Teaching? Indoctrination? Entertaining?

Hmm... part of me agrees, while another part of me wants to point out that having your character grow and change is classic advice for screenwriters too. Technically, having a character learn something isn't exactly the same as having your reader learn it, but for practical purposes those two get conflated a lot.

MorganMarshall said:

All the time I read that writers of kids' books have to teach them something.

Click to expand...

You definitely didn't read that here. "Teaching books" are something a kid can smell a mile away.

No, you definitely don't have to teach any lessons just because your write for kids.

If you haven't ever read Saki's "The Storyteller," it might make you feel better. If you have read Saki's "The Storyteller," rereading it still might make you feel better.

Cyia said:

You definitely didn't read that here. "Teaching books" are something a kid can smell a mile away.

Click to expand...

Yep. We spend a lot of time trying to convince people they don't need to write textbooks in fictional form... so it's not here people are saying it (or at least, if they do, they get challenged).

i think great kid books teach so covertly that the kid doesn't realize it's happening. they teach kids how to survive, rise above, do better, be happy, deal with failure, get along, etc. A comical zombie adventure shows how to have humor and bravery in the face of adversity. A contemporary fiction story shows how to survive the injustices and humiliations of childhood. Kids learn every day, all the time, from everyone and everything. Books are no different.

I kept thinking about this post, and it motivated me to consider the two books I've most recently read in these terms. Minor spoilers for Gregor the Overlander and Watership Down.

I just finished the first Gregor the Overlander book. It's full of fun, cool stuff (giant rats! talking bats who you can ride! creepy spiders! prophesy! interspecies war!). The hero starts out as a good, responsible kid who works hard to take care of his baby sister. He has all sorts of adventures, most of which do not relate to learning something specific. He willingly faces death to protect others, not because he learns something, but because he's already that kind of kid to start with. However, he does learn a specific lesson by the end: not to avoid thinking about the future. I don't think the book suffers for it. And even though the book isn't designed to instruct, it does contain positive examples of how to behave. Any book with a sympathetic hero will naturally do that.

I'm currently rereading Watership Down. I'd say the book does contain a fairly explicit lesson: humans should respect nature and have compassion for animals. That's a rare example of a lesson directed at the reader but not at the characters.

However, I think just about every significant character does learn and grow as the book progresses. Hazel slowly matures as leader. Bigwig learns humility and respect for others. Fiver becomes less twitchy and isolated as the others grow to understand his abilities and as he learns how to communicate with them. None of this is done in a Here's Your Life Lesson Sermon sort of way, but it happens organically as the plot unfolds.

So I guess I'm coming down on the side that characters should learn something, and that it won't feel preachy if it's true to the story.

I was frustrated with the "they need to learn" comments too till I associated them with the "there needs to be conflict and resolution." A kid will learn from any resolution, though admittedly it is condescending to state the first rather than the latter.

I don't however think it is condescending to expect kids to learn from what they are reading. Learning is what kids do, from every available source of input from the time they are born.

Personally I think it is more condescending of society in general to think that adults stop learning or don't need to. I still learn from the non kid books that I read.

Of course in adult books the lessons don't follow the same morals, because lets face it real life characters are often immoral, and choices need to be made between levels of morality. Is it that adults question what is learned but we need to learn it as kids first. Also as adults we relate to stories. Children don't have as many experiences to relate to so they end up learning from books.

I'll stop babbling now.

MorganMarshall said:

This makes me feel WAY better! I entirely agree that kids DO learn -- as do adults -- all the time. If we stop learning, we may as well be dead. I just hate the idea that kids' books have to go along with some school curriculum or else they're worthless.

I get this, not from here no (you're all very astute! lol), but from the classes I've taken in college (MA, writing and literature), and discussions I have had with fellow kids' writers. It's totally understandable that educators would think this. Educating kids is their passion, after all. However, writers don't have to agree. I guess I just worry that kids' writers always feel we need to kowtow to teachers and curriculum. I know, I know. Schools are our biggest customers (especially for MG books). Still, I don't think it should be completely out of the question to write something for, say, 3rd graders, that has nothing to do with what they're learning in the classroom.

From what I'm seeing here, you agree with me for the most part. That is SUCH a breath of fresh air!

Click to expand...

This is the problem with thinking there's a connection between academia and publishing. There most certainly is not. Don't blame this on classroom teachers--I don't know a single one who would say a kid's book needs to connect to the curriculum. We want our students to develop a love of reading that will last them a lifetime. That means they should have access to a wide variety of fun, entertaining, intriguing and enjoyable literature.

If kids love reading and read voraciously, they will learn huge amounts--about the world, about the human condition, about history and science, about language and vocabulary and psychology and...etc. We don't need to have specific lessons in mind.

The only time you need to try to teach a specific lesson is if 1) you are writing for a particular educational publisher as part of a targeted series or 2) you are writing non-fiction.

If you are writing commercial kidlit fiction, the last thing you should think about is what the reader "should" be learning. Anyone telling you differently doesn't know what they are talking about.

Of course, once the book is written, published, and becomes a classic, then it is perfectly acceptable and understandable for academic types to ask, Why? What about this book makes it so enduring?

And often the answer to that will be related to what kids can learn from it. But if the author starts with that intention--to teach--the story dies before it ever gets started.

MsJudy said:

If kids love reading and read voraciously, they will learn huge amounts

If you are writing commercial kidlit fiction, the last thing you should think about is what the reader "should" be learning. Anyone telling you differently doesn't know what they are talking about.

But if the author starts with that intention--to teach--the story dies before it ever gets started.

Click to expand...

Amen to what Judy said.

Courses at university are a different kettle of oysters. They're teaching you to be an academic, so it's all about analyse and learning. The focus isn't on writing books that'll sell.

There were lots of good points made in a thread titled 'Teaching' in children's fiction a couple years ago. I think it's worth reading.

Whether I'm writing for kids, teenagers, or adults, I seek to entertain them. If they can find some inspiring moral or life message in my work, great for them, but that's not my primary motive.

That's why I love Roald Dahl. I haven't read his work in a while but I grew up with it. There was always a story that was entertaining and brilliant on its own merits but then there were the 'beastly' people who were a warning to young readers not to be like.

MorganMarshall said:

Did you know he originally wrote adult horror? Fascinating man, Mr. Dahl.

Click to expand...

Indeed, I still think of him every time I take a sip of tea with any kind of almond flavoring.

Not that his kids' books didn't have their moments. I mean, the whole idea of The BFG...