Doesn’t it just grate when people use a lot of big, scary words to try and sound intelligent? The written word, dearies, not a pre-planned, self-satisfying canvas.
Because I write YA as one of my favourite genres, and read a lot of it, I have decided to give my thoughts on this article, published by the Wall-Street Journal.
Before we begin, I would like to tell you I am all for free media, free speech and expression, and the author was right to write down her take on the subject, however many assumptions and objectivist statements she made.
The article begins with Mrs. Gurdon describing the despair a mother feels when servaying the young adult section. Trust me, lady, I’ve felt it too. Those covers are so OTT, aren’t they? But the fact remains, they are not published to appeal to you. You maybe should have got your daughter a book token, I’m sure she’d have come away with six-to-ten books she wanted.
There are books in the Adult genre that deal with rape and drug-abuse and other semi-taboo subjects, that we do not criticize them because adults should know how to deal with these subjects, apparently. Even if the adult in question is offended or sickened by the content of a book it is never the author or publisher’s fault, is it? They should just know how to deal with it. Yet, younger people should somehow be shielded from this in a way that is not going to happen in the real world.
When you are a teenager your mind is developing, and you are making a lot of choices and decisions about the world that may change on a day to day basis. Hell, when I was about fourteen I thought I was the darkest kid in the world, who knew things that would make adults sick. I thought myself and my friends were unique in our knowledge of odd subjects. Read a few books? Nope, guess not.
I have heard an interesting point of view from a friend on youtube who suggests that parents really love anything that blames an outside factor for any problems encountered by their children, aka, schools, literature, media, the Government, etc. I cannot comment on this, because I’m sure some do and some do not. I don’t have kids, I wouldn’t know.
All I know is that for the longest of times stories have acted as guides, deterrents, entertainment, aids, educational sources, thrilling journeys.
Children can die, children’s family or friends can die, children can be abused or raped, bad, terrible things can happen to children. There is no bubble in the world protecting anyone under 18 years of age from ‘bad things’. Books that include dark subjects do not help or hinder this, they simply allow young adult’s to encounter these subjects, see how other people deal with them, learn about them and make decisions about them and how to deal with them in their own life.
I have heard many stories, especially concerning death and drugs, of people who have learned how to deal with these horrible subjects because of a book that was well-written and appealed to them and has, forever more, been close to their heart.
In the article, Mrs Gurdon mentions books of the 70s such as those written by Judy Bloom that helped young people to explore their bodies and sexuality. During that time these books were considered wrong and ‘going too far’. These were the books complained about in national media, these were the books parents looked to blame. Perhaps these were the books that the author read during her adolescence and took to heart? This is why she sticks up for them and fails to add in anything about historical continuity?
As for ‘The argument in favour of such novels is that they validate the teen experience.’ No. It is not, in fact there is no argument as to why these novels should exist, they exist because they are stories, to for fill every aspect a story should, as I have already explained. All though this does carry some merit, again, as explained above, a book would be worth nothing if it did not reflect the way people act with some strand of realism within a situation.
Teenagers know a lot more than you think, they’re minds are developing faster than your own. They need to be able to take in any number of topics to help them learn and form social and moral ideas. As well as, hey, be entertained! Not many people can forge a connection to a fictional world that is not realistic (no, I do not mean not fantasy or sci-fi, but realistic in the way character’s act and plots develop.) So, to have YA books that were about field trips and sleep overs, and where the first mention of drugs prompted someone to shake their finger and tell everyone ‘no’, without explaining why would be laughed off the shelves. The way in which the explaining is done is the story, the way in which we see the horrific effects of drug-abuse is what happens to the characters.
Oh, and I have not addressed this point yet because I do not understand how a clearly educated writer can make it. Glamorizing self-harm? Glamourizing something is not defined by simply writing about it. Because a character is led to harm herself does not mean that this is being praised, or is the right thing to do, it means that this is the mind-set of that fictional character, who is a person in and of herself. A teenager does understand what a story is, you know, and how the elements within it work.
On a side note, someone told me that Mrs. Gurdon, in a rebuttal interview, called self-harm a tragedy. Self-harm is not a tragedy, it is an issue.
A book will never not teach you anything. Even a book like Mein Kampf gives you insight into the mind of clearly screwy man. We have books in schools and libraries that Chronicle wars and terrors of human history. Children read them to learn in schools, and seem to come out without a wish to comit genocide or start war?
I will never agree with book banning, it is, to me, as bad as book burning and we all know what they say about that, hm?
