The Difference Is In the Details
The line between children's books and "appropriate for children" books grows closer every day. Looks like the Suicide Girls have an interview with Tony Millionaire about his latest book Billy Hazelnuts.
I didn’t want to come right straight out and do a “children’s book” because generally children’s books are not fun for anybody but the kids. There are some children’s books that don’t bore you to death so you can read them for the kids but the feeling of this is that it was an adult book but I just cut out all the super violence, sexual innuendo and the booze so now I’ve got a book that six year olds and seven year olds can read too.Ripped off shamelessly from Bookslut.
posted by fusenumber8 @ 1:00 PM
2 Comments
2 Comments:
I think Tony must not be looking at the right children's books. But I am bothered by the fact that publishers are so resistant to the idea of an all-ages book. At best a book might be considered kids' lit, but with crossover potential. Everyone accepts that certain movies (The Incredibles, for example) will appeal to both kids and adults, why not books?
I suppose a retail market that'll shelve Chris Ware in Fantasy/Sci-Fi can't be trusted to shift paradigms much.
Especially confusing when you consider the crossover potential of your Harry Potters or Philip Pullmans. Perhaps it has a lot to do with the fact that there is no all-ages publishing imprint. At least, not one that I can think of. Anyone?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home