weighing in on YA lit

[rivendellrose]

Diane Duane shares some of her customary awesomeness and wisdom regarding the whole flap with what some twit of a WSJ op-ed contributor said about young adult literature being too "dark." And lest anyone think she's just defending her turf, she's also sharing her perspective as a former psychiatric professional.

Personally, I had a fairly run of the mill childhood and young-adult life, without any huge crises or problems. My parents divorced, it's true, but often seems more common than not, and the split was largely amicable, so while it was disruptive, disturbing, and frustrating, it was hardly as traumatic as a lot of things my classmates were probably going through. Yes, I was frequently moody, depressed, and melodramatic. I was, after all, a teenager, and a strange, socially awkward one at that. So I won't go into how YA "saved" me. It didn't.

What it did was make life infinitely more bearable, because even if you're not going through any of the thousand absolutely horrifying things that a lot of teens and young adults go through, for a lot of us, particularly if "us" is understood as geeky, perhaps even nerdy, bookish young people, being a teenager freaking sucked. Books and theater and my volunteer job at the local science center were absolutely the things that dragged me through and allowed me to come out as (relatively) sane and functional as I am. And the weird thing? As much as I devoured a lot of dark books with some really icky themes that, thinking back on it, I'm slightly embarrassed to admit that I absolutely craved at that age... I dunno, I seem to have turned out mostly okay. I'm not violent. I cringe at cartoon violence, for goodness sake. I get up 'to make some tea' and hide in the kitchen when a movie I'm watching has too much violence, and I flat refuse to see any movie I suspect might have a lot of gore or violence in theaters (because it's a lot harder to explain getting up, there, and because I have a vivid imagination, so covering my eyes really doesn't help much). Gasp, shock - I was not harmed by reading Jurassic Park and loads of other fairly graphic sci-fi novels and lots and lots of books about vampires back way before they sparkled and only killed animals. I loved that stuff. And yet I don't appear to have come out craving violence as an adult, or with some kind of bizarre idea of violence (or anything else that was depicted in those many, many books...) as normalized.

By all means, let's be concerned as a society about kids and what kind of influences the media is pushing on them. But, me personally? I'm a hell of a lot more concerned with reality TV and advertising than I'll ever be with a book.

Comments

[velleitas.livejournal.com]

*applause*

I read some fairly innocuous books, but it's actually harder for me to read violence than to watch it; watching it on the screen, it's not internal and it's fake. In a book, all that is happening right in my head. That being said, though most of my reading wasn't "dark" in nature, as far as violent depictions go, I probably read a lot more sexually explicit literature than what society would deep acceptable, and yet, I am quite the opposite of being a sex-crazed person, in the way that such thinking as referenced in the article would suggest.

Definitely am more concerned with TV, like you said, because these are real people who are getting famous and money and being held in any esteem at all for-- for lack of a better word-- doing and/or being dumb shit.

[rivendellrose.livejournal.com]

In a book, all that is happening right in my head.

I totally get what you mean. I have some mental images from books that still just horrify me (most of it stuff that wouldn't ping the sensors of our friends over at the WSJ, I suspect...). Usually if I miss covering my eyes at a movie I'm left going "oh... that's an interesting makeup appliance" or something like that (yay, years of interest in theatrical makeup!), but... that might be partly because I flat refuse to see anything I think will really be scary and end up mostly seeing things like "Sweeney Todd" if I see anything with a lot of blood.

...That said, I was cringing and stressed for hours after the last Batman movie, so... *shrugs*

(And oh, childhood reading of sexy books. Yeah, I did that one, too. And likewise on the far-from-sex-crazed.)

real people who are getting famous and money and being held in any esteem at all for-- for lack of a better word-- doing and/or being dumb shit.

This. Every time I get stuck seeing part of one of those "Real Housewives of Whatever" or something like that, I just walk away feeling ill for our whole culture. :P

[narsilion.livejournal.com]

"But, me personally? I'm a hell of a lot more concerned with reality TV and advertising than I'll ever be with a book."
I agree. I thought all the books you read when you were young were awesome, but I do remember you being a little scared some nights when it came time to turn off the lights. I forget what you were reading...Bunnicula? Do you remember?

[rivendellrose.livejournal.com]

It'd be awfully hard for a person to be afraid of Bunnicula, even the wimpy child I was. ;)

I think you're thinking of the time the stupid "Real Life Mysteries" late night TV show scared me about ghosts.

[ellid.livejournal.com]

My mother had one rule: I had to understand what I was reading before I check the book out of the library. Other than that, I could read whatever I wanted, and I did.

