...Opening a new store.
For those who don't know, the reason I have been MIA for the past two months is because Borders went out of business, taking my job with it. We (lead by my manager Dorothy) decided to do something crazy, like partner with people who run a toy store and open up our own bookstore.
The store is open now, and anyone who lives near Captiola, CA should come check it out! I will be making posts regularly again soon, hopefully stating today. Thanks for your patience!
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Bookstores Take a Stand - Comically
As you may have read in the news, DC comics has released 100 of their titles to Amazon exclusively, meaning that the Kindle Fire is the only device that will be able to support them in an electronic format. Don't have the Kindle Fire? You can still get those titles at a brick-and-mortar store, or at least you could until earlier this week when Barnes and Noble decided to pull all of those titles from the shelves.
As you see in the articles, many (including the employees) felt that this step was a little drastic, and would ultimately hurt the company rather than help it. Certainly customers who are unaware of the stakes are unhappy, and even those that are still have to deal with not being able to buy their favorite comics at the stores they like to support. The war for digital content is one that is hard to understand unless you are working in that environment, and even then I can understand the frustration on the store employee's level. When customers depend on you to have the thing that they are seeking, it is hard to have to explain to people that may or may not care that your company has made this decision, and you do not have any way to change it.
That being said, when I first heard about this, I was majorly impressed. Barnes and Noble has been saying for some time now that they will only continue to provide "showroom space" for those titles for which they also have electronic access. (This was in a PW article some months ago, which I cannot find now but I promise my word is good for it.) At the time I thought that this was a load of hot air, quite frankly, because who would risk that much to take a stance against that behemoth of Amazon? Again, I understand the objections to it, but you have to admit to the sheer amount of chutzpah that a move like that takes. I also have no love for Amazon, who does not even have the redeeming aspect of employing booksellers to soften the blow of how many stores they have helped put under. So I admit that I did not regret that DC might have had their noses tweaked a little for relying so heavily on Amazon.
I also think B&N has a point. Booksellers everywhere can understand the frustration of having someone come in, ask you to find a book, and then go buy it online. Watch this video from the Harvard Bookstore, which humorously but accurately depicts the frustration of watching your hard work benefit another company. For Indies, they rely on the goodwill of their customers to support their local bookstore to get people to buy actual paper copies, and people respond to that. B&N, who can't reap the benefits of being a "local", relies on being able to sell their products electronically as well to keep their customers loyal. Without that ability, it really doesn't profit them to keep a title in stock that people will just come in and look at, listen to the employee recommendations, and buy elsewhere.
Do they lose the sales from people not being able to buy the paper copy? Sure, but they've seen what happens when a company relies on just being cheap and there, rather than aggressively expanding into the electronic world. Right or wrong, they seem to be taking a stand against the idea that they exist solely as showroom space, and refuse to participate in a system in which they are not seeing any benefit for themselves.
Now it seems that Books-A-Million has joined the embargo. If I may make a Star Trek reference, it's as if one of the non-aligned worlds has joined the Maquis forces and lent them a semblance of legitimacy so they look less like a spoiled child throwing tantrums over things that they cannot change. It will be interesting to see if this move will sway customer sympathy in their favor. This "alliance" make the issue less about Barnes and Noble, and more about the book industry as a whole. While I'm sure B&N comic book revenue is nothing to sneeze at, adding BAM numbers to the equation makes things a little more serious if DC wants to continue this way.
It will also be interesting to see how the Indies react to this "call to arms". I would venture to say that since there is nothing that would really benefit them to help either Barnes and Noble or BAM, they will probably sit this one out. More than either of these chains, the Indie relies on having the physical product for the regulars and for the walk-ins. They therefore can't really afford to do anything drastic over electronic content, and in any case a lot of them don't offer their own e-reader anyway. However, it may benefit the book-selling industry as whole to remind publishers that they need their showroom as much as book stores need the product.
Surprisingly, I don't really feel strongly one way or the other about this battle. I think it is intensely interesting, and I have always had something of a soft spot for lost causes, but the objections against this move are very valid. Beyond the question of whether or not they are right to be doing what they are doing, there is also the chance that this won't pan out, and they will have alienated their customer base for nothing.
What about you? Do you feel that bookstores have the right to refuse to carry product that they do not have access to electronically? Or do you feel that bookstores have a responsibility to the community that they are in to have the good titles in stock, and that they are only hurting themselves in the long run? I'm curious to hear what people at other bookstores or even those not involved in the industry think. While the book industry has always been rather insular, I think the most important thing going forward is to hear what the concerns and responses are of the community you serve.
After all, isn't that what rebel causes are for?
As you see in the articles, many (including the employees) felt that this step was a little drastic, and would ultimately hurt the company rather than help it. Certainly customers who are unaware of the stakes are unhappy, and even those that are still have to deal with not being able to buy their favorite comics at the stores they like to support. The war for digital content is one that is hard to understand unless you are working in that environment, and even then I can understand the frustration on the store employee's level. When customers depend on you to have the thing that they are seeking, it is hard to have to explain to people that may or may not care that your company has made this decision, and you do not have any way to change it.
That being said, when I first heard about this, I was majorly impressed. Barnes and Noble has been saying for some time now that they will only continue to provide "showroom space" for those titles for which they also have electronic access. (This was in a PW article some months ago, which I cannot find now but I promise my word is good for it.) At the time I thought that this was a load of hot air, quite frankly, because who would risk that much to take a stance against that behemoth of Amazon? Again, I understand the objections to it, but you have to admit to the sheer amount of chutzpah that a move like that takes. I also have no love for Amazon, who does not even have the redeeming aspect of employing booksellers to soften the blow of how many stores they have helped put under. So I admit that I did not regret that DC might have had their noses tweaked a little for relying so heavily on Amazon.
I also think B&N has a point. Booksellers everywhere can understand the frustration of having someone come in, ask you to find a book, and then go buy it online. Watch this video from the Harvard Bookstore, which humorously but accurately depicts the frustration of watching your hard work benefit another company. For Indies, they rely on the goodwill of their customers to support their local bookstore to get people to buy actual paper copies, and people respond to that. B&N, who can't reap the benefits of being a "local", relies on being able to sell their products electronically as well to keep their customers loyal. Without that ability, it really doesn't profit them to keep a title in stock that people will just come in and look at, listen to the employee recommendations, and buy elsewhere.
Do they lose the sales from people not being able to buy the paper copy? Sure, but they've seen what happens when a company relies on just being cheap and there, rather than aggressively expanding into the electronic world. Right or wrong, they seem to be taking a stand against the idea that they exist solely as showroom space, and refuse to participate in a system in which they are not seeing any benefit for themselves.
Now it seems that Books-A-Million has joined the embargo. If I may make a Star Trek reference, it's as if one of the non-aligned worlds has joined the Maquis forces and lent them a semblance of legitimacy so they look less like a spoiled child throwing tantrums over things that they cannot change. It will be interesting to see if this move will sway customer sympathy in their favor. This "alliance" make the issue less about Barnes and Noble, and more about the book industry as a whole. While I'm sure B&N comic book revenue is nothing to sneeze at, adding BAM numbers to the equation makes things a little more serious if DC wants to continue this way.
It will also be interesting to see how the Indies react to this "call to arms". I would venture to say that since there is nothing that would really benefit them to help either Barnes and Noble or BAM, they will probably sit this one out. More than either of these chains, the Indie relies on having the physical product for the regulars and for the walk-ins. They therefore can't really afford to do anything drastic over electronic content, and in any case a lot of them don't offer their own e-reader anyway. However, it may benefit the book-selling industry as whole to remind publishers that they need their showroom as much as book stores need the product.
Surprisingly, I don't really feel strongly one way or the other about this battle. I think it is intensely interesting, and I have always had something of a soft spot for lost causes, but the objections against this move are very valid. Beyond the question of whether or not they are right to be doing what they are doing, there is also the chance that this won't pan out, and they will have alienated their customer base for nothing.
What about you? Do you feel that bookstores have the right to refuse to carry product that they do not have access to electronically? Or do you feel that bookstores have a responsibility to the community that they are in to have the good titles in stock, and that they are only hurting themselves in the long run? I'm curious to hear what people at other bookstores or even those not involved in the industry think. While the book industry has always been rather insular, I think the most important thing going forward is to hear what the concerns and responses are of the community you serve.
After all, isn't that what rebel causes are for?
