I didn't take notes on this one, because I was actually on it! But I can talk about what I can remember.

First, though, I want to mention a much narrower topic--the topic as I originally imagined it.


I've been thinking about children that literally never grow up: Peter Pan, for instance, or Dorothy Gale, once she goes to live permanently in the land of Oz. Children who stop aging before they go through puberty seem to me qualitatively different from people who achieve so-called eternal youth when they've already reached maturity. (Edward Cullen and Bella Swan are something in between, but they're closer to the latter thing, as they've already gone through puberty.)

Unaging children pile up experiences and can grow wiser for them (unless, like Peter Pan, they have no long-term memory), but they miss out on all the trauma/drama/excitement that go along with puberty. In some cases, as in some of sartorias's stories, that's the whole point: you say a spell to remain a child until you feel ready for that emotional and physical firestorm.

Anyway. I think there's something paradoxical about gaining experience and yet remaining a child.

That's not what the panel was about, though. The panel had a much broader topic: how do children feel about growing up? From the panel description: Kids in their tweens and early teens often want the rights and privileges of adulthood while shying away from responsibility as long as possible. The attraction of growing up and the way it conflicts with the fear of leaving the safety of childhood is frequently addressed in YA literature.

There were **all sorts** of ways the conversation could have gone--I mean, we could talk forever and touch on a thousand things. Fortunately, our excellent moderator deliasherman kept us on track.

People had such interesting things to say. Steve Popkes talked about the theme of coming into your power and the theme of shouldering your responsibilities. He said that in stories you often got both themes--but they don't *have* to go together. Anil Menon talked about how adolescence in India can extend into your late twenties. Ellen Klages talked about how, for girls, becoming adult traditionally meant giving up adventures and settling down into a caregiving role.

A number of really interesting points came up as a result of comments or questions from the audience. One person in the audience suggested that maybe one thing that YA literature did was encourage young people to grow in empathy. This prompted Anil Menon to say that in India, while *sympathy* was encouraged, *empathy* is tricky, because once you start empathizing, the whole caste system falls apart. He said when he wrote his YA novel (which is set in India in the nearish future), he originally gave his characters surnames, but the publisher made him remove them--because you can tell a person's caste from their surname, and (I guess, though Anil didn't say this directly) that would complicate the story.

Ellen Klages had said that she hadn't thought of her novel as being a YA novel--she had written the story she wanted to read--but that's how it had ended up being marketed. Perhaps in response to that, Madeleine Robins, who was in the audience, remarked that when To Kill a Mockingbird was first published, it was considered a book for adults, but then gradually it got moved on down to younger ages.

That got me thinking about how Scout, as a youthful narrator, can remark on racism and injustice in a very different way from an adult. Having Scout as the protagonist freed Harper Lee up to talk about the issues from a totally unexpected, and therefore revealing, perspective. I realize that's one reason I like young protagonists.

There was more--for instance, at one point Ellen Klages asked the audience a series of questions, like "How many of you felt like you were strange, when you were young?" with interesting results. (I wish I remember some of the follow-up questions. But it was enlightening that *EVERY* one had felt strange or like an outsider when they were young.