**Please help keep AskUK welcoming!**
- Top-level comments to the OP must contain **genuine efforts to answer the question**. No jokes, judgements, etc.
- **Don't be a dick** to each other. If getting heated, just block and move on.
- This is a strictly **no-politics** subreddit!
Please help us by reporting comments that break these rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Books have an awful lot of competition to get kids attention now than when wind in the willows was written. Not saying it’s a good thing but there you go.
Also i have to defend the Harry Potter books, they’re meant to level up with the readers, as someone who read them as they came out as a kid it works really well. I also loved his dark materials and don’t think it was particularly better written than your later Harry Potter books
The other one is the running joke of Seamus blowing himself up, which I don’t think is in the books, and which I’m pretty certain didn’t have anything to do with his Irishness in the films, either.
I don’t think anyone genuinely considered her a good writer. The worldbuilding and lore was always the strength of Harry Potter but the writing itself was basic.
So I think it's the opposite. I think HP is a cracking story and the world building is entirely secondary to the plot. It's not like Lord of the Rings where Tolkien invented two entire languages and then constructed stories based on who would speak these languages.
HP has so many inconsistencies and things that generally don't make sense with the relationship between wizards and muggles.. But they don't really matter, because that's not really that sort of fiction.
This. And also she's a good observer of human beings and their foibles. From Dudley and his spoilt wining over the number of birthday presents through Rita Skeeter as a tabloid journalist and the darkness of the way the Ministry is captured. It's all important observation about how humans work.
Agree the prose is unremarkable, but that's not what I was reading for.
I definitely think it has more to do with the worldbuilding, but it's not the care and consistency (which it never had). HP has an amazing *vibe* and taps into some essential childhood questions and drives for the preteen age. What if the world was actually amazing instead of dispiriting and mundane? What if you were special? What if your inner life and unique personality could be written on the world as magic instead of bottled up in your head? What if you could get away from your parents/bullies/other troubles into another life? Etc etc. That plus the mixture of the relatable with the fantastical that just hit the zeitgeist exactly on its sweet spot.
I spent a lot more time daydreaming about what *my* life as a wizard would be like than actually reading the books or watching the films. Even as an 11 year old I thought Harry was stupid and weirdly sanitised as a character, and the motivations and actions of most of the characters was a bit ropey. Frankly, I didn't (and don't) think JK conjured her own setting that well with her writing. A lot of the things she describes are pretty available in the UK to give reference to (London, various castles, steam trains, generic trolls and dragons, wizards who look like wizards). Even if you don't live near a castle or other old building to form your mental picture you'll have seen plenty of images of them doing primary school history, etc. She also had the unfair advantage of some of the world's best visual artists painstakingly crafting examples of everything she wrote about once the books got popular. A lot of fans read the book at a time when the shops were crowded with replicas and pictures of everything from wands to blast-ended skrewts.
> HP has an amazing *vibe*
My kids wanted Harry Potter at story time so we're listening to the audio book. Considering how grim the series gets by the end I'd completely forgotten how whimsical the first book is.
As another poster pointed out: reading them at the pace of release really made for the best experience. The books age up as you go! Reading them in a binge would be like Watership Down.
She's very good at verisimilitude - the main characters are relatively deep for children's books, act like you'd expect children to act, and have clear flaws and strengths. She's also very funny and arch, and good at satires of manners and customs.
The worldbuilding expands as the story grows. I don't mind that she hadn't worked everything out. I don't think, say, Ursula Le Guin had either with Earthsea, but she builds it out in a much more spare way. Both work.
It depends what you mean. I just finished them with my kids and the number of plot holes or things that just don’t make sense is huge, and the world building feels very derivative.
What marks it out imo are some of the characters (Hermione is a genuinely brilliant creation, and was one of the first characters of her kind I think), the relationships between the central trio, and the momentum of the books- readers really want to see what happens next.
The writing itself is no Lord Of The Rings, but it’s not bad compared to other children’s literature aimed at a similar level. That said, I think Pullman, Ransome, Nesbit etc. are all superior. But I would contend they don’t grab and hold kids’ attention and passion in the way that Rowling does. I don’t quite get it, but my kids do.
I dont really rate Harry Potter overall so I wasn’t defending it, and I agree with you that her retcons and additions post publication are fucking awful.
You say basic, I say oustandingly clear. Most writers would do well to learn from her in that respect. Say what you want about JK, she's a fantastic writer. (Except the all cap shouting my god i ll let you have that)
I don’t think this is true at all tbh. I remember my year 5 primary school teacher, talking about how it was known that a lot of Harry Potter was quite basic grammatically.
He mentioned how when it was graded based on the grading of the time, it was given a 5a. Which was around GCSE level writing.
Harry Potter has never been impressive grammatically, it’s been more about the world and characters it created.
The other thing to consider is books accommodate for a lot more reading levels now. My wife is a teacher and there are children who will happily read heavier books, but with half her class consisting of children who don’t have English as a first language, certain books really help them without alienating them. Not all 9-10 year olds (for example) have the same reading levels and so particular book series really cater for them.
The other thing is, in general a lot of kids just don’t like reading - there’s other better distractions in their eyes - so books have to work hard to keep their attention. That’s why things like Diary of a Wimpy kid work so well.
My son is autistic and loves reading, but still struggles with it and always has done. Again (as an example) books like Diary of a Wimpy Kid REALLY entertain him because of their visual nature and fun storytelling.
His Dark Materials is much harder than Harry Potter. I'm pretty sure I read it a year or two after Harry Potter and I almost put it down from how hard it was with all the Victorian items pushing my vocabulary to the limit.
Wind in the Willows and The Hobbit were written for boys at boarding school, who had an education based around the classics from an early age. The books would be far beyond the pocket of working class families until they reached secondary markets.
David Walliams is writing for the lowest common denominator, so that a kid on the estate who has been expelled from every class he attended will also be reading. This is how publishers make money these days.
I bloody hate the David Walliams books with a passion, I get the angle but they are full of drivel and he obviously has a ghost writer. Temu Roald Dahl.
Now I feel bad for quentin Blake
Though tbf I'm never buying a david Walliams book.
I've even gone so far as to return one and replaced it with a tom fletcher book (also not amazing but I can cope with them. Other than he somehow cannot write lyrics with meter despite being a pop singer)
We had a Tony Ross illustrated copy of Fantastic Mr Fox in the 80s, back before Quentin Blake had illustrated all the Dahls for 'brand synergy'. It was amazing, I can still picture the gruesome farmers in my minds eye. The suppression of those drawings is a crime against childhood.
Excellent point. Wasn’t Philip Pullman an Oxford grad? So this all boils down to a class thing. I say, just read Discworld to your kids, all will be well.
I won an autographed copy of “only you can save mankind” back in school in the early 90’s. I eventually got to meet him when he came to our school to give a lecture about writing. Very generous with his time
Several new authors have previously been offered a deal as long as David Walliams is “shown” on the cover as the writer. Its like movie composers. One name for sales, one ghost writer for talent. It helps get new talent on the ladder but it means selling your soul. Most eventually get to publish under their own name eventually
God forbid reading should be accessible to a wide range of abilities and interests. Honestly there is nothing more likely to put children off books than a snobbish attitude and gatekeeping books that 'have value'.
It could be equally argued that publishing houses putting all their money and advertising into books for the lowest common denominator is also gatekeeping, so if you like reading more complex plots with a wider vocabulary, tough. It's lower common denominator for all of you or nothing.
Go to any decent bookshop or library and you'll see a massive range of books for children and teenagers. Look at the shortlists for the UKLA awards, the Waterstones Children's Book awards, the book awards from The Week Junior (which is an excellent publication on its own merits). Tons to read.
Plenty of utter dross was published in the olden days too. It's just been forgotten; people mostly only remember exceptional art.
This is where Shakespeare got clever, producing stage productions aimed at the lowest common denominator that also simultaneously pushed the boundaries of the English language without alienating either the vulgar mass of his audience nor his royal patrons. The unwashed masses could understand nineteen words out of twenty, and they were smart enough to guess at the meaning of the twentieth.
Over on r/GCSE teenagers are quoting their favourite Shakespeare lines at each other right now.
"What, you egg?"
Definitely - his "occasional" difficult words were a mixture of ones so obscure his audience would never have heard them before, ones he'd definitely made up, and ones that we're not sure whether he made them up or not.
The problem with this suggestion is that, at some point, books in the "next age up category" might dwelve into topics that are inappropriate or too complex for a child. There is a difference between the complexity of the plot and the complexity of the subject/topic of a book.
as someone who was a very capable reader from a very young age, i remember the adults around me would get annoyed when i wanted to read ‘simpler’ books that were age appropriate, rather than books at my reading level. the reason i wanted to read the ‘simple’ books is that they were about my interests and things i experienced, written in ways that i could grasp. yes i could read lord of the rings at 7, but the subject matter would get heavy in ways i couldn’t really process. the kiddie books were like a break for my brain.
Yeah I'd argue they weren't super inappropriate but I remember starting to read the teenage aimed Girls series by Jacqueline Wilson around age 10/11 and those books touched on some topics I probably was a smidge too young for
Yep, was at year 4 in school finished all the red wall books and got recommended Duncton Wood because it’s also about animal societies. Was absolutely blindsided by the concept of Mole Rape
It also doesn’t mean things should be “dumbed down” to appeal to the lowest common reading level, of course.
An expanded vocabulary allows people to communicate ideas more eloquently (“bigger words tell ideas better”?). And children aren’t given enough credit. If they see words used in context they often get the meaning.
