|
Post by emiliedenouement on Jan 11, 2020 0:38:10 GMT -5
As I re-read Snicket's books, as a more or less adult, I've been pondering this supposed existence and in fact a separation of children's books from literature permitted by society at an older age. To be clearer, why is it supposed that at one moment or another children's literature becomes "simplistic" and unacceptable for one to read? I find this absurd, because I have read a number of fiction books meant for adults that are more simplistic, or perhaps equally simplistic, to most children's books. When contrasting such books in my mind- a fiction novel meant for adults compared to ASOUE, as an example- I find that there is more to consider, more messages to think about in ASOUE as compared to the chick flic page turner, concrete grey mystery, etc. If this is indeed the case, that there is quite a lot of TV literature if you will (not challenging, a sort of zone out writing) meant for adults, then why is it perhaps more acceptable to read this than a supposed children's novel? Should the adult population as a whole reach for classic literature that discusses morals and human behavior over other common literature? Why doesn't it? Or does it? As an additional pondering, what indeed is sophisticated literature, serious literature?
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Jan 11, 2020 9:29:51 GMT -5
It sometimes seems as if the primary distinction between literature for children, YA, and adults is merely the age of the protagonist; and I've occasionally seen classic novels remarketed towards a modern teenage audience on the apparent grounds that the protagonist was a teenager, for instance. It seems patently absurd to treat children's literature as beneath the dignity of an adult audience considering that such books are by necessity written, edited, and published by adults; is the suggestion that the adults in the children's and YA publishing business are infantile, or don't actually enjoy the work they dedicate their lives to?
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Jan 11, 2020 9:37:50 GMT -5
These questions are very interesting. I am not best person to answer them simply because I do not care much about what the general public thinks about me, what I read, what I watch, or what I think. I am sure that if I cared I would not be in this forum doing theories about ASOUE in the year 2020, spending hours thinking about Lemony Snicket's writings and then publishing for half a dozen people (or less) to read and only three (or less) comment on. But my opinion is: if content is fun for a 12 year old, it will probably be fun for me. But if something is boring for a 12 year old, it will probably be boring for me. I'm not sophisticated, and I don't want to look intellectual just because I like reading. I also think that those who like to look intellectual just because they like to read probably miss many good opportunities to have fun. I also believe that much of the problems that exist are coming from the fact that people are serious too much. And another large part of the problems comes from the fact that people fit to the majority behavior at the expense of losing their identity. Another major part of the problems comes from many do not know to respect the differences of opinion and to be able to talk about opinions without adding to each other.Because people are like that, there are target audiences, and so there are specific content. This only reinforces the separations. In the case you mentioned, these are separations involving age differences. Subtly Daniel Handler broke down barriers involving the ages.
|
|
|
Post by Reba on Jan 11, 2020 10:48:24 GMT -5
Should the adult population as a whole reach for classic literature that discusses morals and human behavior over other common literature? Why doesn't it? 1. yes 2. because people are stupid
|
|
|
Post by emiliedenouement on Jan 11, 2020 17:25:12 GMT -5
It sometimes seems as if the primary distinction between literature for children, YA, and adults is merely the age of the protagonist; and I've occasionally seen classic novels remarketed towards a modern teenage audience on the apparent grounds that the protagonist was a teenager, for instance. It seems patently absurd to treat children's literature as beneath the dignity of an adult audience considering that such books are by necessity written, edited, and published by adults; is the suggestion that the adults in the children's and YA publishing business are infantile, or don't actually enjoy the work they dedicate their lives to? This is an interesting observation! In response to your question, I'm not sure. I mean, you do hear about things like cartoons being meant for adults, but ultimately marketed/watched by children and vice versa. The same could be said of some books. As for those working in publishing businesses, who knows what their motivation is? I wouldn't say the adults themselves were infantile, as a general assumption anyway. But, when bringing business into the discussion money is a factor and thus may skew any observations to be made- as an aside, do you suppose children's literature brings in more money or less than adult? Who could say? But the adults are working, not merely reading for pleasure, thus the point doesn't necessarily say anything about the popularity or importance of children's literature in "adult" society.
