tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4282612866471682237.post5747730014745501742..comments2023-05-26T09:43:26.163-06:00Comments on Robin Ambrose: YA Saves--CounterpointAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14628412968169366744noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4282612866471682237.post-6387624968666684182011-07-02T10:58:04.809-06:002011-07-02T10:58:04.809-06:00Heidi--I agree with all three of your comments. :)...Heidi--I agree with all three of your comments. :) When pointing out a problem Ms. Gurdon really should have specified what solution, exactly, she was proposing. By just identifying the problem, she left open the torches-and-pitchforks solution.<br><br>My own children are rather young for me to really know what I want them to be learning about this later, but I'm actually a bit torn. I don't want them paranoid of the world, but I don't want them making unfair judgments about it, either. I don't know that knowing about the evil things in the world necessarily decreases their happiness. It might make them wiser and more able to make choices that will ensure that happiness. *Feels her way along with everyone else*<br><br>Thanks for your comments!Robin Weekshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09413777557796110450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4282612866471682237.post-6208766223566462912011-07-02T09:19:07.021-06:002011-07-02T09:19:07.021-06:00And to be clear, when I refer to wanting to protec...And to be clear, when I refer to wanting to protect kids who've not been traumatized, I'm not dismissing kids who've suffered atrocities. I'm just recognizing that, as Alexie pointed out, trying to protect those children through the content of the books they read is futile.Heidihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14190778552759490600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4282612866471682237.post-85299337255931373512011-07-02T09:17:56.204-06:002011-07-02T09:17:56.204-06:00ETA: Sorry. My above comment referenced the NYT ar...ETA: Sorry. My above comment referenced the NYT article, but it was actually a WSJ article.<br><br>The other thing I wondered--considering this situation as a parent, not as a wannabee writer-- is that it seems that few people are acknowledging the innocence of many young readers. There seems to be a presumption that YA readers are already familiar with cutting, incest, rape, homophobia on more than just a theoretical level, and therefore putting these things in books that YA readers will read, and not warning them first, is not exposing them to anything they're not already familiar with. I find that assumption quite disconcerting. <br><br>In his response, Sherman Alexie wrote "When some cultural critics fret about the “ever-more-appalling” YA books, they aren’t trying to protect African-American teens forced to walk through metal detectors on their way into school. Or Mexican-American teens enduring the culturally schizophrenic life of being American citizens and the children of illegal immigrants. Or Native American teens growing up on Third World reservations. Or poor white kids trying to survive the meth-hazed trailer parks. They aren’t trying to protect the poor from poverty. Or victims from rapists.<br><br>No, they are simply trying to protect their privileged notions of what literature is and should be. They are trying to protect privileged children. Or the seemingly privileged."<br><br>But as I read this, I thought, "There are many of non-privileged children who've not been raped or hazed or subverted. They're just kids trying to be happy in a crazy world. THOSE are the kids I want to protect." I feel like this discussion has ignored those kids or at least felt that their innocence is disposable in the face of potential "catharsis." (I put catharsis in quotations because I don't it's real catharsis if you have to first introduce new fears to your audience in order to provide that catharsis.)Heidihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14190778552759490600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4282612866471682237.post-19251315499783087922011-07-02T09:07:05.690-06:002011-07-02T09:07:05.690-06:00It feels presumptuous to critique the rhetorical c...It feels presumptuous to critique the rhetorical choices of a NYT writer, but I think her problem was the lack of clear thesis statements. She needed to state exactly what she thought should be done about the extreme grit and grime in YA lit instead of leaving her audience members' imaginations to run amok. My impression after reading her article and listening to her interviews was that the changes she'd like to see aren't actually that upsetting.<br><br>If she'd said, "Book reviews should warn the readers of X, Y, Z content," or "Publishers should recognize the market for lighter YA fiction" or even "Writers should consider the idea that much of their audience is still innocent of X, Y, and Z content," I don't think she would have encountered the outrage she did.Heidihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14190778552759490600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4282612866471682237.post-22261621859842437772011-07-01T21:00:12.922-06:002011-07-01T21:00:12.922-06:00Eric--Yes! Character growth only happens if there ...Eric--Yes! Character growth only happens if there are consequences. Also, writing what you love to read is soooo important. If a writer doesn't enjoy reading gritty stuff, any gritty stuff she writes will probably sound hollow or, worse, preachy.<br><br>There is also a vast audience for lighter, non-disturbing fiction. I enjoy both kinds--but mostly the lighter stuff. I have to be in a certain kind of mood to appreciate grit.Robin Weekshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09413777557796110450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4282612866471682237.post-25065464917236250102011-07-01T20:54:30.597-06:002011-07-01T20:54:30.597-06:00I definitely agree that every decision needs some ...I definitely agree that every decision needs some consequence, either good or bad, depending on the action. Having consequences makes your written work a stronger work. As an example let me compare how two TV shows I followed handled consequences.