/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.10992523]

Is the age of children's bestsellers over? I have noticed that all the books aimed at a pre-adolescent audience that I've learned by word of mouth have all been published, or began a series until the half of the 2000s, before children began having prevalent access to the internet. I am not talking about YAshit or toddler baby books that teach you to read, I'm speaking of the demographic straight between the two, kids aged between twelve to sixteen.

Eragon, Ender's game, Harry Potter, Animorphs, the Warrior Cats, the kind of book speaken of in the fantasy webgame forums of the 2010s, all were published before the internet took so firm a hold.

Contemporary YA, PG-13 fantasy authors don't even compare because they are obscure outside discussion of their specific genre. So, is the age of the children's novel (that doesn't get popular because of the movie) over?

[Anonymous No.10992533]

Childhood now ends at the age of 21. Childrens' series haven't become less popular, they've simply absorbed all the other genres into themselves.

ASoIaF, The Name Of The Wind, Ready Player One, these are the modern children's books.

[Anonymous No.10992540]

>>10992533
>books with gore and graphic sex are the same as children's media because they're both lowbrow

Go back to making Peterson threads cancer

[Anonymous No.10992553]

>>10992540
>gore and graphic sex make something "adult"

I repeat: childhood now ends at the age of 21. Do you think Little Red Riding Hood is an adult story because the wolf's stomach gets cut open?

[Anonymous No.10992560]

>>10992553
>simple detail that leaves the scene to the imagination
>Martin's stilted gore scenes
>these are the same

So this is the power of lit when shitposting stops... not bad...

[Anonymous No.10992564]

>>10992553
I fucking loved when the dad rapes the girl with matches, best nut of my teens tbqh

[Anonymous No.10992583]

>>10992523
>pre-adolescent
>kids aged between twelve to sixteen
Anon, I have shocking news for you.

[Anonymous No.10992588]

>>10992583
Uh fuck, I meant early adolescent then. You get my point though, and thx for the bump

[Anonymous No.10992658]

>inb4 actual discussion sails to page 10 without touching the topic

[Anonymous No.10993562]

Yes

[Anonymous No.10993615]

>>10992658
this

Bump because I'm interested in this too

[Anonymous No.10993621]

>>10992588
>>10992658
>>10993615
OP, stop, we know it's you.

[Anonymous No.10993624]

My guess is it has to do with the death spiral physical book prices are in. It seems much less affordable, so fewer people buy, so publishers raise prices, so fewer people buy.

[Anonymous No.10993646]

>>10992523
12-16 is more YA. Classic children's books were read by that age group (and older) but were aimed at younger readers, who were much more literate a century ago. Proper children's lit is for 7-11, usually. That's the best age to discover the great children's books. Even if you don't catch all the references or understand every word or joke, the pleasure is much greater.

[Anonymous No.10993993]

>>10992564
Care to elaborate?

[Anonymous No.10994239]

>>10992523
>the Warrior Cats

I've never heard of this. Maybe I'm just too old and now the same thing is happening to you. You just don't hear about these series and assume none exist.

[Anonymous No.10995393]

>>10993993
>he doesn't know when pinocchio almost got castrated to keep singing for the puppetmaster's show

[Anonymous No.10996282]

bump

[Anonymous No.10996664]

>If Rowling was what it took to make them pick up a book, wasn't that a good thing?
>It is not.
I guess he got what he wished for.