论读者反应批评下的儿童文学美学特质-以《夏洛的网》为例 

AestheticFeaturesofChildren’sLiteraturefromthePerspectiveofReader-Responsecriticism——TakingCharlotte’sWebforanExample论读者反应批评下的儿童文学美学特质——以《夏洛的网》为例ChapterILiteratureReview1.1Children’sLiterature1.1.1DefinitionofChildrenandChildren’sLiteratureFirstofall,whatis“child”?Wikipediagivessuchadefinition,whichis,biologically,achild(plural:children)isahumanbeingbetweenthestagesofbirthandpuberty,orbetweenthedevelopmentalperiodofinfancyandpuberty.Thelegaldefinitionofchildgenerallyreferstoaminor,otherwiseknownasapersonyoungerthantheageofmajority.CollinsDictionarysaysthat“achildisahumanbeingnotyetanadult”.Besides,accordingtheConventionontheRightsoftheChild,childreferstopersonwhounder18yearsold.Therefore,aconclusioncanbedrawnaboutwhatischild.Thatischildrenrefertopeopleagingfrom0to18.What’smore,itisreasonabletoelicitJeanPiagethere,anoutstandingSwisspsychologist,inaccordancewithhisresearchonchildren’spsychologicaldevelopment,haveproposedCognitive-developmentaltheory.Inthistheory,thecognitivedevelopmentperiodaredividedintofourstages,whichare(1)Sensorimotorstage0-2,(2)Preoperationalstage2-7,(3)Concreteoperationalstage7-11/12,(4)Formaloperationalstage11/12-(Baidubaike)InaccordancewithCognitive-developmentaltheory,childrenabove7yearsoldcanbasicallyrecognizethingsandknowhowtoread.Thus,thispaperisgoingtosetchildrenabove7yearsoldasacardinalresearchobjects.Children’sliteratureismainlyreadbyminorsundertheageof18.Itshouldkeepinlinewiththephysicalandmentalprocessandaestheticconsciousnessofchildren’sgrowthstage,andshouldalsohaveapositiveimpactonchildren’sphysicalandmentaldevelopment.Thecontentofchildren’sliteratureshouldprimarilysuitthechildren’spursuits.Furthermore,thegoalthatchildren’sliteratureshouldreachisthatitshowsaharmoniouscombinationbetweenrealityandthemesthebookrepresents.Duetothoughtsdifferencesbetweenadultsandminors,children’sliteraturecanbedividedintothreetypes,whichareinfantliterature,childhoodliteratureandjuvenileliterature.Eachoftheirproductionpresentsdifferentcharacteristics.Actually,intheearlyperiodofworldliterature,thereisnoprominentdiscriminationbetweenchildren’sliteratureandadultliterature,andnospecialconcerntochildren’sliterature.Itwasnotuntiltheperiodwhenhumanagriculturewenttoindustry,thespecificliteraryformsofchildren’sliteraturegraduallyappeared,whichwerehandeddownfromtheWesttotheeastandpaidattentiontobythewholeworld.Amongthem,somerepresentativeworksofwriterssuchasAndersen,CarolandMarkTwainhavebeenhandeddowntothisday.ThesourceofthedevelopmentofmodernliteraturecanbetracedbacktoliteraturerevolutionguidedbyprecursorslikeLiangQichao.IntheearlystageoftheMay4thMovement,LuXun,ChenDuxiu,HuShiandotherwriterspromotedthedevelopmentofchildren’sliterature.BingXin,YeShengtaoandMaoDunhavemadegreatcontributionstothecreationofliterature.Amongworkstheyfinished,Scarecrow,writtenbyYeShengtao,isconsideredtobetheiconicworkofChinesechildren’sliterature,andthenthecreationandresearchofChinesechildren’sliteratureisbecomingmature.Thefundamentalpurposeofchildren'sliteratureistoguidechildren'shealthygrowthandprovideaspiritualplaceforchildren'sgrowth.Atpresent,thefastdevelopmentofchildren'sliteraturemakesitbroadlypublishedonmaterialssuchasmagazineandentertainingmaterials.Furthermore,thetypesofchildren’sliteraturearebeingdiverse