Read more books, give more quotes

[venta]

I've been wondering quite a lot recently about the dividing line between children's books and books for grown-ups. I'd call them adult books, but fear that phrase is already used for something slightly more specific.

Obviously, to a great extent it doesn't really matter which side of the line a book falls. If you enjoy reading it, and if your reading ability is equal to it, then it's the book for you regardless of age. Equally, the question of what books are "suitable" for a particular age-range is far too subjective to be easily classifiable.

I had been about to say that the extremes are clear - Spot books are clearly for small children and X is clearly an adult's book. But then I realised I didn't know what to put for X.

The Royal Society of Literature recently asked various authors to list the http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4665328.stm. So, these lists actually apply to people up to 16 (who might well resent being called children), so it's actually not quite the question it originally seems.

Andrew Motions, the current poet laureate, recommends, among other stuff, Don Quixote, Paradise Lost, Ulysses and Portrait of a Lady. I think they're books that I'd have placed firmly as potential values for X; definitely not children's books. But then, if this list is intended to cater to people up to 16, is it the case that you've reached your adult reading potential by then ? Do you feel there's any work of fiction which you couldn't (or wouldn't) have tackled at 16 which you could (or would) now ?

In terms of "thematic suitability" I'm sure people would class, say, Lady Chatterley's Lover as a book for grown-ups. But I'd bet a reasonable amount of money that your average 16 year old would be more likely to read it than to read Don Quixote. Are there any books which you think genuinely wouldn't be suitable for someone of 16 or under, and why ? Would they be accessible to someone older, even if they hadn't (for example) studied a relevant subject at university ?

I noted an interesting and vaguely related point to this a few months back. One of my favourite books is William Horwood's Stonor Eagles. It has three separate stories twisted together and timelines which jump around. It has swearing in it, sex in it, and at one stage a character struggling with a polygamous relationship. Its characters are not "nice" or "nasty", they're real, 3-D and complicated. Although it's a fairly easy read, it's certainly no more so than plenty of novels which are aimed at adults. Yet it's indisputably, by marketing and presentation, a children's book.

Why's that ? Because it's got talking animals in. One of the three storylines concerns various colonies of sea eagles round the world; the birds have their own distinct cultures, languages and traditions. Would Animal Farm feature nearly so often on school reading lists if it was simply a social parable ? I don't think so, I think the talking animals prevent it from ever being seen as anything other than a book aimed at kids. Some years ago, Swift wrote a biting political satire. Sadly, he put in it giants, tiny people and talking horses. Result: Gulliver's Travels is a kids book.

Just recently, I finished reading The Bear Comes Home. It's a great book, somewhat heavy going in places, and contains a talking bear; I don't think anyone would recommend it as a kids' book. The bear is living in NYC, among humans, and all other characters in the book are human. There is some vague justification to do with genetics, which isn't intended to fool anyone, but is just thrown in to excuse the bear's existence.

And therein lies the difference. The Bear Comes Home doesn't ask us to accept that all bears talk, or to believe that there is a complicated and sophisticated bear-society in existence. It says "genetic wossname, yada, yada, on with the story". And, as such, it can be accepted as a grown-up book.

Right. I've established that I can be vertical again. My breakfast appears to be staying where I put it, and I can use a computer. Guess I'd better stop feigning ill and get in to work, then.

Comments

[lanfykins.livejournal.com]

Do you feel there's any work of fiction which you couldn't (or wouldn't) have tackled at 16 which you could (or would) now?

No, but there are very definitely books I would have got a lot less out of then.

And re: talking animals - have you reread Watership Down lately?

[venta.livejournal.com]

have you reread Watership Down lately?

I haven't, but it's another good example. Everyone knows Watership Down is a kids book - I mean, it's got talking rabbits. So it must be. Right ?

[cardinalsin.livejournal.com]

'strue.

Mind you, talking animals can serve to make difficult subjects more accessible to children.

[lanfykins.livejournal.com]

I'll tell you, I got quite a shock when I reread it in my twenties :)

[metame.livejournal.com]

As a kid (well maybe 14) I read another of his books - called delightfully "The Plague Dogs" - it's frankly grim, and certainly raised the bar for goriness in my reading.