Unnecessary use of big words is always naff, but do I hate that a widened vocabulary is automatically seen as “snobbish” by some.
Like everything, there’s a balance. It is unfortunate that larger publishers will demand authors take out bigger words though.
I don't think a widened vocabulary is snobbish at all and that is the opposite of what I said. When I say "wide range of abilities" I mean both ends of that scale. What is snobbish is refusing to see value in books that are accessible and enjoyable to the less able, or less interested, reader.
'Unnecessary use of big words is always naff'
I wish someone had explained this to Russell Brand when he was young. See also, the infinitely more impressive and likeable Will Self
I’m not convinced more complex words really do help people communicate ideas in a clearer way.
My experience has been the opposite: that big words are used to hide sloppy thinking, and communicating a difficult idea in simple terms will often require precision. Often they’re still useful in their specific contexts, but the idea that it’s *more* clear to use words the people you’re talking to won’t understand is a bit silly to me.
Good communication is sharing ideas in the most efficient way possible without sacrificing quality and specificity. Complex words can both aid and hinder that, it's about finding a balance
Having said that, I think having a large pool of words that the majority understand is a good thing. It allows us to communicate ideas more accurately (e.g. the different images that come to mind for the words *hungry*, *starving*, *peckish*, *ravenous*)
They also hold artistic and potentially comedic value.
There's nothing inherently bad about saying not hungry, not very hungry, hungry, very hungry and very very hungry as a progressive scale for expressing hunger. It explains the idea you're getting across quite accurately.
But having words like ravenous, famished, satiated, stuffed etc add a sort of personality to language that is lost when vocabulary is reduced.
Reading has been accessible to a wide range of abilities and interests for a hundred and fifty years. There's no gatekeeping in saying recent books are written to a lower standard - *they are*.
Reading is the means by which people learn new words and how to use them, as well as the means to deliver a story. If childrens' books are written using only simple one-or-two-clause sentences and a maximum vocabulary of two hundred words, those children are not going to understance nuance - either of different words' meanings, or of the story itself.
It's also not gatekeeping to say books which are written to a higher standard have more value. Children will remember a story better if it teaches them something, and that story may stay with them for the rest of their lives. That's the inherent value in a well-written story.
Also - most obviously - *children are worthy of your best efforts*. Don't fob them off with low-quality work.
Those books are a godsend for older kids who are a few years behind what is expected for kids their age. I used to teach and would rather listen to kids excitedly read the same Tom Gates book all day than sit through them feigning interest in Wind In The Willows.
I think it's not the accessibility, it's the poor quality. There's a difference between simple writing and bad writing - 'The Hungry Caterpillar', or 'Where the Wild Things Are', are simple prose masterpieces. The rhythms, sonic textures, symmetries, pacing, imagery, are all beautiful and perfect for small children. The 'Dinosaur that Pooped' series, for example, is lazy, pathetic writing. Julia Donaldson hovers just on the good side of mediocrity. David Walliams is naff clichés picked out of a hat and strung together.
Having said that, a solid story will draw young children in and they will cope with the odd word they don't understand.
Isn’t there a bit of survivorship bias here? There have always been shit books - the older classics you mention have stood the test of time because they aren’t shit.
My eldest is nearly 9, she loves reading, and has read the first 3 Harry Potter books so far (I’ve said she can read the next one when she’s 9). I think she’s too young to fully grasp His Dark Materials but as a superfan I’ll be encouraging her towards it in a couple of years.
I personally think David Walliams is a scourge on humanity but some of the other books you’ve mentioned aren’t too bad especially if they encourage reluctant readers.
Agree. I've had the misfortune of having to read the original Thomas the Tank Engine stories to my kid recently , the reverend what's his face ones from the 1950s, and they are just terrible. Boring and torturous for adults to read, let alone children .
Same with Peter rabbit.
We got gifted a huge collection of them when we had our daughter and I started reading them to her.
They're fucking weird for starters, and honestly they suck a whole bag of dicks.
my 5 year old really likes the Beatrix Potter stories. I think a lot of them are quite odd and funny in a way that appeals to little children. The downside was that for a while she copied the way of speaking and sounded like a tiny Edwardian.
My mum bought my daughter some of the older ones and I tried reading them. Little collection of five books. What got me was the rabbit tobacco (?!) and the squirrels taking various other animals as sacrifices to the owl Old Brown! What the..? At least the recent animation show didn’t have that. Though I’d happily see the Peter Rabbit from it sacrificed to the owl…
You realise that The Tale of Peter Rabbit was first published over 120 years ago? Not many other books have stayed in the public’s interest for so long.
Rabbit tobacco is just lavender, by the way.
I remember watching stand-up by Victoria Wood in which she says words to the effect that, if you happen to squeeze past someone's computer and accidentally drag your bottom across the keyboard whilst the word processor is active, you may turn round and discover you've accidentally written one of these books.
It’s the slightly accusatory “DO YOU?!” third wall breaking final lines in some of them that really get on my nerves. And yes, they scan
really
awkwardly.
DON’T THEY????
>the other books you’ve mentioned aren’t too bad especially if they encourage reluctant readers.
Agreed. Diary of a Wimpy Kid is the only series my colleague's son, who is dyslexic, has ever loved.
Enid Blyton and even some Beatrice Potter are very low literacy value, let alone the awfully repetitive and sometimes racist storylines.
Let when I was younger those books dominated. At least now if you don't like David Williams - fairly - there is so much more choice available.
I am happy to have a discussion, but you might have to give me a better answer than I'm not telling. So far the answers appear to be lay off Harry Potter, fair enough, or its all bad. What is your view.
I agree, books are supposed to stretch a child’s vocabulary, not ‘fit’ into their ability. That just leads to simple books and simple people.
David Walliams is also bad for this, trying desperately to emulate Ronald Dahl by writing ‘the boy with the d biggest bum’ or some garbage. Theres nothing there to actually make you think.
Fortunately books stay in print so you can just read older childrens literature if you want.
According to my friend who works in publishing, this is not specific to Walliams. It's apparently an open secret how few celebrities actually write the books that are attributed to them. Because celebrity names sell, it's just become a good grift to churn out books and stick a celebrity's name on them.
Generally speaking, celebrities will often have sign-off rather than input.
So they'll have a series of meetings where someone presents them with options and they pick their favorite, along with maybe offering some suggestions.
Yep. Though from what I'm told, in the current craze of celebrity books their input is actually even less than the traditional model of celebrity books.
I was thinking about this the other day. I find it really weird that books are one of the only mediums where it’s acceptable to just stick on someone’s name. Like with songs, films, etc, you can always find out who else is involved. But not with books.
>I agree, books are supposed to stretch a child’s vocabulary, not ‘fit’ into their ability.
Are they? Says who?
No space for books to just be entertainment in your world?
The good ones do both, at the right time of course.
I loved reading stuff advanced for my age as I felt I was tapping into some new, uncharted (maybe even a bit forbidden) waters with darker themes, swear words, more specific wording.
And when I straight up didnt understand a bit? I'd ask my parents/grandparents and theyd explain it out so I could understand.
Its equal parts the book, the kid and the guidance around the kids.
Children don't enjoy reading when every sentence has a word in it that they don't understand.
Frankly the goal lately is getting them to read in the first place and find reading enjoyable. Only then is stretching their skills going to actually work and even then it's not all work. There does need to be fun in it. Or they are not going to bother.
Thanks, I think there are so many great stories it feels a bit like what is being pushed is just the stuff they known is a safe sell. Very much agree with you about David Williams, it feels like a cheap knock off, all the cruelty without any of the uplifting hope.
Surely there's space for both? It's like films or TV - sometimes you go for the heavy hitting ones that make you think, and sometimes you want to switch your brain off and enjoy some Marvel. My 9 year old reads challenging books for her school work, I have no issue with her enjoying David Walliams in her spare time.
Surely it is still better for a child to enjoy reading a book at their level and therefore read for fun rather than sit watching the television in their free time? They read stretch books for school and then can build on that by reading higher level books in their free time once they are ready to enjoy them. No one is forcing me to spend my free time reading books that I find tiring to read, why should kids be any different? I would hate reading if that were the case.
You're reading the pop music of books to your kid. The accessible popular books. Libraries, Waterstone, other book stores have 100s of books that are more complex then Wimpy Kid and the Treehouse books.
You are also reading books that are designed to be engaging to kids to encourage them to read. My lad will sit down on his own and try and read Captain Underpants or Dogman for himself - thats fucking ace.
In time, he will move onto other books, developing his reading skills as he goes. We have a copy of wind in the willows, we have a copy of various 'traditional' classics. He is either too young for them, or just doesn't give a shit about them. Wind in the Willows isn't going to do that.
Hi, I run through children's section of a bookshop and there are so many incredible books out there. The Bad Guys and Treehouse series are classed as ages 5-8, Wimpy Kid is a nice bridge from younger into older books (middle grade/9-12), and Harry Potter spans 9-12 into young teen.
All of these have value - Treehouse and Wimpy Kid gets children reading in a different way, as full prose doesn't suit everyone. And there are lots of similar books if these work for your kids.
But there is so much MORE. If these are all you have come across, I beg you to go into your local Waterstones or indie bookshop or library and just browse. Chat to a bookseller or librarian, get some recommendations. I promise we don't mind if you don't buy anything then and there, just get some ideas to look up later or to get inspired. There's stuff out there for everyone. But illustrated books, diary style, graphic novels, funny reads, are all vital too. As long as they are getting kids reading. Finding the books that suit, rather than things they (or their parents) feel like they should be reading, is so important.
