![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
YA agony (LONG!)
14/2/08 21:08Reading the long thread on depressing YA novels, I had some thoughts.
I see the novels under discussion being grouped into three baskets, which sort of develop with time.
(1) The "classics" (up through about the late 1960s; Old Yeller, The Yearling...) were written in an age where childrens' books were meant to Build Character. Character implies courage, machismo, toughness; the protagonists aren't girls. And "growing up" means proving oneself to be a man, which implies both "not a boy" and "not a woman." How do you make a character strong and tough? By forcing him to kill his beloved pet! He is thus distanced from stupid womanly sentimentality.
(2) The "bibliotherapy" books (which I see as primarily an '80s phenomenon, but please note I am NOT an expert in the history of YA literature; virtually everything I read is 2000 or later) were written in an age where childrens' books were meant to provide sympathy and raise consciousness. I think there was also a strong reaction against bucolic suburban settings, Dick and Jane, Beverly Cleary with her happy white suburban kids and pets. Writers were realizing that they needed to represent the experiences of people of color, people who are poor, and people who have Big Freakin' Problems. Like drug addiction, or addicted parents; gangs; physical or sexual abuse; pregnancy; etc. Theoretically, this can be a good thing.
On the one hand, I think it IS important that childrens'/YA books reflect a variety of experiences and lifestyles. I don't think an honest literature can leave out the unpleasant things. On the other hand, not every person in a bad situation needs a book about precisely that situation. In fact, the reverse might be true. During the hardest years of my life, I mostly wanted to read about telepathic dragons and boys in love with each other. (Not at the same time. I mean, I found Mercedes Lackey through Anne McCaffrey, but I found her a little too intense and quit after two chapters). Also, a lot of these books are terribly moralistic and just...not any good as literature, because they're focused on being educational about A Particular Social Problem.
(I think, too, that the authors often were very careful about providing false hope; they wanted to write about how things would turn out, not how they should turn out; and that meant very bleak endings).
(3) The "literary" books have always been around, but I think they may be most conspicuous now. These are books written for the same reasons as adult "literature"; they are meant to be art. Which raises the thorny question of just what the purpose of art is! But when Akira Kurosawa said that art means not averting your eyes, I think he was getting at something. If you look at most adult books that get awards, they're pretty depressing. And if you look at most children's books that get awards, they're depressing in the same ways: not gratuitously, but without flinching from sadness. Among dead-dog books, look at "Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian"--it's there, but it's not gratuitous in the same way as "Old Yeller." If I gave you a straight summary of the book, it would probably win an Agony Award, but (a) it's leavened with enough humor to make it bearable and (b) it's good enough to make up for the depressing parts. I'd say the same for Octavian Nothing, or a dozen other books.
And this is the category I'm most conflicted about.
Because I do think that real art means not averting your eyes. But does that mean that any age is appropriate for hearing about all the sad and rotten stuff that happened in history? I couldn't say that people (at any age) have the right to blissful privileged ignorance, but there also seems to be something cruel about putting these sorts of books on required-reading lists without regard to how sensitive children can be.
As adults, we have the right to read everything from war memoirs to fluffy paranormal romances. But children bring home required reading lists from school. They have to interpret, answer homework questions, ascribe meanings. We never know what a particular kid might have going on at home, either; if a half hour of reading for homework is all the escape she gets, is it really fair to demand that she reads about the same kind of depressing stuff she lives every day?
I guess it's largely a question of balance for me. We've got this attitude that the only things with artistic merit are things that are sad and bleak and dreary. But look at Mark Twain, look at Shakespeare's comedies, look at last year's Printz honor book "An Abundance of Katherines" - which is a YA book, an artistic triumph, and also hilarious. "The Marriage of Figaro." Moliere. If you can teach four Shakespeare plays in four years, why do they have to be Hamlet, Macbeth, Romeo & Juliet, and Julius Caesar?
