Customer Reviews

Jack and the Beanstalk: Martha Stewart Apprentice

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(12)

 

 

I've just finished reading this adapted work.

The story is as old as time itself. Boy makes "bad" exchange with magical results.

This book was a bad exchange - my time for it's content.

Let me tell you the story so you don't waste your time as well:

It starts with Jack riding his brand new bike. He comes across a man who looks sad. He's sad because he's never had a new bike, and would Jack mind trading it for a sack of magic beans? Jack does (because as a character in a story, he has to). His apathetic mother, much less concerned that her son talks to strange shoeless men on the beach than that he's traded a bike for beans, says "there's no such thing as magic." Jack responds by planting the beans. The resulting beanstalk takes him on a magical adventure to three different places before returning him home.

The beanstalk first takes him under the sea to a sunken treasure. As he grabs fistsful of gold, a seemingly fierce octopus comes along to inform him that he is guardian of that gold and that jack should "ask before you take". Jack appologizes, and the octopus (smiling) lets him go with the gold (without asking for it).

Next, the beanstalk takes him to a patch of beautiful flowers that happen to be near a cave. Jack picks some flowers, and is immediately accosted by seemingly fierce ogre who tells him to "ask before you take". Jack appologizes again, and the ogre lets him go with a smile and the flowers (without asking for them - are you sensing a pattern?).

Finally, the beanstalk takes him to a chocolate castle in the sky. We see Jack leaving with two huge chunks of chocolate in his pocket before he is approached by a seemingly fierce chicken (?) who tells him to "ask before you take". Jack explains that he's taking it for his mother. The chicken lets him go with a smile and the chocolate (you know without what).

He returns home to his mother (who is apparently dead inside), and presents her with his booty. All is well.

The end.


The story is supposed to teach the value of asking before taking. As written, Jack never learns that lesson. The first encounter with the octopus could have been taken as an example for future behaviors. Jack, on this stop, finds the treasure, grabs the gold(as anyone would), and goes to leave. The octopus guarding the treasure tells him to ask for the gold. Jack agrees that this would be proper behavior, but he doesn't ask for it and walks away with it anyway.

That is acceptable, only if future behaviors are modified. Any reader would look for that change, and assume it would happen. In that assumption you would be incorrect. The other two encounters are much the same. Jack never learns to look for an owner or guardian before touching what belongs to someone else (be it flower or castle), and the guardians let him go without Jack's having asked to take the items.

This could go on infinitely, in that there are an infinite number of guardians of things and an infinite number of things to be guarded and taken.

This book is a prime example of how corporations view the children's book industry. They churned it out in less than a day without any true regard to its content. The art is charming and the feat of writing and illustrating a book in a day is an amazing accomplishment. It might have been better to go for accuracy than speed. Oh, had they taken a night to sleep on it and read it with fresh eyes in the morning!

The only thing I learned from this book is that you can be forgiven for stealing as long as you have what you think is a good reason, especially if you can hoodwink people into seing your point of view. Good for felons. Bad for kids.

Go and find a good book for your child.

I recommend Cinder Edna, Mercy Watson Saves the Day, or Leonardo the Terrible Monster.

Well, I still think Madonna's books are horrible, but this one is much, much worse. I actually felt sorry for Martha being locked up, but now? Where's the key? Anyone who would do this to the children's literature image should be tarred and feathered. Then locked up.

Where is the story? Where is any original thought? What did Jack really want besides honing his kleptomaniac desires? Why are celebrity books ALWAYS didactic? When will publishers learn that most celebrities can't write a good story for children if their lives depended on it?

When will children's book editors take a stand against horrible celebrity books? Children want, need, and deserve real books to read.

...that's the only factor that kept the test-market kids awake in this leaden, moralistic tale spawned during the premier episode of Martha Stewart's new reality show. (And you don't suppose the presence of a TV camera contributed to their enthusiasm, do you?) The fact that this book reeked an iota less than its competitor is hardly a selling point. There's plenty of stink to go around.

The competition's book broke the first rule of children's book writing: Don't write in rhyme unless you're a genius at it. (And, even then, you might want to spend a day or two or HUNDRED revising your effort, as do seasoned authors.)

This book broke the second rule: Don't preach. It's boring. Kids get plenty of teaching in school. Celebrity "authors" especially love this device. With Martha's name attached and all the surrounding hype, this book falls squarely into the amateurish, celebrity book category... with the added strike against it of having been written hastily with no time for editing.

As if you need any other reason to avoid this book, look at the name of the "author." When was the last time you read a good book written by a corporation?

If you want to teach your kids a lesson, teach them to appreciate great books. Teach them to buy books based on the quality of the story, not the size of the marketing machine behind them.

I am not going to slam this book. Other reviewers have already given fair warning. I would like to suggest that anyone interested in purchasing books for children check out books by Lisa Wheeler, Hope Vestergaard, Carolyn Crimi, Kelly Di Pucchio, Janie Bynum and Paula Yoo. Their books will delight children and the added bonus is that adults will enjoy them as well.

The basic story line is available from other reviewers. I am concerned that an important element of our young people's education is being degraded by books such as this one that has only a celebrity's name to recommend it. Random House and their senior editor should be ashamed that they not only sponsored the show, but actually published the book. They know better. Self respecting children's writers should take their work elsewhere. Current Random House authors should be in a rage that this kind of work gets this publisher's support when so much quality work goes unsupported in the marketplace. Random House no longer derserves quality submissions.

It's one thing to have a moral at the end of a story, it's another when the main character of your book never learns it. This could have been easily fixed. Shame on Random House for trying to cash-in on Martha's come-back by publishing something so very very awful. I mean, do they really need the extra money? Save your dignity and your hard-earned cash and pass on this.

I have to admit I think Lemony Snicket is an amazingly creative pen name. When I open those books I find creative writing -- well done to boot! Primarius Corporation is not a pen name. There's your first clue.
Bookstores everywhere should put a bracelet on this book to keep it from going home with any unsuspecting children. Of course, if Random House hadn't parolled this travesty out into the public to begin with...But I digress. The plot, characterization and overall entertainment factor have skipped bail on this one.
Don't take without asking. Or, in this case, just don't take.

Let me quote the respectable Publisher's Weekly review: "a true insult to children's book authors, illustrators and booksellers." I totally agree with that statement. Producing a children's book should be treated with respect and care. A good book cannot be written and illustrated within a day. So, please, fellow readers, do not buy this book.

...a weird and undefinable animal that is weird and undefinable because it was assembled by a committee. This book takes the reality craze to a new low - taking quality works out of the hands of children and fawning off some piece of overcooked tripe constructed by corporate yuppie wannabees. Have kids read Anderson, Rowling, Grimm, Twain or anyone else of qaulity, but spare them the inane ramblings of the Primarius Corporation. In fact, isn't that the sign that we've truly arrived at a dystopic future - that all books carry the label of THE PRIMARIUS CORPORATION. Next they'll be trying to sell us Solent Lime Green 280 thread count cotton sheets, by Martha Stewart and available at the local Big K.

I love the fact that a bunch of Martha Stewart wanna-bees, most with no kids of their own, churn out a mediocare children's book in a day and reap the benefits of a multi-million dollar promotional campaign. Did anyone expect this rush-to-win team effort to be worthy of reading, let alone publishing? Now Martha Stewart -- keeper of all things tasteful -- has blessed a children's fairy tale with questionable content. Geez, what next? Michael Jackson writes a story about accepting candy from strangers?