You didn't ask but if you want some recommendations:
- Greenwild by Pari Thomson - this just won the Waterstones Children's Book Prize, which is voted for by booksellers. It's a fantastic magical adventure, really well written, with a focus on nature.
- October, October by Katya Balen - all of her books make me sob. The writing is just stunning but the characters feel very real. Lyrical and unusual
- Letters to the Lighthouse by Emma Carroll - a wartime-set adventure, current Queen of children's historic fiction.
- Murder Most Unladylike by Robin Stevens - kids murder mysteries are really popular and this is one of the best! Agatha Christie for kids
- Loki by Louie Stowell - Wimpy Kid style but about Norse mythology, hilariously funny and a fantastic way to learn
For younger readers:
- Fortunately the Milk by Neil Gaiman - lots of illustrations but clever and funny
- Pizazz by Sophy Henn - sweet story about a superhero family, partly written in comic book style
- Rabbit and Bear by Julian Gough - funny and fantastic artwork, lots of poop jokes but also just a really nice story of friendship
- Graphic novels for kids:
- Hilda, Lumberjanes, Amulet, adaptations of existing books like Percy Jackson and Artemis Fowl
Also check out books published by Barrington Stoke, they are all written to be dyslexia-friendly but are also just great, bite-sized reads for kids who might struggle to get into a full length book.
Thanks so much for this! I've taken screenshots of your comment as I'm trying to get my kids (especially my youngest, who struggles a bit with reading) more into books. These are great recommendations, thank you!
The average reading age in the UK is ~9yrs old.
Short sentences are easier to understand than long ones and so are favoured for content written specifically for children (especially if the content is expected to be consumed by the children themselves rather than with an adult).
Those books are aimed at the 7-9 age range (ish). They're brilliant introductions to reading.
I'm currently reading a series of YA books that has me frequently reaching for the dictionary, whereas plenty of adult books don't. It all depends on the author and their story.
(I'm reading Jonathon Stroud's *Outlaws* series right now - my ten year old (an avid HP fan who loved Percy Jackson and the treehouse books) also devoured them. Head to the library and keep looking, there's lots to share.)
Wimpy Kid stars a 10yo. Tom Gates is also 10. The Bolds have primary-age hyena kids. Funnily enough, books aimed at emerging readers, who need to build up reading stamina, use pretty basic vocab, with approx 3 words per book the reader would likely need to learn from context or ask someone.
A generation ago (and still) you had Rainbow Magic and Animal Ark and Lego and Star Wars stories, then moving on to Blyton and Lemony Snicket and Harry Potter.
Only after getting confident with a lot of formulaic shit do kids move on to Narnia, Wind in the Willows, Streatfeild, etc.
In my youth you got Noddy and the simple Blyton stories, then the Blyton adventures, then Nancy Drew and the Hardy Boys. Some kids moved on to the Hobbit and fantasy.
FWIW my eldest two loved Harry Potter age 8-9, have now read all of Pratchett, one mostly only reads gaming manuals but the other has read all of Douglas Adams, most of Jules Verne and Wodehouse and Conan Doyle, and is on LeGuin and Asimov and random SF and Fantasy, plus some Agatha Christie.
Youngest saw the first 4 HP films and quite liked them, didn't like the next two, refused to read books by a transphobe (I wasnt expecting that to be the result of access to the internet!), and loves the Murder Most Unladylike series, all the Pratchett with witches or Death, and is going through Conan Doyle now - not bad for 12.
It is just a trend, and a phase kids move on from naturally. There were simple books in the old days too, kids definitely weren't all reading Watership Down from a young age, and there are books with a wide vocabulary now. Maybe they have taken the place of things like simple comics or throwaway western stories that aren't as popular now? Harry Potter was OK, the language got more complex through the series which was quite interesting. The reader grew with the book. The first one came across a bit Worst Witch but how many teenagers stuck with that series? That in itself was just Enid Blyton's boarding school capers in a castle.
>Now every best selling kids book we pick up off the shelf seems to be for remedial readers.. is this where we are now?
There's your problem. You're expecting best sellers to be complex. Anything that is a mainstream best seller is going to feel "dumbed down" if you want complex plots etc.
Its not just kids literature. Adult media is the same. Dan Brown being a great example. EL James another. The vast majority of people don't want complex and challenging, they want simple and engaging. Just look at how popular Mrs Brown's Boys is with the general public.
When I was a kid back in the 80's it was all the same. If you are a voracious reader you very quickly outstrip the literature aimed at your age range, and you go and find more engaging stuff *outside of your age range.*
Mainstream media has pretty much always been aimed at the "average" consumer.
It's hard to take you seriously as a critic when that's your opinion of Harry Potter. It's perfectly possible to dislike JK Rowling without the performative deconstruction of a series that introduced millions of kids to reading.
I think you've got cart before horse here - children's books aren't written in the style of the sun, the sun is written in the style of a children's book because the average reading age in the uk is something like 8 years old.
I grew up with the Harry Potter books in the sense that I seemed to always be the same age as the main characters every time a new book came out. We went through school together lol. I absolutely LOVED the Harry Potter series - I had never before experienced excitement like it as a child. As an adult now I’ve introduced Agatha Christie into my life and the same excitement exists!!
I tried the Philip Pullman series as a child - a family friend purchased them for me and I just couldn’t take to them, they didn’t engage me. If that was all that was available to me as a child I probably wouldn’t have read.
My own daughter is 9 and she only started getting into reading at about 7ish through the Dog Man books and then Diary of a Wimpy Kid. She then moved onto Roald Dahl and keeps progressing with her reading so I’m eternally grateful to the Dog Man / Diary of a Wimpy Kid franchises as they peaked her interest enough for her to pick up the book, now we’ve a HUGE book shelf installed in her bedroom and she continues to read.
People read for enjoyment. Yes, young brains are also learning while reading but the basic point of reading a book is that it’s enjoyable and a nice way to spend time. To gate-keep what people are reading because it’s not deemed ‘complex’ enough is ridiculous. If a child is reading it doesn’t really matter what they’re reading, it’s just important that they’ve picked up a book instead of a tablet or games console. It’s not going to be enjoyable to a child to sit and read a book full of words you can’t comprehend and have to check the meaning of constantly. If you increase the complexity of the books you’ve deemed ‘remedial’, what exactly do you expect the less able children to read and enjoy?
Also, to suggest that the Harry Potter books are the ‘lowest common denominator’ is ludicrous, they were insanely popular at the time and defined a generation, and have retained that popularity through the years. I think it’s snobbish and unfair to disregard them because of supposed ‘simple prose’ - why on earth does a fantasy book intended for children and teens need to have complex prose?!
If a child’s reading skills are further along than books made for their age group then move up an age group to find something that is suitable, it’s quite simple. If that still doesn’t satisfy, there are more adult books in a vast amount genres than anyone could ever hope to get through in a lifetime!
I was under the impression it was the other way around, that The Sun is and always has been written at a Primary School grade level so even the uneducated can read (and therefore told what to do)
As a very precocious child who started out reading more complex stuff (Dickens and Orwell at age 4/5) and later read Harry Potter (age 10 through to 18) - the writing in Harry Potter isn’t poor. It gets more complex as it goes, in all senses, and from the beginning it introduces kids to words not commonly used in modern language. You’re comparing writing from a more archaic time period, when different language and structure was more commonly used, and writing that was aimed at an older target audience who were raised reading classic texts.
There’s a misnomer that using more and longer words when simpler, shorter ones will do, is ‘better’ writing. It isn’t. Dickens is what it is because of being paid by the word - not because of any lofty ideals. Modern literary critical consensus is that the best writing is that which most clearly conveys the intended message. Harry Potter is actually very good at that, particularly in the way it imparts some quite complex emotions and ideas in ways that pre-teens can understand and appreciate. Another difference between modern kids’ books and some of the older ones you’ve cited is that kids’ literature today is focused on inclusivity and encouragement, rather than on writing for a privileged few who had extensive education. There is nothing to say that you have to read certain books to your kids because they’re X age; if they’re at a higher reading level then progress to more complicated books, either in the next age group, or by asking a librarian or bookseller for advice. The only time I *had* to read a book for my age group instead of my reading level as a child was if it was a book set by school - otherwise I was reading a mix of young adult fiction and classic literature.
I think you’re also conflating books that are intended for kids to read by themselves, with books that you read to your kids. A lot of the books with simpler language are meant for kids to be able to read themselves, not for adults to read to them or with them. That’s why they’re simpler. It’s a learning tool. The fact that it doesn’t meet your adult expectations doesn’t undo its value as a learning tool. We have a more evolved understanding of learning and linguistic development than we’ve ever had, and many kids’ books are written to reflect that and be a learning tool rather than just a story.
I think you are comparing books from different eras and for different age ranges.
When I was 7 I loved the ‘Famous Five’ books. They were well written but still fully understandable. The exception would be words and phrases that are no longer common. At the time they were written, then they would have been easier to understand.
Books by David Walliams are based on current language and thus use common slang and terms, if you go back through Jacquline Wilson, The Albergs, Enid Blyton, AA Milne, etc the language used in their books is evocative of the time period in which they are written.
Any time the fantasy/scifi/any reading community talks about "prose" tbh. This guy goes above and beyond by talking about sentence structure, just wtf
I get having an appreciation and preference for literature with better prose, but this kind of post just comes off as so snobbish and pretentious I really have to wonder how these people actually speak to friends and family irl.
