The YA world responds to Gurdon, but are we preaching to the choir?

Share this post:
Monday, 13 June 2011 08:33

Last week, Meghan Cox Gurdon's article "Darkness Too Visible" denounced YA lit as trying to "bulldoze coarseness or misery" into children's lives. Gurdon gets YA wrong on so many levels, and the kidlit world noticed. Massively. Most responses have been smart and heartfelt, but are we preaching to the choir?

I'd like to believe that the Gurdons of this world are reading some of these responses and rethinking their positions, but I think those in Gurdon’s camp are just keeping quiet... not necessarily being converted by our pronouncements. Still, the WSJ article has forced many of us to refine our defenses for the work we do as writers, teachers, librarians, and youth advocates. So even if we're preaching to the choir, it's still good preaching. 

Today I take you on a quick tour of my favorite responses to Gurdon, and I chime in with my two cents whenever I can’t resist. Be sure to check out the funnies after you're done being outraged. And--of course--read the original article. It's only fair to do so (and you have to if you want to enjoy the playful parody cited at the end of this post).

Why resisting Gurdon's stance on "darkness" is such a big deal

Sherman Alexie's post  captures the urgency of getting books that speak to marginalized teens (and all teens feel marginalized in some way) onto bookshelves:

Almost every day, my mailbox is filled with handwritten letters from students–teens and pre-teens–who have read my YA book and loved it. I have yet to receive a letter from a child somehow debilitated by the domestic violence, drug abuse, racism, poverty, sexuality, and murder contained in my book. To the contrary, kids as young as ten have sent me autobiographical letters written in crayon, complete with drawings inspired by my book, that are just as dark, terrifying, and redemptive as anything I’ve ever read...

When I think of the poverty-stricken, sexually and physically abused, self-loathing Native American teenager that I was, I can only wish, immodestly, that I’d been given the opportunity to read “The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian.” Or Laurie Halse Anderson’s “Speak.” Or Chris Lynch’s “Inexusable.” Or any of the books that Ms. Gurdon believes to be irredeemable. I can’t speak for other writers, but I think I wrote my YA novel as a way of speaking to my younger, irredeemable self.

Laurie Halse Anderson's blog post comes at things from a different angle. Like Anderson, I am "someone who loves a lot of conservatives," so I share her interest in actually understanding where the Gurdons of the world are coming for, if most out of a desire to change their minds. Anderson works to think through what makes some parents resist books that are dark, concluding that it's not really the books that they're afraid of. Rather,

They are afraid of their inability to talk to their kids about the scary, awful, real-world stuff that is out there. And they know, deep-down, that even if their own children are blessed with violence- and trauma-free childhoods and adolescences, their kids will daily come in contact with other kids who aren’t that lucky. So they know they·should be talking about this stuff, but they don’t know where to start. And when their kid starts reading books about subjects that make Mom and Dad uncomfortable, the reaction is to get rid of the book, instead of summoning the courage and faith to have conversations that make them uneasy.

Both Alexie and Anderson provide clear demonstrations that what Gurdon calls "darkness" (and others of us call "reality") matters in writing for teens.

Why Gurdon is crazy to claim that all of YA is dark

If you think I'm exaggerrating, check out Gurdon's (troublingly gendered) list of recommendations for "young women." Does she really think you have to go back to A Tree Grows in Brooklyn (1943) to find something that's suitably sunny?

Lisa Von Drasek's post highlights the diversity in YA lit with a special emphasis on what might appeal to teens (or parents) who shy away from too gritty offerings. Her recommendations range from serious to breezy (Meg Cabot), and she points out the merit in even the trendiest "dark" (by Gurdon's standards) YA. I kind of wanted to give Lisa a hug or stand up and cheer at this point in her post:

For heaven’s sake give it a rest. There is as wide a range of genres in Young Adult fiction as in adult — mystery, chick lit, romance, historical fiction, adventure, trauma, survival, speculative fiction, sports, light humor, and books set in other cultures. Do you make your adult reading selections from the mass market rack at the Seven/Eleven?

E. Kristin Anderson stuffs reading recommendations into her open letter to the mother Gurdon features in her article, a mother who left Barnes & Noble bookless because she couldn't find anything  that she could imagine giving to her thirteen-year-old-daughter. E. K. Anderson gets mad props for responding without condescending, as you can tell from the closing of her letter:

And if you’re looking for, you know, well-written, heart-felt, and intelligent replies to the article in the Wall Street Journal, I hope that you will look herehere, or here. Or, like, Google it — everyone in YA has something to say about the bias in the article, the anger, the ignorance, and the hate. I’m choosing the let the other voices say what I’m thinking about this part of your complaint, because they’ve already done it so well. I’m offering you my book shopping help instead. Because YA is so big. Kidlit is enormous. We have books for everyone!

