Painting Watercolors of Cats

Margo Rabb has in essay in this Sunday's New York Times Book Review, called "I'm YA, and I'm OK." It looks at the choice of "YA or adult" from an author's perspective. I quite enjoyed the article, and have a few reactions:

--I don't think authors always know their audience, to be honest. Do I find author intent interesting? Yes; but not controlling.

-- including James Patterson in the list is a joke. Seriously. Yes, I know Rabb had to do it, because he's such a big name and all, but ask any YA librarian worth their salt and they'll tell you 2 things: the belief that Patterson tried to "cash in" on the allegedly lucrative YA market (aka "wow look at how much money JKRowling makes"), plus it was always adults who were checking out the books (sometimes happy with the book, but also often angry that the book wasn't an adult book.)

-- Crossover from YA to Adult. Carlie did a presentation on this at the NJLA Conference in a room that was standing room only. Which shows that at least librarians are interested in letting adults know about the gems published as YA. (Carlie's email is on the sidebar, if you want to ask her about the presentation.) I got my Mom hooked on YA books by not telling her they were YA books, just that they were good books. I think libraries and bookstores need to shelve these books in multiple places; mix up the content of displays so that they include both adult and YA; and otherwise promote these books. The kidlitosphere does this, to a certain extent, but I'm sure we could do more.

-- I am amused that the "real literature" folks look down on YA, as, with few exceptions, I look down on what I see as pretensions of "real literature."

-- Rabb does not take on the "what is YA" question, and I'm glad about that, because that, my friends, is a question that could be answered in a book. Without getting too wordy about it, yes, I see a need for books that reflect teen lives, experiences, fears, hopes, wishes; and I'm glad that need is being met; and books, like people, are often too complex to warrant just one label.

-- Meg Rosoff is quite the character! Here's her money quote: "There isn’t an adult who’s going to trot into the children’s section to look for adult literature." True that! But -- and here, always, is my point -- they will to look for good literature.

Looking for good literature -- ah, there is the real question. And when there is a good book, what is done to match it with the most number of readers possible? I have to say that, despite it's problems, I think the current children's/YA/adult sections of a library/bookstore is the best answer for the general browsing public. As mentioned in other posts, I don't think books should be further broken down (here is our section for 5 year olds, here is our section for smart 5 year olds, here is our section for 13 year olds who think they are 20 but are really more like 8, etc.) And I cannot seriously advocate telling a 14 year old, hunt and peck thru the adult titles to find the ones you want. So what is my answer for putting books in the hands of people?

Multiple copies in multiple areas. Displays that include both YA and adult and children. Catalog and online descriptions and reviews that include that it's a crossover title. Booklists that include all titles. Staff that booktalk and recommend all titles. I hate to say this, but I still find library staff, who should know better, who believe that YA is for readers aged 10 to 13, and after that it's off to the adult shelves for them. So yes, workshops, programs like the one Carlie gave, articles. As with everything...not sitting back and complaining, but sitting back, complaining, and then acting.

EDITED TO ADD: DVD Bonus material to come! Margo Rabb promises to post at her blog some of the interviews, etc., that weren't included in the article. Yay! (And on a side note: see, this is how print and online media can work together.)

Another Article About Those Darn Bloggers

An interesting article and take on the "print v online" debate when it comes to reviewers or critics or whatever the heck you want to call yourself.

Is it curtains for critics? from The Observer; I saw it first at Justine Larbalestier's blog.

In terms of the print v online debate, it's almost sad that people still see a difference. Much online content fills different needs than print; but traditional print media has missed the boat, not realizing what their audience wants.

As I've pointed out before, there isn't a lot of print coverage of children's/YA books, so the blogosphere fills that vacuum.

When there is coverage, the print newspapers don't always know what they are talking about (a point also made by Justine).

After reading the Is it curtains for critics essay, I see another reason for the downfall of print media in this area. It's the attitude that, "I'm smarter than you, I know more than you, listen to me" -- when the basis of the "smarter" is only that they write for print, have been doing this for a long time, and get paid for what they do.

Nope, those factors don't mean that automatically, without thought, I defer to "print expertise." I read what you write and decide based on what you actually write, rather than who you are. (Again, a point also made by Justine -- you can see why I was so eager to read the actual article after reading her write up of it!)

Add to that, as is pointed out by a blogger in the article, the act of writing professionally for years can change one's own tastes to the point where the writer is actually out of step with their audience. And here's the thing -- I can see the professional critic saying "but that is good." But the audience is telling you -- "no, it's not." And that is why perhaps the print media may actually be right to dump their critics; the realization that the critics are out of touch with their audience.

Anyway, some choice quotage (sometimes from the author of the essay, others from interviews within the essay.)

"It appears that consumers no longer feel the need to obtain their opinions from on high: the authority of the critic, derived from their paid position on a newspaper, is diminished." The key clause of t his sentence is authority that is derived from being paid by the newspaper -- and this is where the traditional critics are being left behind, in that they still believe that is enough. No, it is not.

