What do you think?
Rate this book
Boys and Girls Forever: Children's Classics from Cinderella to Harry Potter
Libro usado en buenas condiciones, por su antiguedad podria contener señales normales de uso
256 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2002
7 people are currently reading
145 people want to read
About the author
Alison Lurie
70 books210 followersAlison Stewart Lurie was an American novelist and academic. She won the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction for her 1984 novel Foreign Affairs. Although better known as a novelist, she wrote many non-fiction books and articles, particularly on children's literature and the semiotics of dress.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews
June 1, 2015
1 1/2 Stars
Overall, this was a disappointment. These have to be the least scholarly literary essays that I've ever read (also the least interesting). These felt like research papers written by a high school freshman.
For the most part they were pretty direction-less providing surface level biographies of authors and a brief summary of their notable works. The literary criticisms were an inconsistent mix of shallow interpretations and opinions passed on as facts.
There really isn't anything in this book that you can't find on Wikipedia and the writing style is about the same.
There was a tie for most horrendous between Lurie's essay on Dr. Seuss and JK Rowling. I can excuse some of the faults within the Rowling/Harry Potter essay because this was written in 2003, a time when Harry Potter was a bit more "scandalous" and most of the articles written about it mentioned fundamentalist Christians. However, I was expecting literary criticism, not a fluff article for Time Magazine.
Her article on Dr. Seuss is a sad representation of the author. Her observations often state the obvious except for when she is shamefully reaching. The elephants in "Oh the Places you Will Go" represent Republicans because they are elephants.... Really? Internet Creepypastas have more supporting evidence!
Overall, I just found these essays to be of the basest quality. They weren't interesting or well crafted. To make matters worse I didn't feel that the author cared. There didn't seem to be a whole lot of passion for the subject matter. Often I finished an essay and thought, what's your point?! Apparently each essay was meant to illustrate that children's authors "prefer the world of young people to the world of adults". First off, no. You did not properly illustrate this 'theory'. Second, does this even qualify as a theory? I'm going to write a book about how chefs love cooking and painters love art.
My suggestion is that you skip this one.
Overall, this was a disappointment. These have to be the least scholarly literary essays that I've ever read (also the least interesting). These felt like research papers written by a high school freshman.
For the most part they were pretty direction-less providing surface level biographies of authors and a brief summary of their notable works. The literary criticisms were an inconsistent mix of shallow interpretations and opinions passed on as facts.
There really isn't anything in this book that you can't find on Wikipedia and the writing style is about the same.
There was a tie for most horrendous between Lurie's essay on Dr. Seuss and JK Rowling. I can excuse some of the faults within the Rowling/Harry Potter essay because this was written in 2003, a time when Harry Potter was a bit more "scandalous" and most of the articles written about it mentioned fundamentalist Christians. However, I was expecting literary criticism, not a fluff article for Time Magazine.
Her article on Dr. Seuss is a sad representation of the author. Her observations often state the obvious except for when she is shamefully reaching. The elephants in "Oh the Places you Will Go" represent Republicans because they are elephants.... Really? Internet Creepypastas have more supporting evidence!
Overall, I just found these essays to be of the basest quality. They weren't interesting or well crafted. To make matters worse I didn't feel that the author cared. There didn't seem to be a whole lot of passion for the subject matter. Often I finished an essay and thought, what's your point?! Apparently each essay was meant to illustrate that children's authors "prefer the world of young people to the world of adults". First off, no. You did not properly illustrate this 'theory'. Second, does this even qualify as a theory? I'm going to write a book about how chefs love cooking and painters love art.
My suggestion is that you skip this one.
January 5, 2024
somewhat disappointing--mostly it was describing the plots of the books she writes about, with very few insights that felt new and interesting to me.
September 27, 2015
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 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.)
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.)
February 24, 2016
Boys and Girls Forever is subtitled Children's Classics from Cinderella to Harry Potter. She only profiles only nine authors, only two of them are contemporary(Salman Rushdie, who wrote onechildren's book and J.K. Rowling). A third of the authors I had never heard of ( De La Mare, Masefield and Tove Jansson). I think I will check out their work; it's unlikely I would have heard of these authors if I hadn't read this book.
The essays were ok. Sometimes they were quite interesting they didn't seem connected at all, like each essay had been already published elsewhere and were just placed together for the purpose of this book. Lurie doesn't really seem to have a point to make or point of view to put forth. She seems really strong writing about writers from further back in history like Louisa May Alcott and Frank Baum. She wrote that Harry Potter can be enjoyed as a celebration of the preindustrial world. I think that misses the boat completely.
