Children's literature "gets to the point"

Anyone who spends any time on this site knows it doesn't hedge on the directions that communications are taking. Paper, no - online, yes. But there is a bastion or two where communications on paper can count on a secure future. One of these would be children's literature (or "kiddy lit," as an elementary ed major friend of mine at St. Cloud State University called it).
"Kiddy lit" is a marvelous field where there are few subtleties or shades of gray. The messages and symbols jump out at you. This literature must be fun and entertaining in order to cater to its audience which can have a notoriously short attention span. Considering the instant gratification in the new communications universe, adults have a shorter attention span too.
"Getting to the point" has never been more important. Cut out the redundancies in making a point. The people who write our children's books, like Nancy Carlson, understand this economy of expression. Carlson spoke at the Morris Public Library Thursday night. She has been prolific with over 40 books published.
The Edina native recalls a love of comic books in her youth. She draws from childhood experiences in her storytelling. She has a guiding philosophy so marvelously simple in its essence - what you would expect of a children's author: "Life should be fun for everyone, especially for kids" (quoted from her website).
I attended Carlson's talk and found it enjoyable. A conclusion that I gleaned, for the purpose of writing this post, is that the concise and less-nuanced world of writing for kids (i.e. getting from points 'A' to 'B' with less bulls--t) has lessons for adult reading.
I instinctively reject books that seem padded, verbose and redundant. Is it a publishing "trick," or well-kept secret, to pad books for economic purposes? For optimal marketing?
A gripping novel is one thing but a non-fiction book can get tedious in a hurry once the redundancies pile one upon another.
I'm fascinated by the Great Depression in the U.S. so I once ordered a book from a catalog about it. I loaned the book to my mother who read parts of it. (Both my parents lived through the Depression.) But I found the book too long to really approach with enthusiasm. Half as long and with larger type, maybe it would have been inviting. . .
Have you had this experience too?
Most often when I actually buy a book these days, it's a gift for someone. And increasingly I shy away from books that seem cumbersome and with smallish type. I chose a book by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter based on my criteria about three years ago. Since our family is Democratic and since I wax nostalgic about getting 13 percent interest (at least) on my bank certificates of deposit in Carter's heyday, I bought it. (A rimshot is called for here, as I'm astute enough to realize that such high interest rates, sustained, would have been disastrous for us.)
Reflecting on that Carter "malaise" period, the many-headed hydra of inflation had to be slayed. We took our medicine and moved on. Carter was sort of the fall guy and he got through that with his inherently impeccable virtue - so much the opposite of Richard Nixon.
I bought the Carter book for my mother and after she read it, she passed it back to me. Neither of us would likely have read it, had it followed the publishing norm of being big and unwieldy.
(I chuckle as I recall one of Carter's mini-controversies having to do with "lust in your heart," but this pillar of a man was just alluding to human failing like a preacher would.)
Keep an eye on book publishing because I think it will feel tremors like in the notoriously fading newspaper industry. The brevity hallmark of "kiddy lit" will likely set the pace more and more. Maybe we'll all end up "smart as a fifth grader!"
Newspapers just happened to be an early target of the earthquake-like (to draw an analogy from the news) effect of the communications revolution. The shorter attention span means authors will have to be more targeted and efficient in how they make their point or tell their story.
And perhaps the most cogent lesson in this adaptive process could come from. . .children's books? Why not? They speak to an audience that has always had a short attention span. This audience has always been demanding, pushing aside a book whenever it seems boring, distant or rambling. Kids are the pinnacle of honesty.
Further synthesizing our point: "The Little Engine That Could" might be a template.
And how about comic books? They're still out there but not with the pervasive type of influence they once had on the nation's youth. The media and entertainment are too diversified now. But comic books were once a virtual haven for kids to escape, enjoy and fantasize, unencumbered by a schoolteacher's watchful, guiding - yes, judgmental - eye. Comic books in the 1950s were controversial. They were the equivalent of today's violent video games. While the storylines could be disturbing, I would assert that comic books were a vital building block in kids becoming literate. Same for the Hardy Boys and Tom Swift books.
The people who taught my St. Cloud State friend in the 1970s frowned on all of this. They would want such material burned if they had their way. That was their zeitgeist.
It was ridiculous, of course, because anyone with a grasp on reality knows it's hard enough getting kids to read, Let them turn the pages of the so-called "lowest common denominator" stuff. If a child has a healthy mind, any violence or bad taste in the story line will stay on a plane of fantasy.
I learned words reading comic books that I wouldn't have learned otherwise. An example: "snafu."
In that realm, there was the Superman family of characters and Spiderman. I regret not taking the trouble to understand the Spiderman family better. The world of Spiderman was more real and with characters that were more conflicted in a truly human way. This contrasted with the more black-and-white Superman world.
I gravitated to Superman but also discovered the likes of more obscure creations like "Turok, Son of Stone" and "Magnus, Robot Fighter." The artwork for the covers of the just-cited works was spectacular, able to stand on its own as distinctive art. (Not in the eyes of academic people, of course. . .)
Academic people pushed story lines on kids that were supposed to teach us about "the human condition." That's fine as far as it goes, but it was a cynical mindset that always seemed to set forth a world in which the rich exploited the poor and the powerful held down the weak. Why, in the name of God, is it still necessary for school youth to read "Animal Farm?" It's a socialist tome.
Nancy Carlson presents characters in her books that convey messages on the simplest, most organic level. Even if she were writing for high school age youth, I'm sure her messages would be gentle and optimistic.
No "Animal Farm" suggestions that our leaders in industry should be portrayed as sinister or with less-than-altruistic intentions! If nothing else, "Animal Farm" along with many other required books and short stories from my youth were inappropriate for such a young age. Kids can't grasp the appropriate context, for one thing. Let's forget about such highbrow garbage as "Death of a Salesman" and "Bartleby the Scrivener." Herman Melville and George Orwell lived in distant, bygone times. Why is it so important to preserve their thoughts now?
I'll take comic books, the Hardy Boys and Tom Swift anytime. Let's redefine what is meant by "classics." In music, let's forget about Brahms and Beethoven and focus on the Beatles. I'm serious here, and let's retire dated tomes like "Animal Farm" and "Walden Two" while we're at it.
The uplifting nature of the new communications universe is going to let us make our own choices anyway. Schoolteachers who are stuck in the past had better get out of the way.
-Brian Williams - Morris mn Minnesota - bwilly73@yahoo.com