[stormkpr.livejournal.com]

What it did was make life infinitely more bearable, because even if you're not going through any of the thousand absolutely horrifying things that a lot of teens and young adults go through, for a lot of us, particularly if "us" is understood as geeky, perhaps even nerdy, bookish young people, being a teenager freaking sucked

Sad perfectly!

[rivendellrose.livejournal.com]

Thank you!

[kungfuwaynewho.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I started reading Stephen King at 12. I was raised on a steady diet of R-rated films with tons of violence and gore since I was TWO YEARS OLD, and my parents used to put Poltergeist on as a babysitter.

I just wonder if these people have ever spent time with kids. Any essay along these lines thinks that kids are just these mindless automatons incapable of critical thought who just turn into and regurgitate whatever they happen to come across. Most kids I know are the total opposite.

(Of course, I'd also argue that looking at kids in the YA years, it's probably some kind of evolutionary need to scare and be scared - stimulate fear responses and learn how to deal with them. Like all things that are good for us, it feels good for us. That's why a lot of people deep down like being thrilled, and seek out thrills even while insisting they don't like horror movies/roller coasters/heights/etc.)

[rivendellrose.livejournal.com]

I just wonder if these people have ever spent time with kids.

This, exactly. I knew someone a long time ago who, when the... fifth Harry Potter book, I guess it was, came out, went on a rampage about how she didn't approve of the themes of child abuse and how kids shouldn't be reading that. Which, dude, have you read "Matilda?" Or anything Roald Dahl ever read? Or any fairy tale ever?

It was probably no coincidence that I did not remain friends with said person.

I'd also argue that looking at kids in the YA years, it's probably some kind of evolutionary need to scare and be scared - stimulate fear responses and learn how to deal with them.

This, completely. I was terrified of vampires when I was about 8. I mean, really, genuinely, no idea why, but I was. What did I do? For reasons I will never fully understand, but that fit your thesis perfectly... I read a ton of books about them. And then became totally obsessed and read everything about them, but hey - no more crazy terror!

[alto2.livejournal.com]

THIS. Kids are not idiots. They can distinguish fiction from reality. And they're not empty vessels who accept anything that's given to them (which might be why they go through that rebellion period. I guess our intrepid columnist has never heard of that, it being so rare and all!). Way to totally underrate an entire generation.

[websandwhiskers.livejournal.com]

Ugh (to the original article) . . . and I don't just say that because I write and am trying to publish vaguely-edgy YA. Your teen years are meant to prepare you for the world. Books help to prepare you for the world, and expand your sphere of empathy beyond that which is immediately familiar to you and relevant to your life, in addition to providing comfort and the knowledge that you are not alone in whatever it is you are dealing with in your life. I'm sorry (and I'm ranty and indignant here), but 'Hunger Games'? The author is objecting to 'Hunger Games'???? It's a series about war. Should it be fuzzy and happy? Not one iota of the violence in that series is treated in a trivial manner; hell, what the characters wear isn't treated in a trivial manner. It is a scathing social critique, and it changed the way I view the world daily at age 31. I want children and teens to read and internalize books like that, because the children who do that will create a better real world.

. . and the foul language objection is almost so silly it's worth dismissing the entire article simply on that basis, but let me say in regard to that - has the author spent any time around teenagers lately? And not teens who answer to her, i.e. not her own children or their friends. Teens who have no stake in earning her good opinion. Teens are foul-mouthed, for the most part, because it's an utterly harmless way to assert one's freedom from authority.

[mimerki.livejournal.com]

I avoided YA novels when I was the age for them and pretty much read nothing but horror novels for a long while, as did the boys in my gaming group. And we came out mostly okay, the lot of us. (The one schizophrenic of the group being an exception but, well, schizophrenia is not caused by reading, and I'd go so far as to suggest that having a group of weirdo friends may have been helpful.)

[alto2.livejournal.com]

Oh for real, now I am PISSED.

I hadn't heard about this article before, so my thanks for bring it to my attention. I agree with pretty much everything you say, so I won't repeat it all. (Though I will say that someone needs to sit her ass down and watch Frontline's The Merchants of Cool, because YA's got nothing on that crap, especially the MTV stuff. Also, if kids don't read, why is YA Fantasy the fastest-growing book market?) But I do have to say this:

THEY WENT AFTER SHERMAN ALEXIE?? For Part-Time Indian? FOR REAL???

