CCBC-Net Archives
Re: How much...?
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Sheila Welch <sheilawelch_at_juno.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 13:31:20 -0600
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
In a discussion on the YALSA Listserve several years ago, a librarian, Josh Westbrook, wrote, "Kids are living stories every day that we wouldn't let them read."
I have heard of Garcia's book but not read it. NO LAUGHTER HERE seems to fit well with the quote above since it includes a child whose real situation is extremely difficult to present in a book for children the same age as the character. The topic of female circumcision involves tradition, belief, sex, violence, parental control, and more. Yet Garcia tackled this child's story and made it accessible to a young audience. She and her publisher, Amistad/ Harper Collins deserve admiration.
That said, I think there is a big difference between presenting a difficult subject in a nonfiction format and including that same subject in a novel. Fiction isn't categorized by topic, and many parents do not want their kids exposed to topics that they themselves feel are inappropriate. So I can understand Miriam's decision to place the book in a semi-restricted area of her library. It's one thing for a high school student to want to find a nonfiction book on female circumcision but quite another for an eight-year-old to pull from the fiction shelf a story such as NO LAUGHTER HERE. This seems logical even though I don't quite approve. So I also understand Miriam's discomfort with her decision. And then there is another whole issue about content and access, which several others have mentioned. Why is violence and brutality tolerated relatively well in fantasy novels for children? Many eight-year-olds who are good readers have access to the Harry Potter series and THE HUNGER GAMES.
I have mixed feelings about these issues as an author who writes for young readers. In her posts, Christine brought up the gatekeepers, and I would say that the first gatekeeper is the author who must decide whether a story should slip through the gate in his or her head. When I wrote a novel in which a sixteen-year-old takes her younger sister to an abortion clinic, I ended up using a pseudonym. While I was determined to write the book, I was not comfortable telling the world that I'd written it. (The local librarian in our very anti- abortion area strongly advised me not to use my real name.) One of the publishers who considered the novel suggested that the sisters reveal what had happened to their parents. But, while I knew that would make the story more palatable for parents, it was not the "'real" story I had to tell. My most recent realistic novel has elicited some interesting comments from adult readers. Several have suggested that it's not for every child because some might be too naive for the conte nt. Yet I am quite sure that the lives of my characters reflect those of thousands of real kids "living stories everyday."
This discussion is fascinating. Thanks! Sheila P.S. I just read Miriam's update. Guess it's time to buy another copy of the book.
On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 15:18:34 -0600 (GMT-06:00) Christine Taylor-Butler writes:
Many writers are attempting to write controversial subjects from a more honest vantage point. But those manuscripts aren't getting through the gatekeepers. In some cases, the characters are adjusted (or the authors learn to write) characters that are hopeful, cuddly, or (you fill in the blanks) have a non-ambiguous feel good ending. But children don't always live a reality with a happy ending. Life is messier than that.
Children's publishing is about profits, not pursuit of truth. So what is published isn't necessarily representative of what's being submitted which is why so many established authors are quietly looking at options to produce some work independently. And, truth be told, I know several authors of award winning books that smile for the camera but don't "love" the book that was edited and published because of what was changed or stripped out. So I think it's an important distinction that a published book may or may not always represent the author's intent. Said a close friend: "I was forced to write a book I didn't want to write with a character I didn't love anymore." But to say that in public would be political suicide. The proof, for me, is when the only people raving about the books and recommending it to others are the adults not the children it was intended for.
On the flip side, there are some subjects that are easier to absorb when seen from a distance. I don't need to touch the dead body with my own hands to know a horrific crime was committed. I do think, however, that the media does tend to mine the same territories ad nauseum for safety reasons and because they're a "sure bet" to earn out an advance.
But yes - children are subjected to brutal death in Harry Potter, a horrific, bloody pregnancy in Breaking Dawn, but we can't talk about the things they see every day on TV.
A good example of a book that is "unfiltered" in it's raw honesty is THE MIDDLE PASSAGE by the late Tom Feelings. I couldn't get through the book in one sitting and it does require some cushion for a child to decompress those brutal images. But it knocks the message out of the park.
The place for us to start is to demand more honesty and more variety of voices at acquisitions. Publishing is the only industry I've ever worked with that spends little or no time with its end-user. Instead, we allow the voices of additional gatekeepers down the line to filter the material and influence what is produced. By the time the child gets their hands on the material, it may be far removed from what the author - or illustrator - intended.
Based on my work with college bound students over the past few decades, and from countless school visits working with younger students for the day, I've always contended that if publishers actually KNEW their readers, they'd have more of them clamoring for their books without an adult putting it in their hands.......C
Message-----
From: Claudia Pearson
I do not understand why it is okay to write about vampires ripping humans apart, but not okay to write about humans doing the same thing to one another, especially when it is a truth which needs to be taught and explored with the hope that it could be prevented from ever happening again.
