A Quote by Neil Gaiman

I don't think there is such a thing as a bad book for children. — © Neil Gaiman
I don't think there is such a thing as a bad book for children.
Children simply don't make the distinction; a book is either good or bad. And some of the books they think are good are very, very bad indeed.
I don't change the language for children books. I don't make the language simpler. I use words that they might have to look up in the dictionary. The books are shorter, but there's just not that much difference other than that to be honest. And the funny thing is, I have adult writer friends [to whom I would say], "Would you think of writing a children's book?" and they go, "No, God, I wouldn't know how." They're quite intimidated by the concept of it. And when I say to children's books writers, would they write an adult book, they say no because they think they're too good for it.
There's no such thing as a good book or a bad book. There's a book that matters to a reader.
Children's book writers tend to feel quite superior, and adult writers tend to feel they wouldn't know how to write a children's book - which might surprise you because I think a lot of people think it's the other way around.
Is it like a Harry Potter thing?" He turned his head then. "A what?" "A Harry Potter thing," she said again. "You know, don't say Voldemort's name because you might attract his attention?" He considered it. "You mean the children's book." "I have got to get you to watch more movies," she said. "You'd enjoy these. Yes, I mean the children's book.
I'd say the purest experience for the movie is not to have read the book because I think when you've read the book you're just ticking off boxes. I think that after you see the movie, reading the book is a cool thing. I always say the movie's not meant to replace the book. That's ridiculous. I'm a huge fan of the book.
In my first book, Under Fire, I wrote that I revered Ronald Reagan. That was a dozen years ago. I still feel that way. I think he changed the world for the better for my children and my children's children.
Attacking bad books is not only a waste of time but also bad for the character. If I find a book really bad, the only interest I can derive from writing about it has to come from myself, from such display of intelligence, wit and malice as I can contrive. One cannot review a bad book without showing off.
I don't think being flawed is a bad thing for a character... nor do I think it's a bad thing for a person in life, because that's how we all are.
When I'm not working on a children's book, I'm painting abstract paintings. That's probably the most joyous thing for me as an artist. But I do love children's books.
I think it's a waste of time to worry about the motives of why people are supportive of things. I think we should look at the thing itself. And if they're supportive of something that's sexist or racist, then it's a bad thing, but it's not because they're supportive of it that it's a bad thing.
Where is the book in which the teacher can read about what teaching is? The children themselves are this book. We should not learn to teach out of any book other than the one lying open before us and consisting of the children themselves.
I personally can't think of anything less sacrosanct than a bad book or even a mediocre book.
Times are bad. Children no longer obey their parents, and everyone is writing a book.
It upsets me that people think what I'm doing is a bad thing. I don't think it's a bad thing. If you know something to be a fact, why not report it?... If I have to drag some people screaming out of the closet, then I will.
Many adults feel that every children's book has to teach them something.... My theory is a children's book... can be just for fun.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!