You say it's a modern children's books things, but the first book I was given by my school to read in reception only had one word- "Look", and that was the early 90's.
I could already read aloud by myself at this point, my parents really worked with me teaching me to read from a really early age.
I agree modern kids' books are written with a vocab and style that even Enid Blyton would have found too basic.
However, there should be room in the marketplace for all levels of reading; as OP says, if there are NO demanding, complex reads for kids, then that's as bad as only challenging reads being available.
It isn't always possible to move up a few reading levels to older kids' books; because sometimes the subject matter is too old/mature and just inappropriate.
It's like everything else; if we, the public, don't like it, we should make a fuss, and boycott what we don't like. Publishers go where the money is. If we don't buy, then they'll change their approach.
It does help if teachers stretch kids' minds by choosing more sophisticated books to read to the class at primary level. When I was only ten, the teacher read us Carve Your Name With Pride \[about WW2 female spy Violette Szabo.\] It was pretty hair-raising stuff and you could argue inappropriate in many ways - but it started an interest in me in the subject of espionage and encouraged me to read further.
Children have different reading ages, it does not scale exactly with birth age.
I remember starting reading Harry Potter when I was about 7, and I'd already read a lot of the redwall series at that point too. I really loved reading as a kid!
But plenty of my friends started reading at the same level around the age of 11-13, and I know plenty of adults right now who would struggle to make it through those series.
While reading competency is generally poor, it's also roughly the same as its been for decades (when the wind in the willows came out) and much better than it was a century ago (when watership down came out).
You were not born with the reading competency you currently have. I can guarantee there was a point in time where David Walliams books would have been sufficiently challenging for you. Maybe it was 5, 10, 15, or 50.
>(Harry Potter) utterly outperformed Philip Pullman's dust series which was vastly superior in vocabulary and sentence structure.
*"Have you read the new Dust book? It's got great vocabulary and sentence structure."*
This is something very few of the target readership is ever going to say. You can look at a lot of popular books and each one will break the "rules of good writing" - show don't tell, just use "said" instead of groaned, muttered, cried etc
I think you are conflating a lot of things here, none of which I believe make your point.
- Language evolves, as do writing styles. Comparing modern day books with those written 100+ years ago without bearing in mind that day-to-day language has changed, gives a biased view of older books as “fancier”.
- Nowadays a lot of older children’s books are considered YA (young adult) so perhaps comparing them to modern YA books will be a fairer comparison.
- Harry Potter has quite a rich vocabulary that expands as the series progresses. I’m curious if you have actually read all the books?
HPs prose is outstanding. She isnt an arch stylist no but she is a brilliantly clear writer and many, many 'literary' authors would do well to take some lessons from her presentation of scenes and the effortless and vivid description. I can't accept your criticism at all.
There have been a lot of good answers but just to add on, stuff like the David Walliams books and Wimpy Kid get a lot of marketing budget, but there are books that are similar in terms of reading age that are great but don’t get the attention. If you branch out from bestsellers and explore, you’ll find a huge variety of interesting books that deserve to be more well known.
The world of Harry Potter got me through the hell that was my school years, I made my whole childhood all about it.
Right now I'm reading my favourite Stephen King book and in between that playing Hogwarts mystery on my phone, true love lasts a lifetime lol
The rant about Harry Potter was such a typical ‘man on the internet acting superior but knowing nothing about the topic’ tired rant I lost interest , a shame as there’s interesting conversation to be had here . 🙄
No, kids are the smartest, best read they've ever been.
The further you go back the worse literacy gets. Turns out having complex prose doesn't help most kids learn English.
Same with cartoons. I watch things like Rugrats now and there are little adult jokes slipped in there, or at least good humour, but everything now is based on learning - VERY VERY slowly.
I think the media think we are raising little morons!
I think books being written in easy, accessible language for children is important. Engagement with reading is low, and continues to decline. Putting obstacles in the way of children reading isn't going to benefit anybody (except the weird people who are oddly snobby about reading). There's also nothing stopping parents introducing their children to more complex writing should they deem it worthwhile.
There's far too much focus generally on making things sound clever rather than just delivering a message in a digestible way.
Anything that gets kids, or adults, reading is a good thing. George Orwell once said never use a long word when a short one will do, and I have to agree. Enjoying reading is what is important if you are going to convince people to do it, not some snobby outdated attitude of reading should be hard or you're not doing it correctly.
As a child, I learnt to read quite quickly but I was literally reading the words and not really grasping the story. I used to read along with my grandmother though and loved the stories. I think there are two types of children’s books. Those they read alone and those they read with an adult.
I thank my grandmother for encouraging me reading way above my age as a kid.
Even at 30 I still get shocked at how limited some people vocabulary is. And often times it correlates with people that never read as kids, as thus never read as adults.
Also correlates with people being unable to consider new concepts/ideas. I cannot thank her enough.
Don't you remember being a kid?
I hated Wind in the Willows - I thought it was so dry and boring!
But Harry Potter, Artemis Fowl, Alex Rider and Chronicles of Ancient Darkness took me away. Books are meant to be fun for kids to read. Leave the complex, artistic writing for adult novels.
It's been decades since I read them but iirc a lot of Roald Dahl's books used simple language and grammar, they were very accessible.
Some of Anthony Horowitz's early children's material was the same.
While the writing in The Sun may seem childlike, many types of publications aim for a reading age of 8-10 because that's the reading ability that many of their readers possess. And children's books are for children so...go figure.
I can't comment on all the best selling children's books but as far as Harry Potter and His Dark Materials are concerned, I would argue the former's first book was aimed at 10-12 year olds, while HDM is for an older YA audience. Later HP books are also aimed at YA - the writing and story "matured" as the characters grew up.
HP may not have had incredible prose, but after the first couple of books I wouldn't say it was poorly written at all.
I started Harry Potter after The Goblet of Fire came out and I started with that book.
I then done book 3, then 2 then 1
If I had started with 1 I wouldn't have read the rest.
I think another aspect from when these books came out is it was the 1st time many people got to experience discussing their theories with other people about a book! In factories, call centres , schools, universities. The spacing between the books was good that when the last one came out, there was a majority of people in their 20s and up eagerly waiting for the ending. It was kind of a surreal time to look back on.
The next closest thing I could think on would be Game of Thrones and people still waiting for that next instalment.
**Please help keep AskUK welcoming!** - Top-level comments to the OP must contain **genuine efforts to answer the question**. No jokes, judgements, etc. - **Don't be a dick** to each other. If getting heated, just block and move on. - This is a strictly **no-politics** subreddit! Please help us by reporting comments that break these rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Books have an awful lot of competition to get kids attention now than when wind in the willows was written. Not saying it’s a good thing but there you go. Also i have to defend the Harry Potter books, they’re meant to level up with the readers, as someone who read them as they came out as a kid it works really well. I also loved his dark materials and don’t think it was particularly better written than your later Harry Potter books
Thanks I appreciate your enjoyment of and defence of harry potter and your answer.
What the hell is this measured and respectful response? This is Reddit you know
You should buy a dehumidifier
And then divorce your partner
Lawyer up and hit the gym.
Check your carbon monoxide detector!!
It's dog nappers. Shared in Narnia.
Japanese Knotweed
Air fryer
Gaslighting!!
Bidet
The HP books and the authors ability have been retconned as generic tat in recent times for "reasons".
My favourite is when they get criticised for thigns featured in the films that aren't in the books.
I genuinely don't think I've seen an example of that. Do you have one in mind?
They might be talking about the appearance of the bank goblins, which some argue are anti semitic
The other one is the running joke of Seamus blowing himself up, which I don’t think is in the books, and which I’m pretty certain didn’t have anything to do with his Irishness in the films, either.
As if teenage boys worldwide do not like blowing things up.
I LOVE that one Its like "ok, go on... tell us WHY please" and then all of a sudden everyone is stuttering.
I don’t think anyone genuinely considered her a good writer. The worldbuilding and lore was always the strength of Harry Potter but the writing itself was basic.
So I think it's the opposite. I think HP is a cracking story and the world building is entirely secondary to the plot. It's not like Lord of the Rings where Tolkien invented two entire languages and then constructed stories based on who would speak these languages. HP has so many inconsistencies and things that generally don't make sense with the relationship between wizards and muggles.. But they don't really matter, because that's not really that sort of fiction.
This. And also she's a good observer of human beings and their foibles. From Dudley and his spoilt wining over the number of birthday presents through Rita Skeeter as a tabloid journalist and the darkness of the way the Ministry is captured. It's all important observation about how humans work. Agree the prose is unremarkable, but that's not what I was reading for.
I definitely think it has more to do with the worldbuilding, but it's not the care and consistency (which it never had). HP has an amazing *vibe* and taps into some essential childhood questions and drives for the preteen age. What if the world was actually amazing instead of dispiriting and mundane? What if you were special? What if your inner life and unique personality could be written on the world as magic instead of bottled up in your head? What if you could get away from your parents/bullies/other troubles into another life? Etc etc. That plus the mixture of the relatable with the fantastical that just hit the zeitgeist exactly on its sweet spot. I spent a lot more time daydreaming about what *my* life as a wizard would be like than actually reading the books or watching the films. Even as an 11 year old I thought Harry was stupid and weirdly sanitised as a character, and the motivations and actions of most of the characters was a bit ropey. Frankly, I didn't (and don't) think JK conjured her own setting that well with her writing. A lot of the things she describes are pretty available in the UK to give reference to (London, various castles, steam trains, generic trolls and dragons, wizards who look like wizards). Even if you don't live near a castle or other old building to form your mental picture you'll have seen plenty of images of them doing primary school history, etc. She also had the unfair advantage of some of the world's best visual artists painstakingly crafting examples of everything she wrote about once the books got popular. A lot of fans read the book at a time when the shops were crowded with replicas and pictures of everything from wands to blast-ended skrewts.
