Sarah Prineas ([info]sarah_prineas) wrote,
@ 2008-08-28 08:35:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Skillset


I've been thinking about how writing for children is different from writing for adults.

Let me give you a little context. A couple of months ago, on a listserv I subscribe to, a writer of adult science fiction said--half joking--or maybe a quarter joking--that he ought to set aside the sophisticated science fiction idea he was working on, compromise his artistic integrity, and instead write a kids book because it'd be easier, and he'd make more money.

Now we who write for children have heard this kind of thing before. That writing for kids is easier, or a sell-out, or somehow a lesser art. I don't have a rant in me about this because it's so obviously wrong. But I do wonder.

Could science fiction writer guy simply set aside his adult novel and write a successful children's book? I kind of doubt it. They're not the same thing. But how are they not the same thing? I'm still fairly new to children's writing, so I haven't articulated this to myself yet, so I'm genuinely curious about your answers to these questions.

What unique skillset do children's writers bring to their work? In what ways is writing for kids different (not better, not worse) than writing for adults?

As a writer, what do you think you do differently?

As a reader, what do you see children's writers doing differently?





(Post a new comment)


[info]orbitalmechanic
2008-08-28 01:50 pm UTC (link)
I see a sort of layering of sophistication in good kid's books, so that it reads well at multiple ages or reading levels. In an adult novel I don't think you can/need to do that, or at least if you did, the reader's "goal" would be to get all the layers.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]sarah_prineas
2008-08-28 02:00 pm UTC (link)
So in some ways, it's harder, sounds like.

If you've got one in mind, can you give an example of this?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]orbitalmechanic, 2008-08-28 02:51 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sarah_prineas, 2008-08-28 03:00 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]orbitalmechanic, 2008-08-28 03:08 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sarah_prineas, 2008-08-28 03:17 pm UTC

[info]green_knight
2008-08-28 01:57 pm UTC (link)
The irony is, of course, that a lot of people think they should put aside their serious literary (or non-fiction) work and write a science-fiction novel/other bestseller.

I think kids' writing is hard. You need all the sophistication, but you then need to present it in an accessible fashion without talking down to your readers.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]sarah_prineas
2008-08-28 02:02 pm UTC (link)
Oh yeah, that IS an irony!!

So to write accessibly and to not talk down. Definitely in the skillset, but I wonder how, exactly, they're achieved. Are these things that can be learned, do you think?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]janni, 2008-08-28 02:26 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sarah_prineas, 2008-08-28 02:31 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]asakiyume, 2008-08-28 04:09 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sarah_prineas, 2008-08-29 03:15 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]asakiyume, 2008-08-29 06:03 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]erinbow, 2008-09-16 07:50 pm UTC

[info]wldhrsjen3
2008-08-28 02:00 pm UTC (link)
Hm. Interesting question. I think a good, classic children's book has all the elements I like in an adult book: strong characterizations, compelling voices, an engaging story, and smooth writing. But I think there is less ambiguity in a children's book - motivations tend to be clearer, consequences tend to be more immediate. And often the plot moves faster, with less complicated sub-plots, or fewer.

But I think writing a good children's book - at least it seems to me - requires a certain touch. I mean, being able to write a story that kids will relate to, without oversimplifying or preaching or being confusing, seems really tough. I know I couldn't do it. :)

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]sarah_prineas
2008-08-28 02:04 pm UTC (link)
Interesting--"touch." Green Knight, above, talked about "not talking down" and "accessibility". I think all of these things are difficult to quantify, difficult to put into a writerly toolbox (to use Stephen King's way of talking about writing).

I think in an email with you recently I said writing for kids meant putting more "on the page," and I meant what you're talking about: less ambiguity, clear motivations, etc.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]wldhrsjen3, 2008-08-28 02:49 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sarah_prineas, 2008-08-28 03:02 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]wldhrsjen3, 2008-08-28 03:04 pm UTC

[info]beckylevine
2008-08-28 02:00 pm UTC (link)
Okay, since you're being strong, I'll also work not to turn this into a rant. (But just one...oh, please!!!!)