Saturday, September 17, 2011
The Question of Queer in YA
Most people are aware of the problems queer Young Adult literature faces in the publishing industry, and indeed the media in general. As a bookseller, I am often saddened by the lack of queer protagonists, with some notable exceptions (Will Grayson, Will Grayson, Ash, The Bermudez Triangle). Anyone who has any contact at all in the book industry will tell you that this is a problem.
It is a problem because kids who are queer, and even those that aren't, need to see queer themes more often. While I've never had someone ask directly for a title in that section with those themes, I well remember how much I longed for something like that when I was a teenager. I would never have asked, but it would have meant the world to me, to see myself represented in that fashion. I was always looking for the subtext, always looking for themes of tolerence and acceptance but through the lense of genetics or aliens... I don't really have the words for how happy I would have been, to find a story that actually put it out there. I never found such a title, but I am glad they exist now, but there still aren't enough. Kids that don't have the support network I did need it, and they need more than a couple titles on the shelves.
Growing increasingly problematic are the responses to this issue that have begun to crop up recently.
When I read this article on the Publishers Weekly blog, it was not shocking, that they had been rejected based on a character's sexual orientation. Sad, but not shocking, as evidenced by how few titles are on the shelves that deal with this issue. Again, subtext is great in it's way, but it doesn't really count as a morale booster for kids who are queer. Then there are those who are actively working against queer acceptance in YA literature, which actively hurts those who are young enough to be impressionable. As in the post I made previously, it seems that people who fit the hetero-normative profile won't read things about people that don't, even though the reverse is true. I liked this article when I first read it, as it talked about concepts I agreed with and was trying to generate support for those wronged and held hope that the system could be changed.
Then this article was released, which basically claims that the authors at the very least misunderstood the criticisms they were given, at the worst that they were exploiting the issue. Now, I won't pretend that I actually know one way or another what exactly is going on in this situation. In any case, the agency in question claims that it wasn't about the sexuality of the characters, but the overall writing choices to which they objected. The rebuttal to the rebuttal can be found here, if you are interested in the back and forth of the situation.
I feel the situation is in danger of becoming one fueled by drama. It's a topic that pushes a lot of buttons, and generates a lot of emotion. It makes me sad that what could have been a lovely opener on this issue has, warranted or not, lost some of its validity due to the circumstances surrounding it. This is all the more disheartening because there are those that would argue that there is no need for representation of minority characters. These detractors would say that if there are authors who say that they have good stories about that they can't sell, they are making it up. I'm not saying that this is what has happened here, but I wonder at the motivation behind calling out someone who may only be trying to begin the conversation. However, given that the issue appears to be devolving into a he-said-she-said affair, will people outside the industry still be willing to listen? I hope so, but they might not be, and the missed opportunity saddens me most of all.
Even more distressing, The Mary Sue released this article about the subject, which was written by Aja Romano, an author I have read before and very much admire. The article itself is well written and raises good points, yet I find I must disagree with the solution that she proposes. She suggests that rather than wade through the mire of the publishing industry, that authors should just self-publish on the internet, or release their work for free.
One problem with this argument is the issue of editing. While one could argue that an determined (and finanically independent) author could do the same marketing job as agents and publishing houses, they do serve a very vital function: they edit and critique. Now, it is possible that an author knows someone who is very good at doing these things and is willing to do it on a freelance basis. Again, the issue here is money, and an author could sink quite a bit on an editor for a work that may not ever be bringing in profit. A lot of authors do not have this resource, and so must rely on friends or family members to help where they can. A friend is good for overall impression of your work, but they most likely have not been trained to be an editor, and would not give you the same feedback. Anyone that is your friend first and your editor second is also going to have a hard time being objective about your work, which is critical to the process. This leads a lot of self-published works to reflect the low quality of the editing, even though the story itself may be good. The reality is that often consumers don't bother with buying self-published titles on Amazon and the like, because there is such a plethora of un-edited, terrible works or just plain plagiarized titles that it gets to be too much to wade through.
Most authors talk about their editors the same way some athletes talk about their coaches: while they are behind the scenes and never get much credit they are completely vital. Could one still self-publish a book and have it be good and profitable? Of course. I have no doubt that many people can and do, but to not mention the downsides to doing it without an editor or an agent would be a little disingenuous. Although agents don't do as much in the editing side of things, they still perform a vital function in terms of representing your work, negotiating the legal side of things, and just in general being the person who is completely on your side. Rejecting the idustry in its entirety also ignores the agents and publishing houses who do publish queer or minority centered books, and rather than reward them for their courage, denies them the chance to continue publishing such works.
The second problem with this solution is, as you might have guessed given my current profession, is that works self-published online will never go through a brick-and-mortar store and thus contributes to the dwindling state of bookstores. I acknowledge my bias in this case, but I don't think that it invalidates the point.
While the internet allows your work to be seen by many thousands of people who would not otherwise have seen it, you are also limiting who sees it. People who don't use e-books, and there are still those out there who do not, will not get a chance to read your work. This is particularly important when we talk about the YA genre, since the main point here is that queer teens would benefit so much from seeing themselves represented and teens use e-readers much less than adults. While e-readership has grown among teens recently, what about the teens who cannot afford e-readers? Many kids still only read what is required reading in schools, and most teachers still teach print only books. College is moving away from print text books and the like, but the younger a student gets the more teachers rely on paper to teach. These younger students are the ones it is most important to reach, and the ones most likely to be left out.
Taking the bookstore out also takes the bookseller out of the equation. When people ask me why it is important to have brick-and-mortar stores to sell books, I usually say that a mathematical algorithm doesn't really understand why you like certain books, and couldn't help you find something that would suit your taste but is outside of what you normally look at. There is something about a bookstore itself that allows a sense of discovery, that pushes at your boundaries a little, that invites you to try something new. As this piece points out, there is a reason that people say that a bookstore closing is a sad thing. Part of the power of books lies in the ability they have to force the reader to see things from another point of view. Kids who aren't looking for it won't get those titles put in their "suggested" list, and so miss out. The same is true for adults who might also benefit from having their horizons broadened.
Parents also rely on booksellers to recommend titles that are good and appropriate for their kids. YA is a broad age range, and what is appropriate for a 17 year-old is not always appropriate for a 13 year-old. Parents utilize booksellers as a way to know the difference, so that they can be sure they are buying books that won't suddenly throw a sex scene at a kid who is perhaps not ready to handle it. Or, if they are okay with their kids reading such material, they want to know it is in there so that they can be prepared to talk about it with them. I worry that more parents will react like this to the young adult genre without the aid of booksellers to navigate the section. I don't want parents to get to the point where they start restricting what their kids read blindly because they can't find anyone whose opinions they trust.
I do believe that the internet is an awesome place to put free, queer friendly things for teens. As a teenager, I found solace in fan-fiction that expressed what real books did not, so I completely understand where that sentiment is coming from. However, I still always had the sense of missing out on something, because I had to stare at a computer screen instead of reading one of my beloved books to get the stories I wanted. If you wish to release your work for free on the internet, please do so, but don't do it just because it is easier than fighting for what is right.
Self-publishing online is indeed a viable option, but I feel it is only one that should be used if you have exhausted all other options. As this agent says, it takes time to sell a book, and sometimes all that is required is patience. It hurts the book-selling industry, especially those who rely on good works being printed in order to keep their jobs, when talented people give up before they even try. I would argue that it also hurts rather than helps the many teens that are starved for stories of themselves, and does nothing at all to change the minds of people who would dismiss the topic out of hand. This is a problem, one that needs to be addressed, but the solutions are not to give up, or cause unnecessary drama about it.
So let's all take a deep breath, and get back to the business of writing, promoting, buying and reading these works that are so desperately needed.
It is a problem because kids who are queer, and even those that aren't, need to see queer themes more often. While I've never had someone ask directly for a title in that section with those themes, I well remember how much I longed for something like that when I was a teenager. I would never have asked, but it would have meant the world to me, to see myself represented in that fashion. I was always looking for the subtext, always looking for themes of tolerence and acceptance but through the lense of genetics or aliens... I don't really have the words for how happy I would have been, to find a story that actually put it out there. I never found such a title, but I am glad they exist now, but there still aren't enough. Kids that don't have the support network I did need it, and they need more than a couple titles on the shelves.
Growing increasingly problematic are the responses to this issue that have begun to crop up recently.
When I read this article on the Publishers Weekly blog, it was not shocking, that they had been rejected based on a character's sexual orientation. Sad, but not shocking, as evidenced by how few titles are on the shelves that deal with this issue. Again, subtext is great in it's way, but it doesn't really count as a morale booster for kids who are queer. Then there are those who are actively working against queer acceptance in YA literature, which actively hurts those who are young enough to be impressionable. As in the post I made previously, it seems that people who fit the hetero-normative profile won't read things about people that don't, even though the reverse is true. I liked this article when I first read it, as it talked about concepts I agreed with and was trying to generate support for those wronged and held hope that the system could be changed.
