Sherman Alexie on The Absolutely True Diary of a Part Time Indian and Why YA is So Cool

I just finished writing my chapter for the day and it's total rubbish but at least I've now hit 22,412 words.

That's good right? At least I've laid the bones down and tomorrow I can go over it again with humour and craft and care. So in anticipation, I try to prime my brain with something inspiring.

I thought, what about reading a few chapters from Sherman Alexie's The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian? Then I thought, Sherman Alexie, what kind of name is that? Is he really Indian? So I thought, surely, there's a video of Sherman Alexie on YouTube. I wanna see if he's really an Indian.

And guess what, he really is. But the other thing he turns out to be is really funny. You've just got to watch him do this HILARIOUS reading of one of the funniest moments in the book. The Q&A afterwards is cool too. About the true stories behind the book, the differences between his adult and Young Adult writing and also his remarks on how supportive the YA reader/writer community is - which makes me smug because that is exactly the world I want to be in.

If you can't see the video click here to view it on YouTube

Technology: where I draw the line

I'm always harping on about how we do teenagers down about their use of technology and I really do believe they deserve our respect and that we writers should rise to the challenge of their world.

But this is ridiculous.

With thanks to my cousin Cornelio, who forwarded the picture.

Teens Do Read - Take That, Anti-Hoody People!

As the mother of two hoodies, I take exception to frequent put-downs of teenagers - the sort that reduce their complexity to 'feral thugs who live on advertising jingles and drugs'.

So you can imagine my urge to say I TOLD YEW SO when Newsweek declared that teen writing is the 'one bright spot' in a flat children's publishing market.

Contrary to the depressing proclamations that American teens aren't reading, the surprising truth is they are reading novels in unprecedented numbers. Young-adult fiction (ages 12-18) is enjoying a bona fide boom with sales up more than 25 percent in the past few years, according to a Children's Book Council sales survey. Virtually every major publishing house now has a teen imprint, many bookstores and libraries have created teen reading groups and an infusion of talented new authors has energized the genre.

Libraries and booksellers are taking teenage books out of the kiddy section and putting them in their own spaces.

YA Author (and executive editorial director of Scholastic Inc) David Leviathan goes so far as to call it a 'second golden age'. This, he says, is the "most exciting time for young-adult literature since the late 1960s and 1970s when 'The Chocolate War' [by Robert Cormier] and 'Forever' [by Judy Blume] were published."

Wehey!

Leviathan and others point to the increased sophistication and emotional maturity of teenagers as well as the fact that:

... young-adult books are simply better and more diverse than ever, and readers are responding.

I guess it's a double edged sword.

On the one hand, the books are better, the kids are reading more. On the other hand, kids are turning to books partly to escape the fact that contemporary teenage life is more challenging and more stressful.

What can we do?

Write better. Write well. They so deserve it.

(Important Question: Will the good news trickle across the Atlantic to the UK?)

Thanks to Achockablog for the heads-up.

Do teens really prefer their books without eyeballs?

Over at the blog of Justine Larbalastier (Magic or Madness), the cover of her much awaited new YA book How to Ditch Your Fairy has just been posted.

It kind of reminds me of the cover of Screwed, the new book by Joanna Kenrick, who I met when I spoke to the Scattered Authors Society:

In fact it reminded me of an army of YA novels (interestingly, they all seem to target a girl readership):

Justine's fans knowledgeably discussed this 'eyeless' phenomenon in YA books:

Elodie: What is with that “girl with the eyes cut off” thing being so popular on covers?

Karen: I’ve been told the reason for truncating the face on book covers is that if the eyes are shown, the story seems to be about that person on the cover, whereas if they’re not shown, the reader can more easily imagine herself in that person’s position. It sounds silly, but I think there’s probably some truth to it.

Gabrielle: Om em gee, you caught Maureen’s eye-missing curse! I do love it though, especially how she flicks the fairy. Totally suits the title. Now I wanna read!

Faith: Oh no ...Your publisher got bit by the eyeless girl bug. WHY? I’m still psyched about the book… but WHY, COVER ARTIST? WHY? THE EYELESS GIRL TREND MUST STOP! *breathes* ...

Here is Justine's reply:

As for the eyeless thing. As some of you know I’m not a fan . . . In comment no. 10 above Karen explains that one of the main reasons for the eyeless covers is that “if the eyes are shown, the story seems to be about that person on the cover, whereas if they’re not shown, the reader can more easily imagine herself in that person’s position.”