"If you really are good at it you figure out some way to get paid for it. At the risk of sounding elitist, everyone has an opinion, but not everyone has an informed opinion." Actually, I totally agree with this one! Where we would disagree, is that no, it's not so easy getting paid for this stuff. As I write this, and do some editing, I wish I had a real editor so that this would be tighter, and less "I, I, I". But I don't have that luxury. And, to repeat what is already stated, the definition of "informed" is not "being paid by the newspaper." The blogosphere has some stuff that is just crap; absolutely true.. After reading the umpteeth poorly written synopsis of a book with only the explanation of "I loved it"/"I hated it," I want an informed opinion by someone who knows how to write. But here's the thing -- there is also some great stuff in the blogosphere. And that badly written synopsis/loved it review? It can be found both online and in print.

One journalist muses, "I just don't want to hang around with company I don't value. Life's too short". Right back at you, baby! Except, um, YOURS may be the company I don't value.

More on "teh authority" the obedient audience should be silently listening to and agreeing with and following without question: "Spencer agrees. 'You're supplying a service, one with real authority behind it. There is always going to be a need for expert opinion.' Don't even mention the need for the democratisation of opinion to Brian Sewell. 'I do not believe in the democratisation of opinion. I believe in benign authority. And if we undermine the authority of critics then we shall descend into mayhem." The disagreement I have is both the implied definition of "expert" and of the need of a "benign authority" I should shut up and listen to. I find it amusing that the UK viewpoint is so wrapped up in "benign authority." I don't believe in this; I can respect the hell out of you, but not agree with you every time, and not put aside my own thoughts, beliefs, experience, and reactions to say "oh yes you are always right."

One person recognizes that print no longer equals better, but, alas, I cannot tell his tone: "And we have to accept that the printed word no longer has aristocratic supremacy".

An "expert" can be an amateur blogger; look into their background and they have read or viewed or attended the books, films, plays that the "experts" have. Important things I look at are the depth of knowledge of the person writing, be it blog or print; their knowledge of the subject area; and whether they write well. But, in all honesty, I have seen as many historical mistakes in print as I have online, so, no, the lack of deep knowledge of a subject area is not limited to one medium.

The eliminating of critics and reviews in print media is not a good thing; ideally, the competition of online content should be a wake-up call to traditional print media that they are not meeting the needs of their audience. That newspapers and magazines react by dumping those coverage areas is proof that they not only aren't meeting their audience needs; they don't fully understand their audience and what the audience wants and needs.

Direct Delivery of Services

Jenny Han of The Longstockings looks at Bookswim and asks a very good question: why pay for something the library gives us for free?

In true blogger fashion,* I ignored the question Jenny was asking and didn't even look further into Bookswim. Jenny does, with a few test searches to show that your local library collection is probably better than Bookswim.

To me, the heart of Jenny's great post is this:

I know people are all about the renting these days (prom dresses, movies, designer bags, groceries) but why fix something that isn't broken? The library works just fine and it's free. Are we so lazy that we need the books delivered to our doorstep?

In the comments, I responded how my love for things like Netflix is founded in convenience rather than laziness. Given a finite amount of time and a seemingly infinite number of things to do, having the option of checking one thing off the list while still getting great service is wonderful.** So what about you? Do you love/hate/never tried services like Bookswim and Netflix? Why? Go join in the conversation over at The Longstockings.

Personally, to back up to the library part -- I think for some of us, convenience does indeed trump free. Add to that, sometimes the service is better -- I've twice had lost DVDs with Netflix*** and they never gave me a trouble, as compared to the attitude some libraries give over lost / claimed returned items. Plus, no late fees! I can have the item as long or as short as I need! I can wait for the weekend to watch my movies, rather than in the 3 days libraries give me.

I think libraries are at a crossroads: are we more about community? Carlie has a great post about the books v community center issue; and personally, I fear that the more we say "hey we are a community center" the more responses we will get that are "cool then let's close the libraries and spend the money on community centers with small book collections."

Jenny's post reminds me of two things: the community does think of us first and foremost as being about the materials, even if some libraries and librarians don't. And if we give that identity up, someone else - like Bookswim - will step in. When that happens, those who cannot afford Bookswim, or who still like the place of the library,**** will lose something valuable.

So what can libraries do? Based on my own selfish desire for convenience, the idea of mailing books is a great idea. Some libraries have been doing it for decades. What about remote bookdrops?

Final word: while I enjoy "mail to me" service, with gas prices going up, economically it may be a good idea to start offering book services that go beyond the "drive to me" option.

Cross posted at Pop Goes the Library.

*Blogger fashion -- using someone else's post to go off on my own tangents, rather than the questions they raise. C'mon, I do it, you do it -- admit it!

**I'm talking about Netflix; I haven't tried the other services like Bookswim.

*** Lost in the mail. Both items eventually turned up.

****I still love browsing books on shelves! But Netflix shows a electronic database can be browsable.

Pact, Plot, Privacy

I continue to be fascinated by how the Gloucester High School pregnancy story is treated in the media.

Now the mayor of Gloucester is saying "she is concerned about protecting the privacy of the girls involved, as well as wanting to make sure everyone representing the city is working with the same level of information." (Gloucester Daily Times.) Perhaps that should have been a concern, oh, let's say a week ago? Perhaps this should have been the response sooner? OK, I get that the town was surprised and unprepared to handle the attention this brought to them; but still.

