperialism, so the Bastables establish

support for the expansion of their country through Noel’s writing. They

101

characterize extreme loyalty and respect for and admiration of their country and its

military operations especially through their adventurous natures and spirits of

exploration and patriotism.

The Bastable children reveal pride in their nation as well as a thirst for

adventure and exploration, themes E. Nesbit finds appropriate and advantageous in

children which allows for her to establish common ground and avoid isolating and

distancing those with alternative perspectives on British imperialism. Oswald

Bastable emphatically reveals his quest for an expedition when they travel past the

Naval College where “Naval Collegians have to learn about ropes and spars” and

he states that “Oswald would willingly give a year of his young life to have [a]

ship for his very own” (Nesbit, New Treasure Seekers 68). Nesbit supports travel,

adventure, and imperialism through her references to military positions that

involve sea travel and exploration. Oswald “think[s] coastguards are A1. They

are just the same as sailors, having been so in their youth, and you can get at them

to talk to, which is not the case with sailors who are at sea (or even in harbours) on

ships” (Nesbit, New Treasure Seekers 192). He admires their dedication and

service to the country, but also their familiarity with the sea and the journeying it

entails. Other times, the Bastable children’s games consist of making “two

expeditions to discover the source of the Nile (or the North Pole)” because they

could not agree on just one destination, and other explorations of various streams,

woods, and neighboring lands (Nesbit, Would-Be-Goods 335). Their many

adventures and discoveries reflect the value and significance Nesbit assigns to

such imaginative, physical, and exploratory games. She finds them important to

the development of children as well as giving her an outlet for her particular

viewpoints on British society.

102

While some of Nesbit’s more radical associations can suggest anti-

government stances, Nesbit breaks free from being labeled as one extreme or the

other by situating herself rather conservatively on some issues such as The

Woman Question. Furthermore, despite their defiance of the government,

“Bernard Shaw . . . declared in 1900 that a Fabian must necessarily be an

imperialist” and Nesbit not only leaned that way politically, but she acted it out

through the subject matter and manner of writing (Bar-Yosef 13). Her texts

“testify to [her] self-conscious sense of herself as an author who plunders or

colonizes the realm of childhood, as well as the work of other authors of children’s

literature” (Gubar 410). She acts out her endorsement of imperialism by

effectively “imperializing” the only avenue available to her as a female writer of

children’s books. She situates herself to appeal to both the conventional attitudes

and progressive outlooks of Victorian England; she maintains acceptance by the

Fabian Society while also producing texts not immediately shunned by the austere

Victorians. She does this all within the confines of stories for children, resulting

in the communication of Nesbit’s regard for and attention to the roles and

experiences of children. This combination of ideals further establishes Nesbit as

worthy of critical study and analysis in order to better understand an alternative

perspective that did not fit into the confines of support or opposition to British

imperialism.

Chapter 5

CONCLUSION

Nesbit’s children’s stories assert her perceptions of narration, colonialism,

and the value of children and childhood in a society that marginalized and

suppressed women. While she appears to conform to the restraints of Victorian

society by participating in the marginalized genre of children’s literature, she

subverts that prescribed role by incorporating her own unique social and political

standpoints into the Bastable stories. These tales themselves also serve to express

Nesbit’s non-traditional and innovative ways of regarding children and thus,

writing for them. She effectively turns child’s play into commentary, undermining

the dominant purposes of children’s literature at the time, emphasizing

entertainment, adventure and a realistic portrayal of children and their experiences

over moralistic and instructional lessons. By maintaining acceptability by social

conservatives and those more progressive through her disguised stances, Nesbit

constructs a new fact of children’s literature that also allowed her to communicate

her unique social and political stances. By carefully studying her literary texts for

children, we are able to counter the criticisms leveled at Nesbit’s texts and,

ultimately, give her the credit she deserves for usurping a voice and avenue for her

commentary. This “uneasy tension between radicalism and conformism that is

latent in Nesbit’s earlier work” illustrates and emphasizes her relevance to literary

study today and how she has forever altered the genre of children’s literature

(Foster and Simons 135). Nesbit’s unique narrative techniques set her apart, and

enabled her to break free from the marginalization of Victorian society. She

“created a narrative personality for her narrator unlike any which had come before,

104

and allowed that narrator to communicate freely with a narratee” and “made the

child’s interests rather than the adult’s the real concern in her stories” through “the

strong emphasis she placed on the partnership of narrator and narratee” (Wall 148,

149). Although “this emphasis [on child interests over adult interests] has

unfortunately lessened the value of her work for many adult readers and critics,” in

reality, Nesbit’s attention to and realistic representations of children and

childhood, as well as her ability to use those avenues to voice adult opinions and

social commentary, validates Edith Nesbit as a forerunner of children’s literature,

and one of the most influential writers for children (Wall 149).

