lets have a serious talk about youth series

I am irked by Anne Scott MacLeod and her rant/tantrum about the limitations and her issues with juvenile series fiction. I understand her perspective about the different books she brings up, but I have a problem with going from old fashioned/classic series and drawing generalized conclusions about all series based on a handful of series from at least 40 years ago.  Lets carefully deconstruct some of her claims in the second to last paragraph in her diatribe. The generalization about series being predictable might have some merit to it, but as for the series book “always ending satisfactorily for the protagonist, who is the reader’s surrogate“ I see a logical fallacies. 1. Things end satisfactorily for the protagonist, this is not always the case, there are several series where there is devastating circumstances in which the protagonist barely survives and loses a lover, a dear friend, a family member.

Moving on, series books “reaffirm, rather than challenge”. I have been challenged by a number of series, from Goosebumps to Delirium, to the Books of Elsewhere.

As for “their grievous lacks as literature” this is simply empty angry banter. I know many series books that could become classics someday, they are that good as literature. Anne Scott MacLeod wrote an article about series fiction where she made dismissive comments about a huge diversity of books based on a few older examples, this, especially her second to last paragraph, is to me simply a quite insubstantial rant. 

I like the last paragraph in Mark I. West’s 1985 article, where it says that the objections that librarians had against “unrealistic child heroes found in series books were based on the notion that childhood innocence should be both protected and prolonged.”   Kids should as soon as they are able, learn some emotional resilience, and test their boundaries and learn how they can enhance their own personal growth and well being thorough books that challenge them.

Do series books encourage a lifelong love of reading? 

Series defiantly encourage a lifelong love of reading, as one good book deserves another is the idea of reading and the same idea of a series.

Do they promote shallow intellectual habits? 

Not all series promote shallow intellectual habits, and honestly I have yet to find one series that even tries to shallow thinking and analysis.

Should schools and libraries include this lightweight material in their collections? 

I don’t really know what lightweight materials means, but if your talking about fluffy, less serious, more happiness and peace, and goodwill then yes, lightweight materials are essential.

How would you encourage a reader to move beyond the familiar and explore literature that does not necessarily have a sequel? 

I would encourage a reader to move beyond the familiar and explore literature that does not have a sequel by telling him or her that all the same elements in a series book can be found in many non-series books. 

Macleod, A. S. (1984). Secret in the trash bin: On the perennial popularity of juvenile series books (PDF). Children’s Literature in Education 15(3):127-140.

West, M. (1985). Not to be circulated: The response of librarians to dime novels (PDF).  Children’s Literature Association Quarterly 10(3):137-139.