Posted by Prue Eckett on July 09, 2002 at 21:57:39 from 210.54.78.101 user Prue_Eckett.
In Reply to: Re: Books - publishers posted by Peter H on July 09, 2002 at 21:05:55:
Re: your comment that no publisher will turn down a children's book that shows every sign of being popular - my point was that publishers are subjective as we all are, the difference being that publishers decide what is popular or not when choosing what to publish. They certainly don't use children in their choosing which would be too radical a move.
The obvious example was 'Harry Potter' which was turned down by first dozens of agents and then dozens of publishers when an agent with vision finally took a risk. Yet children adored it from day one and its influence spread initially by word-of-mouth, the way the best children's books do. Publishing genius had nothing to do with it.
There is no doubt that many hopeful children's writers misalign age levels in their books, but, age levels also are subjective and this editor is merely following educational fashion which says that children aged x are capable of reading up to y level.
At 8 years old I was reading Reader's Digest and Gerald Durrell. And the Gerry Durrell wasn't 'My Family and Other Animals' which I found years later, it was my father's copy of Bafut Beagles which I adored then as now. Most children's books at that time bored me rigid and AR was such a joy because he didn't talk 'down' to me in the way many writers did.
Fortunately a few publishers did take risks. I remember Scholastic's wonderful range of children's books out in the sixties. They opened up a whole new world and I can guarantee it was the influence of one person because as fast as they appeared they disappeared and there's been nothing like it since.
In general publishers of children's fiction are conservative to a very sad degree which is why children, especially boys turn away from reading. Is it a wonder?
Your example of Cape shows nothing has changed in publisher's power plays.