Why laughing is part of what we must do in response to Gurdon

Okay, if you want to know how I really felt reading Gurdon's article, just check out this Forever Young Adult post by Erin. Maybe this makes sense because a while back Erin confessed here that she and my character Marisa are secret sisters. I loved this retort:

It seems that Gurdon’s main complaint is that, well, YA books just make it sound like life is so hard, y’all.  And, as we all know, life is roses and cupcakes and if we expose our young people to depravity, they will become depraved.  Violence does not exist except where we seek to create it!  Rape is not common unless you insist upon hanging out with people who have been raped!  Parents do not abuse their children and, if they do, then we still shouldn’t have to read about it because I bet those beaten up kids don’t even know how to read.  And nobody would masturbate if you guys would stop telling them how to do it!

What's funny is how Erin channels the YA world's incredulity; her points in response to Gurdon, though, are serious. 

Finally, check out this parody of the "Darkness Too Visible" piece. I love how, taking the tone of many board books as the focal point, it lambasts Gurdon's failure to recognize the importance of darkness for teens: 

The argument for such books is that they brighten the day of tykes and turn them onto reading, as well as instructing them on important topics like shapes, colors, parts of the body, and counting to ten. I think it sets expectations unrealistically high for the real world, simultaneous suggesting the demands of life are much lower than they really are. I worry that my son will expect the reality to be soft-toned, primary-colored, and full of smiling and well meaning adults and animals who never eat one another…

The whole post is a treat.

If you want still more perspectives and responses on this topic, there are long and growing lists of links at Cheryl Rainfield's site (her book Scars was one of the ones slammed in Gurdon's article) as well as on the School Library Journal blog here.

comments  

 
#1 Abbie 2011-06-14 13:28
Hey Ash!
Just wanted you to know that I read this post (and the included excerpts of others) and Gurdon's article and wanted to give a response from the conservative perspective. I understand why authors/librarians/publishers would object to Gurdon's criticisms. I do. I understand that perspective. But I think the outraged response is a bit much. After all, Gurdon does not say that all YA lit is bad (even if your assumption is that she thinks so based on her book recommendations ). Based on your post and the other responses, I went into Gurdon's article expecting it to be rabid, raving right-wing fanaticism. Instead, I found that she had qualified many of her objections with such statements as, "Objectionable the material may be for some parents, but it's not grotesque" (implying that her focus was the grotesque, not all of YA lit). In fact, the primary concern expressed in her article seemed to be for the YA lit that emphasizes depraved/sadistic behavior.
Quote
 
 
#2 Abbie 2011-06-14 13:32
I thought her concern about the normalization of such behaviors (after all, just b/c an author wants to point out that such things as cutting/child rape do happen, it certainly doesn't mean that he *wants* such things to become accepted/more common/no big deal) and the desensitization of children (which is what I would most definitely consider a 10 or even 14-year-old) is legitimate. Also, I thought that she did a fair job of emphasizing the unnecessarily detailed descriptions of undesired behaviors. Yes, people will still rape/murder without a guidebook, but that's kind of an argument for the lack of need for a guidebook rather than a justification for a play-by-play.
Quote
 
 
#3 Abbie 2011-06-14 13:34
And while it may be a weak argument, I would rather have a girl who cuts reach redemption without the benefit of extra detailed descriptions to give her more ideas for self-mutilation, even if such descriptions help her to understand that the world is not all roses (I bet she already knew that) and that she is not alone in it. My main objection to Gurdon's article is that, several times, she points out that a book "does not have a happy ending" (though, in fairness, I think she is using understatement to emphasis how bad the endings are). I don't think a book *should* have to have a happy ending (though I don't think it automatically cancels its legitimacy if it does; after all, life is not all roses, but neither is it all sewers and torture chambers), and I personally enjoy books that portray reality rather than a fluffy, white, pancake view of the world.
Quote
 
 
#4 Abbie 2011-06-14 13:35
But I don't need rape, murder, incest, drug abuse, self-mutilation, etc. spelled out in excruciating detail in order to be able to understand the direness of a situation. Almost always the suggestion of violence or sex is much more menacing/erotic than the belabored description of it (that's what imaginations were made for). Less is more is a cliche for a reason. Last of all, I strongly disagree with Anderson's contention that, "They (parents) are afraid of their inability to talk to their kids about the scary, awful, real-world stuff that is out there..." I knew what sex was from a very early age, oddly enough, because when we did family Bible reading, and I asked what "Adam *knew* his wife" meant, my dad answered in a frank but non-explicit way. There were lots of movies/books my parents didn't want me to experience, but it was never because they were afraid to talk to me about hard issues.
Quote
 
