4 ms·

I've wondered about this with children's books. Classics like Alice in Wonderland and The Wind in the Willows are still wildly popular. I can't believe nobody h

I've wondered about this with children's books. Classics like Alice in Wonderland and The Wind in the Willows are still wildly popular. I can't believe nobody has been able to write anything better since those days. It must exist but I've never managed to find them in the library or know how to find them among the tidal wave of slop. Most of them are very similar and, to me, low quality fluff with no nuanced characters, no rich fantasy worlds, no serious human interactions. 80% of what I can find is just stories about kids playing in their house or dealing with some basic child problems like losing a toy. The other 20% is adult political issues shoe-horned into children's books. Why do authors crank out so much low-quality crap instead of masterpieces?

randcraw 1y ago
IMO, a large part of the appeal of classics is that you know others have also read the book so there will be opportunities to quote from it and share the experience, perhaps for decades to come. In contrast, most recent best sellers disappear off the radar so quickly that the reader knows the opportunity to share them will be ephemeral. This if you can't enjoy the reading experience of a recent work all by yourself, without sharing it with others, then your only hope to share it socially is to join a book club that reads it.
- foxglacier 1y ago
  For adult books maybe, but my child often chooses classic stories like those over piles of modern books that we also have. She doesn't know they're popular yet.
watwut 1y ago
I assure you there are more interesting books for children. At least judged by the "do kids actually want to read it" factor. I do not know "The Wind in the Willows", but Alice in Wonderland is not all that interesting. I mean, the philosophy parts were good, but the storyline something to be skipped. > 80% of what I can find is just stories about kids playing in their house or dealing with some basic child problems like losing a toy. You are talking about books for very small kids here. At that age, they were not understanding Alice in Wonderland. But, the small ones actually liked those losing a toy books. > The other 20% is adult political issues shoe-horned into children's books. Kids books and entertainment was always vehicle for teaching kids rights and wrongs. You have that in Narnia, you have that in Thomas the Tank Engine, you have that in pretty much any Christian kids books. The moralizing ethical aspect is especially clear when you look at older books, because distance makes it all that more apparent. Even Alice in Wonderland is meant to teach you philosophy first rather then be just a story.
- foxglacier 1y ago
  I agree right and wrong is good when it's fundamental enough to bet it'll last their lifetime and isn't simple preaching. But also complex human emotions and interactions are useful and interesting to them. The politics I'm complaining about is far more specific than that and I don't think 3-5 year olds either need it or can understand it - like environmental pollution, punishing capitalists, which ancient battle some holiday commemorates, life story of a specific politician, endangered species, cultural headgear, etc. My kid seems to prefer choosing classic stories over the piles of modern books we also have.

randcraw 1y ago

IMO, a large part of the appeal of classics is that you know others have also read the book so there will be opportunities to quote from it and share the experience, perhaps for decades to come. In contrast, most recent best sellers disappear off the radar so quickly that the reader knows the opportunity to share them will be ephemeral. This if you can't enjoy the reading experience of a recent work all by yourself, without sharing it with others, then your only hope to share it socially is to join a book club that reads it.

foxglacier 1y ago
For adult books maybe, but my child often chooses classic stories like those over piles of modern books that we also have. She doesn't know they're popular yet.

watwut 1y ago

I assure you there are more interesting books for children. At least judged by the "do kids actually want to read it" factor. I do not know "The Wind in the Willows", but Alice in Wonderland is not all that interesting. I mean, the philosophy parts were good, but the storyline something to be skipped. > 80% of what I can find is just stories about kids playing in their house or dealing with some basic child problems like losing a toy. You are talking about books for very small kids here. At that age, they were not understanding Alice in Wonderland. But, the small ones actually liked those losing a toy books. > The other 20% is adult political issues shoe-horned into children's books. Kids books and entertainment was always vehicle for teaching kids rights and wrongs. You have that in Narnia, you have that in Thomas the Tank Engine, you have that in pretty much any Christian kids books. The moralizing ethical aspect is especially clear when you look at older books, because distance makes it all that more apparent. Even Alice in Wonderland is meant to teach you philosophy first rather then be just a story.

foxglacier 1y ago
I agree right and wrong is good when it's fundamental enough to bet it'll last their lifetime and isn't simple preaching. But also complex human emotions and interactions are useful and interesting to them. The politics I'm complaining about is far more specific than that and I don't think 3-5 year olds either need it or can understand it - like environmental pollution, punishing capitalists, which ancient battle some holiday commemorates, life story of a specific politician, endangered species, cultural headgear, etc. My kid seems to prefer choosing classic stories over the piles of modern books we also have.