You play ball like a girl.

Yesterday The Sandlot was playing where I had lunch. There's just something about that movie. There are so many classic parts in it, but that could just be because I grew up with the movie. It does, however, raise an interesting question.

What's with categorizing things as "children's," mostly in regard to books, but also movies. I can understand that the books and movies you read to five year olds (and only five year olds) should be categorized as such, but where should the line be drawn? I can remember when book stores had a children's section, and a fiction section, but now there's Young Adult, Teen, Pre-Teen, and who knows what else.

The most obvious example of this is Harry Potter. I can understand that it's a "kid's book," but to categorize it like that is almost an insult. It is so much more than a children's book, much in the same way The Cronicles of Narnia and the Wrinkle in Time trillogy (or however many there are) are so much more than children's books. It's not like there is a difference between what makes a good children's book and an adult book: interesting characters, a driving plot, and usually some mystery or adventure.

This isn't to say that there isn't 'children's' literature out there that is truely children's literature, but where should the line be drawn. I started reading both Ender's Game, the Wheel of Time, and the Recluse Saga in Jr. High (I was 12) so does that mean that all those books should be considered Pre-Teen? I don't think so.

Okay, I think I'm done.