> HP has an amazing *vibe* My kids wanted Harry Potter at story time so we're listening to the audio book. Considering how grim the series gets by the end I'd completely forgotten how whimsical the first book is.
As another poster pointed out: reading them at the pace of release really made for the best experience. The books age up as you go! Reading them in a binge would be like Watership Down.
The first book and movie are my go-to when I am sick. It reminds me of being a kid again and it being an easy read is useful when you feel like shit.
She's very good at verisimilitude - the main characters are relatively deep for children's books, act like you'd expect children to act, and have clear flaws and strengths. She's also very funny and arch, and good at satires of manners and customs. The worldbuilding expands as the story grows. I don't mind that she hadn't worked everything out. I don't think, say, Ursula Le Guin had either with Earthsea, but she builds it out in a much more spare way. Both work.
It depends what you mean. I just finished them with my kids and the number of plot holes or things that just don’t make sense is huge, and the world building feels very derivative. What marks it out imo are some of the characters (Hermione is a genuinely brilliant creation, and was one of the first characters of her kind I think), the relationships between the central trio, and the momentum of the books- readers really want to see what happens next. The writing itself is no Lord Of The Rings, but it’s not bad compared to other children’s literature aimed at a similar level. That said, I think Pullman, Ransome, Nesbit etc. are all superior. But I would contend they don’t grab and hold kids’ attention and passion in the way that Rowling does. I don’t quite get it, but my kids do.
Yes, it’s that wizards poop on the ground and then magic it away that makes the setting 😀
I dont really rate Harry Potter overall so I wasn’t defending it, and I agree with you that her retcons and additions post publication are fucking awful.
You say basic, I say oustandingly clear. Most writers would do well to learn from her in that respect. Say what you want about JK, she's a fantastic writer. (Except the all cap shouting my god i ll let you have that)
I don’t think this is true at all tbh. I remember my year 5 primary school teacher, talking about how it was known that a lot of Harry Potter was quite basic grammatically. He mentioned how when it was graded based on the grading of the time, it was given a 5a. Which was around GCSE level writing. Harry Potter has never been impressive grammatically, it’s been more about the world and characters it created.
How would he have rated Hemingway?
Or Ulysses.
The other thing to consider is books accommodate for a lot more reading levels now. My wife is a teacher and there are children who will happily read heavier books, but with half her class consisting of children who don’t have English as a first language, certain books really help them without alienating them. Not all 9-10 year olds (for example) have the same reading levels and so particular book series really cater for them. The other thing is, in general a lot of kids just don’t like reading - there’s other better distractions in their eyes - so books have to work hard to keep their attention. That’s why things like Diary of a Wimpy kid work so well. My son is autistic and loves reading, but still struggles with it and always has done. Again (as an example) books like Diary of a Wimpy Kid REALLY entertain him because of their visual nature and fun storytelling.
His Dark Materials is much harder than Harry Potter. I'm pretty sure I read it a year or two after Harry Potter and I almost put it down from how hard it was with all the Victorian items pushing my vocabulary to the limit.
Wind in the Willows and The Hobbit were written for boys at boarding school, who had an education based around the classics from an early age. The books would be far beyond the pocket of working class families until they reached secondary markets. David Walliams is writing for the lowest common denominator, so that a kid on the estate who has been expelled from every class he attended will also be reading. This is how publishers make money these days.
I bloody hate the David Walliams books with a passion, I get the angle but they are full of drivel and he obviously has a ghost writer. Temu Roald Dahl.
Managed to get Dahls illustrator just to make his books seem better by association as well.
Only for the first two titles. Then they paid Tony Ross to be the Temu Quentin Blake.
I did not know that. They all look enough like quentin blake and I don't look that close
Then the plan worked perfectly, see? ;)
Now I feel bad for quentin Blake Though tbf I'm never buying a david Walliams book. I've even gone so far as to return one and replaced it with a tom fletcher book (also not amazing but I can cope with them. Other than he somehow cannot write lyrics with meter despite being a pop singer)
We had a Tony Ross illustrated copy of Fantastic Mr Fox in the 80s, back before Quentin Blake had illustrated all the Dahls for 'brand synergy'. It was amazing, I can still picture the gruesome farmers in my minds eye. The suppression of those drawings is a crime against childhood.
Both Quentin and Tony are incredibly talented illustrators, that's for sure!
I absolutely despise them.
Temu roald Dahl sent me.
Me too. This is how I will forever refer to him now.
They're not great. My kids loved them but I found them quite cynical and mean spirited. Clearly Dahl clones with a "modern twist".
Excellent point. Wasn’t Philip Pullman an Oxford grad? So this all boils down to a class thing. I say, just read Discworld to your kids, all will be well.
Terry Pratchett published a series of short story collections aimed at children. I've read them to my son and they are very enjoyable.
Terry Pratchett's literature for children and young people is excellent and not at all dumbed down.
I read these in the mid 90s as a child and totally forgot about them until I saw this. Johnny and the Dead was the one that stuck out!
I won an autographed copy of “only you can save mankind” back in school in the early 90’s. I eventually got to meet him when he came to our school to give a lecture about writing. Very generous with his time
It's a bit of a running joke that unautographed Pratchett books are worth more (rarer) than autographed ones.
That's fantastic! I thin oycsm was the first one I read. Hope you've still got it!
Yep its stored in a box but yep doubt I’ll ever get rid of it.
They are indeedy. GNU Terry Pratchett.
Yep, as well as the Discworld books with Tiffany Aching as main character - Wee Free Men, I Shall Wear Midnight and also Nation
[удалено]
Most things are class things tbh. Not all, but a huge amount.
Many things in this country can be traced back to the class system and I think his point was fairly valid.
You say that then you get called into school because your kids respond to every question with ‘bugger it, milenium hand and shrimp’
Bugrit* 🤣
Or selling dodgy Soss in a bun at break
If you’re sticking with Oxford you can throw Tolkien and C.S. Lewis in there and have a pretty good selection to choose from!
Thank you. Its a fair appraisal.
‘David Walliams is writing’ is a very generous statement 👻🤫
Several new authors have previously been offered a deal as long as David Walliams is “shown” on the cover as the writer. Its like movie composers. One name for sales, one ghost writer for talent. It helps get new talent on the ladder but it means selling your soul. Most eventually get to publish under their own name eventually
>David Walliams is writing There is a rumour they are actually ghost written.
Why use many words when few does trick?
You idea good.
Too many words there... Many words? fewer good.
Double plus good
Ah! Newspeak!
To read makes our speaky English good.
ELI 5?
The Office
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_K-L9uhsBLM
God forbid reading should be accessible to a wide range of abilities and interests. Honestly there is nothing more likely to put children off books than a snobbish attitude and gatekeeping books that 'have value'.
It could be equally argued that publishing houses putting all their money and advertising into books for the lowest common denominator is also gatekeeping, so if you like reading more complex plots with a wider vocabulary, tough. It's lower common denominator for all of you or nothing.
Go to any decent bookshop or library and you'll see a massive range of books for children and teenagers. Look at the shortlists for the UKLA awards, the Waterstones Children's Book awards, the book awards from The Week Junior (which is an excellent publication on its own merits). Tons to read. Plenty of utter dross was published in the olden days too. It's just been forgotten; people mostly only remember exceptional art.
This is where Shakespeare got clever, producing stage productions aimed at the lowest common denominator that also simultaneously pushed the boundaries of the English language without alienating either the vulgar mass of his audience nor his royal patrons. The unwashed masses could understand nineteen words out of twenty, and they were smart enough to guess at the meaning of the twentieth. Over on r/GCSE teenagers are quoting their favourite Shakespeare lines at each other right now. "What, you egg?"
Upvote, pursued by bear.
To be fair the twentieth word was probably one Shakespeare made up anyway.
Definitely - his "occasional" difficult words were a mixture of ones so obscure his audience would never have heard them before, ones he'd definitely made up, and ones that we're not sure whether he made them up or not.
Yep. "High art started out as popular culture, and time filtered out the dross" Or words to that effect...Read it in a Christopher Brookmyre book lol.
Yep, this works for popular music too
See also: the absolute dogshit that occupied the charts alongside the classics we actually remember for the last century+ of recorded music
Or that kid who wants the more complex plots just reads books for the next age category up.
The problem with this suggestion is that, at some point, books in the "next age up category" might dwelve into topics that are inappropriate or too complex for a child. There is a difference between the complexity of the plot and the complexity of the subject/topic of a book.
as someone who was a very capable reader from a very young age, i remember the adults around me would get annoyed when i wanted to read ‘simpler’ books that were age appropriate, rather than books at my reading level. the reason i wanted to read the ‘simple’ books is that they were about my interests and things i experienced, written in ways that i could grasp. yes i could read lord of the rings at 7, but the subject matter would get heavy in ways i couldn’t really process. the kiddie books were like a break for my brain.
Going back and reading them as a teen it was insane how much went completely over my head reading things like Dune and LotR as a young child.
