Where are the Cherries?

Hello again, hannah. Doubt there's a bias against any particular genre. Perhaps there has been a lack of children's stories of late. Looking back at the last sixty stories posted there is one children's story and a one scene play. I know Geoffrey's Jennifer Jane series finished recently. If you find any stories that you think could've/should've been awarded cherries you can email Tony Cook and he'll have a look.

The children's literature market isn't as popular as it once was. It's a well known fact. Young Adult and Sci-Fi are becoming more and more popular. This could be a good thing and a bad thing. Good because it gives Children's Authors a better chance at being recognised, but also bad because not many Publishers are directly searching for childrens books compared to other genres. Personally, Children's is the area I'm most interested in and it's a pity it's being forgotten about lately!

Hi Hannah, I especially love your 'Daisy loves to bounce' but don't worry about the cherry aspect of whether children's work is being ignored. i don't think that's the case. Those cherry robots are good at what they do and read all work quite objectively. As for the children's market (or any market these days), the publishing world's never been so lax in its duty to encourage new authors. They're sticking to old reliables. I sent my book for evaluation as part of a well known bookshop's core range but it was refused on the basis that the format was wrong for the age group. It is a rigid system (2-5yrs and 5-9 yrs, with no movement in between) but I have learnt from the evaluation that the book's best aimed at 5-8 year olds. 1800 words is just too much for the average 2-4 year old. At least I know who to aim the book towards when I do school readings and bookshop events now. Just because the book isn't in the very large bookshop's core range doesn't mean that I can't arrange reading events with their shops individually or that the book isn't available on their website. It's just not going to get shelf-space at all their shops, which is a massive shame but at least I'm learning about the game now. Must look at the positives in all that we do! The format system is flawed, though, because 5-7 year olds generally prefer the picture book format of around 297mm by 230-297mm (in my experience), while 7-9 year olds prefer smaller books of 197mm by 129mm, according to the powers that be. If I was 8, I'd have preferred the bigger book to get bigger pictures, but that's just me. Keep posting, Hannah. All the best Richard

I have found this thread really interesting and informative. I have been toying with the idea of posting some children's stories that I have written but I am reluctant as (StanTheMan) the illustrations are inseparable from the narrative.

The very problem with the children's literature market is its modern day obsession with age classification. I used to work in an independent bookshop with a huge children's section and found this classification ridiculous. Different children progress at different speeds in their reading, partly depending on natural ability but a lot depending, in my view, of the amount of time parents are prepared to put in reading to and with children at home. I would hope that parents didn't select literature for their children solely - or at all - based on an age classification on the cover! I also don't believe that there is a lack of good literature being written for children - it's just that it's not getting published! J x

Thanks, Stan. I agree with your issue with being told to 'simplify' writing. I read Lord of the Rings in my early teens with a dictionary beside me. I don't place any value in patronising children - use 'proper words' and encourage them to look them up - how else will they develop their reading or vocabulary? This brings me back to the point I made regarding reading to and with children - parents can explain difficult words, and aid pronunciation, especially with young children - I recall my mother getting me past my struggle, aged about 4 or 5, with the silent 'k' in 'knife' so clearly! If you look at 'children's books' written fifty years ago, the language is much more sophisticated. (I grew up with my Mum's collection from the 1950s and 60s). In Unbelievable, I have used 'proper words', even though it is a 'young adult' novel (I've been classified!). Yes, even when writing it, I used a dictionary and thesaurus to extend my vocabulary and check I had it right! (And then I got my Mum to edit the manuscript!) J x

Hannah- have you read Well-wisher's children's stories and fairy tales?

Jenny, there is wisdom in your words. This is a verbatim conversation that I recently had. "Sir, why do you keep using big words?". (word "cuticle", same syllable count as 'footballer") Reply; "Well, (child's name) for the same reason that they don't let you count on your fingers in Maths".

Hi scratch, As a teacher, I always believe in using 'the big word' first, then saying the simpler version/explaining it. Glad you do the same! J x p.s. I got an A in Maths and I still count on my fingers... ;)

Nice one Jenny!