<br><br>My favorite TV show of all time is Babylon 5. In many ways this show was written more like a book then a TV show. The characters grew and changed over the course of five seasons. You could see the choices a character made reverberate in future episodes and seasons. <br><br>I also used to watch Star Trek as well. But in Star Trek, a characters choices rarely had any effect beyond the episode that the choice occurred in. And since there was no consequences to a characters actions, the characters never changed from episode to episode. This made it easy to predict what the character would do in any given episode. <br><br>And this is why IMHO that the Babylon 5 TV show ended up being one of the most highly regarded science fiction TV shows ever produced.<br><br>I also feel that characters which experience consequences become stronger, more dynamic dynamic characters. These characters are also more interesting to write about as well.<br><br>I have always loved to read because reading helps me reduce my stress level in life. Which is why I don't enjoy reading books with extreme or disturbing subject matters. While I know that those things exist; reading about them only seems to add to my stress, not relieve it. So while it doesn't bother me that authors write books containing "soul-destroying" things (as my Aunt calls them) exist. I have have no desire to immerse myself in them.<br><br>Which is why my wife and I are not planing writing disturbing imagery or subjects into our books. In reality, we are trying to write stories that we enjoy reading. I doubt you would enjoy reading a story of ours that was otherwise.<br><br>That doesn't mean that our writing doesn't contain evil characters (it wouldn't be Epic Fantasy without them). But there is a difference from having evil in a book and having to write from such a perspective. When I write, I need to write as if I am looking through my characters eyes, I need to feel what my characters are feeling, and I need to understand my characters thoughts and emotions. So I don't write what I don't or can't feel inside of me.Eric Mortensenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07270741884770623737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4282612866471682237.post-26677318027430753422011-07-01T13:11:25.817-06:002011-07-01T13:11:25.817-06:00Josh, my humblest apologies. I'm coming to you...Josh, my humblest apologies. I'm coming to you with all my midnight editing needs.<br><br>This is what happens when I use terms that I understand the usage of, but not the actual definition of. :)Robin Weekshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09413777557796110450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4282612866471682237.post-58675058565212445702011-07-01T13:05:54.826-06:002011-07-01T13:05:54.826-06:00I apologized too soon. I did some research and &q...I apologized too soon. I did some research and "deep-seated" is actually the correct term. <br>http://www.thefreedictionary.com/deep-seated<br><br>Using the "deep-seeded" term seems like it makes sense, metaphorically, but it is actually wrong. The article below does a better job than I can of explaining why. <br><br>http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001815.html<br><br>I'm not useless - even at midnight.JDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17587705075919282650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4282612866471682237.post-27835995812215232562011-07-01T12:19:18.455-06:002011-07-01T12:19:18.455-06:00Josh--no worries. Ned missed it, too. Maybe I shou...Josh--no worries. Ned missed it, too. Maybe I should just stop using cliches.... :)Robin Weekshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09413777557796110450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4282612866471682237.post-61383081398538788322011-07-01T12:09:16.681-06:002011-07-01T12:09:16.681-06:00Sorry Robin. I guess my editing skills at midnigh...Sorry Robin. I guess my editing skills at midnight aren't that great.JDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17587705075919282650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4282612866471682237.post-66684412626060312322011-07-01T10:12:08.976-06:002011-07-01T10:12:08.976-06:00Donna--my 10-year old gets nightmares from monster...Donna--my 10-year old gets nightmares from monsters (like the ones in Zathura). My 6- and almost-8-year-olds don't.<br><br>The 10-year-old, of course, thinks that means that NO ONE should get to watch scary movies. :)Robin Weekshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09413777557796110450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4282612866471682237.post-26227197295540640732011-07-01T09:55:24.087-06:002011-07-01T09:55:24.087-06:00Wonderful post, Robin. And I agree with everything...Wonderful post, Robin. And I agree with everything you said. Parents need to understand even the differences in their own children. <br><br>It's funny but kids wanted to be treated fairly, which to them means them same. Unfortunately they're different people with different needs, strengths, and limitations. What's best for one child is not necessarily the best for the another, even if those children live in the same house with the same parents. <br><br>I had this challenge when I had to decide that one of my sons wasn't up to seeing Jurassic Park when it came out in theaters, but his just older brother got to go. Later, when we were able to watch the film on TV (with the ability to comment), he finally agreed he would have been too scared.Donna K. Weaverhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15763832177263927311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4282612866471682237.post-16785808783026427952011-07-01T09:18:32.586-06:002011-07-01T09:18:32.586-06:00Thanks, Josh! And thanks for helping me edit this ...Thanks, Josh! And thanks for helping me edit this last night.<br><br>Matt--Drat! Where were you when I was editing? Josh was obviously useless. :D<br><br>(Just kidding. All mistakes are my own.)Robin Weekshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09413777557796110450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4282612866471682237.post-71449361795113612752011-07-01T08:14:14.968-06:002011-07-01T08:14:14.968-06:00I think you mean "deep-seeded," otherwis...I think you mean "deep-seeded," otherwise, great post, and good point.Matthew MacNishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03264738483763244969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4282612866471682237.post-29583237376638549892011-07-01T08:08:20.973-06:002011-07-01T08:08:20.973-06:00Now you're famous. Great posts, both of them. ...Now you're famous. Great posts, both of them. Glad someone noticed and gave them wider distribution.JDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17587705075919282650noreply@blogger.com