After reading Ch. 3 in our Zipes book, I'm confused as to what Zipes actually believes. He starts off the chapter by saying, "I am not being coy--children's literature does not exist" (p. 39). In the chapter he goes on and on about how parents and teachers and librarians read children's books more than children do. Then at the end of the chapter (p.58) he says that children's literature consists of reading material that kids are exposed to, such as board games, gum wrappers, greeting cards, window displays, posters, etc.
I'm not sure why Zipes considers all of those things children's literature when most of them are not written for children. Even though adults read children's books, they are written for children, thus we call them children's literature.
I guess I just don't see WHY Zipes cared enough to write a book about the subject. Who cares if adults read children's books? Who cares if kids read signs and posters and gum wrappers more than they read children's books. What's the big deal?
I agree... plus his writing style is somewhat cumbersome... I think his point could have been made with far fewer words, and would likewise have been more easily understood. It seems as though he "yo-yo's" between ideas and his evidence is quite weak. I understand the point he is trying to make, but I think he should have made it more clearly, more defined- instead of making comments all over the board which made you think and rethink his original statement, "that children's literature does not exist." I believe it certainly does, and that it is one of the greatest literacy tools that children have available to them. It not only opens the door to creativity and imagination, it also helps them comprehend things they might not see or feel in their everyday lives. It gives them a hunger to learn, something they might not ever desire if not introduced to at an early age.
I believe our assignment is on chapter 1 since we already talked about ch.3. Anyway, in ch.3 the only thing I would like to add to our lecture is that he makes examples and references to people without any citation or evidence. It is as if he pulled them out of the air and voiced his own opinion. "The gifted writer, a Native American" "A competent illustrator I met in Richmond." As for chapter 1, he sets his point that children’s literature is based on "consumer culture." Zipes at least referenced people who he seems to agree with, Stephen Kline on “children’s culture and TV marketing”, and Engelhardt on the “disillusioning of a generation”, whereas he argues “literacy is to function within the framework of market dictates… not their horrific content but that the purchase and reading of such books can lead to an addiction whereby the young, curious reader is transformed into a homogenized reader…” (8). Zipes also disagrees with William Bennett “calling for the return to the virtues of the Judeo-Christian tradition and the basic values of the family”. Zipes purports to say that the absolute or essential American values have been lost, or may have never really existed in the first place (p.3). Here again he is voicing his opinion, and thinks children and adults are just a cultural homogenization that the culture of American society has turned into a commodity (22). Is this just a scare tactic to make people stand up and say I’m not buying anything popular for my children. Isn’t he also saying the media, schools and parents all go along with what is out there to purchase and enlighten our children?
Zipes definately has an interesting way to try and get his point across. What irritated me the most was that he proclaimed there is no children's literature because it is not written "by the children for the children." (40)
I think there's a valid and logical reason why this is. If children wrote the literature then how are the children's schema's supposed to be built up? For example, certain age groups have different levels of education. The grammar will most likely not be correct as well as the spelling. So obviously there has to be someone editing the stories. So even though the literature goes through many people, I think it's necessary.
However, I agree with Zipes that it is ridiculous HOW MANY people the literature goes through in the process of development. So many things are changed from the original work that I would think to be an author is almost invalid. The idea's are taken, but that's about all.
4 comments:
After reading Ch. 3 in our Zipes book, I'm confused as to what Zipes actually believes. He starts off the chapter by saying, "I am not being coy--children's literature does not exist" (p. 39). In the chapter he goes on and on about how parents and teachers and librarians read children's books more than children do. Then at the end of the chapter (p.58) he says that children's literature consists of reading material that kids are exposed to, such as board games, gum wrappers, greeting cards, window displays, posters, etc.
I'm not sure why Zipes considers all of those things children's literature when most of them are not written for children. Even though adults read children's books, they are written for children, thus we call them children's literature.
I guess I just don't see WHY Zipes cared enough to write a book about the subject. Who cares if adults read children's books? Who cares if kids read signs and posters and gum wrappers more than they read children's books. What's the big deal?
I agree... plus his writing style is somewhat cumbersome... I think his point could have been made with far fewer words, and would likewise have been more easily understood. It seems as though he "yo-yo's" between ideas and his evidence is quite weak. I understand the point he is trying to make, but I think he should have made it more clearly, more defined- instead of making comments all over the board which made you think and rethink his original statement, "that children's literature does not exist." I believe it certainly does, and that it is one of the greatest literacy tools that children have available to them. It not only opens the door to creativity and imagination, it also helps them comprehend things they might not see or feel in their everyday lives. It gives them a hunger to learn, something they might not ever desire if not introduced to at an early age.
I believe our assignment is on chapter 1 since we already talked about ch.3. Anyway, in ch.3 the only thing I would like to add to our lecture is that he makes examples and references to people without any citation or evidence. It is as if he pulled them out of the air and voiced his own opinion. "The gifted writer, a Native American" "A competent illustrator I met in Richmond."
As for chapter 1, he sets his point that children’s literature is based on "consumer culture." Zipes at least referenced people who he seems to agree with, Stephen Kline on “children’s culture and TV marketing”, and Engelhardt on the “disillusioning of a generation”, whereas he argues “literacy is to function within the framework of market dictates… not their horrific content but that the purchase and reading of such books can lead to an addiction whereby the young, curious reader is transformed into a homogenized reader…” (8). Zipes also disagrees with William Bennett “calling for the return to the virtues of the Judeo-Christian tradition and the basic values of the family”. Zipes purports to say that the absolute or essential American values have been lost, or may have never really existed in the first place (p.3). Here again he is voicing his opinion, and thinks children and adults are just a cultural homogenization that the culture of American society has turned into a commodity (22). Is this just a scare tactic to make people stand up and say I’m not buying anything popular for my children. Isn’t he also saying the media, schools and parents all go along with what is out there to purchase and enlighten our children?
Zipes definately has an interesting way to try and get his point across. What irritated me the most was that he proclaimed there is no children's literature because it is not written "by the children for the children." (40)
I think there's a valid and logical reason why this is. If children wrote the literature then how are the children's schema's supposed to be built up? For example, certain age groups have different levels of education. The grammar will most likely not be correct as well as the spelling. So obviously there has to be someone editing the stories. So even though the literature goes through many people, I think it's necessary.
However, I agree with Zipes that it is ridiculous HOW MANY people the literature goes through in the process of development. So many things are changed from the original work that I would think to be an author is almost invalid. The idea's are taken, but that's about all.
Post a Comment