A More Thoughtful, Critical Approach to the WSJ Fiasco

Now that the dust has settled somewhat and I have calmed down from my initial reaction to the article in the Wall Street Journal about YA literature yesterday, I wanted to make a more thoughtful, critical approach with my thoughts on Ms. Gurdon's article. My initial reactions were anger and frustration. Now, however, my feelings have cooled, somewhat, to sadness and frustration (I can not escape the frustration in regard to this piece). I say sadness because the knee-jerk reaction is, once again, that these books should be censored. Don't get me wrong, I understand that some readers may not be emotionally prepared for some of the books referred to. That's fine. There are certainly books I would not have been prepared for, myself, at that age. However, there are also books I could definitely have benefited from.

To say that these books should be banned or censored does more harm than good. What of those readers who just might need to read a book featuring characters experiencing, facing, and overcoming difficult situations? What of those readers who just might learn something about sympathy for those in situations different from their own? What of those readers who need to know that they are not alone in their struggles? It is the height of hubris to say that books about life's weightier, more difficult issues should be banned or censored. If there is a concern that a book not appropriate for certain readers' sensibilities will fall into the wrong hands, why not take a more active approach to your children's reading habits? Read with your children, gauge what they might be capable of reading, and discuss it with them. Sticking your head in the proverbial sand about the existence of difficult issues (in the article referred to as "depravity") does nothing more than cause a disconnect between parent and child. I speak from personal experience on this one, both in observing the lives of friends who encountered terrible situations and battle my own, personal demons and home life issues.

The mother referred to by Ms. Gurdon also troubles me a great deal. As a parent in my own right, I can not fathom her position. She says she saw nothing but books with "lurid and dramatic covers" containing "all vampires and suicide and self-mutilation, this dark, dark stuff." Ms. Gurdon goes on to say the available material is, "So dark that kidnapping and pedastry and incest and brutal beatings are now just part of the run of things in novels directed, broadly, at children from the ages of 12 to 18." The extraneous usage of "and" aside, such broad, blanket statements are dangerous things. Sure, these topics do exist in some YA novels, but not all YA novels. Making such statements without the benefit of having done the proper research to back it up is (to use one of my favorite words in relation to this article) asinine. As Abraham Lincoln said, "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." Ms. Gurden does have rights to freedom of expression, which allows her to write without fear of prosecution. However, her generalizations and misconceptions made her come across in a very foolish manner, especially in light of her comments toward librarians, book sellers, and publishers who stand up against censorship. As a journalist, I would have thought she would have been more on board with the notion of free speech. From the appearance of her article, she appears to be only interested in her own right to free speech while begrudging authors the right to theirs.

My favorite analogy in relation to the situation in the book store was posted on Twitter. Statements such as the one made by the mother would be akin to walking through the produce section of a grocery store with one's eyes closed and then saying that the store sells only meat. That is essentially what happened here. This mom, with no research in hand and poor guidance from a store employee, could not see the forest for the trees.She overlooked all of the books she would have approved of in favor of those that made her uncomfortable. This is a sadder situation still for her seeming willingness to jump to conclusions about YA lit as a whole. Where is the informed decision-making in this situation? I certainly don't know, but it will serve as a lesson for me, in any case. Now I know what not to do as a parent in relation to my child's reading habits.

Darkness Too Visible? Your Generalizations Are Showing.

I should really be going to bed, but I have been thinking about this article from the Wall Street Journal for the past hour or so. Rather than lie in bed and fume about it, I'm going to have my say. In the article, one Meghan Cox Gurdon takes it upon herself to spout off many generalizations about young adult literature, including the use of words like "depraved," as well as lovely sentiments such as this: "Now, whether you care if adolescents spend their time immersed in ugliness probably depends on your philosophical outlook." Pardon me? Ugliness? I have read a great deal of YA literature in my lifetime. Granted, I am now 28 and a mother in my own right, but that does not mean that I can't appreciate a good YA novel. Otherwise, I wouldn't have made the decision to pursue a library science degree after undergraduate school and make youth services librarianship my life's work of choice. In any case, out of all of the books I have read, I can not honestly say that ugliness is a characteristic I would apply to any of them. Where I do see ugliness is the real world. Most of the YA I have read takes a look at ugly topics and has the protagonist face and overcome them. This world is not an easy place to live in, nor is life easy for everyone. I was a teenager once. I remember how it felt to feel alone. Books got me through many of the rough patches I experienced then, much as they do now.

Another aspect of this article that rubbed me the wrong was was Ms. Gurdon's implied vilification of librarians. Several of her references to libraries, librarians, and the ALA came across with thinly veiled snideness. Rather than addressing one of the real issues (i.e. parents who don't take the time to discuss what their kids are reading with them or, God forbid, pick up the book and read along with them), Ms. Gurdon seems to have gone the over-generalized, scapegoat route with her article. She seems to have picked some of the more sensational examples she could think of to pad her article with shocking statements and then proceeded to lump every single book in the genre along with them. Much like any other reading level, YA is much more varied than that, yet you don't see her mentioning this. Why is that, Ms. Gurdon?

Finally, I would like to address the mother mentioned in the article. I was troubled to see the old adage of judging a book by its cover take on an alarmingly literal aspect. She took special care to mention "lurid covers." That is only the outer face of a book. I find it difficult to believe that out of all of the books set before her she couldn't find a single one whose topic didn't make her cringe. As I previously said, books are varied. There is a wide array of subject matter out there, not all of it "dark" (I would be more inclined to say "weighty"). The book store employee was no better. How about some honest to goodness research for once. I simply can not take anyone seriously who casts aside a book without so much as finding out what it's really about, no matter if it is a YA book or adult fiction. An over-abundance of idealisation is not going to be the most helpful route to take in this day and age. I know that I wish some of the books I have most recently read had been available 10 years ago. I felt incredibly alienated at times and would have benefited from a book that addressed the harder issues that plague society. I am, however, glad that I will have the opportunity of reading with my daughter and then discussing what we read. She might not be able to read yet, but I hope she will grow up with a love of books as insatiable as my own.

I will admit it, this article left me feeling very angry. It was akin to a slap in the face to have one of the genres that has played such a big role in my life be vilified. Censorship is never okay, so to see Ms. Gurdon mention those who stand against it in such a scoffing manner was very upsetting. To write an article so full of generalizations, stereotypes, and demeaning language is ridiculously asinine. However, she has the right to do so, much as everyone has the right to write or read as they see fit. I highly doubt Ms. Gurdon would appreciate having her work censored. Censorship is a slippery slope. The phrase, "Be careful what you wish for," especially comes to mind. Rather than implying that certain topics be done away with, why not set about to engage in informed discussion? Perhaps then each side would understand the other better.

"The books that the world calls immoral are the books that show the world its own shame." -Oscar Wilde

"We read to know that we are not alone." -C.S. Lewis

"Fairy tales are more than true; not because they tell us that dragons exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten." -G.K. Chesterton



Did the article upset and/or offend you? Have something to say to the Wall Street Journal? Let them know! There is a Twitter hash tag campaign in progress to let them know what YA really means to its readers. Click the button above to go to the Twitter #YAsaves page. Then, write a tweet. In your tweet, write how YA has changed or affected your life and include the hashtag #YAsaves and address it to @wsj.