My Mother taught me to read with "The cat sat on the mat" shock horror from any English teachers who heard this (including my wife) but I could read before I went to primary school! I relied on my three girls to tell me if they liked Jennifer Jane and they never did like them, but I persevered for my own enjoyment. My wife would read them to her class at school(edited!) but she never would tell me what the editing was! Write for your own enjoyment if you're lucky you might find a publisher one day. If not why worry, I assume you have a day job. Just read your question Hannahhepton. I think you just have to be lucky with your cherry picker, rather like being lucky with a publisher/agent.

Completely agree - when I was five to seven (!), my Mum read me the Just William books. They were full length novels. J x

My little boy (only just 7 years) has read virtually all of the "Beast Quest" series by Adam Blade. A series of chaptered books each commencing with a prologue. Since Christmas we have spent early Saturday and Sunday morning (GRRR) reading "The Hobbit". Obviously this last is beyond his capacity for solo reading but I always ask him to pick up the reading. He always knows where to start so obviously he is reading along with me at the same time. To categorise children into aged groups for reading age is entirely spurious. All children develop at a different pace. I still couldn't read by the time I was seven, parental neglect and poor schooling the culprits.

Some of my favourite stories being mentioned - 'The Hobbit', 'Narnia' series, 'Alice in Wonderland' - look at the complex language of the best-loved children's literature - says it all, really! Hannah - my Mum used to let me choose too - what a great way to inspire a love of reading - keep up your fab parenting! J x

Read Harry Potter throughout my twenties and loved it! Think it's hilarious they did special 'adult covers' though! Also got my Mum into HP - and she was in her fifties! Proof that a good story doesn't have an age limit! Actually - that's a hugely important factor in the whole getting parents reading to/with their children philosophy - you HAVE to have a story which has something for the kids AND something for the parents! J x

Stan I know the author who you allude to. He was a CofE vicar. His parishioners all donated a fiver each so that he could publish his story, in return they all received their own signed copy of the book. These first editions are now changing hands to the tune of several thousand pounds and negotiations for a film deal are ongoing.

I love how this thread has blossomed from questioning cherry-picking reliability towards its children's writers to lambasting publishing's duty of care towards its youngest readers. The trouble seems to be classification for the sake of classification, and this is indicative in all areas of business/education/governance. Too many cooks by half, and too many misled 'specialists' are trying to justify their position by constantly redefining protocol and guidance. From 1951-1970, there was certificate U for kids, A for older kids and X-rated for adults. Now there are 7 classifications for viewing (2009-present); U, PG, 12A, 12, 15, 18, R18, and there have been about 8 reclassifications since 1970, which is good for printers and the beady-eyed, but hasn't really done anything for anyone else. All the points made by our incredible mind-community yearn for the same thing; a broader, more laissez-faire attitude to reading classification. How would they classify The Catcher in The Rye now? Thing is, they want us all to be in little boxes, which does nothing for identification on any scale. You're either this or that or the other, while on a political level, they're all money-grabbing capitalists and to hell with decency. In business, and that includes publishing, everything depends on the buck. I want to read my story to children at schools for free because I used to love story-time at school. My mind flew out of the classroom and into the air. While 3 year olds who have been taught to read or are more mentally equipped to read love the story, I have found that ten year olds enjoy the book too, and that's why I initially marketed it as a book for 3-8 year olds. Now I realise that the children's market in the only area of business where a reduction in classification has occurred, it seems I have made a mistake. It's too long for 2-5's and the format's wrong for 5-9's according to the powers that be, but this just goes to show how the classification system fails its most deserving. I now know for sure that my target market is 5-7 (which isn't classified as such) but that those younger and older can enjoy it too. For purposes of reading the book to school-children I will ask to read to 5-7 year olds but for selling purposes, I will not discourage a parent of a three year old from having a copy if he/she asks if it's right for their young un because, nine times out of ten, it will be. I wasn't read to as a nipper much but I went to the library on my own from age six or seven. I was drawn to it and knew that I'd always love books. Kids these days continue to be neglected by the system. Look at Whitney Houston's death. The media post gormless, disrespectfully abbreviated text-speak messages from famous folk to remember her and then, towards the bottom of the page, proper sentences of English are posted. What's that all about? It's all about market-forces. Children are being failed at school and at home, and so the media, in order to be read, uses text speak first and then real language second. I'm learning from the self-publishing game that classification is there to be broken, just like all the other ridiculous rules put in place to make mush of the mind. Brilliant thread, though

Blighters you're right on it as per usual. You got me thinking, my 7 year old has read the the "Beast Quest" series, has been read "The Hobbit" and at the same time has loved every word of your "Of Course You Can Meet the Queen". This alone goes to show the artificial and spurious categorisation of children's literature.

