Authors' viewpoints on morals and values in YA literature

[swimmermom3]

I found this recent post on author, Shannon Hale's (The Princess Academy) blog. She is talking about how often parents want the values portrayed in children and YA books to reflect their own values. She then has several noted authors weigh in on the topic. I found the blog to be insightful and thought some of you would enjoy it ...after you are done teaching for the day, of course.:D

[6packofun]

Wow, thank you for posting that! I love Shannon Hale and this topic is one that is important to me. I'm printing it out to share with my dh and kiddos to discuss over dinner! (and dessert and snack...probably!)

[swimmermom3]

Wow, thank you for posting that! I love Shannon Hale and this topic is one that is important to me. I'm printing it out to share with my dh and kiddos to discuss over dinner! (and dessert and snack...probably!)

 

I would be interested to hear what your children think especially the older ones.

 

We had the issue of parents forcing the moral issue on writers brought home to us in a unique way last year. In high school lit class, my dd missed a question on a quiz regarding whether or not the main teen characters had had s*x. She said, "No." The teacher said, "yes." Another student backed my dd up after she had shown the teacher the section in the book. His final comment on the whole episode was, "Well, in my book, they did."

 

Aaagh! Come on man, where is your curiosity? My daughter wanted to know how this could be. We talked to our librarian which led us to our local university's lit department, which then led us to the author. It was a fascinating exercise.

 

The novel is one commonly used in high school lit classes and one that is commonly objected to by parents and occasionally banned. The author turned the book over to the university's lit department where they went to work on it trying to keep the story intact but take out the parts that were objectionable. When I contacted the author, he was very gracious and explained that he felt this editing made the book he had written 20 years ago better.

 

My feelings were really mixed on this. On one hand, if the author really felt it made a better book, well okay. However if making it more palatable to get more sales with the schools, I just don't know.

 

What did irk me was the teacher missed an incredible opportunity for some seriously interesting conversations with his students. The man was making his tests from a different book than the students were reading and didn't even know it. :tongue_smilie:

I am contemplating this whole topic again after responding to some threads about the appropriateness of certain books for certain ages. More than you wanted to know.

Edited June 3, 2010 by swimmermom3
Had the responses switched around.

[lisabees]

I would be interested to hear what your children think especially the older ones.

 

We had the issue of parents forcing the moral issue on writers brought home to us in a unique way last year. In high school lit class, my dd missed a question on a quiz regarding whether or not the main teen characters had had s*x. She said, "yes." The teacher said, "No." Another student backed my dd up after she had shown the teacher the section in the book. His final comment on the whole episode was, "Well, in my book, they did."

 

Aaagh! Come on man, where is your curiosity? My daughter wanted to know how this could be. We talked to our librarian which led us to our local university's lit department, which then led us to the author. It was a fascinating exercise.

 

The novel is one commonly used in high school lit classes and one that is commonly objected to by parents and occasionally banned. The author turned the book over to the university's lit department where they went to work on it trying to keep the story intact but take out the parts that were objectionable. When I contacted the author, he was very gracious and explained that he felt this editing made the book he had written 20 years ago better.

 

My feelings were really mixed on this. On one hand, if the author really felt it made a better book, well okay. However if making it more palatable to get more sales with the schools, I just don't know.

 

What did irk me was the teacher missed an incredible opportunity for some seriously interesting conversations with his students. The man was making his tests from a different book than the students were reading and didn't even know it. :tongue_smilie:

I am contemplating this whole topic again after responding to some threads about the appropriateness of certain books for certain ages. More than you wanted to know.

 

Nope It's exactly why I love coming to these boards.

 

Thanks for sharing the interesting story - you handled it like a top-notch mom who encourages her dd to think for herself. :001_smile:

[Corraleno]

Excellent article! Thanks for the link. I loved this:

 

My objection to the idea of morals in YA or children's literature is generally people being too literal in their interpretations. Because I have a divorced character in my book does not mean I advocate divorce. Or teenage pregnancy. Or child abuse. Or war. Or vampires eating people. I mean, seriously, I do not think vampires should eat people, even though they eat people in my books. Do I have to say that? Perhaps I do.

:lol:

 

Jackie

[Crimson Wife]

Honestly, I think this whole discussion is an example of just what's wrong with this country. Prior to the middle of the 20th century, adults took seriously their role as authority figures. That included authors of children's fiction. Juvenile books were intended not merely to entertain but also to reinforce prevailing moral standards. There were of course some risque novels published and teens often found a way to read those, but they were aimed at adults rather than deliberately marketed towards teens.

