CCBC-Net Archives
Crossover appeal
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: ALevine at Scholastic.com <ALevine>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 17:30:52 -0400
Nina's comments seem very sensible to me.
I want to add that I feel as if EVERY book I publish starts as a "crossover" book, in that I (an adult) love the book for itself, for the effect it has on me. And I always hope that children will love the book too.
Different books touch different parts of myself -- the part of me that was a Wild Thing, or a fat ten year old, perhaps, or an adolescent in the anguish of first love. And I guess I assume to myself that children of that particular age are the ones who are most likely to respond to a particular book. But I don't see a contradiction in an adult being able to make that connection too.
The interesting thing about HARRY POTTER is that the part of me it touched wasn't particularly "old". I think it was twelve-year-old-me, wishing for an invitation to a school where I would really be a star...where I'd have wonderful, loyal friends and lead a sports team to victory.
Other books I've published -- Norma Fox Mazer's WHEN SHE WAS GOOD, for instance, appeal to the older, hurting teenager in me, in a manner that seems much more like a traditional "adult" book. Reading it reminded me of ELLEN FOSTER, or A HOME AT THE END OF THE WORLD. (Yet, I believe that far too few adult readers will have been aware of WHEN SHE WAS GOOD.) I felt the same way about the Suzanne Fisher Staples novels that Frances Foster edited (mentioned earlier) -- including HAVELI and SHABANU.
But when you think about it, the children's books that have had the biggest
"crossover" success have been far LESS like adult books. I'm thinking of other books that have made the NY Times Bestsellers list, such as Shel Silverstein's books, and the anual appearance of OH THE PLACES YOU'LL GO. Are adults (in general) more comfortable embracing children's books that look like children's books? (This would run contrary to Bloomsbury's strategy of using an "adult" cover on one of their editions...)
In any case, I personally suspect that HARRY POTTER is being enjoyed by adults AS A CHILDREN'S BOOK. They aren't being fooled into picking it up, thinking it was written for them. Rather they, for some reason, are having the opportunity to experience something that we as children's book professionals have all the time.
I don't know why, but I sure do hope it's a trend.
Received on Mon 07 Jun 1999 04:30:52 PM CDT
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 17:30:52 -0400
Nina's comments seem very sensible to me.
I want to add that I feel as if EVERY book I publish starts as a "crossover" book, in that I (an adult) love the book for itself, for the effect it has on me. And I always hope that children will love the book too.
Different books touch different parts of myself -- the part of me that was a Wild Thing, or a fat ten year old, perhaps, or an adolescent in the anguish of first love. And I guess I assume to myself that children of that particular age are the ones who are most likely to respond to a particular book. But I don't see a contradiction in an adult being able to make that connection too.
The interesting thing about HARRY POTTER is that the part of me it touched wasn't particularly "old". I think it was twelve-year-old-me, wishing for an invitation to a school where I would really be a star...where I'd have wonderful, loyal friends and lead a sports team to victory.
Other books I've published -- Norma Fox Mazer's WHEN SHE WAS GOOD, for instance, appeal to the older, hurting teenager in me, in a manner that seems much more like a traditional "adult" book. Reading it reminded me of ELLEN FOSTER, or A HOME AT THE END OF THE WORLD. (Yet, I believe that far too few adult readers will have been aware of WHEN SHE WAS GOOD.) I felt the same way about the Suzanne Fisher Staples novels that Frances Foster edited (mentioned earlier) -- including HAVELI and SHABANU.
But when you think about it, the children's books that have had the biggest
"crossover" success have been far LESS like adult books. I'm thinking of other books that have made the NY Times Bestsellers list, such as Shel Silverstein's books, and the anual appearance of OH THE PLACES YOU'LL GO. Are adults (in general) more comfortable embracing children's books that look like children's books? (This would run contrary to Bloomsbury's strategy of using an "adult" cover on one of their editions...)
In any case, I personally suspect that HARRY POTTER is being enjoyed by adults AS A CHILDREN'S BOOK. They aren't being fooled into picking it up, thinking it was written for them. Rather they, for some reason, are having the opportunity to experience something that we as children's book professionals have all the time.
I don't know why, but I sure do hope it's a trend.
Received on Mon 07 Jun 1999 04:30:52 PM CDT
