As a genre that is inherently educative and enlightening, children’s literature has always featured in its essence moral, educational, and ecological concerns/lessons. With the rapid increase of natural and environmental hazards and disasters, the number of environmental works for children that aim to create ecological awareness has been growing, triggering a body of scholarly research that explore such works through the lens of ecocriticism, defined by Cheryl Glotfelty (1992) as the “the study of the relationship between literature and the physical environment … ecocriticism take an earth-entered approach to literary studies” (xviii). Carrie Hintz (2020) explains the strong connection between children’s literature and ecocriticism asserting that children’s literature is inseparable from the different global threats and issues, adding that even though children are “imagined as the drivers of change and innovation,” they are also “vulnerable to global threats such as violence, political upheaval, climate change and other environmental disasters” (170). From this perspective, children’s literature has an important role in teaching children about ecological threats. It reflects and examines the experience and encounters of children in/with their environments. One of the urgent environmental issues that needs to be addressed and understood by children is disasters because they are becoming a daily spectacle in many places around the world. In this respect, introducing children to disasters is a prerogative to create awareness and to introduce coping mechanisms. In fact, the use of disasters in works for children is meant to present an outlook that aims to explain, reflect upon, and introduce ways to help children cope/deal with and adapt to the existence and effects of such disasters.

Writing about children’s experiences and accounts of disasters are important not only because they provide a different narrative of disasters than that of adults, but also because they help in the recovery of children. Carolyn Kousky (2016) confirms that children make up half of the those impacted by disasters, adding that when set against adults, children are “more vulnerable” and require “special attention” (74). Lori Peek (2018) lists the grave effects of disasters on the social and familial life of children asserting that they “can affect children’s personal growth and development. Disasters not only disrupt children’s daily routines, they may also result in missed school and delayed academic progress; missed social opportunities” (4). In this respect, helping children understand disasters and their effects is vital for their mental, social, and physical health, protection, and growth, as well as for their ecological awareness, which in turn can act as a force that drives children to become eco citizens.

Significantly, the rising number of children impacted by disasters around the world does not mean that children should be viewed as helpless because children can take part in different “disaster preparedness activities in their homes, schools, and communities that would likely minimize some of the risks that they face. Including disaster risk reduction information in school curricula is an excellent way to reach children” (Peek 4). Gibbs et al. (2013) assert that reducing children to mere victims and the portrayal of children as “vulnerable is being contested” because there are examples from around the world which conform how children can “contribute to planning, preparedness, response and recovery efforts” leading to “apparent positive mental health benefits” (130). Yeni Solfiah et al. (2020) also praise the participation of children in disaster management and recovery arguing that “children’s participation can have positive results in the rescue, relief and rehabilitation phases” (142). From this viewpoint, it is important to educate children about disaster and disaster preparedness. One significant way of doing so is through children’s theatre because of its great role in developing children’s cognitive and social skills, in “stimulat[ing] the imagination as it opens new doors” (McCaslin, 8, 1978), and in “provid[ing] an emotional and aesthetic experience” (Demmery 21, 1978).

As an educational tool, children’s theatre is a perfect medium to help, entertain, and educate children about ecological issues. Children’s writer David Wood (2017) affirms in his book Theatre for Children: A Guide to Writing, Adapting, Directing and Acting, collaboratively written with Janet Grant, that the challenge of writers for children “is to give a unique theatrical experience to an audience … to involve them emotionally, to sustain their interest in a story, to inspire and excite them using theatricality, to make them laugh, to make them think, to move them, to entertain and educate them by triggering their imaginations” (xxii). Thus, representations of ecological issues and specifically disasters in theatre should be presented in a way that instigates children to reflect upon such issues and, at the same time, be entertained. One way of doing so is by using the element of fantasy which offers children “moral and spiritual guidance,” as well as empowerment (Nikolajeva 42, 2010). According to Stakić (2014), “the phenomenon of the fantastic in literature for children is done through personification, allegory or grotesque” (245). By associating disasters with certain figures from myths or folk tales, or imaginary beings or creatures, children are educated and captivated. By so doing, children’s imagination is set free, and they become active participants in ecological issues, thus fulfilling one of the main reasons why “the theatre … [is] an appropriate medium for the children in their learning process [because of] the element of freedom that it provides to the children to imagine” (Praveen and Devi 2, 2016).

To examine plays for children that focus on disasters, it is important to turn to disaster studies, which emerged in the 1950s as part of ecocriticism. Fritz (1961) defines the term disaster as “an event concentrated in time and space, in which a society or one of its subdivisions undergoes physical harm and social disruption, such that all or some essential functions of the society or subdivision are impaired” (655). Derived from “the Latin roots dis and Astro” (Andharia 2020a 4), disaster originally meant “associating misfortune with the loss of a protective star, with being abandoned by the stars and left to one’s miserable fate among countless perils and calamities” (Huet 3, 2012). Gradually, the term evolved along the ages so that it now refers to natural and man-made calamities (Rozario 11). Within disaster studies, scholars such as Rozario, Franz Mauelshagen, Gerstenberger and Nusser, Shinya Uekusa, Steve Matthewman, and Bruce C. Glavovic, use the terms “disaster, calamity, and catastrophe” “interchangeably” (Rozario 2007 11) when examining disasters and their cultural implications, yet they differentiate between the different types of disasters: natural, environmental, and man-made. Franz Mauelshagen (2015) believes that the definitions of the three types of disasters overlap, thus warning against how if disasters were simply described as “natural,” then this drives out the “human factor” (177). On the other hand, David Alexander (1990) states that “a natural disaster can be defined as some rapid, instantaneous or profound impact of the natural environment upon the socio-economic system” (4). Other scholars of disaster studies such as Cordova provides clear definitions of the three types of disasters. Natural disasters are disasters caused by “natural phenomena,” such as earthquakes, volcanoes, tornadoes, and hurricanes (Cordova 199, 2019). Environmental disasters “are caused by an intricate combination of natural and social phenomena. Therefore, they are essentially environmental crises…. For, example, the Dust Bowl of the 1930s is often referred to as an environmental disaster” (Cordova 199, 2019). Man-made disasters are catastrophes “caused by negligence, mismanagement, or any other human cause (e.g., war)” (Cordova 199, 2019). As an interdisciplinary field, disaster studies examines the three types of disasters across various fields with the aim of reaching an “understanding that could benefit future generations in better understanding of key concepts such as hazard, disaster, vulnerability, risk and resilience and to create a ‘safer’ world” (Andharia 2020b 44). To scholars examining disasters, the previous terms are important not only in the analysis of the types and phases of disasters, but also in disaster preparedness and management.

