CCBC-Net Archives
[CCBC-Net] celebrity books
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Maia Cheli-Colando <maia>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 14:04:12 -0800
So many conversational tangents, it's hard to know where to start!
Let's see, first off, I am delighted to learn that Marc will be doing a nonfiction blog on the SLJ. :)
Second -- and many of you know more about this than I do -- the beast is really different when you are talking about libraries versus bookstores, in regard to nonfiction. We have been trained to go to libraries
(and/or onto the internet) for nonfiction, and libraries are expected to have decent nonfiction collections. But I don't think that most folks associate bookstores -- unless they are specialty stores, or something lovely like Powell's or Cody's -- with challenging* nonfiction, certainly not children's nonfiction. (*By challenging, I don't mean mass market self-help books, or anything For Dummies, etc...)
To ponder only bookstores for a moment, and the "death" of books shelved in nonfiction... I have to think that a lot of that has to do with poor shelving practices. In specialty stores, I have little difficulty ascertaining if a book I want is in stock -- because the staff know their stock and the topic well enough to shelve it intelligently. But many chain bookstores have frighteningly incoherent nonfiction sections... where all nonfiction books are treated alike and shelved together, as if nonfiction titles were all (and only) for "those" sort of readers. The sense of impending chaos in those collections can be painful. I think that nonfiction would do better in bookstores if bookstores treated nonfiction as something more precious, unique and interesting.
Which leads back to the celebrity question. When stores are paid for turnouts, and the turnouts are junk, and so junk does well, it's hard to say where the cycle started. We could compare it to organic and otherwise healthier food, where it is clear that there is a market for it, and that many folks will eat healthier if given the choice. With organics, though, there is a cost difference that inhibits many folks from choosing organic. A bad book and a good book (however one chooses to judge them!) cost the same to the customer. If they were given equal visibility, equal reporting, equal attention and love from the publisher and press and sellers, would good books rise above?
Libraries have historically been given permission to have good books, whether or not they were glamorous. Some of this is changing as libraries (like most public services) are being starved for dollars, and are being told to "compete" for attention in the public service market and to "prove" their usefulness. Likewise, schools (for whatever else they might be damned) were once expected to create libraries for children's pleasure, delight, education and edification. Their main function was not seen as to bribe unwilling media-saturated non-readers into reading and regurgitating something, anything. Who is changing the rules and purposes, and why?
Third -- to Meghan's note, this doesn't mean that I think that we should print boring books. But I question how "boring" is being defined. I've seen a number of dramatically styled books that are confusing to the reader, lack substance, and feel as if the author was ADD. It seems it is a recent marketing strategy, to make books that are like TV. But I don't think that this will develop good thinkers, and I believe that even media-saturated children need a mental respite from overstimulation. Books can be a quiet place. Books can be a sacred place. Books don't have to be, and shouldn't be, TV!
I guess that my whole premise comes down to this: we (writers, editors, publishers, librarians, booksellers, book lovers) need to figure out what we do well. What we book makers do that is unique to book making. We need -- as individuals, companies, associations -- to have a firm mission statement, clear objectives in mind. If we are trying to compete with the trashier parts of media, I think that we will fail. TV is going to do Rob Lowe better than we ever can -- it's a better fit. I'm not saying that we ought not to think outside the box, but I think that we spend a heck of a lot of time chasing the back end of someone else's horse. If we know what horse we are riding, and why, we can even lobby for it. But if we are chasing the tail of mainstream media, I think we are going to end up eating dust.
It's a big step, but I think that every time we can each use our purchasing power (as publishers or book buyers) to not make more crap, we are making an argument for the relevance and importance of our world. Of literature. Of books that can change a person's life, a generation's direction, or impel a country to revolution.
Maia
p.s. Julie Andrews Edwards is a writer. And a singer. And an actress. She's been very successful, yes, but she's hardly a celebrity. When interesting people write, interesting things happen. And aren't those the books we want to read?
