Most borrowed authors from UK public libraries, 2005-06

[wellinghall]

1. Jacqueline Wilson C
2. James Patterson A
3. Josephine Cox A
4. Danielle Steel A
5. Ian Rankin A
6. Janet & Allan Ahlberg C
7. Mick Inkpen C
8. Roald Dahl C
9. John Grisham A
10. Nora Roberts A



1. James Patterson
2. Josephine Cox
3. Danielle Steel
4. Ian Rankin
5. John Grisham
6. Nora Roberts
7. Agatha Christie
8. Bernard Cornwell
9. Katie Flynn
10. Patricia Cornwell

I am familiar with two of these authors, and have read a couple of books by two others.



1. Jacqueline Wilson
2. Janet & Allan Ahlberg
3. Mick Inkpen
4. Roald Dahl
5. Lucy Cousins
6. Lucy Daniels
7. Eric Hill
8. Enid Blyton
9. Francesca Simon
10. Nick Butterworth

I am familiar with two of these authors.



1. Roald Dahl
2. Agatha Christie
3. Georgette Heyer
4. C S Lewis
5. Beatrix Potter
6. Charles Dickens
7. Jane Austen
8. J R R Tolkien
9. William Shakespeare
10. A A Milne

I am familiar with six of these authors.

Published by Public Lending Right, Richard House, Sorbonne Close, Stockton-on-Tees TS17 6DA, www.plr.uk.com

Comments

[didiusjulianus.livejournal.com]

I disagree as quite a lot of children DO have miserable family lives, or can at least identify with the issues anyway or have a friend with similar issue. Others who don't, like to read about children other than themselves(IMO healthily) who have different lives. We all like a good triumph-over- adversity story, don't we? Even *I* like Tracy Beaker and I don't read those misery memoirs more than about once a year, or less. Although I don't see there's much wrong with them in small doses?

[ladyofastolat.livejournal.com]

I certainly don't object to her writing about non-happy families and issues. I just find her focus on unhappy family lives a bit samey. Children with "happy" home lives can still have problems and issues and concerns that are no less valid than those of children who live in a mouldy flat with pregnant sister, and a mentally ill mother with an abusive boyfriend. Nothing wrong with the books... but I just wish that there was a bit more variety. (Though, really, why should she want to change a winning formula?)

There was a period when "experts" thought that children should only read books they could "relate to" - i.e. children in care should only read stories about children in care etc. Now people recognise that, while these books certainly ought to be available, some children will want to read anything but. Books provide an opportunity for escapism as well as identification. Different readers want different things at different times.

But I'm probably being unfair, come to think of it. I posted a few weeks ago remembering the girls' comics I used to read when I was young, full of suffering, put-upon orphans getting kicked when they're down, but winning through at the end. There's nothing different, really...