Emerging as a response to disaster studies, critical disaster studies seeks to further connect disaster to cultural and literary studies. It aims to offer a new scholarly approach to disasters in which the focus is not on “a technical analysis of achievements and failures – while treating political and historical context as, at best, just another variable in the matrix” (Remes and Horowitz 2). Scholars of critical disaster studies such as Remes and Horowitz (2021) argue that they “do not take disasters as a thing in themselves, for granted. We find context essential. Therefore, although we often seek to understand one particular event, we do so by widening the frame to perceive the social surround” (2). They assert that there are three core concepts and principles of critical disaster studies: “disasters are interpretive fiction, disasters are political, and disasters take place over time” (Remes and Horowitz 2). Steve Matthewman and Uekusa (2022) explicate that “CDS builds upon, and critiques, traditional disaster scholarship” (9). They add that scholars of critical disaster studies view a disaster not as “a naturally occurring rupture,” but as “a socially constructed process” where “issues like inequity, poverty, sexism, racism and various forms of social marginalisation and oppression predispose some people to particularly adverse impacts” (12). Critical disaster studies thus welcomes scholarship on social issues which are not foregrounded in disaster studies. It revisits the core tenets of disaster studies which are: vulnerability, risk, and resilience from a social perspective.

Using critical disaster studies in approaching environmental plays for children that feature disasters is important, firstly, in exploring the representation of disasters and how children perceive them, and their impact on the children protagonists and their families/communities. It underscores social issues that are strongly related to disasters such as poverty and social inequality. Secondly, it exposes wrong cultural patterns and concepts regarding the environment, thus providing the young audience with the eco knowledge necessary to challenge such practices/ patterns that adults embrace. According to Rigby (2013), “Because of the overriding concern with socioculturally generated ‘environmental’ problems, the literature of ‘natural’ disaster remains an under-researched field” (213). From this standpoint, this study proposes to explore the portrayal of both natural and environmental disasters through the eyes of children in two selected plays for children: One Snowy Night (2007) by Charles Way and The Storm in the Barn (2012) by Eric Coble.

One Snowy Night is written by the famous English writer Charles Way, who has written over forty plays (original plays for children and young adults, retellings of classic fairy tales, and radio pieces). Way won the Children’s award in 2004 for his play Red Red Shoes and the best play for young people 2004 for The Place. He was also nominated for the Helen Hayes Award for the Outstanding New Play in 2004. One Snowy Night is inspired by “the famous Icelandic novel Independent People by Halldor Laxness” (One Snowy Night 1). The play deals with the poor family of the young boy Nonni, who is left alone amid a raging snowstorm to look after the croft and the barn while his father takes his pregnant mother to the nearest doctor. Abandoned, disappointed, and sad, Nonni learns to cope with the impact of the storm on his life. He eventually manages to save the sheep as requested by his father, thus earning the respect of his parents.

The Storm in the Barn is an adaptation of the graphic novel, winner of the Scott O’Dell Award for Historical Fiction, written by Matt Phelan. The play is adapted by the well-known children’s author Eric Coble whose works for children has won him several awards including an Emmy nomination, the AT&T Onstage Award, National Theatre Conference Playwriting Award, the Cleveland Arts Prize, and Ohio Arts Council Individual Excellence Grants. The play deals with the young boy Jack who faces the effects of the Dust Bowl in 1937 Kansas. With a sick sister, the bullies of town boys, and a father who believes that he is good for nothing, Jack is confronted with the great challenge of living and confronting the disaster of the dust storm in a family and community that upholds wrong environmental practices, which has aggravated the effects of the Dust Bowl. He eventually wins the respect of his father after he manages to save his family and community by restoring rain.

Both works which target early and middle childhood (four to twelve years old) have been selected because, firstly, they explore the challenges young children are given when facing natural and environmental disasters in different cultures and settings. They exemplify the real purpose of drama for children which is “to help children make sense of the world in which they live and to empower them” (Wooster 15, 2007). The contribution of the study thus lies in selecting two important plays that have not been critically dealt with and in probing an area that still needs further exploration and scholarly attention. In fact, the representation of the Dust Bowl in children’s theater is scarce, to the best of my knowledge, thus making the play a significant commentary on a disaster that greatly affected America in the 1930s. By re-presenting a catastrophe that took place in the past, the play invites the audience to view the event from the perspective of children. The return to this specific catastrophic event thus shows how, as Carlos Fonseca (2020) states, “catastrophic thinking then implies, first of all, a way of standing crucially with respect to history” (14). One Snowy Night is also one of the few plays that deals with the unique environmental conditions in Iceland teaching the young audience ecological lessons about living in areas subject to natural disasters.