,forexample,cartoonsandnovels.1.1.2StandardsofChildren’sLiteratureThecriteriaofchildren’sliterarycriticismarethemeasureofchildren'sliteraryworks.SearchingonthebiggestChinesecyclopediawebsiteBaidubaike,thisthesisfoundtheyarejudgedby（1）whetheritreflectsrealsociallife（2）whetheritcultivateschildren’smorals（3）whetheritboastsinterestofchildren（4）whethertheimageofartisvividandlively（5）whetheritenjoysbeautyofform（6）whetheritfitswiththeageofreader（7）whetheritbenefitschildrenfrombroadeninghorizonandinspiringthecraveforknowledge1.1.3AestheticFeaturesofChildren’sLiteratureGenerallystartingfromthementalcharacteristicsandgrowingneedofchildren,researchersofchildren'sliteraturecharacterizeitbyinnocence,childishness,lucidity,magicandentertainment,whicharewidelyrecognized.ChildishnessandInnocenceChildishnessandinnocenceinchildren'sliteratureareshowninbothcontentandform.Fromtheaspectofcontent,theygenerallyfeaturechildren'spsychology,innocentlife,andnaivepersonality.Intermsofform,inabroadsense,itslanguage,narrativeapproach,plotdesigningchangeinawaywhichproducesasenseofinnocenceandchildishness.EntertainmentChildrenmostdislikeboringstoriesandboringnarration.Theyneedsomethinginteresting.Therefore,comparedwithadultliterature,children'sliteratureisalwaysfullofmorehumorandpleasure.Thebeautyofentertainmentisexpressedintheplayofhumor,farce,oramusement,whichexpressesthecontentofaestheticsignificance.MagicThepsychologicalandphysicalcharacteristicsofchildrendeterminethatchildrenaremoreactive.Children'snatureembodiesfulloffantasyandexploration.Theyarefondofnoveltyandyearnforextraordinarymagicalthings.Therefore,children'sliteratureworks,especiallymyths,shouldopenthewingsoffantasy,bringchildrenintoamagicalrealmbeyondtimeandspace,andletthemflyfreely,soastosatisfytheirstrongcuriosityandthirstforknowledge.LucidityInchildren'sliterature,luciditycanbeshownincontentandlanguage.Childrencannotunderstandtooflowerylanguage.Therefore,whatchildren'sliteraturerequiredistodescribecommonthingsinourdailylife,withoutanyearth-shakingscenes.Thelanguageitusesshouldnotbeverygorgeousanddifficulttounderstand,butacombinationofsomesimplewords.Generallyspeaking,thelanguageitusesisplainandcomprehensible.Thereisaneedtomentionthatthesefourbasiccharacteristicsarenotabsoluteinliterature,andmanypeoplehaveexpressedthemfromdifferentperspective,forexample,HuangTianfu（2018）,associateprofessorofNingxiaPreschoolEducationCollege,hasadvocated“beautyofhappiness”onLiteraryReview.ProfessoranddoctoralsupervisorinBeijingNormalUniversity,WangQuangen（2006）hasexplainedthe“beautyofkindness”inchildren’sliteratureinhis“OfBasicAestheticFeaturesofChildren’sLiterature”.Thus,wecanseethatthereisnoabsolutedefinitionofaestheticfeaturesofchildren’sliterature.Peoplecanproposedifferentopinionsaboutit.so,thisthesiscouldalsobereasonableondiscoveringsomeotherfeaturesguidedbytheuniversalverifiedcharacteristics.ChapterⅡReader-ResponseCriticismM.H.Abrams,inhisTheMirrorandLamp,whichwaspublishedin1953,hasdividedfactorsofliterarycriticismintofourparts,whichareworld,work,artisanandappreciator.Accordingtohim,criticismwhatfocusonworkitselfisobjectiveapproach;onauthor,expressiveapproach;oncontext,mimeticapproach;andonreaders,pragmaticapproach.Inaccordancewithwhatillustratedabove,literarycriticismhasexperiencedfourstages:emphasizing(1)ontexts:newcriticism,structuralism,post-structuralism,etc.