Wild Things!

by Betsy Bird

  In truth, there will likely never be another Harry Potter.

  The perfect storm of events that brought us HP — the struggling writer on welfare, the complex imagination and skillful writing that captured the imaginations of strangers all over the world, the fact that it was the first modern children’s series to become a true media sensation — can never be quite replicated. There will be other big books, other unexpected hits, but there will likely never be “the next Harry Potter,” despite all the copycat books crowding the shelves with that very intent.

  Pushcart Debate: Our Prediction for the Next Big Children’s Lit Phenomenon

  BETSY: Sentient Cheese. By this time in five years, you won’t be able to pick up a book for kids without facing a cover with a heroic Camembert fighting the forces of evil.

  JULIE: Glittery alchemist zombie-unicorns.

  PETER: Sadly, nearly every children’s book will be available on Kindle — with built-in video commercials after each chapter.

  MY FETUS IS SMARTER THAN YOUR FIVE-YEAR-OLD

  As true children’s book fanatics, the authors of this volume believe that every child deserves books. We also believe that even a non-reading (or reluctant-to-read) child will be engaged if the right material is placed in his or her hands. But we also see a huge divide between non-readers and readers — and we think this schism will grow wider in coming years. On the one hand, there are the proudly ignorant parents (often seen on television — either duking it out on afternoon talk shows or carrying misspelled signs at political rallies), while on the other hand there are the helicopter parents so eager to do the right thing that they try to get library cards for their unborn kids. It’s true. Many of us remember when a library card was a childhood rite of passage. Who can forget Rufus M. struggling to sign his name for the Library Lady in Eleanor Estes’s eponymous book? In recent years, however, it’s become fashionable for educationally invested moms to request a first library card for toddlers or even children too young to speak. One of us recalls an incident at a local public library where a visibly pregnant woman pitched a fit because the staff refused to give her fetus a library card.

  Only a generation ago, the radio was inundated with commercials for Hooked on Phonics, a learning program to improve grade-school reading skills; just a few years later, those same radio stations were advertising a variety of DVD kits for teaching one’s baby to read before the age of fourteen months. Incidentally, those wunderkind may be interested in checking out the BabyLit series, published by Gibbs Smith, which offers such board books as Pride and Prejudice featuring “Little Miss Austen” and Romeo and Juliet, starring “Little Master Shakespeare” — though their overzealous parents may prefer they get off their diaper-covered duffs and attempt the original classics instead. If you ask us, there’s something peculiar about babies who can barely talk, much less verbalize their first literary thought (usually some variation of “WTF is a tuffet?”), reading anything even resembling iambic pentameter.

  Whether the fanaticism of their parents leads them to heights of genius or ultimately turns them off books completely is yet to be known.

  HOMAGES OR RIP-OFFS?

  One hates to ponder what BabyLit books will come next. Paradise Lost by Little Johnny Milton? Lady Chatterly’s BFF by Davy Lawrence?

  So what kinds of books, in general, do we see being published for children in the years ahead?

  Throughout the twentieth century, many children’s authors built entire careers around publishing solid mid-list novels year-after-year: boy-and-dog stories, tales of sibling rivalry, stories of disenfranchised teens whose parents didn’t understand them. Though one suspects there will always be room for some well-written, sensitive stories dealing with everyday characters and common human emotions, children’s books — like the movies — seem to be focusing more and more on “big concepts.” A story about a boy and his dog may be OK, but the story of a boy and his dog as the lone survivors in a dystopian world is even better. Rival sisters? How about making one of them a vampire? You get the drift. In the After-Potter world, bigger is always better. This might explain why more and more authors seem to be teaming up for projects: If John Green books are popular and David Levithan books are popular, then a book written jointly by Green and Levithan should be mega-popular. And how about projects in which a whole big group of popular authors team up to create a story for a previously published picture book (as when “fourteen amazing authors” contributed stories for Chris Van Allsburg’s The Chronicles of Harris Burdick). Expect more such books in the future. Except, of course, bigger and better.