 

I'm not in favor of censorship, but I would like to see a parental advisory on books with mature content the way there are warnings on movies, TV shows, CD's, video games, etc. I would also like to see those books kept in a special area in the library where minors would need parental permission to access them.

[nmoira]

I'm not in favor of censorship, but I would like to see a parental advisory on books with mature content the way there are warnings on movies, TV shows, CD's, video games, etc. I would also like to see those books kept in a special area in the library where minors would need parental permission to access them.

Minor meaning 18 and younger?

 

FWIW, such a scheme would require either rating all books in the library or not permitting children access to anything other than "G" rated children's books. I think it would be far easier to wall off the children (or keep them out of the library altogether) than potentially objectionable material. :tongue_smilie:

[nmoira]

I found this recent post on author, Shannon Hale's (The Princess Academy) blog.

Thanks for posting this...

 

... and I love M.T. Anderson.

[Crimson Wife]

Minor meaning 18 and younger?

 

FWIW, such a scheme would require either rating all books in the library or not permitting children access to anything other than "G" rated children's books. I think it would be far easier to wall off the children (or keep them out of the library altogether) than potentially objectionable material. :tongue_smilie:

 

Yes. Our library has an electronic catalog system. Cards for minors are already tagged as such in the system because there are different fees associated with them (free ILL requests rather than $0.75/item, lower late fees, etc). It would be very easy to keep track of which cards have a parental waiver on file to access all materials and which are restricted. I think I would feel comfortable signing such a waiver at age 16, while other parents might feel comfortable doing it earlier or later.

[Farrar]

I also love MT Anderson. And the article on his site about ideology in YA that was linked to from Shannon Hale's was excellent. Of course, his books are all about ideas...

[TracyP]

How interesting to hear what authors think about this.

 

Julie of the Wolves was one of my favorite books as a teen. I heard it was being pulled from some libraries so I reread it to see if I had forgotten something. Nope - still an awesome book that I would totally let my dd read. Now I walk into B & N and see YA books with half naked people making out on the covers.:001_huh: I wonder how can someone be okay marketing garbage to an underage audience?

 

I am okay with almost anything in a movie or book if it serves a purpose (Julie of the Wolves) to an otherwise good storyline. I am afraid that too much of the YA material coming out right now is just plain junk.

[nmoira]

 

Yes. Our library has an electronic catalog system. Cards for minors are already tagged as such in the system because there are different fees associated with them (free ILL requests rather than $0.75/item, lower late fees, etc). It would be very easy to keep track of which cards have a parental waiver on file to access all materials and which are restricted. I think I would feel comfortable signing such a waiver at age 16, while other parents might feel comfortable doing it earlier or later.

But, assuming all the material is rated (and let's for the sake of expediency set aside the question as to whose standards) how would you keep a child from accessing such material while in the library? Edited June 3, 2010 by nmoira

[Debora R]

 

I'm not in favor of censorship, but I would like to see a parental advisory on books with mature content the way there are warnings on movies, TV shows, CD's, video games, etc. I would also like to see those books kept in a special area in the library where minors would need parental permission to access them.

 

 

Um, this is going to come across harsher than intended, (I'm not sure how to soften the verbiage) so please don't take this the wrong way.....but, isn't that OUR job as parents?

 

For me and mine, I tend to read the books my kids bring home, and I've taught them to read the book jackets and make decisions about whether or not a book is appropriate - and to ask if they aren't sure. I also listen to the radio with them, pre-screen movies on a regular basis and monitor what they are doing on the internet.

 

I neither want nor need a third party to do that for me or make me jump through extra hoops. :tongue_smilie:

ETA: A parent action committee wouldn't neccessarily reflect my values, or those of other patrons for that matter, as we all have different world views, so I tend to be leery of such things....

 

.......back to your regularly scheduled thread.....

Edited June 3, 2010 by Debora R

[Caitilin]

Minor meaning 18 and younger?

 

FWIW, such a scheme would require either rating all books in the library or not permitting children access to anything other than "G" rated children's books. I think it would be far easier to wall off the children (or keep them out of the library altogether) than potentially objectionable material.