My money says this: Little Miss Know-it-All never read Part-Time Indian. I know this because I have, and because I thought it was one of the best-written books I've ever read for kids (and it still stands up pretty well outside the YA realm despite not being Literary). It's highly based on Alexie's own story, it contains wonderful cartoon images "drawn" by the protagonist, and it deftly deals with the difficulty of being torn between two worlds--the one you were born into where you're doomed to a life of poverty, and the one where you find out you might have a way out, only if you take it, what happens to you when you go back to the first world every night? It's a brilliant book for any kid who's ever felt that way for any reason, and I can't for the life of me figure out why the hell anyone would ban it. (It's been 2+ years since I read it, so I could be a bit fuzzy, but seriously, if there were anything that bad in that book, I'd remember it. I don't forget stuff like that.)

And then the author follows up Alexie's entirely valid comment in a way that makes it look like he's a scumbag trying to expose kids to something they shouldn't read. There's a word for that, Ms. Gurdon, and it is "disingenuous." Also, "shoddy journalism," which you commit from the minute you touch fingertip to keyboard, because the whole tone of your column is dripping with such disgust and disdain that no sane person could read it without feeling assaulted by the bias and distressed that such a thing was allowed to run in a national newspaper.

And hey, I taught American Lit in a New Jersey private school for six years. Know what we read? Maggie: A Girl of the Streets: girl runs off and becomes a prostitute to escape her family and throws herself in the river. The Crucible: Town goes nuts and justifies hanging people by calling them witches. Death of a Salesman: Depressed older guy commits suicide. The Great Gatsby: Pathetic dude can't let go of the past and tries to steal his ex, now married to a philandering racist, and in the process not only bootlegs illegal alcohol and covers up when the ex commits hit-and-run murder, which gets him killed. Ethan Frome: Weak guy marries for the wrong reasons, falls for someone else, and botches a suicide attempt that leaves everyone wishing they were dead. The Catcher in the Rye: Kid flunks out of school for the umpteenth time, lies his way through New York, hires a prostitute and fails to follow through, harrasses former classmates/dates, and eventually reveals he's in the looney bin. Black Boy: The uplifting tale of a Negro youth in the Jim Crow era and how he is routinely debased and occasionally manages to get the shit kicked out of him.

'Cause there are no issues there, nothing that would offend a parent, nothing but sweetness and light. The lack of critical thinking and general perspective exhibited by the people who write pieces like this just makes me crazy.

[kusanivy.livejournal.com]

This butts up against something that's a bit of a pet peeve of mine re YA fiction (and the attitude towards teens in general) and I'm going to try and articulate it without it coming out elitist or classicist or whatever - because that's NOT my intention.

I understand that all these books about pregnant teens, cutting teens, abused teens, poor teens etc are helpful and important. These "edgy" YA books NEED to be available and they NEED to be out there - ESPECIALLY in cases where perhaps the book is the ONLY place the teen has to turn to where someone is going to say to them "it's OK, I understand - you're not alone."

The thing is someone needs to tell that to the lucky kids too.

The kids that won the parent lottery and actually have a happy home life and have to go through their teens and learn to be adults just as much as the kids from dysfunctional homes do. Just because they have DIFFERENT problems from the teens with the "edgy problems" doesn't mean they don't struggle with them as well.

The thing is the "edgy" problems are much more visible and much more immediate (again, I'm NOT saying the "edgy" problems aren't serious and important - they are - but it's a little like apples and oranges). The "lucky" kids' problems tend to be more internalized and harder to talk about.

Harder to talk about because there are some things you CAN'T talk about with your parents, no matter HOW much you love, respect, and get along with them. And then you turn around and get dismissed by your peers because "Pfft - you're life is perfect. You've got nothing to complain about." Yet that doesn't help when you still feel like shit because something is bothering you (and I mean both BIG issues like "what am I going to do with my life" as well as more short tern stuff) . It just makes you feel guilty and weak ON TOP of feeling like shit.

I've had people tell me that my opinion doesn't carry as much weight as theirs regardless of the topic simply because I didn't grow up in a broken home. My best friend has had the same thing happen to her - her roomate in university constantly belittled her opinions on the grounds she'd had a "stable" childhood. And then her parents divorced and suddenly it was like "hey, you're a member of the club now".

So you turn to YA fiction and again, the only stories deemed "important" are those about kids who cut, or have been date raped, or are gay in a homophobic community etc etc. So again you're being told that your problems (and thus your feelings) don't matter because you're not dealing with them in an "edgy" way.

So YES, there is an important place for the "edgy" stories. But the non-"edgy" ones can be just as important (AND can be just as dramatic - something else no one seems to believe). We need BOTH - sadly there seems to be a lack of the latter.