  If the joining of two (or ten or fourteen) authors’ names can get readers’ hearts pumping and cash registers jingling, one can only imagine what happens when a famous character or series gets revived. It’s all about the branding, which is why “commercial names” such as Nancy Drew never quite go away. And in the future, we expect a lot of authors will dip into their own childhood reading for inspiration. Call them homages, call them continuations. Some might even call them rip-offs.

  Poor Louisa Alcott has been gone so long that all her books are now in the public domain. Thus we end up with novels such as Little Vampire Women. On the other hand, Louise Fitzhugh’s literary executor had to give permission to latter-day authors to use Fitzhugh’s one-of-a-kind Harriet M. Welsch in such follow-up novels as Harriet Spies Again and Harriet the Spy, Double Agent, watered-down books that didn’t damage the reputation of the original novel — but certainly added no luster to it either. Our advice to any contemporary author who has created a well-loved fictional character: If you don’t want that character to return for any “new” adventures, leave such instructions in your will, with your heirs, and with your publisher. Have it notarized. Because even as we speak, some aspiring author with dollar signs in his eyes is eagerly watching the obituary page, looking for your name.

  You’re just jealous you didn’t think of it first.

  Image Credit 15

  THE NEXT HARR E-POTTER

  Whether the next wave of children’s books involves “big concept” books, homages to the past, or trends we can’t even imagine today, we do know one thing: modern technology will play a role in it. There isn’t one aspect of the children’s book industry that hasn’t been changed by the digital revolution. Authors write on laptops. Illustrators create computer-generated art. Editors accept online submissions. And then the work is published, frequently in an e-book format, and eventually sold on Amazon.com.

  Technology may even be changing the way kids read. Though computers can be a valuable learning tool — even in the teaching of reading — some studies suggest that kids who read from a screen have lower comprehension rates than those who read from books. Some think that reading from a computer prevents some children from learning proper directional tracking (reading left to right) and encourages skimming down the middle of the screen for content. Caldecott winner Erin E. Stead brings up even more thought-provoking concerns about e-books, at least where they concern picture books. While acknowledging that e-books are certainly convenient, she points out that the limitations of picture books are one of their most beautiful qualities: “They are limited to thirty-two pages, which cause careful rhythm and pacing. An e-book is limited to a 5″ × 7″ screen, and that is where it ends. It can be any number of pages and have any number of activities attached to each page. It may allow a child to sit and react but does not necessarily allow them to sit and absorb — to listen to the voice of a parent, teacher, or friend. Or to no voice at all.”

  Going to the Dogs

  In a 2012 interview, children’s book historian Leonard Marcus, while acknowledging that picture books can and will coexist with digital ones, wisely noted that “each format will apply creative pressure on the others to do what each does uniquely well. . . . Digital books will. . . have to prove that they’re more than a glamorous gimmick. If the dog’s tail wags, there had better be a good reason for it. Otherwise, children will be left bored, as well th
ey should.”

  Computers have also given writers and readers a greater connection. Twenty years ago, kids would send fan mail to their favorite authors in care of the publisher, which, in turn, would forward the mail to the authors, who might or might not write back. (Mark Twain never wrote back. Nor did Louisa May Alcott. She must have been busy with Little Vampire Women.) Today young people may have almost instant access to their favorite writers. They can visit the author’s website, read the author’s blog, even exchange e-mails. Some might say it is a dually beneficial situation, allowing adult authors to understand what their young readers are thinking and feeling while giving kids some insight into the world of the working writer.