In brief: Experimental test subject dogs make their way out of a facility and into the wide world. It's not a nice world, particularly with open wounds from brain surgery and madness rapidly descends...

[lanfykins.livejournal.com]

I read it at about the same age.

Oddly, I wasn't at all bothered by the grimness.

[venta.livejournal.com]

A bit of googling around, though, suggests that Watership Down *was* intended by the author to be a book for children.

[cardinalsin.livejournal.com]

The best measure of whether something is a children's book is whether children read and enjoy it, surely. As you point out, defining children is pretty hard (I would hazard a guess that at 10 years old I was a better reader than many adults, for example). It clearly isn't a black-and-white question.

You asked whether there were books I would tackle now that I wouldn't have at 16. The answer is almost certainly yes, but I'm not sure that is to do with difficulty per se. It is partially, in that I was very lazy at 16 and am probably a smidgeon less lazy now. It also has to do with 'maturity of taste', which I put in quotes because I don't know whether taste can really be judged in that way. Anyway, my general point is that I don't think maturity of readership is just about complexity and difficultness - it is about the general attitude of the reader.

What does it finally come down to? Marketing, I suspect. I certainly avoid Harry Potter because it is marketed as children's lit (and because I read book 1 and thought it suxxored), despite near-constant exhortations by all and sundry that I should read it. On the other hand I am more persuaded to read Pullman (I haven't yet) because it is at least partly marketed as adult, so I find I could probably forgive myself afterwards. What you say about The Bear Comes Home suggests that the genetic wossname was added by an editor who feared that if he marketed the book as adult fic without it, he would sell no copies.

Mind you, the issue with Gulliver's Travels[*] is basically prejudice and simplemindedness. I'm glad that I read books with giants and talking horses in, and indeed glad that I associate with people who believe in fairies and play let's pretend and all of that, because with my natural cynicism I'm sure I would have a close-minded dislike of all such people otherwise. Then again, I may be being unkind to myself there.

Ramble over.

[*] How I wish I had not decided to follow the italicisation convention - oh well, too late now.

[venta.livejournal.com]

Interestingly (or not ;), although I enjoyed the His Dark Materials trilogy[*], I'd cite Pullman as definitely writing for children. His language (and complete lack of metaphor) suggests that, regardless of the plot content.

What you say about The Bear Comes Home suggests that the genetic wossname was added by an editor who feared that if he marketed the book as adult fic without it, he would sell no copies.

You could be right. Although to be honest the attempt to justify it is so sketchy (the bear mutters something at some point about the "genetic crapshoot laid on him") that if you're the kind of reader who gets uptight about that sort of thing, I think you wouldn't consider it an improvement.

[*] technically: enjoyed book 1, kind of enjoyed book 2, got through book 3.

[ghoti.livejournal.com]

,i>Stonor Eagles is a children's book? I was just thinking that it might well be the book that was suitable for me as an adultbut wouldn't have been before I was 16. Oh well.

The other book which leaps to mind is Lorna Doone. Often abridged and made suitable for children, when I finally read the full length version I had nightmares about it for years - the only book which has had that effect on me.

Oh, and for me,Wuthering Heights which I read at 15 and just didn't get.

Thinking of Benedict, well, he came to me once with a book he couldn't read (worried that hed woken up unable tor read any more) and I would want to censor it before the age of, oh, I don't know, some - Canterbury Tales. So maybe Canterbury Tales is your X? Or maybe there is no universally applicable X.

[venta.livejournal.com]

Hmm. I wonder if my Lorna Doone was abridged. I really can't remember it all that well. I suspect not, since I distinctly remember a part about a doctor being summoned to check if "Emerald" is still a virgin.

Always assuming that that is Lorna Doone I'm thinking of, and not some other book. Hmm.

Hmm. I may be thinking of a book called "Diana" actually, which is a fairly awful book by the otherwise marvellous RF Delderfield, in which the characters get pretty tangled up with the Lorna Doone story.

Actually, the more I think of it the more I believe I'm talking about Diana and have never read Lorna Doone.

Er... I'm rambling now, aren't I ?

[ghoti.livejournal.com]

That certainly doesn't *sound* like Lorna Doone to me. You should read it it's a good book.