 

 

I really like what Mette Ivie Harrison says about this too:

 

" I really dislike the whole movie rating system mentality that we have currently in America. We keep kids from watching moral movies that show difficult actions instead of keeping kids from seeing trivial movies because they have no bad words in them. Which isn't to say that all R rated movies are deeply moral. They're not. But neither are all PG or G rated movies. Having a morality rating would be impossible, however, and I'm not sure I want that, either."

 

 

To me, it's more important that my children, as they grow, learn to wrestle with real ideas than that they have successfully avoided hearing "bad" words, or seeing more skin than is really appropriate. The other thing that gets me is the standard which suggests that sex is somehow worse than violence. So many parents I know are fine with their kids reading or seeing something with graphic violence than with any sexual content whatever. So the message is...violence is OK, but sex is bad?? (Sorry for the hijack, by the way. :tongue_smilie:)

[Crimson Wife]

The other thing that gets me is the standard which suggests that sex is somehow worse than violence. So many parents I know are fine with their kids reading or seeing something with graphic violence than with any sexual content whatever. So the message is...violence is OK, but sex is bad?? (Sorry for the hijack, by the way. :tongue_smilie:)

 

And what I don't get is why so many parents in my neck of the woods are fine with what I consider to be grossly age-inappropriate s*xual content but want only "sanitized" versions of classic fairy tales. :rolleyes:

[lisabees]

Mt Anderson has a link to an essay he wrote. Check it out. http://mt-anderson.com/blog/he-talks-talks-2/on-ideology-and-chickens-with-blankets/ In it, he says...

 

It is those buried debates and struggles that give these narratives their energy. It is our willful desire to prove one thing true or prove another thing false or declare our love for something else that makes our prose dynamic. We are, consciously or unconsciously, always reworking our own histories, our own tensions, our own anxieties, so of course those topoi and tropes are propelled by our own tangled subjectivity, our own situation in intersecting ideologies and in stories that came before us and meet within us.

 

This debate will always be strong, as we all have different worldviews. I make choices for my kids much of the time. But, there are many times that I feel it's more important to let them find their own way. As they get older, I loosen the reins.

 

I told my 16 year old recently that if I didn't give him freedom, he wouldn't be able to make his own decisions. By making his own decisions, he will discover what his principles are. My job isn't to shelter my kids from mistakes; it's to hope that they don't make bad ones. My job isn't to force my principles on my kids; it's to enable them to develop their own.

 

I want my kids to be exposed to all kinds of people and all thoughts, within reason, of course. I want them to learn that there is good in everyone. And that everyone has a lesson to teach us. And that it is important to learn tolerance. I want them to learn who they are, because that will make them strong.

 

I am not scared of those who are different. Or ideas which are different. Or books that have characters that I loathe or lessons with which I disagree. I welcome them. Like MT Anderson, I feel that it is through these debates and struggles of ideas that we find out who we are.

 

More from MT Anderson...

 

Maybe the books that endure are those that engage us most powerfully in the anxiety of doubt and polemic – narratives that hurt the heads of successive generations, each generation reformulating the story and the issues – so that the author’s ideological certainty and ideological doubt both continue to inspire debate within readers, and delight, and despair, and adoration, and awe.

Edited June 3, 2010 by lisabees
oops. I said I make choices for my kids all of the time. I really don't! :)

[orangearrow]

Well, I was going to chime in here - but instead I'm just going to say :iagree: to the below quoted material, because it's what I would have said if I'd taken the time to do it. :D

 

My oldest is only just-turned 12, so there's plenty I still shield her from and there are books I won't let her read yet. I certainly don't hold the author to any responsibility. There are TONS of books out there with excellent moral values and wonderful role models. And there are TONS that do not (And tons of YA books that surprise me with their YA ratings). I read reviews religiously. I pre-read and keep track of what she is reading so we can discuss, and her list of "can't reads" is getting shorter and shorter and she certainly will be reading things that I do not agree with - without knowing my stand or opinion, until we've discussed her own thoughts and opinions at length. I look forward to these discussions.

 

(but she can't read Twilight until she's 16 years old. And I don't care how many of her friends have read the series when they were 12! LOL!!)

 

 

Mt Anderson has a link to an essay he wrote. Check it out. http://mt-anderson.com/blog/he-talks-talks-2/on-ideology-and-chickens-with-blankets/ In it, he says...

 

It is those buried debates and struggles that give these narratives their energy. It is our willful desire to prove one thing true or prove another thing false or declare our love for something else that makes our prose dynamic. We are, consciously or unconsciously, always reworking our own histories, our own tensions, our own anxieties, so of course those topoi and tropes are propelled by our own tangled subjectivity, our own situation in intersecting ideologies and in stories that came before us and meet within us.

