As my daughter and I were perusing books (via their first pages on Amazon), I realized for the first time that we have vastly different criteria guiding our first impressions of books. (duh?)

We're not talking about front covers, back covers or book trailers here. Not hype or book-lure - but just plain old writing. What she can stand, what I can't (like unnecessarily flowery stuff), what I think is so original and quirky and what she thinks is just. plain. weird.

She's a reader with an enormous appetite (the thicker the book the happier her smile) and has a proven list of books she's recommended to me that were good (but I wouldn't have picked up on my own), so I respect her opinions greatly.

She likes atmospheric writing. That's her number one. Whereas I like NEW and ah, so interesting. A new, clever way to tell something old.

I.e., I practically like all the books that go on to win the Newberies (Medal, Honor). I agree with them medal-giving peeps. My daughter? She shrugs at them.

Lots of people have explored this before: that there's seems to be a dichotomy between what adults think kids should like and what kids agree is just IT. Without us interfering. Without James Frey and his Full Fathom Five interfering.

The ITS usually go on to (commercial) success. And rise to become the next big thing that no one saw coming (except the kids).

So...when will literary agencies begin interning some young ones?

After all, wasn't it an eight year old girl* who helped launch J.K. Rowling's career?

* The daughter of Bloomsbury's chairman was given a test run of Rowling's first chapter. She wanted more (naturally), so Bloomsbury considered it worthy for publishing.

And I just remembered, even self-published Christopher Paolini was discovered by a kid. (Before he became a Knopf published, New York Times Bestselling author.)