I'm going to throw in my two cents as an editor as well as a reader. Clarity. Conciseness. I believe kids will close a book much faster than adults on too much background information, too many internal thoughts (unless they're in a really fantastic voice), and too much just plain old narrative. I think the best writing for kids and adults has a spareness to it, has that quality of using just the "right" phrase or word, but I think the requirement for this to be in a kids' book is stronger. Grown-ups, I believe, accept more rambling from a writer.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]sarah_prineas
2008-08-28 02:06 pm UTC (link)
Okay, so jumping right into story?

I have this theory that children's books are more about story than adult books are--more in service to the great narrative line, closer to the REASON for stories, which is sitting around a campfire, keeping the dark out.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]beckylevine, 2008-08-28 02:10 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sarah_prineas, 2008-08-28 02:32 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]orbitalmechanic, 2008-08-28 02:43 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sarah_prineas, 2008-08-28 02:46 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]fabulousfrock, 2008-08-28 06:19 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]michaeljasper, 2008-08-28 04:42 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sarah_prineas, 2008-08-29 03:16 am UTC

[info]janni
2008-08-28 02:01 pm UTC (link)
Even if that writer could set aside his adult novel and write a children's book, could he handle the editing process, which from all reports is way more intensive on kids' books than adult ones? (It is hard not to rant about the idea that writing for kids is compromising one's artistic integrity, though I know that's not your point and one can tilt at that particular windmill forever and change nothing. But I've never worked as hard on an adult story as on children's story, ever.)

As for actual process, though ... for YA, I don't think I do anything at all differently. For middle grade--there's a sort of subtle difference of tone, but I'm not quite sure how to articulate it. Not a talking-down difference, just a--different texture.

And maybe the plot has one or two fewer turnings, but that's not at all hard and fast.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]sarah_prineas
2008-08-28 02:09 pm UTC (link)
Oh yeah, I think that's absolutely true: the editorial process on children's books is way more intensive. Interesting! Because in above comments, one of the things identified as being unique to children's lit is this not-talking-down-ness and accessibility, and I think those are things that can't be edited into a book. Or "touch", as Jen is calling it. If a book has that touch, the editor is willing to work a lot harder to get a book ready for publication. It's an elusive quality!

Also "voice" is another one. An editor will glom onto voice and bring the rest of the book up to speed.

I'm noticing in a lot of YA fantasy especially, some pretty high concept ideas and more sophisticated plot--so I think you're right that it's not a hard and fast rule.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]janni, 2008-08-28 02:30 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]dawtheminstrel, 2008-08-28 03:44 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]beckylevine, 2008-08-28 02:11 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]janni, 2008-08-28 02:33 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sarah_prineas, 2008-08-28 02:33 pm UTC

[info]fenrah
2008-08-28 02:12 pm UTC (link)
You might enjoy the Neil Gaiman interview with Adventures in Sci-fi Publishing (episode 57). They asked him about writing for adults and writing for kids, and he said basically that he assumes a slightly duller audience when he's writing for adults. He assumes they'll be thinking about their email and the laundry and their jobs while they're reading, but he assumes kids will give him their full attention and might read the book again next month if they like it, so he'd better be more careful. It's a good interview.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]janni
2008-08-28 02:34 pm UTC (link)
Didn't Diana Wynne Jones say something like this, too?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]fenrah, 2008-08-28 03:07 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]orbitalmechanic, 2008-08-28 03:09 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sarah_prineas, 2008-08-28 03:14 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sarah_prineas, 2008-08-28 02:35 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]fenrah, 2008-08-28 03:17 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sarah_prineas, 2008-08-28 03:23 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]fenrah, 2008-08-28 03:31 pm UTC

[info]anywherebeyond
2008-08-28 02:13 pm UTC (link)
You have to get to the point. I think that's the essential difference between YA and adult novels- adult novels are allowed to meander and bellygaze and go off on tangents. YA requires you to get to the freaking point already.

(ob SF-geek snark) Good luck getting your average SF author to keep it under 100k.(/ob SF-geek snark)

Edited at 2008-08-28 02:13 pm UTC

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]sarah_prineas
2008-08-28 03:04 pm UTC (link)
Hey, one of my SF buddies (gregvaneekhout, below) has a first novel that is 85K! Tim Pratt's Marla Mason books are around that. They both write YA, too, so there you go.

