{"channel":"education","content":"https://authorclaireswinarski.substack.com/p/when-will-i-write-real-books\r\n\r\n<<< The other day a woman asked if I only wrote children\u2019s books or if I also wrote \u201creal\u201d books. It was said with absolutely no malice and if you don\u2019t spend tons of time in storytelling land/the planet of publishing, I get why you would word it that way. But it gave me pause because it\u2019s far from the first time such a question has been asked to me, with the understandable-yet-false reasoning that books for adults are real and books for children are not. >>>\r\n\r\nShe is partially correct. But, in many important ways, books for children are *NOT* << real books >>, and pretending that they are (or should be) is harmful.\r\n\r\n her argument that it is a << real book >> because the pictures are pretty, proves my point.\r\n she might as well talk about the << inescapable pathos >> of the gastronomic gospel of Sam-I-Am.\r\n\r\n----\r\n\r\nThe first argument ( and one sufficient to \"win the argument\", though insufficient to explain the concept) is that the primary purpose of books, through about the << third grade level >> ( as always, the concept of << grade level >> is flawed; but commonly understood well enough to be useful) is to teach *language*. Trying to use the books to also teach deep concepts will cause them to fail at both tasks.\r\n\r\nThe books are supposed to be simple. Pleas that children should << be exposed to complex themes >> or << are capable of understanding complex themes >> ... are wrong, and should not be indulged.\r\n\r\n----\r\n\r\nAs far as << children\u2019s books are real books because children are real people >> ... I must invoke Guild Law.\r\n\r\nAs far as << Children\u2019s books are specifically written to be read by a section of society without political or economic power. >> ... no. I must invoke Guild Law again.","created_at":"2025-03-13T16:32:14.360434","id":303,"llm_annotations":{},"parent_id":null,"processed_content":"

https://authorclaireswinarski.substack.com/p/when-will-i-write-real-books\r

\n

The other day a woman asked if I only wrote children\u2019s books or if I also wrote \u201creal\u201d books. It was said with absolutely no malice and if you don\u2019t spend tons of time in storytelling land/the planet of publishing, I get why you would word it that way. But it gave me pause because it\u2019s far from the first time such a question has been asked to me, with the understandable-yet-false reasoning that books for adults are real and books for children are not.

\r

\n

She is partially correct. But, in many important ways, books for children are NOT real books, and pretending that they are (or should be) is harmful.\r

\n

\n \ud83d\udd25\n her argument that it is a real book because the pictures are pretty, proves my point.\r\n

\n

\n \ud83d\udd25\n she might as well talk about the inescapable pathos of the gastronomic gospel of Sam-I-Am.\r\n

The first argument \n \ud83d\udca1\n ( and one sufficient to \"win the argument\", though insufficient to explain the concept)\n is that the primary purpose of books, through about the third grade level \n \ud83d\udca1\n ( as always, the concept of grade level is flawed; but commonly understood well enough to be useful)\n is to teach language. Trying to use the books to also teach deep concepts will cause them to fail at both tasks.\r

\n

The books are supposed to be simple. Pleas that children should be exposed to complex themes or are capable of understanding complex themes ... are wrong, and should not be indulged.\r

As far as children\u2019s books are real books because children are real people ... I must invoke Guild Law.\r

\n

As far as Children\u2019s books are specifically written to be read by a section of society without political or economic power. ... no. I must invoke Guild Law again.

","quotes":[],"subject":"\"real books\""}