Dictionary.com defines literature as written works: fiction, poetry, drama, and criticism, that are recognized as having important or permanent artistic value. Most college professors would agree, that Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte is more of a stimulating literature than Snooki’s biography from “Jersey Shore.” And in terms of material content, there is infact a big gap between the two pieces. Jane Eyre may be more worthy to read because of its themes, and influential aspects; however who’s to say that Snooki’s biography can’t have themes that are covered by today’s society? What makes one literature “materially fit” than the other? It all comes back to the influential mentality.

Through a child’s mind, things don’t appear as they would compared to that of an adult’s. The axiomatic fact that, yes, a child’s mind is underdeveloped, and that they don’t think twice about certain matters serves as another aspect. These assumptions, may be viewed as bias to some people, and true to others; maybe somewhat harsh. If this prospective views children as callow as they are; what does it say about their literature? Since children are young and naïve they should read books that interests them. Books that put “callowness” and “fun-words” in every line of the pages.

World renown authors such as Patricia Polacco redefines the term “children’s books.” Thunder Cake, and Pink and Say both transcends the stereotype that children literature can not be deemed as real literature. It’s the message that ultimately decides.

Good literature can come in all form, shapes, and sizes. Some pieces of literature are more direct, while others disguise themselves in metaphoric glasses. In this case some aspects of "literariness" can be too hard for children to comprehend. And even with a parent reading it to them, the mental capability to understand is not yet there.