When people scoff at children's picture books, I feel that they are often underestimating the effect that these books have on children and that it must be easy to write children's books. I could wax poetic about them losing the imaginative spark that would connect them to Neverland, but I won't do that. However, there is something disheartening about people referring to children's illustrated literature as inferior.
Contemplating on why they would call it lesser, perhaps they are thinking with the briefness of the written narrative and the quality of the illustrations. Maybe they underestimate the skill it requires to create children's books and forget the imagination that is needed as well. It easy to write off something that appears that it requires little skill. However, when consideration is taken with the work involved and the effect on children, it might take the most heartless people to call children's picture books "lesser". I still remember some of my favorite illustrated books -- Disney's Sleeping Beauty and Beauty and the Beast are examples off the top of my head.
I cannot say that I haven't had similar reactions to books that I might think are of lesser "value" than the books I remember as a kid. I also tend to think lesser of YA books that are widely popular (except for Harry Potter if only because I remember my youngest brother reading it while we grew up). Perhaps I am just a book snob and I consider some books -- picture, chapter, or even "for grown-ups" -- to be not worth their ink on the page. But overall, people who make broad sweeping generalizations about children's picture books to be lesser literature perhaps don't remember what makes them special.
1 comment:
I think you're right, Kati, that a person making this comment underestimates the effect that these books have on children, and that since the book must have little effect, it must be easy to write. And I agree that at least a little of the problem must be that they have lost touch with the magic of their childhood, that they've forgotten what those books meant to them when they were younger. This person should remember that the effect a book has on a person is relative. Just because a children's book doesn't have the same effect on an adult as it might on a child, doesn't make it "lesser".
And your comment that a person making this statement might assume that just because a children's book is shorter, it is therefore easier to write is interesting. I would ask this person to consider a poem. Is it easier to write a poem than a novel because it's shorter?
I would have liked hear your opinion about what makes children's books "special". I agree that a person commenting that these books are "lesser" isn't considering them as special in their own way. But what do you think makes them special?
Post a Comment