Why animals show up in stories when there is NO way they could ever do the things they do

(From my original Blogspot)

I've been thinking a bit lately about animals and how they relate to children in literature and in play. First I'll address my thoughts on animals in literature.

If you ever take a quick survey on illustrated children's literature, you will probably not fail to be surprised, as I am, with how many books feature animals as their main characters (of which mice and frogs often predominate). What motivates authors to choose animals as the main character? Why not just admit that our audience is humans and write about humans?

I believe that animals are frequently chosen as main characters in children's literature because of their flexibility and range of options for behavior within the story line. For instance, an animal could live on its own, yet still maintain naive ideas about how to operate in the world. Sponge Bob (my favorite, although not exactly "literature") is an example of this. You can't really tell if he is an adult or a kid because he maintains characteristics of each. Both adult and child-like characteristics at play simultaneously allows children to identify with the main character while also seeing through their eyes what it would be like to act in more mature ways. Arnold Lobel does a magnificent job of this with his Frog and Toad (and other) characters.

Observing my four-year-old daughter at play with her herd of plastic dinosaurs, I was recently struck with the flexibility in options that animals offer children. Over the past few weeks, her dinosaurs have completed many various scenarios in her imagination. They get stuck in mud, run on a treadmill, and lay eggs. The lamp is a mountain, the bucket is a nest; they dance and sing, they hide and fight. It seems to me that the animal is not necessarily an "animal" in my daughters mind, as it is a blank living form onto which she projects what she wishes to explore.

My daughter has small dolls, but some of them come with "demands" based on their design. Their flashy hair and clothes silently insist that you pretend for them to go shopping or get their hair done. I don't believe that a lot of flexibility is available in a toy that already has choices made for it, such as how old the doll looks, what her attitude (coy, rebellious, etc.) might be, and so forth. Polly Pocket can only be played with in a few limited ways. But my daughter's dinosaurs, which I need to point out are very basic, cheap dinosaurs (their generic looks encourage greater imagination)have worn play-doh "jewelry" one moment, and then gone out on a hiking expedition the next.

In conclusion, I believe animals offer children a way to project themselves in fantasy onto a living creature without the same boundaries that a human character would require. For that reason alone, I believe that animals have an important place in children's literature and in children's pretend.