Secondly, both works feature environmental issues, yet they do not present them in a straightforward didactic way or in an adult patronizing manner. Both plays present engaging stories leading the children to empathize with the protagonists, and, at the same time, understand their environmental role. As the two plays target children, writers resort to fantasy to personify disasters so that the young audience can analyse what they mean and how they can impact their lives. Influenced by the tales they hear from the mother and the wise man Ernie, both protagonists, Nonni and Jack, see disasters personified in figures taken from tales and myths: Trolls and Storm King. The use of fantasy in the plays allows the playwrights to introduce children to disasters without making them feel frightened or threatened. The plays are thus examples of environmental education whose aim is “to improve environmental literacy, including not just more knowledge but also a better attitude toward the environment and a higher prevalence of pro-environmental behaviours” (Spinola 392, 2015). Gerstenberger and Nusser affirm that “tales about catastrophe might offer philosophical reflections … they can be vehicles of religious, moral, or political commentary of human society; they can also serve to reconsider the relationship between humans and nature” (4). Both works use disasters to comment on the children protagonists’ societies as well as to deliver moral, social, and environmental lessons to children. Delicado et al. (2017) believe that not enough attention is given to children’s “experiences and needs in disasters,” their participation “in disaster preparedness and emergency plans, in disaster management, and in the recovery of their families or communities,” as well as “their contribution to disaster risk reduction … and resilience building” (247). Both plays foreground children’s experiences, their role in mitigating the effects of disasters, and their participation in the act of recovery. The plays emphasize how children object to the adults’ worldview. Thus, the plays call for the inclusion of children in confronting disasters, asserting that they should not be shunned or marginalized as they can be the key and hope to outlive such life-changing events. In probing both works, the key tenets of critical disaster studies and disaster studies, such as vulnerability, resilience, disaster recovery, “disasters as interpretive fiction”, and “disasters as taking place over time” (Remes and Horowitz 2) will be highlighted in relation to the children protagonists and their families/communities. The paper will thus focus on the portrayal of disasters through the eyes of the children highlighting their initial reaction and how they, finally, change their outlook and eventually end up saving their families and recovering from such catastrophes.

Disaster preparedness/management: child agency versus adult failure

In the two plays, disasters are gradually introduced to the audience from the perspective of the protagonists showing how they are part of the environment they live in. The initial reaction of the children protagonists towards disasters is a blend of fury and discontent, as well as intrigue. They thus find themselves confronted with several questions raised by the existence of disasters in their towns: Why did they happen? How long will they last? Can we overcome them? Haunted by these questions, the children seek to get answers especially amid the overwhelming feelings of frustration and hopelessness that the adults around them exude. Both plays show how the children live the different phases of disasters, which are important to analyse so as to understand the disaster itself (Cottrell 115, 2016). The phases of disasters are listed by Cottrell as follows: “preparation and mitigation; the acute or response phase; and post-disaster recovery” (115). Similarly, Michael Lindell (2013) believes that “disaster phases are defined in terms of hazard mitigation, disaster preparedness, emergency response, and disaster recovery” (798). In One Snowy Night, all the phases are seen through the young protagonist Nonni who performs the role of the narrator at the beginning of the play:

Cast: Imagine this

far across a northern sea

an island is being born. …

Out of the deep it rises

like a troll

roaring its unknown name.

Volcanoes to the east

Glaciers to the west.

Ice and fire …

…

In the very heart of this island

lies a valley covered all in snow.

And in the valley is a tiny croft

covered all in snow

right up over the roof.

imagine that.

Nonni: Imagine me

a boy living in the croft

covered all in snow. (One Snowy Night 2)

Nonni’s monologue together with the introductory song is meant to inform the young audience of the environment in Iceland which is known as the Land of Ice and Fire; a name that aptly describes this land. In fact, the unique nature of Iceland is summarized by Caseldine et al (2005) as “a heavily glaciated landscape” and “one of the most active volcanological environments on the globe” (1). Another important piece of information revealed through the song is the existence of trolls. John Lindow (2014) affirms that trolls “were found only in the landscape of Scandinavia” (9). According to Bann (2016), the portrayal of trolls in folklore, literature, and even in films has been negative: a creature that craves human flesh, excessively violent and hostile towards human (545). Martin Arnold (2005) also believes that trolls represent “all that is most threatening and offensive to social stability” (124). Contrary to their typical folk and literary portrayal, the trolls in the play do not represent/exhibit evil or negative characteristics. This subverted representation is meant to compel children to think in a different way. Lindow explicates that trolls are “nature being;’ that is, beings who were encountered in nature” (9). The strong association between trolls and nature is part of Scandinavian and Nordic folklore and folk beliefs. In fact, “the troll has been one of the most powerful and enduring images of otherness in large parts of the world” (Lindow 9). In the play, the trolls are a representation of two natural phenomena; that is otherness in the natural world. Set against the fact that disaster, in essence, has a defamiliarization effect (Parrish 2021 138-139), trolls can be seen as an act of “environmental defamiliarization” compelling the children audience “to consider in a new way a landscape they think they know” (Parrish 2021 139).