Some of the best chapters are at the end. She leaves behind the individual authors and writes broadly about fairy tales, poetry for children, children's games and the illustrations in children's books. This stuff was pretty fascinating.
The essays were ok. Sometimes they were quite interesting they didn't seem connected at all, like each essay had been already published elsewhere and were just placed together for the purpose of this book. Lurie doesn't really seem to have a point to make or point of view to put forth. She seems really strong writing about writers from further back in history like Louisa May Alcott and Frank Baum. She wrote that Harry Potter can be enjoyed as a celebration of the preindustrial world. I think that misses the boat completely.
Some of the best chapters are at the end. She leaves behind the individual authors and writes broadly about fairy tales, poetry for children, children's games and the illustrations in children's books. This stuff was pretty fascinating.
January 26, 2009
A second collection of essays about children's literature. The first, Not in Front of the Grown-Ups, was about subversive aspects of children's literature. This collection is less focused, but the essays tackle more recent fiction, such as the Harry Potter series.
I particularly liked the essays on Louisa May Alcott and J. K. Rowling, but they're all worth reading. After all, Lurie didn't win a Pulitzer for nothing.
I particularly liked the essays on Louisa May Alcott and J. K. Rowling, but they're all worth reading. After all, Lurie didn't win a Pulitzer for nothing.
March 6, 2008
Maybe I'm a bit of a nerd for children's book academia, but I think there are interesting essays in here even for the casual reader. Her points on the Harry Potter phenomenon are particularly interesting.
December 31, 2022
My last book of the year. Fitting maybe because this year was my last year teaching and I bought the book for a class I taught. I thought it might give me some insights for the class. But we stopped offering Children’s Lit long before I stopped teaching and I never got around to reading it. It’s a very academic book. Not surprising because the author herself taught children’s lit at the college level. The book is a series of essays about various authors and aspects of the genre all supposedly supporting the thesis that the authors of some of our most classic lit for children were also unable to leave their connections to childhood behind them. I’m not sure I agree with the premise exactly. Does an understanding of the childhood experience mean one has not let go of the child in them? Does my understanding of adolescence and adolescents mean I never let go of my own. Are all high school teachers caught permanently in their own adolescence. A disturbing premise for all concerned.
The first half of the book focused on individual authors, some of whom I had never heard from and others who I had barely heard of. Of the ones I had read for myself Lurie’s premise held most true for Hans Christian Anderson and maybe Dr. Seuss. I found the analysis of the Oz books interesting but not enough to remember what it purported now a week or so later after I read it. I have no desire to read works by Masefield or de la Mare based on these essays.
However after reading about Salman Rushdie’s sole foray into children’s lit I do want to find his book and read it. It is fascinating that he wrote it in hiding when he found he couldn’t write at all. Only his promise to his son prompted him to try. And the story itself was about being silenced and having the words being restored. Perhaps another premise on which unite these essays is how the authors used their own stories to resolve something from their childhoods. Too psychological and not enough lit crit?
It was in this essay that I found the ideas that make my heart race and make me want to be in a classroom of adolescents who all complain about reading and say “This…this is why you must read. It’s a privilege and a blessing not a curse.” Lurid writes, “If there is one encouraging conclusion to be drawn from the problems of Salman Rushdie’ it is that literature has power—so much power that it is dreaded by dictators.” (111). She quotes another critic on Rushdie, Matt Wolf, “we suppress stories at great cost to ourselves as Rushdie of all people knows. Inasmuch as we are the stories we tell, Amy attempt to close those stories off itself constitutes murder, . . .” (111)
It wasn’t until the author stopped focusing on single authors and opened up her essays to more general aspects of children’s lit that my attention was finally grabbed and I couldn’t put the book down. Particularly the chapter on fairy tales. The thesis for that one was not too different from That in Uses of Enchantment by Bettelheim. Reading it reminded me that I wished I had encountered that in time to write my senior thesis my last year at Scripps. Although, they didn’t think much of my choice of Graham Greene as a major author and I’m sure they would have thought less of a thesis on fairy tales in literature.
It was in the essay on children’s poetry that again found myself being a teacher excited to find expressed my own ideas. “Today, children’s attention span is assumed to be incredibly short, and they are also thought not to have much interest in poems about heavyweight social issues. I wonder if we are not underestimating them—or even worse, creating the kind of disinterest we assume.” (157)
The first half of the book focused on individual authors, some of whom I had never heard from and others who I had barely heard of. Of the ones I had read for myself Lurie’s premise held most true for Hans Christian Anderson and maybe Dr. Seuss. I found the analysis of the Oz books interesting but not enough to remember what it purported now a week or so later after I read it. I have no desire to read works by Masefield or de la Mare based on these essays.