Then this article was released, which basically claims that the authors at the very least misunderstood the criticisms they were given, at the worst that they were exploiting the issue. Now, I won't pretend that I actually know one way or another what exactly is going on in this situation. In any case, the agency in question claims that it wasn't about the sexuality of the characters, but the overall writing choices to which they objected. The rebuttal to the rebuttal can be found here, if you are interested in the back and forth of the situation.
I feel the situation is in danger of becoming one fueled by drama. It's a topic that pushes a lot of buttons, and generates a lot of emotion. It makes me sad that what could have been a lovely opener on this issue has, warranted or not, lost some of its validity due to the circumstances surrounding it. This is all the more disheartening because there are those that would argue that there is no need for representation of minority characters. These detractors would say that if there are authors who say that they have good stories about that they can't sell, they are making it up. I'm not saying that this is what has happened here, but I wonder at the motivation behind calling out someone who may only be trying to begin the conversation. However, given that the issue appears to be devolving into a he-said-she-said affair, will people outside the industry still be willing to listen? I hope so, but they might not be, and the missed opportunity saddens me most of all.
Even more distressing, The Mary Sue released this article about the subject, which was written by Aja Romano, an author I have read before and very much admire. The article itself is well written and raises good points, yet I find I must disagree with the solution that she proposes. She suggests that rather than wade through the mire of the publishing industry, that authors should just self-publish on the internet, or release their work for free.
One problem with this argument is the issue of editing. While one could argue that an determined (and finanically independent) author could do the same marketing job as agents and publishing houses, they do serve a very vital function: they edit and critique. Now, it is possible that an author knows someone who is very good at doing these things and is willing to do it on a freelance basis. Again, the issue here is money, and an author could sink quite a bit on an editor for a work that may not ever be bringing in profit. A lot of authors do not have this resource, and so must rely on friends or family members to help where they can. A friend is good for overall impression of your work, but they most likely have not been trained to be an editor, and would not give you the same feedback. Anyone that is your friend first and your editor second is also going to have a hard time being objective about your work, which is critical to the process. This leads a lot of self-published works to reflect the low quality of the editing, even though the story itself may be good. The reality is that often consumers don't bother with buying self-published titles on Amazon and the like, because there is such a plethora of un-edited, terrible works or just plain plagiarized titles that it gets to be too much to wade through.
Most authors talk about their editors the same way some athletes talk about their coaches: while they are behind the scenes and never get much credit they are completely vital. Could one still self-publish a book and have it be good and profitable? Of course. I have no doubt that many people can and do, but to not mention the downsides to doing it without an editor or an agent would be a little disingenuous. Although agents don't do as much in the editing side of things, they still perform a vital function in terms of representing your work, negotiating the legal side of things, and just in general being the person who is completely on your side. Rejecting the idustry in its entirety also ignores the agents and publishing houses who do publish queer or minority centered books, and rather than reward them for their courage, denies them the chance to continue publishing such works.
The second problem with this solution is, as you might have guessed given my current profession, is that works self-published online will never go through a brick-and-mortar store and thus contributes to the dwindling state of bookstores. I acknowledge my bias in this case, but I don't think that it invalidates the point.
While the internet allows your work to be seen by many thousands of people who would not otherwise have seen it, you are also limiting who sees it. People who don't use e-books, and there are still those out there who do not, will not get a chance to read your work. This is particularly important when we talk about the YA genre, since the main point here is that queer teens would benefit so much from seeing themselves represented and teens use e-readers much less than adults. While e-readership has grown among teens recently, what about the teens who cannot afford e-readers? Many kids still only read what is required reading in schools, and most teachers still teach print only books. College is moving away from print text books and the like, but the younger a student gets the more teachers rely on paper to teach. These younger students are the ones it is most important to reach, and the ones most likely to be left out.
Taking the bookstore out also takes the bookseller out of the equation. When people ask me why it is important to have brick-and-mortar stores to sell books, I usually say that a mathematical algorithm doesn't really understand why you like certain books, and couldn't help you find something that would suit your taste but is outside of what you normally look at. There is something about a bookstore itself that allows a sense of discovery, that pushes at your boundaries a little, that invites you to try something new. As this piece points out, there is a reason that people say that a bookstore closing is a sad thing. Part of the power of books lies in the ability they have to force the reader to see things from another point of view. Kids who aren't looking for it won't get those titles put in their "suggested" list, and so miss out. The same is true for adults who might also benefit from having their horizons broadened.
Parents also rely on booksellers to recommend titles that are good and appropriate for their kids. YA is a broad age range, and what is appropriate for a 17 year-old is not always appropriate for a 13 year-old. Parents utilize booksellers as a way to know the difference, so that they can be sure they are buying books that won't suddenly throw a sex scene at a kid who is perhaps not ready to handle it. Or, if they are okay with their kids reading such material, they want to know it is in there so that they can be prepared to talk about it with them. I worry that more parents will react like this to the young adult genre without the aid of booksellers to navigate the section. I don't want parents to get to the point where they start restricting what their kids read blindly because they can't find anyone whose opinions they trust.
I do believe that the internet is an awesome place to put free, queer friendly things for teens. As a teenager, I found solace in fan-fiction that expressed what real books did not, so I completely understand where that sentiment is coming from. However, I still always had the sense of missing out on something, because I had to stare at a computer screen instead of reading one of my beloved books to get the stories I wanted. If you wish to release your work for free on the internet, please do so, but don't do it just because it is easier than fighting for what is right.
Self-publishing online is indeed a viable option, but I feel it is only one that should be used if you have exhausted all other options. As this agent says, it takes time to sell a book, and sometimes all that is required is patience. It hurts the book-selling industry, especially those who rely on good works being printed in order to keep their jobs, when talented people give up before they even try. I would argue that it also hurts rather than helps the many teens that are starved for stories of themselves, and does nothing at all to change the minds of people who would dismiss the topic out of hand. This is a problem, one that needs to be addressed, but the solutions are not to give up, or cause unnecessary drama about it.
So let's all take a deep breath, and get back to the business of writing, promoting, buying and reading these works that are so desperately needed.
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Moment of Squee - Thermal Ink
Okay, so this has not been a weekly thing, but I am going to try to post "Moment of Squee" more often.
Today's squee comes from an article at Brain Pickings about Jordan Crane's new kids book - Keep Our Secrets. In a blend of science and whimsy that is full of awesome, it uses thermal ink to hide messages and images in the book, which are revealed at the touch of your hand. Check it out!
As a bookseller these kinds of things are really exciting, especially because I think that creative projects like these are what will help keep the brick-and-mortar bookstores in business. After all, you can't do that on a Kindle.
Today's squee comes from an article at Brain Pickings about Jordan Crane's new kids book - Keep Our Secrets. In a blend of science and whimsy that is full of awesome, it uses thermal ink to hide messages and images in the book, which are revealed at the touch of your hand. Check it out!
As a bookseller these kinds of things are really exciting, especially because I think that creative projects like these are what will help keep the brick-and-mortar bookstores in business. After all, you can't do that on a Kindle.
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Sulking in the Clubhouse
I have this game I play every Christmas. It's called, "Find A Book For My Little Brother".This game is much harder than it sounds, because while my brother is extremely intelligent he won't seek out books on his own. I've been playing this game since he was 14 years old, so I've gotten pretty good at it. He likes books with a lot of action, and he prefers them with a male protagonist. For those of you who have never tried to buy these kinds of books, they are sometimes hard to find in an age appropriate section. It's a struggle at times, that's why I spend a good few weeks thinking over before making my final purchase. The thing is, every year I find something. Some years are harder than others, and I'm not ashamed to say that The Lightning Thief series supplied a few Christmases, but every year I give him one and he reads it. I'm not saying he loves every single one, but I can at least get him to read it.
When I hear about how hard it is to get boys to read, I can sympathize with the concept. It's a struggle to get my brother, who doesn't outright hate reading, to read for pleasure, so I can imagine the frustration of parents with kids who actively avoid it. I get to hear about it frequently at work, as parents try desperately to find something, anything that will spark their child's interest. But again, I always find something. Most often the parent comes back, saying that he wants more of the same. Those are good days, made nicer because it was somewhat of a challenge.
