I just finished up the Breathless Reads
tour and I have to say that some of the questions asked by audience members
were really insightful. There’s one I just can’t quite shake. It was asked by a
guy in Madison, CT. I’m paraphrasing even though the recording is probably
online somewhere, because I had lost half my voice by then and I can’t
bear to listen to myself, so correct me if I’m way off. As I remember, he asked
this:
Do
you think books should be judged on their popularity or their literary merit?
Immediately Beth Revis said “literary
merit” and if there is a right answer that’s probably it, especially if we’re
talking about being judged for things like NBA awards. (Apologies to the
question-asker if that’s what you meant, as I heard it as “How should
librarians and teachers and readers decide which books are the “good” books?”)
My immediate thought was “Why do we have
to judge books?” So I blurted out, in typical awkward Fiona fashion, that I
didn’t think books should be judged at
all. Then I panicked that it sounded like I was saying Printz awards were
bad or that people shouldn’t write reviews and holy crap what if that got
twisted into me saying people shouldn’t criticize my books and then I’d end up
as the next big blogger/author/Goodreads scandal and stuff like this was why I
should probably just not speak, ever, and let seasoned pros like Beth answer
all the questions. [Sidebar: It’s fricking scary to be a new author. You do one
dumb thing without thinking (or before you’ve had your second cup of coffee) and
someone records it or screen caps it and then all of a sudden people are
boycotting you and you're being scorned all over the interwebz and
jeez, so what if we’re (kinda) adults who should know better? We’re still human. We try
but sometimes we mess up.] Anyway, I backpedaled and sort of adjusted my answer
because I appreciate every single one of my reviews and I would never want
people to think differently. Trust me, you will never meet anyone more into
free speech than I am.
But what I meant was (and yeah, it often
takes me a couple of days to figure out how I feel—another reason I’m not the
best at Q&A panels), there is no accepted standard of book-worthiness. Even
big fancy trade reviews are just one person’s opinion at one point in time,
potentially skewed by personal situations or preconceived notions.
My personal opinion (and I know a lot of authors disagree with me) is that “bad” books
do not get traditionally published. Getting a book published in today’s market
means that several knowledgeable publishing employees loved it, lobbied for it,
and spent hours reading and rereading it to make it the best it can be. To hear someone say [insert big popular title] is bad feels like literary ethnocentrism. You don't like it so it's bad? Yeah, okay, there are some books
I read and think, “I feel like this could have used more editing” or “the voice/setting/story just doesn't make me want to keep reading,” but that doesn’t mean those books are bad. It just means
something didn’t work for me when I tried to read it. Sometimes people want Nine
Inch Nails and sometimes they want classical. Sometimes they want milkshakes and
sometimes they want prime rib. Is one “better” than the other? I don’t think most
books can be easily compared.
In high school I had to read almost
exclusively classic books, the kind of books people describe as
Dead White Guy books, the kind of books that might have turned me off reading
forever had I not been exposed to libraries and bookstores full of a wide
variety of stories at an early age. At several
of our school visits, the teachers wanted to know which books we read as a teen
and you could just tell they were hoping we’d dutifully recite a list of
Steinbeck and Hemingway titles like, “Look, if you pay attention in class and embrace
The Grapes of Wrath you, too, can be
a published author someday.” Yeah. Not me, sorry. I read Dean Koontz and Sweet
Valley High. I read Glamour magazine. I STILL read all those things and I’m not
going to apologize for it. If the only thing that holds a reluctant reader’s
attention is a magazine then I am all for it, and I say that as an ex-teacher
and future professor. Reading almost anything can help kids become better
readers and writers, but we need to make sure they have access to the things that
interest them.
Obviously, librarians and teachers can’t
buy all of the books and they don’t have time to read them all and decide. The
easy decision seems to be to select only the books that are both popular and critically acclaimed,
but why not shoot for a mix of the literary, the fun and fluffy, and the ‘summer
blockbuster’ type of books?** Rather than just acquiring only award-winning novels, which may or may
not be accessible to reluctant readers, why don’t librarians check out what
actual teens have to say on Goodreads? Or maybe they could let teens vote and
self-select 50% of the new titles. How cool would that be? (I don’t work in a
school so I don’t know if this is something that could never happen, but it
would rock it if could).
Judging books as “good”
or “bad” seems like a move toward shaming people for what they read. And when
we do that, we run the risk of encouraging someone to put down a book and turn
on the always universally socially acceptable television. We run the risk of
alienating the people who buy our books and keep our industry alive.
(F)P
(F)P
PS I usually don't blog stuff like this because I'm afraid someone will make it his/her own personal mission to comb every single tweet and interview I ever did looking for that one moment where I poked fun at a famous title or appeared to contradict myself. To that I say: 1) review above--I'm not perfect. 2) my feelings about books and the publication process have changed a lot in the past 2 years, and this blog is about how I feel now.
**[I fully admit I may be biased since I am a proud reader and writer of fluffy and delicious milkshake books :)]
