What do you think?
Rate this book
Sticks and Stones: The Troublesome Success of Children's Literature from Slovenly Peter to Harry Potter
Have children ever really had a literature of their own? In Sticks and Stones, Jack Zipes explores children's literature, from the grissly moralism of Slovenly Peter to the hugely successful Harry Potter books, and argues that despite common assumptions about children's books, our investment in children is paradoxically curtailing their freedom and creativity. Sticks and Stones is a forthright and engaging book by someone who cares deeply about what and how children read.
228 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2002
4 people are currently reading
194 people want to read
About the author
Jack D. Zipes
152 books245 followersJack David Zipes is a retired Professor of German at the University of Minnesota. He has published and lectured extensively on the subject of fairy tales, their linguistic roots, and argued that they have a "socialization function". According to Zipes, fairy tales "serve a meaningful social function, not just for compensation but for revelation: the worlds projected by the best of our fairy tales reveal the gaps between truth and falsehood in our immediate society." His arguments are avowedly based on the neo-Marxist critical theory of the Frankfurt School.
Zipes enjoys using droll titles for his works like Don't Bet on the Prince and The Trials and Tribulations of Little Red Ridinghood.
He completed a PhD in comparative literature at Columbia University. Zipes taught at various institutions before heading German language studies at the University of Minnesota. He has retranslation of the complete fairy tales of the Brothers Grimm.
Zipes enjoys using droll titles for his works like Don't Bet on the Prince and The Trials and Tribulations of Little Red Ridinghood.
He completed a PhD in comparative literature at Columbia University. Zipes taught at various institutions before heading German language studies at the University of Minnesota. He has retranslation of the complete fairy tales of the Brothers Grimm.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
December 10, 2022
Please note that because I actually read Jack Zipes' 2002 Sticks and Stones: The Troublesome Success of Children's Literature from Slovenly Peter to Harry Potter as a textbook for an online graduate level university course on children's literature I took in 2005 (and thus four years before I joined Goodreads), I do not really remember Sticks and Stones: The Troublesome Success of Children's Literature from Slovenly Peter to Harry Potter all that much regarding the specific textual details except for the fact that I vividly do recall not really enjoying Sticks and Stones: The Troublesome Success of Children's Literature from Slovenly Peter to Harry Potter and finding Jack Zipes as an author to be academically frustrating and often even truly and utterly annoying (albeit also to a point rather strangely and perversely interesting but only in an aggravating and grating manner), and that therefore, my review for Sticks and Stones: The Troublesome Success of Children's Literature from Slovenly Peter to Harry Potter will of course not be all that factually detailed and will obviously only be dealing with my general reading feelings and reactions, with the basic but also very overall of why Sticks and Stones: The Troublesome Success of Children's Literature from Slovenly Peter to Harry Potter is not and will never be a critical analysis of children's literature to consider with a positive and laudatory star rating for me (and that therefore, I will also neither recommend nor not recommend Sticks and Stones: The Troublesome Success of Children's Literature from Slovenly Peter to Harry Potter and to tell potential readers to check for themselves whether they like or dislike this book and Jack Zipes as its author).
So basically Sticks and Stones: The Troublesome Success of Children's Literature from Slovenly Peter to Harry Potter is a collection of various essays on children's literature (all penned by Jack Zipes), based on delivered but unpublished oral presentations by the author, and finally a postscript on the Harry Potter phenomenon. And yes, with regard to what Jack Zipes is textually and thematically presenting, that ALL of his essays in Sticks and Stones: The Troublesome Success of Children's Literature from Slovenly Peter to Harry Potter have the author, have Zipes using a very strong and rather all encompassing undercurrent of obviously and overt Marxist ideology, I have indeed found this textually rather frustrating and tedious (and not to mention horribly academically one-sided), and that both this and also Jack Zipes' tendency to become rather repetitive and sometimes even personally contradictory, indeed, this really has made Sticks and Stones: The Troublesome Success of Children's Literature from Slovenly Peter to Harry Potter more of a reading chore than in any manner even remotely a reading joy for me (and also really boring, dragging and pretty much mind-numbingly tedious).
