YA Saves

Teh Interwebs (or at least the sections of it that I inhabit) have lit up in the past few days in light of an article in the Wall Street Journal by Meghan Cox Gurdon that portrays contemporary teen fiction as “a hall of funhouse mirrors, constantly reflecting back hideously distorted portrayals of what life is. There are of course exceptions, but a careless young reader—or one who seeks out depravity—will find himself surrounded by images not of joy or beauty but of damage, brutality and losses of the most horrendous kinds.”

Backlash against the article has been great. Multiple articles, like one from Salon and another from the Guardian , have expressed opposing viewpoints. The hashtag #yasaves hit incredibly high on the trends list of Twitter. Bloggers (like me) have been writing their opinions on the glory that is YA (young adult) literature.

I won’t deny the dark nature that permeates some YA literature today. I’ll give Gurdon the benefit of the doubt that YA lit is indeed darker in many ways than it was 20 years ago. (Although the idea that you can’t find joy or beauty in today’s YA fiction is absolute bullshit. Gurdon handpicks some books that do indeed support her argument half-heartedly while conveniently ignoring teen bestsellers like those of YA-chick-lit goddess Sarah Dessen. And you read Sherman Alexie’s The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian and tell me that it’s not one of the most beautiful things you’ve ever read, in spite of its gritty honesty.)

I’m not going to pretend that I have some amazing story about my on-the-edge-of-destruction hopelessness and how some gritty, dark, scary YA novel helped me cope and “saved my life.” Some people do have those stories, and I champion them. I can however, tell you stories about the deep and meaningful things YA did for me. I can tell you the story of my heart breaking when I read the classic dystopia that is The Giver by Lois Lowry and fearing for the future of my generation if we continue to try to police the way people feel and act. That book awakened me as an activist. I can tell you the story of being awestruck at John Green’s perfect capture of my goddamned teen angst in An Abundance of Katherines or Looking for Alaska and his ability to simultaneously meet his readers in that angst and pull them out into a world filled with wonderful, amazing, beautiful, screwed-up, glorious other people. I can tell you the story of sneaking home David Levithan’s Boy Meets Boy from the school library and reading it on edge, breathlessly, in one night, weeping at the end because I had finally found a book that made me feel okay with who I was and wanting so desperately to join Paul, the protagonist, in his world where people are just people.

But more than discrediting an entire portion of literature that I am dedicated to, and more than ignoring the fact that “this kind of reading…serves to remind us of our humanity and our need to reach out and understand the emotions of others” (Alleen Pace Nilsen and Kenneth L. Donelson, Literature for Today’s Young Adults, p. 214), Gurdon seems to celebrate some twisted view of literature for young people that I find patronizing, colonizing, and, frankly, dangerous: that YA fiction (and even children’s literature) should present a world that is happy, carefree, and all tidied up at the end.

This “escapist” view of children’s literature is an attempt made by adults ostensibly to “protect” young readers from the nasty realities of the “adult” world. But who are they really protecting? As has been pointed out by countless others, these books exist because they are the reality of some kids. Attempts to protect young people from reading about rape, incest, homophobia, drug abuse, violence, war, and other unfortunate realities seem to me to be attempts to shield our own visions of what childhood or adolescence ought to be, rather than the realities of what it is.

After all, isn’t the whole idea of YA literature that adults write novels for people who they already don’t identify with (with the exception of the rare teen author)? The system itself is set up to be patronizing–some theorists have called children’s literature a type of colonization of childhood by adults. More and more, I find this assessment to be valid. I’m not saying that we ought to scrap the system. It works, at least in part. But we’ve got to be careful that we don’t colonize to the point where young people’s experiences are invalidated. We’ve seen how that ends up (cf. every freakin’ colonization that ever happened and its results in oppression today).

Daniel Handler has written, “Certainly there are times when we want to escape to a trouble-free, imaginary world. But when the real world is so searing that it cannot be glossed over, we can find value in stories that admit the world is tumultuous, instead of reassuring us that it is not.” This is why YA Saves.

Look, teens read teen angst because they get it. I know, I was there quite recently. I still read it, because I eat it up.

This world is a harum-scarum place. I got through it with the help of my YA novels. I still get through it because of my YA novels. They do more for me sometimes than almost anything else. They still challenge me. They still resonate for me.  From despair, from self-absorption, from closed-mindedness, from depression, and from unbridled enthusiasm, they still save me.

YA Saves.

Update 6/9/2011:

Here’s a couple more links to reactions that I found fabulous:

A response by Sherman Alexie himself.

A parody of the article written about adult fiction.