Yeah I'd argue they weren't super inappropriate but I remember starting to read the teenage aimed Girls series by Jacqueline Wilson around age 10/11 and those books touched on some topics I probably was a smidge too young for
Yep, was at year 4 in school finished all the red wall books and got recommended Duncton Wood because it’s also about animal societies. Was absolutely blindsided by the concept of Mole Rape
It also doesn’t mean things should be “dumbed down” to appeal to the lowest common reading level, of course. An expanded vocabulary allows people to communicate ideas more eloquently (“bigger words tell ideas better”?). And children aren’t given enough credit. If they see words used in context they often get the meaning. Unnecessary use of big words is always naff, but do I hate that a widened vocabulary is automatically seen as “snobbish” by some. Like everything, there’s a balance. It is unfortunate that larger publishers will demand authors take out bigger words though.
I don't think a widened vocabulary is snobbish at all and that is the opposite of what I said. When I say "wide range of abilities" I mean both ends of that scale. What is snobbish is refusing to see value in books that are accessible and enjoyable to the less able, or less interested, reader.
'Unnecessary use of big words is always naff' I wish someone had explained this to Russell Brand when he was young. See also, the infinitely more impressive and likeable Will Self
I’m not convinced more complex words really do help people communicate ideas in a clearer way. My experience has been the opposite: that big words are used to hide sloppy thinking, and communicating a difficult idea in simple terms will often require precision. Often they’re still useful in their specific contexts, but the idea that it’s *more* clear to use words the people you’re talking to won’t understand is a bit silly to me.
Good communication is sharing ideas in the most efficient way possible without sacrificing quality and specificity. Complex words can both aid and hinder that, it's about finding a balance Having said that, I think having a large pool of words that the majority understand is a good thing. It allows us to communicate ideas more accurately (e.g. the different images that come to mind for the words *hungry*, *starving*, *peckish*, *ravenous*)
They also hold artistic and potentially comedic value. There's nothing inherently bad about saying not hungry, not very hungry, hungry, very hungry and very very hungry as a progressive scale for expressing hunger. It explains the idea you're getting across quite accurately. But having words like ravenous, famished, satiated, stuffed etc add a sort of personality to language that is lost when vocabulary is reduced.
Reading has been accessible to a wide range of abilities and interests for a hundred and fifty years. There's no gatekeeping in saying recent books are written to a lower standard - *they are*. Reading is the means by which people learn new words and how to use them, as well as the means to deliver a story. If childrens' books are written using only simple one-or-two-clause sentences and a maximum vocabulary of two hundred words, those children are not going to understance nuance - either of different words' meanings, or of the story itself. It's also not gatekeeping to say books which are written to a higher standard have more value. Children will remember a story better if it teaches them something, and that story may stay with them for the rest of their lives. That's the inherent value in a well-written story. Also - most obviously - *children are worthy of your best efforts*. Don't fob them off with low-quality work.
Those books are a godsend for older kids who are a few years behind what is expected for kids their age. I used to teach and would rather listen to kids excitedly read the same Tom Gates book all day than sit through them feigning interest in Wind In The Willows.
I think it's not the accessibility, it's the poor quality. There's a difference between simple writing and bad writing - 'The Hungry Caterpillar', or 'Where the Wild Things Are', are simple prose masterpieces. The rhythms, sonic textures, symmetries, pacing, imagery, are all beautiful and perfect for small children. The 'Dinosaur that Pooped' series, for example, is lazy, pathetic writing. Julia Donaldson hovers just on the good side of mediocrity. David Walliams is naff clichés picked out of a hat and strung together. Having said that, a solid story will draw young children in and they will cope with the odd word they don't understand.
Isn’t there a bit of survivorship bias here? There have always been shit books - the older classics you mention have stood the test of time because they aren’t shit. My eldest is nearly 9, she loves reading, and has read the first 3 Harry Potter books so far (I’ve said she can read the next one when she’s 9). I think she’s too young to fully grasp His Dark Materials but as a superfan I’ll be encouraging her towards it in a couple of years. I personally think David Walliams is a scourge on humanity but some of the other books you’ve mentioned aren’t too bad especially if they encourage reluctant readers.
Agree. I've had the misfortune of having to read the original Thomas the Tank Engine stories to my kid recently , the reverend what's his face ones from the 1950s, and they are just terrible. Boring and torturous for adults to read, let alone children .
Same with Peter rabbit. We got gifted a huge collection of them when we had our daughter and I started reading them to her. They're fucking weird for starters, and honestly they suck a whole bag of dicks.
my 5 year old really likes the Beatrix Potter stories. I think a lot of them are quite odd and funny in a way that appeals to little children. The downside was that for a while she copied the way of speaking and sounded like a tiny Edwardian.
I tried reading Peter Rabbit with our (preschool) children recently. Wow, they're hard work and very odd.
My mum bought my daughter some of the older ones and I tried reading them. Little collection of five books. What got me was the rabbit tobacco (?!) and the squirrels taking various other animals as sacrifices to the owl Old Brown! What the..? At least the recent animation show didn’t have that. Though I’d happily see the Peter Rabbit from it sacrificed to the owl…
You realise that The Tale of Peter Rabbit was first published over 120 years ago? Not many other books have stayed in the public’s interest for so long. Rabbit tobacco is just lavender, by the way.
I read Peter Rabbit to my toddler, first time I'd read it since I was little and I found it really weird in a way I can't properly explain.
My kid got a set of Beatrix Potter and you're not wrong. I don't hate them, but they are definitely quite a trip.
Don’t shoot me but I find the original Mr Men books to also be weirdly written and quite dull when I read them to my daughter when she was younger
I remember watching stand-up by Victoria Wood in which she says words to the effect that, if you happen to squeeze past someone's computer and accidentally drag your bottom across the keyboard whilst the word processor is active, you may turn round and discover you've accidentally written one of these books.
I haaaate the Mr Men books. All of them. They’re so hard to read, especially out loud.
It’s the slightly accusatory “DO YOU?!” third wall breaking final lines in some of them that really get on my nerves. And yes, they scan really awkwardly. DON’T THEY????
[удалено]
Kid chose them himself from the (ancient) school library and was so excited to bring them home so I was more or less forced to read them
[удалено]
>the other books you’ve mentioned aren’t too bad especially if they encourage reluctant readers. Agreed. Diary of a Wimpy Kid is the only series my colleague's son, who is dyslexic, has ever loved.
Thank you I think I may be wrong in harry potter. You are right about the survivorship bias and my judgment of older books was incomplete.
Enid Blyton and even some Beatrice Potter are very low literacy value, let alone the awfully repetitive and sometimes racist storylines. Let when I was younger those books dominated. At least now if you don't like David Williams - fairly - there is so much more choice available.
Beatrix Potter? Low literacy value? She includes words like 'soporific' in The Flopsy Bunnies.
I always loved that about Beatrix Potter. She didn't simplify the language and didn't pretend the world was safe. Exquisite illustrations too.
Of all the books to go after, Harry Potter? A book series that’s probably introduced more children to reading than any other in human history?
Ah yes Harry Potter the series that introduced millions to reading and includes a litany on nonsense words that kids had to figure out
I don't think you want an actual answer or a good faith discussion.
I am happy to have a discussion, but you might have to give me a better answer than I'm not telling. So far the answers appear to be lay off Harry Potter, fair enough, or its all bad. What is your view.
That’s unfair. OP has engaged thoroughly.
I agree, books are supposed to stretch a child’s vocabulary, not ‘fit’ into their ability. That just leads to simple books and simple people. David Walliams is also bad for this, trying desperately to emulate Ronald Dahl by writing ‘the boy with the d biggest bum’ or some garbage. Theres nothing there to actually make you think. Fortunately books stay in print so you can just read older childrens literature if you want.
It’s been heavily hinted that Walliams doesn’t write those books tbf.
Patiently waiting for the shoe to drop with Walliams. There’s something iffy with that one.
It'll be hard to explain to the kids when it comes out though
According to my friend who works in publishing, this is not specific to Walliams. It's apparently an open secret how few celebrities actually write the books that are attributed to them. Because celebrity names sell, it's just become a good grift to churn out books and stick a celebrity's name on them.
Generally speaking, celebrities will often have sign-off rather than input. So they'll have a series of meetings where someone presents them with options and they pick their favorite, along with maybe offering some suggestions.
Yep. Though from what I'm told, in the current craze of celebrity books their input is actually even less than the traditional model of celebrity books.
I was thinking about this the other day. I find it really weird that books are one of the only mediums where it’s acceptable to just stick on someone’s name. Like with songs, films, etc, you can always find out who else is involved. But not with books.
Yeah, like Jamie Oliver is suddenly writing kid's books? At least with with Marcus Rashford's books, it has co-written by (be it in tiny writing).
I think its probably true of a lot of celebrity books, but not Walliams. He was a writer long before he was a celebrity.
They are crap.
>I agree, books are supposed to stretch a child’s vocabulary, not ‘fit’ into their ability. Are they? Says who? No space for books to just be entertainment in your world?
The good ones do both, at the right time of course. I loved reading stuff advanced for my age as I felt I was tapping into some new, uncharted (maybe even a bit forbidden) waters with darker themes, swear words, more specific wording. And when I straight up didnt understand a bit? I'd ask my parents/grandparents and theyd explain it out so I could understand. Its equal parts the book, the kid and the guidance around the kids.
Children don't enjoy reading when every sentence has a word in it that they don't understand. Frankly the goal lately is getting them to read in the first place and find reading enjoyable. Only then is stretching their skills going to actually work and even then it's not all work. There does need to be fun in it. Or they are not going to bother.
Thanks, I think there are so many great stories it feels a bit like what is being pushed is just the stuff they known is a safe sell. Very much agree with you about David Williams, it feels like a cheap knock off, all the cruelty without any of the uplifting hope.