For while having in Sticks and Stones: The Troublesome Success of Children's Literature from Slovenly Peter to Harry Potter multiple instances of me not agreeing with Jack Zipes regarding his attitudes and his takes on children's literature is actually textually rather fun and interesting to an extent (or rather that this could and should be the case), the constantly repetitive nature of Jack Zipes' presented essays (basically kind of like majorly beating the proverbial dead horse with his arguments and his examples) and that I often in fact only seem able and willing to appreciate the research that Zipes has obviously put into the articles featured in Sticks and Stones: The Troublesome Success of Children's Literature from Slovenly Peter to Harry Potter but truly not much more, that I totally do tend to find Jack Zipes' tone and attitude in Sticks and Stones: The Troublesome Success of Children's Literature from Slovenly Peter to Harry Potter rather teeming with an annoying and infuriating academic holier than thou arrogance (and how Zipes also often seems to either ignore or relentlessly verbally trash those authors and theorists with whom he does not agree, and then puts those who think and write like him on some kind of unassailable pedestal, which Jack Zipes himself also and annoyingly sits on and reigns from), yes, for me to say that this has all textually majorly textually and academically bothered me, is both the truth and also a major understatement (and that my two star rating for Sticks and Stones: The Troublesome Success of Children's Literature from Slovenly Peter to Harry Potter is actually and in my opinion quite generous, as my gut reaction is definitely more akin to being one star).
And finally and honestly speaking, I also know for a fact (and from personal experience) that had I penned my own PhD dissertation with the kind of repetitiveness and total focus on Marxism as I have noticed perusing Sticks and Stones: The Troublesome Success of Children's Literature from Slovenly Peter to Harry Potter, I most likely would not have passed my oral defence, I would have had to change my dissertation text into something less one-sidedly ideological and less receptively redundant (but that with Jack Zipes, this seems not to be considered all that much of an issue with Sticks and Stones: The Troublesome Success of Children's Literature from Slovenly Peter to Harry Potter and also seems to be accepted by many reviewers just because Jack Zipes is a well known and tenured professor).
So basically Sticks and Stones: The Troublesome Success of Children's Literature from Slovenly Peter to Harry Potter is a collection of various essays on children's literature (all penned by Jack Zipes), based on delivered but unpublished oral presentations by the author, and finally a postscript on the Harry Potter phenomenon. And yes, with regard to what Jack Zipes is textually and thematically presenting, that ALL of his essays in Sticks and Stones: The Troublesome Success of Children's Literature from Slovenly Peter to Harry Potter have the author, have Zipes using a very strong and rather all encompassing undercurrent of obviously and overt Marxist ideology, I have indeed found this textually rather frustrating and tedious (and not to mention horribly academically one-sided), and that both this and also Jack Zipes' tendency to become rather repetitive and sometimes even personally contradictory, indeed, this really has made Sticks and Stones: The Troublesome Success of Children's Literature from Slovenly Peter to Harry Potter more of a reading chore than in any manner even remotely a reading joy for me (and also really boring, dragging and pretty much mind-numbingly tedious).
For while having in Sticks and Stones: The Troublesome Success of Children's Literature from Slovenly Peter to Harry Potter multiple instances of me not agreeing with Jack Zipes regarding his attitudes and his takes on children's literature is actually textually rather fun and interesting to an extent (or rather that this could and should be the case), the constantly repetitive nature of Jack Zipes' presented essays (basically kind of like majorly beating the proverbial dead horse with his arguments and his examples) and that I often in fact only seem able and willing to appreciate the research that Zipes has obviously put into the articles featured in Sticks and Stones: The Troublesome Success of Children's Literature from Slovenly Peter to Harry Potter but truly not much more, that I totally do tend to find Jack Zipes' tone and attitude in Sticks and Stones: The Troublesome Success of Children's Literature from Slovenly Peter to Harry Potter rather teeming with an annoying and infuriating academic holier than thou arrogance (and how Zipes also often seems to either ignore or relentlessly verbally trash those authors and theorists with whom he does not agree, and then puts those who think and write like him on some kind of unassailable pedestal, which Jack Zipes himself also and annoyingly sits on and reigns from), yes, for me to say that this has all textually majorly textually and academically bothered me, is both the truth and also a major understatement (and that my two star rating for Sticks and Stones: The Troublesome Success of Children's Literature from Slovenly Peter to Harry Potter is actually and in my opinion quite generous, as my gut reaction is definitely more akin to being one star).