And meanwhile, the source of the "p" word and all its implications doesn't quite remember where he heard about the plot pact:* the local paper.

I still question about the judgment of Time magazine running these "facts." And you gotta love their current headline on this: Gloucester Pregnancy Plot Thickens. Changing one loaded term (pact) to another one (plot.) (Interesting to note: per this second Time article, Sullivan wasn't the only adult sharing information about minors that IMHO is private.)

Teen pregnancy is a serious issue; especially when teens believe that it is a viable, sound, desirable option, pact or no pact. The seriousness and complexity of this issue is lost and minimized by using words like "pact," "plot", and blaming pro-adoption movies.

After I post this, I could find out that the pregnant teens all just agreed to appear on Oprah. But in today's fifteen-minutes-of-fame world, I am a bit impressed that so far not one of these teens, or their families, have agreed to speak with the press or to appear on a TV show.

*Edited to correct plot to pact. Sorry! But it does illustrate how loaded the word "plot" is - and how Time Magazine seems to be saying that the Plot involves everyone else when, you know, they are a PART of the story now, not just reporting it. So, plot includes them.

New Policy!

So I've decided to charge you every time you want to quote this blog.

It'll be a sliding scale -- $12.50 for the first 5 to 25 words. And if I don't like what you say, you cannot quote me at all.

KIDDING.

But this is apparently what the Associated Press has decided to do. More info at Boing Boing (link from Big A little a).

More information is at The Washington Post, for those who may think "oh it's just some bloggers getting upset it's not a real issue." (link from Melissa Wiley).

Huh. So that's the way you see things?

Monica Edinger highlighted Frank Cottrell Boyce's comments on YA contained in a recent Guardian book review. Monica has a conversation going on at her blog, but as my comment became longer and longer I realized I needed to post on it here, also.

To quote in pertinent part from FCB:

If I have one quibble, it is that I think it should be sitting proudly on the shelf next to these books, rather than being hidden away in the "young adult" ghetto. There's been a lot of fury among authors recently about the proposal to "age-band" children's books, but in a way they're too late. The real disaster has already happened. It's called "young adult" fiction. It used to be the case that you moved on from children's fiction to adult fiction, from The Owl Service, maybe, to Catcher in the Rye. There were, of course, some adult authors who were more fashionable with teenage readers than others - Salinger, Vonnegut, Maya Angelou. But these were chosen by teenagers themselves from the vast world of books. Some time ago, someone saw that trend and turned it into a demographic. Fortunes were made but something crucial was lost. We have already ghettoised teenagers' tastes in music, in clothes and - God forgive us - in food. Can't we at least let them share our reading? Is there anything more depressing than the sight of a "young adult" bookshelf in the corner of the shop. It's the literary equivalent of the "kids' menu" - something that says "please don't bother the grown-ups". If To Kill a Mockingbird were published today, that's where it would be placed, among the chicken nuggets.

This is not just a question of taste. It seems to me that the real purpose of stories and reading is to take you out of yourself and put you somewhere else. Anything that is made to be sold to a particular demographic, however, will always end up reflecting the superficial concerns of that demographic. I've lived through an era in which demographic-fixation murdered popular cinema and replaced a vibrant art form with a kind of digital holding-pen for teenage boys. I think we're in danger of doing the same to fiction. The best young adult fiction - The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time, A Swift Pure Cry, Noughts and Crosses and so on - strolls out of its category. I've no doubt at all that The Knife of Never Letting Go will do the same. Don't let the demographic exclude you.

Part of me doesn't want to comment at all, from the sense that I'm fast beginning to wonder just what the hell is going on over in the UK with books and reading. Do people really tell teens they cannot read adult books? Is YA Lit really being used as restrictive box to keep teens away from adult materials?

In my experiences, YA Lit offers us more choices, not less. That, at its heart, is my view towards books and reading: what expands our world rather than limits it?

Age banding (along with the implicit using of banding for censoring -- no kisses before 13! No divorce before 11! No death before 9! No GLBT ever!) is voiced in terms of limiting choices, not opening up a world. Yet, FCB uses language that says the existence of YA lit is itself limiting. And for that, I have to disagree; and the only thing I can really point to is my own experiences as a reader, and what I observe with others, and it's all in the US, so FCB may be entirely right for the UK. I don't know.

FCB recalls teenagers going from children's lit to adult lit, and worries that today's teens are being kept from that adult lit. He also seems to be saying that good YA books are really adult books with a bad label.

As a lifelong reader, my choices have always been varied. At ten I was reading adult fiction; but I was also reading children's lit. It was never an either/or; and there was never a "don't read this," either at home, in a bookstore, or in a library. So yes, I did read adult lit as a teen; but I see today's teens doing likewise, reading a bit from here, a bit from there.

As for what YA lit has become.... I look at what we have now and get angry and jealous that I didn't have the reading choices as a teen that teens have today. I recall looking at adult shelves to try to find something that was teen friendly -- so some of my adult book reading was not a choice, but a default. I would have loved to have the books that are available today; and I hope that these books don't go away.

