According to today’s New York Times, Scholastic is launching a new series called “The 39 Clues,” which will be available beginning in December.  What makes this project unique is that it represents a franchising that encompasses books, Web activities, trading cards, and more.

From the article:

With the Harry Potter series now completed, Scholastic, the United States publisher of those wildly successful books …  is moving forward with what it hopes will be its follow-up blockbuster series.

Called “The 39 Clues,” this series will feature 10 books — the first of which is to go on sale next September — as well as related Web-based games, collectors’ cards and cash prizes. The project demonstrates Scholastic’s acknowledgment that as much as the publisher heralded the renewed interest in reading represented by the Harry Potter books, many children are now as transfixed by Internet and video games as they are by reading.

“We want to go where the kids are and really be part of their complete world, rather than going to one aspect of their world,” said David Levithan, an executive editorial director at Scholastic. He added, “We talk of it as being subversively educational.”

The series … will be aimed at readers 8 to 12 and offer mystery novels telling the story of a centuries-old family, the Cahills, who are supposed to be the world’s most powerful clan. According to the books, famous historical figures ranging from Benjamin Franklin to Mozart were members of the family. The plots will revolve around the race by two young Cahills, Amy, 14, and Dan, 11, against other branches of the family to be the first to find the 39 clues that will lead to ultimate power.

Rick Riordan, the best-selling author of the Percy Jackson series, which includes “The Lightning Thief” and “The Sea of Monsters,” mythologically themed books aimed at preteens, has written the first title in this new series, “The Maze of Bones.” He has also outlined the story arc for the next nine installments.

The books will come out once every two or three months, and the publisher has already signed Gordon Korman … to write Volume 2.

This is an intriguing development, as books are just a part of the entertainment package.  I wonder what kinds of online interactions Scholastic will bring to the table and just what a “subversively educational” multimedia project looks like.

My students will definitely cheer at the idea of another Rick Riordan-influenced series!

My colleague Roberta sent me this link to Marylaine Block’s Web site, “Beyond the Basics: Making the Most of Your Library Website.”  It’s chock-full of suggestions for what role your Web site can play in your school library media center, with a particular focus on user-centered design, or thinking actively about how your particular population will interact with the site.  It’s a great tie in to SLMAM’s October article on library Web sites.

Just when I thought I had a simple Web 2.0 definition down-pat (create, collaborate, share, connect), my brother-in-law has proposed an alternate theory … that from a programmer’s perspective, Web 2.0 isn’t a “new” Web, rather the continued development of the “early” Web. 

We agree that one of the differences between “now” and when we first went online a decade-plus ago are the number and types of people with an online presence. 

I think I’ve mentioned before how I’ve been tracking a bunch of craft and quilting blogs in preparation for my family’s holiday exchange (gifts should be handmade; a gift of time like babysitting, proofreading, driving to the airport; or … new this year … a book). 

These blogs often have authors who we would not have thought of as being Web presences in the early days.  Many of the blogs I read feature stay-at-home moms (who have since built a cottage industry in online craft markets as a result of their blog’s popularity) or retirees, neither of whom we would have seen as “typical” users a decade ago.  And yet their blogs often have subscriberships in the hundreds, more than most media or educational technology bloggers have.

In our discussion, he’s pointed me to this excellent O’Reilly article from 2005, which delineates the difference between “Web 1.0″ and “Web 2.0″ by comparing and contrasting examples of each.

For example:

Web 1.0 = taxonomy/directories

vs.

 Web 2.0 = folksonomies/tagging

Web 1.0 = personal Web sites with static content

vs.

Web 2.0 = blogs where visitors can interact and leave comments

Web 1.0 = building Web sites that are “sticky” (have elements that make visitors want to linger)

vs.

Web 2.0 = syndication (sending out the content to the visitor, who may never visit the site)

For now, each of us is sticking with our own perspective … and, the more I think about it, both of us are right.  Those who know the behind-the-scenes programming on the Web see that we’re on a gradually shifting continuum.  Those of us who really prefer that someone set things up for us so we can concentrate on content see an exponential change.