[lanfykins.livejournal.com]

I think the thing is, unless the prose of a book is utterly impenetrable most children will happily read it and just mentally gloss over the things they don't understand. It is, after all, what they naturally do with the rest of the world :)

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

Mm, that sums up my view I think. I read all sorts of everything back then, less discriminatory than I am now (when I'm conscious of not much reading time available!) -- although some of it I've got more out of on subsequent rereads, I don't think there was anyhting which I really felt I shouldn't have read as a kid.

[(Anonymous)]

Books for adults that children should not read.

The Bible, The Quoran, The Vedas, Tipitaka,...

[feanelwa.livejournal.com]

Good point.

[kate-r.livejournal.com]

It's terribly difficult for me to judge as I only came to love books at a relatively late stage. Early on I read proper children's books Enid Blyton Etc. and at the age of about 14 onwards sci-fi fantasy was my bag and tried a couple of Asimov books but didn't really get into them. I was so fixed at that point that I doubt I'd have got far with the more high brow literature. Then again I've tried Ulysses countless times and just can't get past the first 50 pages. I need books that I don't have to sit in absolute silence and concentrate for other than that reading seems like a chore as opposed to a joy.

[bateleur.livejournal.com]

I definitely wouldn't have been able to read Foucault's Pendulum at 16.

But really the problem is one of differing reading ages. Some people at 16 have not become the kind of omnivorous readers who I suspect of being disproportionately represented on your friends list.

Oh - and I nominate Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" as a potential value for X ! ;-)

[lanfykins.livejournal.com]

I believe I was fifteen when I first read that...

[onebyone.livejournal.com]

I don't remember when I read specifically Brief History, but at 13 I'd definitely read a few popular science books at similar levels, for instance by John Gribbin (In Search of Schrödinger's Cat) and Richard Feynmann (QED). Both are pitched at clever people who know nothing about the subject and don't want to require too much homework. So even though QED is basically Feynmann saying "this is what I won the Nobel Prize in Physics for", I'd say that if such a book can't be understood by children then it can't by adults either. In that sense, the authors should be aiming them at kids even if a majority of readers will be adults.

At 13, I did find Feynmann's lectures to be out of my league, because I didn't have the maths. But then, after a 4 year maths degree I still don't have the maths to properly follow physics textbooks...

[ghoti.livejournal.com]

I read QED at the age of about 12/13 too, and loved it.

[(Anonymous)]

Some years ago, Swift wrote a biting political satire. Sadly, he put in it giants, tiny people and talking horses.

Ditto Orwell's Animal Farm which was read to us at school when I was 10. Some years later the political signifance dawned on me, although school never saw fit to place it in context.

uitlander - from work.

[cardinalsin.livejournal.com]

Wow, really? We read Animal Farm precisely because it was social commentary, and that formed the majority of the analysis in my GCSE english class. And people say education is going downhill...

[lnr]

GCSE is quite a lot later than 10 though!

[cardinalsin.livejournal.com]

Oh yeah - would it seem lame if I claimed I added an extra '0'?

[feanelwa.livejournal.com]

I agree with you completely about Gulliver's Travels. When I read that this year for the first time, I lost all my faith in humanity for a month until I forgot and got it back again. I'm ashamed to say I've never read Orwell right the way through; I got part way into 1984 when I was about 16 and stopped, because it was dull. My reading taste has changed a bit since then, so I might give him another go.

I think since I was 16 I've found sci-fi less worth bothering with, because the characters are often made over-simplistic and completely unrealistic in order to fit around the descriptions of the technology, and other things more worth bothering with. Now that I don't have an English teacher trying to pour George Fucking Eliot in through my eye sockets, I enjoy classics a lot more.

[leathellin.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure there is a particularly obvious line on what children shouldn't read, there isn't an equivalent rating to the film ratings and it isn't like those ratings make any sense anyway. I do find it odd that books aren't considered to need rating because clearly imagination is less powerful than a television image...