Age Banding in the UK

I meant to blog about age banding a few days ago when I first saw it mentioned at Publishers Weekly. In a nutshell, publishers and parents in the UK apparently have said, "hey, it would be so cool if all books had labels saying "this is for kids aged x."" Authors, librarians, and booksellers have responded with a loud "hell, no" (Well, to be fair, some authors are saying it's good.*)

Fuse posted about it today, with some more links on reactions to it. One of the many things the authors are saying are saying is "booksellers have the knowledge without age banding thank you very much." Fuse's comment to this is "Sure sure. Or, y'know, maybe you could ask someone with an actual degree in children's literature like a, gee I dunno, librarian? Come on, Phil. We need all the shout-outs we can get."

Going just a wee bit wanky, I'd amend Fuse's comment a bit. Oh, I agree that the librarians are great at matching books to readers, and it's sad that many of the comments arising from this issue are of the "librarians didn't let me read a book" variety.

But what makes librarian's great isn't a degree in children's literature. Cause I don't have that (tho sometimes I really like the idea of getting a PhD in children's literature. Know a good program?)

Like most librarians, what I have is a Masters of Library and Information Sciences, which included two relevant classes: Materials for Children and Materials for Young Adults. See, I think the thing with librarians isn't so much that they know children's lit ... it's that they are the matchmaker, matching the book and the child, and that is what is unique about librarians.

Or, rather, should be unique about librarians. Sometimes, I wonder.

I've posted before (here and at Pop) about how, to my sorrow, books seem to be "so last year" when libraries talk. It's all about, well, things that aren't books. So libraries outsource selection and cataloging. It's about programming. It's about becoming a community center. Books? Oh, they will disappear soon. People buy what they want at Amazon. How many libraries really support readers advisory?

Yet, people are crying out for readers advisory and to talk about books. Look at the popularity of GoodReads, Shelfari, LibraryThing. Any of those could have been -- should have been -- library ideas. Because people still want books, and want to talk about books, and want suggestions on what to read next. Most front line library staff know this, as do those of us librarians who went into librarianship because of books. The most popular programs I go to at library conferences and workshops are about books.

Do we need shout-outs, like Fuse said?

Absolutely.

But we also need to "shout out" ourselves, about our unique ability to be book matchmakers; more so than bookstores, in that we have old books and new books, popular books and niche books, and so have a bigger selection of books for people to read. We need to keep up with what books are out there -- by reading reviews, both professional and informal; by reading books that are readers guides. We -- not an age on a book -- are the best help to someone who is looking for the right book for a child. And we need to let more people know that.

To show just how much we fail at letting people outside the library world know what we do, take a look at Ypulse's great book preconference (aka where I would go if I won the lottery tomorrow.) Yes, an amazing line up...but where are the YA librarians, talking about readers advisory and handselling books and booktalks and letting people know about how librarians figure into publishing? We have something to offer!

Back to the topic of age banding:

To start, no, the proposed UK system is not the same as what some publishers do here in the US (the smallish for ages 8 to 12 on the back of a book). The proposal is for the following categories: 5+, 7+, 9+, 11+ and 13+/teen.

Using an "age band" for a book is deceptive. It appears to be helpful -- to match the book to the reader. But it's as deceptive as talking about "boy books" and "girl books." Books are much more than a book for a particular age or gender. Readers have more subtle and complex needs than that. And yes, labelling books can create a backlash, with kids refusing to read because something is too babyish. I've also seen, again and again, parents and teachers view books as no more than a "checklist" item to prove a child's genius and maturity, so there will be some who say "I have an 7 year old but I want the 13 year old books because my child is gifted."

The truth is there is no one book that is a match for every 8 year old. And adults who want that simple match are fooling themselves; books are not school uniforms or clothes. Each 8 year old is different; and to get that book for that child, you either need to do a lot of reading yourselves or to find a professional who has done that reading to help match book to child.

* My interpretation of Rosoff's defense of age banding is she sees it as a way not to censor but rather to assist adults who know nothing about children's books who want to buy something for a child. I agree, that is a problem; but I disagree that the solution is to label books in the way proposed, and would argue that it would cause more problems than it solves.

Cross posted at Pop.

I'm Back!

I'm back from vacation in North Carolina; like many other folks from NJ, every time I visit I think, look at how cheap houses are! I should totally move here!

So, what did I miss? I have over 500 emails and over 3000 posts at bloglines. Wow. And, I also have to do laundry today.

Carlie's post on ARCs is a real conversation starter, especially as it picks up on something I read (somewhere? look at all those emails and posts, of course I'm confused!) about how while publishers and authors may look at reviewers, bloggers, and ARCs as part of the marketing of the book, we (reviewers, readers, and readers), no matter how much we love the authors, are in it for the book.

Just look at some of the language contained on ARCs (more on that in a future post, I promise!), which comes down to "you give us a negative review from an ARC and we'll sue you." Which is so not cool! Publishers, you create these ARCs to have pre-publication buzz and reviews. Which means that you have to take the risk that some will love it, some will hate it, some will get it, some won't. Just like with the final book.

OK, I'm back to reading why I will never go to a science fiction convention. And when authors and reviewers go into battle, and Amazon ends up looking bad.