Also these covers sell. The identification thing may be why. Gazillions of teenage girls have responded positively to them over and over again. Indeed, Maureen and Diana’s books sell very nicely, thank you very much.

Ultimately, the cover is about selling the book. Hence the lack of eyes.

I think looking at these books each on their own, they are very attractive covers. But together on a shelf, they kinda look the same to me.

These are all cool writers I enjoy reading. Maybe they deserve more stand-out covers, huh, publishers?

Meanwhile, over at the Booksquare blog, there is teeth gnashing over romance book covers. Hmm. Covers seem to be topic of the week.

YA Readers Are So Worth Writing For

I once attended a talk by Meg Rosoff (How I Live Now) at which a middle aged lady raised her hand and expressed surprise that Rosoff was wasting her time writing for younger people – at least, that was the gist of what I remember, it was a while ago now.

Now comes the hoo ha over this New York Times review by Dave Itzkoff.

To paraphrase Itzkoff’s rather wordy controversial statement: Itzkoff declared that there was “no self-respect”, no “artistic satisfaction” or “dignity” in writing for younger readers. Here is what he said in full:

As someone whose subway rides tend to resemble scenes from an “Evil Dead” movie, in which I am Bruce Campbell dodging zombies who have had all traces of their humanity sucked out of them by a sinister book — not the “Necronomicon,” but “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows” — I sometimes wonder how any self-respecting author of speculative fiction can find fulfillment in writing novels for young readers. I suppose J. K. Rowling could give me 1.12 billion reasons in favor of it: get your formula just right and you can enjoy worldwide sales, film and television options, vibrating-toy-broom licensing fees, Chinese-language bootlegs of your work, a kind of limited immortality (L. Frank Baum who?) and — finally — genuine grown-up readers. But where’s the artistic satisfaction? Where’s the dignity?

I had to read it twice because having declared YA an undeserving audience, Itzkoff proceeded to lavish praise on two YA books (Un Lun Dun by China Miéville and Interworld by Neil Gaiman and Michael Reeves).

Itzkoff was impressed that the authors didn’t “sugar-coat” their stories for their young readers. Here’s what he says about Un Lun Dun:

When its disheveled characters are sent on exactingly prescribed quests, you can be sure these heroes will cut corners or otherwise fail to fulfill their missions; when prophecies are invoked, they generally don’t come true; and any character complacent enough to believe he or she is some sort of Chosen One is all but guaranteed not to save the day

Well deserved praise for Miéville but hey it’s rather obvious this guy hasn’t read any YA recently if he is so astonished that YA can produce edgy, intelligent novels that twist and turn and surprise.

Author Shannon Hale (her Book of a Thousand Days just won the Cybil for YA fantasy) wrote in her blog:

He must just be speaking outrageously to garner attention--his attitude is so Victorian, so narrow-minded to the point of melodrama. But I have met this attitude so many times--the goal for any real, self-respecting writer must be to have "grown-up readers." Writing for children is less than.

Even Neil Gaiman weighs in:

It's an odd review -- I think that rule number one for book reviewers should probably be Don't Spend The First Paragraph Slagging Off The Genre. Just don't. Don't start a review of romance books by saying that all romance books are rubbish but these are good (or just as bad as the rest). Don't start a review of SF by saying that you hate all off-planet tales or things set in the future and you don't like way SF writers do characters. Don't start a review of a University Adultery novel by explaining that mostly books about English professors having panicky academic sex bore you to tears but. Just don't. Any more than a restaurant reviewer would spend a paragraph explaining that she didn't normally like or eat -- or understand why other people would like or eat -- Chinese food, or French, or barbeque. It just makes people think you're not a very good reviewer.

Me? I write YA because young people delight and surprise and excite and inspire and challenge me – and as Scott Westerfeld said in a recent interview when he was asked, "Were you worried about being pigeonholed by having your novels called Young Adult?”

Young adults are far more universal readers ... politically and all sorts of other ways, kids are more open to things ... they are less narrow.

Scott Westerfeld and Justine Larbalestiere on the YA Fiction Boom

Justine Larbalestiere and Scott Westerfeld appeared on Cult Pop to talk about the why's and wherefore's of Young Audult fiction. Click on the image and go to Cult Pop 13. What Scott said:

Young adults are far more universal readers ... kids are more open to things ... they are less narrow.