How to use this Page

So sayeth NY Sun book critic Adam Kirsch. The article is called The Scorn of the Literary Blog (Thanks to galleycat for the link.)

What's sad is up until the blog stuff, Kirsch had some interesting things to say, examining book reviews, what they are, what they aren't, why people read them, what's going on with newspapers.

But then . . . well, here are some highlights:

"People who write about books on the Internet, and they are surprisingly numerous, do not call themselves reviewers, but bloggers." Call me anything just don't call me late for supper. As I've said before, blogs happen to be a way we publish online; don't confuse content with the format. This is one of the most silly things I've seen in a long time. Discuss amongst yourselves the truth of it; I think some bloggers (myself included) have danced away from the "r" word when when should embrace it. I REVIEW BOOKS. DEAL WITH IT.

"But book bloggers have also brought another, less salutary influence to bear on literary culture: a powerful resentment. Often isolated and inexperienced, usually longing to break into print themselves, bloggers — even the influential bloggers who are courted by publishers — tend to consider themselves disenfranchised." Isolated, inexperienced, longing to break into print, and disenfranchised. At least he didn't mention 18 cats in basement, right? For myself, I don't long to break into print; I long to make money so I'm not living in a cardboard box in 20 years. So, I look for ways to write and get paid, and, along with that, have things I want to talk about and do that here. But resentful of those who do write and get paid? No. Disenfranchised? No; rather I blog about books that are, frankly, the redheaded stepchild of newspapers and magazines; books that have not gotten the coverage and discussion they should and that readers, parents, teachers and librarians want.

"As a result, they are naturally ready to see ethical violations and conspiracies everywhere in the literary world. As anyone who reads literary blogs can attest, hell hath no fury like a blogger scorned. And the scorn is reciprocated: Professional writers usually assume that those who can, do, while those who can't, blog." Again, generalizations. And truly, in the kidlit world, we have been so free from the flamewars and trolls that go on other places, for which I am eternally grateful. If anything, it's the literary world who sees bloggers having ethical issues; and the "professionals" who have started this whole mess. I have yet to see a kidlit blogger bash a nonblog writer. (Link to it in the comments if you have!)

I don't want to cut and paste everything; but then Kirsch attacks the "blog form" as being incapable of creating a "literary review." It's like saying, oh, a graphic novel form is incapable of creating a Printz award book.

And the wonderful ending words: "But there's no chance that literary culture will thrive on the Internet until we recognize that the ethical and intellectual crotchets of the bloggers represent a dead end."

So, if I start posting in a different format, say a wiki, I can get lit review cred? I stop being a dead end when I learn how to code?

What great timing that Colleen Mondor at Chasing Ray has started her Summer Blog Blast Tour. (Disclosure: I'll be blasting off with the blog tour myself, so more details to come!)

Edited to add:
Here is In For Questioning's take on the article. IFQ addresses some of the blog stuff, but also some of the assertions about what reviews are and aren't. Interesting stuff; because there are many reasons for reviewing books and for reading reviews. It's no one size fits all.

Read Roger has a conversation going on (Crap, here comes the Teacher!) that talks about didacticism. Right now there are over 50 comments.

My two cents worth:

Do I like didacticism or message books? Hell no.

But doesn't every book have a message? Is it not so much about the message as how it's delivered? Hell yes.

I look at it this way, whether it's a book, a TV show, or a movie.

Yes, I know there is an author / writer/ creator. But the minute Oz shows himself behind the curtain; the minute I know that my strings are being pulled by a puppet master; I'm turned off. For me, the moment that the message overwhelms the story you've lost me as a reader, and this usually happens when the author lets the message get in the way.

In addition to that, if the message is so heavy handed that it's like getting hit on the head by an anvil, you've lost me. I'm not stupid. Get too heavy handed (this is important! you must take this message away with you!) and you've lost me, because I don't like to get beat up.

Let me add: this is true whether or not I agree with the message; tho to be honest, I'm probably more forgiving and willing to ignore it if it's a message I agree with.

How can I tell when this happens? Characters act unlike themselves; speeches are given that take away from the whole; events happen that don't make sense; consequences are over the top. In other words, the story is affected and manipulated in order to have the message delivered. It's one of the reasons I didn't like This Is All; I felt as if all those things were happening in order to deliver a message, and as such the characters and events never stayed "real" to me.

Edited to add: One more thing about the Read Roger comments: there are way too many people using anonymous. OK, for whatever reason, you don't want to use your real name but for the love of Mike, pick a pseudonym and stick with it. Trying to keep track of who was who is way too confusing, gives less weight to their argument, and makes it difficult to follow the conversation and the points being made.

Thanks to Monica for letting me know about this conversation.

If you're only going to read one post on the whole bloggers and reviewing kerfuffle, read this one at Finding Wonderland.

Lectitans posed the question What does it mean to have a "thorough knowledge of children's literature"? and I've been thinking about it for several days. Other people have left their answers in the comments to the question or in their blogs.

My answer:

It means to not think that your childhood reading was universal. No matter what type of reading you did, at best you read a fraction of the books out there. My friend Carlie says, "the plural of anecdotes is not evidence," and that has become my mantra, including drawing any conclusions from my own reading history and habits.

