CCBC-Net Archives
YALSA
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Marc Aronson <75664.3110>
Date: 29 Feb 96 08:56:12 EST
Roger is right about the bequest that YALSA (foolishly I believe) accepted. There was an article about this in SLJ not long after mid-winter in 1995. The conditions, though, are even worse than he suggested: the books have to promote
"positive values," equal -- and I do mean EQUAL -- weight has to be given to quality and popularity, the books have to be nominated by two teens as well as any adults, and both hardovers and paperbacks -- not just originals but reprints
-- have to be considered.
Think of all the terrible problems this creates: how can you judge popularity until the paperback comes out? So consideration of all books will be on a two year delay. How can you weight popularity against quality anyway? Does each increment of a thousand books sold exempt you from one illiterate sentence? At what point is a book so popular that quality does not count at all? Many astute librarians have assured me that they can get around "positive values" since reading is just such a value. If kids will read the book, no matter what is in it, it is promotes positive values. But in having to undertake this dance of evasion -- does this remind anyone of Havel or Kundera on publishing under Communism? -- you can be sure the award will again be skewed lower, defeating its own purpose.
There is also some talk of reinstating a National Book Award for kids' books, especially for YA. Jackie Woodson was honored at this year's award dinner for work she did for the foundation that gives the award, and several kids; publishers came to lobby for this. But who knows when this will happen, or whether. I also wonder who will judge the award? The most qualified people are the very librarians and critics who should, really, sit on a YALSA committee, not critics or writers who never read YA books.
Finally, my beef is not really with ALSC, or even with YALSA. In some very sixties self-examining way it is with all of us. Though I know the history of the awards and I can explain why things are as they are, anytime I really think about it I realize that the structure is absurd. I should add that I am writing a polemic about this that I hope to publish soon. The main point of that piece -- and this post -- is that in the end I think we want to forget about older teenagers and think of them as someone's else's problem. I think this is as much about psychology as it is about literature. But that is a screed for another day.
Marc Aronson
Received on Thu 29 Feb 1996 07:56:12 AM CST
Date: 29 Feb 96 08:56:12 EST
Roger is right about the bequest that YALSA (foolishly I believe) accepted. There was an article about this in SLJ not long after mid-winter in 1995. The conditions, though, are even worse than he suggested: the books have to promote
"positive values," equal -- and I do mean EQUAL -- weight has to be given to quality and popularity, the books have to be nominated by two teens as well as any adults, and both hardovers and paperbacks -- not just originals but reprints
-- have to be considered.
Think of all the terrible problems this creates: how can you judge popularity until the paperback comes out? So consideration of all books will be on a two year delay. How can you weight popularity against quality anyway? Does each increment of a thousand books sold exempt you from one illiterate sentence? At what point is a book so popular that quality does not count at all? Many astute librarians have assured me that they can get around "positive values" since reading is just such a value. If kids will read the book, no matter what is in it, it is promotes positive values. But in having to undertake this dance of evasion -- does this remind anyone of Havel or Kundera on publishing under Communism? -- you can be sure the award will again be skewed lower, defeating its own purpose.
There is also some talk of reinstating a National Book Award for kids' books, especially for YA. Jackie Woodson was honored at this year's award dinner for work she did for the foundation that gives the award, and several kids; publishers came to lobby for this. But who knows when this will happen, or whether. I also wonder who will judge the award? The most qualified people are the very librarians and critics who should, really, sit on a YALSA committee, not critics or writers who never read YA books.
Finally, my beef is not really with ALSC, or even with YALSA. In some very sixties self-examining way it is with all of us. Though I know the history of the awards and I can explain why things are as they are, anytime I really think about it I realize that the structure is absurd. I should add that I am writing a polemic about this that I hope to publish soon. The main point of that piece -- and this post -- is that in the end I think we want to forget about older teenagers and think of them as someone's else's problem. I think this is as much about psychology as it is about literature. But that is a screed for another day.
Marc Aronson
Received on Thu 29 Feb 1996 07:56:12 AM CST