 
#5 Abbie 2011-06-14 13:36
They did approach the hard issues from a Christian perspective, but I would say by age 13, I knew (head-knowledge) a fair bit more about suffering/life's gritty realities than your average early teen, and, by late teens, had some experiential knowledge to go with it (and no, I'm not just talking about a bad break-up or a girl-fight). And all of this without submersing myself in--my apologies--junk. I hope you don't find my response too virulent, but since the you said the conservative camp is keeping mum, I figured I'd at least "represent" a little while I had the chance.
Quote
 
 
#6 ashleyp 2011-06-14 13:51
Thanks for weighing in, Abbie! I do see where you are coming from. I'm working on a post of my own in response to the whole explosion around this article, but I think the biggest problem with the article is that the implication (from the account of the bookless mother in the beginning as well as the kind of ridiculous reading suggestions) is that the "dark" current she's pointing to is dominating YA. This simply isn't true, as several of the posts point out with numerous instances of "cleaner" YA novels. There really is something for everyone, especially for folks willing to go beyond B&N to check out the offerings of the awesome FREE resource that is our public library system.

As far as the example about learning about sex via Bible study, I'm not sure how well Adam's "knowing" maps onto the discussion. Now, if we were to look at the rape of Dinah, for example, or the dismemberment of the Levite's concubine, we might be getting somewhere.

Somewhere really useful, in fact--which is that even the Bible offers us extremely challenging, even grisly material that is often not easy to handle. That's a good place for a conversation starter about the kinds of terrible mistakes we flawed humans can make. There are some YA books that are pandering to the market, no doubt. But there are many more that might also lead to opportunities to recognize the challenge that comes with living in this world.

The debate over how much darkness and what kind of darkness has a place in any book is something that, ultimately, a writer must decide. I come away from the whole thing more convinced than ever that you're not going to please everyone with a work, and by trying to, you may not reach anyone. What's "gratuitous" to one reader may be the compelling detail that secures another reader's interest. Ultimately I trust my instincts, and while I agree with Anderson and Alexie that books can and do save, I don't think they can do so if the writer sets out to do so in some programatic way. What's mattered most to my students has often been the connection they feel to a text. What "saved" them was not a particular issue being addressed (cutting, rape, etc.) but rather the release they experienced by being able to journey into a text.

Finally, just for the record, I don't consider myself among the "outraged" in response to Gurdon. I'm more with the sighing, here-we-go-again group. Make no mistake: I'm terrified in advance of the challenge of parenting a teen. But I think the best way to engage with media (including books) is together, as a family, really challenging young people to be reflective about what they're reading.

BTW, I think that's something that Picky Flicks offers an excellent tool for--letting parents know what kinds of conversations they need to get ready for before viewing a particular film with their kids.

Okay, enough from me, but thank you again for sharing your thoughts!
Quote
 
 
#7 ashleyp 2011-06-14 13:57
One more thing: I think your response is really important, and definitely more articulate than most of the (few) Gurdon-supporting posts out there, which seem to boil down to "well, I'm with her!" Here's a link to a site that's looking for that perspective:

.../call-for-blogsarticles-supporting.html
Quote
 
 
#8 Abbie 2011-06-14 15:46
My knowing-about-sex-from-an-early-age example was not a perfect parallel, I'll admit, but it was meant to illustrate that my parents didn't shield me from the facts of life, (including discussions of Dinah's rape, the Levite concubine's dismemberment, Lot's treatment of his daughters--and vice versa--and more) even when I was little (and even when those facts dealt with an potentially embarrassing/tricky subject)--not meant to imply that sex is one of the gritty/bad realities of life. Also, the Bible being the reason I knew about it was incidental--not meant to make a point (READ THE BIBLE INSTEAD OF YA FICTION!!!...though I'm in favor of the first over the latter--or any other genre, for that matter ; )).
And I understand that Gurdon definitely implied that all YA fiction was bad since her mother-example couldn't find a thing to buy.
Quote
 
 
#9 Abbie 2011-06-14 15:46
However, it does seem to say that, at the very least, the cover art for most YA fiction is so scintillating as to imply illicit material inside and therefore concern potential parent-buyers. And I still hold to my stance that some things are there just for shock value, and if the graphic description of a dismemberment is the detail that connects with a young reader, well, then that young reader probably needs some help that the unnecessarily graphic book cannot offer.
Quote
 
 
#10 E. Kristin Anderson 2011-06-14 17:37
Thanks so much for linking over! I'm really glad the post resonated with you, and that it carried the tone I intended. *phew!* I'm looking forward to a day when YA doesn't need to be constantly defended. In the mean time, I hope everyone finds a book or two or twenty to love.
Quote
 

Add comment


Security code
Refresh