Children's Books

*raises both hands like an overexcited primary schooler* Me! Me!

Good stories are good stories no matter who they're intended for. I love The Thirteen Clocks and The Wonderful O like firstborns for the sheer joy of the wordplay; The Phantom Tollbooth too.

Asterix and Tintin were in the children's section of my library,but I still read them in my teenage years.

As Cory Doctorow says,a lot of good fiction is ghettoised into "Young Adult". Artemis Fowl is one of my favourites, as is the Uglies series.

Edit: I can't believe I forgot the Keys To The Kingdom series. That is how you do Kid Hero.

edited 24th Jun '10 6:22:25 AM by AckSed

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

Artemis Fowl isn't really Good Fiction, imo. Definitely interesting and fun, though.

Stuff like The Giver and Mortal Engines (that entire quartet, really) hold their own against a lot of adult-aimed fiction in terms of writing and themes, and they're more interesting. The Series of Unfortunate Events is absolutely epic in its depth and control of voice. Garth Nix's Old Kingdom Stuff is also pretty good.

Other stuff like Eragon and Warriors that I read aren't really up to par, but they're fun and they take me places. I just wish that so many books weren't too timid to break some conventions and make their character's interesting. SO MUCH FICTION has flat, static characters whose actions and personalities are determined entirely by the plot, and no thought is given to even whether or not they might be interesting. A lot of this stuff has crap dialogue, too.

But still I read it.

I think it's mostly protagonists who suffer from Mehness. The rule they're still teaching people is, "make your protagonist as generic as possible so everyone can identify with them." Which I've always thought was bull. You can still identify with a person's emotions and reactions even if they have a strong personality, because emotions are still nigh-on universal. I'd say it says a lot more about a writer's talent if they can make us identify with someone who's not like us than someone generically similar.

Despite "the rule" for many forms of media being "The protagonist is generic so everybody likes them," you notice how the favorites are always the strongly personalitied side-characters?

edited 25th Jun '10 11:58:18 PM by FreezairForALimitedTime

"Proto-Indo-European makes the damnedest words related. It's great. It's the Kevin Bacon of etymology." ~Madrugada

I still enjoy Mac Donald Hall books. Zany Scheme plots with high schoolers are always fun.

I think it's mostly protagonists who suffer from Mehness. The rule they're still teaching people is, "make your protagonist as generic as possible so everyone can identify with them." Which I've always thought was bull. You can still identify with a person's emotions and reactions even if they have a strong personality, because emotions are still nigh-on universal. I'd say it says a lot more about a writer's talent if they can make us identify with someone who's not like us than someone generically similar.

Wasn't that the concept behind making Bella from Twilight a flat character? I'm not bashing it even though I'm not a fan; I'm just saying. Most of its fans love other characters, obviously, but they do try to slip into Bella's shoes.

On the other hand, I agree that strong, interesting personalities make for interesting characters. And anyone could relate to, say for instance, Ramona Quimby. In fact, that's what made those books so popular! Because they're so true to life. I could even relate to all 3 protagonists in Maxie Rosie And Earl Partners In Grime, even the tattletale (despite getting frustrated with her willingness to tell on her friends!)!

But I have come across too many characters in kids' books who lack personality and seem to be there to drive the plot forward. Much as I enjoy Pyrates, which I'm rereading right now with the plan of fleshing out its article and eventually reviewing it, I still feel the characters could use a little more personality. The books are definitely more about what happens than they are about the characters specifically. The characters have abilities and roles, but if only the dialog were written in such a way as to differentiate them more.

There are attempts at things like character humor, such as Derrick getting annoyed at George revealing that he collects saltines, and some personality clashes at times (George wants to rescue a kidnapped homeless boy, Derrick thinks it's too dangerous and he should just forget it, and the girls are also split on whether it's a good idea or not). Still, it could have been more.

I wonder if a lot of plot-driven authors find personality hard to write. Heck, even some very popular kids' book series like The Magic Treehouse have almost no personality in them, and are really about what happens, rather than what the people it happens to are like. Yet, kids love them anyway. I saw a coworker whose son had several of those books with him when he was visiting at work.

