Today I stumbled across this page in my 7-year old’s notebook. I’m biased (clearly), but I do believe she has a fairly well-developed vocabulary for her age. Beyond this, it seems she has a real knack for storytelling and writing.
This will surprise absolutely no one, but I put this skill of hers down to reading (duh!), and in particular, reading older books. It sounds so obvious, and whilst the data on whether reading for leisure is declining, flat or even increasing seems murky, I think it’s abundantly clear that children’s books today are far simpler in their language.
Here’s an excerpt of “The Wind in the Willows”, by Kenneth Grahame, published in 1908.
“Never in his life had he seen a river before—this sleek, sinuous, full-bodied animal, chasing and chuckling, gripping things with a gurgle and leaving them with a laugh, to fling itself on fresh playmates that shook themselves free, and were caught and held again. All was a-shake and a-shiver—glints and gleams and sparkles, rustle and swirl, chatter and bubble. The Mole was bewitched, entranced, fascinated. By the side of the river he trotted as one trots, when very small, by the side of a man who holds one spellbound by exciting stories; and when tired at last, he sat on the bank, while the river still chattered on to him, a babbling procession of the best stories in the world, sent from the heart of the earth to be told to the flat earth at last.”
In contrast, here’s an excerpt from a very popular book today, “Diary of a Wimpy Kid” by Jeff Kinney, published in 2007.
“First of all, let me get something straight: This is a JOURNAL, not a diary. I know what it says on the cover, but when Mom went out to buy this thing I SPECIFICALLY told her to get one that didn’t say ‘diary’ on it. Great. All I need is for some jerk to catch me carrying this book around and get the wrong idea. The other thing I want to clear up right away is that this was MOM’S idea, not mine.”
It’s not that there’s anything wrong per se with that passage from “Wimpy Kid”, it’s just that it, at least in my opinion, lacks a vividness, a richness that can conjure up mental imagery, a whole world inside the mind. Read that passage from “Willows” again. “Glints and gleams”, “bewitched, entranced, fascinated”, “gripping things with a gurgle”. You can’t tell me that these words, these turns of phrase, don’t do more for a child’s vocabulary, imagination, and the reading experience more broadly.
Furthermore, if children lose the ability to even understand what was said in older books, we quite literally lose those ideas (and stories) forever. A 2024 study found that English Literature(!) students at an American university were unable to understand the first few paragraphs of Charles Dicken’s novel “Bleak House”.
Now, all reading is good reading, but the differences here are stark, to say the least. This is not about snobbery, or cultural elitism, it’s just that, we should be very careful of robbing our children of great literature, because in doing so we’re robbing them of the tools they need to develop their language, their expressiveness and of course importantly, their imagination. As with so much in life, there seems to be a “Matthew effect” at play. Strong readers will likely grow their vocabulary at a far faster rate than “weaker” readers. In other words, “cumulative advantage” really matters.
I don’t know why the language of children’s books is getting more basic. Some quick AI research tells me that there are two possible explanations which, at least at first glance, seem reasonably accurate to me:
- The rise of “reading levels” as a concept. 100 years ago, authors just wrote stories. Books weren’t written for a 7 year old no more than they were written for a 13 year old. Children would start having books’s read aloud to them by their parents, and eventually they’d read them independently. Now, authors write according to specific age brackets, with the explicit aim of being read by children themselves. Whilst the rationale for this is understandable (encourage independent reading from an earlier age), it’s obvious how this has backfired and lead to a lowest-common-denominator-style of language for a given age bracket. Put simply, “age appropriate” is a relatively modern concept.
- The prioritisation of “relatability”. Victorian and Edwardian literature tried to elevate a child’s mind, to expand their sense of wonder and to expose them to bigger and bolder ideas. Conversely, modern children's books seem to want to speak to children in language they can relate to, and about subject matter they can relate to. It is true that most kids (and frankly most adults) speak more like “Wimpy Kid” than “Willows” today, but we should be wary of lowering the bar like this.
I can tell you, from first-hand experience that small children seem entirely capable of reading (and being read) older and more “sophisticated” literature. The children's- classic-canon is filled with veritable gold for kids: Narnia, Alice in Wonderland, Oliver Twist, Charlotte's Web, The Wizard of Oz... the list quite literally goes on and on.
These books are lindy, they’ve remained ever-present in our cultural consciousness over decades for a reason. Peppa Pig will almost certainly not stand the test of time, whilst Roald Dahl continues to inspire wonder for every new generation.
I fear that children’s literature may go the way of children’s entertainment more broadly, that is, towards increasingly sanitised “content”. Quick and easy. Cheap and cheery. Why wouldn’t the creators of Peppa Pig use AI to generate an endless stream of bookslop? I believe it’s inevitable that they will.
Why does this all matter? The answer is simple. Articulation matters. Language matters. Perhaps it’s inevitable that most people will rely on LLMs to both read and write for them, just as most people rely on calculators and Google Maps, but perhaps great literature (and the ability to command our own language) is the ultimate “Chesterton’s fence”. We literally won’t know what we had, until it was gone.
We do not understand a topic unless we can write about it. If we possess less ability to articulate an opinion, we are less likely to be able to convince another of it. The art of persuasion, negotiation, love, music—these all rely on us to be able to use our words. I know, I’m saying use your words like we do to toddlers, because this is what I fear we will essentially become.
But, it doesn’t have to be this way, at least not for you and your your children. You can choose. Brain rot is over, if you want it. We don’t have to drift slowly into a post-literate society.
I know that, as a parent, reading for and with children can be a chore, especially after long days at work. As someone who has picked up reading fiction every day again, my take is that reading is a muscle like any other. The more you use it, the easier it gets, and just like the gym, the more you train, the more you want to lift heavier and heavier weights.
So, go on and read some heavy books, for your children’s sake!