From: Roger Sutton <rsutton>
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 11:18:08 -0600

While I agree that the NYT has less than unmixed motives in creating a separate bestseller list for children, there are a couple of larger aspects of this situation I think we need to keep in mind.

First, the NYT lists have always privileged certain kinds of books over others. Bibles and cookbooks, for example, aren't counted. Hardback and paperback are segregated, even though paper routinely outsells hard, and--for children's books--paper and mass-market is excluded, meaning that it's entirely possible that even if the Rugrats books are outselling Harry Potter, the NYT is not going to tell us about it. (And I'm willing to bet that at their height, Goosebumps titles sold in greater numbers than Harry P.).

Second, I hope we don't mistake bestseller lists for what they seem to be (news) instead of what they are (advertising). Some months ago I wrote an editorial about this vis a vis Harry Potter (it's somewhere on the hbook.com website if you care to look) but Rowling's books aside, I get nervous about children's book people defending the value of children's literature because it does *so* make money. The Harry Potter books may have gotten more adults thinking about books for children--I think the jury is still out on that--but the thought that we're celebrating something for its commercial success, and defensive towards the NYT's implication that other books are selling better, gives me the creeps. By all means cheer for Harry on his merits. But for his numbers? Better make room on that podium for Britney Spears as well.

Good Lord, in my middle age I'm turning into a Marxist. Move over, Big Grandma!

Roger Sutton Horn Book
Received on Wed 06 Sep 2000 12:18:08 PM CDT