CCBC-Net Archives
Smack, Y.A. Books, & Positive Adult Characters
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Karen Vieth <kevieth>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 09:01:33 -0500
It is interesting to define "positive" from the varying perspectives of Tar and Gemma. Tar's definition would be the absence of abuse. By this definition, Gemma's parents check out okay. Hence, his initial apprehension at "taking" her away from them. However, Gemma defines "positive" in a different way. For her it indicates that adults allow you freedom and understand you.
"Actually, Richard and Vonny made a perfectly reasonable set of parents. I could spend the night with my boyfriend. They passed joints to me. I could decorate my room whatever colour I liked, stay out how long I liked. As parents they were perfect." (pg. 93)
Beyond that, it is important to remember the way that our own definitions change with experience. As a parent, I can identify with Gemma's parents protectiveness. (setting aside her father's obsession with control and her mother's passive aggression) However, as a fourteen year-old, I can remember thinking my friends' parents were more reasonable, understanding, etc. At fourteen, I thought good parents didn't yell, were lenient in punishment, and openly understood teenage desires. This is the same general idea that Gemma has.
If Burgess had placed a positive adult character in the book, according to some general adult?sed standards, what would that mean for the story? I would be afraid that the adult character might play the role of rescuer, and not allow the main characters to play out the story. There is a chance that this could seem staged or preachy to young readers.
I was struck by what Michele wrote about how the book painted too rosy a picture of heroin use. Is it possible to accurately portray that horror, and was this the purpose of "Smack"? I think that it is interesting that she sees two characters dying in the book, while I felt that only one would survive. Burgess sets the stage of addiction and shows the reader the seemingly inevitable patterns that the characters had fallen. Only two died in the time-span of the book, but when I played the rest of the story out in my mind it was a dreary picture. Was I reading too far into it? Or, more importantly, how would a young adult read it?
I felt Burgess left the reader with a lot of ownership over the story, because of what went unsaid or was implied. If he had filled the story with more of the horror, is it possible that it could be dismissed by the readers as a scare tactic? Would we lose the story for the message, or perhaps lose both?
I'd be interested in knowing if Burgess' usage of time bothered anybody. At one point in the book, I remember being shocked that years had passed. Any ideas about his intentions here?
Karen Vieth
Message----From: Ginny Moore Kruse To: Subscribers of ccbc-net Date: Wednesday, June 17, 1998 12:08 PM Subject: Smack, Y.A. Books, & Positive Adult Characters
**********
Received on Thu 18 Jun 1998 09:01:33 AM CDT
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 09:01:33 -0500
It is interesting to define "positive" from the varying perspectives of Tar and Gemma. Tar's definition would be the absence of abuse. By this definition, Gemma's parents check out okay. Hence, his initial apprehension at "taking" her away from them. However, Gemma defines "positive" in a different way. For her it indicates that adults allow you freedom and understand you.
"Actually, Richard and Vonny made a perfectly reasonable set of parents. I could spend the night with my boyfriend. They passed joints to me. I could decorate my room whatever colour I liked, stay out how long I liked. As parents they were perfect." (pg. 93)
Beyond that, it is important to remember the way that our own definitions change with experience. As a parent, I can identify with Gemma's parents protectiveness. (setting aside her father's obsession with control and her mother's passive aggression) However, as a fourteen year-old, I can remember thinking my friends' parents were more reasonable, understanding, etc. At fourteen, I thought good parents didn't yell, were lenient in punishment, and openly understood teenage desires. This is the same general idea that Gemma has.
If Burgess had placed a positive adult character in the book, according to some general adult?sed standards, what would that mean for the story? I would be afraid that the adult character might play the role of rescuer, and not allow the main characters to play out the story. There is a chance that this could seem staged or preachy to young readers.
I was struck by what Michele wrote about how the book painted too rosy a picture of heroin use. Is it possible to accurately portray that horror, and was this the purpose of "Smack"? I think that it is interesting that she sees two characters dying in the book, while I felt that only one would survive. Burgess sets the stage of addiction and shows the reader the seemingly inevitable patterns that the characters had fallen. Only two died in the time-span of the book, but when I played the rest of the story out in my mind it was a dreary picture. Was I reading too far into it? Or, more importantly, how would a young adult read it?
I felt Burgess left the reader with a lot of ownership over the story, because of what went unsaid or was implied. If he had filled the story with more of the horror, is it possible that it could be dismissed by the readers as a scare tactic? Would we lose the story for the message, or perhaps lose both?
I'd be interested in knowing if Burgess' usage of time bothered anybody. At one point in the book, I remember being shocked that years had passed. Any ideas about his intentions here?
Karen Vieth
Message----From: Ginny Moore Kruse To: Subscribers of ccbc-net Date: Wednesday, June 17, 1998 12:08 PM Subject: Smack, Y.A. Books, & Positive Adult Characters
**********
Received on Thu 18 Jun 1998 09:01:33 AM CDT