So I hope I don't sound too dismissive when I say that this article by Robert Lipsyte was the whiniest and most self righteous article I've read in a long time, and that's saying something. This article is purportedly about finding the cause for the lack of boy readers, but it seems to be doing more blaming a large female readership than being concerned with how boys are taught at a young age that they should never try to understand girl things, including books.
Lipsyte begins the article with a story about a panel at which he and some other male authors have been asked to speak, in hopes that they, as successful and talented writers, could enlighten the audience as to how they can reach out to boy readers. He says,
"We guys had mixed feelings about the game plan: boys’ aversion to reading, let alone to novels, has been worsening for years. But while this certainly posed a problem for us male writers, we felt that we were being treated as a sideshow.
And so we turned from men into boys. Though we ranged in age and style....we easily slipped into a cohesive pack. We became stereotypes, smart-aleck teammates — and we were very much on the defensive. It was Us vs. Them. This is exactly what boys do, in the classroom and in the library, as well as in the clubhouse."
When I hear about how hard it is to get boys to read, I can sympathize with the concept. It's a struggle to get my brother, who doesn't outright hate reading, to read for pleasure, so I can imagine the frustration of parents with kids who actively avoid it. I get to hear about it frequently at work, as parents try desperately to find something, anything that will spark their child's interest. But again, I always find something. Most often the parent comes back, saying that he wants more of the same. Those are good days, made nicer because it was somewhat of a challenge.
So I hope I don't sound too dismissive when I say that this article by Robert Lipsyte was the whiniest and most self righteous article I've read in a long time, and that's saying something. This article is purportedly about finding the cause for the lack of boy readers, but it seems to be doing more blaming a large female readership than being concerned with how boys are taught at a young age that they should never try to understand girl things, including books.
Lipsyte begins the article with a story about a panel at which he and some other male authors have been asked to speak, in hopes that they, as successful and talented writers, could enlighten the audience as to how they can reach out to boy readers. He says,
"We guys had mixed feelings about the game plan: boys’ aversion to reading, let alone to novels, has been worsening for years. But while this certainly posed a problem for us male writers, we felt that we were being treated as a sideshow.
And so we turned from men into boys. Though we ranged in age and style....we easily slipped into a cohesive pack. We became stereotypes, smart-aleck teammates — and we were very much on the defensive. It was Us vs. Them. This is exactly what boys do, in the classroom and in the library, as well as in the clubhouse."
First of all, if they had intended to treat you as a sideshow, would there be a bunch of authors, any number of whom are probably talented, hardworking and have much better things to do with their time, be waiting to listen to you? If they didn't care to hear your thoughts on it, why would they be there? Oh, right, because it was an "overwhelmingly female audience", they must have just been there to cry and wave their dollies at you. Why did you feel the need to go on defensive? Why the "Us Vs. Them" mentality? If you really care so much about boys reading, why don't you want women to write those books?
Also, this is what boys do because they are children who don't know any better. Just like girls do stupid things when they are small, boys do nonsense that they eventually grow out of if they want to be treated like adults. This happens for both genders, and part of growing up is learning how to tell the difference between you feeling uncomfortable about a certain subject and someone attacking you for talking about it. You learn to distinguish the two and react accordingly. Except for when they are intelligent male authors being sincerely asked their opinions, apparently.
I get that boys not reading is a problem, although I'd really have loved to see some statistics backing up these claims of lower reading numbers. Instead of this hard evidence, Lipsyte names the "standard answers" to why boys don't read, including that boys, "don’t feel comfortable exploring the emotions and feelings found in fiction. . . . Boys don’t have enough positive male role models for literacy. Because the majority of adults involved in kids’ reading are women, boys might not see reading as a masculine activity.”
Are there a lot of female authors on the shelves in the YA section? Yes. Is a lot of it too focused on the romantic attachments between girls and their oddly elder supernatural boyfriends? I mean, I think so. But my definition of what makes a good book is my own, and it may differ from others. I have learned not to behave like a spoiled child if not everyone likes what I like. If it allows a bridge between the unrealistic Disney Princess movies into the realm of the written word, then, well, maybe that Vampire Diaries fan will read Paper Towns next. It will be interesting to see if this crop of girls who are growing up in this YA boom will be more active readers in the future. My guess is that they will.
As with the last rant I did on critiques of an entire section, I would also argue that a good bookseller will help you navigate these apparently treacherous shores, and find something that will appeal to boys to recommend. Do I wish there were more authors who wrote for boys? Sure, but somehow I think they become less inclined to do so when the male author they go to for advice starts ranting about how their inherent female-ness gets his back up. I also think that this is more of a problem of how the books are marketed as opposed to their content, but rather than asking books to all conform to a male sensibility, there has to be a way to get to the root of the problem: our faulty gender stereotypes.
What infuriates me beyond belief about this article is how much it de-values the cognitive capacity of young male readers. Boys are just as capable of reading girl books as visa versa, it is only that we do not expect them to do so. Women don't have some special gene that allows them to enjoy reading from a male perspective, they read male authors because as Maureen Johnson says, "We have little choice in the matter." Women read things by and about boys because they must, but you might notice that before all those female authors burst onto the scene, girls read less in their teenage years than they do now. (If you don't believe me on YA reading rates increasing recently, check out this NEA survey on reading, which ironically has male readership numbers up as well as female.) It's just that there wasn't the ridiculous amount of shaming on girls who read "male" works, so they could at least read something. This is mostly due to the fact that men write good things, and women write girly things, which are not good. If you don't believe me on this, ask any bookseller why Nicholas Sparks is in the fiction section instead of romance.
I propose that instead of shaking the finger at women authors and readers, who have every right to be proud of their success, instead ask why it is that a boy might hide the book he is reading for fear of being called a sissy. Ask why playing sports is a "male" activity, while reading is a passive and "female" activity. Then, stop asking why and start working to undermine that conception. After all, gender is a construct, so maybe we should be asking how to show boys that they won't turn into girls if they read about trying on dresses, just like girls don't turn into boys when they read about refusing to sleep with a prostitute. I may not have liked that book, but it gave me insight into the struggles that boys sometimes have. After all, isn't learning to read inherently the task of learning to view the world through another's eyes? Why is the female perspective on the world any less valued and needful than the male?
I'll give you a hint Mr. Lipsyte: it isn't. The sooner we come down off our fences and work together on this, the sooner we can get those sensitive grown men you so desperately desire.
Also, this is what boys do because they are children who don't know any better. Just like girls do stupid things when they are small, boys do nonsense that they eventually grow out of if they want to be treated like adults. This happens for both genders, and part of growing up is learning how to tell the difference between you feeling uncomfortable about a certain subject and someone attacking you for talking about it. You learn to distinguish the two and react accordingly. Except for when they are intelligent male authors being sincerely asked their opinions, apparently.
I get that boys not reading is a problem, although I'd really have loved to see some statistics backing up these claims of lower reading numbers. Instead of this hard evidence, Lipsyte names the "standard answers" to why boys don't read, including that boys, "don’t feel comfortable exploring the emotions and feelings found in fiction. . . . Boys don’t have enough positive male role models for literacy. Because the majority of adults involved in kids’ reading are women, boys might not see reading as a masculine activity.”
I...what? No positive male role models for literacy? Are you kidding? Kids, think back to when you were in school, and since Lispyte writes YA, let's focus on high school. How many of the books you can remember reading were written by male authors? For myself, I remember mostly male authors, certainly most that are regarded as "classics" were written by men. I do remember reading a good number of contemporary books by women, but I went to an all girls school, and I've heard it is less like that at co-eds. Perhaps we are speaking of contemporary role models? While it is true that there are more women authors on the shelves of the young adult genre, there are certainly more than zero. Yes, James Patterson, I'm looking at you.
My favorite part comes next, when having acknowledged the "standard" (and in my opinion, more pressing) problem of boys feeling that reading is an inherently effeminate activity, he moves on to what he feels is the real problem. What might that be, you ask?
"The current surge in children’s literature has been fueled by talented young female novelists fresh from M.F.A. programs who in earlier times would have been writing midlist adult fiction. Their novels are bought by female editors, stocked by female librarians and taught by female teachers. It’s a cliché but mostly true that while teenage girls will read books about boys, teenage boys will rarely read books with predominately female characters."
TOO. MANY. GIRLS. How DARE these women want to write books that girls would relate to, and how dare women teach as they have been doing ever since we told them they couldn't join the business world?! Quick, run up to the tree-house until the sea of estrogen has ebbed! I also love the casual back-handed compliment paid to the female authors of YA, "talented sure, but they should really be writing in the male-dominated adult fiction section so that their works don't get as much attention". Then the diatribe reaches new levels by suggesting that female teachers don't take into consideration the needs and tastes of their male students, which is even more insulting, if that's possible.