 

This debate will always be strong, as we all have different worldviews. I make choices for my kids all of the time. But, there are many times that I feel it's more important to let them find their own way. As they get older, I loosen the reins.

 

I told my 16 year old recently that if I didn't give him freedom, he wouldn't be able to make his own decisions. By making his own decisions, he will discover what his principles are. My job isn't to shelter my kids from mistakes; it's to hope that they don't make bad ones. My job isn't to force my principles on my kids; it's to enable them to develop their own.

 

I want my kids to be exposed to all kinds of people and all thoughts, within reason, of course. I want them to learn that there is good in everyone. And that everyone has a lesson to teach us. And that it is important to learn tolerance. I want them to learn who they are, because that will make them strong.

 

I am not scared of those who are different. Or ideas which are different. Or books that have characters that I loathe or lessons with which I disagree. I welcome them. Like MT Anderson, I feel that it is through these debates and struggles of ideas that we find out who we are.

 

More from MT Anderson...

 

Maybe the books that endure are those that engage us most powerfully in the anxiety of doubt and polemic – narratives that hurt the heads of successive generations, each generation reformulating the story and the issues – so that the author’s ideological certainty and ideological doubt both continue to inspire debate within readers, and delight, and despair, and adoration, and awe.

Edited June 3, 2010 by orangearrow

[Spy Car]

Honestly, I think this whole discussion is an example of just what's wrong with this country. Prior to the middle of the 20th century, adults took seriously their role as authority figures. That included authors of children's fiction. Juvenile books were intended not merely to entertain but also to reinforce prevailing moral standards.

 

Sure, but many of those prevailing moral standards included some pretty contemptible elements, such as Anglo-Saxon racial superiority, and colliery notions of about the inferiority of Africans, Asians, Southern Europeans, Eastern Europeans, Irish, Native Americans, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, or anyone who isn't a WASP.

 

And there are groups like Vision Forum who still offerer up these anachronistic works as part of a "values education."

 

Much nineteenth century Juvenile literature has a pretty questionable "values" intermixed with the affirmation of work ethic. So I'm not overly nostalgic about some golden past of moral decency in the youth literature of times past. Much of it makes me blanch.

 

Bill

[Sebastian (a lady)]

To me, it's more important that my children, as they grow, learn to wrestle with real ideas than that they have successfully avoided hearing "bad" words, or seeing more skin than is really appropriate. The other thing that gets me is the standard which suggests that sex is somehow worse than violence. So many parents I know are fine with their kids reading or seeing something with graphic violence than with any sexual content whatever. So the message is...violence is OK, but sex is bad?? (Sorry for the hijack, by the way. :tongue_smilie:)

 

We found that this is quite culturally normed. When we lived in Germany and had German cable, we would frequently see parental warnings for movies, then find that the movie in question was something that we would certainly show to the kids (for example Memphis Belle or a Die Hard movie). Meanwhile there were shows with nudity and s*xual situations that made me blush that had no warning at all. S*x was no problem. Violence got lots of warnings.

[Rosie_0801]

What did irk me was the teacher missed an incredible opportunity for some seriously interesting conversations with his students. The man was making his tests from a different book than the students were reading and didn't even know it. :tongue_smilie:

 

 

What kind of interesting conversations did you want? A friend of mine had to teach a book for year 11 or 12 English which included incest. He got put on probation for discussing sexual ethics. Apparently he was supposed to know that you don't talk about such things in English classrooms. He thought it would be irresponsible not to.

 

Rosie

[swimmermom3]

What kind of interesting conversations did you want? A friend of mine had to teach a book for year 11 or 12 English which included incest. He got put on probation for discussing sexual ethics. Apparently he was supposed to know that you don't talk about such things in English classrooms. He thought it would be irresponsible not to.

 

Rosie

 

Aaagh! No Rosie, that wasn't the kind of interesting conversation I was talking about! Putting myself in the place of a classroom teacher, if students insisted that something different happened than what my book showed, I would investigate. If I knew that there were 2 different versions of the book, I would tell the students (he didn't know, obviously). If I didn't know, again I would do the research that my daughter and I did and get back to the class. What a great chance to discuss the editing process the book went through. Is this an author simply improving on a book (do many really do this?) or is this censorship? How would the kids feel if classic works were "sanitized" to reflect the common moral values of the time. What happened here, imo, is exactly the kind of thing I believe Crimson Wife is referring to.

