Kids' Books Are All Right
“A lot of adult literature is all art and no heart,” Foreman, who is currently working on a book about British involvement in the American Civil War, said. “But good Y.A. is like good television. There’s a freshness there; it’s engaging. Y.A. authors aren’t writing about middle-aged anomie or disappointed people.”
I came across *THIS ARTICLE* today.
I love it, I agree with it, but it also kinda irks me. I suppose the issue lies with the idea that reading "Kids Books" needs to be justified or validated. As in, if the NY Times says its okay, then its okay. (Which...sidebar: most of the books they discuss are YA, so the title is a little misleading. Although they do mention Oz, which is for younger readers.)
Overall, I guess its a good thing. If people start to view reading MG/YA books as something positive, maybe it will help the attitude toward scholarship. Because, let's face it, there's a hierarchy within literary criticism. Those who study canonical literature (Shakespeare & Dickens & Hemingway), those who study lesser literature (e.g., Children's Literature, world literatures) and those who study...well, comic books. And anime/manga. And fanfiction. I'm not studying that those latter categories can't yield good scholarship -- they can, and do -- it's just that it's usually very rare and buried within a lot of crap. And I love studying Shakespeare and Dickens and, okay, not so much with the Hemingway, but it is VERY difficult to find anything new to write about Shakespeare that hasn't already been written. Which is the great thing about my field -- its new and developing and will pretty much always be around.
Also, I realized I have no "Children's Literature" icon. This is the best I could do. Hmm. A problem which needs to be remedied.
I came across *THIS ARTICLE* today.
I love it, I agree with it, but it also kinda irks me. I suppose the issue lies with the idea that reading "Kids Books" needs to be justified or validated. As in, if the NY Times says its okay, then its okay. (Which...sidebar: most of the books they discuss are YA, so the title is a little misleading. Although they do mention Oz, which is for younger readers.)
Overall, I guess its a good thing. If people start to view reading MG/YA books as something positive, maybe it will help the attitude toward scholarship. Because, let's face it, there's a hierarchy within literary criticism. Those who study canonical literature (Shakespeare & Dickens & Hemingway), those who study lesser literature (e.g., Children's Literature, world literatures) and those who study...well, comic books. And anime/manga. And fanfiction. I'm not studying that those latter categories can't yield good scholarship -- they can, and do -- it's just that it's usually very rare and buried within a lot of crap. And I love studying Shakespeare and Dickens and, okay, not so much with the Hemingway, but it is VERY difficult to find anything new to write about Shakespeare that hasn't already been written. Which is the great thing about my field -- its new and developing and will pretty much always be around.
Also, I realized I have no "Children's Literature" icon. This is the best I could do. Hmm. A problem which needs to be remedied.