Children's Books discussion

Not sure whether this comment is in the correct place but I would be interested in any response. I have written two series of children's story books and had quite a few reviews on various platforms, however one review I received made me pause and think. Background :- the story was about a baby shark washed into a rockpool, all the inhabitants were initially scared, the shark helped one creature who was put into danger and all became friends.
The Review :- Considering that the author is a marine biologist, I expected the book to be more realistic. I thought the book would teach us about ocean animals, and it does, but it also has wrong information. Sharks are not our friends, and they are definitely not friends with crabs. I looked it up and those types of sharks eat crabs. Other then having wrong information in a book meant to teach children about the ocean, its a cute book. My daughter enjoys it.

I am a marine biologist and yes sharks do eat crabs but in the context of a children's story does that actually matter? I was trying to point out (explained in more adult orientated text at back of book) that sharks generally get a bad deal and are vital to the health of the oceans. Can we educate but bend the rules of fact to do so, by having animals talk to each other for example and things that would generally eat one another not do so within the story. I personally think putting forward the message and getting the attention of young minds more important than sticking to the science as these are story books and not text books.

he still gave me four stars maybe because his daughter likes it!

any thoughts please

It is a difficult question. I, personally, think that good science is very important, and I probably would have written a similar review. Otoh, yes, sharks do get a bad rap and we need to learn how important they are.

Did you have back matter explaining what was accurate and what wasn't? Did you make it a particular kind of shark, a particular kind of crab? Did you make it as educational as possible except for the part where you personified the characters? Doing all that would help.

Btw, I found a better folder. Thank you for not naming your books, as that would get your post immediately moved to the promotional folder... and I think it's a good question that should be seen by more members of the group.

All the animals are pretty accurately depicted and named correctly, I hoped that children's visiting tidepools would be able to recognise at least some of them from the illustrations. It is only the interaction between them for the purpose of crafting a story that is not true, I thought about it some more and after all Pooh Bear does not represent the behaviour of real bears or Peter rabbit the same for bunnies. I could write a science book of tidepool animals but it would not be an story where you can incorporate social interactions. Its a difficult one when you tread the line between illustrations that are actually fairly accurate and stories that obviously are not.

But Pooh and Peter are not meant at all to be anything like real creatures, so that's not an apt comparison.

If a children's book is meant to have any educational value at all, I look for back matter. Sources, bibliography, cecommendations for further reading. More information about the species and habitats depicted. More information about, in this case, why sharks are important.

I even look for back matter in books about social issues. Websites to visit, or helplines, etc., as well as further reading.

Fair point, I always add a page at the back of every book to share with adults where real facts are presented about the animals in the book but could add links to further sources could be added. What is the consensus regarding re-editing published books, My earliest attempts could all be significantly improved and such information as you suggest be appended, is this frowned upon or commonly done?

I look at a story like Anna Sewell's Black Beauty (one of my favourite novels). Beauty and the other horses talk amongst themselves (in English) but never converse with humans and always also behave in typical horse fashion. And for me, that is much more to my reading tastes (and always has been) than either totally anthropomorphic animals dressed in human clothes and acting like humans or stories where animals are shown as being friends and having relationships with completely different species and classes of creatures (except for folk tales and fantasies, but that with anything realistic, both my inner child and my adult self want authentic animal behaviour, so I guess that I would also not really enjoy a shark depicted as being friends with a crab and vice versa except if the story was totally meant to be fantastical).

I have no problem, personally, with new editions. But I have no idea the general opinion. Have you joined the authors' group here on Goodreads? If not, I advise that you do so, and ask there.

Also, Manybooks makes a good point. Black Beauty is a horse. Not a personified friendly animal, but a horse. And it is an excellent book, a classic for good reason.

I don't think young children would have a problem or care that a shark and a crab were friends. They're fictional characters and if kids have questions, all the better. They can look it up and learn something about the ocean's creatures. My nephew was traumatized when he was a toddler and my dad showed him a YouTube video about baby sea turtles. Do you know how few baby turtles make it to the ocean? My dad did not. A crab comes along and eats the baby turtle. All my nephew talked about for MONTHS was "Crab. Turtle. Crab eat turtle!" If his attention was directed to "Shark. Crab. Shark likes crab. Shark. Crab. Friends." That would have been nicer even if it was factually inaccurate.

QNPoohBear wrote: "I don't think young children would have a problem or care that a shark and a crab were friends. They're fictional characters and if kids have questions, all the better. They can look it up and lear..."

Some young children might not mind, but I would definitely have minded as a young child (as I know that even though I loved Eric Carle's The Very Hungry Caterpillar I was definitely annoyed that when I tried to feed cake etc. to the caterpillars in the garden, they did not want to eat this). I think each child is different, some would not mind, but others probably would.

I just read A Mouthful of Minnows which is just as Ian described. It features an alligator snapping turtle and a school of fish. (view spoiler)[Aloysius turns up a chance to eat ONE minnow because that's not a meal. When that one returns with more, and then the entire school Aloysius is excited for a hearty breakfast but when the school brings Big Betty, the elderly matriarch who is celebrating her birthday, why he can't bring himself to eat his breakfast! He even saves the fish from human fishermen. (hide spoiler)] It contains a brief note on alligator snapping turtles. I thought the story was very cute and teaches a good lesson.

Each child is different. I wanted good science in my educational science books even when very young, too. Not an approximation of the truth. :shrug;

I will look for Mouthful of Minnows, sounds interesting, thanks.

I'm reminded of Poor Doreen: A Fishy Tale, a book I very much enjoyed a couple of months ago. It didn't purport to be educational, but as I recall it didn't blur the line between predator and prey, either.

I personally disagree, there are many ways to engage children with nature, I am not writing science books but provide accurate information at the back of each. I suppose it depends on your objectives, I write stories to entertain children not teach adults about marine science or woodland animals, we can keep quoting thousands of examples of books that either bridge this divide or not but that is pointless. You are definitely entitled to your personal option and I respect that. I am a professional scientist for some 40 years in the field and learnt my love and interest from good non fiction books but loved stories as well. When you start imposing rigidity upon the content of fiction however surely you are impacting creativity and imagination. I am sure Ronald Dahl's, Fantastic Mr Fox will continue to confuse the children about the relationship between Fox and prey for ever more and long may it do so.

Ian, how is it rigidly imposing anything if I say that even as a child I liked and wanted even my realistic fiction regarding biology etc. to be scientifically sound and not overly fantastical? I am not demanding that ALL books be like that just that I have ever since early childhood preferred solid science in stories about animals that are fiction (except for folk and fairy tales and total fantasies that is).

Ian, you asked a question. We answered. It seems to me as if you are becoming defensive, even argumentative.

This is a valuable discussion. I don't want to let it become an argument. Freezing the thread now, before it becomes so.

Anyone who wants me to reopen it later, please PM me after at least a week.