Should YA books have a ratings system?

ETA (05/22/12): If anyone's interested, both Gayle Forman and Kiersten White have written fantastic posts about this same GalleyCat article. I encourage you to check them out!

Earlier today I read an interesting article from GalleyCat about YA books and how BYU professor Sarah Coyne thinks ratings might help parents decide what's appropriate for their kids to read. The article is pretty vague on what kind of rating system would be appropriate, but it seems to imply something similar to the MPAA ratings.

Now, this rating system would be awesome for two reasons: 1) it would allow readers to easily avoid certain content, and 2) wary parents would be able to purchase new books for their kids on short notice. Unfortunately, this ease-of-access comes with a pretty large downside. 

A ratings system based directly on "inappropriate" content encourages censorship. Many YA authors want to tell stories about dark and gritty things, but writing books is also a business. If high ratings on dark books mean that they won't sell, then we will see self-imposed censorship. And if we know anything about teen books, we know that there needs to be variety. Some kids need the reassurance that the world is not all puppies and rainbows. 

And despite all this clamor, there are resources that concerned parents can access right now. That's what book blogs and teen lit librarians are for. People critique for content all the time, and with the advent of smart phones, it's not difficult to get this information on short notice.

Of course, almost all media operates under a rating system nowadays, so I don't find it too surprising that I keep hearing about this potential rating system for YA books and I can see the value in it. However, if YA books had to be rated, I would personally prefer something similar to the current rating system for manga. Unlike other rating systems, this one focuses on targeted age groups along with specific content. This would help parents keep their younger teens from reading material written for a slightly older audience, which I think is the biggest issue at hand.

The thing about YA books is that the audience is really broad. There's a huge difference in maturity level between 13-year-olds and 17-year-olds, and it's really easy for adults to forget that. Because of this maturity difference, younger teens and older teens inherently want to read about vastly different things. And because everything is shelved together, it's super easy for a younger teen to pick up something that would be more appropriate for an older teen to read.

So theoretically, an age-based rating system would help protect younger teens without imposing censorship in the same fashion as a content-based system. Happy medium? Maybe? What do you guys think? If it makes parents more comfortable, should YA books have a rating system? Do you think it makes a difference on what kind of rating system is used? Or have I missed something important and would every rating system would lead to censorship? Tell me what you think in the comments.

Regarding the National Book Award fiasco

After a long night of critique partnering, today's post was going to be a quick rant on the unrealistic expectations of the internet writing world and why it is a problem. Instead, the National Book Award debacle has ballooned to the point where I'm finding it difficult to summon the proper amount of ire to write about anything else. We'll save it for Wednesday.

Now, I usually don't tackle the ebbing and rising dramas of the YA lit world. They tend to involve people ranting about how YA has no merit or how it's too dark, etc etc, and there are already enough brilliant reactions to that ridiculousness. However, this fiasco is embarrassing for everyone in the book community.

And thus, everyone in the book community needs to know about it. So if you haven't heard anything about the National Book Award disaster, check out Libba Bray's fantastic post on the matter. She gives you the necessary details and says pretty much everything I feel, so I'm not going to repeat her. Just go read her post. :)

But what do you guys think? Had you heard about this? And what do you think about how the National Book Foundation handled their mistake? Tell me in the comments.

On Shakespeare in high schools

I have an issue with Shakespeare.

It all goes back to my high school education. I remember years of Shakespearean learning units where we stared at blueprints of the Globe Theatre and read Romeo and Juliet aloud in class. I remember being forced to write mediocre sonnets and write essays on soliloquies that I only half understood. Most of all, I remember my teachers would consistently telling my class one thing, "Shakespeare is the one of the greatest writers of all time."

And that's where my issue comes in, because that's where my high school education cut off. There was no actual explanation of why Shakespeare is considered so highly. We spent so much time studying the plot of the plays, that we completely glossed over any sort of deeper meaning.

Some would argue that it's not necessary for high school students to get into the whys of Shakespeare. After all, the only reason that Shakespeare is taught in grade school is to expose young people to as much classic literature as possible. Why go into detail when many people will never use it past high school?

Personally, I think going into detail would help students actually enjoy studying Shakespeare. And I'm talking from personal experience as a kid who used to detest Shakespeare. When you start analyzing what King Lear has to say about humanity, it becomes a lot more interesting than the simple interpretation of a kingdom full of crazy people and traitorous kids.

Shakespearean plays did one great thing for literature: they caught the essence of humanity in a time period where people didn't want to explore what it meant to be human. They are some of the first works of thought provoking literature.

Just look at a handful of Shakespeare's great plays: Hamlet is all about indecision and the consequences of ones actions. The Tempest questions what it is to be human and what it means to grow older. Falstaff from the Henry IV Parts One and Two is considered one of the greatest Shakespearean characters because his attitude is so mercurial. It doesn't matter whether the play is a tragedy, a comedy, or a history--so many of them are deeper than they first appear.

Teens can understand these kinds of things. Teens know what it's like to be in love and to be betrayed. Teens are just starting to discover who they are and Shakespearean plays speak to all of those raw and real emotions.

Now I went to a public high school, so maybe I didn't experience the pinnacle of modern grade school education. Maybe some schools do a better job teaching the Shakespearean plays. Maybe it's just a lost cause and we should keep looking towards college degrees to educate us on Shakespeare. Either way, I want to know what you think.

Should high schools develop better teaching methods when it comes to Shakespeare? Or am I just being super idealistic? How was your education of Shakespeare? Was it good or bad? Tell me your thoughts in the comments.