Book Snobs

In skimming blog posts at my bloglines account, this line from a Blog of a Bookslut post jumped out at me: People feel anxious about the demise of reading, but those anxieties are groundless, and perhaps rooted in snobbery.

Oooh, snobbery! As you know from my posts here and here, oh, found another one, I love reading. And, as with anything a person loves, hopes other people love it; and wants other people to love it; and loves talking about books and discussing them and arguing about them.

But I've never been a fan of the concept that what one reads, or doesn't read, makes one a better person than someone else. So I had to follow that link, and found a delightful interview with Mikita Brottman at Nerve.com about her book, The Solitary Vice: Against Reading.

Despite the "against reading" subtitle, here is what Brottman thinks: Despite her own book's title, she doesn't believe people should stop reading. In fact, she says we're reading more than ever — websites, email, text messages, blogs — and that this type of reading is more valuable than an unhappy slog through The Iliad.

Brottman on the concept that reading for pleasure is bad, while reading a book you don't like is good: And whether we're getting too much pleasure out of reading, as though if we really enjoy it then we're not learning from it, that it should be a struggle, it should be difficult, and we should just plow on with something even if we're not particularly engaged in it.

I'm very intrigued by the book, and hope my local library has it.

Scattered Thoughts on the Harry Potter Lexicon Lawsuit

I've been musing about the WB/ JK Rowling vs RDR Books lawsuit based on Steve Vander Ark's Lexicon book.

I'm going to be the bad blogger and not link to the news articles; there are so many articles and blogposts etc. In terms of accurate sources of information (as opposed to opinion), I recommend Fandom Wank; look for the posts by Cleolinda, like this one and posts tagged "This is the wank that never ends". It goes without saying that the good coverage (meaning including facts as opposed to commentary, like what I'm about to do) comes from the HP news sites such as The Leaky Cauldron and MuggleNet. Fans care about details; the lawsuit is all about the details; hence the good coverage.

I'll be upfront with my bias: I'm Team Rowling on this one.

So, back to my musings:

Why does it matter how much money JKR has earned or is worth?
Seriously, anytime I read an article that includes a "doesn't she have enough money" type statement, it bothers me. What does that have to do with JKR enforcing her rights? On depressing days, it seems like she's being told to be a good little girl: you've earned enough money, so be quiet and sit in the corner and don't try to earn any more.

Do you really want a defense of "she said she liked it" to succeed?
Cause you don't have to be a former lawyer to realize, hm, why would an author ever say they liked a fansite again? A loss for JKR on this would result in creators (musicians, authors, screenwriters, etc.) being cautioned: don't say you like it, it could mean you lose your right to control your creation or to make money off of it.

Do you really want a defense of "she didn't say to stop" to succeed?
See above; this would add to a creator not just being silent about certain fansites; but now feeling like they have to actively shut them down to preserve their own future rights.

Have you read the Lexicon book?
The actual manuscript is key to whether or not the Lexicon Book is or is not permitted under applicable law. It may be; it may not be. Unfortunately, the publishers dragged their feet in providing a copy, believing, apparently, that their saying "we don't think it infringes" is enough to establish that it doesn't. At the same time, they told JKR's side that if they wanted to know what the book would look like, go to the Lexicon and hit the print key (you do know how to use the print key, don't you?)

Aside from the awesome snark in that reply, it isn't true; the book is not the website simply printed out and bound in a book. At one point, there was talk about the essays on the Lexicon site being included, until it turned out that the authors of the essays had never been contacted about giving permission for their work to be published in a book. So right there -- hitting the print key doesn't give you the book. I also believe the Lexicon had movie photos; and as WB property, their would be an issue of whether or not they could be in the book. So, again --"just look at the website" isn't the answer. Oh, and as to the authors of the content on the Lexicon; given fan input into entries, I'm not sure whether or not it's even possible to get the permissions of everyone who contributed, unless their input included something to cover their work being in the book.

A lot of this is dependent on facts, especially what is or is not in the actual Lexicon book. And without reading it, it is hard to say who is right. I'm leaning towards Rowling, just because the snark from RDR, the changing description of the book, and the failure to provide a copy to resolve it pre-litigation all looks suspicious to me.

You own the family tree? Really?
Part of the reason JKR/WB being threatened with suit over using a HP family tree amuses me is because I constantly doodle fake family trees while reading books. I also love finding them online, especially for sprawling trees such as Jude Devereaux's Montgomery family. I would love for someone to explain to me just how JKR can be sued over a family tree based entirely on her own creation. Perhaps using certain colors or fonts is the issue? But as for the time being put in compiling it... OK, JKR is bad at math, but do you really believe she doesn't have a family tree she's working with? And even if she didn't, back to the points above regarding what authors will or won't do about fansites. If JKR were to lose on the family tree issue, what author or publisher in their right mind will allow you to put up a family tree unchallenged?

I mean, imagine this. I create a chart from Sarah Dessen's books showing who appears in what page in which book (SD uses characters from previous books). Can I sue SD when I see a similar chart on her blog? In one of her books?

Part of the risk of playing in someone else's sandbox is you cannot argue, "I built the sandcastle so now I own this part of the sandbox."

