Before the credit crunch there was such a thing as ethical finance, or the art of making money while refusing to exploit others in the process. Of course the words “ethical” and “finance” have never sat easily together, and in reality placing money in such schemes usually meant settling for less financial return than might have been gained in a rival scheme with no such moral constraints. For ethical investors, the knowledge that their money was being used in ways they felt comfortable with was more important than squeezing every last penny out of their investment.Writing for publication is similar in many ways. Before money enters the equation, writers create the books they believe in (which might go some way to explaining why many first novels seem so fresh and meaningful). Upon seeking publication, we invest our vision, talent and words with a publishing company in return for a share of the profits. While obviously hoping for some financial return, I think most writers given the choice would prefer to remain true to the spirit of their work even if this means a bit less in the bank – and happily many children’s editors of the past put quality of content first, which led naturally to profit.
Then came the death of the Net Book Agreement, publishing’s very own credit crunch. Before this, publishers could make a profit on all types of books. Afterwards, only certain types of books – those aimed at the mass market – made good profits, and those that appealed to more niche markets struggled. Add to this a dose of post Harry Potter greed, and I believe we are on a slippery and dangerous path. Bad enough if the market being exploited is the shadowy world of sub-prime mortgages and hedge funds. But when that market is our children’s reading matter, perhaps it is time to pause and ask ourselves what will be the long term result on society of children’s books that celebrate greed, fame, revenge, violence, knives, pink sparkles for girls, American culture, underage sex, or whatever other “market-led” subject happens to be in fashion at any given moment?
Of course, the finance people will claim that readers drive the market, and they are simply publishing the books that readers want to read. Fair enough, maybe, if we are talking about adults who (possibly!) know what they want. But when those readers are children with inquiring, developing minds, is it not also true to say that the market shapes its readers? It might be a coincidence that the bankers responsible for our global financial meltdown were children at around the time the NBA vanished - or it might not.
As children’s authors, I believe we have a responsibility to create books that nurture the soul, educate widely, show a rounded view of all cultures, and can guide young people on the path to responsible adulthood in as many different ways as possible. If the rest of the business turns its back on quality and variety in favour of a narrow range of books for maximum profit, then it will be left to us to find a way to carry the banner for ethical publishing into the 21st century.
8 comments:
It might be a coincidence that the bankers responsible for our global financial meltdown were children at around the time the NBA vanished - or it might not.
Is this correct? The NBA was abolished in 1997 - if you were 7 then, you're 19 now. Most of the people making the decisions in banking are in their 40s and 50s. The economic crisis can also be blamed on politicians and regulators, and above all individuals who took decisions to overburden themselves with unpayable debt.
I've come across very few books that actually celebrate knives and violence - some adventure books are violent, true but generally in the context of fighting evil. Many of the 'pink sparkly' books are - like chick lit - thoughtful examinations of feelings and values. Accessible and fun yes, valueless no. Don't confuse the marketing with the message.
> the finance people will claim that readers drive the market, and they are simply publishing the books that readers want to read. Fair enough, maybe, if we are talking about adults who (possibly!) know what they want.
Actually I think this is a poor argument by the finance people, even with regard to the adult market. 'Just giving people what they want' is a pathetic excuse for publisher who can't be bothered to think or take risks.
Almost everything that's ever been really huge has come as a surprise to the money-men, who then scramble to find something 'exactly like it'. Take Tolkien: he had a horribly tough time getting The Lord Of The Rings published, a book which went on to be the nation's favourite. Was that 'what people wanted'? Well, it is now. And YET - remember Peter Jackson's movie trilogy of that book? (Of course we do). Jackson had an even tougher time getting movie executives to consider it. It 'wasn't what people wanted'. And then, suddenly, it was. Me, I went to see each film about four times... But then I would.
Greed, fame, revenge, violence, knives...where would Shakespeare be without them?
I don't know any children's books that 'celebrate' knives and violence. I know plenty that concern themselves wth knives and violence, including my own Crossing The Line. It's as Keren said, or close to it - don't confuse the subject with the 'message' (not that I think we're in the business of sending 'messages').
I have stronger objections to sanitised violence - death involving blood and pain is far more honest than pointing a wand and saying a magic word.
My characters also have underage sex, both in CTL and in Bad Faith, because in the stories they inhabit they wouldn't be believable if they didn't. The fact is, they care about each other. Just like grown-ups - or rather, just like grown-ups should.
Possibly Katherine's core point has been muddied slightly by combining too many bugbears. While I don't necessarily agree that children's books have a moral duty (and can be as violent as they like as far as I'm concerned) I do think that there is too much money chasing too few authors. But then we knew that. Instead of diversity we get homogeneity, with lots of Harry Potter clones, Alex Rider clones, Tolkien wannabes, and the rest. I think that's the issue - an unwillingness to take risks and encourage readers to try something new. It's easier to just serve them up more of what they've already bought.
I don't think it's fair to suggest that there isn't quality out there now. There is and many children's writers strive to do all the things Katherine says. At different times during my writing career I can remember there being a fair amount of questionable stuff that was selling briskly. The market is hard now but we have to find way to reach the audience and write thr stuff we want to. I don't think that the publishing world (or the finance people) are our enemies in this.
I saw this thing on reddit but it talks more about online publishing and writing. ads everywhere. top ten lists... click click click.
Interesting comment, Keren, thank you - I was thinking more of 11, 12 and 13 year olds, who will be in their early to mid twenties now and possibly the young hot-shots of the finance world... though, as you say, perhaps this demographic better fits the individuals who burdened themselves with debt in the first place?
And, as others here have pointed out, many children's authors do of course still tackle wide ranging and difficult issues in a responsible way (indeed, many of my own books contain a fair amount of violence!) I am just wondering how long their voices will continue to be heard in an increasingly market-driven climate.
I actually don't think we've gone down the slippery path just yet, but are maybe standing at the top looking down...
Post a Comment