In fact, Maxie Rosie And Earl Partners In Grime is totally the reverse. It has barely any plot, and a ton of personality, and I loved it as a kid and love it even more now, despite being frustrated at the totally anticlimactic ending! It turns out the principal didn't know they ditched school, and the janitor who saw them chose not to tell on them. The end.

^^^I agree. There needs to be a balance between character and plot, since most children's authors only bother with the latter. Of course, a child's perspective often involves a lack of control over their life, so it follows logically that characters written for children would be similarly passive, and that the plot would drive the characters rather than the other way around. But that's not a very positive message.

That's probably why Harry Potter's so popular. Most of the side character's are defined by quirks—Neville's sort of cowardly, Hermione's a genius, Fred and George are pranksters, Snape is a dick, etc.—in addition to perfectly realistic and human responses. Harry and Ron are relatively normal, in order to be audience surrogates, but both are about as fleshed out as the average human being is, especially after 7 books. Where they don't have a strong quirk, they have a persistent sense of humor and enough page-space to show different dimensions of the same character. All this is at the cost of a slow plot, but it's popularity seems to suggest that the balance works.

Most other books I read seem to subscribe to the fallacy that whatever strange and fantastic events their bland audience surrogates come across are much more interesting and awesome than any characterization could be. But its the interplay between plot and character that preserves a sense of realism and immersion, not focusing on one to the detriment of the other.

edited 26th Jun '10 1:56:56 PM by illegalcheese

I was just talking with a friend who brought up an interesting point I hadn't considered. Many of us see characterization through dialog or internal monologue.

But sometimes events can show character as well.

For example, a soldier who, although treated identically to all other soldiers and having generic dialog, decides to go out of his way to save the life of a child rather than continue fighting, mid-battle.

Or in the case of Pyrates, George's friends blow up at him over his insistence on exploring the caves and tunnels and looking for the treasure after their lives are clearly in danger. So George decides to go it alone. And ends up lost, with his light having gone out. After despairing over how his friends abandoned him for considerable time, he hears footsteps. It's... not the bad guys, it's his friends, knowing he'd go alone, and thought he might do something dumb and put himself in danger.

This is a book series with general dialog that doesn't flesh out the characters much, but that scene shows character.

What do you think of stories that do stuff like that? The character dialog is standard for the character's age/gender/position in life, but some character is shown through story events?

Of course, a child's perspective often involves a lack of control over their life, so it follows logically that characters written for children would be similarly passive, and that the plot would drive the characters rather than the other way around.

Interestingly, Maxie Rosie And Earl Partners In Grime has the characters make the plot in the first half, then the plot kinda push them around in the second.

It was their individual personalities that caused them to get in trouble for dumb little things. It was Maxie who decided to ditch school, with Earl going along and Rosie originally planning to tell on them, but ultimately going along ironically for fear of getting caught (a fire drill occurs, and the kids rush outside, so they need a place to hide. The dumpster, of course).

But once that's done, they are left with the fear that they were seen. There's nothing they can do about it. Earl decides to get everyone together to discuss strategy, so to speak, but there's no strategy to actually form - they just hang out and talk and have their personalities shine. And their actions don't really affect the ending.

It's the personality that the book lives on. The plot is very basic: three unpopular kids get in trouble for dumb little things, ditch school, then fret about whether or not they got caught. That sentence describes acts 1, 2 and 3. And act 3 is where the characters have no control over what happens, fret over having no control and try to think of ways they can influence what happens if possible, and ultimately be subjected to the events that occur. And yet, it's still fun, because it's fun to watch their personalities in action.

There aren't many books that work that way.

Oh yeah, regarding what you said about lack of control being a major factor in kids' lives, that's how Goosebumps works. Nowhere will you see a more passive set of main characters.

Re: Bella: Yes, that's exactly it. It's also the driving force behind video game Heroic Mimes like Link and Gordon Freeman—let the player put themselves in the hero's place.

Although I admittedly do enjoy a few books where the heroes are rather passive, mostly because I do sort of regard them as "sightseeing" adventures. So I guess I emjoy all types.

