How to use this Page

In This Show: Tammy Munson at PodcampEDU

Lectitans' Question of the Week: How much can we know about the author herself based on the content of the book? If you answer, please go over to her site and leave a link.

My answer:

I think this question applies to any artist: writer, artist, actor, etc. How much of themselves is in their work? If we see an actor portray the perfect guy over and over and over again, we begin to believe that of the actor, even if in Real Life it's not true.

How much can we know? Everything and nothing. I often assume things about authors when I read certain books; and every now and then that assumption has proved true when I've read an interview or other essay about the author and the book. And other times, I find out I'm wrong; very very wrong.

Of course it's best -- and easily said -- that the book stand alone, independent of anything we "know" about the author. But that's easier said than done; what I try to do is be aware that I am making those types of assumptions and try not to hold them too close. Because the problem with the assumptions isn't that they are made; the problem is when actions are taken based on those assumptions -- or actions are taken based on those assumptions being proven false. Because when proven false, the reader may feel "betrayed."

But I don't think there is anything wrong with assumptions, in part because it's human nature and we do it with everything. The important thing is knowing you're doing it.

It's also true that you can tell a lot about a reader based on their review; in the recent discussions in the blogosphere about reviews, a few thru out the comments that this is more true of blog reviews than print reviews. I have to disagree with that; as I've read non blogger reviews that tell a lot about the reviewer.

Lectitans Question of the Weekend: "What is the recipe for good historical fiction? There are a lot of demands on historical fiction. It's got to be true to its period, while still telling an interesting story. That is, I imagine, a difficult balance for an author. How can an author achieve that balance successfully? Who are some authors that have done so? Is one period more suited to historical fiction than others?"

Leave your answer at Lectitans' blog; if you post the answer to your own blog (like me) go over and leave your link at her blog.

My answer: I'm one of those readers who read historical fiction for the history. So, I want to be able to trust the history the author includes; nothing annoys me more than an author saying "oh, I write fiction so you cannot rely on anything in my book!". Then label it fantasy (like Mimus); or have an explicit note at the end where you say what you tweaked or changed; or have it be alternate-history, again obvious (either thru a note or thru the subject matter.)

I adore notes at the end of historical fiction; to know what was real, what was not, and further reading. That's me. When does a fiction book "need" such a note? When on the cover it states it's based on a true story; to a lesser extent, if a "real person" is a main character or a "real historical event" is the primary point of the story. But, if it just happens to be the story of a kid living in the 13th century -- I still like a note, but it's not critical. One reason I like Ann Rinaldi is that while she does play fast and loose with the facts, she acknowledges that she does so in her notes at the end of her books.

Part of the reason I like historical fiction is I like history; and part of what I like about history is how people thought, lived, what they ate, what they wore, the details of everyday life; and how their world view was different. I think the what they ate/ wore/ said is "easy" for a writer; what is hard is the world view, especially when that viewpoint is radically different from today, particularly about issues such as gender roles, slavery, religion, and war. For many of these, what a reader actually gets is the present day viewpoint; the narrator of the book is almost a time traveler from the present.

I think any time period is possible; actually, I prefer the books about time periods that aren't over populated. Or stories that aren't overtold. One example: Jane Yolen's Girl In A Cage.

I prefer the books that don't take the traditional telling. For example, why do all books published in the US about the Irish potato famine end with the family moving to the US? Yes, that happened for some families; but if the children's books published in the US was the only source of information, a child would believe that no one was left in Ireland.

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.