It happened in 2000. The Harry Potter books -- a once in a lifetime publishing phenomenon -- were dominating the bestseller lists, with three titles ensconced in the Top 15 at the same time. It just wasn't fair, moaned publishers of more "serious" fiction. It kept more deserving titles off the list, titles that people would never hear about, said bookstore owners. And so in a rash, indefensible decision, the New York Times decided to banish children's books solely to their own separate list.
-
Hi there.
I'm Andy Wibbels. I am working on a blog redesign so things might be a little clunky for a few days. You can learn more about my book, Blogwild, at http://GOblogwild.com/. Right now I'm working in San Francisco at Six Apart where I'm the product manager for Blogs.com. You can add my blog to your Google, Yahoo, Bloglines or other homepage. You can also follow me on Twitter, Facebook and Friendfeed.
I sometimes blog about Trent Reznor (parts 1 and 2), cubicle slang, D&D, furries and fanfic, Fosse, freakfilters, indigo children, The Secret movie, sexy deliverymen and dungeon furniture. Here's my most popular post.
Comments
One Comment
Hello Andy!
Here are my thoughts on this as they say "rash, indefensible decision"...
If a book, whether it be a children's book or not, should have the right of being on the same list as all of other books. Most childrens books aren't even reviewed! So when they finally publish a really amazing story, like Harry Potter, it deserves to be on the same list. I know there are tons of great books out there, but that doesn't mean they should take away from other authors because of the genre or for any other reason.
Personally, I liked all of the Harry Potter books when they came out but thats just my two cents.
Thanks!
Trina Lamarche
http://www.efficientva.com