books Darkness Too Visible: The Darkness of Young Adult Literature

[Batbrony 16,055]

Below is the link to a fascinating article I just read about the explicit violence, depravity, and abuse that seems to permeate especially young adult (i.e. teenagers) contemporary fiction.  The writer's findings were both very interesting but also very disturbing, and suggest that children today do not have age appropriate literature to read.

 

Now, I for one don't actually read contemporary young adult literature really, nor really did that much when I was a teenager.  Like the writer of this article, too much of it strikes me as, well, gratuitously dark and unpleasant, unlike some really high quality literature such as J.R.R. Tolkien's "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings", C.S. Lewis's "The Chronicles of Narnia", Mark Twain's "Huckleberry Finn", etc.  This got me thinking also that a lot of bronies can probably relate to the writer of this article, because, although MLP is presented in a T.V. format, not as a book, I believe we watch it for similar reasons that I like to read more pleasant, positive, and upbeat literature, at least when it comes to children's literature or fantasy; namely, we're looking for a pleasant and positive experience that reinforces some excellent themes and delivers wonderful messages.  That's not to say that we're in denial about the realities of this world, but just that we don't want or need to mire ourselves in gratuitously, and often ridiculously, dark, violent, over-sexualized, coarse, and just all around unpleasant literature such as, for example, the "Twilight" series in order to confirm the darkness of this world to ourselves.

 

I don't know, maybe I'm wrong, but I thought some of you guys might want to check out this article, it's a very good and revealing read.  Let me know what you guys think about contemporary young adult literature below, as well as this article and its possible relation to why some of you may watch MLP as well.  Enjoy! 

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303657404576357622592697038.html

[Le Kvlt Dawn 2,364]

Oh come on now, I'm in ninth grade and I have to read Homer's "The Odyssey" in class. It's nothing I can't handle, I've read "To Kill a Mockingbird" which used the "N-word" every now and then. I also read "Lord of the Flies" in which (SPOILER ALERT) the character Piggy ends up getting killed at the end. Yes, a kid killed another kid in a book that is considered a "classic". If teens want to read about self mutilation and homicide, let them. I listen to a lot of death metal and black metal and I haven't killed anyone or burnt a church down to the ground. 

[Batbrony 16,055]

Oh come on now, I'm in ninth grade and I have to read Homer's "The Odyssey" in class. It's nothing I can't handle, I've read "To Kill a Mockingbird" which used the "N-word" every now and then. I also read "Lord of the Flies" in which (SPOILER ALERT) the character Piggy ends up getting killed at the end. Yes, a kid killed another kid in a book that is considered a "classic". If teens want to read about self mutilation and homicide, let them. I listen to a lot of death metal and black metal and I haven't killed anyone or burnt a church down to the ground. 

 

First of all, I'm not trying to be rude or anything, but could you clarify if you did read the article?

 

Second, it's not so much content, because trust me, I know, so many classics in literature contain very mature content, and you will never hear me calling for censoring classics like "The Iliad" or "Huckleberry Finn" because of content.  Perhaps it's more the gratuitous manner in which the content is employed in contemporary young adult literature; I didn't say anything about those classics, nor did that article, the concern was with contemporary fiction.  I think the article's main point is that there are... better, less blunt and gratuitous ways to convey timeless themes in books for young readers than filling a book with self mutilation, abuse, over-sexualization and calling that "adult" because none of that's normal; it happens, but it's an extremity that people generally abhor, and I don't think we should want children or teenagers to grow up thinking of as normal.  Should they certainly learn in time of the reality of its existence, of course, I don't want anyone to be naive, but that's different from thinking of such horrendous things as normal, because if they think of it as normal, then in time they become numb to it, and start seeing less wrong with it.

 

Children need to learn about certain things slowly, because they can only understand certain things with age; for instance, I wouldn't let any children of my own read "Huckleberry Finn" prior to, at the least, 13 years of age, not because it has the N-word, but because they wouldn't necessarily be able to understand the themes being discussed in the book, and fully appreciate it.  So yeah, I find it a little disturbing that such gratuitously violent and sexualized works are being so heavily marketed these days to children and teenagers, because I don't think they necessarily know how to handle those themes at certain ages.  They need prudent and measured instruction both from their parents and teachers in their education, or else they might accept something as normal and healthy, like cutting yourself or taking drugs to relieve emotional frustration, which simply isn't.

