/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21242041]

Attempting deeper or more mature kid's stories is stupid.

Everyone seems to just never ever understand that kids are ridiculously superficial and only care about surface level entertainment. You know, because they are kids. That's not talking down and claiming kids are stupid and will consume anything, but they are attracted to the cool factor of cheap entertainment and love tie-ins. No child is going to give a fuck about classical entertainment or pursuing intellectual stimulating anything. Because it's boring.

Kids can't understand complex issues like politics, anyone who claims that they could is simply viewing their childhood through rose tinted glasses. It's better to keep it simple.

[Anonymous No.21242045]

>>21242041
Rehashing threads like this is stupid.

Faggot.

Kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.21242062]

aaaaa im such an adult i have to pay taxes and shit im going insane

Seethe about it faggot. only children love this world like it should be loved

[Anonymous No.21242067]

>>21242041
You've made this thread already.

I do feel like most adults talking about kid media are talking about this vague stereotypical cliche of a "kid" they have in their minds. "Kids need to be taught this, kids need to be taught that", not even taking into consideration that kids aren't always conscious enough to even pick up on lessons in media, they can just consume it for entertainment and get attached to a villainous character who's obviously meant to be in the wrong, but who gives a shit, they're cool. So yeah, a lot of the talk about what kid media "should" be is rooted in fundamental misunderstanding of kid psyche.

But that doesn't mean it's not a good idea to try and convey complex ideas in simple, understandable ways. If anything, that's a whole art on its own. And experimentation and self-indulgence are sometimes crucial to making unique, compelling art, no matter for whom. The Little Prince wasn't my favorite as a kid, but some parts of it did stick with me precisely because it was unlike anything else I'd consumed up until that point. It made me feel strange, but it also intrigued me and probably inspired me in some ways.

[Anonymous No.21242544]

I hated love tie-ins as a kid and still do

[Anonymous No.21242545]

>>21242062
You're looking at your childhood through rose lenses. You knew nothing, it's about time to admit that.

[Anonymous No.21242578]

>complex issues like politics
>the identity based slave system for the masses

[Anonymous No.21243340]

>>21242544
Nah, you probably loved them just like every other kid.

[Anonymous No.21243715]

>>21242041
adult literature (if we're talking about literature as an artform and not as a cheap ineffective propaganda tool) isnt about conveying general ideas either, whether complex or simple. but some kids are definitely able to pick up on if not consciously appreciate subtlety, intricacy, originality, and above all some mystery.

[Anonymous No.21243728]

>>21242041
Rehashing threads like this is stupid.

[Anonymous No.21243758]

The thing is that kids are a lot less literal in their media consumption than adults are. They can fill in a lot of blanks with imagination; adults have to have a scene detailed explicitly to get the same sort of reaction. Watch a few cartoon moves for kids, ideally Bluth movies since they’re notorious for gaps like this. To an adult it will seem really shallow and disjointed, really basic and boring characters doing a boring quest. As a kid you probably watched it and filled in a lot of gaps, like the motivations and personality types of the characters. Kids don’t need to be told a paragraph about a boy’s reason for finding an ancient sword; the boy knows why inherently. The adult will want to be told why.

That’s why children’s lit and adult’s lit has to work on different wavelengths to succeed. An adult would be bored reading Alexander Lloyd, a child would be confused why everything is so explicit in Thomas Mann. The way the brain reacts to narrative is very different at different stages of life.

[Anonymous No.21244202]

>>21243715
Yeah, sure buddy. You were such a genius as a child. You weren't.

[Anonymous No.21244445]

>>21242062
Cope

[Anonymous No.21244490]

You put the messages in so that they can lie dormant until the child is old enough for them to take effect.
We see that modern idiots see any conflict through the lens of Harry Potter vs Voldemort because their brains are deeply attached to it emotionally.
It's easy to get people to sign off on BLM rioting if you tell them "It's just like when Voldemort killed Muggles and Harry fought back" or whatever.

[Anonymous No.21244593]

>>21242041
That's right. That's why the only Miyazaki film kids might actually enjoy is Ponyo, and for the same reason their parents dislike it.

[Anonymous No.21244605]

>>21242041
Children absolutely can be interested in deep themes, only you have to give them what they can digest.
One option is to suggest - and you do that through myth and fiction to instill ideals. They will grow no matter what, so guide them, help them develop into individuals, and when they feel the need to grow when facing adversity they will have tools and foundations. They'll need these, and that's how they'll engage more deeply with what they may simply have registered without further thought.
Another option is to notice and understand what they care about, what intrigues them, what they reflect about. But this is the hard way, for you have to remember infantile wonder and curiosity and have curiosity for the child as it is now instead of ideals and stories you're familiar with. And the child must have reflected on ideas of identity or existence for this approach to be at all possible, and that is something that comes with age.
But you're right in one thing, and I have to get to it at this point: not all children have the same predictions towards this kind of reflexive sensitivity. Tablets don't help but neither does the mere excitement of socialisation at school: if you're focused on a game you won't wonder about the world. You mention boredom, and that's something children must learn, because otherwise they'll always avoid it: the need for stimulation breads the need for stimulation. But also: let the child discover the value of non-stimulation and it will seek it, it'll abandon its friends to seek solitude, because it knows there is more to it than social interaction, which as you note, especially at that age, is often superficial and cheap. Ah, how to connect with the other!
In any case, you cannot come close to anything like politics because they require knowledge and codes which the children do not have and won't have for some time. That's why I mentioned the world and existence: because they're immediate and children are directly confronted to them. In fact, they may be even more strongly confronted to them than we are due to the clutter of things such as politics.
Know what to expect from children. Ask them the right questions. Bounce back with appropriate answers. Remember they are incomplete and remember when you had so little to remember, too.