Gradually, through the conversation with his parents, Nonni reveals his discontent because he will be left alone, fearing the occurrence of the snowstorm despite the assurance and comforting words of the father that, after his and the mother’s absence for three days, there will be spring. Nonni’s fear is translated into actual reality when he worriedly notes that “It’s snowing” (One Snowy Night 14). Soon, he begins to hear the wind blowing and he announces that “there’s going to be a storm, oh yes. I can hear it coming.” (One Snowy Night 15). Upon this announcement, the audience witnesses the first phase of the disaster which is mitigation and preparation through Nonni. According to Lindel (2013), “mitigation and preparedness generally take place concurrently in the pre-impact period” (798). In the play, Nonni’s attempts to protect himself, the dog, the sheep, and the house by shutting the doors and windows and locking himself in is part of this process. Such actions are simple examples of “hazard mitigation and emergency preparedness practices [which] attempt to reduce a disaster’s physical impacts (casualties and damage) and indirectly reduce its social impacts” (Lindell 801). As a disaster preparedness method, warnings before disasters are important. In the play, during the first phase of disasters, there are constant warnings against disasters shown in the verbal and visual signs associated with Nonni: running and saying it is time to hide. In fact, Nonni’s initial reaction towards the upcoming snowstorm is taking shelter in the croft: “Nonni There’s no need to worry. My father built this croft with his own hands. We’re safe here. Even if the storm lasts all day and all night- we are safe” (One Snowy Night 17). As the events take place in Iceland, the audience identifies with Nonni’s fear and worry of this natural disaster because the land is known for the constant occurrence of natural disasters. J. Andharia (2020a) explicates that “Some regions of the world are more prone to disasters than others; they are more ‘vulnerable’” (15). As Iceland is one of the Nordic countries that is subject to intense disasters, the audience understands that volcanic eruptions and snowstorms are liable to occur simultaneously throughout the year. In fact, the mere presence of Nonni’s amid an area which experiences natural hazards throws light on one key term in disaster studies which is vulnerability defined as “the characteristics of a person or group and their situation that influence their capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist, and recover from the impact of a natural hazard’ (Wisner et al. 2004: 11). Helen J. Boon (2016) differentiates between “ecological vulnerability” because of a “particular ecosystem” and “social-economic vulnerability” which refers to the effect on “the livelihood of groups of residents or the very fabric of a whole town and its continued existence as a demographic and geographic entity, that is, whole-community vulnerability” (3). In One Snowy Night, Nonni’s family experiences both types of vulnerability: they live in a land which experiences disasters and they suffer as a community on the socio-economic level. Through the dialogue between Nonni and his mother, the audience learns that the land does not offer much and that, because of their poverty, they cannot even afford to pay for the doctor’s visit. Seen from the lens of critical disaster studies, the poverty of the family and the inaccessibility to proper health services highlights social inequality and the marginalization of the family and the whole community living in this poor village, as they are induced to suffer the aggravated effects of natural hazards and disasters without having proper assistance and support.

The Storm in the Barn introduces environmental disasters through the protagonist Jack. The audience does not witness the beginning or pre-disaster period, but rather the middle of the crisis. In other words, the first phase of the disaster is never introduced, but rather phase two: response. Therefore, Jack acts as a narrator to explain to the young audience what happened earlier before the play begins:

BOY: … Once upon a time… the world was turning to dust.

(The others look at one another… nod. They begin to circle him creating music around him as he speaks, gaining confidence as he goes.)

Once upon a time… the earth grew hard and dry and would grow no food… and families would gather all they had and flee the land in search of life.

(Lights begin to shift…)

Because once upon a time… the Rain refused to fall.

Once upon a time the Rain refused to serve.

And the Rain… became powerful.

Once upon a time, the Rain hid its essence in a small traveling bag and walked among men…

And the Rain… became a King.

But also once upon that time…

There was a boy… named Jack. (The Storm in the Barn 9)

Giving a dual role to Jack as the narrator and character allows him to engage in a process of description, reflection, and commentary upon the disaster. Whereas two narrator figures emerge before him attempting to narrate but are interrupted because their stories either promise of a good natural environment or a distant land: “forest thick with trees” and “a world of snow” (The Storm in the Barn 8), Jack is the one who is able to give the right description and account of the land and of the disaster that hit his home. Thus, all the characters including the two narrator figures approve of his version of narration and allow him to stand in the centre of the stage and to inform the audience of his first-hand experience with the disaster. After the verbal representation of the disaster, the audience sees Jack running on stage as he attempts to hide from the dust storm. What even enhances the visual representation of this disaster is Jack’s entrapment: “The boy runs to one corner of the stage—trapped—to the far corner—trapped” (The Storm in the Barn 10). Therefore, verbally and visually, the disaster is gradually presented through Jack.

Similar to One Snowy Night, the play also exposes ecological and socio-economic vulnerability. The intensity of the disaster and its impact on Jack’s community is exposed through Jack’s dialogue with the other characters. The audience learns that some families have abandoned their farms, others believe that they should continue digging for water, while others helplessly await the rain. When asked about the affairs of the town, Jack says that “the Talbot’s barn. It was all locked up” to which his sister Dorothy replies “That makes, what, five families now? That’s a lot of empty barns and houses” (The Storm in the Barn 14). Jack’s account shows how, as Boon (2016) asserts, “the human lives lost to [natural disasters], not to mention the economic costs from the hazards’ impacts upon households, infrastructure and essential services, reflect the vulnerability of individuals and communities to specific hazards” (2). What even adds to the suffering of the villagers is that because of the Dust Bowl, grasshoppers started to increase and even finished the remaining crops. To make things worse, the adults in the town announce that they are expecting rabbits, as Jack says: “It’s the rabbits we’ve got to worry about now. That’s what Ernie says. The hoppers went back into the ground and as they dug down, the rabbits dug up, and now they’re finishing off anything that’s left” (The Storm in the Barn 15).

