This weekend, The NYT published yet another assassination of children's books titled "Our Young Adult Dystopia". The prevailing question asked in response to the opinion piece in my publishing circle is "why do these articles keep getting published?" I wish I knew. But it reminds me very much of the kind of critique I noted of the teaching profession when I was in the classroom. That somehow one did not themselves need to be an actual educator or have any other relevant professional qualifications before offering up critique of educators, that just because someone had once been in a classroom as a student that they had the necessary expertise to tell teachers how to do their jobs. Children's books is like that--a subject where people feel free to dissect and critique without actually being children's books professionals, not even considering that these people may exist and perhaps have something relevant to say about their own industry. So then often the discourse on children's books (a world that is not just picture books and dark YA) is led by people who actually have no idea what they're talking about.
I found this to be the chief quality of the latest attack of my industry--it was written by someone who actually had no true knowledge of children's books or what is going on in the industry beyond three best-selling series and even of those series mentioned in the article, the author seemed to have very limited, surface knowledge.
Below I share my initial response to the article shared in an online discussion with other industry professionals. I don't speak for all of children's publishing (though this comment got more than one pat on the back), but at least here's a word from someone who isn't watching from the cheap seats, but is actually a working professional and understands a few more things about children's publishing than the writer of what I think is an unfortunate Times opinion piece:
Twilight isn't my favorite series, but I won't disparage others who
enjoy it. And it did open up the YA market just as Hunger Games and
Divergent do and many other great or not so great books do or don't.
It's the nature of the beast. Not everyone has the same tastes and just
because the market has anointed something that is not your taste for
whatever reason doesn't mean there shouldn't be a place for it,
especially in the face of millions who decide it should have a place.
Publishers can make a book but so can readers (and readers have a better
track record in making books than publishers) and in all the cases she
cited, I'd say the readers made those books. But the publishers get
called cynical. None of these books were acquired and published because
of cynicism. Someone loved the story (whether or not we think those
reasons are valid) and had a vision for it. The readers either responded
or as she pointed out for another case, they did not. If cynicism were a
sound marketing ploy, more books would work and publishing wouldn't be
as this author also says a poor coal mining town. I agree I don't
understand why articles like this get published. I found it rather
tedious. We can definitely discuss the literary merits of books in a
smart way, and learn and get better, but I doubt the audience for any of
these books feel like suckers as this author suggests. The readers who
love these books defend their love for them ardently and articulately
and in doing so tell us what they want. We'd be wise to listen to them,
especially as it's a readership of varied tastes. They read across
genre, they read contemporary, they read literary, they read commercial,
and they have read far wider than the writer of this article who judges
based on three top-selling series. This author is simply not the
audience for what she judges and that's fine. But she also sounds like
she's making a judgement about something she knows nothing about. And I
have to admit this author lost me when she accused book editors of being
ageist. I have never once known the age of any author I've acquired and
it's not a question I've ever asked before acquiring a book. And I'm
sure if she bothered to look, she'd find many successful YA authors
across the age spectrum. Her argument just holds no merit, and made me a
little angry as you can by now tell by my rant...
As I reread my comments what most strikes me about my initial and immediate and visceral reaction to the article is the question of why can't the readers know best? With so much complaining about gatekeepers, why can't the readers be trusted to know what they like? Because they are children (though the majority of the Twilight audience were middle-aged women who read romance) it's okay to second guess them? That perhaps they don't actually like what they like? Another industry colleague made the very astute point that, for some reason, children's literature is not allowed to be as varied as adult literature, that kids are not allowed to read for pleasure as well as to learn. Reading no matter what age you are is primarily a haven, an escape; and having books that you love to read as opposed to having to read also fosters a wonderful love of reading that allows the critical thinking skills to engage with more technical or academic texts. I've said this before elsewhere on this blog, but in light of the Times piece and for my own sanity, it bears repeating: fiction for children is incredibly nuanced, and yes, varied. Some of it is great and some of it not so great, just like adult books and the reader, whether a teen or a tween or an adult, should get to decide what they like and what they don't without being judged a "sucker". Millions of readers loved Twilight. Millions of readers loved Divergent. Millions of readers shouldn't be dismissed because this writer happens to find Veronica Roth's writing flat.
Sometimes certain things just shouldn't be in the news...
Stacey
No comments:
Post a Comment