"The current surge in children’s literature has been fueled by talented young female novelists fresh from M.F.A. programs who in earlier times would have been writing midlist adult fiction. Their novels are bought by female editors, stocked by female librarians and taught by female teachers. It’s a cliché but mostly true that while teenage girls will read books about boys, teenage boys will rarely read books with predominately female characters."
TOO. MANY. GIRLS. How DARE these women want to write books that girls would relate to, and how dare women teach as they have been doing ever since we told them they couldn't join the business world?! Quick, run up to the tree-house until the sea of estrogen has ebbed! I also love the casual back-handed compliment paid to the female authors of YA, "talented sure, but they should really be writing in the male-dominated adult fiction section so that their works don't get as much attention". Then the diatribe reaches new levels by suggesting that female teachers don't take into consideration the needs and tastes of their male students, which is even more insulting, if that's possible.
Lipsyte's ending solution is for people to buy/teach kids his book, or at least write things like it, which he apparently feels are the only good contemporary offering for boys. I don't doubt that his books have inspired children to read (after all people who win awards are ALWAYS suitable to be teaching life lessons to children), and I'm a fan of anything that gets kids reading, but seriously. The solution is to put MORE books by male writers on the syllabus? Especially ones that, oh gee, have sports as the main subject line? Well fellas, we could only reach you if we do it through sports, which if you don't like then clearly you are a girl. Christ man, it's almost like you'd rather not have guys learn to read books by women.
This, I feel, is the real sticking point of the article. Rather than try to tackle the issues of shaming and gay bashing that are a staple of a young man's life by standing against them and insisting that there is nothing wrong with reading things from a female perspective, it seems that he would rather hide in his club-house and blame it on the girls. Ah, it is indeed amazing how many solutions are MORE SPORTS AND LESS GIRL, and how caring and intelligent the men are that suggest it. Again, I do believe that he believes in getting boys to read, he just seems to think that somehow this could be solved if women just wrote less, or if we had more books that are clearly not selling anyways.
Are there a lot of female authors on the shelves in the YA section? Yes. Is a lot of it too focused on the romantic attachments between girls and their oddly elder supernatural boyfriends? I mean, I think so. But my definition of what makes a good book is my own, and it may differ from others. I have learned not to behave like a spoiled child if not everyone likes what I like. If it allows a bridge between the unrealistic Disney Princess movies into the realm of the written word, then, well, maybe that Vampire Diaries fan will read Paper Towns next. It will be interesting to see if this crop of girls who are growing up in this YA boom will be more active readers in the future. My guess is that they will.
As with the last rant I did on critiques of an entire section, I would also argue that a good bookseller will help you navigate these apparently treacherous shores, and find something that will appeal to boys to recommend. Do I wish there were more authors who wrote for boys? Sure, but somehow I think they become less inclined to do so when the male author they go to for advice starts ranting about how their inherent female-ness gets his back up. I also think that this is more of a problem of how the books are marketed as opposed to their content, but rather than asking books to all conform to a male sensibility, there has to be a way to get to the root of the problem: our faulty gender stereotypes.
What infuriates me beyond belief about this article is how much it de-values the cognitive capacity of young male readers. Boys are just as capable of reading girl books as visa versa, it is only that we do not expect them to do so. Women don't have some special gene that allows them to enjoy reading from a male perspective, they read male authors because as Maureen Johnson says, "We have little choice in the matter." Women read things by and about boys because they must, but you might notice that before all those female authors burst onto the scene, girls read less in their teenage years than they do now. (If you don't believe me on YA reading rates increasing recently, check out this NEA survey on reading, which ironically has male readership numbers up as well as female.) It's just that there wasn't the ridiculous amount of shaming on girls who read "male" works, so they could at least read something. This is mostly due to the fact that men write good things, and women write girly things, which are not good. If you don't believe me on this, ask any bookseller why Nicholas Sparks is in the fiction section instead of romance.
I propose that instead of shaking the finger at women authors and readers, who have every right to be proud of their success, instead ask why it is that a boy might hide the book he is reading for fear of being called a sissy. Ask why playing sports is a "male" activity, while reading is a passive and "female" activity. Then, stop asking why and start working to undermine that conception. After all, gender is a construct, so maybe we should be asking how to show boys that they won't turn into girls if they read about trying on dresses, just like girls don't turn into boys when they read about refusing to sleep with a prostitute. I may not have liked that book, but it gave me insight into the struggles that boys sometimes have. After all, isn't learning to read inherently the task of learning to view the world through another's eyes? Why is the female perspective on the world any less valued and needful than the male?
I'll give you a hint Mr. Lipsyte: it isn't. The sooner we come down off our fences and work together on this, the sooner we can get those sensitive grown men you so desperately desire.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Weekly moment of Squee - SteamPunk Minions
Work week got you down? Homework piling up, or perhaps you just don't have enough minions to do your Evil Villainous Deeds? Try these little guys out, created by the amazing Joseph Drust.
Look how cute they are! They also do things, like the one below makes sounds!
This one is a FREAKIN' MAGNET!
My personal favorite, who just wants to give you a hug SO BADLY.
At the very least, they are so cute they will cheer up any crappy day. Originally found on The Mary Sue, which is a cool geek/girl/all things awesome web site. Check them and Joe Drust out!
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Geeks in the Mirror
I would love to say that the inspiration for this piece is not an article written by a more famous person in a more comprehensible manner than I ever could. Sadly, this post is brought to you in part* by Max Barry and his post on Smurfs and Dogs. I swear that it's relevant, and you should probably read it before reading this post. Go ahead, I'll wait.
Right, so we are probably all familiar with the concepts he is talking about in the article. Female protagonists are theoretically not as universally identifiable as male protagonists. This is more or less a fact of life for the early 21st century. While there is a lot of progress being made, you still cannot convince a large part of the American viewing/ reading public to take a female protagonist seriously. I say "American public" not "men" because women go to movies and read books too, and if a large percent of women decided that they are going to do something, they would make it huge. *cough*Twilight*cough* So, it tends to be that if there is a woman in the book or movie, it is usually a side character whose main selling point is that she is female. I don't want to get bogged down in going over this, so watch Nostalgia Chick's video on it, if you really don't believe/ get what I'm saying.
The downsides to this phenomenon are pretty self evident. Not only does it de-value women and their life experience as something that could never be interesting enough to be the main plot, but it also expects that men can't and shouldn't identify with these life experiences. It also means that these characters have to stand for ALL WOMEN EVERYWHERE. Which, lets face it, is impossible. Any character who tries to stand for all of anything is going to fail, because the range of female/human experience is infinite. So they generally go for lowest common denominator, which means that these characters are going to have qualities that most people associate with the word female.
The trouble is, this is not just a problem for teh ladies. This is a problem for every sub-set of mainstream culture who gets "token-ized". I'm not going to talk about ethnic minorities much because well, I'm not super qualified, but if I see one more film where there is only the one non-white character who is EITHER cool or evil, I might go crazy. Again, I shouldn't have to expound on why this is a bad thing. Hollywood has this perception that audiences won't "get it" if they don't present us with these stereotypes. That we would be completely flabbergasted and uncomprehending when presented with anything that isn't a straight white male to identify with as our main protagonist. Again, a lot of progress is being made, but these are exceptions that prove the rule.
My biggest problem with all of this? The fact that geek culture does not seem to be trying to pull itself out of this bias. If we want to talk about straight white males as main characters, think of all the comic book movies that have come out recently. Think about all the video games, with the exception of Portal, where you play a guy as the default. Bioware has been working on the "not-straight" part, and you certainly can play as a girl, but neither of those options have gotten much press in the past. It's like, if we can have a nerdy protagonist we still prefer him to be straight and white.
What I don't understand is why this is still going on. As geeks, shouldn't being counter culture come as second nature? There are women on the Avengers, why did none of them get an origins movie? (Ok, only one in the coming movie, but still) Women are a minority among geeks, but becoming less so all the time. I know I said I wasn't going to talk too much about it, but seriously with no non-white main protagonists. I'll give you that maybe in an urban fantasy or perhaps even a comic book reality, which is still set during our own time, it may be "problematic" to write from the point of view of someone who is not you, i.e. white or male. I qualify this because there are people who are not white or male working in these industries, so I'm not sure it's really all that hard to find a voice for it. However, giving the benefit of the doubt, it is somewhat understandable to not want to offend by "telling it wrong", especially when writing a book rather than working with an actor of color to tell a story honestly.