Books and e-books can coexist!

You've all heard about the great war of Pixels vs. Paper. There are numerous battles were people argue about the merits of e-books and physical books. There are lots of claims that e-books are going to ruin publishing and that the hardcover is going to die a horrid death. As someone with a Kindle and two six-foot-tall bookshelves, I dare to make the claim that books and e-books can live together happily.

Which is better?! Hardback? E-book?

If you ignore all of the drama around the publishing industry itself, the main issue with e-books is aesthetics. Sure, they're cheap and portable, but they're not pretty, they don't smell like paper, and they don't look impressive on your bookshelf.

Surprisingly, the same things can be said about paperbacks. They're cheap and portable. But they're not really pretty, they don't have the crisp paper thing that hardbacks have, and they don't look nearly as sexy on the shelf. Yet, no one is really convinced that paperbacks are a sign of the book apocalypse.

In fact, paperbacks and e-books are so similar that I agree with Eric over at Pimp My Novel. E-books aren't going to kill hardcovers. Instead they're going to replace the mass market paperback.

And is that really a problem?

Many of you are screaming, "Yes! Yes! of course it is! Yes!"

For me, not so much actually. I find that the things I buy in paperback are usually the things I'm less attached to, and it's been the same for e-books. I demand that my epic, multi-part sci-fi fantasies to be in hardcover, but that's about it. For example, I bought hardbacks of The Hunger Games Trilogy even after reading them on my Kindle.

I guess I just want everyone to realize that owning an e-reader isn't going to suddenly convince you to buy everything in e-book format. Maybe you want physical books, and that's perfectly fine. People just seem to forget that there are options and you can have all of them. Hardcovers and e-books live together in my household and it's working well.

If you're curious about e-books, go check out the e-reader displays at Best Buy or Staples. Or maybe look into the free Kindle Reading App, since it's not like you need an actual e-reader to read e-books.

What do you guys think? Agree? Disagree? Understand what I'm trying to say, or still think e-books are devil spawn? Tell me in the comments. I want to know.

Grammar will make everything better

I'm a bit of a grammar freak. I'm not to the point of grammar nazism, however. I understand how things work, but I could never sit down and starting listing off the comma rules. Yet, one of my biggest writerly pet peeves is when people start arguing that grammar isn't important in a first draft.

I've heard all of the excuses: Grammar is the reason we have editors. I'm focusing on the story, not the writing. First drafts are supposed to be bad.

These are some of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. There is no good reason for your grammar to suck. In fact, the pros of good grammar far outweigh the cons.

For one thing, good grammar allows your readers to actually understand what you're trying to say. That's because grammar exists to clarify things. Quotes mark dialogue, commas mark breaks in the sentences, and question marks are for questions. If your manuscript is lacking punctuation, your poor beta readers are going to end up crying themselves to sleep because nothing will make sense.

Your beta readers will also be crying over the fact that you've left them so much more work. Getting grammar right in the first draft of your manuscript will save countless hours of time. I know, skipping a few quotation marks seems like a minor thing, but if you're failing to punctuate any sentence correctly, then that starts to add up. Your line edits will give readers nightmares.

Not only will your manuscript be cleaner with good grammar, but you're writing will be better. This is because if you don't understand grammar, you can't abuse it. Know the rules to break them, right? Professional writers use sentence fragments for dramatic punch and consciously drop grammar rules in order to keep a voice. It's impossible to do this well if you don't understand how and why you're breaking the rules.

Knowing and using grammar will also make you look better. I've worked as a copyeditor and we're never impressed with people that don't know how to work their words. If your profession is writing, then grammar is one of your tools and you should know how to use it. Otherwise you don't look serious and you definitely don't look professional.

Proper grammar can do so much for you. Your beta readers will be happier, your time will be saved, your writing will improve, and you'll actually look like you know what you're doing. The only con to understanding grammar is that doing so takes time and effort.

But really, don't worry! Grammar isn't scary, and once you get the hand of things, it gets easier. No one is expecting you to be perfect, we just want you to try. Take a visit to the Grammar Girl or pick up a copy of Eats, Shoots & Leaves. Both are good resources

What about you? Are you a grammar nazi, or are you trying to pretend it doesn't exist? Tell me in the comments! I promise I won't hate you either way!

Keep the spoilers underwraps

A book I've been anticipating recently came out. Unfortunately I was exposed to a giant spoiler about the ending, which irritates me beyond belief.

Now when I say "spoiler," I'm not talking about something obvious. I mean, everyone knows that in a romantic comedy the couple is going to get together by the end. No. I'm talking about the big spoilers. The "Luke, I am your father" spoilers. The spoilers that convince you to re-read the book so you can see all of the hints that you missed the first time.

I hate spoilers. The thing is, I'm kind of a plot whore--I lose the will to go on if I know how things end. I really don't understand why you would want to read the last page of a book before even starting it. Sad thing is, I'm sure that I'm not the only one.

I'm telling you guys this because I want you to realize that spoilers can ruin a book. Or a movie, or a video game, or anything else. Spoilers ruin things.

There are a bunch of authors out there that are so gracious about this. Even if their book came out months or years ago, they still censor their thoughts and words. Sure, this might have to do with the fact that they want you to buy their book and read it, but everyone else should be responsible too.

Just because you're not the author doesn't mean you shouldn't treat their works with respect. Reviews without spoiler warnings and obnoxious comments on Twitter aren't helping anyone. In fact, they're probably hurting your chances at connecting with people.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, be careful. Be considerate. Remember that not everyone has read the book or seen the movie.