And finally and honestly speaking, I also know for a fact (and from personal experience) that had I penned my own PhD dissertation with the kind of repetitiveness and total focus on Marxism as I have noticed perusing Sticks and Stones: The Troublesome Success of Children's Literature from Slovenly Peter to Harry Potter, I most likely would not have passed my oral defence, I would have had to change my dissertation text into something less one-sidedly ideological and less receptively redundant (but that with Jack Zipes, this seems not to be considered all that much of an issue with Sticks and Stones: The Troublesome Success of Children's Literature from Slovenly Peter to Harry Potter and also seems to be accepted by many reviewers just because Jack Zipes is a well known and tenured professor).
March 4, 2009
Ah, patriarchal misogynists writing books about children's literature from a Marxist standpoint. God help us all. Zipes certainly knows how to beat a dead horse. He also knows how to acknowledge the tragedy that the horse is dead. Repeatedly.
November 20, 2021
I'm halfway through this. The main points I've gathered so far are: 1) children are indoctrinated with consumerism from day 1, children's literature is as much to blame as everything else; and 2) there is no such thing as true childrens literature. While I don't necessarily disagree with many of the author's points, I'm just feeling he could have been more economical with his words. Perhaps things will improve with the second half?Great chapter on the contamination of fairy tales. Each translator, author, artist, editor etc. adds their own flavor and dimension, enriching the piece. I have always been somewhat snobbish on this point, particularly w/ Grimm's tales and how they are manipulated to suit an author's agenda. Never occurred to me that the brothers Grimm did the same thing. High horse has been shooed.
ILL called back early, left off on Chapter 7/Wisdom and Folly of Storytelling.
ILL called back early, left off on Chapter 7/Wisdom and Folly of Storytelling.
January 5, 2013
So, let's talk about Jack Zipes, and this book. I believe this is an excellent introduction to the field of Children's Literature and the dialogue surrounding Children's Literature. Zipes is amazing with research and he quickly summarizes the fields hottest topics while constantly name dropping. This is invaluable for anyone one starting out in this field because not only do you get a decent general summary of the study, you get Zipes' own views, AND Zipes provides you with the names of virtually all the major players in the field of Children's Lit, the names of their works, and he generally provides a brief glimpse of what to expect from the books. Seriously, INVALUABLE.
At this point, I've read almost everything Zipes has ever written and I can tell you this (providing one with additional readings and research tools) is one of the things he does best. So, if you want to start in Children's Lit, I think you could do much worse than starting here. Now, onto Zipes. Zipes has consistently been criticized as a literary snob. Well, Jack Zipes is, hands down, the WORLD'S foremost fairy tale scholar, his educational background is impeccable, and his research (the depth) is top-notch. I find that most scholars are literary snobs, but really, isn't what the academy trains us to be? And if someone of Zipes' caliber can't be a literary snob, who can? Additionally, the questions he is raising in this book: questions about consumerism and Children's Lit, the problems inherent in defining or categorizing Children's Lit, and Children's Lit and popular culture are all important and necessary questions.
Remember, the field and study of Children's Lit is still relatively new. We are still trying to understand it and, in fact, the academy hasn't even recognized it as a legitimate area of study. So, when Zipes suggests that Children's Lit has more to do with adults than children (which is one of his contentions) it is something to consider for a variety of reasons. That being said, Zipes relies predominately on a historical lens and a Marxist lens for his research and if that's not your thing, you're not going to agree with him...ever. Two other nuisances in Zipes' work are that he does tend to get fairly repetitive and the more he writes, the more I notice he contradicts himself. Not a lot you can do about the repetitiveness...skim if it gets to be intolerable...it doesn't mean he has nothing of value to say. Regarding the contradictions, I love them because they help me when I don't agree with him (and I don't always agree with him). Beyond that however, whatever, okay, the more you write...and he's written a lot, the higher the chance you will contradict yourself. It happens. People grow, their opinions change. I wouldn't ever say to just overlook it. Definitely take note, but his contradictions don't necessarily negate his entire argument or entire body of work.
