The philosophy for children curriculum was specially written by Matthew Lipman and colleagues for the teaching of philosophy by non-philosophically educated teachers from foundation phase to further education colleges. In this article I argue that such a curriculum is neither a necessary, not a sufficient condition for the teaching of "philosophical" thinking. The philosophical knowledge and pedagogical tact of the teacher remains salient, in that the open-ended and unpredictable nature of philosophical enquiry demands of teachers to think in the moment and draw on their own knowledge and experience of academic philosophy. Providing specialist training or induction in the P4C curriculum cannot and should not replace undergraduate and postgraduate degrees in academic philosophy at universities. However, although for academic philosophers the use of the P4C curriculum could be beneficial, I will argue that its use poses the risk of wanting to form children into the ideal "abnormal" child, the thinking child--the adult philosopher's child positioned as such by the Lipman novels. The notion of narrativity is central in my argument. With the help of two picturebooks--"The Three Pigs" (2001) by David Weisner and "Voices in the Park" (1998) by Anthony Browne--I illustrate my claim that philosophy as "side-shadowing" or meta-thinking can only be generated in the space "n between" text, child and educator, thereby foregrounding a "pedagogy of exposure" (Biesta 2011) rather than "teacher proof" texts.