Through the conversation with Ernie, the audience learns of the adults’ mismanagement of the environment. Carlos Cordova asserts that every environmental disaster is based on the combination of a natural crises and human intervention: “although an environmental crisis has its origin on natural phenomena, such as natural disasters, or climactic shifts, some of the causes that aggravate environmental crises originate within society itself. Such causes include a series of complex social, political, and technological aspects such as institutional failure, corruption, and mismanagement of human ecosystems” (216). Cordova adds that “environmental crises are more complex and often more protracted than natural disasters. Their complexity lies in their causes, which can encompass multiple natural and social phenomena and the multiple events that characterize their development” (215). The Storm in the Barn shows the effects of the Dust Bowl in Kansas in 1930s. The play invites the audience to revisit a historical moment when the lives of Americans were greatly affected by dust storms. According to Remes and Horowitz (2021), who expand Peter Utz’ view on disasters, “disasters are a cultural pattern that governs the reception and representation of an extraordinary and destructive event and that cannot be understood or defined outside its historical or social context” (3). Historically speaking, the Dust Bowl was a serious environmental disaster in the 1930s in the United States. One of the key tenets of critical disasters studies that can used in analysing the Dust Bowl in the play is that “Disasters take place over time” (3). Remes and Horowitz (2021) confirm that they “reject the notion that disasters are isolated events. Making sense of political and ideological contests demands seeing people in context” (3). Originally, the Dust bowl was not a sudden event as the land was constantly exposed to storms and drought. It was because of the poor agricultural practices of the farmers at the time, such as “burning wheat stubble after harvest,” “continued cultivation” of the soil which made it “susceptible to wind erosion” that the situation became worse, and the land failed to offer crops anymore (Hurt xvii, 2019). The play thus exposes the agricultural practices that accentuated the effects of the Dust Bowl. The play also highlights the impact on Jack’s family and the community: the illness of the sister and the villagers, the psychological and behavioral response of the father and all the adults towards the disaster: depression and hopelessness, which in turn resulted in families fleeing their homes and barns.

Clearly, the two boys in both plays experience and are forced to live through the second phase of disasters, which is response, during which they exhibit a sense of independence and discontent with the family/community’s preconceived image and defined role for them. The two boys reject the adults’ perspective and behaviour towards/amidst disasters. Nonni’s father believes that it is safe to leave his son in the house and barn alone. In contrast to Nonni’s mother who believes that it is not “safe to leave a boy alone in such a wilderness,” the father assures her that “we haven’t seen another soul for five months” because of the snowstorms (One Snowy Night 10). To the father, Nonni needs to learn to become independent and reliable. Thus, leaving Nonni alone is meant to be a safe test, a coming of age experience. On the other hand, Jack’s father believes that “Jack’s no help” (The Storm in the Barn 17). Even when Jack attempts to help his father, he is shunned and pushed away: “Jack: can I help?” and Pa replies: “No. No. Jack, you cannot” (The Storm in the Barn 18). According to Gerstenberger and Nusser (2015), catastrophes trigger either “individual or collective response patterns to previous disasters, with existing narratives and coping mechanisms being reproduced and adapted while also inspiring new forms of expression that seek to challenge the traditional models of representation” (4). In both plays, the adults’ responses and coping mechanisms are frustrating and disappointing to the two young boys. Nonni’s father underestimates the power of snowstorms believing that spring will soon come in contrast to Nonni who seems to understand the gravity of the harsh weather conditions at this time of the year and the possibility of having more snowstorms. Jack is equally disappointed with his father and the adults’ reactions which, at times, seem shocking and unfathomable to the young boy. His initial reaction to the adult practices is that he “backs away, scared, then runs quickly as lights shift” (The Storm in the Barn 19). He immediately runs to Ernie and reports what he has seen:

JACK: I was on my way here and I saw… out on the fence, there were snakes. Dead snakes nailed to the fence posts.

ERNIE: Aw, don’t pay it no mind. Just some superstitious mumbo-jumbo.

JACK: What’s it for?

ERNIE: Some fellas think a dead snake will bring the rain. (Calling out.) More likely to bring a stink!

(Quietly to Jack.)

When people can’t do anything, they do crazy things. (The Storm in the Barn 20)

To Jack, the adults’ responses are bizarre and illogical. They engender a feeling of threat and discomfort that Jack relentlessly attempts to overcome. The above scene acts as a prelude to the upcoming horrific scene of the slaughter of rabbits. Thus, it acts as an incentive to reflect upon the relation between humans and animals. Not only have the adults destroyed the land with their practices, but their assaults on animals is a continuous disturbing act. The scene is meant to be another ecological lesson to children reminding them that “human values could no longer be based on the assumption that man is alone at the center of creation; allowance would have to be made for the welfare of all the plants, animals, and land of the natural environment” (Meeker 168, 1992). This ecological lesson is accentuated later on with Jack’s feelings of shock and anger because of the adults’ massacre of rabbits which is presented on stage as if it is a “nightmare” as the “lights melt into red” while “THOOM THOOM THOOM THOOM THOOM echoing deafening. Louder and louder. … Jack can only stare horrified. … Horrible drumming and music now” (The Storm in the Barn 40). Both the visual and auditory signs employed in this scene reflect the reaction of Jack as he watches this mass slaughter. Bankoff et al. (2015) believe that the ways people respond to risks and disasters can be called “culture”. They explicate that the term refers to the people’s behaviors “which may include ways of producing, perceiving and dealing with risk that may remain hidden to outsiders, or, if detected, sometimes not seem appropriate but traditional or unnecessary” (2). In the play, the adults’ slaughter of the rabbits and, even before it, the attempts to annihilate grasshoppers are two clear examples of disruptive ecological behaviors highlighting how human intervention can aggravate the effects of disasters. According to Simon Hollis (2022), “Our ability to manage disasters effectively will be severely hampered if sustainable choices are not pursued” (3). The play shows disruptive and destructive ways of coping with and mitigating the effects of the disaster that further prolong its duration. In fact, the scene is a reminder of the importance of ecological literacy, which is the deep understanding of the relationship between humans, animals, and the environment. The scene thus highlights the importance of “narratives of connection, community, and interdependence among humans, animals, and the natural world” that aims to “provide an antidote to the logic of domination” (Gaard 327, 2009). As Alice Curry (2013) asserts, “Recognised as a cornerstone of deep ecological thinking, identification constitutes an awareness that humans are inextricably enmeshed in broader biosocial relations” (161). Jack’s identification with the rabbits confirms how “Identification with the natural world … serves to allow humanity to perceive no boundaries between the human and nonhuman worlds, and thus to treat defence of the environment as self-defence” (Curry 161). Jack realizes that this attack on rabbits is an assault on the environment that needs to be prevented. This realization shows how the play serves to raise the children’s ecological literacy of the destructive environmental practices of humans.