  The digital age has also revealed the sometimes cozy relationship between children’s authors and critics. Of course, it was likely always that way. But in the Before-Potter world, no one paid much attention to kids’ books. So no one witnessed the two-martini lunches between writer, editor, and big-name reviewer in that New York restaurant. No one thought about the library and bookselling conventions crowded with book folk, during which greetings were exchanged, not to mention telephone numbers and hotel-room keys. . . but we digress: what happens in Vegas is supposed to stay in Vegas! It’s just that in this day and age, Children’s Book People do not have the same level of privacy they once enjoyed. So when a blogger gives a rave to an author’s latest book and we notice a photo of said author attending said blogger’s barbecue posted online, questions are raised. No one has established a definitive set of rules for this brave new world of blog tours, Facebook friending, and the professional/personal relationships that form online.

  Computers have also hit writers where it hurts most — in the pocketbook. For many low-paid authors, public-speaking engagements have long been a source of much-needed income. While such events will likely always continue — nothing is the same as meeting an author in person and getting a book personally inscribed — many writers now find themselves not visiting schools with travel allowance, speaking fee, and per diem in pocket, but rather talking to students from their desk at home — for free, of course — via Skype.

  Other writers have found themselves victims of hacking and illegal copying of their work.

  After the publication of the fourth book in the Twilight series, Stephenie Meyer promised one more volume, Midnight Sun. However, after showing the incomplete and unedited manuscript to a handful of individuals, Meyer discovered that someone had posted the entire novel online. In response to this leak, Meyer said, “I feel too sad about what has happened to continue working on Midnight Sun, and so it is on hold indefinitely.” She did, however, post the fragmentary manuscript on her website so that fans could see what they were now going to miss.

  J. K. Rowling had a similar experience regarding the last volume in her series. Only a few hours after Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows was officially released, the entire novel appeared on the web, apparently posted by a group of expert typists working from a copy of the book that had been leaked a few days earlier.

  Though neither millionaire Meyer nor billionaire Rowling is going to suffer too greatly from these monetary losses, their intellectual property rights were violated, and if it can happen to them, it can happen to any author.

  And whether published illegally online, like Meyer’s work, or released on Kindle with every copyright in place, e-books will probably be the standard in our post-Potter world. For each of us who bemoans the loss of turning crisp paper pages, the pungent smell of ink, the texture of deckled edges, the sight of row upon row of books on a shelf, there will be another touting the convenience and lower-cost of holding an entire library in the palm of one’s hand. And no one can deny some of the distinct advantages the e-book revolution presents for both readers and writers. Children’s books long out of print can now be made available with relative ease. No book ever has to go out of print again. Risky “niche” books that publishers couldn’t take a chance on may now see the light of Kindle. And authors can release their stories in electronic formats under their own terms. In 2010, a twenty-five-year-old aspiring writer named Amanda Hocking, tired of having her young adult novels rejected by all the major publishers, began issuing her paranormal romances on Amazon.com in e-book form. Within a year, Hocking had made over a million dollars from her electronic endeavor (selling, remember, mostly to a young audience), had signed a hardcover contract with a traditional publisher, and was juggling movie deals.

  Obviously, more and more children’s books will end up in the e-format in the future, yet they may be among the last holdouts when it comes to being absorbed completely. For one thing, it might be much more economical to give a kid a twenty-dollar novel than its e-book version. (Losing a book is bad enough, but can you imagine telling Mom you lost your $150 Kindle — and your family’s entire online library?) Also, some children’s book formats may never lend themselves to e-versions. Viewing an oversize picture book filled with brilliant color artwork on a handheld e-reader simply won’t be the same thing. And we can think of at least one children’s classic that can never, ever truly be adaptable to the e-reader format (though you can buy the app, if you like).

  Pat the Bunny.

  STOMPING ON BUNNIES

  It always comes back to bunnies, doesn’t it?

  We started this book railing against the “fluffy bunny” mentality that seems to surround the world of children’s books. As mentioned in our introduction, even Dr. Seuss himself referred to overly cute children’s fare as “bunny-bunny books.”