Although Nesbit’s association with, and even alignment with, some of the

more conservative notions of Victorian society facilitated her ability to be widely

accepted and avoidance of marginalization due to extremism, some critics argue

that she merely submits to the cultural demands. While some claim that Nesbit

“gradually acquiesced in the contemporary assessment of the genre . . . and, like a

number of other women writers for children, became complicit in the process of

her own self-devaluation, accepting without question the cultural premise that held

that popularity and ‘art,’ children and literary quality, were mutually

incompatible” we understand, through careful study of the Bastable stories, that

she challenges these assumptions in a variety of ways (Foster and Simons 128).

Nesbit uniquely disguised her assertions in order to have an outlet for her silenced

voice refusing to accept, as so many other female authors did, her marginalization

and classification as a second-class writer. Instead she validates through her

subversion of children’s literature, her status as a forerunner of modern literature

for children. At the same time, Nesbit links children’s literature to the value and

literary esteem given to adult works through her range of literary techniques and

sub-text of social commentary. She utilized the tension between different groups

105

to her advantage, allowing for her to subvert her restrictive Victorian society and

change the course of children’s literature. Another critic of Nesbit, U.C.

Knoepflmacher says, “Nesbit’s fiction for children, therefore, much like Eliot’s

fiction for adults, neither radically challenges the patriarchal order nor sharply

departs from the more pronounced moralism of earlier nineteenth-century women

writers,” overlooking that Nesbit does in fact subvert the male-dominance by

giving herself the power to speak through the only means allowed her, her

literature (“Of Babylands and Babylons” 302). Furthermore, she does deviate

from the entertaining and didactic/conduct-book texts while appearing to align

herself with those in order for her writing to be accepted and even embraced. Her

“use of the genre is non-conventional,” proving her progressive nature, and

establishing her place among the leaders of the Golden Age of children’s literature

(Knowles and Malmkjaer 202-03).

Edith Nesbit also suffers from the lack of serious and sustained critical

attention given her texts, as much of her work is immediately discounted as

imitative, conformist, and lacking in any significant impact on the genre of

children’s fiction despite the fact that her authentic child-narrator, Oswald, who

relates true-to-life experiences of children combined with Nesbit’s social

commentary regarding literature for children and imperialism refutes and

discredits these stances. Critics “[object] strenuously to the inclusion of Nesbit in

the canon of great writers for children” by labeling even her best work as simply

borrowed from other writers, inserting minimal originality into her texts (Wall

136). I maintain that, “what this reading fails to recognize is that Nesbit’s extreme

allusiveness itself constitutes an innovative technique, one that her child characters

practice constantly and to great effect” much as Nesbit has a great effect on

children’s literature (Gubar 421). She “was the first professional writer of fiction

106

for children who did not feel the need to justify her writing for children, in her

own eyes and in the eyes of other adults, by insisting on the intellectual and moral

differences between herself and her [child] readers” (Wall 149). Instead, she used

her child narrator to speak directly to children regarding topics of childhood

interest, writing authentically and in a manner illustrative of genuine regard and

attention to children.

Nesbit’s distinct voice of a child-narrator, accurate portrayal of children and

childhood experiences, and subtext of social commentary deserve the critical

attention previously denied to texts by and for women and children. Despite “the

renewed critical attention being paid to the novel in England from the 1880’s

onward, with the concomitant attempts to develop a theory of fiction,” the

demands called for “the reclamation of the genre for intellectuals, a category

which inevitably excluded women and children” (Foster and Simons 127-28).

And yet, even though literary theorists “are notably uninterested in children’s

literature,” Nesbit’s Bastable stories have begun to attract attention due to Nesbit’s

ability to create a child narrator and use him to undermine Victorian restraints in a

variety of ways as he allows her to address a variety of issues: imperialism,

childhood and the role/significance of children, and types of literature to value and

how they penetrate real life (Knoepflmacher, “Balancing of Child and Adult”

529). Nesbit has “had a decisive influence upon much modern writing for

children, arguably stronger than that of any other single writer: adventure stories

of the ‘famous five’ type, stories of magical happenings and visits to the past

largely owe their existence to the models she established” (Briggs 402). M.

