CCBC-Net Archives
How Far Is Too Far?
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Suzi Steffen <suzisteffen>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 09:54:29 -0700
On 6/22/05, Emmaattic at aol.com wrote:
I am not sure I understand this reaction, and I'll try to move this to YA literature for examples. For instance, when M.E. Kerr wrote a book in which one of the characters had AIDS (was this not the first YA book to feature a character with AIDS?), I'm fairly sure that many people objected to this inclusion--perhaps even as marketing technique
(though I'm sure Kerr wasn't writing it for that reason).
When S.E. Hinton wrote THE OUTSIDERS, I'm sure that many "guardians of decency" objected to the plot, the characters, etc. and saw this book as a way for the publisher to capitalize on indecency to make a buck.
When YA books deal with sex, drinking, drugs, or anything else that is a part of life but that some people find objectionable, should we believe that authors are "selling out"? I do not understand this argument at all. Teenagers and adults both deal with a variety of experiences and the consequences thereof. Why should an author *not* include sex, drinking, or drugs in her story? I don't think Jess Mowry was "selling out" when he wrote WAY BEYOND COOL or Melvin Burgess selling out when he wrote SMACK (or even DOING IT, provocative as the title is) or, for goodness' sakes, Judy Blume when she wrote ARE YOU THERE GOD, THAT WAS THEN, DEENIE, FOREVER, etc., etc., etc. I think these authors write/wrote with the full range of behaviors available to them.
Of course, if a YA book is *only* about sex and has no character development, then I can see where someone might object to it as purely a sales technique. I have not yet read RAINBOW PARTY, but I hear from those who have that it's actually not a well-written book and is also super-moralistic about girls performing oral sex on boys (for those of you who are worried that the book itself will promote rainbow parties, the readers believe the opposite is true--but I will be reading it myself at some point)--so this book *may* qualify as a slam?m poorly-written marketing ploy, I don't yet know.
Dogs poop on the floor sometimes. Teenagers have sex sometimes. And why shouldn't that be part of literature just as much as anything else? Why deny the Rabelaisian parts of life? In what way does dog poop detract from *story*? And in what way, following this logic, is humor less meritorious than tragedy or "serious" narrative?
Suzi Steffen
Suzi's YA Litblog: http://www.livejournal.com/users/connorgal
Received on Wed 22 Jun 2005 11:54:29 AM CDT
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 09:54:29 -0700
On 6/22/05, Emmaattic at aol.com wrote:
I am not sure I understand this reaction, and I'll try to move this to YA literature for examples. For instance, when M.E. Kerr wrote a book in which one of the characters had AIDS (was this not the first YA book to feature a character with AIDS?), I'm fairly sure that many people objected to this inclusion--perhaps even as marketing technique
(though I'm sure Kerr wasn't writing it for that reason).
When S.E. Hinton wrote THE OUTSIDERS, I'm sure that many "guardians of decency" objected to the plot, the characters, etc. and saw this book as a way for the publisher to capitalize on indecency to make a buck.
When YA books deal with sex, drinking, drugs, or anything else that is a part of life but that some people find objectionable, should we believe that authors are "selling out"? I do not understand this argument at all. Teenagers and adults both deal with a variety of experiences and the consequences thereof. Why should an author *not* include sex, drinking, or drugs in her story? I don't think Jess Mowry was "selling out" when he wrote WAY BEYOND COOL or Melvin Burgess selling out when he wrote SMACK (or even DOING IT, provocative as the title is) or, for goodness' sakes, Judy Blume when she wrote ARE YOU THERE GOD, THAT WAS THEN, DEENIE, FOREVER, etc., etc., etc. I think these authors write/wrote with the full range of behaviors available to them.
Of course, if a YA book is *only* about sex and has no character development, then I can see where someone might object to it as purely a sales technique. I have not yet read RAINBOW PARTY, but I hear from those who have that it's actually not a well-written book and is also super-moralistic about girls performing oral sex on boys (for those of you who are worried that the book itself will promote rainbow parties, the readers believe the opposite is true--but I will be reading it myself at some point)--so this book *may* qualify as a slam?m poorly-written marketing ploy, I don't yet know.
Dogs poop on the floor sometimes. Teenagers have sex sometimes. And why shouldn't that be part of literature just as much as anything else? Why deny the Rabelaisian parts of life? In what way does dog poop detract from *story*? And in what way, following this logic, is humor less meritorious than tragedy or "serious" narrative?
Suzi Steffen
Suzi's YA Litblog: http://www.livejournal.com/users/connorgal
Received on Wed 22 Jun 2005 11:54:29 AM CDT
