Children’s Books? WTH?
Just because it’s labeled as a “children’s book” doesn’t mean it isn’t good. In my experiences, “children’s books” are better.
Look at Harry Potter. Though it’s tagged as a “children’s book,” it’s without a doubt my favorite series. After the last book, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, would you seriously consider it a “children’s book”? When the seventh book comes out, you really won’t consider it a “children’s book”. Seriously.
Plenty of books bridge the gap between “children’s books” and others. Take a look at Terrier or Trickster’s Queen by Tamora Pierce. If I didn’t tell you what the publishers classified them as, would you honestly guess correctly? The same goes for the Harry Potter series. The first couple of books may have been written at a lower level, but they went uphill pretty quick.
Please. “Children’s books” are the sort of books 1-10 year olds read. I think the term needs some revision. In recent years, new markets have sprung up in the publishing industry.
Just because it’s considered a “children’s book” doesn’t mean it isn’t good. Ignore the classification, read the book anyway.