Getting to the freaking point is surely a strength!

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]naomikritzer
2008-08-28 02:23 pm UTC (link)
One of the big differences for me has been remembering to really see the story through the eyes of a child (since the viewpoint character is a child). Saying that something is as crowded as a can of sardines is not only a cliche, it's something most kids have never taken a close look at. Kids have plenty of experiences with crowds, because adults tend to assume that you can pack small people together (they're small, right?) with no real consequences, so it's a wasted opportunity not to choose a comparison that a kid will instantly relate to, in explaining the crowded squalor in something akin to a refugee camp.

You know, I would like to say that you can't compromise your artistic integrity and succeed in children's lit, but have you ever picked up anything by Daisy Meadows? The Color Fairies, the Weather Fairies, the Pet Fairies? It is SCHLOCK. Formulaic, hastily and badly written, inexcusable schlock. And they sell boatloads of copies. Ditto many other very successful children's series books. Molly likes them. And it's not because she needs easy books or has no taste: she finished the Uglies series while we were camping and finished Ender's Game today. Daisy Meadows and the Pony-Crazed Princess series and some of the other early chapter book schlock books are like her equivalent of reading a junky magazine, I guess.

There are actually some excellent early chapter books (Junie B. Jones, the American Girl books) but if someone really WANTS to compromise their artistic integrity, figuring out some masculine equivalent of the Daisy Meadows fairy books is probably the ball to swing at.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]sarah_prineas
2008-08-28 03:08 pm UTC (link)
I think schlock sells because of the sparkles on the cover. Sometimes I'm amazed at how badly some children's books are written, but often enough there is some *story* there that kids can glom onto. Maybe it's wish fulfillment, too.

I'm trying to think of the boy version of the Daisy fairies. Star Wars tie ins, for Theo. He reads tons of series books, too. The Warriors, which are not schlock but I think might appeal to the same readership. Oh, and Animorphs. He's started on those. I won't let them in the house--he has to read them at school (!).

Right on about seeing things through a kid's eyes. I had to remind myself of that a lot when writing my first children's book. It was "What Would Conn Do?" which is probably evil of me.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]asakiyume, 2008-08-29 06:08 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sarah_prineas, 2008-08-30 05:23 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]asakiyume, 2008-08-30 05:37 pm UTC

[info]lisamantchev
2008-08-28 02:31 pm UTC (link)
I was trying to phrase my response and my brain got all tangled up, because I think the target audiences for YA and science fiction/fantasy are so similar. But the younger the audience, the stronger their bullshit detector, and at the same time the more willing they are to believe, to be transported, to be swept away, to be moved, to be touched. They also have the gift of years ahead and possibilities; the future is so darn shiny when you're young.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]sarah_prineas
2008-08-28 03:10 pm UTC (link)
Similar how, do you think?

I do think kid readers are more willing to BELIEVE. It's a true act of the imagination. It makes the books as much the readers' book as it is the writer's.

Kid readers are the best.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]lisamantchev, 2008-08-28 03:15 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sarah_prineas, 2008-08-28 03:20 pm UTC

[info]squirrel_monkey
2008-08-28 02:32 pm UTC (link)
As Gorky once said, "Writing for children is the same as writing for adults, only better."

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]sarah_prineas
2008-08-28 03:10 pm UTC (link)
Wow!


(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]squirrel_monkey, 2008-08-28 03:17 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sarah_prineas, 2008-08-28 03:20 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]squirrel_monkey, 2008-08-29 12:20 pm UTC

[info]bondgwendabond
2008-08-28 02:35 pm UTC (link)
I think you have to be more ruthless? Generally speaking, there's fewer words and a greater emphasis on storytelling. And an audience that you can't lose, even for a second, or they'll take off for good. But I am too tired from staying up late watching speeches to be very articulate on the subject.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]sarah_prineas
2008-08-28 03:12 pm UTC (link)
Political animal!