The discontent of the boys with the acts of the adults is also evident in their escape to the world of tales and stories. According to Kimberly Reynolds (2011), “many stories given to children today are retellings of traditional stories in which writers and illustrators set out to expose, critique, and adjust the schemata by which we interpret the world. The dialogue they create between old and new ways of thinking can be another way both to sow and nurture the seeds of social change” (5). The stories in both plays are: retellings of old Norse tales about trolls, folk tales, and extracts from the famous third book of the Oz series Ozma of Oz by Frank Baum. Using stories in the plays have several functions: first, they are a coping mechanism with the real external storms and the symbolic internal ones. In One Snowy Night, Nonni makes up a tale, as his mother taught him, to infuse himself, his dog, and ewe with courage and comfort in the face of the upcoming disaster persuading himself that they will be safe and survive the storm:

Nonni: Shh, listen. This is the story. One snowy night. One snowy night, like this one when the wind blew all about the croft and it felt like the roof might come off, there was a boy- me, and a ewe called Gullbra, who had given birth more times than any sheep in history.

…

Now these three friends huddled together as a great wind strode around outside trying to blow off the roof. But the friends just laughed, Ha ha ha. Because they knew they were safe in the house, because- because, they -they were. And then… (He sees Gullbra close her eyes) Gullbra fell asleep, and then… (Titla covers her ears) Titla covered her ears and fell asleep too. Soon the boy’s parents would return and they--- they would bring a baby with them. (He scowls.) A stupid baby who made him say some bad things to mother. Things he didn’t mean. (One Snowy Night 17-18)

The tale is meant to calm the dog and the ewe that appear terrified because of the upcoming snowstorm and to demonstrate Jack’s regret for his earlier resentful comments on the sister not yet born. In The Storm in the Barn, Jack reads extracts from Ozma of Oz (the third book in the series of Oz which was preceded by The Wonderful Wizard of Oz and The Marvelous Land of Oz) to his bed-ridden sister, who carries the same name of the heroine of the novel (Dorothy). He reads the following excerpt from the novel: “At the time the wind began to blow, a ship was sailing far out upon the waters. When the waves began to tumble and toss …, the ship rolled up and down … and was jostled round so roughly that even the sailor-men had to hold fast to the ropes and railings to keep themselves from being swept away by the wind or pitched headlong into the sea” (15). Significantly, this extract reflects the helplessness of the sailors which is parallel to that of Jack and his family. Immediately, after that, Jack overhears his parents admitting the futility of living in this place.

Later, Jack listens to his sister reading another significant extract which emphasizes the barrenness of the desert in which the fictional Dorothy is trapped in, which is parallel to Jack’s town: “Westward the fertile land of Ev suddenly ended a little way from the palace and the girl could see miles and miles of sandy desert that stretched further than her eyes could reach” (41). However, this extract is symbolic as it comes directly before the fictional Dorothy is saved, thus acting as an incentive to Jack to act and save his family. Besides the novel, Jack also listens to Ernie’s tales about a young, brave boy named Jack who faced several kings who controlled forces of nature:

Ernie: Did I ever tell you about the time that extraordinary boy— his name was Jack, — how he killed the King of the West Wind?

JACK: …The other day. It was a good story.

ERNIE: … well, how about the tale of Jack and the King of Blizzards?

(Jack nods, not looking up.)

Then how about the time that boy Jack whipped the Two- Headed King of the Northwest Winds? (The Storm in the Barn 21).

The tale, like Nonni’s story, helps Jack feel important and special because he carries the same name of the protagonist of these tales. More importantly, they help Jack understand that natural phenomena are impersonated; this paves the way for his encounter with the King of Storms. The second function of the two stories in the plays is to infuse both boys with a strong sense and desire to change their lives and save their families. They act as the catalyst to compel the two boys to take a stand and to reject the adults’ mode of coping with disasters.

Disaster resistance and recovery

After the initial existence of negative feelings, the children protagonists attempt to survive the disasters and save their families and lives. In contrast to the helplessness of the adults, the protagonists exhibit resistance. Boon (2016) defines the term resistance as follows: “‘Resistance’ refers to the capacity of the entity to resist shocks” (6). According to Bankoff et al. (2015), “people supposedly deal with the dangers they face from natural hazards in ways that are in accordance with their worldviews. Sometimes this includes ways that are emotionally appropriate and that do not challenge their relations with their peer group” (2). In both plays, the children protagonists initially comply, and reluctantly agree, to the rules of their parents, communities, but soon decide to rebel and challenge the “worldview” of the families. Therefore, the second part of both plays mark the change in the attitude of both protagonists who relentlessly struggle to save their families and communities that see them as “no good.”

In One Snowy Night, Nonni decides to fulfil the task given to him by his father in order to prove to him that he is reliable and independent. He thus leaves the house and searches for his sheep which got lost after the snowstorm hit the barn. Nonni’s decision to leave his home and to search for the sheep amid the raging snowstorm even though he knows it is not safe outside stems from his sense of duty towards his family and especially his father: “If I don’t find Gullbra, Father will never trust me again. … Father gave me a job” (One Snowy Night 20). The escape of the sheep thus becomes the turning moment in Nonni’s life to face the disaster and mitigate its effects on his family’s few possessions, which include the sheep. The journey into the mountains is verbally described in the accompanying song as Nonni walks on stage:

Far across the plains we travelled

To the mountain steep and high

Over fields of rock and lava

Like a desert, black and dry.