 

If I remember correctly, the students in the university's lit department went through and marked all words and actions that came up against the list of things parents commonly object to. The author took it from there.

[happygrrl]

Fantastic, thanks!

[swimmermom3]

.

Edited June 15, 2010 by swimmermom3
Did not contribute to topic

[Corraleno]

What follows is from the original 1931 version of The Mystery at Lilac Inn from the Nancy Drew series. In this section, Nancy is looking for a new housekeeper and has called an employment agency:

 

"But right now we have only one servant on hand-a colored woman."

 

"Send her out this afternoon," Nancy ordered in despair. "I must have someone immediately."

 

Later...

 

As she opened the door her heart sank within her. It was indeed the colored woman sent by the employment agency, but a more unlikely housekeeper Nancy had never seen. She was dirty and slovenly in appearance and had an unpleasant way of shuffling her feet when she walked.

 

Of course the next housekeeper sent out was Irish and that was even worse than the Negress. Yes, this book definitely reinforces the prevailing moral standards of the time it was written in.

Exactly. And yet this sort of casual, pervasive bigotry in older books is often dismissed as "just a reflection of the times" and "a good basis for discussion," while modern books, which are equally reflective of the moral standards of the time, should be edited or have warning labels on them to ensure that impressionable children aren't exposed to ideas about sex, or gay rights, or "bad words."

 

As several of the authors in the linked article mention, parents seem to feel that if a book includes premarital sex, or a gay character, or drug use, or whatever, then the author (and the teacher who assigned the book, and the school that allow is) are all clearly condoning that behavior. But using a book that's full of bigotry and racism is in no way condoning racism, and how dare anyone suggest otherwise. :rolleyes:

 

Jackie

[Shelly in the Country]

Exactly. And yet this sort of casual, pervasive bigotry in older books is often dismissed as "just a reflection of the times" and "a good basis for discussion," while modern books, which are equally reflective of the moral standards of the time, should be edited or have warning labels on them to ensure that impressionable children aren't exposed to ideas about sex, or gay rights, or "bad words."

 

As several of the authors in the linked article mention, parents seem to feel that if a book includes premarital sex, or a gay character, or drug use, or whatever, then the author (and the teacher who assigned the book, and the school that allow is) are all clearly condoning that behavior. But using a book that's full of bigotry and racism is in no way condoning racism, and how dare anyone suggest otherwise. :rolleyes:

 

 

 

So, in other words, some people want their children's books "red-flagged" for sex, while others want their children's books "red-flagged" for bigotry? (And I'm sure there is also a category of people who want them "red-flagged" for both. This is the WTM boards, we need an "Other" option :001_smile:.)

[goldberry]

I really like what Mette Ivie Harrison says about this too:

 

" I really dislike the whole movie rating system mentality that we have currently in America. We keep kids from watching moral movies that show difficult actions instead of keeping kids from seeing trivial movies because they have no bad words in them. Which isn't to say that all R rated movies are deeply moral. They're not. But neither are all PG or G rated movies. Having a morality rating would be impossible, however, and I'm not sure I want that, either."

 

 

To me, it's more important that my children, as they grow, learn to wrestle with real ideas than that they have successfully avoided hearing "bad" words, or seeing more skin than is really appropriate. The other thing that gets me is the standard which suggests that sex is somehow worse than violence. So many parents I know are fine with their kids reading or seeing something with graphic violence than with any sexual content whatever. So the message is...violence is OK, but sex is bad?? (Sorry for the hijack, by the way. :tongue_smilie:)

 

Absolutely agree! My sister's kids watched Nightmare on Elm Street as preteens, but when people would kiss on tv, my sister would say, "don't watch, nasty!" ?????

 

Also with the first quote from Harrison, that is so spot on. I watch with my DD11 some of the tv shows about drug addiction and we discuss them. Yes, the folks on there use bad language! Language that I normally would not allow her to watch in a movie that was for entertainment purposes only. At the high school I went to, there was a huge fuss because the 11th grade history class was going to watch Schindlers List. People were upset because it had the F-word in it! As if that was what the whole movie was about.

 

This is a great thread. I am in on the side that it is the parent's responsibility and not some librarians or labeling group whose opinions I may or may not agree with.

[Shelly in the Country]

This is a great thread. I am in on the side that it is the parent's responsibility and not some librarians or labeling group whose opinions I may or may not agree with.

