Some writers seem to feel that writing for children is a lesser art form, even that it's "beneath" them.
We at La Gr@not@ (http://la-granota.com) believe that the very reverse is true. It takes a writer of real talent to write for children without "writing down" to them. To treat them as a public deserving of quality... and of our respect.
We also believe that it's one of the most important reading publics that exist. Just think about it: Most adults read for one of the following reasons:
:
To keep themselves informed (news media, current affairs, non-fiction)
To exercise their brains (who-dunnits, thought-provoking fiction, philosophy, etc.)
To entertain themselves (fiction of all kinds)
To have a good laugh (GOOD humour, the "Twilight" series and other non-intentionally funny books)
To "edify" themselves (religious and spiritual fiction and non-fiction)
To turn themselves on sexually (erotica, pornography)
To "improve" themselves (self-help, religion, erotica...)
To escape from reality (romantic fiction, historical dramas, dubious "non-fiction")
Out of obligation (reading for studies or work)
Just because they're bored and the telly's on the blink / they're in some foreign hotel without telly from "home"
To snort derisively at "the drivel that some people write"
Children have 3 main reasons to read:
[At a young age] To feel proud of themselves: "I can READ!!!"
To spend quality time with their parents (often including cuddling [one of my favourite activities]): "Daddy, can you read me a story?" (then sometimes reading it TO Daddy)
To [help] open the doors to this marvelous, new WORLD that they're constantly discovering.
I'm not a fan of all of the reasons that adults might have for reading. But the reasons that children have are all gems.
Let's not fob them off with thin gruel. Boring, repetitive crap of the Enid Blyton school, warmed-over conservative values from the 50s coupled with self-glorification ("Us versus Them"/"WE are the Good Guys. Let's kick some Baddie BUTT!") of the Harry Potter school.
Let's give them something worthy of their attention and trust. Something we can be PROUD of having written.
Do you STILL think that it's a lesser art form?
p.s. Happy Birthday, Alice's Adventures In Wonderland!
Agreeing with Jimmy, and on the original question of "Is writing for children unworthy of your considerable writing talent?"
No, if your talent and your interest/passion is in that direction. Not everyone can write for children though, and not everyone wants to, which is all to the good or we'd only have children's books! If as Jimmy says there aren't many awards for children's fiction, then maybe that's why it's not considered 'serious' work, and why some people move on to other things. (If recognition is what they're after) I don't know anything about different writing awards, so can't comment.
However, since there are a great deal of new books and magazines are being published all the time for children then I don't think all other authors think writing for children is beneath them. As to whether the writing is good or not, all I'll say is, 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder.'
It seems to me that this thread has been slightly twisted off its original course, and that I'm partly to blame for that. We seem to be debating whether children can survive reading crap (of course they can), whether they can begin reading crap and then move on to better books (of course they can), and whether reading so much crap actually does them any harm (debatable - not in its negative sense, but in its original s;ense of "lends itself to debate").
The question Wilhelmina originally posted - and I'd like to read more comments on this, too - was about whether children deserve books by talented writers, why so many talented writers turn up their noses at this "lesser art form"; and why must we CONTINUE churning out crap for them.
What's done is done. Enid Blyton exists (in book form).. Many of you read her and enjoyed her when you were young. But should we be using her as a blueprint? Should we be buying her for our children when there ARE books for children that are so much better?
That's STILL a bit off-course. How about the following questions:
Why has no book for children (as opposed to young adults / adolescents) ever been short-listed for a major literary prize (leaving aside the Hans Christian Anderson, and other prizes exclusively for children's books)? Don't snort at this preposterous idea. I would back the 2 Alice books against the vast majority of adult fiction for QUALITY writing any day. If we admit illustrated books, Fungus The Bogeyman by Raymond Briggs is a work of towering GENIUS.
Russell Hoban was writing BRILLIANT books for children before he turned to "serious" writing... and won the Booker prize. He continued to write books for children. Was be a "better" writer when he was writing for adults?
And WHY in the name of all that's holy was Astrid Lindgren never even NOMINATED for the Nobel Literature Prize???
P.S If children do find a series or author repetitive or they don't like them for some other reason, they won't read them. Unless they're the only books they have access too, and then they might. My mum told me once that when she was growing up, all they had to read in the way of books for children WAS Enid Blyton and the classics, so EB was what she read. But now there's so much choice, and if a child has access to a library, they have access to all sorts of books. . .