I interviewed children’s author Philip Pullman today. I adored his Northern Lights trilogy; wrapped myself up in it during a fab New Year break in Lapland (entirely appropriate for the books!) and have interviewed him before. In both interviews, it’s very clear this is a man who is incredibly passionate about particular subjects, especially religion, writing (of course) and The State. I disagree with some of the stuff he says but I really admire this guy. He’s passionate, outspoken, really doesn’t seem to give a damn what people think and is an amazing writer. I honestly think his work will be looked back on in decades as true art in the area of children’s literature.
Today I called him to get his views on new laws that are coming into place requiring authors to be vetted before visiting schools (click here to read a BBC article about this)
He told me he thought it was ”ridiculous that we have to pay £64 to get a moral certificate from the Government. The implication that someone like the author Shirley Hughes – there’s no-one more kinder; more sweeter – can’t be trusted to be with children is ludicrous!”
He also feels the new law is a manifestation of Britain’s surveillance culture: “The default is that you shouldn’t trust people. But all of us – politicians, writers, artists – should work towards a society where the default is that a person can be trusted; that someone’s word of honour means something. But this simply isn’t happening. Society is just moving in the opposite direction.”
What’s so sad about this is that authors like Pullman have suggested they might not visit schools as a result. Part of me agrees with them. But the other part wonders whether standing up for their principles is really worth depriving children of their valuable visits? When I suggested this to Pullman, he was quick to point out the Government had done this to children, not the authors themselves. It made me wonder, if I were a published children’s author, what would I do? Truely, I think I would make a few grumbles about it but it wouldn’t stop me visiting schools.
Anyway, let’s see how this pans out. Kinda interesting though, huh?
x
4 responses so far ↓
kaliwags // July 30, 2009 at 2:22 pm |
Oh wow, what a fab job you must have!
I get Pullman’s annoyance but think I would grumble and keep visiting the schools too.
Andreya // July 30, 2009 at 3:00 pm |
WOW, what a fab job indeed!!
You get to interview Pullman!!
I didn’t know about this before – it seems the gov is trying to really limit what children (& everyone else) get exposed to – it partly even reminds me of Harry Potter books!! – When the ‘government’ was trying to drastically limit the contact of people with truth.. Yup, authors & other freethinkers are dangerous people!! /sigh/
Partly they wish to sell their own lies (eg on ‘waste to energy’ & how ‘eco’ it is!), & god forbid if others say differently!
Guess having convicted rapists or such walk around on schools without supervision wouldn’t be smart, but other than that..?
Andreya // July 30, 2009 at 3:07 pm |
Hm, I read the article & now have further questions: what about someone just introduced to kids once, couldn’t that person also abused trust? It really seems sort of incoherent..
Couldn’t just people who had records of sex offences get a stamp in their papers saying they can’t go wherever? Why does everyone else need these checks? It doesn’t seem logical..
For people who did nothing wrong it would need to be free indeed.. even if they get paid to visit a school, I mean they don’t get paid millions to visit schools..
Barry Hutchison // August 27, 2009 at 3:28 pm |
I’m going to chime in for the other side of the argument here, and risk the wrath of Pullman.
I’m a children’s author, and I have visited schools in the past (and will be visiting many more in the future). I have no problem with paying a fee so I can get a bit of paper saying I’ve been approved for school visits.
Now, at the schools I’ve been to, I’ve never once been left alone with a child. But I HAVE been alone when, two weeks later, a child from a school has stopped me in the street to talk to me about the session, or about my books.
When a teacher introduces a new person to a class, the implication to the kids is that this is a person who can be trusted. The person is no longer one of the strangers they have been warned never to talk to – they are someone the child feels as if they know, having spoken to them in a safe, controlled classroom environment.
Now, if a school is making that implication that this is a trustworthy person, I’m damn sure I want that school to be certain that person IS trustworthy. Pullman’s comment about Shirley Hughes being kind and sweet is ludicrous – how many bad people mask their true intentions behind a kind exterior. (Not that I’m suggesting Shirley Hughes is anything other than lovely, but you know what I mean).
When I visit a school, half a dozen of the kids I’ve spoken to will e-mail me, or comment on my website, or add me on Facebook, so even if an author only visits a school once, he or she is beginning a relationship with the children, which could easily be continued away from prying eyes.
So in all honesty I fail to see what the problem is. Grow up, get vetted, and get back to the job of encouraging kids to read and write.