I found some interesting links relating to the Christian publishing world at PW:

• “Publishers Weekly is expanding its coverage of children’s religion/spirituality books.”
• Another link with three interesting tidbits:
  • A new Hachette imprint, “…Jericho Books, will begin publishing books by ‘edgier’ evangelical Christian authors in fall 2012….”
  • “But the book drawing the most media attention [at ABA] is HarperOne’s Love Wins. Author Rob Bell has been criticized by fellow Christians for his inclusiveness when it comes to who will go to heaven. He drew more than 100 people to his BEA signing, and while in New York taped a prime-time special forNightline that will air later this month. Next comes hell—just before the show David C. Cook announced a new book from Francis Chan (Crazy Love) that will deal with the darker side. Erasing Hell: What God Said about Eternity and the Things We Make Up is set to release in July.”
  • “Although new Christian house Worthy Publishing did not exhibit, its inaugural list was prominently featured at Oasis Audio’s booth. Oasis was celebrating two coups—it has deals to produce simultaneous-release audio versions of Worthy’s fall books as well as the audio of Chan’s forthcoming title.”
• And, finally, books on Hell, and a promotional video to Chan’s book, that is soooo good.

I was trying not to enter the discussion about dark YA lit, but, alas, I’ve read the article and many responses now, and, go figure, I have an opinion.

First, where I disagree with Gurdon is in her last line:

No family is obliged to acquiesce when publishers use the vehicle of fundamental free-expression principles to try to bulldoze coarseness or misery into their children’s lives.

Well, of course no family is obliged to read any book ever, or to sit silently by while publishers put out dark books, even. But accusing publishers of trying to bulldoze coarseness or misery into children’s lives is as wrong as accusing Christians of trying to shove their religion down people’s throats.

To speak about what you believe or to publish books that reflect what you believe does not constitute shoving or bulldozing. Let’s get over ourselves and quit taking offense when other people speak about their beliefs. To be passionate for a cause does not mean you hate your opponents and you would force your will on them if you could.

Authors of dark books are not trying to bulldoze garbage into children. They are writing about things they think are important. The authors I know want to give their readers stories that entertain, that stretch, that enlighten, and that encourage love and justice and bravery and all kinds of good things. Librarians are not pushing misery onto children because they love to see children turned into coarse, miserable human beings, rather they are giving books they think will be a good fit. Gurdon may disagree with how important, helpful, or fitting the books are, but she shouldn’t suggest that publishers (and by implication authors and librarians) are trying to bulldoze people.

Publishers are trying to make money. They’ll publish what sells. It’s true that publishers are people and they have preferences. It’s true that people in the industry have agendas. But even the people with agendas aren’t trying to bulldoze their beliefs into children’s lives. More likely, because they believe in environmental conservation or gay rights or a woman’s right to choose to abort her baby, they will present those things as reasonable and fair in the novels they choose to publish. Christians do this as well as anyone. (Not saying Gurdon is a Christian. I have no idea what her religious beliefs are. But I’m talking to other Christians here who may share Gurdon’s feelings.) I’m a Christian and if I ever put Christian characters in my books, most of them will be reasonable and fair people. Why? Because I have an agenda. I want to present Christianity in a positive light. Sure, I know some Christians are bozos. But I’m not required to call attention to them. I’m allowed to highlight Christians that are loving and kind and fair.

That’s not bulldozing. No one has to read what anyone else writes.

I agree completely with Gurdon when she says:

Yet let a gatekeeper object to a book and the industry pulls up its petticoats and shrieks “censorship!”

It is of course understood to be an act of literary heroism to stand against any constraints, no matter the age of one’s readers; Ms. Myracle’s editor told Publishers Weekly that the author “has been on the front lines in the fight for freedom of expression.”

I’m just wondering how a claim of “Bulldozing misery and coarseness!” is better than a claim of “Censorship!”

No matter the publishers’ personal beliefs or agendas, they have to make money. If what they’re peddling isn’t selling, they’ll have to find something else to peddle. I suspect they are less enthralled with misery and coarseness than they are with keeping their jobs. I would guess they are selling the sex and violence because these things sell. If we all started demanding Amish YA books, those would be published, I bet. (No! Please! I’m not advocating this.) So to paint publishers as some kind of sadomasochists who love misery and want to make sure all children wallow in it, is, I think, unfair and probably even slanderous.

That’s my beef with Gurdon. Next time I’ll give you my beef with the YA community. (“Why stop with offending one side, when it is in our power to offend both sides?” I always say.) In the meantime you might want to listen to this radio interview with Gurdon. She does a good job of defending her article and presents herself well, I think. In the end, I agree with her far more than I disagree. I simply think her editorial was unnecessarily inflammatory.