So what's your excuse, high fantasy? Theoretically, you should have the same freedoms of science fiction, since racial tensions are a thing of the present and not necessarily of the Ages Ago or Future. And don't give me the whole, "But we're in England past!" argument, because ELVES. I'm pretty sure it won't strain anybody's disbelief, especially if handled with the same aplomb Star Trek has always handled it, i.e."This character is not white. It does not in any way effect the story or his ability to tell it, so we are MOVING ON." Also with the no women! I mean, when was the last time since Xena that we saw some ancient fantasy past woman as the actual main character? Shouldn't magic be the great equalizer? Science Fiction has more, but still not a lot. I'm starting to feel like even the kick-ass girl side-characters aren't enough, because despite being better role models it still creates the illusion that there is only one Girl, and she is only THIS WAY. Being weak or kick-ass is not inherent to a gender, and sometimes being strong doesn't mean you aren't objectified needlessly.
What I love about being a geek is that on the internet, your visual self matters far less that your actual self. The whole "it's what's on the inside that counts" means a whole lot more when the people you are interacting with literally cannot see you. It's more important that you like David Tennant when you get on a chat about Dr. Who, because no one can tell and therefore can't care. You could literally be that dinosaur from Toy Story Three for all anyone would know. I enjoy that and I enjoy the message that it sends. That we don't care about all of that bullshit that keeps us apart IRL, but we can come together around the things we enjoy. So...wtf? Why in our biggest contributions to culture are we confined by the same nonsense that keeps Hollywood from hiring Asian actors for Akira? Why do geek girls constantly feel like they have something to prove, and why can't Green Lantern be African-American in the movies too?
I know what all of the easy answers are, but I want the answer that explains how the people who routinely reject reality continue to accept it. If you don't have that answer, then maybe you should start asking the question yourself, and finding ways to help change things.
* Max Barry does not actually endorse this post. Nor do any of the other thousands of things I've linked to in this post. At least...I don't think so *peers into internet*.
Right, so we are probably all familiar with the concepts he is talking about in the article. Female protagonists are theoretically not as universally identifiable as male protagonists. This is more or less a fact of life for the early 21st century. While there is a lot of progress being made, you still cannot convince a large part of the American viewing/ reading public to take a female protagonist seriously. I say "American public" not "men" because women go to movies and read books too, and if a large percent of women decided that they are going to do something, they would make it huge. *cough*Twilight*cough* So, it tends to be that if there is a woman in the book or movie, it is usually a side character whose main selling point is that she is female. I don't want to get bogged down in going over this, so watch Nostalgia Chick's video on it, if you really don't believe/ get what I'm saying.
The downsides to this phenomenon are pretty self evident. Not only does it de-value women and their life experience as something that could never be interesting enough to be the main plot, but it also expects that men can't and shouldn't identify with these life experiences. It also means that these characters have to stand for ALL WOMEN EVERYWHERE. Which, lets face it, is impossible. Any character who tries to stand for all of anything is going to fail, because the range of female/human experience is infinite. So they generally go for lowest common denominator, which means that these characters are going to have qualities that most people associate with the word female.
The trouble is, this is not just a problem for teh ladies. This is a problem for every sub-set of mainstream culture who gets "token-ized". I'm not going to talk about ethnic minorities much because well, I'm not super qualified, but if I see one more film where there is only the one non-white character who is EITHER cool or evil, I might go crazy. Again, I shouldn't have to expound on why this is a bad thing. Hollywood has this perception that audiences won't "get it" if they don't present us with these stereotypes. That we would be completely flabbergasted and uncomprehending when presented with anything that isn't a straight white male to identify with as our main protagonist. Again, a lot of progress is being made, but these are exceptions that prove the rule.
My biggest problem with all of this? The fact that geek culture does not seem to be trying to pull itself out of this bias. If we want to talk about straight white males as main characters, think of all the comic book movies that have come out recently. Think about all the video games, with the exception of Portal, where you play a guy as the default. Bioware has been working on the "not-straight" part, and you certainly can play as a girl, but neither of those options have gotten much press in the past. It's like, if we can have a nerdy protagonist we still prefer him to be straight and white.
What I don't understand is why this is still going on. As geeks, shouldn't being counter culture come as second nature? There are women on the Avengers, why did none of them get an origins movie? (Ok, only one in the coming movie, but still) Women are a minority among geeks, but becoming less so all the time. I know I said I wasn't going to talk too much about it, but seriously with no non-white main protagonists. I'll give you that maybe in an urban fantasy or perhaps even a comic book reality, which is still set during our own time, it may be "problematic" to write from the point of view of someone who is not you, i.e. white or male. I qualify this because there are people who are not white or male working in these industries, so I'm not sure it's really all that hard to find a voice for it. However, giving the benefit of the doubt, it is somewhat understandable to not want to offend by "telling it wrong", especially when writing a book rather than working with an actor of color to tell a story honestly.
So what's your excuse, high fantasy? Theoretically, you should have the same freedoms of science fiction, since racial tensions are a thing of the present and not necessarily of the Ages Ago or Future. And don't give me the whole, "But we're in England past!" argument, because ELVES. I'm pretty sure it won't strain anybody's disbelief, especially if handled with the same aplomb Star Trek has always handled it, i.e."This character is not white. It does not in any way effect the story or his ability to tell it, so we are MOVING ON." Also with the no women! I mean, when was the last time since Xena that we saw some ancient fantasy past woman as the actual main character? Shouldn't magic be the great equalizer? Science Fiction has more, but still not a lot. I'm starting to feel like even the kick-ass girl side-characters aren't enough, because despite being better role models it still creates the illusion that there is only one Girl, and she is only THIS WAY. Being weak or kick-ass is not inherent to a gender, and sometimes being strong doesn't mean you aren't objectified needlessly.
What I love about being a geek is that on the internet, your visual self matters far less that your actual self. The whole "it's what's on the inside that counts" means a whole lot more when the people you are interacting with literally cannot see you. It's more important that you like David Tennant when you get on a chat about Dr. Who, because no one can tell and therefore can't care. You could literally be that dinosaur from Toy Story Three for all anyone would know. I enjoy that and I enjoy the message that it sends. That we don't care about all of that bullshit that keeps us apart IRL, but we can come together around the things we enjoy. So...wtf? Why in our biggest contributions to culture are we confined by the same nonsense that keeps Hollywood from hiring Asian actors for Akira? Why do geek girls constantly feel like they have something to prove, and why can't Green Lantern be African-American in the movies too?
I know what all of the easy answers are, but I want the answer that explains how the people who routinely reject reality continue to accept it. If you don't have that answer, then maybe you should start asking the question yourself, and finding ways to help change things.
* Max Barry does not actually endorse this post. Nor do any of the other thousands of things I've linked to in this post. At least...I don't think so *peers into internet*.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Your Weekly: D'AWWWW Moment
I decided that this blog was quite ranty, and while I am a firm believer in ranting when it is appropriate, I am also a big believer in teh cute.
This week's moment of cute is brought to you by The New York Times in this article about children's books. Besides just being a well written post about the beautiful whimsy in those particular children's books, there was this quote:
The book is a bit Hayao Miyazaki-esque in the way magical fancy interrupts an otherwise naturalistic setting; one picture even shows the bear and Emma side by side under umbrellas, in patent homage to “My Neighbor Totoro.” But who among us wouldn’t want a Totoro-like companion to call her own? (Emphasis mine)
Who indeed? I'm sort of in love with this writer now for her nonchalant reference to an incredibly geeky childhood cute thing. Thank you Pamela Paul, for giving me hope that working at the behemoth of NYT does in fact allow you to enjoy whimsy and cute. Go read the article and support a geeky girl!
This week's moment of cute is brought to you by The New York Times in this article about children's books. Besides just being a well written post about the beautiful whimsy in those particular children's books, there was this quote:
The book is a bit Hayao Miyazaki-esque in the way magical fancy interrupts an otherwise naturalistic setting; one picture even shows the bear and Emma side by side under umbrellas, in patent homage to “My Neighbor Totoro.” But who among us wouldn’t want a Totoro-like companion to call her own? (Emphasis mine)
Who indeed? I'm sort of in love with this writer now for her nonchalant reference to an incredibly geeky childhood cute thing. Thank you Pamela Paul, for giving me hope that working at the behemoth of NYT does in fact allow you to enjoy whimsy and cute. Go read the article and support a geeky girl!
Monday, July 18, 2011
WTF Mate? Promiscuity = rape now?
