From: Sally Leahey <sleahey>
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 13:32:02 -0400

Although it may be understandable that Scholastic is disappointed to have Harry Potter relegated to a new children's best seller list, it does seem like a positive step for the Times Book Review to devote additional space and focus to children's books. As mentioned in the SALON article, the Times has traditionally given all too little space to reviews of literature for children and young adults, and somehow it has seemed like an occasional afterthought. The danger, of course, is that the list will be used as a selection tool by parents rather than merely a reflection of what is selling. Will adults assume that the books listed are automatically good choices by virtue of appearing in the New York Times? On the other hand, perhaps the Times will follow up the expanded interest in children's literature by reviewing more of it.
        Another concern mentioned in the SALON article is the low representation of young adult literature on the new list; most books purchased by teens and others who are not connected with libraries or schools are paperbacks, which are not included. The suggestion of adding a best selling paperbacks list might work to remedy this problem, but so would adding a YA bestsellers list.
        We're all seeing that the Harry Potter phenomenon is certainly having a lot of ripple effects that are changing public perceptions about kids' books. If even an institution like the Times is moved to reconsider the way it treats children's literature, so much the better!
        Sally Leahey, YA Services
        McArthur Library
        Biddeford, Maine
Received on Wed 06 Sep 2000 12:32:02 PM CDT