 

:iagree:

[Gratia271]

The upshot is you cannot "red flag" the world. Teaching children how to think and reason through ideas is a dangerous proposition. I know many people from all walks of life, persuasions and many worldviews who are practically speaking unwilling to take this risk. One way in which this is manifested is in literature selections/limitations. If it raises issues we don't care to discuss, we just censor it, much like movie selections. Of course, we all have our boundaries for myriad reasons, but I think we do a great disservice to our children by strictly limiting their selections to those things which we deem 'appropriate' (translated "safe").

 

Maybe this is tangential to the post at hand, but I don't see how our young people will learn to grapple with ideas and choices in a real world and form their own identity and ideals separate and apart from us as their parents/family if they are not exposed to a world beyond their own location in time and space, whether through literature or other sources.

[lisabees]

Maybe this is tangential to the post at hand, but I don't see how our young people will learn to grapple with ideas and choices in a real world and form their own identity and ideals separate and apart from us as their parents/family if they are not exposed to a world beyond their own location in time and space, whether through literature or other sources.

 

:iagree: Beautifully said.

 

I want my kids to be decent human beings, but I also want them to walk their own path. They can't choose that path until they confront the choices themselves.

 

I think the difference lies in parents who don't mind their kids having separate ideals and those who want their kids having the same ideals.

Edited June 15, 2010 by lisabees

[nmoira]

Maybe this is tangential to the post at hand, but I don't see how our young people will learn to grapple with ideas and choices in a real world and form their own identity and ideals separate and apart from us as their parents/family if they are not exposed to a world beyond their own location in time and space, whether through literature or other sources.

I agree, though I'd hesitate to call TCoO literature, and it's certainly not contemporary to the events it discusses. ;)

 

However, I prefer not to introduce bigoted or chauvinistic materials even if indicative "of the time" with grammar and logic stage children who had not first been given some opportunity to understand what reality of some of these attitudes and institutions... be it slavery, treatment of indigenous peoples, class structure, or Imperialism. As for a book like The Courage of Sarah Noble, the history is questionable with respect to the depiction of Native Americans and I cannot see its value as part of a history course unless one is specifically dealing with attitudes towards Native Americans in the 1950's.

[Gratia271]

I agree, though I'd hesitate to call TCoO literature, and it's certainly not contemporary to the events it discusses. ;)

 

However, I prefer not to introduce bigoted or chauvinistic materials even if indicative "of the time" with grammar and logic stage children who had not first been given some opportunity to understand what reality of some of these attitudes and institutions... be it slavery, treatment of indigenous peoples, class structure, or Imperialism. As for a book like The Courage of Sarah Noble, the history is questionable with respect to the depiction of Native Americans and I cannot see its value as part of a history course unless one is specifically dealing with attitudes towards Native Americans in the 1950's.

 

I agree completely! Part of the topic discussion is an issue of timing with regard to their age, and I think they must have some nexus or understanding of the background ideas and attitudes surrounding these matters. For me it comes down to lots (and lots) of discussion. I further agree that some books are of limited to no value whatsoever. There are too many excellent resources to waste our time on drivel. What I was envisioning was more in regard to people censoring all the things that they either are not comfortable with addressing or wish didn't exist. There are some really tough issues which all kids need to be allowed to grapple with... when and how it's done will vary considerably across families, but I believe it is part of one's education and personal development.

[nmoira]

I agree completely! Part of the topic discussion is an issue of timing with regard to their age, and I think they must have some nexus or understanding of the background ideas and attitudes surrounding these matters. For me it comes down to lots (and lots) of discussion. I further agree that some books are of limited to no value whatsoever. There are too many excellent resources to waste our time on drivel. What I was envisioning was more in regard to people censoring all the things that they either are not comfortable with addressing or wish didn't exist. There are some really tough issues which all kids need to be allowed to grapple with... when and how it's done will vary considerably across families, but I believe it is part of one's education and personal development.

Oh, I feel a little silly... I thought this was a different thread... it seems all threads I'm on are becoming part of one big thread...

 

:ack2:

 

:leaving:

[Gratia271]

I understand! :D

[Corraleno]

So, in other words, some people want their children's books "red-flagged" for sex, while others want their children's books "red-flagged" for bigotry? (And I'm sure there is also a category of people who want them "red-flagged" for both. This is the WTM boards, we need an "Other" option :001_smile:.)