"Proto-Indo-European makes the damnedest words related. It's great. It's the Kevin Bacon of etymology." ~Madrugada

I've been tearing through Newbery Award winners this summer... Dicey's Song, Roll of Thunder Hear My Cry (great title, by the way) and today I just finished Jacob Have I Loved (another good title).

Dicey's Song was... okay. Roll of Thunder was very good. But Jacob Have I Loved has filled me with an ire - of the Wall Banger variety - that I haven't felt since I saw the film Babel. Or, for that matter, since I read the other Newberry winner, Out of the Dust, which was infamous for having half of the book be depressing plotlessness until the narrator sets her pregnant mother on fire. By accident.

I trust Katherine Peterson. Bridge to Terabithia is one of my favorite books. But this book, this Jacob, was awful. To put it as simply as possible, throughout the book there is injustice. It's unjust. It's unfair. You just feel certain that there's going to be some kind of comeuppance - that the narrator is going to have a good scream at all those who have wronged her. That she'll at least talk to her parents about how she feels. That, even if none of that happens, she'll learn to come to peace with all the unfairness around her and move on.

Nope. She's eighteen years old before she says a word to her mom about how they've always loved her twin sister. Instead of doing anything to improve her life, she develops a passionate crush on a man who ain't pushing seventy, he's pulling it. (And she's fourteen.) Nothing is resolved at all. She leaves the island at last, the ending is fast and shallow and tacked on and resolves nothing, and all that I'm left with is a bad taste in my mouth and more knowledge about how to fish for crabs and oysters than I'll ever need.

I've noticed that's another thing that Newbery-winning books tend to have: if they don't deal with Big Important Issues or have a Death by Newbery Medal, they have the main character doing a ton of hands-on work, in great detail & description.

• whew* sorry, had to rant. Anyone wants to speak on Jacob's behalf, please, try and make me like it.

^Don't have anything to say about Jacob (never read it), but I am seconding Roll of Thunder Hear My Cry. One of my favorite books from middle schoolish age.

edited 1st Jul '10 9:49:19 AM by Jumpingzombie

I'm in college and still reading the new ones and re-reading the old ones, from picture books all the way up to YA lit like Nation. Lately I've been skewing more towards the re-reading, though.

I can't make a single post without a Discworld reference. See?

I dunno, does Harry Potter count? It was originally meant to be a series for kids ...

That aside, I'd still read Goosebumps and Fear Street if given the chance. Or any other horror-for-kids novel I could get my hands on.

This sig is for emphasis, bitch!

I read Artemis Fowl, Harry Potter, A Series Of Unfortunate Events and used to read The Spiderwick Chronicles before I realised that I in fact hated the protagonist. I used to read Goosebumps too (even started up a club dedicated to finding and reading them all, as I recall) but I picked one up recently and realised it was utter tripe.

My Blog: Read and enjoy! My Blogcritics Page

You hate Jared from The Spiderwick Chronicles? He DOES turn into a real prick in the sequel series Beyond the Spiderwick Chronicles, I'll say that. But I didn't hate him in the first series.

edited 7th Jul '10 8:57:30 AM by BonsaiForest

Well... define "read."

Old children's books have some of the most beautiful, fun-to-look-at illustrations I've ever laid my eyes on. Gustaf Tenggren, Alice & Martin Provensen, Mary Blair, Bill Peet; a lot of children's book artists have really inspired me over the years. There's just so much charm and style in that art.

I recommend checking out this blog, which regularly uploads illustrations from classic Golden Books.

I didn't like him because he came across as a whiny obnoxious prick. And I have 'fond' memories of myself being like that at that age. I don't read kids books to read about someone like myself.

Incidentally, I didn't even bother with the sequel series, how does he get worse there?

edited 6th Jul '10 4:04:57 PM by Scottv2

My Blog: Read and enjoy! My Blogcritics Page

I'm currently re-reading a kid's book I rediscovered called Otto and the Flying Twins. I remember disliking it a lot when I first read it, because the prose is both somewhat beige and quite UK, but it grew on me. I like it much more now, especially since I realize the parallels the story has.

