Status
Available
Call number
Genres
Collection
Publication
Penguin Books (2002), Paperback, 219 pages
Description
"In this engaging series of essays, Pulitzer Prize-winning author Alison Lurie explores the theory that the best children's book authors have often preferred the world of young people to the world of adults. Lurie looks at children's classics from every era and relates them to the authors who wrote them, including Little Women author Louisa May Alcott and Wizard of Oz author Frank Baum, as well as Dr. Seuss and Salman Rushdie. In the process she reveals how these gifted writers have used children's literature to transfigure sorrow, nostalgia, and the struggles of their own experiences."--BOOK JACKET.
User reviews
LibraryThing member kaelirenee
Children's literature can be examined from many different angles: what do the stories say about the mores of the time, what can we learn about the characters from their creators, how have these stories been received? Lurie's gift as an author is that she can present all of these ideas together to
Boys and Girls Forever examines several children's authors and their backgrounds, the stories they popularized, and their characters. Lurie also examines fairy stories, poetry, children's games, and illustrations. Unlike Don't Tell the Grownups, Boys and Girls forever is weakly written and disorganized. Lurie occasionally gives overviews of the author's works (juvenile and adult) and sometimes gives in-depth histories of the authors, but without the same intrigue she managed in her previous book. She continues to have glaring omissions in the authors she considers (still not Twain, Roald Dahl, Lois Lowry, Judy Blume). But even the ones she includes are desperatly lacking. Her essay on Dr. Seuss is one of the weakest I've read. She approached the authors in her last book with the same kind of passion children approach their works with. The only one she came even close to doing this with was Frank Baum. But her Dr. Seuss piece felt like filler. Actually, most of the book felt like filler. There's no common thread for the stories of these authors. I thought she was going to discuss the child-like mind these authors had to have, but she only rarely shoves in some mention of their minds as she writes.
The last chapters not about a certain author were weak, felt tacked on, and didn't continue any theme. It's as if she got a call from her editor and was told she needed more chapters and she knew she wasn't going to write another book on children's lit, so she threw in something weak about play, pictures, and fairy tales. It weakened her theme irreparably. Furthermore, her books would greatly benefit from illustrations-she loosely describes images from books, especially picture books, but without a familiarity of the actual work, her descriptions are not sufficient enough for the reader to visualize the pictures.
This book seemed cobbled together and less impassioned than Don't Tell the Grownups. If Don't Tell the Grown-Ups was Lurie's final term paper, Boys and Girls Forever was the grade she knew the professor was going to drop. She needed to find a theme and stick to it.
Show More
give a well-rounded look at children's literature and the authors who write it. Or, at least, she could do this in her last book, Don't Tell the Grown Ups. Something happened between that book and this.Boys and Girls Forever examines several children's authors and their backgrounds, the stories they popularized, and their characters. Lurie also examines fairy stories, poetry, children's games, and illustrations. Unlike Don't Tell the Grownups, Boys and Girls forever is weakly written and disorganized. Lurie occasionally gives overviews of the author's works (juvenile and adult) and sometimes gives in-depth histories of the authors, but without the same intrigue she managed in her previous book. She continues to have glaring omissions in the authors she considers (still not Twain, Roald Dahl, Lois Lowry, Judy Blume). But even the ones she includes are desperatly lacking. Her essay on Dr. Seuss is one of the weakest I've read. She approached the authors in her last book with the same kind of passion children approach their works with. The only one she came even close to doing this with was Frank Baum. But her Dr. Seuss piece felt like filler. Actually, most of the book felt like filler. There's no common thread for the stories of these authors. I thought she was going to discuss the child-like mind these authors had to have, but she only rarely shoves in some mention of their minds as she writes.
The last chapters not about a certain author were weak, felt tacked on, and didn't continue any theme. It's as if she got a call from her editor and was told she needed more chapters and she knew she wasn't going to write another book on children's lit, so she threw in something weak about play, pictures, and fairy tales. It weakened her theme irreparably. Furthermore, her books would greatly benefit from illustrations-she loosely describes images from books, especially picture books, but without a familiarity of the actual work, her descriptions are not sufficient enough for the reader to visualize the pictures.
This book seemed cobbled together and less impassioned than Don't Tell the Grownups. If Don't Tell the Grown-Ups was Lurie's final term paper, Boys and Girls Forever was the grade she knew the professor was going to drop. She needed to find a theme and stick to it.
Show Less
LibraryThing member lucybrown
Lurie's collection of essays on children's literature starts well, devoting the first half to the analysis of writers and poets who have written principally for children. Included in her review are Alcott, Rowling, de la Mare, Dr. Seuss, Masefield, Baum and, though not a children's writer for the
The second half is more of a hodge-podge of literary criticism and reviews. One focuses on the Opie's study of children's play and rhymes, a work into which I have long wanted to delve. Others on near magical quality of nature in children's stories, illustration as enhancement as well as clues to social values, and of the need for fairy tales are lacking. Little is said here that hasn't been said before, and, often, better. The second set of essays has an catalogue style. Overall, Lurie seems to add little original insight into the study of children's literature. Her sprinkling of author trivia tidbits (Masefield ironically suffered horribly from sea sickness) keeps the book enough on the right side of fun. However, it is not likely that any intelligent reader of these works would not have been able to come to the same conclusions. (This is really a 3.5 star book because of the floundering, unfocused 2nd half.)
