YA is Most Certainly not just for Teens

I'm going to comment on this, but first I need to simmer down.

http://dft.ba/-notcool

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

Ok. Now that I have let this sit for a few days, here's my take on it.

This article was published in the "Room for Debate" section of the NY Times. Mr. Joel Stein seems to believe that by reading young adult books, I am embarrassing myself. Mr. Stein, it is you who should be embarrassed; embarrassed for thinking books written for children and teens would be anything but complex. He, like many others, seems to be taking the younger populations for granted, and belittling the great works of fiction that today's YA authors are writing for our children and young adults.

YA authors take risks. They delve into things that make us uncomfortable. As Patricia McCormick, author of Sold, a YA book about sex trafficking (Sex trafficking for YA! That is beautifully written!) wrote in her article "Authors Taking Risks Isn't Kid Stuff",

"Here are a few audacious books you won’t find in the adult section of the library. A Holocaust memoir narrated by Death. A novel written entirely in electronic messages. A historical novel in prose poems. A murder mystery in screenplay format. A 550-page novel in pictures and words that may or may not have been written by an automaton... Young adults are willing to accompany an author just about anywhere -- to a dystopian future or the ancient past -- but they will not tolerate anything extraneous or self indulgent."

Yes, these things are located in the Children's or YA sections of our bookstores and libraries, but am I ashamed that these are the sections where I spend 90% of my time?

Absolutely not.

Mr. Stein, you say you do not know if the Hunger Games delves into problems of identity or self-justification, but let me say, you are missing out. It is so much more. More than a dystopic love story written for hormonal teens, but a commentary on society and where we are heading. (An interesting take on the Hunger Games, by Mr. Hank Green, brother to author John Green, can be found here.)

Feel free to stay up on your high horse with your "3,000 years of fiction written for adults," because then my lowly and embarrassing self who lives down here in YA land won't have to deal with you.

Librarian Stream of Consciousness... Bear with Me Here...

So, I was thinking today while doing homework (a frightening thought, I know).

Specifically I was taking a homework break and continuing to try to catch up on my vlogbrothers video watching (http://www.youtube.com/user/vlogbrothers) and then catching up on my email subscriptions, a.k.a. the my ALA emails (which, I am proud to report, that I am now completely up-to-date on!) and emails from EcoGeek (www.EcoGeek.org).

I went back to my reading and while I was reading an article about the library as a search engine, I had a brain wave; so while I'm still riding said wave, I am going to attempt to record my thoughts.

The article was talking about Google books and how they are attempting to digitize all of the books ever written, and how libraries could work to reduce the number of print books they purchase by utilizing union catalogs in order to reduce the number of multiple copies of a single item held by multiple members of the catalog, and instead have one copy and use the funding saved to purchase additional resources, such as online journal subscriptions, ect. ect.

And this got me to thinking about books and the environment.

Now, I will admit that I love books. And it has reached an intensity in which in the past week alone I visited 2 bookstores in the same day (and came away disappointed, but that's another story entirely).

What I started thinking about was the amount of paper used to print all of the books I currently owned and wish that I currently owned. That's a lot of trees! And if you think about it, how many times am I going to read these books? Realistically I would like to say that I will read each one at least once, but there are many books currently residing on my shelves that I have had for years, that I have yet to read. I tell myself it is because I am still in school and I am working on building my life's library. I'd like to say that there are many books that I have purchased because I know that I would like to read them more than once, but still, there are many books that I own that I may read once, and then it will sit on my shelf collecting dust.

But then I started thinking about e-readers. And my specific thought was, which is more environmentally friendly, buying printed versions of books, or buying an e-reader and electronic books? In previous posts I have said that my personal jury is still out on the e-reader. I love the idea of the kindle or nook (or whatever reader you prefer) for travel, because it is so much easier to carry that one small device, rather than the 4 or 5 (or 6 or 7 or 8...) books that I would like to read while on vacation, but I love the feel of the actual book in my hands. I love the weight and the smell and texture of the paper. I love being able to jot down notes in the margins and highlight things, and heaven-forbid, dog-ear a page for later info retrieval. But which one is better for the environment?

Books are printed on paper, which require trees, a renewable resource. E-readers require power to work, which in most cases the said power used to charge the reader comes from coal-based energy. So which way is better for the environment in the long run?

I personally have no idea, but I would like to find out. I'll have to do some research and get back to you.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a small glimpse of what it is like to be inside my head while I'm attempting to study. Only usually there's usually 2 or 3 ideas/trains of thought all trying to use the same track at the same time.

UPDATE:

Thanks to an awesome NerdFighter, I have some further info. According to this person, the first link here is a "back of the envelope" calculation of the energy used.

And for those who are extremely interested, there's a 252 page study that was done at U of M here.

Yay Steve!

Stephen King recently wrote an article for Entertainment Weekly about Amazon.com's Kindle.

In it he said,

"The real problem with e-readers, and what may save the embattled publishing industry, is simple consumer resistance. There are lots of advantages to the electronic devices - portability, instant buyer gratification, nice big type for aging eyes like mine - but there's a troubling lightness to the content as well. A not-thereness. Even formidable works like Neal Stephenson's Quicksilver feel somehow not quite real when read on a screen. I bought a Kindle for everyone in my immediate family, but I'm not only one who uses it regularly. Oh, and something else: If you happen to drop a book into the toilet, you can dry it out. Drop your Kindle into the toilet and maybe it'll still work...The Kindle certainly has its charms, but e-readers can never fully replace books."

I think he's hit the nail on the head. Books will always hold a special place in my heart. The smell of paper and ink and the sound of a brand new book opened for the first time will always be two of my favorite things.