Person-alization

Studies suggest that our brains can only really keep track of about 150 people, in terms of associating a name with a face as well as unique characteristics of personality. 

I’ve heard that before, and thought, “Pshaw, that can’t be true. I have a few hundred Facebook friends, and I know them all.” But really thinking about it, I wonder if I’m just denying an important truth. I’ve thought a bit about the fact that we now exist as two individuals: an analog self and a digital self. In some ways, I find this problematic as our selves become more and more estranged from each other, but there’s another problem here, too.

How many of our Facebook friends do we actually know as analog selves? And I don’t just mean “know them,” like met them before, or even to the point of feeling comfortable with carrying on a short conversation if we bumped into them…but really know.

And if we don’t know many of them…are we simply objectifying them if we only know their digital selves? Is that in some sense perverse? 

I’m not saying we ought to dump Facebook forever. I’m still a Facebook stalker, and I really do think the power of social media like this can be harnessed well, to promote greater goods and even just keep people in touch. But I’m wondering if I don’t need to do a massive purge in my Facebook friend list. Thoughts?

Some Interesting Stuff that Relates to Other Interesting Stuff I’ve Been Thinking About

Playing around on teh Internets this afternoon led me to a couple of things that seem relevant to other things I’ve been considering.

Firstly: how to use social media well. Here‘s an example of someone who’s doing it, I think. It’s a videobook about YouTube…on YouTube. It’s actually an interesting concept that shows the power of social media to spread good information. (And it’s reflexive, which is always cool.) I found this via the UGL Facebook page, and they’ve asked whether this is the future of the book. My answer: I hope not. I love the ways this technology is being used. But I don’t think it can replace the book. Here’s my criteria:
1. Books are easily browsable. I can flip through pages of a book, pick a place at random, and look for what I’m looking for, or see if I’ll like it, or whatever. This videobook adds features I never knew were possible to make this closer to a reality, but it’s still limited. Browsability is among the most important aspects of books and libraries to me, and I think to knowledge and information in general.
2. Books offer depth of knowledge. Although this videobook makes a complete argument from beginning to finish, compressing all of the content of a monograph into video would take far too long. Trying to squeeze one content area into another medium can compress a full thesis into sound bytes. There’s value in gaining deep understanding that, so far, comes strongly from text. And usually page-based text.

Secondly: identities are incredibly complex. This video from one of my favorite sets of vloggers also talks about using information technology well (They’ve launched Your Pants! I’ve spent some time exploring in Your Pants. You might want to find Your Pants. The stuff in Your Pants is pretty exciting.) But it also, at the end, discusses how identities, both those that we choose and those that choose us, resist simplicity. Those of us who claim certain identities, whether we’d like to claim them or not, have to live them as well. And that’s what gives them their meaning. When I claim an identity as a male, or white, or as a Nerdfighter, I don’t just fit into that box. I work with others who claim that identity, and those who claim opposing identities, to create what that means. Sometimes it means things I don’t want it to mean–that I’ve got privilege in society that excludes others, for example. But it always resists a simple definition. And that’s what makes life so exciting.

Becoming Info-Friendly

I’m becoming more wired. I guess it was unavoidable. They don’t call my (hopefully) future field library and information science for no reason. So, I’m keeping this blog, I’ve joined the Twitter-verse, and finding lots of things online that I enjoy and are actually useful.

But I’m processing all of this, too. I just got back from a brownbag discussion of a TED video about how the Net can actually help support dictatorships. The link is here. And the resulting discussion with a psychology professor and a librarian I work with led me to start thinking about what it means to be a good user of information technology.

Until recently, I’ve resisted a lot of informatics advances. (I like books. They don’t crash.) But I don’t think that’s helpful. My goal in life is (I think) to help connect people to information in ways that are socially conscious. Librarian-as-social-justice type stuff. And it’s information technology for a reason. The information comes first. And then the technology.

One thing that really struck me in the video is the Hierarchy of Cyber-needs. Modelled on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, it purports that we can become self-actualized users of technology (as another TED talk-er has put it, “cyborgs”) by moving up categories of entertainment and sharing to actually becoming socially conscious users of info tech. My question is, now: How do we do it?

Don’t get me wrong. I like watching funny videos of cats sometimes. But making info tech into entertainment and cyber-sharing has done more harm than good. I like people too much to become walled-in by that. But how can I, as someone invested in the use of information technology, use it as a tool to connect people to information they need? It’s not an easy question. It’s probably the biggest question in all of LIS anymore. I don’t have the answers. But I’m glad to be joining the conversation. Even if it’s on Twitter.