The first bit of editorial feedback we gave was that they change the book from YA to middle grade, which would mean cutting most of the romance entirely (for both the straight and gay characters). The book included five character points-of-view (POVs). Our second bit of editorial feedback was that at least two POVs, possibly three, needed to be cut. Did one of these POVs include the gay character in question? Yes. Is it because he was gay? No. It’s because we felt there were too many POVs that didn’t contribute to the actual plot. We did not ask that any of these characters be cut from the book entirely. Let us repeat that, we did not ask that any of the characters in the book –gay or straight—be cut from the book. Also, we never asked that the authors change any LGBTQ character to a straight character.

The post links to a very thoughtful analysis and roundup of all subsequent discussions by Cleolinda Jones. She focuses in on some of the key issues namely: comments may have been misinterpreted, prejudice can exist without homphobia, and there is a subtle difference between rejecting a manuscript because you think the content is wrong versus rejecting a manuscript because you believe enough people think that the content is wrong that it won’t sell.

From my perspective, I sincerely hope that this was all a misunderstanding. That indeed the agents did not think the multi-POV was working (I’m getting a little weary of multi-POV myself), but did not make this clear enough to the writers. That they really were working to make it the best book possible (not necessarily the most marketable). Because the other two options are just depressing. Either this blatant prejudice exists, or Smith and Brown were lying.

Cynics have implied the latter, saying that Smith and Brown were just trying to drum up publicity for a book they were having trouble selling. Such a tactic exploits a real problem, and in doing so, minimizes it. And, as Malinda Lo’s number crunching proves, LGBTQ is indeed underrepresented in YA fiction: less than 1% of YA novels have LGBTQ characters.

So I think it’s time we take a step back from the particular incident, and instead refocus on the perennial issue in children’s literature: the lack of diversity. The problem has been identified, so now what are we going to do about it? Can it really be as simple as what Jones suggests?

publishers need to put out books about all kinds of people, and readers need to let publishers know that they will buy them. And they need to not let fear stop them, because YA saves, and kids need these books.

I hope so.

offered to sign us on the condition that we make the gay character straight, or else remove his viewpoint and all references to his sexual orientation.

While on the one hand I was horrified, my mind couldn’t help but think of counterexamples of YA genre work with gay protagonists such as Hero by Perry Moore, Witch Eyes by Scott Tracy, or Ash and Huntress by Malinda Lo. I was curious what one of these authors would say about the challenges they had or had not faced while trying to publish LGBTQ genre fiction.

It turns out Malinda Lo has been asked this question so many times that she blogged a response. While she has had some negative reactions, she has mostly been fortunate in the level of support she’s received:

I know that homophobia still exists (especially in my personal life, see gay marriage situation), but in publishing, well … Commercial publishing in the United States is so gay-friendly it’s practically Gay Utopia. I mean, children’s book editors are, frankly, notoriously liberal! (Or else, open secret, they’re gay!) And they live and work in New York City, which is second only to San Francisco in Gay Utopicness.

Scott Tracey, too, has faced and responded to this question, as well as reacting directly to the article. While he did face agents and editors who wanted him to straightwash his characters, his book eventually found its proper home. He says:

It’s not a black and white issue.  Publishing is not completely homophobic, or completely supportive.  It varies, and it changes, and there’s no one standard for how things work.  It’s a business, and it’s a business run by MANY different people with MANY different beliefs.

If you want more books with LGBT content, buy the ones that are already out there. Show publishers that there’s profit to be made by investing in these books.

So while I think there are some egregious examples of if not homophobia then fear of homophobia in the children’s publishing industry — including Jessica Verday choosing to withdraw from an anthology rather than meet the editor’s demand that she make the gay love story a straight one — there are other examples of authors who have found success. I can only hope that these success stories will cause agents and publishers to redo their saleability math and realize that there is a market for LGBTQ fiction for teens and children. If you feel the same way, follow Scott Tracey’s advice and invest in these books.

Okay, so now the iPad is here. iBook already exists. I hear an iBookstore is in the works. I thought the Kindle was interesting, the nook looked neat, but I love me some Apple products, so now I am suddenly and keenly interested in e-readers. Because the iPad integrates other applications that users want perhaps more than an e-reader (web access, music, etc.), this could be a real boost in the spread of e-reading.

