5 replies to this topic

[Qwerty]

Children's fiction: Give them fights, cameras, action What children really want from novels, says Charlie Higson, is more spills and thrills Why aren Back to top #2 Aussie21 Aussie21 Lieutenant Crew 615 posts Location:Formerly Melbourne, Currently New York Posted 09 April 2005 - 03:30 AM I'm surprised this thread has gotten absolutely no replies. I found the article quite interesting, and quite insightful. He's obviously a man who wants to entertain the masses, and I can respect him for that. Edited by Aussie21, 09 April 2005 - 03:31 AM. Back to top #3 Icephoenix Icephoenix Commander RNR Veterans Reserve 3144 posts Location:Singapore, Singapore. Posted 09 April 2005 - 09:39 AM I think he's got it spot on; kids are interested in violence in all other types of media, so why not in books? It's less visual as in movies and video games, but I suppose that it arguable. It has a better chance of implementing morals then other forms, that Back to top #4 Am Am Midshipman Crew 81 posts Location:Germany Posted 09 April 2005 - 10:16 AM Oh, yes, I do agree to what this article says about there being a big gap in the market for darker children's novels. It says only, or mostly, boys were missing them, but even as a female, I can say the same of me -- I was always given heaps of girly and/or fantasy stuff, but what I really enjoyed reading were thrillers and crime books with an egde to them. The thing is, however, that a lot of adults give children much less credit than they deserve, thinking that they couldn't handle anything darker than Famous Five adventure books. This is especially the case in America, but you get that wave of outraged parents everywhere. Just think of what deal was made about Harry Potter and the fact that it grows darker as it approaches the end and makes children deal with death. So, that's one of the main reasons that there isn't any "serious" children's fiction. An author would have to deal with a lot of criticism, I think. Back to top #5 Roebuck Roebuck Lt. Commander Veterans 1870 posts Posted 09 April 2005 - 11:23 AM Gerry Anderson put it succinctly as ''children don't really want to see shows about other children - they want to see James Bond''. Higson seems to know his target audience and is smart enough not to talk down to them. Back to top #6 Hitch Hitch Lt. Commander Veterans 1219 posts Posted 09 April 2005 - 11:50 AM What an excellent, thought-provoking article. It's good to read an erudite writer defending what is commonly known as "pulp" fiction. The problem with "culture", whether literary, musical, or artistic, is that it is usually seen as either/or, when it's much more fun to adopt a magpie approach and take the best from both worlds. Why not embrace Shostakovich and Fleming or King and Debussy? Culture doesn't have to flow in parallel streams like Haydn-Beethoven-Mahler or The Beatles-James Brown-Pink Floyd-U2. Nor does it have to be Cervantes-Shakespeare-Dickens-Joyce. Pride and Prejudice has as many jokes to the page as The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. I agree with Higson's comments about literary prize-winners - most of them are gathering dust somewhere. The passage of years usually sorts out the wheat from the chaff. Forget about reputations and have fun! People read Fleming, Chandler et al because they write good stories, well told. They're fast-paced, exciting and exotic. But then so is William Golding's Rites of Passage. It's an absolutely riveting, funny, shocking, sad and wise novel that beats most of today's "thrillers" for sheer page-turning enjoyment. And it won the Booker Prize. So there you have it - I'm not exactly reinventing the wheel by echoing Mr Higson's championing of pulp fiction and thrillers, but I do think we should celebrate the best of everything, and not place culture in ghettoes called "art", "commercial" and "tripe". (In other words, give the girls and boys their toys.) Phew. Edited by Hitch, 09 April 2005 - 11:51 AM. Back to top Back to Charlie Higson (2005 - 2009) Reply to quoted posts     Clear

[Aussie21]

I'm surprised this thread has gotten absolutely no replies. I found the article quite interesting, and quite insightful. He's obviously a man who wants to entertain the masses, and I can respect him for that.

Edited by Aussie21, 09 April 2005 - 03:31 AM.

[Icephoenix]

I think he's got it spot on; kids are interested in violence in all other types of media, so why not in books? It's less visual as in movies and video games, but I suppose that it arguable. It has a better chance of implementing morals then other forms, that

[Am]

Oh, yes, I do agree to what this article says about there being a big gap in the market for darker children's novels. It says only, or mostly, boys were missing them, but even as a female, I can say the same of me -- I was always given heaps of girly and/or fantasy stuff, but what I really enjoyed reading were thrillers and crime books with an egde to them.

The thing is, however, that a lot of adults give children much less credit than they deserve, thinking that they couldn't handle anything darker than Famous Five adventure books. This is especially the case in America, but you get that wave of outraged parents everywhere. Just think of what deal was made about Harry Potter and the fact that it grows darker as it approaches the end and makes children deal with death.

So, that's one of the main reasons that there isn't any "serious" children's fiction. An author would have to deal with a lot of criticism, I think.

[Roebuck]

Gerry Anderson put it succinctly as ''children don't really want to see shows about other children - they want to see James Bond''. Higson seems to know his target audience and is smart enough not to talk down to them.

[Hitch]

What an excellent, thought-provoking article. It's good to read an erudite writer defending what is commonly known as "pulp" fiction. The problem with "culture", whether literary, musical, or artistic, is that it is usually seen as either/or, when it's much more fun to adopt a magpie approach and take the best from both worlds.

Why not embrace Shostakovich and Fleming or King and Debussy? Culture doesn't have to flow in parallel streams like Haydn-Beethoven-Mahler or The Beatles-James Brown-Pink Floyd-U2. Nor does it have to be Cervantes-Shakespeare-Dickens-Joyce. Pride and Prejudice has as many jokes to the page as The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

I agree with Higson's comments about literary prize-winners - most of them are gathering dust somewhere. The passage of years usually sorts out the wheat from the chaff.

Forget about reputations and have fun! People read Fleming, Chandler et al because they write good stories, well told. They're fast-paced, exciting and exotic. But then so is William Golding's Rites of Passage. It's an absolutely riveting, funny, shocking, sad and wise novel that beats most of today's "thrillers" for sheer page-turning enjoyment.

And it won the Booker Prize.

So there you have it - I'm not exactly reinventing the wheel by echoing Mr Higson's championing of pulp fiction and thrillers, but I do think we should celebrate the best of everything, and not place culture in ghettoes called "art", "commercial" and "tripe".

(In other words, give the girls and boys their toys.)

Phew.

Edited by Hitch, 09 April 2005 - 11:51 AM.