(2)onauthors:phenomenology,psychoanalyticalcriticism,etc.(3)oncontext:feminism,ecologicalcriticism,post-colonialcriticism,etc.(4)onreaders:reader-responsecriticism/receptiontheory.Onthebasisofphenomenologyandhermeneutictheory,reader-responsecriticism,takingrepresentativesespeciallylikeHansRobertJauss,WolfgangIserandStanleyFish,advocatesthemajorrolereadersplayinginreadingprocess.Furthermore,ithighlightstheprincipleof“returningtothereader”.Itholdstheviewthatmeaningofanyliterarytextisactuallyuncertain,whichiscalled“indeterminacy”.Intermsofreader-responsecriticism,textitselfcannotdemonstrateanymessagewithouttheparticipantofreaders’readingactivity.Inthisview,thereexistsa“blank”inatext,andwhatcanfillitarereaders’sensesandexperiences.Viathesecourse,the“indeterminacy”turnsdetermined,andthus,agenuineworkfinished.Denyingtheabsoluteroleofauthorsandworksplay,reader-responsecriticismismeaningful.Becauseitsacknowledgementonreaders’statusmakereaders,whohavebeenignoredsuchalongtimeinliteraryhistory,gainaproperseatinliterarynow.2.1TheoreticalBasisofReader-ResponseCriticismAnythingexistswithbasis,andreader-responsecriticismdoesso.Forexample,Archimedes,aGreekmathematician,physicist,engineer,inventorandastronomer,anticipatedmoderncalculusandanalysisbyapplyingconceptsofinfinitesimalsandthemethodofexhaustiontodepriveandrigorouslyprovearangeofgeometricaltheorems.HismonumentalachievementsgavegreatinspirationstoIssacNewtonandAlbertEinstein,whoseinfluenceisimmortaltohumanbeing.Literarily,

JamesJoyce,VirginiaWoolf,WilliamFaulkner,thesegreatliterarymasters,hadexpressedtheirspecificviewsandsensesonliterarycreationandexploration.Apartfromwhatillustratedabove,thepreconditionsofreader-responsecriticismaregenerallyknownasphenomenologyandmodernhermeneutics.EdmundGustavAlbrechtHusserl,aGermanphilosopher,startedphenomenologyschoolin19thcentury.Headvocatesthatthereisneitheranobjectwithoutconsciousnessnor“pureconsciousness”withoutobject.Thusheholdstheslogan“turningbacktofacts“andphenomenologyshouldput“phenomenon”asitsstatingpoint.Husserlattemptedtosetasideallquestionsabouttherealityofobjectiveandsubjectivethingsbyusingtheepoch-principleofdescriptivephenomenology,andtoexcludealljudgmentsofexistencefromconsiderationwithbrackets.Hethoughtthatthisphilosophicalpositioncouldnotonlyavoidtheempiricismofthenaturalsciencesatthattime,butalsoavoidthehistoricalrelativismofthespiritualsciencesinGermanyatthattime.TheobjectofHusserlphenomenologyfocusesonconsciousnessitself,especiallyintentionalactivitiesorintentionalrelations.Intentionrelationincludesbothnoesisandnoema.Anotherrepresentative,MartinHeidegger,aneminentthinkerinthehistoryofwesternphilosophy,hassaidthathumanliveinitsownlanguage,andhumanutteranceisthe“home”ofhuman,whichdemonstratesthesubjectiveparticipantofobjective.Anothertheorythatinfluencedthefundingofreader-responsecriticismisHans-GeorgGadamer.Heregardedaestheticsasapartofphilosophicalhermeneutics,believingthatartrevealsourexistenceandthatartandbeautyareabasicwayofexistence.Artisticexperiencesurpassesthenaturalscientificmethodandisclosetophilosophicalandhistoricalexperience,thusbecomingthestartingpointofhermeneutics.Atthesametime,everyworkofartshouldbeunderstoodandunderstoodastheontologicalexistenceofthewholeworld.Theunderstandingcharacteristicsofaestheticexperienceandartisticexperienceindicatesomehermeneuticphenomenon.2.2RepresentativesandtheKeyConceptsAestheticReceptionisestablishedbyKonstanzSchoolwhoareWolfganglser,ManfredFuhumann,HobertJauss,WolfgangPreisendanzandJuriiStriedter.Amongthem,WolfganglserandHobertJaussarethemostsignificantrepresentatives.Furthermore,AestheticsreceptionisalsogreatlydevelopedinAmerica.Fishisassociatedwithpostmodernism,attimestohisirritation.Insteadheviewshimselfasanadvocateofanti-foundationalism.Heisalsoviewedasbeinganinfluenceintheriseanddevelopmentofreader-responsetheory.Therefore,thispaperisgoingtoformulateJuassandFishandtheirmaincontributiontoreader-responsecriticismbelow.2.2.1HansRobertJaussandHorizonsofExpectationGermanliterarytheorist,HansRobertJauss,bestknownforestablishingReceptionAesthetics,togetherwithhiscolleagueWolfgangIser,heisthefounderoftheKonstanzSchool,whichhashadasignificantinfluenceonAnglo-Americanreader-responsecriticism.BorninGöppingen,Germany,JaussstudiedinEsslingenandGeislingen.In1939hejoinedthearmyandsawserviceontheRussianFront.Hewasbrieflyimprisonedattheendofthewarasanenemycombatant,thusdelayinghisuniversitystudiesuntil1948.HecompletedhisundergraduateandpostgraduatedegreesattheUniversityofHeidelberg,graduatingin1957withadissertationonMarcelProust.Between1959and1966,JaussheldjobsinMünsterandGiessen.In1966,hewasinvitedtojointhenewlyestablishedUniversityofKonstanztosetupthesubjectareaofliterarystudies.HedidthisincollaborationwithseveralcolleaguesandtheendresultbecameknownastheKonstanzSchool.Jauss'sowninaugurallecturein1967,entitledasLiteraryHistoryasaChallengetoLiteraryTheory,wasseminalinlaunchingwhathedescribesasReceptionAesthetics,whichisamodeofliteraryhistoryinterestedintheinteractionbetweenreadersandwriters.Hismostimportantworksinclude:TowardanAestheticofReception(1982)andAestheticExperienceandLiteraryHermeneutics(1982).ItisworthmentioningthatalthoughJaussmentioned“HorizonofExpectation”severaltimes,hisworkdidnotgiveacleardefinitionoftheconceptofhorizonofexpectation,whichleftabroadspaceforotherscholarstodefinetheterm.Manyscholarshavedefinedtheconceptofexpectationhorizon.Andtheycanbeconcludeasthehorizonofexpectationisapsychologicalmechanismgeneratedthroughtheinteractionbetweenthereader'spreviousrecognitionandthetext'spotentialconstructiontoexperience.Inaccordancewithhorizonofexpectation,ifaliteraryworkhasnoparticipantofreaders,itwillhavenomeaningatall.Onlyifhavingtheinteractingprocessofreaders,worksplayaroleinreader’shorizonofexpectationwhichischangeableconstantly.Bythisitmeansonlyhelpedbyreaders,aliteraryworkgetsenrichedandshowsitsvalueand“life”.Ifthereisnoreader,anyworkwillloseitsvalueandmeaning.Thisiscalledhistorianessenceofliteratureinhorizonofexpectation.Furthermore,Yausspointsoutthatbeforereadersreadaconcreteliterarywork,everyofthemhasalreadyenjoyedastatuswheretheypossessinnatecomprehensionandknowledge.ThereaderisthecoreofReceptionAesthetics,anditsstatuscannotbeignored.InJauss'sview,literaryhistoryactuallyisthe“literaryhistoryofreaders”,believingthatliteraryworksareessentiallydestinedtobecreatedfortherecipients,sothatthereadersarepromotedtotheprimarypositioninhim.TheDirectedExpectationandCreativeExpectationthencometobediscussedbelow.Whenareaderisdoingareadingactivity,hisoutlookonlifeandworth,lifeexperience,levelofappreciationandsomethingelsejointogether,collideandintegratewitheachother.Somethingaccordingwithitsexperiencewillbereceivedasapartofindividualexpectation,somethingdiscordinggetsexpelled.Infact,thisisapsychologicalexpectation,whichplayanagreementandasetroleinreader’sreadingactivity.The“psychologicalset”is“reader’sinnateexperiencetoliteraryworks.”Anotherinfluence“HorizonsofExpectation”onreadersisCreativeExpectation.Unlikedirectedexpectation,creativeexpectationdoesnotrepresentpassiveinformationinputonthelevelofschema.However,itconstantlybreaksthesetofthinking;adjustthestructureoftheirownexpectation,withanopenattitudetoacceptthethingswhichareinconsistentwiththepreviousexpectation.Becausenoreaderwillalwayslikethekindofworkswhoseplotscaneasilybededucedfromthebeginningandwhosestoryismonotony.Thispsychologicalhabitofpursuingchangesandinnovationsistheresultofavoidingaestheticfatigue.Thisexpectation,asaninternalneedofreading,isinoppositiontothedirectedexpectation.Intheprocessofpursuingnovelplots,somecontraryexpectationisstirred.InAestheticReception,thereexistsamentaldistanceinaestheticactivitybetweenreader’sestablishedhorizonofexpectationandtheworks.Thechangeofexpectationofreaderstoaworkisalwaysfinishedbydenyinginnateandpreviousexpectations,throughwhichnewexperiencejoinsinconsciousnessandnewhorizon.Atthehistoricalmomentinwhichaliteraryworkappears,theexpectationhorizonofitsfirstreaderissatisfaction,transcendence,disappointmentorrefutation,whichconstitutesthemeasureofaestheticvalue.Atahistoricalmomentofitsappearing,whetheritsatisfies,transcends,disappointsorrefutesthefirstreader’shorizonofexpectationcreateabenchmarktoaestheticvalue.Whatdeterminesartisticvalueofliteraryworksaredistancesbetweenhorizonofexpectationandworks,anddistancesbetweentheconversantinnateexperienceand“changesofhorizon”neededinreceptiontonewworks.Shorterthedistanceis,readerscanreceiveiteasier.Reversely,someofthebestworksdidnotwinawideaudiencewhentheywerefirstpublished.Becausetheycompletelyreversethereader'soriginalhorizonofexpectation,thereadercanonlyadapttotheworkaftercontinuousimprovementanddevelopment.Whenthereader'sexperienceofprevioussuccessfulworkshasbecomeoutdatedandlostitsappreciability.Thenewexpectationhasparticipatedinamoreextensivecategory.Bythistime,ithasthemeritstochangethestandardsofbeauty,whichisconsideredashorizonofexpectation.2.2.2StanleyFishandInterpretiveCommunitiesStanleyFish,infullStanleyEugeneFish,(bornApril19,1938,Providence,RhodeIsland,U.S.),Americanliterarycriticparticularlyassociatedwithreader-responsecriticism,accordingtowhichthemeaningofatextiscreated,ratherthandiscovered,bythereader;withneopragmatism,wherecriticalpracticeisadvancedovertheory;andwiththeinterpretiverelationshipsbetweenliteratureandlaw.InSurprisedbySin:TheReaderin“ParadiseLost”(1967),FishsuggestedthatthesubjectofJohnMilton’smasterpieceisinfactthereader,whoisforcedtoundergospiritualself-examinationwhenledbyMiltondownthepathtakenbyAdamandEveandSatan.InIsThereaTextinThisClass?:TheAuthorityofInterpretiveCommunities(1980),heundertakesaprofoundreexaminationofsomeofcriticism’smostbasicassumptions.Hepenetratestothecoreofthemoderndebateaboutinterpretation,explodesnumerousmisleadingformulations,andoffersastunningproposalforanewwayofthinkingaboutthewayweread.Fishfurtherdevelopedhisreader-as-subjecttheory.TheessaysinDoingWhatComesNaturally:Change,Rhetoric,andthePracticeofTheoryinLiteraryandLegalStudies(1989)discussanumberofaspectsofliterarytheory.Fish’ssubsequentworksincludedThere’sNoSuchThingAsFreeSpeech,andIt’saGoodThing,Too(1994),ProfessionalCorrectness:LiteraryStudiesandPoliticalChange(1995),TheTroublewithPrinciple(1999),andHowMiltonWorks(2001).HowtoWriteaSentence:AndHowtoReadOneandWinningArguments:WhatWorksandDoesn’tWorkinPolitics,theBedroom,theCourtroom,andtheClassroomwerepublishedin2011and2016,respectively.Fishbeginsbyexaminingtherelationbetweenareaderandatext,arguingagainsttheformalistbeliefthatthetextaloneisthebasic,knowable,neutral,andunchangingcomponentofliteraryexperience.Butinarguingfortherightofthereadertointerpretandineffectcreatetheliterarywork,heskillfullyavoidstheoldtrapofsubjectivity.Toclaimthateachreaderessentiallyparticipatesinthemakingofapoemornovelisnot,heshowsaninvitationtouncheckedsubjectivityandtotheendlessproliferationofcompetinginterpretations.Foreachreaderapproachesaliteraryworknotasanisolatedindividualbutaspartofacommunityofreaders.Inhisview,itisinterpretiveofcommunitieswhatproducemeanings.Unlikemostpeople,Fishthinkthatasentencecanbeanalyzedduringansweringthequestion“Whathavethesentencedone?”insteadof“Whathavethesentencedemonstrated?”.Inthisprocess,heemphasizesreader’sreadingactivityandproposesthatthereadingexperienceisatypeofreacttothereadingreality.Text,asanpresentationandastrategy,isanacttoitsreaderratherthanastorehousefromwhichreadersgetinformation.Therefore,headvocatesaconstantreactiveanalysisbasesonthepassingoftime,whichmeansreadersgetreactionintheprocesswhentheyreadthefirstword,thesecondword,thenthethird,thefourth……successively,thereisareactionbetweenwordsandreader’sminds.Thatisthemeaningof“Whathavethesentencedone?”InterpretiveCommunitiesStanleyputforwardtheword“InterpretiveCommunity”inhisInterpretingthe"Variorum"whichispublishedin1976.Interpretiveactivityreferstoagroupofpeopleenjoysacommoninterpretingstrategysystem.AccordingtoFish,InterpretiveCommunityisastructureofunderstandingandprovidesreadersabasewithapossibilitytoreachself-reading.JustlikeFishhasindicated,whenoneopensabook,readsitandorganizethewordsthebookshowing,ahistoricalandspecificinterpretationjoinswithone’sownunderstanding.Thatistosay,reader’sexperienceparticipatesinreadingactivityandthereexistsomecommonfeatureinreaders’interpretingactivity.Thisisactuallyanswerthequestionaboutconsistencyandstability,Theconceptof"InterpretativeCommunity"proposedbyFishinthelatestageisnotthecorrection,subversionordigestionofthethoughtofAffectiveStylisticsintheearlystage,butthecontinuationandimprovement.2.3InfluencesofReader-ResponseCriticismThereisnodoubtthatreader-responsecriticismhasbrokenupthetimewornsituationregardingtheliteraryworkandauthorastheessentialpartofaliterarycreation,butitholdstheviewthatreaderwhichwasignoredpreviouslyinliteraryfieldactuallyenjoysthemainstateofaliteraryactivity.Itnotwithstandingcontainssomedeficientideas.Someterrificstandingpointsofitcouldnotbedeniedeither.Therefore,firstofall,itboostthedevelopmentofhumanisminthispaper’sopinion.Justasexplainedbefore,peoplecanconcludethatreader-responsecriticismdonotshareasuchlonghistoryasstructuralism,post-structuralism,andfeminism,whichhasalreadyproduceslotsofsplendidwork.Thus,secondly,asanearlynoveltheory,reader-responsehasbroadentheliterarycircle.Atlast,itsinfluenceshowsinitscriticalspirit.Forcenturies,themodernscientificmethodhasbeenagreatdominanceinthefieldofnatureandincommonsense.Itallowspeopletoreckonthattheobjectiveapproachisequallyinvincibleinallfields.Sointheacademiccriticism,thepursuitofscientificobjectivityinliteraturehasbecomeoneofthegoalsofwesterncriticism.So,theafterprominenceofreader-responsecriticismbecomeunusualandisworthlearning,admiringaswell.ChapterⅢACaseStudy–Charlotte’sWebinReader’sEyes3.1AnIntroductiontoCharlotte’sWebIn1953,Charlotte’sWebwontheNewberyMedalfromtheAmericanLibraryAssociation.Furthermore,in2012,SchoolLibraryJournalsponsoredasurveyofreaderswhichidentifiedCharlotte'sWebasthebestchildren'snovel(“fictionaltitleforreaders9–12”yearsold).3.1.1AnintroductiontotheAuthor–E.B.WhiteWriterE.B.WhitewasbornonJuly11,1899,inMountVernon,NewYork.WhileattendingCornellUniversity,Whiteacquiredthenickname"Andy,"whichhewasknownbyfortherestofhislife.Incollege,heservedastheeditoroftheschool'snewspaper;aftergraduatingin1921,Whitepursuedacareerinjournalismforseveralyears.HeworkedfortheUnitedPressandtheSeattleTimesbeforeeventuallylandingapositionwithTheNewYorkermagazinein1927.Fortherestofhiscareer,hewouldworkwiththisliterarypublication.Whitealsomethiswife,Katharine,aneditorandwriter,atTheNewYorker.Thecouplemarriedin1929.Hewasawardedthe1970LauraIngallsWinderMedalforhischildren’sbookStuartLittle(1945)andCharlotte’sWeb(1952),andhisthirdbookforchildren,TheTrumpetoftheSwan(1970),alsowonseveralawards.Theauthorofseventeenbooksofproseandpoetry,Mr.Whitereceivedmanydistinguishedliteraryhonors,suchasAmericanAcademyofArtsandLettersGoldMedal(1960),NationalMedalforLiterature(1971),andPulitzerPrizeSpecialCitationforLetters(1978).In1973hewaselectedtotheAmericanAcademyofArtsandLetters.InherforewordtoCharlotte'sWeb,KateDiCamilloquotesWhiteassaying,"AllthatIhopetosayinbooks,allthatIeverhopetosay,isthatIlovetheworld."[11]Whitealsolovedanimals,farmsandfarmingimplements,seasons,andweatherformats.JamesThurberdescribedWhiteasaquietmanwhodislikedpublicityandwho,duringhistimeatTheNewYorker,wouldslipoutofhisofficeviathefireescapetoanearbybranchofSchrafft'stoavoidvisitorswhomhedidn'tknow.WhitehadAlzheimer'sdiseaseanddiedonOctober1,1985,athisfarmhomeinNorthBrooklin,Maine.HeisburiedintheBrooklinCemeterybesideKatharine,whodiedin19TheMajorPlotsofCharlotte’sWebCharlotte’sWeb,writtenbyE.B.White,in1952,isanoutstandingbookinchildren’sliteraturefiled.IttellsastorybetweenapigWilburandaspiderCharlotte.Onday,inMr.Arable’sfarm,FernsavedaruntpigthatwasgoingtobekilledbyMr.Arable–Fern’sfather.Fernaccusedtheinjustice,andgainedtheopportunitytofeedthepig.FernloveditverymuchandcalledhimWilbur.Dayafterday,Wilburbecamebiggerandeatsmore.ThenhewassenttothefarmofFern’suncle,andlivedinabarn.Inthere,Wilburfeltlostandnothingaboutfriend.ThenhemetCharlotte,acleverspider.WilburwasveryhappytobefriendwithCharlotte,andenjoyedeverydaywithher.However,thereexistsafactinthefarmthateveryspringpigwillbekilledinwinter.Beingapigenjoyseverydayandcherishesthetime,hedidn'twanttodie,andthatbadnewstotallydepressedWilbur.Anxiousandnervous,Wilburneedahelp,ahelpwhichcansavehislife.