Happy 250th Birthday, Jane Austen: Adaptions for Children You Never Imagined

“Jane Austen is the pinnacle to which all other writers aspire” –J. K. Rowling

It was a fact universally acknowledged that twelve was the age to attack the novels of Jane Austen until the mid-1990s, when Baby Einstein began catering to the tiger mothers of toddlers.  It is probably no coincidence that since then the number of  introductions to the life and works of Jane Austen for children has exploded–along with the starry film adaptations for fans and families. For the last decade, the firm Babylit has been dedicated to the proposition that classics of Western European literature can be condensed to twelve leaves of “recycled, 100% post-consumer waste, FSC-certified papers or on paper produced from sustainable PEFC-certified forest/controlled wood source.”  Compare the promotional material about the individual titles on the Babylit website to the actual redactions, and the results prove to be not entirely happy.

Sense & Sensibility: an Opposites Primer. Layton, Utah: Gibbs Smith, [2013]. (Cotsen)

Sense & Sensibility

The story of the Dashwood sisters, which revolves around opposites, a staple of the board book genre,  ought to have been a congenial assignment.  According to the blurb on the website, the pairing of characters and places will “launch a literary education for your brilliant child” by encouraging him or her to “observe the life and loves of the Dashwood sisters…Learn the difference between big Norland Park and little Barton Cottage, happy Mr. Willoughby and sad Colonel Brandon, while hoping that one day Elinor and Marianne will leave their single days behind them and celebrate worthy marriages.”  Redactor Allison Oliver expects plot details connecting the pairs of opposites to be supplied by the adult readers presumed to know the novel like the backs of their hands.  Unaccountably the Dashwood sisters are not introduced until the second to last opening and when they are, they are identified as two single girls, not as sisters with opposite personalities. Their differences are symbolized by Elinor’s holding a copy of the 1792 Sensible Quarterly  and Marianne a stem of droopy flowers.  The identity of the grooms on the facing page illustrating “Married” hardly matters, since there is nothing about the courtships.

Emma: an Emotions Primer. Layton, Utah: Gibbs Smith, [2016]. (Cotsen)

Emma

The hook for Babylit’s Emma is emotions, not class dynamics in the small village of Highbury.  The website blurb assures prospective customers that “Your little one will learn about the meddling Emma Woodhouse, who takes it upon herself to become the village matchmaker, creating all sorts of feelings in others.” The feelings’ are color-coded by iIllustrator Jennifer Adams according to conventional psychological and aesthetic associations, similar to Mary O’Neill’s Hailstones and Halibut Bones: Adventures in Poetry and Color.  Harriet is “sad,” with tears streaming down her turquoise face; the “angry” Mr. Elton is as red as a fire truck; hot pink denotes that Mr. Knightly is “loved;” the cheeks of “tired” Jane Fairfax are dyed deep purple.  As with Sense and Sensibility, the book’s website blurb suggests a way of connecting the discontinuous openings, but that helpful copy appears nowhere in the book. Even the cleverest of improvisors may not succeed in figuring out a way of making toddlers as well-disposed as the author towards the “excited” saffron-yellow Emma, if and when they eventually meet her in the novel.

Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice. Layton, UT: Gibbs Smith, 2017. (Cotsen)

By increasing the trim size and number of words, Stephanie Clarkson’s Babylit Storybook of Pride and Prejudice promises highlights such as “elegant balls, surprise proposals, and a visit to Pemberley are just a few events to look forward to in this story about appearances, misunderstandings, and love. Quotes from the original text are woven throughout this retelling.” For Mr. Collins’ surprise proposal, Clarkson did not rise to the challenge of crafting an explanation of the entailed estate and without this critical bit of backstory, his motivation for the pursuit of Lizzy is quite puzzling. The only reason he is needed to advance the story is his fortuitous connection with Mr. Darcy through his patroness the Lady Catherine de Bourgh.

Lizzy Bennet’s Diary: 1811-1812. Somerville, Massachusetts: Candlewick Press, 2014. (Cotsen)

Churlish old Janeites might condemn Babylit’s concept-driven board books with some justice as primers that serve up confused ideas, as proof that  prereaders cannot be spoon fed these exquisitely written novels about those benighted times when women’s fates, for better or worse, hung upon the marriages they made.

Lizzy Bennet’s Diary.

The good news is that it is possible create an accurate, lively introduction to an Austen novel.  Marcia William’s Lizzy Bennet’s Diary (2014) disproves the idea that all  juvenile adaptations of Pride and Prejudice are doomed to failure.  Retold from Elizabeth’s perspective, the story aimed at 8 to 12-year-olds is adorably high-spirited without being cloying and long enough to give the reader the opportunity to laugh Mr. Collins as he searches for a wife, watch Wickham dash those favorable early expectations, and be surprised by the gradual revelation of Mr. Darcy’s noble character. Purists can certainly object that Williams in repacking the novel takes too many liberties adding new material, but most of the details add period flavor without distorting the plot–Lizzy’s sketches of embroidery designs for Mr. Bennet’s new waistcoat, a recipe for chamomile hair wash or the bits of ephemera and letters pasted in a la Jolly Postman.

By the way, Williams is not the only writer to pull off a triumph.  Several biographies for children about Austen are in print,  but they are rather dreary.  Very satisfactory alternatives are available in picture books by veteran children’s book author Deborah Hopkinson, the other by novelist Lisa Pliscou.