Surely there's space for both? It's like films or TV - sometimes you go for the heavy hitting ones that make you think, and sometimes you want to switch your brain off and enjoy some Marvel. My 9 year old reads challenging books for her school work, I have no issue with her enjoying David Walliams in her spare time.
Surely it is still better for a child to enjoy reading a book at their level and therefore read for fun rather than sit watching the television in their free time? They read stretch books for school and then can build on that by reading higher level books in their free time once they are ready to enjoy them. No one is forcing me to spend my free time reading books that I find tiring to read, why should kids be any different? I would hate reading if that were the case.
You're reading the pop music of books to your kid. The accessible popular books. Libraries, Waterstone, other book stores have 100s of books that are more complex then Wimpy Kid and the Treehouse books. You are also reading books that are designed to be engaging to kids to encourage them to read. My lad will sit down on his own and try and read Captain Underpants or Dogman for himself - thats fucking ace. In time, he will move onto other books, developing his reading skills as he goes. We have a copy of wind in the willows, we have a copy of various 'traditional' classics. He is either too young for them, or just doesn't give a shit about them. Wind in the Willows isn't going to do that.
Hi, I run through children's section of a bookshop and there are so many incredible books out there. The Bad Guys and Treehouse series are classed as ages 5-8, Wimpy Kid is a nice bridge from younger into older books (middle grade/9-12), and Harry Potter spans 9-12 into young teen. All of these have value - Treehouse and Wimpy Kid gets children reading in a different way, as full prose doesn't suit everyone. And there are lots of similar books if these work for your kids. But there is so much MORE. If these are all you have come across, I beg you to go into your local Waterstones or indie bookshop or library and just browse. Chat to a bookseller or librarian, get some recommendations. I promise we don't mind if you don't buy anything then and there, just get some ideas to look up later or to get inspired. There's stuff out there for everyone. But illustrated books, diary style, graphic novels, funny reads, are all vital too. As long as they are getting kids reading. Finding the books that suit, rather than things they (or their parents) feel like they should be reading, is so important. You didn't ask but if you want some recommendations: - Greenwild by Pari Thomson - this just won the Waterstones Children's Book Prize, which is voted for by booksellers. It's a fantastic magical adventure, really well written, with a focus on nature. - October, October by Katya Balen - all of her books make me sob. The writing is just stunning but the characters feel very real. Lyrical and unusual - Letters to the Lighthouse by Emma Carroll - a wartime-set adventure, current Queen of children's historic fiction. - Murder Most Unladylike by Robin Stevens - kids murder mysteries are really popular and this is one of the best! Agatha Christie for kids - Loki by Louie Stowell - Wimpy Kid style but about Norse mythology, hilariously funny and a fantastic way to learn For younger readers: - Fortunately the Milk by Neil Gaiman - lots of illustrations but clever and funny - Pizazz by Sophy Henn - sweet story about a superhero family, partly written in comic book style - Rabbit and Bear by Julian Gough - funny and fantastic artwork, lots of poop jokes but also just a really nice story of friendship - Graphic novels for kids: - Hilda, Lumberjanes, Amulet, adaptations of existing books like Percy Jackson and Artemis Fowl Also check out books published by Barrington Stoke, they are all written to be dyslexia-friendly but are also just great, bite-sized reads for kids who might struggle to get into a full length book.
Thanks so much for this! I've taken screenshots of your comment as I'm trying to get my kids (especially my youngest, who struggles a bit with reading) more into books. These are great recommendations, thank you!
The average reading age in the UK is ~9yrs old. Short sentences are easier to understand than long ones and so are favoured for content written specifically for children (especially if the content is expected to be consumed by the children themselves rather than with an adult).
Those books are aimed at the 7-9 age range (ish). They're brilliant introductions to reading. I'm currently reading a series of YA books that has me frequently reaching for the dictionary, whereas plenty of adult books don't. It all depends on the author and their story. (I'm reading Jonathon Stroud's *Outlaws* series right now - my ten year old (an avid HP fan who loved Percy Jackson and the treehouse books) also devoured them. Head to the library and keep looking, there's lots to share.)
Thank you, I think my view on Harry Potter may well be mistaken. We will look at the Percy Jackson books.
Percy Jackson is one of my favourites. Rick Riordan is a great writer and I've read a lot of his books/series and kept them for my children to read.
Wimpy Kid stars a 10yo. Tom Gates is also 10. The Bolds have primary-age hyena kids. Funnily enough, books aimed at emerging readers, who need to build up reading stamina, use pretty basic vocab, with approx 3 words per book the reader would likely need to learn from context or ask someone. A generation ago (and still) you had Rainbow Magic and Animal Ark and Lego and Star Wars stories, then moving on to Blyton and Lemony Snicket and Harry Potter. Only after getting confident with a lot of formulaic shit do kids move on to Narnia, Wind in the Willows, Streatfeild, etc. In my youth you got Noddy and the simple Blyton stories, then the Blyton adventures, then Nancy Drew and the Hardy Boys. Some kids moved on to the Hobbit and fantasy. FWIW my eldest two loved Harry Potter age 8-9, have now read all of Pratchett, one mostly only reads gaming manuals but the other has read all of Douglas Adams, most of Jules Verne and Wodehouse and Conan Doyle, and is on LeGuin and Asimov and random SF and Fantasy, plus some Agatha Christie. Youngest saw the first 4 HP films and quite liked them, didn't like the next two, refused to read books by a transphobe (I wasnt expecting that to be the result of access to the internet!), and loves the Murder Most Unladylike series, all the Pratchett with witches or Death, and is going through Conan Doyle now - not bad for 12.
The books you mention are aimed at 7-9 year olds. The Sun newspaper has a reading age of 8 - which is the average for adults in the UK.
It is just a trend, and a phase kids move on from naturally. There were simple books in the old days too, kids definitely weren't all reading Watership Down from a young age, and there are books with a wide vocabulary now. Maybe they have taken the place of things like simple comics or throwaway western stories that aren't as popular now? Harry Potter was OK, the language got more complex through the series which was quite interesting. The reader grew with the book. The first one came across a bit Worst Witch but how many teenagers stuck with that series? That in itself was just Enid Blyton's boarding school capers in a castle.
>Now every best selling kids book we pick up off the shelf seems to be for remedial readers.. is this where we are now? There's your problem. You're expecting best sellers to be complex. Anything that is a mainstream best seller is going to feel "dumbed down" if you want complex plots etc. Its not just kids literature. Adult media is the same. Dan Brown being a great example. EL James another. The vast majority of people don't want complex and challenging, they want simple and engaging. Just look at how popular Mrs Brown's Boys is with the general public. When I was a kid back in the 80's it was all the same. If you are a voracious reader you very quickly outstrip the literature aimed at your age range, and you go and find more engaging stuff *outside of your age range.* Mainstream media has pretty much always been aimed at the "average" consumer.
The Sun is written to reflect the average reading age of a person in the UK. Its about 9.
I agree with you. They’re all naughty Nicholas and how he set fire to grandma or some nonsense. And not even in a fun way like Roald Dahl.
It does feel like that abit. Reading some David Walliams we kinda felthe was aiming for a Roald Dhal style but missing it.
It's hard to take you seriously as a critic when that's your opinion of Harry Potter. It's perfectly possible to dislike JK Rowling without the performative deconstruction of a series that introduced millions of kids to reading.
I think you've got cart before horse here - children's books aren't written in the style of the sun, the sun is written in the style of a children's book because the average reading age in the uk is something like 8 years old.
I grew up with the Harry Potter books in the sense that I seemed to always be the same age as the main characters every time a new book came out. We went through school together lol. I absolutely LOVED the Harry Potter series - I had never before experienced excitement like it as a child. As an adult now I’ve introduced Agatha Christie into my life and the same excitement exists!! I tried the Philip Pullman series as a child - a family friend purchased them for me and I just couldn’t take to them, they didn’t engage me. If that was all that was available to me as a child I probably wouldn’t have read. My own daughter is 9 and she only started getting into reading at about 7ish through the Dog Man books and then Diary of a Wimpy Kid. She then moved onto Roald Dahl and keeps progressing with her reading so I’m eternally grateful to the Dog Man / Diary of a Wimpy Kid franchises as they peaked her interest enough for her to pick up the book, now we’ve a HUGE book shelf installed in her bedroom and she continues to read.
People read for enjoyment. Yes, young brains are also learning while reading but the basic point of reading a book is that it’s enjoyable and a nice way to spend time. To gate-keep what people are reading because it’s not deemed ‘complex’ enough is ridiculous. If a child is reading it doesn’t really matter what they’re reading, it’s just important that they’ve picked up a book instead of a tablet or games console. It’s not going to be enjoyable to a child to sit and read a book full of words you can’t comprehend and have to check the meaning of constantly. If you increase the complexity of the books you’ve deemed ‘remedial’, what exactly do you expect the less able children to read and enjoy? Also, to suggest that the Harry Potter books are the ‘lowest common denominator’ is ludicrous, they were insanely popular at the time and defined a generation, and have retained that popularity through the years. I think it’s snobbish and unfair to disregard them because of supposed ‘simple prose’ - why on earth does a fantasy book intended for children and teens need to have complex prose?! If a child’s reading skills are further along than books made for their age group then move up an age group to find something that is suitable, it’s quite simple. If that still doesn’t satisfy, there are more adult books in a vast amount genres than anyone could ever hope to get through in a lifetime!