How will fandom be affected, depending on who wins?
We're not just talking about the Potter fandom here. This could have implications for all fandoms. If there is a ruling in RDR's favor, the lawyers for authors and publishers (and, yes, lawyers in film and TV) will go thru line by line, word by word, looking to see what they as the original creators should do to prevent another RDR-type win.

If the ruling points to JKR's saying "how nice," original creators will be advised to never compliment a fan site.

If a ruling says JKR said nothing, original creators will be advised to speak up and shut down fan sites.

If a ruling points to movie DVDs speaking favorably of fansites, that ends. So if Stephenie Meyer wants to include fanart in a Twilight DVD? It won't happen.

So, spun out to worst case scenario, it might mean that no one can participate in fandoms anymore because then fans could continue to make money off the source material. If you're thinking to yourself, "Well, I don't write fanfiction or create fanart, so this doesn't affect me," think again. To stop the production of any questionable fan-created content, authors could shut down any sites related to their works that they themselves did not create. No more Star Wars fansites. No more Team Edward versus Team Jacob debates, and definitely no t-shirts. Perhaps even no more Television Without Pity, because the writers there have created phrases now used by show fandoms. It would all be considered too risky for an author or TV series creator to allow.

In putting this together, I found the following bit by SVA:
A victory for RDR Books will protect the rights of fans to create based on someone else’s work. If RDR Books loses, copyright holders will be given broad new control over fan activity, control which will allow them to shut down sites, stop authors from writing about their works, etc. So a win for RDR Books is definitely in the best interest of fans who create websites, write fanfiction, make wands, compose wizard rock, and so on. I am surprised how many fans have missed this point. Their freedom to create is on the line here.

I'm one of those who have "missed the point." The way I see it, the only way a ruling will protect fans (and let's ignore for now the legal implications of a trial, in terms of who it applies to, etc.) is if the ruling says regardless of anything JKR did or did not do, RDR has the right to publish the book; thereby leaving no loophole for a future JKR to say "this is what I can/cannot do to stop a lexicon type book from being published." It also ignores one of the points of the lawsuit: is the Lexicon so original (as, say, is wizard rock) that it falls under an existing exception? Or is it so derivative of JKR's work that it lacks originality and so does not fall under an existing exception?

My conclusion
Fandom is wonderful. It creates community; and I would really hate to see it negatively impacted as a result of this lawsuit. Part of me fears that even if JKR wins, original content owners will still come down hard on fansites (or cease to interact with fansites) just to be on the safe side.

I also wonder: why not, at the start of all of this, say, "hey, the owner of HP thinks this is a copyright violation. Let me prove it isn't by showing her the work itself." Since the only way to determine that is to examine the work, why push it and force the lawsuit?

Mary Sue Memoirs

A Mary Sue, in fanfiction, is an author who inserts herself into the story as an original character. There are many ways to identify the Mary Sue; it usually includes a Tragic Backstory as well as feeling Terribly Sorry for the Mary Sue.

As I read about the recent fake memoirs, especially Margaret Jones/Seltzer, it struck me -- these are Mary Sue memoirs! Except instead of being fanfiction about fiction (TV, Movies, books) it's fanfiction about real events; with the writer needing to be a part of the story. Better yet -- as the New York Times puts it, they need to steal another's suffering.

Anyhow.

There is a huge difference between having your own version of your childhood and your life, and, oh, changing the version so now you're a foster child instead of a child of privilege, or, better yet, rather than being raised by uncaring adults, you're being raised by caring wolves. Regarding the first, anyone who has siblings has seen this firsthand, as you compare childhood stories and realize that your memories don't always mesh. We, the readers, get it; why don't the publishers and those who defend the Mary Sue Memoirs?


Thanks to MediaBistro - Galleycat, I find some of the worst nonsense defending these Mary Sue Memoirs. It's not quite the "anytime a person writes it's fiction, get over it" argument I've read (good-bye, non-fiction!), but it's just as bad, as some Self Important Ivory Tower person says, it's ludicrous to expect memoir to be "documentary truth." Rather what is important is whether it is "meaningful" or has "higher truths". By using this definition, we get to sidestep the issue that Real Former Gang Members or Real Holocaust survivors are the ones with the "truths" and facts to be writing the memoirs, while the rest of us who want to write about these things can do so using fiction.

And, of course, it gets both better and sadder. Because both of the most recent memoirs were about people living the Mary Sueness well before any book deal. Seltzer/Jones went so far as to involve her child, who either (a) was raised believing this or (b) was taught to lie for the nice reporters from the New York Times.

I used to wonder why the Little House books were not published as non-fiction. Her name was Laura; she had a sister named Mary; she really lived in those places. But Laura Ingalls Wilder and the publishing world back then knew the difference between fiction and non-fiction. It makes perfect sense, now, just why those childhood stories are in the fiction.

Oh, Grow Up

So, yesterday Roger famously (or infamously?) began a post about reviews and ended up with "Whatever whoever chooses to read is their business, of course, but adults whose taste in recreational reading ends with the YA novel need to grow up."

Last night when I went to bed there were about 20 comments; now there are 30.

