Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/34701
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/34701
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

There are no clear-cut distinctions. Children are different. One child might be reading at 6 what another wouldn't touch until 12. For example, [King Matt the First](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Matt_the_First) is explicitly written for children (under 8). It deals with themes like death, war, responsibility, and it doesn't have a happy ending. I grabbed it off the top shelf in my room when I was 6, and I loved it. I was copying illustrations out of it, I badgered my mum for "King Matt on the Desert Island", and loved that too, even though it's even more tragic than the first one. Then I recommended it to a classmate, and she found it extremely traumatising - so much that she couldn't finish it.

The one definite rule I can think of is sex. Under-12s wouldn't have a reference point for physical attraction - it's not something they've ever experienced. They would know love - they see it, but sex would be alien to them, thus either wierd-eww, or just boring.

Another thing you'd want to avoid is philosophising. An adult can be engaged in a "discussion" with ideas presented in the book. A child doesn't have the experience to weigh their ideas against the book's: they do not yet have well-structured "ideas" of their own. A lengthy theoretical tract would thus bore them. Distopias go out of the window for the same reason - a young child would tend to accept things at face value.

Avoid using strong language. Having read the Three Musketeers when I was 10, I had a period of wanting to be like d'Artagnan, thus talking like d'Artagnan. I knew this wasn't a good way to talk, but I didn't care, because d'Artagnan was awesome. My mum wasn't happy.

I don't know why, but I remember as a child my world was very black-and-white: there were the Good Guys, there were the Bad Guys. There wasn't much grey. Good Guys sometimes made mistakes, and sometimes struggled to make the right decision, but ultimately I knew they would do the Right Thing. In fact, if I didn't know what the Right Thing was, it _clearly_ was whatever the Good Guys did. That's something you'd probably want to keep in mind - children would regard the main character as an example, so you'd better make sure it's a good one.

Other than that, keep in mind that younger children would be less knowledgeable and less experienced. Don't talk down to them - they're not stupid, and they hate that, universally. But do give a bit more information than you normally would. In fact, children are curious, so don't hesitate to tell them things. I loved Jules Verne because (among other reasons) he "taught" me so much about geography, and strange people in far-away places, and marine life and whatnot. (Today I know most of that information is erroneous. The "Suck Fairy" strikes again.)

It's not a bad idea to have a child of your target audience's age as the main character - their experience and world-view would be similar, thus easier to understand and empathise with, but this isn't necessary. The Hobbit is a children's book about a 50-year-old. It is, however, easier, I think, for a child to empathise with a character who isn't "on top" in his environment - whether it's a child, a hobbit, a pet, a newcomer to anywhere. In this respect, they'd be closer to the reader, who is relatively small and weak, and aware of it.

Original score: 7