|
|
|
Post by emiliedenouement on Jan 11, 2020 17:32:32 GMT -5
These questions are very interesting. I am not best person to answer them simply because I do not care much about what the general public thinks about me, what I read, what I watch, or what I think. I am sure that if I cared I would not be in this forum doing theories about ASOUE in the year 2020, spending hours thinking about Lemony Snicket's writings and then publishing for half a dozen people (or less) to read and only three (or less) comment on. But my opinion is: if content is fun for a 12 year old, it will probably be fun for me. But if something is boring for a 12 year old, it will probably be boring for me. I'm not sophisticated, and I don't want to look intellectual just because I like reading. I also think that those who like to look intellectual just because they like to read probably miss many good opportunities to have fun. I also believe that much of the problems that exist are coming from the fact that people are serious too much. And another large part of the problems comes from the fact that people fit to the majority behavior at the expense of losing their identity. Another major part of the problems comes from many do not know to respect the differences of opinion and to be able to talk about opinions without adding to each other.Because people are like that, there are target audiences, and so there are specific content. This only reinforces the separations. In the case you mentioned, these are separations involving age differences. Subtly Daniel Handler broke down barriers involving the ages. I applaud you for following what interests and delights you! And I agree that many people forgo this in order to fit a mold of seriousness. Yes, the population does need to work on hearing differing opinions, but it seems that many cannot handle more than one without falling over! Indeed, target audiences are a major question here. Are they ultimately of benefit or limiting? Handler has done a good job of this, indeed, but many casual readers would insist that his books are to be defined as children's books, for better or worse, and such people will do the same with other books. But are these same people unwilling to read outside of their own genre of interest? Perhaps. What does this influence, what do you suppose is the long term effect of this? (effect or affect? I get them confused!)
|
|
|
Post by emiliedenouement on Jan 11, 2020 17:34:37 GMT -5
Should the adult population as a whole reach for classic literature that discusses morals and human behavior over other common literature? Why doesn't it? 1. yes 2. because people are stupid Ha! A good observation indeed! Would you say this is due to a lack of such books getting marketing to the general public? Do you suppose there is any reason for that?
|
|
|
Post by Reba on Jan 11, 2020 22:14:36 GMT -5
1. yes 2. because people are stupid Ha! A good observation indeed! Would you say this is due to a lack of such books getting marketing to the general public? Do you suppose there is any reason for that? everybody knows who Shakespeare is, he doesn’t need to be “marketed.” people don’t read him because they don’t want to, because they’re stupid.
|
|
|
Post by emiliedenouement on Jan 11, 2020 22:22:05 GMT -5
Or because they never had good, thorough introductions to important books?
|
|
|
Post by Reba on Jan 11, 2020 22:38:19 GMT -5
I got the same stupid education as everyone else and I didn’t end up stupid so its very difficult for me to guess how best to make people not stupid
|
|
|
Post by emiliedenouement on Jan 12, 2020 4:47:03 GMT -5
And another fine problem, aside from the fact you've just used 'stupid' three times in a single sentence. I do find it a perplexing problem, people's insistence to remain ignorant, or perhaps they find it all too daunting to even take a single step. A terrible tragedy.
|
|
|
Post by Isadora Is a Door on Jan 12, 2020 7:37:43 GMT -5
I got the same stupid education as everyone else and I didn’t end up stupid Are you sure about that?
|
|
|
Post by Reba on Jan 12, 2020 13:31:57 GMT -5
Yes Mister M, i am. thanks for asking.
|
|
|
Post by emiliedenouement on Jan 12, 2020 13:45:58 GMT -5
Those unsure of their mental prowess are most likely more intelligent than those who are. Ever read Apology? Several will believe they are wise, but when examined and told contrary they remain set in their beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Jan 12, 2020 15:36:32 GMT -5
Yes Mister M, i am. thanks for asking. At school I was introduced only to Brazilian and Portuguese writers. Some stories were very good and exciting, but most were boring, especially for a child. I blame Brazilian education in the 1990s and 2000s for making many of my countrymen hate reading in general. With respect to English and American literature, I became interested only when I had internet access at home. I was about 18 years old at the time. Also, at school my classmates were more interested in dating than in creating pleasure in reading. Others were only interested in taking an entrance exam and entering a good college. But few were encouraged to really create pleasure in reading. Oh, we had no access to search public libraries in my city, nor to good bookstores. I'm sorry Reba, that you had such a bad education as mine. Compared to my wife, for example, I had a good education in my country. At her school, some subjects went months without a qualified teacher. At her school there were constant strikes and the students spent several weeks without studying. At her school, she needed to learn to avoid abuse by classmates and teachers, all while trying to learn. But I agree with you. Still, she didn't become stupid. But she never read any book by the famous English playwright. Her parents didn't have a library at home, like some people's parents. But she got through a lot of trouble and became really wise. I mean, maybe her only mistake was marrying someone like me. A very stupid man.
|
|