I think that one of the pieces of historical fiction that gets a little mixed up is our desire to "hook' readers, to begin books with "what they know." The concept is solid, but there are so many things that readers "know," that are not necessarily mirrors of their own lives. And, rather than populate historical fiction with spunky girls or plantation owners' sons running the underground railroad (both of which fit nicely into our contemporary view of society), perhaps we're better served with characters who are struggling to find their own identity (Johnny Tremain); trying to break away from their parents (How It Happened In Peach Hill); or caring for their siblings (Save Queen of Sheba). That these novels are set in the past shows differences of life then and now, differences that I think are important as youngsters consider their lives now. After all, big movements, such as the Civil Rights Movement or strides for women's equality, have no meaning if children don't know of the oppression that preceded them.

One thing I've noticed again and again on the various children's list serve discussions of history and historical fiction is the unfortunate idea that fiction is necessary to engage kids in the past. Years ago, Marc, you may recall we were together on a program speaking about historical fiction. For my part, I spoke about the various ways it has been used in classrooms, many of them problematic. Since then I figured I'd better put my money where my mouth is and have been doing a unit on historical fiction with my fourth graders. Over some time we consider what makes good historical fiction and then the kids research and write their own. (Since I can't paragraph here I'm going to continue in a second comment so this isn't too long.)

I very much appreciate Betty's comment here and earlier. I well recall her excellent article on the different Revolutionary War novels. I think it should be required reading for anyone critically examining historical fiction (for any aged reader). Marc long ago convinced me that the writer has no obligation to the reader, just to him or herself. And thus I've become less strident in my comments about novels that seem historically problematic to me. If they are fiction I now agree that the author can fiddle as much as he or she wants. Still, the push to use historical fiction in classrooms as a way to introduce a historical topic continues to bother me. Both because of Betty's point and because such works are not helping kids to learn how to think historically. (I care passionately about the teaching and learning of history in schools.) They will more likely read the books aesthetically, respond personally, and perhaps get a bit o history on the side. Sad that kids are getting history mostly through fiction and the relatively limited stuff in textbooks geared to prep them for the content tests.

Monica touched on so many pieces of this puzzle that are so important to me. I really love the sentence that reads "They will more likely read the books aesthetically," which is precisely what we want kids to do at the first, gut response. But, I would also like for them to bring a skepticism to their reading, as I know Monica does. I vividly remember reading Orsen Scott Card's Seventh Son, the first book in the Alvin Maker trilogy. I was so caught up in his alternate word, so caught up in my aesthetic response, that I remember thinking at one point, "I had forgotten that Alexander Hamilton was president." And I remember how caught I was a second later when I realized what I had done, how completely my aesthetic reading had overpowered any other interpretation. I think when adults present historical fiction as a way to "teach" history, we are bypassing that aesthetic stand and moving kids -- whether or not they want to be moved -- directly into the efferent. Coupled with the "problems" of historical fiction (mainly that it it is "fiction"), forcing kids into an efferent stance is not the way to develop lifetime readers. At the end of the day, I want them to read aesthetically but also question much in a book -- whether it's fiction or nonfiction -- during that reading. That questioning may come in the form of wondering if the plot is full of coincidence, if the characters ring true, or if the setting and language and actions reflect a particular period, but I think this kind of reading it must come after the aesthetic stance. And I think the tension in teaching is to allow the first and decvelop the second without letting one overpower the other.