At this point, I've read almost everything Zipes has ever written and I can tell you this (providing one with additional readings and research tools) is one of the things he does best. So, if you want to start in Children's Lit, I think you could do much worse than starting here. Now, onto Zipes. Zipes has consistently been criticized as a literary snob. Well, Jack Zipes is, hands down, the WORLD'S foremost fairy tale scholar, his educational background is impeccable, and his research (the depth) is top-notch. I find that most scholars are literary snobs, but really, isn't what the academy trains us to be? And if someone of Zipes' caliber can't be a literary snob, who can? Additionally, the questions he is raising in this book: questions about consumerism and Children's Lit, the problems inherent in defining or categorizing Children's Lit, and Children's Lit and popular culture are all important and necessary questions.
Remember, the field and study of Children's Lit is still relatively new. We are still trying to understand it and, in fact, the academy hasn't even recognized it as a legitimate area of study. So, when Zipes suggests that Children's Lit has more to do with adults than children (which is one of his contentions) it is something to consider for a variety of reasons. That being said, Zipes relies predominately on a historical lens and a Marxist lens for his research and if that's not your thing, you're not going to agree with him...ever. Two other nuisances in Zipes' work are that he does tend to get fairly repetitive and the more he writes, the more I notice he contradicts himself. Not a lot you can do about the repetitiveness...skim if it gets to be intolerable...it doesn't mean he has nothing of value to say. Regarding the contradictions, I love them because they help me when I don't agree with him (and I don't always agree with him). Beyond that however, whatever, okay, the more you write...and he's written a lot, the higher the chance you will contradict yourself. It happens. People grow, their opinions change. I wouldn't ever say to just overlook it. Definitely take note, but his contradictions don't necessarily negate his entire argument or entire body of work.
September 26, 2011
Scholarly in the very loosest sense of the term, Zipes repeatedly cites only those who agree with him and ignores those who don't. The most laughable passage is his criticism of the Harry Potter books as boring and trite because of their "very basic" structure, which he then elucidates. And wouldn't you know, he is describing JOSEPH CAMPBELL'S HEROIC CYCLE - clearly the crutch of all poor plot-spinners! To add insult to injury, he then neglects to mention Campbell at all. Read this if you want to get mad and shake your head a lot.
July 13, 2011
I'll confess my bias early. Though he has emeritus status, I was fortunate enough to have Zipes join a storytelling course I took and serve as one of several professors for that class. I think the man's ideas are fascinating. Clearly, his body of work demonstrates his importance in the world of fairy tales and children's lit. Some will maintain that his arguments and criticism of Harry Potter are elitist in nature, but it's worth considering what he has to say. When I see my own students reading for pleasure, my initial reaction is, "That is fantastic. I'm so glad they read outside of class that I don't care WHAT they read," but Zipes asserts that this is actually somewhat detrimental, as it homogenizes children and makes them more likely to passively absorb whatever they are reading. Rather, we should work to cultivate critical thinking skills, creativity, and imagination, and books like Harry Potter, the Twilight series, and others work against that because they are formulaic and predictable. That said, I do feel that there is a time, place, and occasion for reading mindless drivel...I think everyone needs brain candy from time to time. The age-old question is whether or not children are "capable" of ascertaining quality and incorporating diversity in texts they choose to read for pleasure. A worthwhile read!
July 27, 2011
Thought provoking and occasionally polemical, Zipes cares very deeply about what children read, and how the commercialisation of the publishing world is curtailing their creativity and freedom. This book was first published over 10 years ago, so it maybe that in the wake of the twin phenomena of Twilight and Harry Potter, some aspects of his argument have been proved correct and some have not. There are equally passionate counter arguments, particularly about the imperialist and sexist charges levied at Harry Potter, but the discussion of fairy tale retellings and adaptations is particularly thought provoking.