There does seem to be a closer adherence to story in children's books. Surely there are some that drift a bit and get away with it, but I can't think of any offhand. Makes me wonder about the role of beautiful writing in kids books. In adult books it seems that beautiful writing can be an end in itself; maybe in kids books it has to serve other purposes as well.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]gregvaneekhout
2008-08-28 02:40 pm UTC (link)
I like this quote from an E.B. White interview: "Anyone who writes down to children is simply wasting his time. You have to write up, not down. Children are demanding. They are the most attentive, curious, eager, observant, sensitive, quick, and generally congenial readers on earth. They accept almost without questions, anything you present them with, as long as it is presented honestly, fearlessly, and clearly."

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]wldhrsjen3
2008-08-28 02:53 pm UTC (link)
OH, I love that.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]sarah_prineas, 2008-08-28 03:13 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]tinaconnolly, 2008-08-28 04:02 pm UTC

[info]stormywriting
2008-08-28 03:34 pm UTC (link)
As a not-so-long-ago child reader of children's books...

I think children's books haven't yet lost that sense of wonder, of everything being big and beautiful and new, and somehow more there than how adults tend to see it. Things aren't facts, there aren't worries, there's just the here and the now and one huge grand adventure to sweep you off your feet.

Yes adult books can do that too, but there is a different way of looking that is displayed in the best children's books. There's a joy in discovery.

I think that when adults read children's books, they are often reminded of that joy of discovery, and that primal and thrilling drive to do things, to learn more. Many adults cherish that. But there are others who's adult brains recognize it instantly as childlike, characterize it as childish, and write it off. Those are the folks who think writing for children is somehow lesser, rather than realizing it's actually harder, because it requires the adult writer to find that inner child & let it rule for a little while.

All MHO, of course :)

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]sarah_prineas
2008-08-28 03:58 pm UTC (link)
You are very wise.

I love the idea of the joy of discovery, of embracing the sense of wonder.

This really isn't a tool for a toolbox; it's not a writing approach; it's a whole life philosophy. Which is kind of awesome.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]tinaconnolly
2008-08-28 04:08 pm UTC (link)
Ditto what a couple people said about spare. Louis Sachar does this beautifully - packing structure and character and everything necessary into a very small space. While appearing effortless.

(There are people who do this less well, and still produce a fine book, but I do think the spareness is a useful tool for kids' writing.)

Also there's a quote from Diana Wynne Jones somewhere where she says that writing for adults was the harder style to learn (I'm paraphrasing and misquoting wildly) because you have to repeat everything several times in adult books.

So kids are paying attention, or maybe are just more used to picking up on larger chunks of information from small clues, because that's how you get used to life and language, right?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]sarah_prineas
2008-08-28 08:21 pm UTC (link)
Somebody up in the comment trail referred to DWJ, too.

I think you're probably right!

I wonder when people lose that--or achieve a certain comfort level with life and language?

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]raecarson
2008-08-28 04:14 pm UTC (link)
In the kids books I've loved, there's an efficiency of storytelling that I find amazing. The depth of characterization, the world detail, the emotion are all the same--but they pack more of a punch due to the efficiency thing.

An example would be Neil Gaiman. I'm in the sad, lonely minority of folks who think he is entirely overrated. But Coraline is a completely different animal. It has all the Gaiman trademarks--spookiness, subtle humor, a vivid character. But it's not overblown at all. The efficiency that the new audience required forced him to tell a tight, effective story that was made all the more powerful for it's lack of masturbatory fluff.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]sarah_prineas
2008-08-28 08:24 pm UTC (link)
I am with you in that Gaiman minority, and I have avoided Coraline because of it. But if you say it's worth looking at, I certainly will!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]gregvaneekhout, 2008-08-28 08:31 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]erinbow, 2008-09-16 07:55 pm UTC

[info]secritcrush
2008-08-28 04:20 pm UTC (link)
Writing a kid's book is writing a book they will need for their whole life.

Anything else is, well, less.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]sarah_prineas
2008-08-28 08:24 pm UTC (link)
Right on!