Too many of these books do avert their eyes, not from the sad and dreary, but from the silly and joyful.
I see the novels under discussion being grouped into three baskets, which sort of develop with time.
(1) The "classics" (up through about the late 1960s; Old Yeller, The Yearling...) were written in an age where childrens' books were meant to Build Character. Character implies courage, machismo, toughness; the protagonists aren't girls. And "growing up" means proving oneself to be a man, which implies both "not a boy" and "not a woman." How do you make a character strong and tough? By forcing him to kill his beloved pet! He is thus distanced from stupid womanly sentimentality.
(2) The "bibliotherapy" books (which I see as primarily an '80s phenomenon, but please note I am NOT an expert in the history of YA literature; virtually everything I read is 2000 or later) were written in an age where childrens' books were meant to provide sympathy and raise consciousness. I think there was also a strong reaction against bucolic suburban settings, Dick and Jane, Beverly Cleary with her happy white suburban kids and pets. Writers were realizing that they needed to represent the experiences of people of color, people who are poor, and people who have Big Freakin' Problems. Like drug addiction, or addicted parents; gangs; physical or sexual abuse; pregnancy; etc. Theoretically, this can be a good thing.
On the one hand, I think it IS important that childrens'/YA books reflect a variety of experiences and lifestyles. I don't think an honest literature can leave out the unpleasant things. On the other hand, not every person in a bad situation needs a book about precisely that situation. In fact, the reverse might be true. During the hardest years of my life, I mostly wanted to read about telepathic dragons and boys in love with each other. (Not at the same time. I mean, I found Mercedes Lackey through Anne McCaffrey, but I found her a little too intense and quit after two chapters). Also, a lot of these books are terribly moralistic and just...not any good as literature, because they're focused on being educational about A Particular Social Problem.
(I think, too, that the authors often were very careful about providing false hope; they wanted to write about how things would turn out, not how they should turn out; and that meant very bleak endings).
(3) The "literary" books have always been around, but I think they may be most conspicuous now. These are books written for the same reasons as adult "literature"; they are meant to be art. Which raises the thorny question of just what the purpose of art is! But when Akira Kurosawa said that art means not averting your eyes, I think he was getting at something. If you look at most adult books that get awards, they're pretty depressing. And if you look at most children's books that get awards, they're depressing in the same ways: not gratuitously, but without flinching from sadness. Among dead-dog books, look at "Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian"--it's there, but it's not gratuitous in the same way as "Old Yeller." If I gave you a straight summary of the book, it would probably win an Agony Award, but (a) it's leavened with enough humor to make it bearable and (b) it's good enough to make up for the depressing parts. I'd say the same for Octavian Nothing, or a dozen other books.
And this is the category I'm most conflicted about.
Because I do think that real art means not averting your eyes. But does that mean that any age is appropriate for hearing about all the sad and rotten stuff that happened in history? I couldn't say that people (at any age) have the right to blissful privileged ignorance, but there also seems to be something cruel about putting these sorts of books on required-reading lists without regard to how sensitive children can be.
As adults, we have the right to read everything from war memoirs to fluffy paranormal romances. But children bring home required reading lists from school. They have to interpret, answer homework questions, ascribe meanings. We never know what a particular kid might have going on at home, either; if a half hour of reading for homework is all the escape she gets, is it really fair to demand that she reads about the same kind of depressing stuff she lives every day?
I guess it's largely a question of balance for me. We've got this attitude that the only things with artistic merit are things that are sad and bleak and dreary. But look at Mark Twain, look at Shakespeare's comedies, look at last year's Printz honor book "An Abundance of Katherines" - which is a YA book, an artistic triumph, and also hilarious. "The Marriage of Figaro." Moliere. If you can teach four Shakespeare plays in four years, why do they have to be Hamlet, Macbeth, Romeo & Juliet, and Julius Caesar?
Too many of these books do avert their eyes, not from the sad and dreary, but from the silly and joyful.