[Fhaolan 4,484]

Nonsense. Age-appropriate is piffle.

 

The idea that children have to have saccharin sweet gobbledygook for their literature is a purely modern attitude with no basis in History. The books you mention are a lot darker than most people realize unless they read the full, unedited texts. Racism, murder, slavery are all present and are not coated in sugary 'goodness'.

 

I think children and young adults are too sheltered in western society, and when they encounter reality, the pendulum swings so far in the other direction they get driven into the dark places by curiosity, rather than knowing to back away from it.

[duidamasterXD 9,627]

This relates hugely to why I like MLP in general, as is shown by this excerpt from my Ask DF thread

 

 

3: The Feel, I read a lot of depressing literature so it's nice to visit a nice, funny lighthearted world that I can immerse myself in every time I watch an episode.

 

I'm personally strongly against censorship or letting anyone decide who gets to read what, but i do think that this darkness in YA books is sort of self-perpetuating. Much like conveniently after Twilight was released, countless authors hopped on the bandwagon and started writing cookie cutter knockoffs, people have it in their heads that dark and dystopian is what sells now, so that is what they write. Of course there is a market for these, otherwise they wouldn't be writing them in the first place, but I do think that they have reinforced this by making the depressing stuff most of what is available in the first place. 

 

Honestly though, there are many books that don't fit into this model and are high quality. Artemis Fowl, Rick Riordan's stuff, Harry Potter (which isn't all fun and games but isn't soul-crushing either). 

 

Of course, I do enjoy my fair share of deeper and darker stuff too. I'm probably the biggest Game of Thrones fan here, but it is nice to have diversity in what is available for us to enjoy. I honestly think that this is just a fad brought on by the Hunger Games and a holdover from Twilight, and will die down eventually.

[Batbrony 16,055]

Nonsense. Age-appropriate is piffle.

 

The idea that children have to have saccharin sweet gobbledygook for their literature is a purely modern attitude with no basis in History. The books you mention are a lot darker than most people realize unless they read the full, unedited texts. Racism, murder, slavery are all present and are not coated in sugary 'goodness'.

 

I think children and young adults are too sheltered in western society, and when they encounter reality, the pendulum swings so far in the other direction they get driven into the dark places by curiosity, rather than knowing to back away from it.

 

Again, I'm not talking about censorship of classics, I'm talking about distinguishing something like "Huckleberry Finn" or "The Iliad" that treat heavy themes in a mature manner from some of the gratuitous, melodramatic contemporary tripe like "Twilight" that is so heavily marketed at teenagers.  I want good, heavy, mature literature to be a part of a child's education, and I certainly would never profess to adhere to modernist trends, I'm a conservative in spirit through and through.  But, I firmly believe that a child's education needs to be handled prudently and introduced to certain material with careful supervision, otherwise they won't truly understand what they just read, and this is hardly a modern belief; Plato talks about this in "The Republic" when he talks about the ideal education.  He says that children should not be taught philosophy at a young age, because they cannot truly grasp it, they need to proceed further in their education before they can truly come to understand what he describes as the highest level of truth.  We have to stop treating children as though they're just as mature and learned as adults, because they're not, they're simply not; otherwise we wouldn't go through all this trouble to educate them in the first place, and when we do treat them as independent beings on the same thinking level as adults, what it really leads to is neglect, and children struggling to educate themselves when they hardly have the same experience or grounding that adults have.

[Titan Rising 2,156]

I think we should stop limiting children by assuming what they can handle and understand.  If a kid wants to read a book let them read a book.  If they get scared or confused as a result be there for them and help them make sense out of it.

 

In case you haven't noticed, adults get just as scared and confused, sometimes irrationally more so for the very reason that they have developed a bubble to place themselves in throughout their lives.  If you care to know what I really think, I think people who claim children can't handle sex or drugs or violence or any of the other "mature" evils of this world claim it because they can't handle it themselves, and so they put themselves on a pedestal to act like they're some brave conqueror of the dark.

