But every year, a few books make it onto the Quick Picks list that probably should have had another pass at an editor before the even left the publishing house. Vampire Kisses, for example. And sometimes I wonder if there are people on the Quick Picks panel who feel "oh, this is amateurishly written, so my reluctant young readers who are all, like, stupid, will like it!" I'm well aware that's not a fair sentiment, and I'm sure it's not even remotely true. But the very fact that the list ever leaves me feeling that way is a bad sign. Clumsy writing simply shouldn't be rewarded in less there are some other extremely redeeming features.
I have no objection to trained adults making decisions about what should be on these lists. After all, as an adult, I might find a large amount of reading pleasure from reading a Georgette Heyer novel or from reading the latest Catherine Coulter. But I'm also capable of seeing the difference between the two books: the latter which might give me an immediate rush of reading entertainment but is otherwise potato chips, unhealthy and likely to make me feel sick if I eat too many; and the former which gives me the same immediate rush of reading entertainment but also contains depths, intelligence, cleverness, and layers. I feel no shame about reading either, and I might individually recommend either book to a friend based on what I felt he or she needed to read. But I would never slap an award on the Catherine Coulter (except possibly a reader's choice award). As a teenager -- and I was a very smart and well read teenager -- I'm not sure I was either is capable or is willing to make that distinction. If you'd asked me at 14, I doubt I could have distinguished for you that Madeleine L'Engle writes substantially higher quality books than Piers Anthony. All I knew is that I enjoyed reading both. I didn't know that one would stick with me and the other wouldn't, and I didn't know all the way is in which the Piers Anthony books were kind of bad for me.
That isn't to say the kids' choice are invalid, and it certainly isn't to say that kids shouldn't pick whatever books they want to read, no matter how lacking in literary merit. As an adult, I read plenty of books that are lacking in literary merit, and I don't see why readers of all ages should be able to. It's just that I'm not sure if the Quick Picks committee members all have the same goals. Some of them, I think, seem to agree with my general sentiment: YALSA shouldn't be in the business of giving awards to actively bad books. But I think some people might see the Quick Picks is more of a handy tool for librarians, a form of best-seller list: just so you know, teens will read these. The criteria, at least officially, set standards for quality which our objective and not based on teen readership. I don't know how much the panel members take those into account.
no subject
I have no objection to trained adults making decisions about what should be on these lists. After all, as an adult, I might find a large amount of reading pleasure from reading a Georgette Heyer novel or from reading the latest Catherine Coulter. But I'm also capable of seeing the difference between the two books: the latter which might give me an immediate rush of reading entertainment but is otherwise potato chips, unhealthy and likely to make me feel sick if I eat too many; and the former which gives me the same immediate rush of reading entertainment but also contains depths, intelligence, cleverness, and layers. I feel no shame about reading either, and I might individually recommend either book to a friend based on what I felt he or she needed to read. But I would never slap an award on the Catherine Coulter (except possibly a reader's choice award). As a teenager -- and I was a very smart and well read teenager -- I'm not sure I was either is capable or is willing to make that distinction. If you'd asked me at 14, I doubt I could have distinguished for you that Madeleine L'Engle writes substantially higher quality books than Piers Anthony. All I knew is that I enjoyed reading both. I didn't know that one would stick with me and the other wouldn't, and I didn't know all the way is in which the Piers Anthony books were kind of bad for me.
That isn't to say the kids' choice are invalid, and it certainly isn't to say that kids shouldn't pick whatever books they want to read, no matter how lacking in literary merit. As an adult, I read plenty of books that are lacking in literary merit, and I don't see why readers of all ages should be able to. It's just that I'm not sure if the Quick Picks committee members all have the same goals. Some of them, I think, seem to agree with my general sentiment: YALSA shouldn't be in the business of giving awards to actively bad books. But I think some people might see the Quick Picks is more of a handy tool for librarians, a form of best-seller list: just so you know, teens will read these. The criteria, at least officially, set standards for quality which our objective and not based on teen readership. I don't know how much the panel members take those into account.