What do you think?
Rate this book
Growing Up Poor: Home, School and Street in London 1870-1914
Growing Up Home, School and Street in London, 1870-1914
Paperback
First published January 1, 1996
24 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
May 5, 2015
The content of this book is good and the stories told through oral histories are really good -- this has the potential to be a great book. Sadly, though, it is awful. I can't believe that scholars have given this book a good review. This has to be the ultimate free pass of a well known historian. Here are some issues...
1) The argument of a changing roles of children over time, from 1870-1914? What? The entire book notes how girls were educated in domesticate type skills to becoming a wife -- Victorian ideals. How is that different than the 1780s? What change? The entire book almost details the utter lack of change. Yes, compulsory education is HUGE. That occurred in 1870, so is the argument that it changed after 1870? She says no. She argues that it changed during the era presented in this book. Hww? She basically ruins her entire thesis -- not that she actually states a central thesis.
2) No mention of Social Darwinism, Whitechapel prostitution (Um, Jack the Ripper sorta made this clear, no?), Women who drank -- not just men, Foundling hospitals, and ... well, I could go on and on. Huge topics left out of this book.
3) Waiting until chapter 11 to discuss race and immigration? How is that not significant for the first 10 chapters? Isn't *that* a good way to discuss change?
4) A conclusion put within the end of chapter 11? Why not a separate chapter for that -- and the conclusion had ZERO to do with the book, or the intro.
5) Passive voice GALORE! No historian should write with that much passive voice, period. Goes to her lack of clarity in her argument, too.
6) No discussion of methodology .. zero.
7) Chapter 1 sources are incorrectly numbered and one is missing. That is beyond sloppy.
8) I have no understanding of why the roles of boys in the streets is in both section 1 and 3, but education is in the middle -- odd structure and *again* goes to a lack of clarity to what this book is even trying to argue.
I could go on all day. Scholars clearly did not read this book or simply liked the bottom-up approach and voice to the poor. I agree, the stories from the poor and that attempt to do it that way is commendable. But, c'mon - uuggh - this book is an embarrassment to the field.
1) The argument of a changing roles of children over time, from 1870-1914? What? The entire book notes how girls were educated in domesticate type skills to becoming a wife -- Victorian ideals. How is that different than the 1780s? What change? The entire book almost details the utter lack of change. Yes, compulsory education is HUGE. That occurred in 1870, so is the argument that it changed after 1870? She says no. She argues that it changed during the era presented in this book. Hww? She basically ruins her entire thesis -- not that she actually states a central thesis.
2) No mention of Social Darwinism, Whitechapel prostitution (Um, Jack the Ripper sorta made this clear, no?), Women who drank -- not just men, Foundling hospitals, and ... well, I could go on and on. Huge topics left out of this book.
3) Waiting until chapter 11 to discuss race and immigration? How is that not significant for the first 10 chapters? Isn't *that* a good way to discuss change?
4) A conclusion put within the end of chapter 11? Why not a separate chapter for that -- and the conclusion had ZERO to do with the book, or the intro.
5) Passive voice GALORE! No historian should write with that much passive voice, period. Goes to her lack of clarity in her argument, too.
6) No discussion of methodology .. zero.
7) Chapter 1 sources are incorrectly numbered and one is missing. That is beyond sloppy.
8) I have no understanding of why the roles of boys in the streets is in both section 1 and 3, but education is in the middle -- odd structure and *again* goes to a lack of clarity to what this book is even trying to argue.
I could go on all day. Scholars clearly did not read this book or simply liked the bottom-up approach and voice to the poor. I agree, the stories from the poor and that attempt to do it that way is commendable. But, c'mon - uuggh - this book is an embarrassment to the field.
Displaying 1 of 1 review