Deep into the day we travelled

To the mountain steep and high

Hot springs and icy rivers

We encountered by and by.

Deep into the day we travelled

to the mountain steep and high. (One Snowy Night 21)

The song is a verbal reminder together with the visual presentation on stage of the environment in Iceland. Up on the mountain, Nonni witnesses two forms of natural disasters, which frequently occur in Iceland, impersonated in the figure of the Ice and Fire Trolls. The Ice Troll is described as “dressed in a white coat and white gloves. He is a pulling a huge block of ice, which he pulls with white ropes” (One Snowy Night 26), whereas the Fire Troll is described as “dressed in a red coat and red gloves. He is a pulling a ball of fire/lava, which he pulls with red ropes” (One Snowy Night 32). Both trolls announce that they are brothers and that they fight to “see who is the master of this land” (One Snowy Night 37). The fight between both trolls on stage symbolizes the simultaneous occurrence of both snowstorms and volcanoes in Iceland. Moreover, it is meant to act as a reminder of the dominance of nature and of the power of such natural disasters over man as Nonni attempts to take shelter fearing both trolls. Significantly, no one wins the fight to assure the audience that it is a recurrent natural phenomenon that cannot be controlled. The effect of this symbolic fight on Nonni, who was trying to escape after finding his sheep, is fainting, another reminder of the power of these disasters over humans. Upon his return home, he realizes that his parents have arrived. The play ends with the return of the family after the birth of the sister and the father’s acknowledgement of the bravery of his son. He even gives his dog to Nonni, a symbol of the newly assigned role to Nonni as the shepherd: “I make a gift of my dog to you Nonni. Yes- it’s your reward for looking after Gullbra” (One Snowy Night 42). The play ends with symbols of hope and of new beginnings, as the mother declares “Hey the sun is coming. … Spring is here” (One Snowy Night 42). The final song in the play sends messages of hope:

Chorus: Soon there will be buttercups in the home field

And fresh hay to mow.

imagine that.

Imagine this,

far across a northern sea

a boy is growing up

And in his arms a baby girl.

Ice and fire,

Ice and fire. (One Snowy Night 43)

The song at the end includes both natural elements “Ice and fire” reminding the audience that there are new beginnings even after natural disasters; but, at the same time, such elements will not come to an end. Instead, they should be viewed as part of the cycle of life in Iceland. They are meant to be an ecological lesson of the impossibility of avoiding or ending such natural phenomena, but instead learning to accept and even live with them. The final lesson sent is that it is important to abandon the view of disasters as “disruptive,” “sudden,” “unusual and isolated events” and to begin to embrace the belief that disasters should be viewed from a different perspective: “as part of normal flow and ebb of human life and have been ‘normal’ phenomena for centuries. … If one accepts this perspective, understanding how different societies and communities relate to disasters may be enlightening” (Andharia 2020b 41). Seen from the lens of critical disaster studies, it is important to perceive disasters as closely linked to the culture of the inhabitants of the environment and to their environmental impact and practices. Such a view will help children living in similar environments understand their world, their own culture responding to such disasters, and explore their history of experiencing, living, and coping with disasters.

In The Storm in the Barn, the adults’ destructive act against the environment (killing of the rabbits) is the turning point triggering not only Jack’s courage and inner strength, but also his genuine desire to find a solution through which they can cope with the disaster. The alarming scene disturbs Jack to the extent that he announces that the practices of the adults must stop: “This has to end” (The Storm in the Barn 41). Jack’s words are even repeated when he returns home to find his sister Dorothy coughing “Mabel tries to help… Jack watches her—all of his family in their isolated devastation” (The Storm in the Barn 42). He immediately heads to the deserted barn realizing that it is there where, paradoxically, the mystery and solution lie. The scene in the barn is visually presented as a real struggle to Jack who soon discovers the truth upon his inquiry to the creature in the barn: “What are you? … What have you done with the rain?!”, to which it answers that it is “the rain” which has “refused to fall…, refused to serve, … [and] became powerful” (The Storm in the Barn 43). The personification of the rain is meant to remind Jack and the audience that it is a reaction to the adults’ practices highlighting the disruptive intervention of humans in the environment. The words of the Storm King to Jack “The longer I am among you, the stronger I become” highlight the wrong practices of the adults towards the environment which caused the Dust Bowl in the first place. They emphasize how “human actions” can cause and lead to grave “environmental violence” and problems (Misiaszek 2021 5). They alert the audience about the questions that should be raised: “why were the actions done and why were they done” (Misiaszek 2018 1). The presence of the Storm King instigates the audience to deeply reflect on the actions of humans and the entailing environmental consequences. However, the play sends the message that there is still hope because of brave children like Jack who disapproves of the wrong environmental practices of the adults. Jack’s struggle to prove that he can stand against the Storm King, as well as his desire to protect and save his dying sister infuse him with strength the moment the Storm King calls him “poor small… useless boy” (The Storm in the Barn 45). It is at this moment that he fights him and steals the bag in which thunder and rain are kept. Tearing the bag is accompanied by the “sound of rain pouring. Rain pouring down over the world” (The Storm in the Barn 47). The play ends with an optimistic note that this disaster has come to an end:

(As everyone else fades away, Jack rises unsteadily to his feet and walks toward them… He still looks quite small in this newly drenched world. Sound of beautiful rain continues…

Pa watches him…

Steps toward him…

Then runs to him and grabs his son and holds him for dear life.