I'd have said things like Henry Miller wouldn't count as children's books but they're practically adult books anyway and that would be purely on the grounds of sexual content rather than any inherent difficulty of reading psychologically damaging content. Lolita again I would say definitely wasn't a childrens book but that may just be the sexual content and in the case of Lolita if they can understand the writing they can probably deal with the issues.
There are many fairy tales and folk tales I would say class as not suitable for children by modern standards but they would appear to cheat by using historical precedent as a ruling that they are children's stories.

The only book I remember my mother trying to prevent me reading (she failed obviously) was a PD James called Innocent Blood. But then my mother is a psychologist and thought that Dark Crystal should have had a higher rating.

I tend not to read children's books because i'm less enthralled by the simpler language and simpler plots to the extent that overly simple adult books tend to get classified in my head as practically children's books. This doesn't make the writing bad just makes books a less enjoyable read for me.

[ebee.livejournal.com]

This is a subject I can get very very ranty about very easily..but for now, lets just say I think books for 'children' is a completely contextual thing and the boundaries applied to them PANTS. rather like film certificates. Impossible to judge. I, however, would dislike a child of mine to read any Angela Carter before a-level. And I get very irate about 'I AM DAVID' being a 'childrens' book.

*fume* ok, I'm going to step away now..

[ebee.livejournal.com]

'There is no X'!

[onebyone.livejournal.com]

I think the talking animals prevent it from ever being seen as anything other than a book aimed at kids. Some years ago, Swift wrote a biting political satire. Sadly, he put in it giants, tiny people and talking horses. Result: Gulliver's Travels is a kids book.

At time of publishing I don't think Animal Farm was aimed at kids or perceived as such. The fact that it's a set text in schools means that it's thought of primarily as something children read for school, and I don't think that has much to do with talking animals, since the same could be said of Jane Austen. She wasn't writing for children.

This is basically what you get for giving kids "classics" to read - the ones who wouldn't naturally choose to read "classics" (i.e. most of them) grow up to think of them as a school thing. I'm sure I've seen Americans referring to Catch-22 and Slaughterhouse 5 in similar terms.

As for Gulliver's Travels - Swift was essentially a pamphleteer, and I doubt that he saw this as his foray into children's fiction. I also doubt that those who do think of it as "kid's stuff" would actually give an unabridged copy to a small child to read. The sentences are too long if nothing else, so it's retold for children, which isn't quite the same thing as being a children's book.

[venta.livejournal.com]

At time of publishing I don't think Animal Farm was aimed at kids or perceived as such. The fact that it's a set text in schools means that it's thought of primarily as something children read for school, and I don't think that has much to do with talking animals, since the same could be said of Jane Austen

I don't doubt that Orwell wasn't aiming Animal Farm at children. However, as uitlander said above, she had it read to her at school, aged 10. I can't imagine many junior school teachers trotting out Pride & Prejudice for their class' entertainment.

I also doubt that those who do think of it as "kid's stuff" would actually give an unabridged copy to a small child to read.

I very much doubt that those who do think of it as kid's stuff have ever read it.

[venta.livejournal.com]

The mother wishes to say the following, but LJ has been being weird at her and wouldn't let her post:

Books are not an age thing at all. One of my great favourites as a small child was Keeping House with Elizabeth Craig, a pre-2WW non-fiction tome on how to instruct the maid etc. As an early teenager it was Elizabeth Linklater's A Child Under Sail (non-fiction, small child travelling with sea captain father). Both were read many times. I did read fiction, but not Enid Blyton; she was banned as my father said she was a literary sausage machine. He bought me an unabridged Lorna Doone when I was eight and I dashed straight through it, no nightmares at all, and re-read it many times, too, alongside "Alice", LM Alcott, Susan Coolidge etc etc. On the other hand, I was in my 50s when I first read Green Eggs and Ham and I LOVED it. I refused to read Dahl to my offspring after James & the Giant Peach, owing to unease about the sly nastiness.
I hated Watership Down as grossly sentimental, can't read Tolkien at all after many tries, and love Terry Pratchett and Ellis Peters (Heaven Tree type better rather than Bro Cadfael).
Imagine doing A level English, with Sons & Lovers as a set book, at the time of the Lady Chatterley obscenity trial. We all felt obliged to read it, of course, as "background". Both books are, IMHO, utterly dire and I've never read either again.
Now that's the test of a book. Could you re-read it?