Hope she’s happy. Thanks for reminding me of her works H!

As for the panel, what bothered me most about it (not that I didn’t enjoy it. I did very much so) is that none of the writers seemed able to nail down what literature is. The teachings that I’ve received on that matter say that literature must work as a story on multiple levels. I must also work within themes that are timeless. Stephen King’s reference to an Orange Crush thermometer will mean nothing to a 15 year old reader of today, but when he is 40, he’ll be able to understand the tragedy of Dr. Manhattan leaving his wife for a younger Silk Specter. Of course, literature also demands that the text be well written, but over all it’s not some illusive archaic secret. I’m mean, that sounds right to me, anyway.

One shocker for me was Cecil Castellucci’s mention of a teacher who talked to her at the DC booth, about giving the Plain Janes to his students to read. That was me, so I felt a little flattered by that. I don’t “teach” with it, but I do use it to inspire.