Jack returns the hug…

Two men holding one another.

PA: Jack. What did you do?

(Jack looks back toward the barn…)

Was the barn…

(Jack nods. His father watches him… gets it. Nods to his boy.)

We’re staying here, Jack. We’re going to

bring the crops back.

(He takes a step back, watching his son…)

And Jack… I could sure use your help.

(Jack watches his father… and smiles. His sisters and mother run to him—they hold one another, laughing as the glorious water pours and pours over them all… They look like a family.) (The Storm in the Barn 48-49).

The return of the rain is synchronous with the reconciliation of the father and son and the unity of the family. It also symbolizes the end of the disaster and promises of a new beginning, acknowledging the role of the son in lifting this disaster. Both plays end with an important key term in disasters studies, which is also the final phase in disasters, disaster recovery. Lindell (2013) believes that “Disaster recovery begins with stabilization of an incident and ends when the community has re-established normal social, economic, and political routines. It is now generally accepted that disaster recovery encompasses multiple activities, some implemented sequentially and others implemented simultaneously” (811). Both plays hint at how the characters will recover from such catastrophes: Nonni and his family will reunite and enjoy the approaching spring showing how snowstorms are part of the cycle of life in nature which ends with the advent of spring. The ending reminds the audience that the advent of a different season which brings with it a new and different lifestyle: new plants and a new breed. The audience understands that Nonni will now be responsible for the herd of sheep, assisting his father in the barn. Nonni even assigns himself a new mission: teaching his newly born sister “everything [he] knows” (One Snowy Night 42) including how he survived the snowstorm and the volcano. In The Storm in the Barn, the father’s announcement that they will not abandon their homes foretells of the return of the cycle of planting and shows how Jack will become part of this process. The reconciliation on the familial level also hints at the reconciliation with nature as they now realize the importance of learning and practicing the right agricultural practices. According to Cottrell, there are usually “networks” that “are important for sustaining communities, especially in times of crisis” which are: “bonding, bridging, and linking” (116). She explicates that “bonding networks are between immediate family, neighbours, close friends, business associates and so on. Bridging networks link different groups within a community, such as groups with different ethnic, geographical and occupation backgrounds but with similar economic status and political influence” (116). She add that “the third type is the linking network: the ties between community and people with influence in formal organisations” (116). Of the three networks, both plays focus on the first one which is bonding. Both works greatly focus on the relationship between the children protagonists and their families and, on a minor level, their communities. The aim is to highlight the ecological roles of the children and how they can act as saviors at times of crisis. Thus, it is important that families allow them to practice such roles by “bonding” with them and believing in them.

Conclusion

The two plays present disasters through the eyes of children emphasizing the important ecological roles of children during such critical events. Noteworthy is that the portrayal of disasters in both plays differs in the presentation of the duration or stages of disasters. Lindell (2013) argues that “A disaster’s concentration in time obviously defines three temporal periods- pre-impact, trans-impact, and post-impact” (797). One Snowy Night shows the three periods, whereas The Storm in the Barn only shows the last two periods: the audience does not witness the beginning of the disaster, but rather its effects in order to enhance the ecological role of children at times of catastrophes. Both plays highlight the importance of developing children’s environmental awareness and education so that they can adopt ecocenteric views and values. Both works aim at educating children about ecological issues, instigating them to understand their roles towards the environment, as well as using safe and sustainable interventional methods and practices. The children’s ecological roles are underscored with the continuation of storytelling of disasters as both Nonni and Jack will use their stories to prepare future generations (their younger sisters) for any future disasters.

Both plays emphasise how “the most effective environmental children’s literature develops a sense of place that requires a recognition of one’s part in an ecosystem” (Sweeney 142, 2024). The plays highlight the children’s attitude towards disasters showing how they do not seek to control disasters or to destroy the environment as the adults do, but rather they wish to cope with them and even insist on finding a way to protect/save their themselves and their families/communities. This is clear in the endings of both plays which clarify one important tenet of disaster studies: resilience. To Boon (2016), “resilience describes the capacity of a person, community or ecosystem to persist in the face of shocks and disturbances without changing fundamental structures and functions. It is often associated with ‘resistance,’ ‘return to a previous state’ or ‘transformation,’ as well as combinations of these three terms (6). When examining both plays, both protagonists exhibit resilience, resistance, and transformation even more than their families and communities. According to Paula T. Connolly (2012), the occurrence of natural disasters causes children to experience some challenges and exposes their vulnerability, but “many children also often reveal a resiliency that helps them move through trauma to regain psychological health (2). In both plays, the children resist the adults’ viewpoint and because of their brave acts, their lives and those of their families are transformed. The children are shown to be carriers of change asserting how “disasters do not just reveal the world; as events and as ideas, they reorder it” (Remes and Horowitz 5). In this respect, both plays end with change and hope, showing how these disasters are not fatal, but rather events that steer the protagonists towards a better future on the personal and communal level. Rozario (2007) argues that “all societies have witnessed disasters” (20). He adds that “what has most distinguished American responses to destruction over the past three centuries or so is a widespread conviction, born of beliefs and experience, that calamities are instruments of progress. … many Americans … embrace disasters as a means of escaping from the present into a better future” (20). Both plays adopt an American outlook on disasters as they portray disasters ending with a hopeful and reconciliatory note on the personal and familial level as well. Lindell (2013) maintains that the impact of disasters might be in some cases “mild and transitory and victims can experience positive impacts (e.g., strengthened family relationships) as well as negative ones (e.g., strained family relationships)” (801). The two plays show both effects: the negative family relationship is emphasized in the first part of the two plays during the first and second phases of disaster, whereas the strong ties are enhanced in the recovery phase after the protagonists’ bravery and perseverance are revealed.