February 7, 2019
This is a collection of essays and talks by Zipes. While many of them are fine in and of themselves, I think the book would have benefited from being conceived as a whole so the full force of Zipes's scholarship could be broight to bear.
The bookend chapters are particularly good, as is the one about Slovenly Peter. Zipes has been called out fir his criticism of Harry Potter, but what he actually wrote in the book is quite restrained. I find myself agreeing with him, even as someone who mostly enjoys the books and movies.
The bookend chapters are particularly good, as is the one about Slovenly Peter. Zipes has been called out fir his criticism of Harry Potter, but what he actually wrote in the book is quite restrained. I find myself agreeing with him, even as someone who mostly enjoys the books and movies.
April 29, 2020
Very helpful. Used as a resource for Children's Literature studies. Used the chapter on Harry Potter and gender to help with my own essay which critically discussed gender theory in Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.
January 19, 2012
Zipes is the person you want to read for if you're interested in Fairytales. so the articles/essays in this book about fairytales are brilliant. but the others about children literature in general are ok. Plus his marxisms is annoying and you can't escape it. my least favorite was the one critiquing Rowling & the Harry Potter phenomenon. it was a stupid critique based on the first 4 books only & with shallow unfair analysis of the characters. he completely dismisses Rowling's brilliant attention to details in the plot and calls her plot simple, repetitive & predictable. of course being a HP freak lover i am biased so i can be over protective :p but still, reading his critique makes me think that he didn't really pay attention while reading the books & read them with already preconceived ideas & thoughts.
June 17, 2015
I really enjoyed reading this. The language was easy to to understand -- no unnecessary long annoying words that don't even mean anything. Very easy to understand and keep up with.
I liked that each "chapter" was of a different topic. It made reading the book easy since it didn't feel like just one long book on the same exact topic. I've always enjoyed Zipes' work -- I may not always agree with what he says, but hey, that's the world of critical literature for you.
It's hard to find books that are helpful and understandable without being migraine inducing, and this is why I loved this so much.
Anyway, definitely one I found helpful for my dissertation.
I liked that each "chapter" was of a different topic. It made reading the book easy since it didn't feel like just one long book on the same exact topic. I've always enjoyed Zipes' work -- I may not always agree with what he says, but hey, that's the world of critical literature for you.
It's hard to find books that are helpful and understandable without being migraine inducing, and this is why I loved this so much.
Anyway, definitely one I found helpful for my dissertation.
January 20, 2013
Read this for my applied project. Zipes is occasionally dense, but always thought-provoking. These essays definitely gave me some things to consider in terms of the way we define and canonize children's literature.
February 22, 2012
I found this book to be informative and well written, especially in regard to the history of fairy tales, children's literature and culture in general.
February 10, 2015
Jack Zipes is astounding! E.g. he rightly points out that "we should not equate the power to buy with the power to determine one's destiny." (p.12).
March 31, 2016
Very good, objectively. He hates Harry Potter but the publisher still puts the name of the detested young wizard on the cover of the book... marketing marketing
October 4, 2020
Brugt som brugbar kilde ifb. med mit speciale om Young Adult-litteratur (2017)
January 24, 2018
Pedantic and condesecending. It was too theoretical at the outset, so I skipped to the end chapter on Harry Potter and it was even more condescending and wholly missed what was going on with the HP novels.
June 4, 2018
Zipes is the person you want to read for if you're interested in Fairytales. so the articles/essays in this book about fairytales are brilliant. but the others about children literature in general are ok. Plus his marxisms is annoying and you can't escape it. my least favorite was the one critiquing Rowling & the Harry Potter phenomenon. it was a stupid critique based on the first 4 books only & with shallow unfair analysis of the characters. he completely dismisses Rowling's brilliant attention to details in the plot and calls her plot simple, repetitive & predictable. of course being a HP freak lover i am biased so i can be over protective :p but still, reading his critique makes me think that he didn't really pay attention while reading the books & read them with already preconceived ideas & thoughts.
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews