Posted by Jonathan Labaree on February 12, 2003 at 19:08:58 from 207.5.234.19 user JLabaree.
Ed’s recent question about the Picts brings to mind a question/observation.
One of the things I find so enjoyable about the SA&Ds is their use of references to history, literature, environment, and geography. They seem to know so much about their world, their past, and their culture. They enrich their experiences by drawing on this understanding to place themselves in a complex world that is part real and part make-believe complete with their own words and codes of behavior.
“Picts and Martyrs” is a good example – the events of the story are very real (to them), but they create an additional layer of experience based on their informed imagination: the wild Picts and the captured martyrs.
As children growing up, exploring our world, we liked to know the real name for places – Bennys Ledge, Hen Island, Carver’s Market – I guess it made us feel that we were part of this place and its culture. The SA&Ds seem to want the opposite – to create their own place and hence use their own names for places, things, and even people.
My question is: Is/was it common for English children to draw on history, literature, and geography to enhance their make-believe lives or is this more a reflection of AR’s imagination and vision of the world? Would other children in the 30s and 40s recognize the references in the books?