“News of my death has been greatly exaggerated.” ~Publishing Company

Last week I came across two encouraging posts.

Kat Zhang signed a three-book deal with HarperCollins. A major deal. Yowsers. She’s only nineteen years old.

That’s a life changer.

And here’s the thing. That’s not going to happen to 99.999% of the people who are trying to find publishers. But the fact that it does still happen to some writers is encouraging. It means publishers are still looking for books they think they can sell.

I know a lot of people don’t like to read about the big advances. If the books fail to earn out it makes the publishers hesitant to buy more. If the publishers are only buying big books, then what happens to the midlist? I don’t know enough about the industry, really, to know whether big advances are ultimately good for, or bad for, the rest of us. But what I know is this: I’ve been thinking for a couple of years now that it doesn’t matter if books are printed on paper or screens. If publishers want to stay in the game they need to do what publishers do. They need to offer advances, they need to do the editing and the design, and they need to distribute and market the stories. For the past couple of years we’ve heard over and over that publishers are giving smaller and smaller advances, and I’ve been thinking, “Well gee, we have to turn in publication-ready work, we have to have a platform and be willing to market like crazy, and now we have sustain ourselves with no advances…what exactly is the publisher offering?” So I’m happy when I read about publishers offering good advances.

OK, breaking that advance up and giving ten authors smaller, but still decent, advances would also cause me to rejoice. And there may be signs that the publishers are buying not just bigger books, but also more books. In one encouraging post, in a week full of encouraging posts, literary agent Wendy Lawton says:

For my last good-news-post of the week, let me make one more prediction. We are going to reap the results of a pent-up buying demand on the part of publishers. They have been very conservative, very risk-averse for quite some time. Some publishers cut their lists a couple of years ago, causing an overstock of contracted books. All of that– cutting and overstock– is drawing to a close.

Fascinating discussion about trends in fiction for the coming years.

Series are not just for girl detectives and babysitting clubs anymore. Hardcover series are all the rage.

Recently some bloggers were voicing their disgust with the series trend in YA fiction. But the publishers, apparently, plan to keep it up.

“It’s very rare for a book to start out as a single volume these days,” says Katz. “Most of the proposals we get for teens and tweens now are proposed to us from the first as series, and trilogies are very common.”

I’ve been pitching a stand alone for the last several months, because I’ve heard for years that you write a stand alone and then add to it if the publisher asks for more. I’ve moved on to writing a different stand alone in a different world, and my sister has been having a fit. She knows nothing about writing, of course, and she doesn’t even read fiction except for what I write, but she’s sure I need to write a sequel so I have one ready when all the publishers snap up my book and clamor for another. I’ve been ignoring her the way I ignore all control freaks who want to tell me what to do. (This is the same sister who read my first novel and said, “This is not just going to sell. This is going to be a blockbuster.” Yes, THAT first novel. The one in the drawer.)

But now this article makes me wonder. What stories can I set in the world of my last novel? What further adventures can my character go on?

As far as reading goes? I love series, myself. When I find a world and a set of characters I love I hate to let them go. I close the books I love with sorrow, feeling like I’m losing a good friend. Or losing a magic world. I didn’t want Anne Shirley to grow up and I hated to leave Narnia.

So this should be encouraging to those of you with trilogies gathering dust on your hard drive.

The article discusses the possibility of series moving into adult fiction, even, and I have to laugh. The CBA may be ahead of the curve on this one. They launched Jan Karon’s Mitford series and then there are all those Left Behind books.

No offense to Ms. Banks— I’m sure she’s a very nice person—but this fantasy series she’s just sold to Delacorte, Modelland, just doesn’t do anything for me.  I mean, when I read the little blurb below, I had to double check to make sure this wasn’t a joke.

In a concept that marries “Top Model” and “Harry Potter,” “Modelland” centers on a teen who manages to get into an exclusive academy for “Intoxibel las” — who are the most exceptional models known to humankind and harbor unknown powers. Once there, she finds herself competing to be accepted as part of that world.

Is it just me or does this sound like something The Onion would come up with?

I’ll admit I’ve never been a real girly-girl, so it’s not surprising that a modeling academy doesn’t get my blood pumping. But I’m willing to withhold judgement. I never liked princesses all that much, but Shannon Hale’s Princess Academy is one of my favorite books. More recently I read a faery book, RJ Anderson’s Faery Rebel: Spell Hunter, and was amazed to find I loved it.

So who knows, I may end up loving Modelland. We’ll see.