As an adult whose recreational reading includes YA, I want to respond. Yet I found I wanted to say more than is right for a comment. So here goes.

I'm rubber
You're glue
Whatever you say bounces off of me
And sticks to you!

Ha ha ha. Cause I'm not a grown up!

Seriously, folks.

These type of one liners are great to get some comments on a slow day (I personally was going to post "Twilight sucks" just for the comments); or to stir the pot just to stir, if you know what I mean.

Or, they can be dead on serious.

I could take apart the sentence; oh, if my YA reading is not "recreational" but for another reason, I'm still a grown up as defined by RR. Or, if I read other than YA, I'm still a grown up (tho I suspect that if the "other" I read is children's and picture books, I may not be meeting the definition.)

Others have already chimed in with some of my points; that the majority of YA is better edited than adult stuff. I mentally red-pen much more of the adult stuff I read; tho, of course, that is not true of all adult; just as it's not true of all YA. Absolutes, you know -- one really should stay away from them.

Which led me to two conclusions:

Start counting or listing the reasons people read, even under the umbrella of "recreational," and you'd need a book. I think it's impossible to draw an "if x, then y" conclusion about any reading a person does, because the reasons people read and what they get out of it are so varied and complex and personal.

When I think of what makes a person a "grown up", what they read does not even make the top 100. Probably top of my list is the ability to see things in shades of gray, rather than black and white; and to still come to decisions instead of using gray to justify any action or inaction. Followed closely by the realization that my listening to you, and understanding you, does not mean I agree with you.

So I guess my disappointment with Roger's post is not so much whether or not he thinks I'm a grown up -- but, rather, that he makes that statement based on such a small part of who I am as a person; and he makes that statement believing it is always true of everyone. That he begins with reading being a choice, yet ends with slamming the choices people make.

I think, as a librarian and as a person, that I should respect the reader; and respect what they are reading. Sometimes it is helpful to know "why" in order to recommend other books. But for the most part -- read your mysteries, your adventure stories, your graphic novels, even your serious literary works. Read Mary Sue Memoirs if that's your thing.

Heck, if you want -- read Twilight. And I'll still think you're a grown up.

What is History?

Marc Aronson is discussing history and fictionalizing nonfiction over at his SLJ blog, NonFiction Matters.

I find this fascinating, in part because I read those Childhood of Famous Americans (or whatever it was called) series as a kid, and they were presented and placed as nonfiction; and all it took was reading one biography, and applying some common sense, to realize that things were made up (or, as Marc would say, fictionalized.) Still, it was a conclusion I came to on my own as a kid; and it didn't ruin the books for me. (I understand that some readers, even now, feel "betrayed" when they discover a book they read includes fictionalized history.) If anything, I still love historical fiction.

But, I do know kids who believe that Dragons are real because the Dragonology books are in the nonfiction section of the library. Yes, eventually they will "get it", but in the meanwhile, are libraries doing a disservice to kids by not shelving these books in the fiction section?

I read historical fiction and often then read the actual history books after. That said, I do know that I'll always feel more or less sympathetic to certain historical figures based on fiction books. Richard III, I believe you are innocent of killing the princes! And it's one reason I appreciate endnotes where an author shares resources and points out to what historical facts were altered to make the narrative better.

When history and fiction mix (in books such as Good Masters, Sweet Ladies, which I love) it can become difficult. I think GM, SL is a perfect book for using as a teaching resource, because the author is clear (so the teacher and students will be clear) as to what is real and what is made up; and it presents historical information in way that is easy to understand and fun to read. That said, since the village and villagers are not real, and their emotions and words are made up, I would not put this book in with history books and would not hand it to someone as a nonfiction book.

I'm very fascinated by Marc's posts, and he promises more to come.

Harry Potter

As I read the various articles about Harry Potter, the book, the movie, etc., I think, huh, it's rather funny; Harry Potter is not only expected to defeat Voldemort, he's also expected to single handedly change the reading habits of the entire world.

And while there is more about the reporting on & reviewing of HP that I want to post about it, I'll hold off for now. For example, why is it OK to so totally bash HP, JKR, and the readers? I've read comments and posts and articles that treat the book, the author, and the readers in a way that I rarely, if ever, see other books & authors & readers treated. It's as if they're the Paris Hilton of the publishing world (except, with panties and no arrests.) Meaning, JKR is so rich that it's OK to bash her, her work product, and her readers.

But, what motivated me to comment was this great post over at The Longstockings. My favorite line, to the bashers? And in the name of all I cherish, stop trying to ruin the fun for the rest of us. Which is ANOTHER odd thing; rarely have I seen people so intent on ruining the reading pleasure of others, by both talking down about what they read and getting read to spoil the ending out of meanness.

My favorite point, because I totally agree: Who cares if people don't read novels? (*Ducks under desk to avoid flying objects*) Okay, clearly I do, because my friends and I write them and I'd like that to be an economically viable profession. But honestly, no one is suffering a deficit of fiction or stories, thanks to this handy little moving-picture machine we all have in our homes.

