Yes, but my point is, did you think that at age 12, reading them?

Cast your memory back to however old you were when you read the things, and try to remember their impact on you - those writers, any writers - at that age.

Deb, that's what my post was about. Back in middle school, I gobbled down Pike and found his books deliciously scary and nasty, and thought Stine was predictable. I don't know how I can break that reaction down into smaller words, or smaller feelings, and it's a far cry from taking about the writer's reliance on the Oedipal myth and Gothic tradition, or what have you.

I try not to intellectualize what I remember of my childhood reactions to things, and like you I'm suspicious of that tendency in others. But it almost sounds like you don't believe "X is better than Y" is a valid reaction to remember from childhood, which is absurd. Those judgments may be wrong -- in eighth grade, I liked Paula Abdul more than R.E.M. -- but they're still there.

Amy, YOU did that to Rachel?

Hee! Well, not entirely. Applegate herself came up with the basic plot, and then we had to flesh it out and work out details, etc. Actually, she wanted her to be a worm, I think, which the art department balked at, and I think we also figured it out they don't actually regenerate into two separate worms if sliced in half. Or something.

"AmyLiz suggested I call you"

Hope it helped! And I know what you mean about cold-calling -- I'm not very good at it, either, at least when you're asking someone for something. (Although I think you posted that in Bitches...)

The Animorphs books were great fun. And a lot of work, too -- researching the animal characteristics and figuring out those action scene details. But the characters were solid and each very different. The first book I did was Ax, the alien, which was hilarious.

But it almost sounds like you don't believe "X is better than Y" is a valid reaction to remember from childhood, which is absurd. Those judgments may be wrong -- in eighth grade, I liked Paula Abdul more than R.E.M. -- but they're still there.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. You're missing - or adding, I can't tell which - a level to it.

ALL of my reactions at that age that were at all comparative were "X is better than Y" or, rather, in my case because of the way I process, "I like X better than Y." And that was the point of MY post: demanding that my 12-year-old self critique and break down why on a critical level would have been ridiculous and cruel. It also would have resulted in a blank stare and a fairly rude "NO, I don't THINK so, it doesn't MATTER why to anyone but me, why should YOU care?"

So, you've got me assbackward there. It's the imposition of artificial reasoning on the initial reaction I was questioning, not the initial X over Y reaction. I'm all about those.

To me, saying it's about "resonance" makes it sound like I'm picking chocolate over vanilla, whereas really this is (in terms of YA thrillers) Haagen-Dazs Dulce du Leche vs. freezer-burned bargain-basement vanilla.

Yay! Thanks for sticking up for my man Pike.

I got to write two of them, which was a hell of a lot of fun.

Wow! You wrote a couple of the Animorphs books? That's so cool! Which ones? My brother or sister might have read them.

Which ones?

Numbers 28 and 32 -- I'd have to go look up the titles. (They were all so nonspecific and similar -- The Invasion, The Threat, The Getaway, whatever.)

The first one was an Ax (the alien) book, and the second was the one where Rachel got split in two. The Ax one was more fun.

When I was writing them, Jake was nearly eight, so he was very impressed.

Yay! Thanks for sticking up for my man Pike.

(banging head against desk)

NO ONE WAS DISSING PIKE.

Please to read my lips, OK? I do not diss writers I have never read; I rarely diss writers, period.

Not. What. I. Was. Saying. Am I speaking martian, or something? This is pretty straightforward.

Put bluntly, I'm having some difficulty in believing that all you guys were little critical geniuses at age ten, or whatever. And that goes for the deep, earnest, initial soul-searching I am not for one second believing in about the choices in ice cream, either.

Maybe everyone in this thread was in fact that kind of prodigy. If so, congrats, and I'm sorry I'm doubting you. But honestly, take my word for it: when handed two flavours of ice cream to choose from, most little kids lick their lips, point at the one they like better and say "That one! Two scoops, please." The reasons for why they preferred one over the other come way later in life.

PERIOD. OK? Not "attacking" your man Pike. Are we clear? Please? Because I honestly don't know how much clearer I can possibly be.

Jesus. Frustrating.

Are we clear? Please? Because I honestly don't know how much clearer I can possibly be.

Clear.

The reasons for why they preferred one over the other come way later in life.

And this is the bloody thing. Why can't one have reasons at a young age? Why can't a kid say, "Mom, I like this book better because it has aliens and this one has no aliens"? Or, "Mom, I like this book better because this other one was boring and I wanted to watch TV instead"? It feels like you're dismissing the existence of any thought processes at all in children until what, age twenty? When do you think we know why we think something is better? I'm sorry is I'm misinterpreting your stance, but yes, it is frustrating when your judgment of something is dismissed as, "Oh, you just liked him cause he had Indian things."

I've not read any of that stuff. But I do remember it took me a lot of Nancy Drew books to learn it was always the caretaker with the weird accent.She had me going for the longest time. As I'm writing this book now, I'm sad that I've strayed away from writing that allows me to villainize caretakers with funky accents...it would make my "job" so much easier.(Although I could have a little fun with that...make one of the attendants foreign in some way, just for the "Psych!" red-herringness of it.)

I'm sad that I've strayed away from writing that allows me to villainize

"It's the sullen guy with the wooden leg! Turn around already before he hits you in the head with the shove!"

Darn the modern requirements for plausability. It would have worked if it weren't for those rotten kids and their dog.

Okay, yeah, I think I've still got your meaning all wrong. I'll stop now. Sorry I got so defensive. I understand you have no opinions on the authors.