I'm certainly finding this coming back to the Laura Ingalls Wilder books.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(no subject) - [info]jordanwillow, 2008-08-30 04:38 am UTC

[info]cathschaffstump
2008-08-28 04:32 pm UTC (link)
Writing for kids is the realization that your book may well help them form their moral opinions about being a person. Much of my morality, for good or for ill, I know comes from the material I read as a child.

When I read fiction as an adult, I have relativism to guide me. When I read fiction as a child, I was being taught how to be an adult.

Huge responsibility, that.

Catherine

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]sarah_prineas
2008-08-28 08:25 pm UTC (link)
It is.

Do you see a difference between what I'm calling "issue books" and books that impart morality to kid readers? I think there is one, but I'm not sure where it lies.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]cathschaffstump, 2008-08-28 08:47 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sarah_prineas, 2008-08-29 03:18 am UTC

[info]dorihbutler
2008-08-28 05:06 pm UTC (link)
My all-time favorite writing quote is this one by Madeleine L'Engle:

"You have to write the book that wants to be written. And if the book will be too difficult for grown-ups, then you write it for children."

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]sarah_prineas
2008-08-28 08:26 pm UTC (link)
Yay!!

There's a great collection of quotations in this comment trail.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]jimkeller
2008-08-28 05:57 pm UTC (link)
I think the big difference between children's literature and adult literature isn't the "sophistication," it the audience

I know that sounds like a "duh" statement, but ultimately, you're writing for your audience. I read a book once that said, "There are only three possible audiences: yourself, critics, or readers." Successful writers write for readers. Vanity writers write for themselves. "Starving artists" write for critics. I would think that in general, people who put "sophistication" first are the ones writing either for themselves or critics, and then rail about how dumb readers are for not getting what they wrote.

The author of a children's book needs to know what's important to that audience, what will resonate, what will hook them and keep them. This isn't the same thing that will appeal to adult audiences (though, as J,K. Rowling discovered, sometimes adults form an important secondary audience), and it won't necessarily be what appeals to critics, and it won't necessarily be the story that you would write if you were writing only for yourself (unless you happen to be a child yourself, a la Gordon Korman when he first started out).

I guess this is just a long-winded way of saying, "Difference is not deficience."

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]sarah_prineas
2008-08-28 08:28 pm UTC (link)
Yes, I think that's exactly right. It hadn't occurred to me until reading a couple of the comments here. Kid readers demand certain things--not simpler things, by any means, and maybe harder things for an adult writer to achieve.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(no subject) - [info]janni, 2008-08-28 11:14 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]jordanwillow, 2008-08-30 04:41 am UTC

[info]fabulousfrock
2008-08-28 06:28 pm UTC (link)
What a fascinating discussion! Many good points raised.

When I write YA, I try to keep in my mind what I wanted in a story when I was, say, 10-18...(since I started meandering into YA sometimes around age 10). Like others have said, I think story is more important. Language is more spare. Not dumbed down, but it gets to the point. The best mid-grades felt like meeting old friends, to me. There are characters that are like the friends you can't find in real life. Witty and fun. I wanted to know Emily of New Moon and Anastasia Krupnik. In YA, I was looking for a good love story (while pining for a boyfriend)...and I wanted it wrapped up in some adventure. I wanted stories that meant something clear-cut and valuable.

As an adult I don't necessarily NEED to find friends and love in a book (although I still like to, of course)...I'm more comfortable with my place in the world. Childhood often felt very lonely. The best children's books also teach you about being a good person and living in a good world, without ever being preachy--reinforcing things you already know in your heart.

I'm really rambling here...

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]sarah_prineas
2008-08-28 08:30 pm UTC (link)
It's good stuff, this rambling!

I'm after almost exactly the same things. A really good children's book is one you can come back to as an adult and enjoy--maybe for different reasons. Orbitalmechanic, above, talks about why--the layering--which is a great point.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]jordanwillow
2008-08-28 07:27 pm UTC (link)
Wanted to add one more great quote: "There are some themes, some subjects, too large for adult fiction; they can only be dealt with adequately in a children's book." - Philip Pullman

I don't write for an audience of any particular age. I write for me, and what I write tends to come out as what we all recognize as "YA." But, I am 32. So this question is always so, so hard for me to answer, and I wonder if it's because our categories (children's book v. adult book, etc) are crap? Of course, that's too simplistic, because we do need to categorize. But I wonder. Sometimes it seems as simple as, well, what's the age of the protagonist? (Although, of course, there are exceptions -- child protagonists in adult books, adult protagonists in children's books.)