However after reading about Salman Rushdie’s sole foray into children’s lit I do want to find his book and read it. It is fascinating that he wrote it in hiding when he found he couldn’t write at all. Only his promise to his son prompted him to try. And the story itself was about being silenced and having the words being restored. Perhaps another premise on which unite these essays is how the authors used their own stories to resolve something from their childhoods. Too psychological and not enough lit crit?
It was in this essay that I found the ideas that make my heart race and make me want to be in a classroom of adolescents who all complain about reading and say “This…this is why you must read. It’s a privilege and a blessing not a curse.” Lurid writes, “If there is one encouraging conclusion to be drawn from the problems of Salman Rushdie’ it is that literature has power—so much power that it is dreaded by dictators.” (111). She quotes another critic on Rushdie, Matt Wolf, “we suppress stories at great cost to ourselves as Rushdie of all people knows. Inasmuch as we are the stories we tell, Amy attempt to close those stories off itself constitutes murder, . . .” (111)
It wasn’t until the author stopped focusing on single authors and opened up her essays to more general aspects of children’s lit that my attention was finally grabbed and I couldn’t put the book down. Particularly the chapter on fairy tales. The thesis for that one was not too different from That in Uses of Enchantment by Bettelheim. Reading it reminded me that I wished I had encountered that in time to write my senior thesis my last year at Scripps. Although, they didn’t think much of my choice of Graham Greene as a major author and I’m sure they would have thought less of a thesis on fairy tales in literature.
It was in the essay on children’s poetry that again found myself being a teacher excited to find expressed my own ideas. “Today, children’s attention span is assumed to be incredibly short, and they are also thought not to have much interest in poems about heavyweight social issues. I wonder if we are not underestimating them—or even worse, creating the kind of disinterest we assume.” (157)
April 9, 2024
This book was a disappointment - firstly because it's a hotch potch of essays that dont fit well together as a book. The first half of the book is roughly about authors of children's books, and the second half is whatever could be scraped up to fill out the rest, sometimes repeating observations made in the first half.
Secondly, despite the author mentioning several times that she's an cademic in this subject, it really isn't well researched or well observed. The worst chapter, I thought, was on Tove Jansson and the Moomin books. It talks about her life in the most bare bones sense missing out some of the more interesting things, and spends several pages drawing weak and purposeless parallels between the Moomin series and, for some reason, Winnie the Pooh (Moomin is like Pooh, Sniff like Piglet, Misabel like Eeyore, and Moomin Valley like the Hundred Acre Wood. Really?)
Also, there's some really baffling observations about the UK e.g. when talking about Hagrid from Harry Potter's love of dangerous animals "the British, of course, are fanatic animal lovers; and it may be that this is Rowling's comment on the peculiar or even dangerous beloved pets that visitors to England sometimes encounter" (???) or, after talking about the prevalence in American playgrounds of ideas like cooties, says "the [British researcher] Iona Opie does not mention observing a belief in the contaminating effects of some children on others. It's hard to know whether it did or did not exist, or whether it seemed so obvious she did not report it. Given what we know about British society, the latter seems most likely." The 'given what we know about British society' makes me laugh. She's literally talking about things that happened in living memory in another English speaking culture, not an ancient civilisation now at the bottom of the sea.
Two stars only because it was an easy holiday read.
Secondly, despite the author mentioning several times that she's an cademic in this subject, it really isn't well researched or well observed. The worst chapter, I thought, was on Tove Jansson and the Moomin books. It talks about her life in the most bare bones sense missing out some of the more interesting things, and spends several pages drawing weak and purposeless parallels between the Moomin series and, for some reason, Winnie the Pooh (Moomin is like Pooh, Sniff like Piglet, Misabel like Eeyore, and Moomin Valley like the Hundred Acre Wood. Really?)
Also, there's some really baffling observations about the UK e.g. when talking about Hagrid from Harry Potter's love of dangerous animals "the British, of course, are fanatic animal lovers; and it may be that this is Rowling's comment on the peculiar or even dangerous beloved pets that visitors to England sometimes encounter" (???) or, after talking about the prevalence in American playgrounds of ideas like cooties, says "the [British researcher] Iona Opie does not mention observing a belief in the contaminating effects of some children on others. It's hard to know whether it did or did not exist, or whether it seemed so obvious she did not report it. Given what we know about British society, the latter seems most likely." The 'given what we know about British society' makes me laugh. She's literally talking about things that happened in living memory in another English speaking culture, not an ancient civilisation now at the bottom of the sea.
Two stars only because it was an easy holiday read.
December 16, 2022
Engaging to the point of 3.5 stars for fans of children's classics and for scholars. I have enjoyed several other works by Lurie, and so am rounding up my rating.
