And all must be sweetness and light and sparkly unicorns dancing about pooping Happy Dust....

[ellid]

Because today's YA fiction is DARK and SCARY and will cause kids to HURT THEMSELVES unless their parents exercise CONSTANT VIGILANCE!!!!

I've never heard of this editorial writer, and I have no freaking idea the Wall Street Journal even has a YA or kiddie book reviewer since, you know, they're a financial newspaper and not exactly popular with the under-25 set. But it strikes me that someone who claims to be a specialist in children's literature should have at least a nodding acquaintance with the really dark stuff, like Hans Christian Anderson or Grimm's fairy tales, before she spouts off about the horrible, horrible, darkness of today's YA books.

*gah*

Comments

[neotoma.livejournal.com]

That's is an amazing example of pearl-clutching.

It's like she's never noticed Death by Newbery Medal or something...

[ellid.livejournal.com]

Or, why books with happy or at least hopeful endings so often aren't considered to be Serious Literature, while books that kill off the main character(s) (or throw in a gratuitous rape or death) are somehow considered to be better.

Really, really annoying.

[stasia]

Ooookay, it's as if she hasn't read anything other than picture books in years.

Stasia

[ellid.livejournal.com]

Or Anne of Green Gables...even though the series has more than one death (including Anne's firstborn child)....

[kaiz.livejournal.com]

Tigerbeatdown has a pretty lolarious post about that article here. :-)

[ellid.livejournal.com]

I agree with the Tigerbeatdown writer.

As for the WSJ...I wonder if the reason they published such a ridiculous article is because they're now owned by Rupert Murdoch?

[kaiz.livejournal.com]

To be honest, I think that when it comes to "Entertainment & Society" type 'news' the WSJ has long since jumped the shark. Pretty much every single non-business article they feature these days exhibits the same kind of breathless and/or salacious tone along with epically shoddy journalism. *disgrunted WSJ subscriber*

[rivendellrose.livejournal.com]

someone who claims to be a specialist in children's literature should have at least a nodding acquaintance with the really dark stuff, like Hans Christian Anderson or Grimm's fairy tales, before she spouts off about the horrible, horrible, darkness of today's YA books.

THIS. Dude, YA authors (hell, authors anywhere in any subject) only wish they were as dark and gritty as fairy tales!

[ellid.livejournal.com]

But we must protect the children! Even though they don't want to! They must read only wholesome literature!

[rwday.livejournal.com]

Oh, honestly. When were teen books every anything but dark and scary? Not in my day, when it was all 'Go Ask Alice' and teen problem novels. Not in my parents' day (1930's) when YA didn't exist and as soon as you were old enough to make out the words, you read adult books to get away from the moralistic, sweetness and light children's literature of the time.

Sure, not every book is appropriate for every teen. That's why parents need to be involved, know their kids, know what they're reading (and recognize that the more they scream about how bad a particular book is, the more likely their kids are to seek it out and read it.)

[ladyaelfwynn.livejournal.com]

Wow! The author of that WSJ piece is really displaying her multiple privileges! **eyeroll** And her lack of literary knowledge.

You know why today's adolescent books are gritty? Because middle school/jr. high is pretty much R rated. The kids are often foul-mouthed and harass each other with regularity. My 12 year old regularly complains of the language she hears at school.

Kids have got to contend with bullying, sexism, homophobia, sizism, racism, lookism, and being either too brainy or not brainy enough. It's pretty much hell.

And that's just school. Home life is no picnic either. When you look at the statistics around sexual and domestic violence, you seen a surprising number of women under 18 are being attacked.

You can't write books that are all sweetness and light and actually except anyone to read them. My mom had a set of books from the 1950s/early 1960s called Bobbsey Twins that I read some of and OMG, even when I was a kid I was bored with how filled with pablum they were.

Kids want interesting stories, filled with adventure; not safe little morality tails. And as that WSJ pearl clutcher is going to find out soon enough, her daughter is going to be reading these books whether or not her mom likes them.

Can you tell I'm a librarian with a 12 year old? ;-p

[drusillas-rain.livejournal.com]

Roald Dahl's books were always unexpectedly (and delightfully) dark. The article pissed me off when I saw it.