Received on Wed 13 Jun 2007 05:04:12 PM CDT
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 14:04:12 -0800
So many conversational tangents, it's hard to know where to start!
Let's see, first off, I am delighted to learn that Marc will be doing a nonfiction blog on the SLJ. :)
Second -- and many of you know more about this than I do -- the beast is really different when you are talking about libraries versus bookstores, in regard to nonfiction. We have been trained to go to libraries
(and/or onto the internet) for nonfiction, and libraries are expected to have decent nonfiction collections. But I don't think that most folks associate bookstores -- unless they are specialty stores, or something lovely like Powell's or Cody's -- with challenging* nonfiction, certainly not children's nonfiction. (*By challenging, I don't mean mass market self-help books, or anything For Dummies, etc...)
To ponder only bookstores for a moment, and the "death" of books shelved in nonfiction... I have to think that a lot of that has to do with poor shelving practices. In specialty stores, I have little difficulty ascertaining if a book I want is in stock -- because the staff know their stock and the topic well enough to shelve it intelligently. But many chain bookstores have frighteningly incoherent nonfiction sections... where all nonfiction books are treated alike and shelved together, as if nonfiction titles were all (and only) for "those" sort of readers. The sense of impending chaos in those collections can be painful. I think that nonfiction would do better in bookstores if bookstores treated nonfiction as something more precious, unique and interesting.
Which leads back to the celebrity question. When stores are paid for turnouts, and the turnouts are junk, and so junk does well, it's hard to say where the cycle started. We could compare it to organic and otherwise healthier food, where it is clear that there is a market for it, and that many folks will eat healthier if given the choice. With organics, though, there is a cost difference that inhibits many folks from choosing organic. A bad book and a good book (however one chooses to judge them!) cost the same to the customer. If they were given equal visibility, equal reporting, equal attention and love from the publisher and press and sellers, would good books rise above?
Libraries have historically been given permission to have good books, whether or not they were glamorous. Some of this is changing as libraries (like most public services) are being starved for dollars, and are being told to "compete" for attention in the public service market and to "prove" their usefulness. Likewise, schools (for whatever else they might be damned) were once expected to create libraries for children's pleasure, delight, education and edification. Their main function was not seen as to bribe unwilling media-saturated non-readers into reading and regurgitating something, anything. Who is changing the rules and purposes, and why?
Third -- to Meghan's note, this doesn't mean that I think that we should print boring books. But I question how "boring" is being defined. I've seen a number of dramatically styled books that are confusing to the reader, lack substance, and feel as if the author was ADD. It seems it is a recent marketing strategy, to make books that are like TV. But I don't think that this will develop good thinkers, and I believe that even media-saturated children need a mental respite from overstimulation. Books can be a quiet place. Books can be a sacred place. Books don't have to be, and shouldn't be, TV!
I guess that my whole premise comes down to this: we (writers, editors, publishers, librarians, booksellers, book lovers) need to figure out what we do well. What we book makers do that is unique to book making. We need -- as individuals, companies, associations -- to have a firm mission statement, clear objectives in mind. If we are trying to compete with the trashier parts of media, I think that we will fail. TV is going to do Rob Lowe better than we ever can -- it's a better fit. I'm not saying that we ought not to think outside the box, but I think that we spend a heck of a lot of time chasing the back end of someone else's horse. If we know what horse we are riding, and why, we can even lobby for it. But if we are chasing the tail of mainstream media, I think we are going to end up eating dust.
It's a big step, but I think that every time we can each use our purchasing power (as publishers or book buyers) to not make more crap, we are making an argument for the relevance and importance of our world. Of literature. Of books that can change a person's life, a generation's direction, or impel a country to revolution.
Maia
p.s. Julie Andrews Edwards is a writer. And a singer. And an actress. She's been very successful, yes, but she's hardly a celebrity. When interesting people write, interesting things happen. And aren't those the books we want to read?
Received on Wed 13 Jun 2007 05:04:12 PM CDT
