Reading Sticks and Stones by Jack Zipes was certainly very interesting. To see what Zipes had to say about children’s literature and the publishing field in general was especially interesting. After reading a bit of Zipes’ work, I must say I have a lot more respect for children’s literature. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not like I didn’t respect the works before, but after reading what Zipes had to say, I now know that writing for a child can be difficult. I always figured all you had to do was write a little, and include a lot of colorful pictures and bam; you have a work of art. Well, Zipes brought up a good point, it’s a lot harder then just including words and pictures because you are not only writing for the child, you’re also writing for the parent. You have to be careful of what you say or even draw because a parent might analyze the book before reading it to a child and you don’t want a parent to be upset.
This brings me to my next point. Zipes mentions that the wider audience who reads children’s books aren’t children; they are parents, and college students. I don’t know how accurate that is, but I think it’s a very good point. Look at this class right now, we’re all college students in this class and we’re reading children’s books. Obviously children read children’s books, but I just never really thought that they weren’t the main audience that these books targeted.
The other thing that I found very interesting in Zipes’ book was when he talked about the publishing industry. I never really thought about the publishers of these books, I just figured they were companies and that’s all. But from what I heard in class, something that Professor Kittle mentioned, these publishers are linked to other things. I believe that the example that Professor Kittle used was that a publishing company was linked to a bigger company and that company sold weapons of mass destruction. Again, before reading Zipes’ book and talking about it in class, I never really thought about publishers and publishing companies, they were irrelevant to me. But now, it’s a big deal, its linked to politics. I mean a company who publishes children’s books may also be selling bombs and guns. If that’s not politics then I don’t know what is.
One thing that got me a little puzzled was when Zipes talked about “junk food” as literature. I mean what does he define as junk food? I mean are comic books “junk food”? Zipes might think so but I think comics are wonderful because they capture the imagination of a children (and adults) and a lot of children see comics as something fun and entertaining. So, if something captures the child’s mind, then what’s so wrong about that? What is “junk food” and what isn’t? I personally believe that if something captures a child and allows them to think and wonder, then it’s not “junk food”.
As for the articles that we read about Little Red Riding Hood, well, those were a little disturbing to me. I mean I’ve read different versions of fairy tales, but I never read one of Little Red Riding Hood with so much emphasis on sex. I mean in one of the stories, the wolf asks Red to take off her clothes and go lay next to him. This made me think, are stories now at days being censored a bit? I mean censorship isn’t a bad idea at times. I don’t want my son or daughter reading books with sex and sexual images in it. I don’t know, all this did was made me think about the industry a little more in depth.
Reading Zipes’ book and the different versions of the fairy tales online made me think a lot about how many different interpretations might exist on one thing. Reading Zipes’ book made me think a lot about the publishing field and got me a little paranoid because now I think that these publishers are really all about money and profits, rather then putting out a good piece of work for the children.
4 comments:
Bottom Line Opinion: Publishing is a dirty business. (I say this with humor, surprise, and disappointment. Humor and surprise because who knew publishing could be so intertwined with something like arms dealers. Disappointment because it is unfortunate that literally everything, no matter what angle you look at it from, is money driven and publishers do not view people as humans, but rather as consumers with products to be sold.)
I would say that Zipes does not have the right to say something is “junk food.” If a child is reading, more power to them. My opinion is that children do not read as much anymore when compared to children reading one or two decades ago. If children pick up Goosebumps then let them read it because maybe it will be the gateway that opens their eyes to reading for pleasure. Once someone discovers that reading is a pleasure and not a chore, they will undoubtedly find the “better” books. If Goosebumps is the gateway, its okay, there are worse things. As stated by the character Miranda Hobbs in Sex and the City, “It’s my thing. Let it go,” in reference to her addiction to a celebrity tabloid. She is a successful lawyer, partner at her firm, yet she reads for fun, a gossip magazine. Another example is from Finding Forrester. The old man, a brilliant author, and an intelligent man who reads some of the most well written books in history, yet for his “dessert” he enjoys the Esquire magazine. The judgment of what is “junk food” is not Zipes’ to make.