Daphne Kutzer quotes Suzanne Rahm when she states that, “‘E. Nesbit, if anyone,

could be called the children’s writer’s children’s writer of our century’” because

“her works influenced C.S. Lewis, Arthur Ransome, Noel Streatfeild, and other

107

twentieth-century writers for children” (Kutzer 63). Also, her “refusal to idealize

either the child’s actual – as opposed to imaginative – power, or the nature of the

world that children inhabit” makes up another of her major contributions to the

genre of literature for children (Briggs 190). Nesbit remains a forerunner in

writing authentically for and about children and their experiences, refusing to

emphasize either goodness or wickedness in the process. Her usage of a child

narrator, especially a vague, first-person child narrator who is honest, engaging

and endearing and forces readers to invest in the Bastable children’s activities and

experiences, also demonstrates her contribution to literature, as she provided other

means of storytelling used in current popular texts for children.

As Barbara Wall states, “Nesbit really pioneered modern writing for

children. Her acceptance of children as fit companions enabled her to bridge what

she herself called the ‘great gulf’ between adult and child in a new way, a way that

gave children as readers a new important status” as well as children as speakers,

thinkers, and analyzers through the portrayals of the Bastable children (157). To

conclude my support of Edith Nesbit’s texts as worthy of more critical attention

and regard I cite M. Daphne Kutzer when she says, “Children’s books – children

themselves – are often discounted as not being serious, as undeserving of close

critical attention. Children’s literature is often marginalized in academe, and older

children’s literature suffers” (140). While she goes on to state that older children’s

literature suffers more than contemporary children’s literature, I contend that

modern texts for children suffer just as much due to the lack of a fully developed

critical and analytical history of the genre. We can only hope to understand

current writings for children once we have understood the themes, tensions and

motivations for children’s literature of the past.

WORKS CITED

Bar-Yosef, Eitan. “E. Nesbit and the Fantasy of Reverse Colonization: How Many Miles to Modern Babylon?” English Literature in Transition 1880 1920 46.1 (2003): 4-25. Print.

Bell, Anthea E. Nesbit: A Walck Monograph. New York: Walck, 1964. Print.

Briggs, Julia. A Woman of Passion: The Life of E. Nesbit 1858-1924. New York: New Amsterdam, 1987. Print.

Cain, P.J., and A.G. Hopkins. British Imperialism: Innovation and Expansion 1688-1914. New York: Longman, 1993. Print.

Carpenter, Humphrey. Secret Gardens: A Study of the Golden Age of Children’s Literature. Boston: Houghton, 1985. Print

Crouch, Marcus. Treasure Seekers and Borrowers: Children’s Books in Britain 1900-1960. London: Staples, 1962. Print.

Eldridge, C.C. “Sinews of Empire: Changing Perspectives.” British Imperialism in the Nineteenth Century. Ed. C.C. Eldridge. New York: St. Martin’s, 1984. 180-87. Print.

Foster, Shirley, and Judy Simons. “E. Nesbit: The Railway Children.” What Katy Read: Feminist Re-Readings of “Classic” Stories for Girls. Iowa City: U of Iowa P, 1995. 127-48. Print.

Gubar, Marah. “Partners in Crime: E. Nesbit and the Art of Thieving.” Style 35.3 (2001): 410-22. Print.

Horn, Pamela. “‘Benefits Bestowed’?: Education and British Imperialism.” English Elementary Education and the Growth of the Imperial Ideal: 1880 1914. Ed. J.A. Marigan. New York: Manchester UP, 1988. 39-55. Print.

Hughes, Felicity A. “Children’s Literature: Theory and Practice.” ELH 45.3 (1978): 542-61. Print.

Knoepflmacher, U.C. “The Balancing of Child and Adult: An Approach to Victorian Fantasies for Children.” Nineteenth-Century Fiction 37.4 (1983): 497-530. JSTOR. Web. 30 November 2007.

109

---. “Of Babylands and Babylons: E. Nesbit and the Reclamation of the Fairy Tale.” Tulsa Studies in Women’s Literature 6.2 (1987): 299-325. JSTOR. Web. 30 November 2007.

---. Ventures into Childland: Victorians, Fairy Tales, and Femininity. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1998. Print.

Knowles, Murray, and Kirsten Malmkjaer. Language and Control in Children’s Literature. New York: Routledge, 1996. Print.

Kutzer, M. Daphne. Empire’s Children: Empire and Imperialism in Classic British Children’s Books. New York: Garland, 2000. Print.

Lockhead, Marion. Renaissance of Wonder: The Fantasy World of C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, George MacDonald, E. Nesbit and Others. Philadelphia: Harper, 1977. Print.

Manlove, Colin. From Alice to Harry Potter: Children’s Fantasy in England. New Zealand: Cybereditions, 2003. Print.

Meek, Margaret. “The Englishness of English Children’s Books.” Children’s Literature and National Identity. Ed. Margaret Meek. Sterling: Trantham, 2001. 89-100. Print.