  In fact, Geisel’s aforementioned illustrated university lecture was about a bogus children’s book, which he called Bunny, Bunny, Bunny, Bunny, Bunny, Bunny, Bunny. Intending to accompany his talk with blackboard illustrations, he visited the lecture hall early to draw some preliminary sketches for his presentation. According to a New Yorker profile, “When he reentered the room, however, a few minutes before he was scheduled to go on, the outlines were gone, and a janitor was walking out, carrying a sponge and mop bucket. ‘Some wise guy has been messing up your blackboard, Doctor,’ Geisel recalls the man’s saying, ‘but fortunately there are people like me in the world to take care of people like him.’”

  Ah, if it were only that easy to erase the bunny-bunnies of this world with just a wet sponge. Children’s books are far too important — and the lives of their creators far too colorful, rich, and wild — to be patronized. Fortunately there are people like us in the world to take care of perceptions like that. Which is why we’ve devoted this book, not to mention our lives, to stamping out as many fuzzy bunnies as we can.

  Oops, sorry about your foot.

  We didn’t realize you were wearing bunny slippers.

  SOURCE NOTES

  Epigraphs

  “Every year. . . ‘Books stink!’”: Dr. Seuss, “How Orlo Got His Book,” New York Times Book Review, November 17, 1957, 2.

  “You must tell. . . bit of truth somewhere”: Selma G. Lanes, The Art of Maurice Sendak (New York: Abrams, 1980), 125.

  Wild Things! Acts of Mischief in Children’s Literature

  “There’s a perception. . . [takes] courage”: Larios.

  “most distinguished contribution to American children’s literature”: American Library Association.

  “FUCK! I won. . . AWESOME”: Gaiman.

  “In the great green. . . but no ashtray,” “I reluctantly allowed them to do it,” and “looks slightly absurd to me”: Wyatt.

  “interventions in society’s. . . bringing up children”: Rosen.

  “new, psychologically attuned” and “Like the novel. . . have largely vanished”: Zalewski.

  “other modes. . . we might become”: Lester, 283.

  “Children’s literature makes. . . we’re doomed”: Kushner, 78.

  “bunny-bunny books” and “the fuzzy, mysterious literature of the young”: Quoted in Kahn, 86.

  “people seem to. . . well-behaved children”: Denos.

  “children’s book authors. . . hyg
ienic)”: Cooper.

  “a time when people. . . cutesy-darling place”: Sendak, 280.

  “kiddie”: Quoted in Eggers.

  “There Should Not Be Any ‘Should’ in Art”: Subversive Children’s Literature

  “I recall my maternal. . . f’ing NUTS?!!”: Staake.

  “The child learns simply. . . the teaching”: Quoted in Zipes, Sticks, 152–153.

  “So she was burnt. . . scarlet shoes”: Hoffmann, 9.

  “Hoffmann’s bizarre anecdotes. . . played for laughs”: Griswold, 39.

  “This Book attend / Thy life to mend” and “The idle Fool / Is whipt at School”: Childe’s Guide.

  “healthy profusion. . . object lessons”: Maguire, 65.

  “decide what subjects are suitable for children”: Lawson, 279.

  “We have tried to. . . world around them”: Zipes, Tales, vii.

  “In Adam’s Fall / We sinned all” and “Xerxes did die / And so must I”: New England Primer.

  “acts of mischief”: Gauch.

  “The children’s literature field. . . unconventional ideas”: Mickenberg and Nel, 2.

  “liked to just sit quietly and smell the flowers”: Leaf, 10.

  “flowers in all the lovely ladies’ hair”: Ibid., 62.

  “communist, pacifist. . . fascism”: Mickenberg and Nel, 274.

  “degenerate democratic propaganda”: Silvey, 100 Best, 29.

  “philosopher”: Quoted in Crisler.

  “Rob, cut loose and have fun with this”: Quoted in Marcus, Minders, 127.

  “If there is a message. . . to your need”: Quoted in Mickenberg and Nel, 274.

  “Duck was a neutral. . . to the cows”: Cronin, 22.