I think a lot depends on how one defines "red-flagging." I'm totally opposed to any kind of "moral" labeling system for books, or restricting access to certain books in libraries, regardless of how offensive *I* may find the content. OTOH, I appreciate having access to a forum like this where I can get a heads-up on specific books from a BTDT parent, so I can judge for myself what my kids can handle at what ages. What I find odd is the attitiude that books dealing with sex or drugs or homosexuality are by default promoting those things, whereas books full of bigotry and racism are just innocent artifacts of another era.

 

Part of the topic discussion is an issue of timing with regard to their age, and I think they must have some nexus or understanding of the background ideas and attitudes surrounding these matters. For me it comes down to lots (and lots) of discussion. I further agree that some books are of limited to no value whatsoever. There are too many excellent resources to waste our time on drivel. What I was envisioning was more in regard to people censoring all the things that they either are not comfortable with addressing or wish didn't exist. There are some really tough issues which all kids need to be allowed to grapple with... when and how it's done will vary considerably across families, but I believe it is part of one's education and personal development.

:iagree:

Well said.

 

Jackie

[Sebastian (a lady)]

Exactly. And yet this sort of casual, pervasive bigotry in older books is often dismissed as "just a reflection of the times" and "a good basis for discussion," while modern books, which are equally reflective of the moral standards of the time, should be edited or have warning labels on them to ensure that impressionable children aren't exposed to ideas about sex, or gay rights, or "bad words."

 

As several of the authors in the linked article mention, parents seem to feel that if a book includes premarital sex, or a gay character, or drug use, or whatever, then the author (and the teacher who assigned the book, and the school that allow is) are all clearly condoning that behavior. But using a book that's full of bigotry and racism is in no way condoning racism, and how dare anyone suggest otherwise. :rolleyes:

 

Jackie

 

I guess I didn't read the quoted passage the same way. I didn't see it as describing all "negress" potential housekeepers as slovenly but just that one. Nancy, after all, didn't wrinkle her nose at the proposal of a negro or Irish housekeeper. Instead she had them come out to the house, where she determined based on their individual presentation that they were not what she was looking for in a housekeeper.

[swimmermom3]

I think a lot depends on how one defines "red-flagging." I'm totally opposed to any kind of "moral" labeling system for books, or restricting access to certain books in libraries, regardless of how offensive *I* may find the content. OTOH, I appreciate having access to a forum like this where I can get a heads-up on specific books from a BTDT parent, so I can judge for myself what my kids can handle at what ages. What I find odd is the attitiude that books dealing with sex or drugs or homosexuality are by default promoting those things, whereas books full of bigotry and racism are just innocent artifacts of another era.

 

Jackie

 

One of my favorite authors for the high school set is Christopher Crutcher. There is nothing gentle or easy about Crutcher's works. In fact, his books tend to make adults squirm as he presents characters, settings, and conflicts that reflect his experiences as a family counselor. These aren't books I would hand indiscriminately to any teen, but I have used them to open dialogue about tough topics, especially if my kids know someone or have a friend who is facing these challenges.

 

There have been numerous efforts by parents to ban his books because everything about them is not "mainstream." However, I know very few teens IRL that are truly "mainstream." Depression, divorce, suicide, eating disorders, learning disorders, physical and mental abuse, sexual molestation, and addiction have all taken their toll on our local high school. I know few families who have not had to address one or more of these issues. When the only books available to kids who may feel alone because of such challenges are books containing only "normal" people, these kids tend to feel more isolated and hopeless. The solutions to many of Crutcher's protagonist's problems are typically far outside of the box. It's dynamic reading and the books offer hours of discussion. I can't imagine what a ratings system would do with such works.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

I think a lot depends on how one defines "red-flagging." I'm totally opposed to any kind of "moral" labeling system for books, or restricting access to certain books in libraries, regardless of how offensive *I* may find the content. OTOH, I appreciate having access to a forum like this where I can get a heads-up on specific books from a BTDT parent, so I can judge for myself what my kids can handle at what ages. What I find odd is the attitiude that books dealing with sex or drugs or homosexuality are by default promoting those things, whereas books full of bigotry and racism are just innocent artifacts of another era.

 

 

:iagree:

Well said.

 

Jackie

 

What I'm looking for is a story that doesn't act as if various destructive behaviors don't have consequences. So I wouldn't want a story were teens drink or have casual s*x or use drugs and where it is treated as no big thing. Similarly, I wouldn't want a story to have a father abandon his family just because he wanted to spend the rest of his life with the office hottie and the child he'd fathered there.