It means not relying on library school classes. Yes, the classes are valuable, no two ways about it. The value is in the titles read; the professional journals you are introduced to; the passionate discussions about books. Here's one thing about books; every reader has a different experience with a book. If you think your reading is the only one of value... or the only proper way to interpret a book... see above about the plural of anecdotes. If you hated a certain book or genre -- and others loved it -- as a library professional, you cannot let your hatred or dislike stand between that book / genre and the young readers you will be working with. A library school class will force you to read books you wouldn't have otherwise and to listen to the opinions of others. It is also extremely valuable to read the literary criticism and articles about children's literature; so you really "get" to the heart of what makes a book good. The problem with a library school class -- assuming that's all you need to "know" children's literature. It's just the start.

Read a lot of books. Read books that you wouldn't normally read. If you "never" read fantasy, try a few.

As a librarian, listen to what your patrons read -- and read the books they say they love. Readers Advisory works both ways.

Respect all readers... so be aware of that as you look at titles. Some first graders may be reading Harry Potter; others are not. If you only value the HP readers / reading experience, you are doing a disservice to the other readers; and guess what? They know it. And by not having the knowledge of great, fun books for the non HP'ers, the readers who aren't reading above grade level, you may risk turning them off reading forever. So as you read, and read about, books, try to think of the many types of readers out there.

Read professional reviews of current children's literature. Read blogs, too. Lurk at listservs. Read the award winning lists. (Note: I mean be aware of the winners and titles on lists; not to read each and every book.) In other words, build a general awareness of the books that are out there -- it is impossible for even the fastest reader to read everything. And frankly, a dislike of fantasy (which is OK!) shouldn't stop a librarian from being able to recommend titles to a fantasy lover. The "work around" not reading fantasy is staying up to date on what fantasy books are out there.

Add depth to your knowledge. Which means, look towards older books and try to gain the same knowledge and awareness of them as you do the current books. Blogs are helpful for this, because older titles are reviewed. But there are helpful books, also. I have every The Best in Children's Books (edited by Zena Sutherland) going back to 1966-1972. While some of the books are now out of print, others aren't; and you'd be surprised how many of these older books are either stumper titles or books that parents want to share with kids. (And it's kind of fun to skim these Best of ... books to see what "made it" as a classic that is still around, what sounds just like that "new" book that everyone says is so "original.)

OK, so maybe going too far back is a bit unrealistic with books being out of print; but you MUST have depth to your reading. I cringe when I hear of some of the books and authors that librarians "draw blanks" on books like Tom's Midnight Garden. A person should at least recognize the titles of these older classics. Children's books have been published for a long, long time; do not fall into the belief that the only good books are the newer books. Because it's easier to keep up on new books, or to read just older books, and to think being a reader at age 10 means you "know" the older titles, this depth of information is often overlooked. And yes, it's harder to acquire this depth because many of the print journals only review new books and some libraries discard the older reference works such as The Best in Children's Books (links above).

Links to people answering this question: Bri Meets Book; will add more as I find them.

I read Redefining the Young Adult Novel by Jonathan Hunt in the March/April 2007 Horn Book. One of my own reactions, or, rather, inspired musings, is that I often hear librarians say that the kids who read YA books are 10 to 14. But, many of the YA books being published and winning awards are more for those ages 13 plus.

The three books highlighted by Jonathan all fall within that older YA grouping: This Is All, which, while published YA, contained a note about it being for mature readers (my copy has been given away, so if you have the exact wording, I'll revise the post); The Book Thief, published in Australia as adult; and Octavian Nothing, which has been the subject of some musings as to the age of readership and whether it's an adult book published as YA.

I wonder, will the availability of "older YA" change the readership? Or does the reality of who actually reads YA mean that these books are in a limbo, because the YA readers are younger than the intended audience, and the intended audience is over in the adult stacks? (On a personal note, I don't believe that the only YA readers are those aged up to 14. I think readership varies from location to location; I know kids up to 18 and over who still read YA, it's just that once one hits high school, it's usually a mix of YA and non YA. And, as always, it depends where a library or bookstore puts these books.)

I also think that crossover in readership occurs with books that aren't aimed at the upper ages of YA; my mother loved Kiki Strike and cannot believe that it's seen strictly as a middle school book (and sadly, my copy, kept in her classroom for kids to borrow, hasn't been returned. On the other hand, how many high school math teachers have a lending library of fiction books in their classroom?) Hattie Big Sky is another book that can be read and enjoyed by any age.

Then I saw Alex Flinn's reactions to the article, which centered on the "literary novel" aspect of the article, adding more to my ever increasing list of "things to think about." Because I don't believe that literary is de facto better; and as I'm thinking and reading my bloglines, I see this post from Mary Pearson that also addresses the issue of literary versus genre fiction; and what attracts my attention there is how people use what they read to establish their clique.

Pearson's post was inspired by an interview with Melissa Marr at YA Author's Cafe. I think that Wicked Lovely is going to be read this weekend!

Anyway, interesting stuff and connections. What are your thoughts or reactions to the article? To the idea of literary fiction and YA? What is the definition of YA? And does YA fiction, and its writers and readers, need to be validated?

Other people talking about the Horn Book article: Andrew Karre's Flux Blog; Lowebrow