There are, in general, two broad theories of literature. One is that literature is meant to instruct the reader about how things ought to be: I refer to this as the idealistic theory. The other is that literature is meant to instruct the reader about how things are: I refer to this as the realistic theory. Both methods of writing, idealistic and realistic, are found throughout the centuries; however, when it comes to children’s literature, the vast majority of it is idealistic since children still need to be taught about right and wrong before they should be presented with complicated, real life situations to consider. Yet in modern times, as morality becomes “relativized” and dismissible, this traditional habit is also being challenged.

Consider as an example the distinction between the ways in which C. S. Lewis and J. K. Rowling write their children’s stories. Let us examine a simple idea, such as apologizing to someone you have wronged. Lewis, in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, writes from the idealistic tradition. When the four Pevensies finally come in to Narnia for the first time together, Susan and Peter realize that Lucy had not made up the story about her prior visits (Edmund, as you remember, already knows that, but refrains from confessing). They also realize that all the disbelief, teasing, etc. that Lucy had had to take must have hurt her feelings. The book reads:
“Peter turned at once to Lucy. ‘I apologize for not believing you,’ he said, ‘I’m sorry. Will you shake hands?’ ‘Of course,’ said Lucy, and did.” (Ch. VI)
Is this sincere, succinct, and practical exchange the probable way in which a teenage boy and his younger sister would apologize to each other? I do not wish to say that there are not children with exceptional maturity and training; nevertheless, I would say that this is not a simply realistic presentation of contrition, even for Lewis’ day and age. It is pretty clearly meant to be instructive to the children who read it.

Now consider an excerpt from Rowling’s Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Ron and Harry fight and Ron leaves Harry and Hermione to search for horcruxes on their own. There are unkind words on both sides. Later, Ron returns, and just in time to save Harry’s life. After Harry pulls himself together, this dialogue ensues:
“‘How come you’re here?’ Apparently Ron had hoped that this point would come up later, if at all. ‘Well, I’ve—you know—I’ve come back. If—’ He cleared his throat. ‘You know. You still want me.’ There was a pause, in which the subject of Ron’s departure seemed to rise like a wall between them. Yet he was here. He had returned. He had just saved Harry’s life.” (Ch. IX, pg. 372 in my pagination)
At no point in the rest of the chapter, which concludes that particular incident, and indeed, at no point in the rest of the book that I can find, does Harry make any apology to Ron for what has passed between him, or even say thank you for being saved. Ron does make an apology to Harry (pg. 378). The thoughts and conversation of these two boys is exactly as it might occur in real life – it is realistic. It does not attempt to teach the importance of an apology, or at least in no way besides omission, a technique which children are not usually able to pick up on and which I doubt Rowling intended to use as a “technique” at all.

At this point, you can probably guess what I’m going to say next. Literature for children should be idealistic, not realistic. The children must have the time to learn what is right and wrong, good and bad before they can appreciate or even safely read realistic literature. Literature is not something to be done “for its own sake” or however one wants to do it. Like everything else, it must be used in the service of good. If it is not, then it does not cease to provide service, but will surely serve the ends of the evil one.