Read more books, give more quotes
Mar. 3rd, 2006 10:43 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ventaI'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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-03-03 02:34 pm (UTC)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.