O'Sullivan, Emer. "Rose Blanche, Rosa Weiss, Rosa Blanca: A Comparative View of a Controversial Picture Book." The Lion and the Unicorn 29.2 (2005): 152-70. Project Muse. Web. 6 June 2013. Emer O’Sullivan analyzes the differences that occur in the translation of text amongst several different cultures in the picture book: Rose Blanche. While the images are unchanged (for example illustrated German words in non-German speaking countries) the text of the story is altered, and can sometimes lose its significance or become distorted from the original meaning. Sullivan continues to discuss the book’s reception in Germany, as there is a noticeable change in narration (it shifts to third person) in order to distance the reader from the controversial material. There is also additional language not present in the original publication that is added in order to make the Nazi soldiers slightly more sympathetic (“men wearing uniforms waved [to children]” (159)). There is also an added subplot not featured in the French or American editions. These changes are not simply limited to one country as the German translation, rather than the original, also influenced the Italian and Spanish translations. O’Sullivan argues that this choice draws attention to the perception of the audience’s knowledge of the events that are being depicted in the pictures. She also questions where the audience fits into the narrative, especially if the topic is as controversial as the Holocaust.
Springhall, John. “‘A Life Story for the People’? Edwin J. Brett and the London ‘Low-Life’ Penny Dreadfuls of the 1860s.” Victorian Studies 33.2 (Winter 1990): 223-246. MLA International Bibliography. Web. 12 Jan. 2011. Springhall offers a Marxist reading of the English penny dreadful. He identifies the problems associated with the term “penny dreadful,” for it has been misused and overextended, but in general, they were “cheap serialized fiction” published in the nineteenth century (224). According to Springhall, while the audience for these texts was supposedly working-class adolescents, they more likely functioned as escapism for middle-class adolescents who saw the texts as a way to vicariously engage in “criminal yet exciting escapades of homeless orphans” without having to be homeless orphans themselves (224).
Thomson-Wohlgemuth, Gaby. "About Official and Unofficial Addressing in East German Children's Literature." Children's Literature Association Quarterly 30.1 (2005): 32-52. Project Muse. Web. 6 June 2013.In this article, Gaby Thomson-Wohlgemuth identifies the large amount of sociopolitical commentary that was present during the 1980s in East Germany children’s literature, specifically picture books. She gives an account of the transition from the sophistication of books in East Germany (being primarily written for adults and laced with socialist principles) in the early 1950s and 1960s to being suddenly accessible to children. Many East German children’s literature stories coming out in the 1980s focused on “individuality, alienation, and the shortcomings of society,” (47) which were in direct opposition to the communist and socialist ideology of the region, and much more in line with West Germany’s politics. This focus, which was predominately displayed in children’s books, foreshadowed the destruction of the Berlin Wall and uniting the German people long before it actually happened. Thomson-Wohlgemuth discuses readership in terms of who the audience is for picture books. She identifies three audience groups for picture books: children, adults, and politicians, highlighting how each group is influential to society in one way or another. But one group is so important that she names them as a fourth group: children as future adults and shapers of the world. The importance of children’s literature is highlighted in this article as being a major influence in people’s lives and something that can have very serious implications on a global plane.
Tuvolt, Stephan. “Life Story of the 1860s.” Victorian Studies 33.2 (Winter 1990): 223-246. MLA International Bibliography. Web. 12 Jan. 2011. Tuvolt offers a connection between authorship, generally out-of-luck “provincial middle-class families” who, because of their social and class status, embraced their roots and created protagonists who reflected their own situations and middle-class ideologies (227). He concludes that ultimately, the texts were little more than middle-class, bourgeoisie tales wrapped in working class titles and seemed completely unaware of the lives of working-class people. In addition to his Marxist analysis, Tuvolt offers the background of Edwin Brett, who published a good share of low-life serials, the most popular of which was The Wild Boys of London; or, The Children of Night.