[watwut]

Even if it was the case, but it is kind of massively easier to pick a book where you do not have to explain that.

Sometimes you just want to read a book and children books are not all that much fun for adults anyway. You might not want to then have to go into explaining that racism was normal for the author, but we think differently jadda jadda ... it is additional completely pointless complication for what was supposed to be good night story.

[GJim]

I could not disagree with you more.

It is something you will need to explain to children at some point, and doing so over a light hearted story is an ideal approach. Shying away from the difficulties of bringing up a child isn't something you should be doing.

Besides, the best children's books are also fun for adults! (I raise you Roald Dahl's 'Boy' and Judith Kerr's 'The Tiger Who Came to Tea')

[watwut]

No it is not ideal and that argument does not make sense at all. It would be explaining something mostly off main topic of the story. And I would rather explain it on something real rather then randomly.

And I am not always interested in research about the original reason - how much author was or was not racist.

I don't know how you define best children's book. I found most of then boring and kids taste was not the same as my taste.

[kwhitefoot]

> the best children's books are also fun for adults!

Also Kipling's Just So stories. My eldest loved me to read them to him and it was no chore at all.

[47282847]

If you do not find it fun to read with your children and enjoy the stories equally you may want to consider picking different books or doing something else with them. They will pick up on it, and grow up to think you do not like to spend time with them - and later take that “truth” turned core belief to other relationships.

[watwut]

I kind of did not liked most of them. And the ones I kind of liked were still something I would not read if I did not had to.