Reviewed by: Canon Constitution and Canon Change in Children’s Literature ed. by Bettina Kümmerling-Meibauer and Anja Müller Mike Cadden (bio) Canon Constitution and Canon Change in Children’s Literature. Edited by Bettina Kümmerling-Meibauer and Anja Müller. New York: Routledge, 2017. In this recent entry in the Routledge Children’s Literature and Culture series, Bettina Kümmerling-Meibauer and Anja Müller present to the reader thirteen takes on the process as well as the product of canonization. Like Kümmerling-Meibauer and Elina Druker’s recent ChLA Edited Book Award–winning Children’s Literature and the Avant-Garde (2015), which was based on a 2012 conference of the same name, this collection grew out of an eponymous conference held at the University of Tübingen in 2014. Canon Constitution and Canon Change in Children’s Literature also shares with the previous volume a clarity of mission and a wider appeal than its title might suggest. The preface tells the reader that “This volume focuses on the (de)canonization process in children’s literature, considering the construction and cultural-historical changes of canons in different children’s literatures,” and that “Particular emphasis is given to sociological canon theories, which have so far been under-represented in canon research in children’s literature” (n. pag.). The editors’ introduction revisits some familiar arguments about the relationship and tensions between children’s and adult literature as literary categories and then offers observations about canon formation to get us thinking: for example, the observation that “in general, theoretical approaches [End Page 104] to canons and canonization largely follow either socio-cultural or aesthetic perspectives” (2). The volume offers a brief “prelude” by Peter Hunt. Clever and amusing, his new version of “The Emperor’s New Clothes” serves as a parody of both canon dynamics and the participants in this process. This piece could actually serve to inspire undergraduates to think about the politics and dynamics of canon formation. Part 1, “Canons, Cultural Capital and Policies of Community Building,” mostly focuses on the shifting of national canons over the course of a few decades. The chapters share the interesting narrative context of providing an account of forming a canon in a country that has recently come into being. In her study of Israel’s canon formation, for example, Yael Darr argues that “when dealing with nation building and literary canons, distinction should be drawn between older and more ground-breaking dimensions; that is, between what is presented as a traditional canon and the innovative, pioneering one” (24). Michael Düring’s essay shows “Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels as a children’s classic in the Soviet Union between 1922 and 1937 as a part of a state-managed process” of the ideological education of children (Introduction 7). Müller, Simone Herrmann, and Franziska Burstyn argue in their study of the British canon of children’s literature that “texts considered as canonical share not only aesthetic features but also a collective understanding of cultural values” (39). Kimberley Reynolds’s essay on the socialist-to-establishment career of Geoffrey Trease dovetails with the others in its focus on the shifts of national political winds and the formation of canons. Rounding out this section is Anna Maria Czernow and Dorota Michutka’s essay on the Polish children’s canon from independence in 1918, to the People’s Republic of Poland in 1945, to the end of communism in 1989. All show how over the course of only a few decades, the canon and its politics and attendant aesthetics were marked by drastic shifts. Part 2 explores “The Challenges of the Canon: Genre, Gender, Avant-garde.” Helene Høyrup examines how Hans Christian Andersen’s use of dual address made him successful with both children and adults in a number of different countries. She argues that “the dual address mode in conjunction with a more adult agenda is one of the features that trigger creative innovation in Andersen’s tales. Thereby he enters a more general Romantic-modernist line” (113). Kümmerling-Meibauer questions why children’s books inspired by the avant-garde, particularly in Germany, are considered “singular oddities within the history...