A small warning: I talk about sex in this post. Nothing graphic, it's PG-13 for the most part, but if the subject of sex in general bothers you, you should not read this post.
A lot of people are angry about this post by Susan Walsh, specifically this chart (can we call it a chart? I'm pretty sure it insults the good name of charts everywhere). I can't really say anything better than Holly or Man Boobz, but I do think it's important to point idiocy like this out, mostly because it is dangerous idiocy.
For the record, rape is not a forgone and necessary conclusion to having habitual casual sex. That's like saying because you go out for walks, at some point you're going to have someone stab you for your wallet. That's just the way it is, people. In this country we have this thing about people getting to live life in the pursuit of happiness, and we have laws to protect us against people who would hurt us while we go about doing that. Rape is never excusable, never justifiable, and it is certainly never a guaranteed outcome.
Also apparently gay people don't count at all, since they can have casual sex without making babies, so it's fine? But probably also going to end with rape/ loosing money. I'm not sure where the idea that you're supposed to get money from sex that isn't prostitution came from in the first place. Does that make prostitution okay, since at least you're going to come out ahead financially?
I'm also not really sure where all of this "Women lose by having casual sex!" nonsense (also fisked by Holly) is coming from. I'm really not sure why it is that now some women, like Susan Walsh, feel the need to go about "helping" women understand this. If a woman wants to wait, then that's fine. If a woman wants to have sex with everyone on the god damned planet, then that's fine too. Why is it widely held that the woman who wants sex is hurting the woman who wants to wait? Can men only have sex with one woman and then they have to remain celibate forever, like some kind magic chest where sex is the treasure and once one woman takes it out THERE IS NO MORE FOR ANYONE ELSE! Then the cock-nabbing woman runs off into the night laughing maniacally while the "pure and celibate" woman cries at home alone. Then, these "pure" women are FORCED to go have casual sex to try to get a man, because the only way to get that treasure back is to sleep with them outside a relationship?
I know it's a hyperbolic metaphor, but I DARE you to try to make sense of this in a sane and logical way. It assumes that all men are stupid jack-asses who only ever want casual sex all the time, and that women who are saving it for marriage are limited in their choices for partner because of women who show men that they can have casual sex. This theoretically leads to women to feel pressured into having sex before marriage, and then are left crying and broken as Barney Stinson wanders off to fuck someone else. Because all most women are looking for is marriage and 2.5 kids. Right?
Let's be clear here. Sometimes people, men and women, will tell someone that they want to have sex with that they are serious about them when they are just trying to get into their pants. This is not in any way right, and I do not condone lying to someone to have sex.
That being said, I don't think that sex should ever be used as a bargaining tool. If you want to have sex, have sex. If you want to wait until you are in a committed relationship, then wait. Trying to convince someone that you should be in a committed relationship so that THEN you can have sex seems, well, silly. If all that your partner wants to do is have sex, then trying to bargain a certain amount of time or emotional attachment out of them is not going to work. If someone want to really be with you, they will wait for you. If they don't, then that's not what they are looking for and that's okay. It does not mean that they are a bad person OR that you aren't good enough. It just means that it's not going to work out.
Regardless, none of this is Random Evil Woman #3's fault for wanting casual sex. That's all that she is looking for, and the type of men that want to have casual consensual sex are not the kind of men that are looking for a committed relationship. There ARE men who want committed relationships, even if it seems like they are scarce on the ground. It is an unfortunate side effect of wanting to wait that, well, you have to wait. If you are jealous that Random Evil Woman is having sex more than you, then you can go get sex. If you think she is happier than you, and you want to be happy like her, have you tried having the casual sex? Having casual sex at one time doesn't mean that you can't later decide you want to wait, or that it ruins you for long-term relationships later. Just realize that the men who sleep with you casually are generally going to want to keep it casual. If you know that this won't work for you, then that is completely fine, you are not being judged by this ridiculous standard of how many people you've fucked.
News flash: women no longer need to choose between the Virgin and the Whore. We are people, not cardboard cut-outs who can only make stereotypical decisions. Our decisions about who we have sex with, or when we chose to do so, are no one's business and they are certainly not hurting other women who make different decisions. You may disagree with how one person chooses to live their life, but you should always support their right to have a choice.
A lot of people are angry about this post by Susan Walsh, specifically this chart (can we call it a chart? I'm pretty sure it insults the good name of charts everywhere). I can't really say anything better than Holly or Man Boobz, but I do think it's important to point idiocy like this out, mostly because it is dangerous idiocy.
For the record, rape is not a forgone and necessary conclusion to having habitual casual sex. That's like saying because you go out for walks, at some point you're going to have someone stab you for your wallet. That's just the way it is, people. In this country we have this thing about people getting to live life in the pursuit of happiness, and we have laws to protect us against people who would hurt us while we go about doing that. Rape is never excusable, never justifiable, and it is certainly never a guaranteed outcome.
Also apparently gay people don't count at all, since they can have casual sex without making babies, so it's fine? But probably also going to end with rape/ loosing money. I'm not sure where the idea that you're supposed to get money from sex that isn't prostitution came from in the first place. Does that make prostitution okay, since at least you're going to come out ahead financially?
I'm also not really sure where all of this "Women lose by having casual sex!" nonsense (also fisked by Holly) is coming from. I'm really not sure why it is that now some women, like Susan Walsh, feel the need to go about "helping" women understand this. If a woman wants to wait, then that's fine. If a woman wants to have sex with everyone on the god damned planet, then that's fine too. Why is it widely held that the woman who wants sex is hurting the woman who wants to wait? Can men only have sex with one woman and then they have to remain celibate forever, like some kind magic chest where sex is the treasure and once one woman takes it out THERE IS NO MORE FOR ANYONE ELSE! Then the cock-nabbing woman runs off into the night laughing maniacally while the "pure and celibate" woman cries at home alone. Then, these "pure" women are FORCED to go have casual sex to try to get a man, because the only way to get that treasure back is to sleep with them outside a relationship?
I know it's a hyperbolic metaphor, but I DARE you to try to make sense of this in a sane and logical way. It assumes that all men are stupid jack-asses who only ever want casual sex all the time, and that women who are saving it for marriage are limited in their choices for partner because of women who show men that they can have casual sex. This theoretically leads to women to feel pressured into having sex before marriage, and then are left crying and broken as Barney Stinson wanders off to fuck someone else. Because all most women are looking for is marriage and 2.5 kids. Right?
Let's be clear here. Sometimes people, men and women, will tell someone that they want to have sex with that they are serious about them when they are just trying to get into their pants. This is not in any way right, and I do not condone lying to someone to have sex.
That being said, I don't think that sex should ever be used as a bargaining tool. If you want to have sex, have sex. If you want to wait until you are in a committed relationship, then wait. Trying to convince someone that you should be in a committed relationship so that THEN you can have sex seems, well, silly. If all that your partner wants to do is have sex, then trying to bargain a certain amount of time or emotional attachment out of them is not going to work. If someone want to really be with you, they will wait for you. If they don't, then that's not what they are looking for and that's okay. It does not mean that they are a bad person OR that you aren't good enough. It just means that it's not going to work out.
Regardless, none of this is Random Evil Woman #3's fault for wanting casual sex. That's all that she is looking for, and the type of men that want to have casual consensual sex are not the kind of men that are looking for a committed relationship. There ARE men who want committed relationships, even if it seems like they are scarce on the ground. It is an unfortunate side effect of wanting to wait that, well, you have to wait. If you are jealous that Random Evil Woman is having sex more than you, then you can go get sex. If you think she is happier than you, and you want to be happy like her, have you tried having the casual sex? Having casual sex at one time doesn't mean that you can't later decide you want to wait, or that it ruins you for long-term relationships later. Just realize that the men who sleep with you casually are generally going to want to keep it casual. If you know that this won't work for you, then that is completely fine, you are not being judged by this ridiculous standard of how many people you've fucked.
News flash: women no longer need to choose between the Virgin and the Whore. We are people, not cardboard cut-outs who can only make stereotypical decisions. Our decisions about who we have sex with, or when we chose to do so, are no one's business and they are certainly not hurting other women who make different decisions. You may disagree with how one person chooses to live their life, but you should always support their right to have a choice.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
e-Death of Bookstores
Since I'm ranting about book type things, I thought I'd take this opportunity to clear up some misconceptions about the relationship between brick-and-mortar book stores and online book retailers*.
