Literary Quality and Rot and Ruin

No, Rot and Ruin is not what would immediately be considered a upper echelon idea for a novel. At its most basic, it is a zombie story. But then, who said zombie stories can't be high in literary quality? 1968's Night of the Living Dead was, many believe a commentary on race relations in the United States. Is the use of a horror device, monsters, gore and bloodshed immediately low brow? One could really argue that the idea of using what is thought of as a low-brow medium to create literature is in itself high brow (DaDa movement-like?).

Literary quality is very hard to define for me. I know what is accepted as literature of the finest quality, and I really enjoy it. Hemmingway, Tennessee Williams, Yeats, and my favorite of all Robert Browning are very dear to me. It seems undisputed that these are literary masters, yet I don't know that I can say why. Each had a unique perspective. Each maybe tweaked his genre. But I imagine Hemmingway's terse, authentic language was not considered high quality at first. I imagine Williams' often vulgar themes and innuendo were considered riskee at the very least. Yeats was often criticized for writing poetry on a repetitive theme (unrequited love), and Browning was overshadowed in his own time by his wife's more traditional verse.

I think these lessons of redefining literary quality that occurred in the late 19th and throughout the 20th century can now be applied to young adult literature. Authors are now challenging the definition of young adult literature, and I think that sort of trend goes hand in hand with increasing literary quality. To me, a work of high literary quality is one that challenges our conventions. I think that the Printz award guidelines lean this way as well. Many of the qualities listed would be pretty boring if they weren't unique or intriguing (Setting, Accuracy, Character, Design). But innovation is worth little without meaning, and this is where I would diverge a little with the Printz definition of literary quality. I can understand why they say meaning should not necessarily factor into this judging, because it is so difficult to say that a work has meaning from one person to the next. But I can't help but feel that a story must convey something meaningful.

In other words, there should be emotion in the work. The characters, setting etc. should convey something that the reader can believe in, and I think that Mayberry does a great job of this in Rot and Ruin. You may not like the characters. You may not like the setting, or the concept, but it does feel real. The world sucks you in, and you learn about the characters. And hopefully, by learning about these fictional characters you learn a little about yourself, or your spouse, or your neighbor, but something about the novel should stick with you; should mean something to you. I often find myself remembering parts of some of the best books I've read, or the best songs I've heard as I go through my day, and I think it helps me make sense of all the craziness out there. At a time when students are going through so many changes, it seems very important that the best Young Adult Literature achieve this goal.