Honestly, I tend to lean toward, "the categories are crap."

I've loved reading other people's thoughts here, and am going to have to come back with a pen and paper and take down some of those quotes to use as ammo when people look down on me for "writing children's books." (And I'm with you, to a certain extent. I often can't get worked up into a rant, because the people who say those things are obviously wrong and are not reading rich children's literature.) (I have an MA in children's literature, btw -- how wonderful it was to go to school with people who KNOW what a rich field it is.)

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]sarah_prineas
2008-08-28 08:33 pm UTC (link)

I don't write for an audience of any particular age.


Neither do I. I was astonished to sell it as a children's book, and I am continually astonished at how young my book's readers are, how eager and honest they are.

Categories are crap. Especially for the best books.

I did not know you had an MA! What a treat that must have been.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(no subject) - [info]juliettecrane, 2008-08-29 07:56 pm UTC

[info]jliann
2008-08-28 10:07 pm UTC (link)
A very interesting point made earlier that "Children will put up with all sorts of things to get to the good stuff" brought me back to my own childhood as an avid reader.

Between the ages of 8 and 14, I literally read everything that came into my hands. The strange phenomenon was that as I grew up, I got pickier and pickier. (These days, I still read many children's books indiscrimminately, but an adult book would have to come with great reviews and recommendations from friends to get me to read it.)

Part of the reason for this, I think, was because as I moved onto 'older' books, it became increasing apparent that many adult books are good ideas that are badly realized. I can't count the number of times I've read an adult novel and thought, "If only it had been written for children. It could've been SO GOOD."

Like you said earlier, children's books are more about the narrative thread. Adult books, on the other hand, seem to prefer a nebulous cloud of 'themes' disguised as a story. I'm still not sure if this is because people feel that 'themes' are somehow more sophisticated than stories, but for me, I prefer stories a hundred times over.

Whether or not one is harder to write than the other is up to the author, I suppose. Personally, I don't think there are any particular 'skills' differentiating an author writing for children and an author writing for adults. A good story is a good story. The only real difference (to me, at least) is that given the same premise, I will naturally assume that the children's book will give me the better story (as opposed to the adult book).

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]sarah_prineas
2008-08-29 03:22 am UTC (link)
Hello! Thanks so much for the add and for taking the time to make such a great comment.

I've had exactly the same experience: read everything I could get my hands on as a kid (even "schlock" as Naomi describes it, above) but have become a lot pickier. I am absolutely ruthless about abandoning books that don't grab me pretty early with that narrative thread. As you say, that nebulousness of intention, or whatever it is that sometimes happens to adult books, is a deal breaker for me as a reader.

I used to feel kind of awkward, sneaking into the YA section at the library, but I don't any more.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]jliann, 2008-08-29 07:57 am UTC

[info]janni
2008-08-28 11:18 pm UTC (link)
As long as we're quoting quotes, here's one of my favorites:
And for adults, the world of fantasy books returns to us the great words of power which, in order to be tamed, we have excised from our adult vocabularies. These words are the pronography of innocence, words which adults no longer use with other adults, and so we laugh at them and consign them to the nursery, fear masking as cyncicism. These are the words that were forged in the earth, air, fire, and water of human existence, and the words are:

Love. Hate. Good. Evil. Courage. Honor. Truth.


--Jane Yolen (in the collection Touch Magic)

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]sarah_prineas
2008-08-29 03:25 am UTC (link)
Great stuff.

I have to get Jenn over here to read this.

It's Tolkienian, too--one of the big reasons he wrote fantasy was to make those words meaningful in a post WWI world.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]waterowl
2008-09-08 06:21 pm UTC (link)
My first children's picture book was one of the hardest things I've ever written. Distill an incredibly rich experience into 1500 words. Every single word counts.

I've written the same experience for adults in nonfiction form and it's 5000k.

(Reply to this)


Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…