Two illustrators imagine little Jane in her father’s library. Lower by Qin Leng for Hopkinton’s Ordinary, Extraordinary Jane Austen (2018), the upper by Jen Corage for Lisa Pliscou’s Brave Jane Austen (2018). Brave Jane Austen. New York: Christy Ottaviano Books, Henry Holt and Company, 2018. (Cotsen)

Ordinary, Extraordinary Jane Austen. New York, NY: Balzer + Bray, [2018]. (Cotsen)

While they may not pack quite as much information about Austen’s quiet life as Sarah Fabiny’s Who Was Jane Austen, the writing has more verve and the color illustrations more sparkle.   They give a much better idea of why Austen has more readers now than she did during her lifetime.

Who was Jane Austen? New York: Penguin Workshop, an imprint of Penguin Random House, [2017]. (Cotsen)

 

Who Invented the Stuffed Animal?

That honor belongs to Margarete Steiff (1847-1909), an indomitable German woman from the town of Giengen am Brenz near Ulm.  At eighteen months, she contracted polio, which left her legs crippled and right arm seriously disabled.  There were signs early on that she was determined to find ways to work around her physical disability.  Being musical, she mastered the zither instead of becoming frustrated when the violin and piano proved too difficult.   In spite of being very clumsy with her needle at first, she persevered until she mastered the craft of sewing.  She was the first in Giengen to purchase a sewing machine, carefully modified so she could operate it on the left.

A born entrepreneur, she designed a line of felt petticoats sold at her dressmaking shop: to fill orders she was obliged to hire more employees. In 1880 a pattern for a felt pincushion in a magazine inspired her to make little stuffed elephants, which were given away to children as toys, not tools.  Before long she decided to produce them in quantity, add new animals to the line, and issue a catalogue.  The enterprise did so well that in 1893 the workforce was expanded and a factory building opened.  The firm began to exhibit its products at the Leipzig Toy Fair and Harrod’s began selling Steiff figures in 1895.

Margarete’s nephew Richard, who studied at the Stuttgart Kunstgewerbeschule [School of Arts and Crafts], joined the business in 1897.  New designs were suggested by the extensive sketches of bears and other animals he made in Stuttgart.   By 1903, the Steiff company built a new factory with glass curtain walls, a landmark in the history of modern architecture. Because the women workers inside it were visible,  the building flooded with natural light was nicknamed the “Jungenfrauenaquarium”—the young ladies’ aquarium.Because the story of how Steiff invented the teddy bear and went on to establish itself as an international manufacturer of children’s dreams is widely available elsewhere, I’ll skip ahead to the 1950s and highlight two Steiff catalogues acquired for the collection.  They were available at Blinn’s, 64 Cannon Street, Bridgeport, Connecticut.  Promotional brochures like these are invaluable documentation of how children’s material culture developed during the mid-twentieth century.  Even though Cotsen does not collect stuffed animals, the catalogues provide information about Steiff’s product range, pricing, and marketing, as well as clues for its consumer appeal.Printed in Germany for the English-speaking market, the 14-page pamphlets show in full color dozens of stuffed creatures, felt miniatures, dolls, and hand puppets.  The pictures may be much smaller than ones typically found on a website like FAO Schwartz or Selfridge’s, but what they lack in detail, they make up in personality.  While the stuffed animals can be arranged by category or type, often a variety of animals are composed into mischievous little vignettes.  The chase scenes, stand-offs between different parties, little ones running away from big ones, were perhaps intended as suggestions for imaginative play with the Steiff zoo.

Actual toys confirm how well the company was maintaining the founder’s  quality standards five decades out.  The animals in my small childhood collection acquired in the early 1960s are pictured in the catalogs. Although never stored according to best practices, they would look even better with a little cleaning.  The bodies of glossy mohair plush  were so carefully constructed of numerous pieces that they still stand up. The beaver is probably the best example of the efforts made to create an appealing figure.  The head swivels and the front legs can be spread away from the body.  Shaded plush was used for the head, front legs, and belly, while the back is covered with a fabric of stiff prickles.   The teeth, inside of the mouth, paws, and tail are all felt.  The eyes are black glass and the nose is hand stitched.  It should have the name tag attached to its tummy and a second tag with the Steiff name and logo fastened with a metal button in the ear, but I carefully removed them, unaware that this act of vandalism would lower their future value.

All this is to explain why Steiff stuffed animals have always been a true luxury brand: the 13-inch Jumbo elephant in the 1958 catalog was $17.00, a price adjusted for inflation in 2025 translates into buying power of $190.00.   Twenty or so years ago, FAO Schwartz displayed recumbent lions and tigers the size of German shepherds which probably cost in the thousands.  The brand is still prestigious, but the product lines have been changed, with more characters from modern franchises like Peanuts, Harry Potter, Batman outnumbering the creatures from the forests, rivers, mountains, and farmyards.  Nothing like my beaver is to be had except on Etsy, Ebay, and Ruby Lane.

Compare the Steiff animals with the deconstructed stuffties and plushies available in a good mall’s toy store.   Many are as soft and squishy as a pillow, which makes them much more attractive to some children than the stiff substantial Steiffs. The rounded, simple shapes of the modern stuffed animals are cuddly, colorful, and cute, but displayed on store shelves they look more bland and generic than the little pictures of the Steiffs in the 1950s catalogs. Of course they were intended to prompt the desire to purchase and possess, but the fact that they neither look nor feel  disposable says, “Keep me.”