Nor would I want a story about an unwed teen to focus on how cute the baby is but ignore the strains of raising a child (at any age).

 

I think for an author to say that their world view doesn't permeate their books is frankly silly. Of course it does. My world view permeates most of my choices, from my decisions to stay faithful to my husband to how I treat my children to how I react when someone cuts in front of me at the grocery store. It can't not come out in my writing, although I might purposely choose to create characters that don't chose as I would in order to make a point. (Would an author, for example, write a story in which the lovingly depicted protagonist was a bigoted, homophobic, violent alcoholic and defend making him the protagonist by saying that such people do exist and that the character just took on a life of his own? Probably not with a straight face.)

 

I think that it is possible to write in recognition that life isn't all roses and lollipops. For example, the mystery writer Ellis Peters frequently peopled her books with selfish, arrogant people who made foolish choices as well as with gentle people who often also made foolish choices. What I found refreshing about her books is that both sets of people had to live with the results of the choices they'd made.

 

I am very much involved in the books that my kids bring home from the library and don't feel at all bad in saying not at your age or recommending not ever. I don't think that the library needs to have books red-flagged because I think that is my job. But I'm also talking about a full service library. I would have no problem suggesting that a book be moved to the young adult or main adult section (where it was available if sought out) rather than in the children's collection (where there is an implicit recommendation or at least an implied screening).

 

And I don't have a problem with book challenges for elementary or even middle school libraries. Censorship is when the government says that a work may not be published, not when a publicly funded library says that something isn't appropriate for them to spend what are finite limited funds on.

[Corraleno]

I guess I didn't read the quoted passage the same way. I didn't see it as describing all "negress" potential housekeepers as slovenly but just that one. Nancy, after all, didn't wrinkle her nose at the proposal of a negro or Irish housekeeper. Instead she had them come out to the house, where she determined based on their individual presentation that they were not what she was looking for in a housekeeper.

 

"But right now we have only one servant on hand-a colored woman."

"Send her out this afternoon," Nancy ordered in despair. "I must have someone immediately."

My reading of this is that the agency is basically apologizing that the only servant they have available is a colored woman, but Nancy is so desperate she'll settle for anything. And then the Irish servant is even worse. These were well-known stereotypes of the time; the choice of a dirty, shuffling black servant and an incompetent Irish servant were not innocent/random character choices, they were part of the cultural vocabulary of the readers.

 

What I'm looking for is a story that doesn't act as if various destructive behaviors don't have consequences. So I wouldn't want a story were teens drink or have casual s*x or use drugs and where it is treated as no big thing. Similarly, I wouldn't want a story to have a father abandon his family just because he wanted to spend the rest of his life with the office hottie and the child he'd fathered there. Nor would I want a story about an unwed teen to focus on how cute the baby is but ignore the strains of raising a child (at any age).

I totally understand that POV, but I would also point out that racist/bigoted/anti-semitic attitudes and behavior in many of these older books rarely have negative consequences; in fact they're often portrayed as quite normal and reasonable. Yet these books are still considered, by some, to be more "moral" and quite suitable for children.

 

 

Jackie

[Corraleno]

One of my favorite authors for the high school set is Christopher Crutcher. There is nothing gentle or easy about Crutcher's works. In fact, his books tend to make adults squirm as he presents characters, settings, and conflicts that reflect his experiences as a family counselor. These aren't books I would hand indiscriminately to any teen, but I have used them to open dialogue about tough topics, especially if my kids know someone or have a friend who is facing these challenges.

Thank you for the link — I will definitely look into these. I think it's especially important for kids who's daily lives don't expose them to these kinds of issues, to understand what it's like for kids who have to deal with this stuff. My kids are very very lucky not to have ever experienced dysfunctional family dynamics, divorce, drug abuse or alcoholism (in the family), physical/verbal/emotional/sexual abuse, serious illnesses, etc., and I want to ensure they have empathy for those who are not so lucky.

 

Jackie

[Kareni]

I found this recent post on author, Shannon Hale's (The Princess Academy) blog. She is talking about how often parents want the values portrayed in children and YA books to reflect their own values. She then has several noted authors weigh in on the topic.

 

 

Thanks so much for sharing this, Lisa. I enjoyed reading the blog post as well as comments there and here.

 

Regards,

Kareni