Yesterday my friend Teresa sent me to Nathan Bransford's blog where guest blogger Adrienne Kress answers the above question. And it got me thinking about my own answer to the question.
Here's my unedited e-mail response to Teresa:
"I think my (catty) answer would be: why not?
My long answer I owe to those MG authors I grew up loving, first and foremost Laura Ingalls Wilder. Heck, I STILL want to be her when I grow up.
This writer [Adrienne Kress] said "whimsy," but I would say "innocence." I like simple story lines, ones that address the basic human needs/desires for love, before they get all complicated by sex and money and politics. There is a clean sweetness to those stories that really appeals to me."
Now that I've had the chance to sleep on it and further ponder Teresa's answer to the question, and I realize I didn't quite say it right. Because, as Teresa pointed out, all love is complicated. Because humans are complicated. This I believe with my whole heart.
So I think what I was trying to say is, for me as a writer writing for children, I can explore those complexities more simply, more powerfully, without the distraction of sex and money and politics. You know, by writing about the primary loves in a person's life -- for parent or sibling or pet. Everything that happens before romantic love. Everything that prepares one for romantic love.
Does that make any sense?
Anyhow, it's a great question. Thanks, Teresa for your thoughts!
"Dogs love their friends and bite their enemies, quite unlike people, who are incapable of pure love and always have to mix love and hate."
- Sigmund Freud