I'll get in touch with you later today by email, Hannah, and hope I can help you decide how to go about your quest. Hi Scratcherooney, your boy's one lucky little man! I'm starting to think I've contradicted myself with the classification thing, and am talking to a mate while we wait for the roast to cook. If they need to classify, which is inevitable, then I reckon it could be better defined as 1-3 yr olds for furry, touchy books with big lettered words and pop-ups and the like, 3-5 yr olds for big lettered, picture-led stories with a max of 1000 words or so, 5-7 yr old for the classic picture book style, with more words and still largely picture-led, and then 7-9 yr olds for the smaller format (197mm by 129mm) of yet more text with a few sporadic picture floated around the book. At least this classification would be relevant to each of the 2 year cycles, and while it increases classification, at least it serves the purpose of quick, concise guidance for already time-starved parents, although they can usually tell with a quick flick through. The current 2-5 and 5-9 classifications aren't realistic. If I'd followed these guidelines and researched, I'd have been influenced to use the smaller format which would have been a massive mistake because 5-7's generally love the classic picture book style and don't want to move onto smaller formats. Look at a 6 year old's book shelf; full of big, colourful picture books. I don't believe in pushing a child to read ahead of himself unless he craves more intellectual food. Letting children be children is vital if they are to fully embrace the challenging transition to adulthood, and I'd say your boy is getting a brilliant spectrum of reading material, especially when he knows very well where you are in The Hobbit! I was on a strict diet of Ant and Bee and Where the wild things are at his age because that's what I wanted to read. Hola Stan, Glad you're onto the children's writing tip and digging out some work. I'll be onto it soon and give you an age classification, which, if dispossessed-marginal is its genre, may well be 0-99 (and counting). Working on children's writing can offer good relief from the chin-rubbing of adult meanderings and has certainly helped me to see things less cynically, he says, about to nosedive into the Mail on Sunday.

Blighters you are so right with the observation regarding a quick flick through by parents often being enough to inform choice. I can see the logic in your proposals for categories too. I don't know if this still happens but somehow when we got our child as a new born we got free books from 'Book Start" either from a health visitor or through nursery (I can't quite remember) I think this was a government scheme to encourage early literacy. One of these books (which we still have) is called "This Little Baby" and comprise a series of photographs of babies and very young toddlers. The last page is a mirror with the lines "But this little baby is the one I love best". About halfway through the story appears a picture of a child that is was a striking resemblance to my son. The baby is shown bawling out loud. Even from the earliest months our son reacted more to this picture that any of the others (I genuinely don't think this was a learned response as a result of parental input). He still likes to look at this book and I think that this goes to show that age is no indicator of reading preference. It certainly shouldn't be. Having said all this and harking back to the parental choice being important I have to acknowledge that some parents couldn't give a toss about child literacy and would never dream of even getting involved.

Aha - the education question! Is it the parents' fault, or the teachers' or the politicians'? It's so hard to classify education, isn't it? I've learnt so much from books...and from my parents. J x

Dear Hanna, There is absolutely no bias with regard to children's story writing or any other work on ABCtales. Every piece of work is considered on its only individual merits.

i hate how children's books are lumped into such rigid age brackets. it is, as scratch says, artificial. i struggle to find new books for mine to read. one reads fluently & fast- if the content is suitable the text isn't nearly challenging enough. the other took a long time to get his head around reading (like me) & he takes his time so needs a good plot to keep him hooked, & simple-ish language & text. Robert Westall always seems to hit the mark- but i wonder who they'd be targeted at now, & what they'd lose in the process? neither of my kids read or write within the "standard" age brackets/expectations & i'm just glad they're not at school. their enthusiasm & self esteem are still fully in tact. & they can go as fast or as slow as they like, without worrying about what 29 other kids are up to.