This one is not as unified or as compelling as the description would have you believe - some chapters were essays not adapted to reinforce the theme but just included so the book would be long enough to sell, for example. The chapter on Tove Jansson and her Moomintrolls was particularly disappointing, as it was mainly a recitation of plots and very little analysis.
I did appreciate that Lurie pointed out something I'd never noted before. Remember the chapter in The Wind in the Willows about the (unnamed but obviously) god Pan? Well, Lurie points out that he (it?) was a popular subject in the literature of the time, hence the 'surname' of a magical lad, first name Peter, famed for never growing up...
Lurie also points out what exactly is wrong with the Disney versions of the classics, so read that chapter next time you're trying to articulate your distaste to a fan of the movies....
This one is not as unified or as compelling as the description would have you believe - some chapters were essays not adapted to reinforce the theme but just included so the book would be long enough to sell, for example. The chapter on Tove Jansson and her Moomintrolls was particularly disappointing, as it was mainly a recitation of plots and very little analysis.
I did appreciate that Lurie pointed out something I'd never noted before. Remember the chapter in The Wind in the Willows about the (unnamed but obviously) god Pan? Well, Lurie points out that he (it?) was a popular subject in the literature of the time, hence the 'surname' of a magical lad, first name Peter, famed for never growing up...
Lurie also points out what exactly is wrong with the Disney versions of the classics, so read that chapter next time you're trying to articulate your distaste to a fan of the movies....
March 2, 2018
Strange book this. It says that it has a central idea, that children’s authors are closer to children but doesn’t really have much to argue for that. To make up for the lack of solid argumentation for it’s case it throws tons of quotes and citations for what are essentially opinions, as if having an endnote to an opinion makes it correct. I am of the the opinion that when you write opinions you should show yourself opinionated, not hide it as fact. In such it seemed to me to be a very American piece of ‘scholarship’ that carries on the 17/18th Century idea that all valid opinions are stated in previous texts. There was also such an American bias that sometimes it was hard to read.
October 28, 2022
This is a collection of essays, most of which originally appeared in the New York Review of Books.
I enjoyed the first group of essays as each one was a chapter about an individual author and their books, such as Tove Jansson's Moomintroll books, Dr Seuss, Louisa May Alcott, etc.
But then the essays ventured more into analysis - of childrens' play, the rhymes they invent. Although this was interesting, it was not what I picked the book up for.
I enjoyed the first group of essays as each one was a chapter about an individual author and their books, such as Tove Jansson's Moomintroll books, Dr Seuss, Louisa May Alcott, etc.
But then the essays ventured more into analysis - of childrens' play, the rhymes they invent. Although this was interesting, it was not what I picked the book up for.
July 21, 2017
Fairly interesting - primarily the last five chapters.
July 31, 2021
One book off the tbr, 20+ new added😭 I need to stop reading books about books omg
April 6, 2015
An excellent set of essays on aspects of children's literature. Lurie's reviews from the New York Review of Books cover everything from Hans Christian Anderson to John Masefield and Dr. Seuss. Read this while working your way through their series of reprinted children's classics, which are a pleasure.
June 21, 2009
A great compilation of essays concering children's books authors, as well as a few other essays on children's poetry, settings, and so on and so forth.
I especially enjoyed the essay on nature in children's books. It was detailed and provided many examples to which one could identify.
I especially enjoyed the essay on nature in children's books. It was detailed and provided many examples to which one could identify.
June 28, 2012
I don't like children's books for the most part, so why am I even reading this? Sometimes the brain just doesn't connect the dots. It looks like a well-written book, what can I say? I don't like kid's movies either. ?
October 16, 2013
Some of the essays here (which almost all originally appeared in the New York Review of Books) are great fun but Lurie, enthusiastic as she is, is not a good reader and there are plenty of misreadings that I lose patience with
May 4, 2009
This was very interesting at first, but I lost interest about 3/4 of the way through and finally had to admit that I was never going to finish it.
January 7, 2010
A bit dated, but interesting nonetheless.
July 26, 2011
A very interesting collection of essays on authors writing for children, some contemporary and some classic.
November 8, 2012
A little dry but not without merit. Reminded me that I should go back and read some children's classics whilst I catch up on the new books.
August 21, 2012
This author just rubbed me the wrong way. Didn't like this at all, which is sad because reading about books is one of my favorite things. Blech, blech, blech!
October 24, 2012
It had some interesting chapters.
July 1, 2013
Informative essays that all have a nicely unexpected twist with an idea that I wouldn't have put in with that book or author.
April 18, 2017
A collection of essays about children's literature.
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews