Overrated Children's Writers

[Abe Sargent]

Hello all. This is a topic I have been exploring along with others in the Literature thread, and i wanted to pull it out and discuss it here, instead of clogging up their thread.

In that thread, I made the claim that writers like Richard Adams, CS Lewis, and AA Milne are vastly overrated, because their writing is so poor.

In writing, there are two elements. There is the plot, tone, context, and so forth. This is largely artistic. Then there is the craft of writing. Are your pronouns exact? Is your sentence structure correct? How many different words do you use? Are you using the same words or different words?

My claim is that these three writers are examples of children's writers who have a poverty of language. I am critiquing their craft, not their plot and so forth.

I think we have a tendency to make rosy things from our childhood. I went back and watched GI Joe cartoons a few years ago. I loved them as a kid. As an adult, they were really, really bad. I never realized how dreadful they were until I objectively reviewed the cartoons as an adult.

I think it is fair to demonstrate that these writers have a poverty of craftmanship that many do not recognize, because they think of these books and writers as classics. They they may have clever plots or characters, they have poor writing.

Let's take a look:


I consider CS Lewis to be the worst offender. Here is a sample paragraph from The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe

It was nearly midday when they found themselves looking down a steep hillside at a castle - a little toy castle it looked from where they stood which seemed to be all pointed towers. But the Lion was rushing down at such a speed that it grew larger every moment and before they had time even to ask themselves what it was they were already on a level with it. And now it no longer looked like a toy castle but rose frowning in front of them. No face looked over the battlements and the gates were fast shut. And Aslan, not at all slacking his pace, rushed straight as a bullet towards it.

"The Witch's home!" he cried. "Now, children, hold tight."

Next moment the whole world seemed to turn upside down and the children felt as if they had left their insides behind them; for the Lion had gathered himself together for a greater leap than any he had yet made and jumped - or you may call it flying rather than jumping - right over the castle wall. The two girls, breathless but unhurt, found themselves tumbling off his back in the middle of a wide stone courtyard full of statues.

I hope you can see the bad writing here. There are clumsy statements, poor analogies, and bad pronouns. If you submitted a story with the first sentence quoted here, you would have all sorts of red ink on it, and rightfully so.

There are clumsy phrases and the language is small and tiny. The words are small. Phrases like "on a level with it" read poorly and sound even worse when said aloud.

Now, here is a quote from AA Milne:

One day when the sun had come back over the forest, bringing with it the scent of May, and all the streams of the Forest were tinkling happily to find themselves their own pretty shape again, and the little pools lay dreaming of the life they had seen and the big things they had done, and in the warmth and quiet of the Forest the cuckoo was trying over his voice carefully and listening to see if he liked it, and wood-pigeons were complaining gently to themselves in their lazy comfortable way that it was the other fellow's fault, but it didn't matter very much; on such a day as this Christopher Robin whistled in a special way he had, and Owl came flying out of the Hundred Acre Wood to see what was wanted.

Now I am not addressing the tone. It has the typical wistful Merry England tone that a lot of these works have. I have also stated that Milne is a better writer that Lewis and Adams, but there is still a lot of clumsy writing here.

The word choice is better, and the picture he paints is therefore more clear than Lewis, who writes very muddy scenes. There are no visuals with his work. Here, you have visuals. The problem is with its poor writing. This is all one sentence! That's not good writing, it's running concepts into one another at high speed. Some of the phrases read awkwardly, like "tinkling happily to find themselves their own pretty shape again."

Alright, let's look at Adams. This is from Watership Down

As Dandelion ended, Acorn, who was on the windward side of the little group, suddenly started and sat back, with ears up and nostrils twitching. The strange, rank smell was stronger than ever and after a few moments they all heard a heavy movement close by. Suddenly, on the other side of the path, the fern parted and there looked out a long, dog-like head, striped black and white. It was pointed downward, the jaws grinning, the muzzle close to the ground. Behind, they could just discern great, powerful paws and a shaggy black body. The eyes were peering at them, full of savage cunning. The head moved slowly, taking in the dusky lengths of the wood ride in both directions, and then fixed them once more with its fierce, terrible stare. The jaws opened wider and they could see the teeth, glimmering white as the stripes along the head. For long moments it gazed and the rabbits remained motionless, staring back without a sound. Then Bigwig, who was nearest to the path, turned and slipped back among the others.

"A lendri," he muttered as he passed through them. "It may be dangerous and it may not, but I'm taking no chances with it. Let's get away."

Again, not as bad as Lewis, but still pretty poor. There are some notes of better grammar, like using Glimmering and such. He obviously respects the audience more than Lewis.

There is still a paucity of proper writing. His description is merely a laundry list of physical characterstics. Compare to Milne who at least gave you a feeling and sense of the scene. And this was published in 1972! You'd have thought he would have been a better writer by then!

Now let's take a look at some other popular writers from way back. I want to show you the important distinctions. Let's start with The Land of Oz by Baum.

Old Mombi had thought herself very wise to choose the form of a Griffin, for its legs were exceedingly fleet and its strength more enduring than that of other animals. But she had not reckoned on the untiring energy of the Saw-Horse, whose wooden limbs could run for days without slacking their speed. Therefore, after an hour's hard running, the Griffin's breath began to fail, and it panted and gasped painfully, and moved more slowly than before. Then it reached the edge of the desert and began racing across the deep sands. But its tired feet sank far into the sand, and in a few minutes the Griffin fell forward, completely exhausted, and lay still upon the desert waste.

Glinda came up a moment later, riding the still vigorous Saw-Horse; and having unwound a slender golden thread from her girdle the Sorceress threw it over the head of the panting and helpless Griffin, and so destroyed the magical power of Mombi's transformation.

For the animal, with one fierce shudder, disappeared from view, while in its place was discovered the form of the old Witch, glaring savagely at the serene and beautiful face of the Sorceress.

Do you see how he is a better writer? First of all, the language used is much more evocative and illustrative. He is teaching words like fleet and vigorous and more, but writing them on context, so a child can learn them. There is respect for the audience. This is writing that challenges children with interesting stories and clever writing.

Baum wrote before any of the three cited writers wrote their works. Can;t you see that Baum is a significantly better writer?

Let's take a look at a more modern writer. Here's McKinley, in a newberry award book, The Blue Sword. from 1983

The power that washed over that face, that rolled down the arms and into the sword and shield, was that of demonkind, and Harry knew she was no match for this one, and in spite of the heat of Gonturan in her hand her heart was cold with fear. The two stallions reared again and reached out to tear each other; the white stallion's neck was now ribboned with blood, like the real ribbons he wore in his mane. Harry raised her sword arm and felt the shock of the answer, the hilts of the swords ring together, and sparks flew from the crash, and it seemed that the smoke rose from them and blinded her. The other rider's hot breath was in her face. His lips parted and she saw his tongue: it was scarlet, and looked more like fire than living flesh.

Now, that's just good writing. Quick, detailed, evocative, with a good vocabulary and good grammar to back it up. I've never read the novel, but it almost makes me want to.



Now, I am not dealing with characters here, although one could argue that Baum;s fleshed out characters were much better than Lewis hackneyed stereotypes (and they'd be right) or that the tone of Adams is simply too sweet for the things he wants to do, or that Milne meanders way too much with his prose and needs to get to action scenes more often. But, they are not cogent critiques to this discussion. What is important here is the craft of writing, not the clever ideas that may have arisen therein (if any).

[MikeVic]

I just read the first line from C.S. Lewis. That is indeed really bad.

[lordscarlet]

I would submit that a children's writer needs only to appeal to children, not to Anxiety the lit snob.

[lordscarlet]

dola: And not to say I disagree that they are indeed poor writers, but how can we trust that you didn't take the best ever segment of Oz and compare it to the worst ever segments written by the others?

[CamEdwards]

Even if we are to accept that Baum is a better writer (as opposed to storyteller), so what? The fact that Lewis, Milne, and Richard Adams are still read today would indicate to me that their storytelling abilities are good enough to make up for their lack of proper grammar.

On a side note, this seems to be a really odd thing to get worked up about. Or maybe it's just me, but the language you use (Can;t you see that Baum is a significantly better writer?/I hope you can see the bad writing here./etc) just strikes me as oddly strident for a discussion about children's literature.

Also, I'm having trouble with your statement "What is important here is the craft of writing, not the clever ideas that may have arisen therein (if any)." In my opinion, when discussing literature, it's pointless to seperate the two. One can read a beautifully written passage and appreciate it for what it is, but if the author can't tell a story to save their life, then no one is going to read their beautifully crafted shitty story.

[ThunderingHERD]

I think we should ask for the 8-year-old Harold Bloom's opinion on this matter.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

dola: And not to say I disagree that they are indeed poor writers, but how can we trust that you didn't take the best ever segment of Oz and compare it to the worst ever segments written by the others?

You just take me at my word. A man's word is his bond. For example, LWW was considered Lewis's best of the series because the others were rushed and had numerous grammatical errors and less editing.

BTW - appealing to children is one thing, sure. I am not a "lit snob." As I mentioned in the literature thread, popular literature that is well written is fine by me, such as JK Rowling, or Baum.

When you are writing for children, you aren't given a "Get Out of Jail Free" card for bad writing.

Here's an excellent example. A Wrinkle in Time. I'm sure most of us have read it. Classic, classic children's story. Why? Because it respected kids. It had difficult concepts explained easily enough (with illustrations) and great craft in the writing.

That's not me being a lit snob, only advocating the unusual books published by people with English degrees - that's me pointing out that children's literature can be literature, and not just Danielle Steele. Writers like Baum wrote caringly, whereas other writers sometimes just throw their words upon a page.

Oh, btw, I think its funny that someone like me, who had never even had a college level lit class, is begin called a lit snob

[MrDNA]

Er, much of Milne's writing is attempting to subvert grammar to create juxtapositions of meaning. Stick that in yer pipe und smoek it!

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Also, I'm having trouble with your statement "What is important here is the craft of writing, not the clever ideas that may have arisen therein (if any)." In my opinion, when discussing literature, it's pointless to seperate the two. One can read a beautifully written passage and appreciate it for what it is, but if the author can't tell a story to save their life, then no one is going to read their beautifully crafted shitty story.

ESPECIALLY with Children's literature. With Children's lit (and I have a hard time considering Lewis Children's lit as I really consider him to be more young adult, but I digress) the story carries more weight compared to the prose compared to adult literature imo.

[Antmeister]

While I see what you are getting at, I hope you realize that a lot more can be gotten away with in fiction than any non-fiction writing. While I am not a C.S. Lewis fan, most people had taken to the book because of the story and not its construction.

Now if the grammar is so poorly constructed that it becomes a distraction, then the writer has failed in getting the story across. But most people get in the habit of getting used to a writer's style and are just looking for words to construct images in their mind.

Just take a look at the most popular authors of the last decade and you can probably pick out a lot of flaws that an English teacher would flog you over. But most of us don't necessarily remember the words on the page, it is more about the images that formed when reading those words. And if the words fail to do that, that is the only book's flaw.

[JonInMiddleGA]

You mean this isn't a parody thread?

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by Anxiety

BTW - appealing to children is one thing, sure. I am not a "lit snob." As I mentioned in the literature thread, popular literature that is well written is fine by me, such as JK Rowling, or Baum.

Pronouncing it doesn't make it so.

Originally Posted by Anxiety

Oh, btw, I think its funny that someone like me, who had never even had a college level lit class, is begin called a lit snob

One can be snobby about something without actually knowing what they are talking about. They are typically called a "poser."

[Schmidty]

I didn't read that long diatribe (I'm too busy and important to read more than a paragraph on FOFC), I will say this:

JUDY BLUME



"Are You There God, It's Me Bleedy McBleedalot"

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by ThunderingHERD

I think we should ask for the 8-year-old Harold Bloom's opinion on this matter.

I laughed.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Even if we are to accept that Baum is a better writer (as opposed to storyteller), so what? The fact that Lewis, Milne, and Richard Adams are still read today would indicate to me that their storytelling abilities are good enough to make up for their lack of proper grammar.

On a side note, this seems to be a really odd thing to get worked up about. Or maybe it's just me, but the language you use (Can;t you see that Baum is a significantly better writer?/I hope you can see the bad writing here./etc) just strikes me as oddly strident for a discussion about children's literature.

Also, I'm having trouble with your statement "What is important here is the craft of writing, not the clever ideas that may have arisen therein (if any)." In my opinion, when discussing literature, it's pointless to seperate the two. One can read a beautifully written passage and appreciate it for what it is, but if the author can't tell a story to save their life, then no one is going to read their beautifully crafted shitty story.

Now, you need to seperate the two.

For example, Alan Garner was considered to be one of the best children's writers in the 60s in terms of craft, but not in terms of plot. Ever heard of him? I doubt it. So you just don;t need craft.

You also can't have just a decent plot and characters and move on (although Lewis has neither, Milne at least has characters).

The best works, the ones we should hand our kids, are the ones that do both - and those are the ones that last. The true greats of Children's Literature.


The reason we have difficulty separating ourselves from kid's books, as opposed to other children, is, in one part, why these things are still being read. Imagine I gave my son the GI Joe boxed set with teh cartoons I loved when I was a kid, without seeing if they were truly quality. Then he did the same for his kid.

We think so nostalgicially about our childhood that it is hard to separate the bad from the good.

That's why they are still being read today. They have intertia. Other genres don;t have intertia. A hack who publishes a bunch of popular works 70 years ago in unknown today, because no one keeps reading it.

Children's works do have inertia. We either don;t go back to see if it was quality, or we have rose colored glasses.

So they kept getting read, not because they are quality, but because they have inertia.

Some books at least have some merit. I discussed the merit of Milne and Adams above, who are at least better than Lewis.

Lewis is the true offender. I had these books read to me as a child, so I loved them. I also like LWW on DVD and have it. I cried in the theaters when Aslan was killed.

BUT - Lewis is such a bad writer is isn;t even funny. If his best works is as bad as I quote, and his other works are even worse, then why did he get read then, and why is he getting read now? Simple. CS Lewis wrote Christian allegory for children, and a lot of parents prescribe his works based on that. Not that there is any problem with that, my dad did too. Just that you can;t turn around and say his work is a classic, or deserves to be on the same stage as other classics. The writing is poor, and frankly, there's not much redeeming about his works.

But Lewis is a special case because of the Christian allegory thing. The general principles of intertia even more to Lewis, who just happened to write at the right time.

Now, if you want to put Lewis on the Rushmore of 20th Century Theological Writers, I have no issue. He's just a very poor chidlren's writer from a craft perspective.

[ThunderingHERD]

[Groundhog]

To me, as long as the story being told keeps my interest and the style of writing is easy enough to follow, I could care less about how good or bad the author is technically.

CS Lewis is an example to me that fails because it isn't easy to follow that style of writing - it just doesn't flow. My mind wants to insert punctation, because it reads like it was written by an excited child.

I don't have any real problem with the other quotes in Anxiety's initial post.

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by Antmeister

While I see what you are getting at, I hope you realize that a lot more can be gotten away with in fiction than any non-fiction writing. While I am not a C.S. Lewis fan, most people had taken to the book because of the story and not its construction.

Now if the grammar is so poorly constructed that it becomes a distraction, then the writer has failed in getting the story across. But most people get in the habit of getting used to a writer's style and are just looking for words to construct images in their mind.

Just take a look at the most popular authors of the last decade and you can probably pick out a lot of flaws that an English teacher would flog you over. But most of us don't necessarily remember the words on the page, it is more about the images that formed when reading those words. And if the words fail to do that, that is the only book's flaw.

I am in total agreement with Ant.

Different strokes for different folks, but fiction writing should not be a science. I am fully willing to try a piece of fiction that is composed entirely of run-on sentences as long as it captivates me.

Most fiction is meant to be art. Sure you welcome to criticize it, but it is a bit much to think that there can be a common understanding of how good fiction should look like. It is that expectation that makes you snobbish, not your background.

[CamEdwards]

I think others have said what basically what I was going to say, but I also have to add that the fact we're arguing over craft vs. plot and character development amuses me, because the way you're crafting your argument is annoying the shit out of me.

It comes across as lecturing, which in turn makes me want to... stop reading. So yes, there does come a point when the crafting of words can be so bad as to make it unreadable. But as Wade and others have said, when it comes to children's literature the story is far more important than the grammar in keeping the attention of the young reader (at least in my opinion and experience).

[Subby]

I love seeing Anxiety wade in on topics related to children. It's comical.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I think others have said what basically what I was going to say, but I also have to add that the fact we're arguing over craft vs. plot and character development amuses me, because the way you're crafting your argument is annoying the shit out of me.

It comes across as lecturing, which in turn makes me want to... stop reading. So yes, there does come a point when the crafting of words can be so bad as to make it unreadable. But as Wade and others have said, when it comes to children's literature the story is far more important than the grammar in keeping the attention of the young reader (at least in my opinion and experience).

Yeah. This thread actually made me pretty angry. Maybe I'm being a bit silly, but seriously. Let's take our pretentious over-inflated sense of lit snobbery and apply it to Children's books.

Really? I mean really?

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Yeah. This thread actually made me pretty angry. Maybe I'm being a bit silly, but seriously. Let's take our pretentious over-inflated sense of lit snobbery and apply it to Children's books.

Really? I mean really?

Holy shit!! I agree with wade moore!!!!!!!!

[Izulde]

Anxiety must really hate e.e. cummings then.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

Holy shit!! I agree with wade moore!!!!!!!!

Hey - we have common ground on taste in women too - so that's somethin'.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Hey - we have common ground on taste in women too - so that's somethin'.

TITTIES!!!!!!!!!!!

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

TITTIES!!!!!!!!!!!

Preach on preacher man.

[Izulde]

In writing, there are two elements. There is the plot, tone, context, and so forth. This is largely artistic. Then there is the craft of writing. Are your pronouns exact? Is your sentence structure correct? How many different words do you use? Are you using the same words or different words?

FWIW, this is a hopelessly simplistic view of writing.

Exact pronouns? Correct sentence structure? Word variety?

Yeah, that reflects an awfully shallow and poor understanding of fictional writing.

[Buccaneer]

Tell you what. You sit down and read a book to a 4- and an 8-yr old and see which ones they like better. It's about imagination, storytelling and memorable characters - not about whether some adult lit major thinks it's good or not.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Tell you what. You sit down and read a book to a 4- and an 8-yr old and see which ones they like better. It's about imagination, storytelling and memorable characters - not about whether some adult lit major thinks it's good or not.

FWIW, I agree with you, though I will point out that it's quite possible to do legitimate analysis of Children's Lit.

Anxiety's way, however, is not.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Izulde

FWIW, I agree with you, though I will point out that it's quite possible to do legitimate analysis of Children's Lit.

Anxiety's way, however, is not.

Yes, definitely.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Anxiety

Oh, btw, I think its funny that someone like me, who had never even had a college level lit class, is begin called a lit snob

I think it is Hilarius that someone who has never had a lit class is criticizing the writing style of a distinguished Professor of Literature of Oxford University. It is on the par of me criticizing someone's spelling.

[vtbub]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

I didn't read that long diatribe (I'm too busy and important to read more than a paragraph on FOFC), I will say this:

JUDY BLUME



"Are You There God, It's Me Bleedy McBleedalot"

We have a winner!

[Passacaglia]

I'll throw down on Anxiety's side in this (meet me in Depot Town and we can arrange my fee). Kids are pretty impressionable, and I'd rather give them literature without poor grammar, if I can.

[ColtCrazy]

I teach 5th grade, and soon after the Lion, Witch, and Wardrobe was released I read the Narnia series to my class. The kids enjoy them, but I found them extremely simplistic and not nearly as good a read as the Harry Potter series or the Lord of the Ring series. I still have kids that read the series, but my top end readers stay well clear of it. I've had kids remark at how they just don't like the "way its written". Narnia seems to be the first series read by my students that want to start reading longer books, but they all seem to eventually graduate away from Narnia.

I never did get into Milne either. I always read the Michael Bond Paddington books to my 3rd graders, who absolutely loved the stories. I prefer his style of writing to Milne, even if his novels are basically a series of loosely attached short stories.

Dahl is another author I enjoy reading to the class.

[Fidatelo]

This thread is... ... 98.33% gaytarded.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

OOOH elitist snark off

For some reason, this made me really laugh

SI

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Anxiety

BTW - appealing to children is one thing, sure. I am not a "lit snob." As I mentioned in the literature thread, popular literature that is well written is fine by me, such as JK Rowling, or Baum.

Did I miss something? Who thinks Rowling is actually a good writer? She's okay. Where she excels is storytelling. Some of her writing is awful. I hope she's not your standard for excellence.

I agree Baum was a wonderful writer. I also think (as you might have guessed) that technically skilled writing in children's books is a bonus--what needs to be there is the story telling, and at that all of these authors being debated are excellent.

[Zelig]

I think my parents were lit snobs. I recall drifting off to sleep to the pleasing sentence structures and light hearted characters of William Peter Blatty.

[path12]

Originally Posted by Zelig

I think my parents were lit snobs. I recall drifting off to sleep to the pleasing sentence structures and light hearted characters of William Peter Blatty.

Young Jedi, you impress me.

[Fidatelo]

I just noticed that part of my gaytarded post didn't appear... I had put some stuff in fake html tags and it's just gone. Weird.

Regardless, I stand by my previous calculation. In fact, if anything it may have increased by a couple basis points since I last did the maths.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I think it is Hilarius that someone who has never had a lit class is criticizing the writing style of a distinguished Professor of Literature of Oxford University. It is on the par of me criticizing someone's spelling.

I'll agree with this.

And also Cam's statement that the way you have presented the argument is needlessly confrontational. It makes people WANT to disagree with you...

Can't you see how bad this is?

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

I'll agree with this.

And also Cam's statement that the way you have presented the argument is needlessly confrontational. It makes people WANT to disagree with you...

Can't you see how bad this is?

Yeah. And fwiw I (as I do with children's lit and education stuff) talked to my fiance who has a Master's Degree in Reading Education (that sounds pompous, i don't mean it to) this morning.

She pretty much agrees with Anxiety - but she explained in a way that didn't make me want to poke her in the eye .

Edit: Agreed with the principle, not necessarily the specific works.

[Breeze]

I have to admit here that I bought the Narnia books so I could read them before the movies were release (and also because I have young children who will probably want to read these books soon). I attempted to get through them, but I had a very difficult time and eventually gave up. My difficulty was precisely what Anxiety is pointing out.

However, I can agree that if the book is for children and they are entertained by the simplistic writing styles, then so be it. Also I have had difficulty reading adult books that use sentence structure that differs from the way I think...."Day of the Jackel" was one example of a book I struggled to finish because I kept having to reread parts to understand what the author was saying.

[st.cronin]

I agree with Anxiety, specifically about CS Lewis. I like the Narnia books, but he's terribly overrated as a writer and a thinker.

[lordscarlet]

If poor writing is a gateway to children enjoying the act of reading, so be it. I'd rather my kid read Milne than sit in front of the TV all day.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

If poor writing is a gateway to children enjoying the act of reading, so be it. I'd rather my kid read Milne than sit in front of the TV all day.

That's a strange statement. Why can't good writing be a gateway to children enjoying the act of reading? Is there something about poor writing that makes it more accessible to children, in your opinion?

[st.cronin]

Tonstant Weader fwowed up.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

That's a strange statement. Why can't good writing be a gateway to children enjoying the act of reading? Is there something about poor writing that makes it more accessible to children, in your opinion?

I would say the empirical evidence proves it. Books like the ones mentioned above would not be popular if children (young adults?) did not enjoy them and pass them along to friends. It would certainly be preferred that they are reading higher quality writing, but if they prefer the poorer quality, I'm fine with that.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

That's a strange statement. Why can't good writing be a gateway to children enjoying the act of reading? Is there something about poor writing that makes it more accessible to children, in your opinion?

There's nothing wrong with "good" writing; however, I think that the actual content, themes, characters and imagery is what brings the young reader enjoyment, not the correct usage of a semi-colon when dividing two independant clauses.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

There's nothing wrong with "good" writing; however, I think that the actual content, themes, characters and imagery is what brings the young reader enjoyment, not the correct usage of a semi-colon when dividing two independant clauses.

I agree, but I don't see why you can't have both. I'm not thinking that I would tell any kids I have not to read certain books based on that. But I sure as hell am going to do what I can to prevent them from ever saying "is" twice in a row, unless they're quoting Bill Clinton.