Reading the Little Red Riding Hood stories actually did make me uncomfortable. I did not care for the tone or the word choice of most of the variants. Maybe my mind is “corrupt” or I have been so heavily bombarded with sex from the media whether fiction or non-fiction that I was unable to see past what was obvious sexual connotation in my eyes. Or maybe it was the fact that I didn’t like someone “contaminating” one of the beloved fairy tales. Not matter why I felt the way I did while reading the variants, one thing is for sure, I did not care for them.
I am fascinated with the line by Denby on page 9 of Zipes, “They are shaped by the media as consumers before they’ve had a chance to develop their souls.” Who thought that TV, movies, videos, the internet, and whatever else is included in the term media would be considered a poison to a child’s soul. I am always surprised by what people believe is an issue which has such potential to be damaging to humans that they make it their life’s work. It is not to say that I think all this talk is rubbish, its the fact that I would have never thought to debate this topic or have even thought it was a major problem in today’s society. But once it is brought to my attention I am even more amazed to find out how deep the root of the problem really is or how twisted people have made an issue.
Claim: Freedom, free time, and free choice, do not technically exist.
p.12 “Whatever healthy differences in perspective and identities that are fostered by the family, school, or church in heterogeneous communities are leveled by homogeneous market forces that confuse the issue of freedom and choice and equate the power to buy with the power to determine one’s identity and destiny.”
p13 “..to demonstrate how our free time is no longer free but regulated by culture industries…”
My interpretation of what Zipes is saying is that EVERYTHING we do is because of some corporation and even if we think it was our choice, it really wasn’t. Does that make sense?
I feel like Zipes is over analyzing everything. What he says makes sense and I see his line of thought, but it is really necessary? Example: Saying that all parents want a “return” on their money when they pay to have their child play on a soccer team. This thought of mine is much bigger and goes much deeper than the three sentences I am writing, but trying to explain it on paper is difficult. Overall I am really enjoying this book so far, even if I do not agree with everything Zipes and others have to say, they do make many relevant points and good arguments.
I think it is ironic that children's literature is not made for children. I would have never thought that to be true. We live in a world where money is every thing and it's sad, to say the least, that it even runs children's literature.
Aren't publishers taking away from what the author has to say by making changes and edits throughout the book? I think this demeans our authors. I do agree with Zipes when he states that children's literature does not exist. Although, it's not something I would have concluded on my own. He makes a number of arguments to support his claims. He states that most readers of children's literature are teachers, librarians and college studetns (pg. 55). When an author decides to write a book, does he actually intend on children reading it or are they more concerned with attracting a wide variety of audeinces? Zipes would answer yes to this question because he believes that the publishers will do what they can to make sure books sell and that the book attracts a wide range of people. This saddens me, but I am glad to be aware of this issue.
The Little Red Ridding Hood variants pretty much shocked me. While I was reading it I was quite surprised at the vulgarity. I thought to myself that I would never read something like this to my children. On the other hand, when Mr. Kittle mentioned that he read it to his boys and they loved it, that made me think wow he's right, boys would love this stuff! Personally, I would still have a hard time reading it to a little girl. It is amazing how far censorship has come.
When reading chapter one I found myself extremely frustrated. I was disagreeing with Zipes left and right. Maybe it's just because it was the first chapter, but I felt Zipes was a little too extreme. He claims that we aren't actually relaxing when we go to a movie or sporting event. He states, "What counts for them is that the habit of going to see a movie is reinforced by the ritual of buying and subscribing to something that appears worthwhile and fun" (pg. 14). What child doesn't love going to the movies or doesn't have fun while at the movie? Movies are a great chance for families to get out and have a fun time together. Nothing about the movies appears to be fun, they actually are! I understand that he is saying that we are just paying giant corporations to advertise and wasting our money, but I think he's missing the point.
I also feel his claims about sports were a litte harsh. Yes, there are a number of parents and coaches who take winning way too seriously, but he forgot to mention the benefits of children playing sports. Competition, social skills, and physical development all play an important role in sports. It sounds like he is saying that no parent or coach understands this aspect of children playing sports. I feel his point of view was too extreme with no grey area.
Post a Comment