As you know, I don't play sports. So, whenever I read about what people do or don't do for pleasure and entertainment, about their own personal choices, I try to imagine, what if they were talking about me and what I choose. So, instead of all the cries about people not reading novels, imagine the complaints about people not playing sports. Here's the thing: WE CANNOT FORCE PEOPLE TO ENJOY DOING SOMETHING THEY DON'T ENJOY. There will always be a percentage of people who don't like doing what I like doing; in this case, read novels.

But guess what? We're not going to convince anyone that reading novels is great! fun! if we bash their reading choices. And, of course, as it becomes clear with all these "people don't read enough novels" nonsense, what the writers really mean is that we are supposed to "read novels that are literary and worthwhile and not Harry Potter or chick lit or science fiction." So, not only are these writers insisting that readers must enjoy reading novels, they must enjoy reading a certain sort of novel.

And, speaking of novels, what's wrong with people reading nonfiction for enjoyment?

And, as you know from my intro at the top of the blog, I'm more about the story than the books (tho I don't post enough about the movies & TV I watch.) So I loved the nod of respect to other ways that people get story.

Anyway. Enough of my Monday Morning Rant. Time to get ready for work.

Cross posted at Pop Goes the Library.

Huh. It's True : Updated with Rant!

Network TV executives do hate their audiences. And also? They don't understand their audience. Sigh. You know, I'd have a better time adjusting to Jericho's cancellation if it had been for a real reason.

Edited to add:

A new CBS response gives some hope of "closure". Link from Sound the Sirens.

Here's the thing. The THREE MONTH hiatus did not help the show. And, apparently, watching a show via TiVo (or DVR) doesn't count as "watching" when the suits look at numbers.

Sophie & Melissa & I have long wondered about American TV not being able to break out of the "same old, same old" view of what a TV series and a TV season is. Look at all the great British shows that are less than the standard 22 episodes. Maybe it's time that TV not only considers watchers who watch via TiVo (and DVR and other nontraditional ways), but also reconsiders season length (perhaps shorter than 22) and also rethinks TV shows not being "open ended." Some shows need to know when they will end to be properly written and acted. A TV show shouldn't be viewed as something that only has value if it can last multiple seasons.

On a final note: I'm equally pissed at the people behind Jericho for giving us this cliff hanger with too many unresolved and open storylines. Supernatural did it right; they wrapped up the season long stories (Demon, Dad In Hell), and while they have a couple of new unresolved and open items (aka Jensen, don't ask for more money) if Supernatural hadn't been picked up, viewers would have had a sense of closure. That closure is missing in Jericho. (And for the record? I'm very scared that the Veronica Mars finale will be more Jericho than Supernatural.)

(And CBS, thinking you'll be edgy by having a vampire detective show? Do you really think it's never been done?)

Play a Half Hour of Baseball Every Day

The amount of people who don't exercise in this country is frightening! So in order to make sure we have the healthiest people ever, and to make sure everyone loves physical activity, and to develop teamwork, this summer all students must play a half hour of baseball every day. And so we know you did it, in September you're going to give an oral report about how much fun you had playing baseball over the summer. That way, if the two things you dislike most are sports and public speaking, we can get you to do these two things -- because forcing you to do it will make you like it. And will make you a better person.

What? You don't like baseball? OK, we'll give you options. You can either play baseball or volleyball. There must be something wrong with you if you don't like at least one of those sports!

That, my friends, would have been a nightmare scenario for me as a kid.

And that is why, when it comes to summer reading, I hate the idea of mandatory summer reading and reporting back.

I believe in matching the book to the reader; and love the challenge of finding something that a self-described "non-reader" will enjoy. And that may be fiction, fantasy, sports, non-fiction, graphic novel, or magazine. Yep, to me, if it's words, it's reading. I'm not going to look down at or dismiss the person who prefers to read science books.

I get a tremendous amount of pleasure out of reading; I love when I can share that. But if someone else doesn't, so what? We have to respect that different things work for different people. Reading fiction for pleasure isn't everyone's cup of tea.

That said, I also think that there are artificial barriers to reading, beyond the obvious such as dyslexia. We have kids who don't read Harry Potter at age six so get tagged as a "non reader" -- and believe that tag long after first grade. Or kids whose reading choices are disrespected, from the classic "yuck, comic books" to the equally prevalent "But he won't read fiction, he just takes out all these non fiction books, why won't he read a real book?" Or the kids who aren't introduced, for one reason or another, to the story that will make them say "yes, this is fun." And I will do my darnedest to make sure that those barriers don't prevent a kid or teen or adult from realizing that yes, they like reading, when the reading material is a match.

I don't think summer reading should be mandatory. And to the extent that it is, I think it should be individual, non-punishing, and persuasive as to the joys of reading. I applaud the schools who don't limit the reading list to a handful of titles, but instead offer hundreds of possibilities that covers a range of materials, including non-fiction.

Links:

My rant was inspired by To Require, Or Not To Require, at Educating Alice

Jumpstarting Students' Summer Reading: Classroom Strategies and Activities to Promote Independence by Franki at A Year of Reading has some wonderful ways in which kids can be persuaded into fun summer reading, rather than forced

Note: finding posts on this has been a bit tricky. So if you posted something about mandatory summer reading (love it? hate it? had to do it but tricks to make it fun for kids?) please let me know in the comments & I'll add you to the round up