Christine

I've been away so long, I've forgotten how to post! sorry about empty post. I have a confession to make: I labelled the Harry Hill Appreciation Society as humour rather than children's because I thought maybe people reading on the site would see 'children's' and lose interest. However, I wrote the book with 10 - 13 year olds in mind - notionally. I agree with most of what is said above here and, generally, I think these age categories are daft as many children aspire to read books beyond their age groupings anyway.

Roald Dahl and Dick King-Smith were the formative authors for me growing up - I absolutely loved the characters. Danny the Champion of the World had a BIG impression on me when I was about 7-9 - I must have read it to myself and with my parents 10 times or more... My junior school teacher read Goodnight Mr Tom to the class when we were 10/11. I'm not sure how a publishing company would see the subject matter now (child abuse in places, the death of a young child, etc.), and how they would 'categorise' it (I think they like to draw pretty little venn diagrams to show the marketability which could be achieved if you removed any and all controversial or emotionally challenging material from stories). Learning to read is not just a clinical process of learning new words, it is familiarising yourself with the tone, or the context of a word, the emotion behind it, etc. I can see how children where I live have ended up smoking and spitting outside Tescos Express at age 14 - they are not permitted to try and understand things from an adult perspective. It's 'us adults, you children'.

Sad but true ItsSteveDave.

Do you think it can/will change, scratch and others? Once we have some more 'fat' in the economy, do you think these issues might be looked at from a more social perspective? Or have the mathematical demographic models risen again to take even more diversity and fun out of life to maximise profit? I would say educate the parents, but they do so love when things are dictated to them - it leaves them with the necessary time to involve themselves in this capitalism thing, as the need for them to do so increases these days. (I hasten to add that all of the people talking about their kids on this thread sound like superb parents!).

Hi SteveDave, Children have been marginalised ever since Maggie came to power. Local youth clubs have been boarded up for decades now. The strains of modern life placed upon parents (the rise of single-parent families/fatherless children/dual-income families) ignore the needs of the children, who spend more time gaming than ever. Schools have said bye-bye to sports, thanks to insurance companies and lack of staff while ready-made microwave meals have spoilt the fun of family gatherings and sharing. The TV's the new fireplace and there's a general lack of interaction in families. Social disintegration is our doing. We have become lazy in the fight against capitalism. Every single aspect of going out with children in this country relies on the spending of money (have you noticed how few public seating areas there are in town centres these days?). Children's expectations of a good life have fallen yet they seem to be driven by bling, labels and buzzwords, which is so sad. The capitalists enjoy the demise of our children's sense of well being in favour of programming them to want something new at all times. Enjoyment has suffered as a result of this constant need for replacement. It's a brave parent that tries to buck the trend. This is a fear-based society and one that is wary of anyone that walks away from the crowd and does his own thing. It isn't about the journey for children anymore. They are transported from box to box with no outside interaction. Instant gratification is encouraged by the govt for the sake of a failed economy based on deceit. It's no wonder they don't need over-protective/sensitive parents to be wary of what's out there. Adulthood used to be something we waited for excitedly. Now it's a very scary prospect indeed.

Hi Stan, Maybe the kids are just reacting to the hopelessness of their future. All or nothing is a very gung-ho attitude to have for anyone, but kids are well aware that work is going seriously out of fashion and that it may just be a case of fame or nothing for them. Being a footballer or a pop star is far more exciting than being a doctor, it has to be said, and at least these jobs don't hurt anyone. If I was a teenager and I'd had the X Factor instead of Stars in Their Arse (which was all oldsters anyway), there's little doubt in my mind that I'd have been in front of a mirror practicing my Johnny Rotten impersonation and hoping to get on the show. The fact is, kids aren't stupid and they know that not all dreams come true, so I don't think the fallout from not being a superstar will be too grave. It's the fear-based society outside these shows (where they have to live every day) that I worry about for them. It's bandied about that men will no longer be working by 2050 and that is very worrying indeed. I don't think that people should work for the sake of working but I'd like to believe that men and women have roles to play. The kids can see the problem much more accurately than we can, and I hope they learn to identify it before the rich swallow us all up!