One of the things Marxist critics have helped point out is the fact that literature is often confined to the perspective of a certain socio-economic class, the wealthy. The events of a novel most often center around the events of those in positions of power. Wouldn't you rather, for instance, read about the home owner than his servants?
That's part of what I liked about the latest installment of the
Chrestomanci
series that I've read,
Conrad's Fate (
Pinhoe Egg is on its way). The story is told from the perspective of the household servants (much like
Happily N'ever After. I liked how Christopher, the Chrestomanci-to-be (though that comes later in his history... earlier in the series, though), puzzled through this whole question of servants and masters. I don't mean to say that he solves the puzzle for himself, but I do like how he deals with it. I don't want to say too much about the ending, but I will say that I don't think it spoils the perspective offered throughout the story.
Children's lit critics have often said that there are three taboos for children's literature: money, sex, and death (I will have to get some quotations from said critics at a later date). I like that Chrestomanci burst through the money taboo. It's an interesting series for that. I haven't read much in the way of response to this issue, but it is one I would love to see explored more by people who specialize in children's literature, whether they are teachers of kids or academics more interested in the texts themselves. It would be interested to see the responses to the way the question of money is handled in this series.
Diana Wynne Jones has become one of my favorite authors over the years, partly just because she is clever and writes well. But in addition to that, she has a real way of making the reader face some ideas and thoughts that can be sticky. And it's all just part of the story. That's good stuff.