The post >Jokers to the left of me, jokers to the right appeared first on The Horn Book.

The post >Congrats to Siobhán! appeared first on The Horn Book.

Many years ago I was on YALSA’s (then YASD) Intellectual Freedom committee, and we had a bit of a tussle with Scholastic, which was asking authors to make “word changes” (read: remove obscenities) from their books before Scholastic would reprint them for its lucrative book clubs. Two things were at issue: Scholastic did not want to acknowledge, in the paperbacks, that changes had been made, and, in the cases of books that had been named to the Best Books for Young Adults List, the publisher wanted to be allowed to say that the expurgated editions were BBYA winners. No and no, although we only really had the power to enforce the second.

To me, the weirdest part of Scholastic’s argument was that since it was the author making the change, an affected book was still a BBYA choice. And some committee members bought this argument, as well as buying into Scholastic’s emotional blackmail that we were “punishing the authors” by disallowing the BBYA designation. Well, tough: why would we want to reward authors for caving to commercial pressure? The money would have to be enough.

The post >Presto, change-o appeared first on The Horn Book.

I’m again reminded of the infamous editorial-page fight between Horn Book editor Ethel Heins and SLJ editor Lillian Gerhardt. Rejecting the line (promulgated by the Horn Book among others) that children’s books were all of a piece with other contemporary literature, Lillian wrote that “from where we sit, books for children are more accurately described as: the last bastion of yesterday’s literary methods and standards.” Ethel then said that modern adult fiction had gone to hell and children’s books were the last refuge of Story; Lillian subsequently threatened to take the train up to Boston and hit Ethel over the head with a chair.

Because we view both children and children’s literature as protected species, it’s true that in our field we have debates that would seem peculiar if applied to adult books and readers. We don’t worry, for example, about grown men not reading, except insofar as it might “send the wrong message” to their sons. But worries about “representation” of various ethnicities, gender, and sexual orientations do have a precedent in the social change movements of the 60s and 70s, with such critics as Kate Millett warning us about how destructive Henry Miller was to women. I’m guessing that Marc would tell me that someone got there before Kate, too!

The post >Sitting at the grownups table appeared first on The Horn Book.

The post >Listen to the children! appeared first on The Horn Book.

Debbie asks if publishers or reviewers might vet an author’s claims to Indian-ness. If I were a publisher, I would want to, but I would also want to trust the writers I published. As a reviewer, I don’t think I’d know how to go about it. As Debbie acknowledges, it would be ethically dubious to do this for Indian claims but not for others, but forget the workload issue, who would you ask? What would constitute an acceptable answer? And as with all questions involving “authentic representation,” who gets to decide?

I’m pondering the parallels and differences between Smelcer’s claims (and he’s certainly not the first white guy to “play Indian”) and those of people who passed themselves off as white and/or male to get what they wanted, be it publication or remuneration or freedom. Your thoughts?

The post >White man speaks appeared first on The Horn Book.

The post >A different movie appeared first on The Horn Book.

But I couldn’t help noticing that only five of the twenty-three artists included are women. Having no idea if this representation is proportional, I compared it to the last 23 years of Caldecott winners. Only four women there. What do we think is or is not going on?

The post >The other g-word appeared first on The Horn Book.

It’s interesting that Fine doesn’t do the same with her adult books: “I have six adult novels on the shelves, and wouldn’t dream of going at those with a red pen just because times have changed.” Her reasoning seems to be that children read both more intensely and in greater ignorance, that they don’t have a concept of books becoming “dated.” (Thus the pressure on Judy Blume to update Forever to include condoms.) But isn’t it the natural way of things that old books give way to new books? Not that people won’t continue to read a mix of new and old, but what Fine is advocating is a kind of artificial life support for books that might otherwise fall out of fashion or favor. Let ‘em.

The post >It’s Her Party appeared first on The Horn Book.

Whereupon. Whereupon I had one of those old-fashioned, Jane O’Reilly “clicks!” of recognition, although in my case it was not a housewife’s moment of truth; it was the realization that I do indeed work in a female-intensive profession, one wherein no one but a man would even blink at proofreading the following passage:

Mischievous Little Monkey causes trouble while Big Monkey tries to work. When it’s finally playtime, Big Monkey explains that he might not always like Little Monkey’s behavior, but he always loves Little Monkey. (from a review of I Love You, Little Monkey.)

That men think about sex every seven seconds is apparently not true, but with a world intent on throwing it in our faces even in books for the young it can be very difficult to focus.

Speaking of boys, I’m off to New York tomorrow to interview Jon “Big Monkey” Scieszka for our upcoming special issue, “Boys and Girls.” I will also be attending a memorial service for my friend Janet McDonald, and seeing another bold monkey, Bruce Brooks. Back Friday.

The post >One for the boys appeared first on The Horn Book.