Member-only story
Keeping “Kiddie Lit” in Its Place
A status report on the academic study of Children’s Literature.
On July 23, 2000, the New York Times Book Review changed the rules. For 82 weeks previously, J.K. Rowlings’ Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone had appeared on their Bestseller List and her two subsequent books also occupied two more positions on that treasured list of fifteen. But Goblet of Fire, her fourth book, was about to appear and the Times felt something must be done. Despite the fact that the Harry Potter books were being read by children and adults, in a fit of gerrymandering meant to give space to other books and the publishers who buy advertising, the Book Review created a separate children’s bestseller list and bumped Rowlings to there.
What if, instead of Rowlings, the bestseller spots had been occupied for weeks by works by Toni Morrison or Judith Krantz or Stephen King? Would the New York Times have created a separate list for African-American Writing, Women’s Books, or Popular Fiction? Why does it seem so unthinkingly acceptable that if a “separate but equal” ghetto should be created, if the concept “bestseller” needed to be redefined and skewed, that it would be okay to do so in terms of age but objectionable if done in terms of race, gender, or class?
