Already on the shelf: Queer readings of award-winning children’s literature

Ryan, Caitlin R., & Hermann-Wilmarth, Jill M. (2013). Already on the shelf: Queer readings of award-winning children’s literature. Journal of Literacy Research, 45(2), 142-172.


Throughout my reading of this interesting article, I was burdened by my own struggles to wrap my mind around the terminology the authors used to describe their theoretical stance, specifically the terms “queer” and its verb form, “queering”. I recognize that these terms are used today in academic circles to refer to a certain type of lens for examining literature, and are not seen as derogatory terms within that context. Looking at literature through this lens involves “disrupting” categories used in society that have become normalized, especially gender categories like “boy” and “girl” and the conception of mom-dad-children as the only “normal” family, but not necessarily limited to gender categories. A “queer” view looks at literature through the eyes of anyone who is different from the typically accepted norm, or anyone who is in any way “strange”.

I know all this in my head, but as a person who grew up in the 60s and 70s when these terms were used as the most hurtful kinds of slurs, and also as a person who built a career in education in the 80s and 90s when we really worked to identify and eliminate hurtful language from our vocabularies, I found the “queer” vocabulary quite uncomfortable, and even jarring, though I essentially agreed with everything the authors had to say here. I found myself wondering if embracing derogatory terminology is a way of disrupting and disempowering those words, similar to what happens when members of certain racial groups use racist words to refer to members of groups with whom they share the same ethnic identification. They can use that word among themselves, but an outsider dare not do so. As a woman who identifies as heterosexual, I do not really feel I have the right to speak or write about “queer readings”, though the authors of this article probably did not intend to exclude anyone from the important discussion they have contributed to here. As an educator I can, however, feel more comfortable discussing how we can combat the problem of categorizing people in hurtful ways by facilitating subversive readings of children’s books, readings that aim to disrupt those “normative” concepts and categories. I can write about readings that attempt to show us the range of human difference, and that challenge anyone’s right to put anyone else’s identity into neat boxes. That is the kind of thinking the authors here advocate, and I agree completely, though the descriptors they use bothered me throughout my reading of the article.

I never got completely beyond this difficulty, so the impact of the article was probably less than it could have been for me. Still, I took a lot away to chew on. What makes this article especially useful to elementary teachers is that the examples the authors used are well-known, award-winning children’s books, books that are found in practically every elementary school library. They use those books as a framework to describe and give examples of what a “queer” reading of children’s literature would look and sound like in an elementary classroom, with actual discussion prompts suggested for each book. The four books that are used as examples are discussed using four different approaches: page-by-page, holistic, thematic, and gendered analysis.

Selecting familiar, accepted books rather than books with overt lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender themes (which the authors accurately note would probably not be allowed in most of today’s elementary classrooms), and providing discussion prompts which sound like they could be used with actual children will help teachers in elementary classrooms understand and implement the ideas the authors have developed, if those teachers can get beyond the words the authors use to describe the approach. Of the four approaches, I think the holistic and thematic approaches will appeal most to elementary teachers. The page-by-page analysis seems somewhat more abstract and symbolic and may seem more difficult, and gendered analysis seems a bit more dangerous. Holistic and thematic analysis, though, sound like something teachers might feel more comfortable trying. These approaches seem to me most likely to get some important discussions about how we relate to other people going in classrooms.

That needs to happen, and though it may be happening in some homes, I think schools do need to take a leadership role and become change agents when it comes to what are unquestioningly assumed as “normal” ways of acting and being. The kinds of discussions described here are important, and would be a way of promoting understanding and acceptance of all people, something I am afraid is still lacking in many school settings. As I think about this further, I realize that teachers will need to learn to have these kinds of norm-disruptive discussions themselves before they will be able to have them effectively and confidently with children. The authors of this article provide ideas and tools that could help start that process.