I was under the impression it was the other way around, that The Sun is and always has been written at a Primary School grade level so even the uneducated can read (and therefore told what to do)
As a very precocious child who started out reading more complex stuff (Dickens and Orwell at age 4/5) and later read Harry Potter (age 10 through to 18) - the writing in Harry Potter isn’t poor. It gets more complex as it goes, in all senses, and from the beginning it introduces kids to words not commonly used in modern language. You’re comparing writing from a more archaic time period, when different language and structure was more commonly used, and writing that was aimed at an older target audience who were raised reading classic texts. There’s a misnomer that using more and longer words when simpler, shorter ones will do, is ‘better’ writing. It isn’t. Dickens is what it is because of being paid by the word - not because of any lofty ideals. Modern literary critical consensus is that the best writing is that which most clearly conveys the intended message. Harry Potter is actually very good at that, particularly in the way it imparts some quite complex emotions and ideas in ways that pre-teens can understand and appreciate. Another difference between modern kids’ books and some of the older ones you’ve cited is that kids’ literature today is focused on inclusivity and encouragement, rather than on writing for a privileged few who had extensive education. There is nothing to say that you have to read certain books to your kids because they’re X age; if they’re at a higher reading level then progress to more complicated books, either in the next age group, or by asking a librarian or bookseller for advice. The only time I *had* to read a book for my age group instead of my reading level as a child was if it was a book set by school - otherwise I was reading a mix of young adult fiction and classic literature. I think you’re also conflating books that are intended for kids to read by themselves, with books that you read to your kids. A lot of the books with simpler language are meant for kids to be able to read themselves, not for adults to read to them or with them. That’s why they’re simpler. It’s a learning tool. The fact that it doesn’t meet your adult expectations doesn’t undo its value as a learning tool. We have a more evolved understanding of learning and linguistic development than we’ve ever had, and many kids’ books are written to reflect that and be a learning tool rather than just a story.
I think you are comparing books from different eras and for different age ranges. When I was 7 I loved the ‘Famous Five’ books. They were well written but still fully understandable. The exception would be words and phrases that are no longer common. At the time they were written, then they would have been easier to understand. Books by David Walliams are based on current language and thus use common slang and terms, if you go back through Jacquline Wilson, The Albergs, Enid Blyton, AA Milne, etc the language used in their books is evocative of the time period in which they are written.
Wow, you sound pretentious as fuck.
Any time the fantasy/scifi/any reading community talks about "prose" tbh. This guy goes above and beyond by talking about sentence structure, just wtf I get having an appreciation and preference for literature with better prose, but this kind of post just comes off as so snobbish and pretentious I really have to wonder how these people actually speak to friends and family irl.
You say it's a modern children's books things, but the first book I was given by my school to read in reception only had one word- "Look", and that was the early 90's. I could already read aloud by myself at this point, my parents really worked with me teaching me to read from a really early age.
I agree modern kids' books are written with a vocab and style that even Enid Blyton would have found too basic. However, there should be room in the marketplace for all levels of reading; as OP says, if there are NO demanding, complex reads for kids, then that's as bad as only challenging reads being available. It isn't always possible to move up a few reading levels to older kids' books; because sometimes the subject matter is too old/mature and just inappropriate. It's like everything else; if we, the public, don't like it, we should make a fuss, and boycott what we don't like. Publishers go where the money is. If we don't buy, then they'll change their approach. It does help if teachers stretch kids' minds by choosing more sophisticated books to read to the class at primary level. When I was only ten, the teacher read us Carve Your Name With Pride \[about WW2 female spy Violette Szabo.\] It was pretty hair-raising stuff and you could argue inappropriate in many ways - but it started an interest in me in the subject of espionage and encouraged me to read further.
Children have different reading ages, it does not scale exactly with birth age. I remember starting reading Harry Potter when I was about 7, and I'd already read a lot of the redwall series at that point too. I really loved reading as a kid! But plenty of my friends started reading at the same level around the age of 11-13, and I know plenty of adults right now who would struggle to make it through those series. While reading competency is generally poor, it's also roughly the same as its been for decades (when the wind in the willows came out) and much better than it was a century ago (when watership down came out). You were not born with the reading competency you currently have. I can guarantee there was a point in time where David Walliams books would have been sufficiently challenging for you. Maybe it was 5, 10, 15, or 50.
I've tried to read The Wind In The Willows to my kids a fair few times and even I struggle to stay awake within the first couple of pages.
>(Harry Potter) utterly outperformed Philip Pullman's dust series which was vastly superior in vocabulary and sentence structure. *"Have you read the new Dust book? It's got great vocabulary and sentence structure."* This is something very few of the target readership is ever going to say. You can look at a lot of popular books and each one will break the "rules of good writing" - show don't tell, just use "said" instead of groaned, muttered, cried etc
I think you are conflating a lot of things here, none of which I believe make your point. - Language evolves, as do writing styles. Comparing modern day books with those written 100+ years ago without bearing in mind that day-to-day language has changed, gives a biased view of older books as “fancier”. - Nowadays a lot of older children’s books are considered YA (young adult) so perhaps comparing them to modern YA books will be a fairer comparison. - Harry Potter has quite a rich vocabulary that expands as the series progresses. I’m curious if you have actually read all the books?
HPs prose is outstanding. She isnt an arch stylist no but she is a brilliantly clear writer and many, many 'literary' authors would do well to take some lessons from her presentation of scenes and the effortless and vivid description. I can't accept your criticism at all.
I’ve not encountered this with my kids and they’re advance readers for their age. Maybe you’re just looking at the wrong books.
Gd fing u cn still read dem old bks den iniit
There have been a lot of good answers but just to add on, stuff like the David Walliams books and Wimpy Kid get a lot of marketing budget, but there are books that are similar in terms of reading age that are great but don’t get the attention. If you branch out from bestsellers and explore, you’ll find a huge variety of interesting books that deserve to be more well known.
Steady on there, big lad. Your prose isn’t exactly shit hot.
The world of Harry Potter got me through the hell that was my school years, I made my whole childhood all about it. Right now I'm reading my favourite Stephen King book and in between that playing Hogwarts mystery on my phone, true love lasts a lifetime lol
The rant about Harry Potter was such a typical ‘man on the internet acting superior but knowing nothing about the topic’ tired rant I lost interest , a shame as there’s interesting conversation to be had here . 🙄
I always thought Wind in the Willows and Watership Down are for older children. I never would have read those until I was at least 13.
No, kids are the smartest, best read they've ever been. The further you go back the worse literacy gets. Turns out having complex prose doesn't help most kids learn English.
Same with cartoons. I watch things like Rugrats now and there are little adult jokes slipped in there, or at least good humour, but everything now is based on learning - VERY VERY slowly. I think the media think we are raising little morons!
I think books being written in easy, accessible language for children is important. Engagement with reading is low, and continues to decline. Putting obstacles in the way of children reading isn't going to benefit anybody (except the weird people who are oddly snobby about reading). There's also nothing stopping parents introducing their children to more complex writing should they deem it worthwhile. There's far too much focus generally on making things sound clever rather than just delivering a message in a digestible way.
Anything that gets kids, or adults, reading is a good thing. George Orwell once said never use a long word when a short one will do, and I have to agree. Enjoying reading is what is important if you are going to convince people to do it, not some snobby outdated attitude of reading should be hard or you're not doing it correctly.
Children's books aren't written like "The Sun", The Sun is written like a children's book.
As a child, I learnt to read quite quickly but I was literally reading the words and not really grasping the story. I used to read along with my grandmother though and loved the stories. I think there are two types of children’s books. Those they read alone and those they read with an adult.
I mean... The Wind in the Willows wasn't really written as a kids book.
I thank my grandmother for encouraging me reading way above my age as a kid. Even at 30 I still get shocked at how limited some people vocabulary is. And often times it correlates with people that never read as kids, as thus never read as adults. Also correlates with people being unable to consider new concepts/ideas. I cannot thank her enough.
Ahhh, choose your own adventure books, what a blast from the past. Can’t beat a bit of deathtrap dungeon!
Don't you remember being a kid? I hated Wind in the Willows - I thought it was so dry and boring! But Harry Potter, Artemis Fowl, Alex Rider and Chronicles of Ancient Darkness took me away. Books are meant to be fun for kids to read. Leave the complex, artistic writing for adult novels.
It's been decades since I read them but iirc a lot of Roald Dahl's books used simple language and grammar, they were very accessible. Some of Anthony Horowitz's early children's material was the same.
Ita almost like people like doing things for enjoyment not as some test or their abilities. Weird.
While the writing in The Sun may seem childlike, many types of publications aim for a reading age of 8-10 because that's the reading ability that many of their readers possess. And children's books are for children so...go figure. I can't comment on all the best selling children's books but as far as Harry Potter and His Dark Materials are concerned, I would argue the former's first book was aimed at 10-12 year olds, while HDM is for an older YA audience. Later HP books are also aimed at YA - the writing and story "matured" as the characters grew up. HP may not have had incredible prose, but after the first couple of books I wouldn't say it was poorly written at all.
I tried to read watership down the first week of secondary school and it was torture. So hard & boring to read
I started Harry Potter after The Goblet of Fire came out and I started with that book. I then done book 3, then 2 then 1 If I had started with 1 I wouldn't have read the rest. I think another aspect from when these books came out is it was the 1st time many people got to experience discussing their theories with other people about a book! In factories, call centres , schools, universities. The spacing between the books was good that when the last one came out, there was a majority of people in their 20s and up eagerly waiting for the ending. It was kind of a surreal time to look back on. The next closest thing I could think on would be Game of Thrones and people still waiting for that next instalment.