There is a theory (I think it is Dr. Ruben Puetedura’s) about the use of technology in education that I believe also applies here. Basically tech can take one of four roles:

1. Substitution: the computer substitutes for another technological tool, without a significant change in the tool’s function.
2. Augmentation: the computer replaces another technological tool, with significant functionality increase.
3. Modification: the computer allows for the redesign of significant portions of a task to be executed.
4. Redefinition: the computer allows for the creation of new tasks, inconceivable without the computer.

None of these is any better than the other. They just are.

So an e-reader that just presents the text is substitution. This is, I think, what most people think of when they think of an eBook. Some people are like, “Ick, I want to hold the book.” Others are like, “Wow, shiny, new, and just think how many books I can carry with me on vacation.” And then most of us fall in between.

Augmentation would be like if you had an eBook of say Shrinking Violet by Danielle Joseph: you could hear the bands that Teresa plays when she DJs. Or during Suzanne Collins’ The Hunger Games your screen would show the seal of the capital, you’d hear the anthem, and see images of the fallen. That would be pretty neat. Or it could be distracting.

I would argue that ThisIsNotTom.com is modification. How you get to the text is the part that is significantly redesigned. But you are still getting to text and reading it. Here’s where I think some real growth could be fascinating. Choose Your Own Adventure online? Mysteries you actually have to solve (sort of like the 39 Clues, but more so). Audio mixed with video mixed with text mixed with images?

I’m even more flummoxed about what Redefinition will bring. Group reading and creating experiences of some sort seem likely as we are moving through and beyond web 2.0.

I’d be curious to hear what people think the advent of more advanced and integrated e-readers. Will it change the way we read and write? What are some examples of things that are already going on that I’m missing?

On Friday, I did a workshop about standards for school library media programs that was awesome. It was led by Pam Berger, who was just fantastic. Then I went to the author panel with Eric Van Lustbader, Chuck Hogan, Tracy Chevalier, and Julie Powell. Ostensibly it was about books into movies, but they talked about all sorts of things. As a new author, I found it fascinating and reassuring when they talked about reviews. Except for Lustbader, who insisted he didn’t read his I should have taken notes and written down quotes because they were interesting. Chevalier talked about how the reviews balanced her, since most people who write to her or come to her events like the books. Both she and Hogan mentioned that they wished they could learn something from them, which is one of the fallacies of book reviewing, I think, that the author will read it, incorporate it, and somehow improve their work.

Next I went to the YALSA happy hour in which I met many hip librarians whose fashion I very much want to emulate, and with whom I had great conversations. I met people on various award committees who would not spill at all, even with my clever attempts at tricking them like, “Oh, I so want to know who wins!”

Saturday was exhibits and authors for me. It met up with Deva Fagan and Erin Dionne and they each knew so many people, and it was like every time I turned around I was being introduced to another magnificent author. It was crazy, and I was star-struck. Then I met my lovely agent Sara Crowe who took me to lunch along with Varian Johnson and Mary Atkinson. Can I tell you how amazing it is to have a business-lunch that’s all about literature? It is totally amazing.

So then I was going to crash the Tweet Up, but sometimes I need a little break from interaction, so I found a quiet place and started reading Will Grayson, Will Grayson, one of the many arcs I scored.

Finally I met some librarian friends for dinner at Tapeo, a tapas restaurant right in the neighborhood where I used to work when I lived in Boston. Good food and nostalgia — nothing better than that! Then I took the train back to the exact stop where I used to live, and my husband picked me up, and it was like when we first started dating. Sigh. And we all lived happily ever after. The end.

Oh wait! I forgot an essential part! So I mentioned the committees above, and I finally did get my answer. First off, congratulations to all the winners of the ALA Youth Media awards! I think it is a wonderful collection of books that won the awards and were put on the lists. My dear Deb L.K. Madigan won the Morris for Flash Burnout. Ash by Malinda Lo was one of the finalists. Ash was also one of the top books of the Rainbow List, a list which, I am very proud to say, also included Secrets of Truth & Beauty. Kekla Magoon, who I met at the Bar Harbor Book Festival, earned the Coretta Scott King/John Steptoe New Talent Author Award for The Rock and The River.