[Anonymous No.21244695]

>>21244202
>I was a retarded idiot iPad ape as a child, therefore everyone else was too and anyone who says otherwise is lying

[Anonymous No.21244824]

>>21244695
No, I'm saying, that people tend to view their childhood experience thru rose tinted glasses, ignoring all the bad parts, and mentally editing things they don't want to remember. It's nothing new, we all do that. Sometimes talking with your friends about your childhood experience can be quite a reality check, about what you remember and what really was

[Anonymous No.21245612]

>>21244824
Everyone can remember the time they are attached to a media, cartoon or book, and remember the profundity post adulthood without needing to review the entire work again. Not saying kids are genius, but the unconscious ability to recognize archetypes and symbols is not absent in childhood.

[Anonymous No.21245644]

>>21242041
>Kids can't understand complex issues like politics
Few adults can. They should be exposed to it as early as they can understand.

[Anonymous No.21245807]

>>21242545
Projecting

[Anonymous No.21246540]

>>21245807
No. It's just the truth.

[Anonymous No.21246855]

>>21242041
>Everyone seems to just never ever understand that kids are ridiculously superficial and only care about surface level entertainment
Cope.

Kids love to learn, but their parents are usually stupid, so they become stupid too. My wife used to read a lot when she was a kid; my ex gf too, and my ex gf child also read a lot, not little kid books, but adventure shit (non-gross obviously) that even adults like. Its just education.

[Anonymous No.21247797]

>>21246540
"Watership Down", all by itself, destroys your entire pseud argument.

[Anonymous No.21247801]

>>21247797
About what? People mentally editing things they don't want to remember and viewing their childhood through rose tinted glasses?

[Anonymous No.21247850]

>>21247801
No, your pseud argument that kids can't handle deep works.

[Anonymous No.21248134]

>>21247850
That's why stories are simplified for kids in the first place.

[Anonymous No.21248135]

>>21242041
I'd give lil prince a blowie, love boys in their teens

[Anonymous No.21248219]

>>21242041

I have a size year old who definitely understands at some level deeper plots. He of course enjoys silly.things but reading Narnia books to him he's aware of the Christian symbology and 'feels' them in a different way.

[Anonymous No.21248975]

>>21242041
I feel like I'm getting deja vu, have I been in this place before?

[Anonymous No.21250424]

>>21242041
I feel like I'm getting deja vu, have I been in this place before?

[Anonymous No.21250439]

>>21250424
I feel like I'm getting deja vu, have I been in this place before?

[Anonymous No.21250917]

>>21242041
What the fuck do you mean by any of this?

First of all, what do you mean by "kids"? 3-5 year olds? 6 to 9? 10 to 12? Because kids are insanely different in these stages and their level of understanding varies significantly, sure a 6 year old probably won't be able to comprehend anything about politics, but an 11 or 12 year old will probably have some level of exposure to the topic and will probably be able to understand at the very least (even if very crudely) concepts like nationalism.

Also what the fuck do you mean complex or deeper, or more mature topics? Because from what I can see the average adult media writer thinks mature is when characters have sex and say fuck and shit a lot. I would not expose a little child to complex politics, but a little kid can definitely understand concepts like right and wrong, and you could easily talk to them about concepts like moral relativism in a simplified way (Not everyone who does a bad thing is always a bad person, not because you find something to be bad for you does mean it's bad for everyone else, etc) and frankly I find that tackling these issues well is far more mature and most adult media is horrible at it, worse than actual media made for children.

[Anonymous No.21250960]

>>21242062
This truth is reserved for the retarded and the genius, unfortunately.

[Anonymous No.21251552]

>>21248219
>size year old

[Anonymous No.21251616]

>>21242041
true dat
>>21243758
Very nice post. Children experience things in a more immediate way rather than conceptually.

[Anonymous No.21252222]

>>21250917
Kids can't understand more complex issues like politics.

[Anonymous No.21252286]

>>21252222
Sure they can.
They understand playground bullies just fine.

[Anonymous No.21252402]

>>21242041
>>21242041
>That's not talking down and claiming kids are stupid
Too bad fag - because children are stupid.

[Anonymous No.21252551]

>>21252402
I remember one day, watching my mom and dad fighting in the kitchen.
My dad was screaming his head off, and my mom was silently opening his beers and pouring them down the drain.
I realized, then and there, that I would have to be responsible for raising myself.
I was 3.
Don't tell me kids are stupid.

[Anonymous No.21253763]

>>21252551
You couldn't have remembered that.