Mermin, Dorothy, and Herbert Tucker. Victorian Literature 1830-1900. New York: Harcourt, 2002. Print.

Moore, Doris Langley. E. Nesbit: A Biography. Philadelphia: Chilton, 1966. Print.

Moss, Anita. “E. Nesbit’s Romantic Child in Modern Dress.” Romanticism and Children’s Literature in the 19th Century England. Ed. James Holt McGavran, Jr. Athens: U of Georgia P, 1991. 107, 225-26, 245. JSTOR. Web. 30 November 2007.

---. “The Story of the Treasure Seekers: The Idiom of Childhood.” Touchstones: Reflections on the Best in Children’s Literature. Ed. Perry Nodelman. West Lafayette, Indiana: Children’s Literature Association, 1985. 188-97. JSTOR. Web. 30 November 2007.

Myers, Mitzi. “Little Girls Lost: Rewriting Romantic Childhood, Righting Gender and Genre.” Teaching Children’s Literature: Issues, Pedagogy, Resources. Ed. Glenn Edward Sadler. New York: MLA, 1992. 131-42. Print.

Nesbit, Edith. The New Treasure Seekers. New York: Penguin, 1996. Print.

110

---. Oswald Bastable and Others. New York: Coward, 1960. Print.

---. The Story of the Treasure Seekers. New York: Penguin, 1994. Print.

---. “The Would-Be-Goods.” E. Nesbit: The Railway Children, Five Children and It, The Phoenix and the Carpet, The Story of the Amulet, The Story of the Treasure Seekers, The Would-Be-Goods, and The Enchanted Castle. UK: Shoes and Ships and Sealing Wax, 2004. 323-400. Print.

Otten, Charlotte F., and Gary D. Schmidt. The Voice of the Narrator in Children’s Literature: Insights from Writers and Critics. New York: Greenwood, 1989. Print.

Reynolds, Kimberley. Girls Only? Gender and Popular Children’s Fiction in Britain, 1880-1910. Philadelphia: Temple UP, 1990. 2-27. Print.

Rutledge, Amelia. “E. Nesbit and the Woman Question.” Victorian Women Writers and the Woman Question. Ed. Nicola Diane Thompson. London: Cambridge Studies in Nineteenth-Century Literature and Culture, 1999. 223-40. Print.

Sands-O’Connor, Karen. Soon Come Home to This Island: West Indians in British Children’s Literature. New York: Routledge, 2008. Print.

Streatfeild, Noel. Magic and the Magician: E. Nesbit and Her Children’s Books. New York: Abelard, 1958. Print.

Wall, Barbara. The Narrator’s Voice: The Dilemma of Children’s Fiction. New York: St. Martin’s, 1991. Print.

Wallace, Jo-Ann. “De-Scribing The Water-Babies: ‘The Child’ in Post-Colonial Theory.” De-Scribing Empire: Post-Colonialism and Textuality. Ed. Chris Tiffin and Alan Lawson. New York: Routledge, 1994. 171-84. JSTOR. Web. 30 November 2007.

Zipes, Jack. Sticks and Stones: The Troublesome Success of Children’s Literature from Slovenly Peter to Harry Potter. New York: Routledge, 2002. Print.

California State University, Fresno Non-Exclusive Distribution License (to make your thesis available electronically via the library’s eCollections database) By submitting this license, you (the author or copyright holder) grant to CSU, Fresno Digital Scholar the non-exclusive right to reproduce, translate (as defined in the next paragraph), and/or distribute your submission (including the abstract) worldwide in print and electronic format and in any medium, including but not limited to audio or video. You agree that CSU, Fresno may, without changing the content, translate the submission to any medium or format for the purpose of preservation. You also agree that the submission is your original work, and that you have the right to grant the rights contained in this license. You also represent that your submission does not, to the best of your knowledge, infringe upon anyone’s copyright. If the submission reproduces material for which you do not hold copyright and that would not be considered fair use outside the copyright law, you represent that you have obtained the unrestricted permission of the copyright owner to grant CSU, Fresno the rights required by this license, and that such third-party material is clearly identified and acknowledged within the text or content of the submission. If the submission is based upon work that has been sponsored or supported by an agency or organization other than California State University, Fresno, you represent that you have fulfilled any right of review or other obligations required by such contract or agreement. California State University, Fresno will clearly identify your name as the author or owner of the submission and will not make any alteration, other than as allowed by this license, to your submission. By typing your name and date in the fields below, you indicate your agreement to the terms of this distribution license. Type full name as it appears on submission Date

Corinth Ann Gibbs 

03/08/2010