Edited March 9, 2013 by Hollowshield

[Aaramus 449]

Things like this really sadden me. While I understand the concern that the author of the article has it's hard to take it completely seriously from a 46 year old woman who the books are not aimed at. 

 

I adore reading, it is by far one of my favourite past times out of everything I do and I have read a lot of books. I enjoy a large range of genres from fantasy to biography's. I do indeed see the issue with providing these heavily dark themes in books aged at teenagers but at the same time does it really matter.

 

If you're a parent and you have the common sense to do some research before you buy a book for your teenager then you should be able to work out which books are appropriate for your child. Every teenager is different, some really enjoy the dark themes because it's interesting to them and they find it entertaining. On the other hand some teenagers don't like those themes and therefore they won't enjoy those books, so they read other ones.

The only reason this has come around is because of the popularity of Twilight and Hunger Games, the former catering to teenage girls because of the cheesy "romance" and the latter being popular for being very action orientated. Yes they have dark themes but as far as I'm concerned they don't ruin the main entertainment point of the books.

I'm going to make a comparison to video games here. You will always get trends and it's up to the parents to decide which trends suit their children. It takes less 10 minutes to look up the synopsis of a book and they should easily be able to work out if it's appropriate for their child or not. 

There is a great selection of books, with and without dark themes. Maybe the author of the article should have looked harder.

[Batbrony 16,055]

There is a great selection of books, with and without dark themes. Maybe the author of the article should have looked harder.

 

I'll readily admit, that was one of my few concerns with the article.  I totally sympathize with what the author was saying, but I thought she might've at least included a list at the bottom of recommended reading for children if she's so concerned about contemporary young adult literature.  Should've offered some alternatives of her own rather than just vilify the works that she's concerned about if she wants some concrete, positive results coming from this article.

[TailsIsNotAlone 3,695]

I am not usually one to bump old threads, Batbrony, but after stumbling on this one during a lurking session, several important points occur to me.

 

1. You, as a discerning and reasonable "conservative at heart," are too good for the Wall Street Journal editorial page. The author of the article generalizes and cherry-picks the darkest themes from several young adult novels to support her predetermined stance. She especially gives away her bias by stating that young adult fiction did not exist before the 1960s (come on, really?) and that everything changed after that. It seems to me that right-wing punditry can be recognized by a handful of poorly developed arguments, and one of them is "everything went bad in the 1960s." (This is clearly false. There was nothing wrong with the country in the 60s that didn't exist in the 50s and before. It just generally wasn't seen or talked about very much.)

Another red flag is that the writer more or less endorses censorship but tries to couch it in gentler terms like "guidance" or "judgment." As a whole, the piece stirs up old parental fears and offers no positives or real solutions--that would have distracted readers from the alarmist message.

 

2. On the whole, I agree with your basic premise that some young adult fiction these days is dark, depressing, and explicit, perhaps more than it needs to be to get any valuable message across. I am very often annoyed by this trend, particularly when it is gratuitous or clearly being done to force interest in the proceedings because the author can't write real, interesting characters for us to identify with (Twilight!).

 

3. This general argument leads me to one thing I don't relate to in bronydom: grimdark. I don't see the appeal in this trend at all. I can appreciate a sad story if it has a point to make, but when you take the ponies out of a wonderful, positive show and throw them into soul-crushing dystopias with rape, gore, terminal disease, or use them to justify raving misanthropy, you've lost me. Completely.

 

4. Ultimately, though, I think the whole darkness thing is a matter of good taste and how much you can handle. We shouldn't stop teenagers (which is what people age 12-18 are--not "children" in the genuine sense of the word) from reading stuff that personally appeals to them. You won't accomplish anything by telling your kids what they can and can't read. But you will get somewhere by paying attention to what they're reading and discussing it with them. Who's to say that the kid reading The Hunger Games hasn't already read The Hobbit and The Adventures of Tom Sawyer as well?