There’s some more good news for some of my writing buddies. Saundra Mitchell is nominated for an Edgar for Shadowed Summer. And Carrie Jones, who has my heart and a duct tape rose, is a New York Times Bestseller with Captivate!

My agents is Sara Crowe of Harvey Klinger, and she is just amazing. Of course I am eternally grateful to her for finding me in the slush. She gave me my first taste of someone unrelated to me loving my characters, my worlds, and my words. I’ve had a pretty smooth road, but she’s been there to work out the bumps when they arise, all while making me feel as calm as a kitten with milk. She wears yellow dresses. She sounds like Terry Gross on the phone. She’s a New Englander, which means she’s very polite with a tough interior.

That’s why I appreciate her. Here’s why you should appreciate her: A Crowe’s Nest. It’s her group blog with her clients and offers a wealth of insider information on the business. If you’re not already a follower, you should definitely become one.

Thanks, Sara!

When you get a bad review, it makes sense to behave like a Wild Thing, and gnash your terrible teeth. You may rant and moan and complain. You may cry or eat pints of ice cream or otherwise self-medicate. These are all reasonable responses.

Here are some things that are not so reasonable:

1. Posting a point by point rebuttal on the reviewer’s GoodReads page (and Amazon, and Barnes & Noble. . .). Doing so on the commercial sites makes the writer look, in my opinion, petty. Doing so on their personal page is crossing a line.
2. Sending a private message to the reviewer via Facebook explaining why the reviewer was just plain wrong. Again, this would be a big line between professional personal that should not be crossed.
3. Calling the reviewer’s place of work to verify if (s)he is indeed a librarian in their employ. This is when the reviewer starts to get scared.

I have more stories, but the reviewers don’t want to reopen old wounds — or re-attract the attention of the writers. These actions led to the reviewers contacting the editors of their magazines (big magazines!). “Crazy and difficult” is not how I want to be thought of by the journals that can make or break my books.

Like many librarians, I have reviewed for a professional journal. I believe I did so with both a librarian’s and a writer’s eye. A book might not appeal to my personal taste, but I tried to think about which of my patrons would like it, and what about the work they would find appealing. I always included these things in my review.

I also thought of what the author was trying to accomplish, and how well they did that. Here is where I may have been particularly tough. I had no patience for lazy writing or shortcuts.

I started reviewing before I sold Secrets of Truth & Beauty, and continued as I worked through the editing process. As I grew closer to my own publication date, I found myself feeling more and more torn. I could imagine what it would feel like to read the words I had written in a negative review.  Though I wanted to spare other writers the pain of reading my perceived faults in their works, I also had a professional obligation to my colleagues as a reviewer and librarian. Librarians rely on reviews not only to choose which books to buy, but also which books to recommend to which students.

I was unable to reconcile my two roles. So, first I decided to stop reviewing nonfiction, and then I decided to stop reviewing all together.

When I started to get my own reviews, I can’t say that my time on the other side made it easier to stomach any negativity. In fact, I have the ability – common to many writers – to pick out even the hint of a criticism in an otherwise positive review. It did help a little to remind myself that my reviewers were people just like me. People who struggled over the reviews, who weighed the few words they were allowed, and tried to be as honest as possible. People, too, with whole histories behind them that would of course influence how they reacted to a particular book. Nothing makes the initial sting less, but this helped with the dull ache that lingered.

Luckily, Myracle herself is more eloquent:

“A child having same-sex parents is not offensive, in my mind, and shouldn’t be ‘cleaned up.’” says Myracle, adding that the book fair subsequently decided not to take on Luv Ya Bunches because they wanted to avoid letters of complaint from parents.

1. Make up a fake name for yourself.
2. Send an email to libraries asking them to order your book for you (under your made up name, of course).
3. When the librarian politely replies to your email and says that you don’t seem to be one of their patrons, and asks for basic information like your address or if you want to sign up for a library card, blithely ignore them and instead reply that you will see them that weekend to pick up the books.

Okay, hopefully you have realized that this is actually a terrible idea. Evidently, though, some writers are trying this. Aside from it being deceitful and stupid, librarians talk to each other. So not only have you annoyed the ones you’ve contacted, you’ve also damaged the reputation of your book through out the library world. Don’t. Do. It.