Posted by Duncan on July 10, 2002 at 09:24:19 from 205.188.197.41 user Duncan.
In Reply to: Re: Books - publishers posted by Prue Eckett on July 09, 2002 at 21:57:39:
And of course, we shouldn't forget AR's own opinions about writing for an age bracket. That if you try and write for what you imagine an 8-year-old will enjoy (for example) and not what you yourself enjoy then you will only end up writing a bad book. Obviously part of the trick is trying to appeal to the eight-year-old you and not including obscure bits of Marxian philosophy during the Battle of Houseboat Bay...
But you can imagine the discussions: How are children supposed to know what a 'kelson' or a 'staithe' is? What about these (fairly) obscure literary references to stout Cortez, etc? I would argue that one reason for the Harry Potter success is that none of us could quite place what age it was aimed at... 11 year olds? (as that was Harry's age in the first book). Well it seemed to appeal to much younger children, but also to a fair number of adults as well. A good children's book is a good book and - fairly often - vice versa (except where subject matter or language makes it inappropriate). Obviously one has to take into account reading skills, but nothing makes somebody want to read well as finding something worth reading!
Obviously presenting these arguments to publishers doesn't always go down too well (as I've found with my own writing for children!) but I think it's as true today as it was for AR.
Duncan