"Proto-Indo-European makes the damnedest words related. It's great. It's the Kevin Bacon of etymology." ~Madrugada

Thirding Roll Of Thunder Hear My Cry. It's an awesome book.

I liked Island Of The Blue Dolphins. I dunno why.

I liked the Narnia books (except when they got preachy)

A Series Of Unfortunate Events was awesome, especially once Handler got committed to the plot around book five. The movie didn't really do the books justice.

http://troperville.myminicity.com http://troperville.myminicity.com/ind

In the first Beyond the Spiderwick Chronicles book, Jared just about wants to punch the main character when they meet at — get this, a book signing for the first book series — and calls him "lard ass". Hardly a good first impression, and it gives me the impression that he hasn't learned anything, personality-wise, from his first adventure.

Now, I did enjoy the sequel series, but I still prefer the original. And I liked Jared more in the first series. Whiny, I can handle that just fine depending on how it's done. But being a prick, I don't care for (unless handled in a way that makes the character sympathetic, like the bully main character in There's a Boy in the Girl's Bathroom. As an actual bully victim who got it pretty bad in elementary, I still sympathized with him).

A shame to see this thread die.

I'm rereading a kids' book series right now, Pyrates. It's the type of adventure that I love. And I plan to buy a few more kid books. Any suggestions? I prefer Slice of Life (Ramona Quimby, Nothings Fair In Fifth Grade) and kid adventure (Pyrates, My Teacher Is An Alien (the first two), Grey Griffins (before it began to suck with the fourth book)). I also like hybrids of the two, such as A Spy in the Neighborhood, which doesn't have real danger, but does a great job making being a Snooping Little Kid who Needs To Get Proof seem like an everyday thing kids do, integrating it well into the kids' activities.

I'm wondering if Fourth Grade Celebrity could use an article. Well, I know, There Is No Such Thing As Notability. I encountered that book as a kid, and apparently it got reprinted enough times to have multiple covers, yet still isn't that well known. Anyone here read that? It's a fun little Slice of Life comedy.

edited 16th Jul '10 9:24:53 AM by BonsaiForest

I'm thinking I might make a page for The Books Of The Karmidee soon, if I can ever find the second one again. And I think there's a third I have not yet read. They're a little peculiar in terms of the way they're written, but the plot is actually kind of interesting, especially in terms of real-world parallels. Also, they're not terribly Anvilicious, or at least as I remember the later ones. And, you know. They're fun.

I am also currently reading a book called The House Of Power that's rather intriguing. It's a lot like Mother 3, of all the odd things. Or at least, for people who've gotten to the 8th chapter of Mother 3.

"Proto-Indo-European makes the damnedest words related. It's great. It's the Kevin Bacon of etymology." ~Madrugada

I read two more Newbery winning books this week (I've actually made a chart now of all the Newbery books I've read so far - it includes Kid Hero, Wise Old Mentor, and Death by Newbery Medal as factors). They are:

The Witch of Blackbird Pond, which was actually very good, if it did have a moment here and there where it showed its age. I was surprised by how many issues the writer managed to touch on without ever becoming overburdened, or making all of the characters into trite stereotypes.

The Ear, the Eye, and the Arm, which I am amazed doesn't have its own page yet. It was way creepy - no Death By Newbery, but just about everything else. Very good, no question - an odd piece that managed to be both futuristic and a period piece. It also came out the same year as The Giver, which I imagine must be like The Godfather of children's book awards. "Well, Ear, Eye, and Arm didn't win the Newbery, but then again, someone had to go up against The Giver."

If you liked The Ear, the Eye, and the Arm, I'd highly recommend The House of the Scorpion by the same author. It's closer to the hard science end of things, but it gets rather creative with the idea of nature vs. nurture, and it discusses topics you wouldn't really expect in a kids' book.

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

I really need to re-read that. I remember it being assigned for school when I was younger, but not that much about the story.

Now that I think about it I read quite a bit of historical fiction as a kid, and I would kinda of like to get back to that (if anyone has any suggestions). One book I found recently packed away and remember loving was The Sign of the Beaver.

edited 18th Jul '10 11:38:34 AM by Jumpingzombie