Shelf Discovery: The Teen Classics We Never Stopped Reading

[al_zorra]

By Lizzie Skurnick, 448 pages Avon A (July 21, 2009)

Publishers Weekly review:

Launched from her regular feature column Fines Lines for Jezebel.com, this spastically composed, frequently hilarious omnibus of meditations on favorite YA novels dwells mostly among the old-school titles from the late '60s to the early '80s much beloved by now grown-up ladies. This was the era, notes the bibliomaniacal Skurnick in her brief introduction, when books for young girls moved from being wholesome and entertaining (e.g., The Secret Garden and the Nancy Drew series) to dealing with real-life, painful issues affecting adolescence as depicted by Beverly Cleary, Lois Duncan, Judy Blume, Madeleine L'Engle and Norma Klein. Skurnick groups her eruptive essays around themes, for example, books that feature a particularly memorable, fun or challenging narrator (e.g., Louise Fitzhugh's Harriet the Spy); girls on the verge, such as Blume's Are You There, God? It's Me, Margaret or danger girls such as Duncan's Daughters of Eve; novels that deal with dying protagonists and other tragedies like child abuse (Willo Davis Roberts's Don't Hurt Laurie!); and, unavoidably, heroines gifted with a paranormal penchant, among other categories. Skurnick is particularly effective at spotlighting an undervalued classic (e.g., Joan Aiken's The Wolves of Willoughby Chase) and offers titles featuring troubled boys as well. Her suggestions will prove superhelpful (not to mention wildly entertaining) for educators, librarians and parents.

Comments

[bibliofile]

I heard her on Talk of the Nation last week. They'd also invited an author to join the conversation -- Meg Cabot, maybe? Sounded like a decent book.

[al_zorra]

I'd like to read it, anyway. :)

Love, C.

[trouble]

Spastic? *sigh* Oh, Publisher's Weekly.

[rosefox]

If you'd like to write a longer comment to that effect, I'd be glad to pass it along to the relevant editor. (I edit PW's SF/F/H and mass market sections.)

[trouble]

I'm not even sure how precisely to explain it. I suppose it's possible that the original author has cerebral palsy or a similar disorder, but I suspect the editor means something different, such as "disorganized" or "flighty", perhaps.

[rosefox]

Oh, I completely understand why you would object to the casual and rather derogatory use of a term more properly restricted to describing a medical condition. It's just that comments about word choice have a lot more weight when they come from a reader rather than from me, as I'm seen as rather a young upstart there and can't always get a lot of traction on things like this.

Take your time, but if you can think of a way to write it up as a brief "letter to the editor", I would really appreciate it. And if not, I'll mention it and hope not to be ignored. *)