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 13:31:20 -0600
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
In a discussion on the YALSA Listserve several years ago, a librarian, Josh Westbrook, wrote, "Kids are living stories every day that we wouldn't let them read."
I have heard of Garcia's book but not read it. NO LAUGHTER HERE seems to fit well with the quote above since it includes a child whose real situation is extremely difficult to present in a book for children the same age as the character. The topic of female circumcision involves tradition, belief, sex, violence, parental control, and more. Yet Garcia tackled this child's story and made it accessible to a young audience. She and her publisher, Amistad/ Harper Collins deserve admiration.
That said, I think there is a big difference between presenting a difficult subject in a nonfiction format and including that same subject in a novel. Fiction isn't categorized by topic, and many parents do not want their kids exposed to topics that they themselves feel are inappropriate. So I can understand Miriam's decision to place the book in a semi-restricted area of her library. It's one thing for a high school student to want to find a nonfiction book on female circumcision but quite another for an eight-year-old to pull from the fiction shelf a story such as NO LAUGHTER HERE. This seems logical even though I don't quite approve. So I also understand Miriam's discomfort with her decision. And then there is another whole issue about content and access, which several others have mentioned. Why is violence and brutality tolerated relatively well in fantasy novels for children? Many eight-year-olds who are good readers have access to the Harry Potter series and THE HUNGER GAMES.
I have mixed feelings about these issues as an author who writes for young readers. In her posts, Christine brought up the gatekeepers, and I would say that the first gatekeeper is the author who must decide whether a story should slip through the gate in his or her head. When I wrote a novel in which a sixteen-year-old takes her younger sister to an abortion clinic, I ended up using a pseudonym. While I was determined to write the book, I was not comfortable telling the world that I'd written it. (The local librarian in our very anti- abortion area strongly advised me not to use my real name.) One of the publishers who considered the novel suggested that the sisters reveal what had happened to their parents. But, while I knew that would make the story more palatable for parents, it was not the "'real" story I had to tell. My most recent realistic novel has elicited some interesting comments from adult readers. Several have suggested that it's not for every child because some might be too naive for the conte nt. Yet I am quite sure that the lives of my characters reflect those of thousands of real kids "living stories everyday."
This discussion is fascinating. Thanks! Sheila P.S. I just read Miriam's update. Guess it's time to buy another copy of the book.
On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 15:18:34 -0600 (GMT-06:00) Christine Taylor-Butler writes:
Many writers are attempting to write controversial subjects from a more honest vantage point. But those manuscripts aren't getting through the gatekeepers. In some cases, the characters are adjusted (or the authors learn to write) characters that are hopeful, cuddly, or (you fill in the blanks) have a non-ambiguous feel good ending. But children don't always live a reality with a happy ending. Life is messier than that.
Children's publishing is about profits, not pursuit of truth. So what is published isn't necessarily representative of what's being submitted which is why so many established authors are quietly looking at options to produce some work independently. And, truth be told, I know several authors of award winning books that smile for the camera but don't "love" the book that was edited and published because of what was changed or stripped out. So I think it's an important distinction that a published book may or may not always represent the author's intent. Said a close friend: "I was forced to write a book I didn't want to write with a character I didn't love anymore." But to say that in public would be political suicide. The proof, for me, is when the only people raving about the books and recommending it to others are the adults not the children it was intended for.
On the flip side, there are some subjects that are easier to absorb when seen from a distance. I don't need to touch the dead body with my own hands to know a horrific crime was committed. I do think, however, that the media does tend to mine the same territories ad nauseum for safety reasons and because they're a "sure bet" to earn out an advance.
But yes - children are subjected to brutal death in Harry Potter, a horrific, bloody pregnancy in Breaking Dawn, but we can't talk about the things they see every day on TV.
A good example of a book that is "unfiltered" in it's raw honesty is THE MIDDLE PASSAGE by the late Tom Feelings. I couldn't get through the book in one sitting and it does require some cushion for a child to decompress those brutal images. But it knocks the message out of the park.
The place for us to start is to demand more honesty and more variety of voices at acquisitions. Publishing is the only industry I've ever worked with that spends little or no time with its end-user. Instead, we allow the voices of additional gatekeepers down the line to filter the material and influence what is produced. By the time the child gets their hands on the material, it may be far removed from what the author - or illustrator - intended.
Based on my work with college bound students over the past few decades, and from countless school visits working with younger students for the day, I've always contended that if publishers actually KNEW their readers, they'd have more of them clamoring for their books without an adult putting it in their hands.......C
Message-----
From: Claudia Pearson
I do not understand why it is okay to write about vampires ripping humans apart, but not okay to write about humans doing the same thing to one another, especially when it is a truth which needs to be taught and explored with the hope that it could be prevented from ever happening again.
---Received on Mon 21 Nov 2011 01:31:20 PM CST