Show More
most part, Rushdie. Her premise is that these writers retained an essentially child- like view of the world. Her evaluation of de la Mare and Masefield along these lines is keenly sympathetic. It is a shame that their works are no longer easily found. The second half is more of a hodge-podge of literary criticism and reviews. One focuses on the Opie's study of children's play and rhymes, a work into which I have long wanted to delve. Others on near magical quality of nature in children's stories, illustration as enhancement as well as clues to social values, and of the need for fairy tales are lacking. Little is said here that hasn't been said before, and, often, better. The second set of essays has an catalogue style. Overall, Lurie seems to add little original insight into the study of children's literature. Her sprinkling of author trivia tidbits (Masefield ironically suffered horribly from sea sickness) keeps the book enough on the right side of fun. However, it is not likely that any intelligent reader of these works would not have been able to come to the same conclusions. (This is really a 3.5 star book because of the floundering, unfocused 2nd half.)
Show Less
LibraryThing member lucybrown
Lurie's collection of essays on children's literature starts well, devoting the first half to the analysis of writers and poets who have written principally for children. Included in her review are Alcott, Rowling, de la Mare, Dr. Seuss, Masefield, Baum and, though not a children's writer for the
The second half is more of a hodge-podge of literary criticism and reviews. One focuses on the Opie's study of children's play and rhymes, a work into which I have long wanted to delve. Others on near magical quality of nature in children's stories, illustration as enhancement as well as clues to social values, and of the need for fairy tales are lacking. Little is said here that hasn't been said before, and, often, better. The second set of essays has an catalogue style. Overall, Lurie seems to add little original insight into the study of children's literature. Her sprinkling of author trivia tidbits (Masefield ironically suffered horribly from sea sickness) keeps the book enough on the right side of fun. However, it is not likely that any intelligent reader of these works would not have been able to come to the same conclusions. (This is really a 3.5 star book because of the floundering, unfocused 2nd half.)
Show More
most part, Rushdie. Her premise is that these writers retained an essentially child- like view of the world. Her evaluation of de la Mare and Masefield along these lines is keenly sympathetic. It is a shame that their works are no longer easily found. The second half is more of a hodge-podge of literary criticism and reviews. One focuses on the Opie's study of children's play and rhymes, a work into which I have long wanted to delve. Others on near magical quality of nature in children's stories, illustration as enhancement as well as clues to social values, and of the need for fairy tales are lacking. Little is said here that hasn't been said before, and, often, better. The second set of essays has an catalogue style. Overall, Lurie seems to add little original insight into the study of children's literature. Her sprinkling of author trivia tidbits (Masefield ironically suffered horribly from sea sickness) keeps the book enough on the right side of fun. However, it is not likely that any intelligent reader of these works would not have been able to come to the same conclusions. (This is really a 3.5 star book because of the floundering, unfocused 2nd half.)
Show Less
LibraryThing member lucybrown
Lurie's collection of essays on children's literature starts well, devoting the first half to the analysis of writers and poets who have written principally for children. Included in her review are Alcott, Rowling, de la Mare, Dr. Seuss, Masefield, Baum and, though not a children's writer for the
The second half is more of a hodge-podge of literary criticism and reviews. One focuses on the Opie's study of children's play and rhymes, a work into which I have long wanted to delve. Others on near magical quality of nature in children's stories, illustration as enhancement as well as clues to social values, and of the need for fairy tales are lacking. Little is said here that hasn't been said before, and, often, better. The second set of essays has an catalogue style. Overall, Lurie seems to add little original insight into the study of children's literature. Her sprinkling of author trivia tidbits (Masefield ironically suffered horribly from sea sickness) keeps the book enough on the right side of fun. However, it is not likely that any intelligent reader of these works would not have been able to come to the same conclusions. (This is really a 3.5 star book because of the floundering, unfocused 2nd half.)
Show More
most part, Rushdie. Her premise is that these writers retained an essentially child- like view of the world. Her evaluation of de la Mare and Masefield along these lines is keenly sympathetic. It is a shame that their works are no longer easily found. The second half is more of a hodge-podge of literary criticism and reviews. One focuses on the Opie's study of children's play and rhymes, a work into which I have long wanted to delve. Others on near magical quality of nature in children's stories, illustration as enhancement as well as clues to social values, and of the need for fairy tales are lacking. Little is said here that hasn't been said before, and, often, better. The second set of essays has an catalogue style. Overall, Lurie seems to add little original insight into the study of children's literature. Her sprinkling of author trivia tidbits (Masefield ironically suffered horribly from sea sickness) keeps the book enough on the right side of fun. However, it is not likely that any intelligent reader of these works would not have been able to come to the same conclusions. (This is really a 3.5 star book because of the floundering, unfocused 2nd half.)
Show Less
Subjects
Original publication date
2003
Physical description
219 p.; 8.02 inches
ISBN
0142002526 / 9780142002520