"When you compare your views about literature written for children and young adults before this course began to what you are thinking now, what would you say has changed for you?"
I think I have always had respect for children's literature, but I had definitely tended to make value judgments very easily. For example, A Wrinkle in Time seemed far more respectable and valuable than, say, Gossip Girl. However, I do think I'm joining the "As Long As They're Reading" bandwagon. The most important thing about a book is how it relates to the readers, because reading is far more active than, say, watching TV. It doesn't just have to be entertaining enough to stare at, it has to be entertaining enough to make you turn a page.
However, this class does give me a more hopeful outlook for the genre, in that I see that all the creativity didn't end with the classics. Just because they get less press in the internet age doesn't mean that incredible books like The Invention of Hugo Cabret aren't being written and read all the time. I think I had forgotten that as I grew older and spent less time in the YA section than previously. It seemed for a while that the only books any middle schooler read were Twilight, but now I see that, just as when I was in 7th grade, there are still creative and unique books that aren't being turned into movies and franchises.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think it's interesting that you comment about books being "franchises" and how you compare Gossip Girl to A Wrinkle In Time. Would you say that Babysitters Club/Goosebumps books are creative because they weren't movies/tv shows first or not because the authors write one after the other after the other? And how far back can we take this? What about Little House on the Prayer, Boxcar Children, Nancy Drew, Anne of Green Gables, and so on? Which can claim creative rights and which were made simply for selling purposes?
ReplyDeleteThanks for bringing that up, because now I have my own questions to ponder. :)
- Mandy