Yesterday I had a customer come into the store, who said he had come in to pick up his copy of A Dance with Dragons . This wasn't out of the ordinary, we had quite a few people reserve their copies with us, so I smiled and said sure, and asked what his name was. I couldn't find a slip with his name on it, so I asked when he had reserved it. He said he had paid for it already. "Oh," I said. "You pre-ordered it. That means that it will ship today, and it will come here in a few days."
The customer then proceeded to rant at me for the next ten minutes or so about how ridiculous it was that he had pre-ordered something and then didn't get it on the day it came out. Now, I can understand the need to have a book on the day it comes out, so part of me sympathized. But the other, stronger part of me reacted the same way I do when people complain that books are so much cheaper to buy online: with anger and frustration at the way some people not involved in the industry misunderstand the system.
Let's be clear here. The customer who pre-ordered got the book at 46% off at our online store. I have no idea what the pre-order price was at Amazon or other retailers, but I'm sure it was comparable.Why such savings? Well, partly because in order to run an online site, you need quite a few people, but nowhere near the man-power you need to run a physical store, and you sell to so many more people because you are not limited by geography. As the foreman says in "Jayne's Town" (Firefly) "We can then pass on the savings directly on to you, the customer." It's so much cheaper because it CAN be. They don't have to charge as much to make a profit.
They also have to charge shipping, so they make it cheaper so you still want to buy it with them instead of going into the store. This is where most of the difference is made up. If a $7.99 book is 30% off it makes it $5.59, which means you saved about $2.40. Shipping and handling is $3-$4, sometimes more depending how much you ordered. So, in reality. you paid $8.59 for the book, WHICH IS THE SAME AMOUNT AS IN THE STORE. So, you have saved nothing other then getting to avoid talking to a human being while buying your book.
Time. That is the other commodity you "pay" by buying online. Since it isn't gaining you money, it's pretty worthless to you, until you want a book RIGHT NOW. Then, that's a pretty precious commodity. When you buy online you have to wait at least a day before you can start reading the latest by your favorite author. Which is why most book stores get their sales by selling big-name-author-series books. Because then you are willing to sacrifice your hard earned money to save time.
This brings me to my final point: space. Book stores have finite space. Because we are only so many square feet, we can only stock so many books. While every single bookstore in the world would LOVE to carry all the little known authors, we can realistically only afford to keep those titles that will sell. Online stores keep everything in a giant warehouse where no one needs to browse, a giant claw picks the book out of a box like one of those arcade games. Again, they stock it because they can, and if the only one buying the book lives in Ohio they don't need to worry about keeping it in a store in California. So yes, it is possible to get that obscure book for a discount online, but book stores must charge full price so that they can justify having it in their store. Most brick and mortar stores have ways of ordering the obscure titles for you, and they often don't charge you shipping. Again, the only price is time, which for some reason people seem less willing to pay once they've driven all the way there. It's not going to come faster just because you order it from home, folks.
All of these things combine in such a way that if you didn't know the WHY of all of these things, you would wonder what the hell brick-and-mortar stores are doing with themselves. You'd wonder why they charge so much when Amazon is so cheap, and you'd wonder why a book from the same company would cost more at it's physical location as opposed to their website. So please, remember that all of these factors are far beyond the control of the actual person who is selling you the book. He/She loves working at their store, and it drives them a little crazy when people come in complaining about online issues especially because they have no control over it.
This is to say nothing about the competition of e-books, that are so cheap because they don't even have to send you a physical copy. But for every e-book that is sold, that's a paper copy that goes unsold, which hurts the real stores. I'm not saying you shouldn't buy e-books, mostly because that's a futile battle. Book stores are going to have to drastically change their business model in order to be successful, and that goes for Mom and Pop stores as well as the big chains.
As I'm writing this a major book retailer is looking like it's about to go out of business. People feel a lot of different things about Borders, but no one can deny that a lot of towns will lose their only local brick and mortar stores if they close. Libraries are coming under fire as well, as they lose funding all over the country. Instead of being able to browse the stacks, customers will be forced to rely on Best Seller lists or computer generated lists of similar titles, as is touched on by this article by Michael Dirda. Now there will no longer be the possibility of getting a staff recommendation to go along with your Tom Clancy or Patricia Briggs. Books like The Hunger Games, which at least at my store was sold purely by booksellers who loved it, would get forgotten and passed over.
I don't know what the solution to all of this is. But if you, or someone you know, decides to start gripping at the actual booksellers for the way things are going, stop. Take a moment to remind yourself of all the factors beyond their control, that are actually controlled by consumers like you. Are you taking responsibility for your local bookstore closing down? Or are you rejoicing at save $2.50 on a paperback you could have just as easily picked up at your local store for the exact same price?
*When I say bookstore, I mean observations and realities as pertains to my bookstore, and ones like it in my town. Perhaps your book store has a different situation, and if so I'd love to discuss how it is effecting your store in the comments, but just saying OMG YOU'RE WRONG isn't helpful.
Yesterday I had a customer come into the store, who said he had come in to pick up his copy of A Dance with Dragons . This wasn't out of the ordinary, we had quite a few people reserve their copies with us, so I smiled and said sure, and asked what his name was. I couldn't find a slip with his name on it, so I asked when he had reserved it. He said he had paid for it already. "Oh," I said. "You pre-ordered it. That means that it will ship today, and it will come here in a few days."
The customer then proceeded to rant at me for the next ten minutes or so about how ridiculous it was that he had pre-ordered something and then didn't get it on the day it came out. Now, I can understand the need to have a book on the day it comes out, so part of me sympathized. But the other, stronger part of me reacted the same way I do when people complain that books are so much cheaper to buy online: with anger and frustration at the way some people not involved in the industry misunderstand the system.
Let's be clear here. The customer who pre-ordered got the book at 46% off at our online store. I have no idea what the pre-order price was at Amazon or other retailers, but I'm sure it was comparable.Why such savings? Well, partly because in order to run an online site, you need quite a few people, but nowhere near the man-power you need to run a physical store, and you sell to so many more people because you are not limited by geography. As the foreman says in "Jayne's Town" (Firefly) "We can then pass on the savings directly on to you, the customer." It's so much cheaper because it CAN be. They don't have to charge as much to make a profit.
They also have to charge shipping, so they make it cheaper so you still want to buy it with them instead of going into the store. This is where most of the difference is made up. If a $7.99 book is 30% off it makes it $5.59, which means you saved about $2.40. Shipping and handling is $3-$4, sometimes more depending how much you ordered. So, in reality. you paid $8.59 for the book, WHICH IS THE SAME AMOUNT AS IN THE STORE. So, you have saved nothing other then getting to avoid talking to a human being while buying your book.
Time. That is the other commodity you "pay" by buying online. Since it isn't gaining you money, it's pretty worthless to you, until you want a book RIGHT NOW. Then, that's a pretty precious commodity. When you buy online you have to wait at least a day before you can start reading the latest by your favorite author. Which is why most book stores get their sales by selling big-name-author-series books. Because then you are willing to sacrifice your hard earned money to save time.
This brings me to my final point: space. Book stores have finite space. Because we are only so many square feet, we can only stock so many books. While every single bookstore in the world would LOVE to carry all the little known authors, we can realistically only afford to keep those titles that will sell. Online stores keep everything in a giant warehouse where no one needs to browse, a giant claw picks the book out of a box like one of those arcade games. Again, they stock it because they can, and if the only one buying the book lives in Ohio they don't need to worry about keeping it in a store in California. So yes, it is possible to get that obscure book for a discount online, but book stores must charge full price so that they can justify having it in their store. Most brick and mortar stores have ways of ordering the obscure titles for you, and they often don't charge you shipping. Again, the only price is time, which for some reason people seem less willing to pay once they've driven all the way there. It's not going to come faster just because you order it from home, folks.
All of these things combine in such a way that if you didn't know the WHY of all of these things, you would wonder what the hell brick-and-mortar stores are doing with themselves. You'd wonder why they charge so much when Amazon is so cheap, and you'd wonder why a book from the same company would cost more at it's physical location as opposed to their website. So please, remember that all of these factors are far beyond the control of the actual person who is selling you the book. He/She loves working at their store, and it drives them a little crazy when people come in complaining about online issues especially because they have no control over it.
This is to say nothing about the competition of e-books, that are so cheap because they don't even have to send you a physical copy. But for every e-book that is sold, that's a paper copy that goes unsold, which hurts the real stores. I'm not saying you shouldn't buy e-books, mostly because that's a futile battle. Book stores are going to have to drastically change their business model in order to be successful, and that goes for Mom and Pop stores as well as the big chains.
As I'm writing this a major book retailer is looking like it's about to go out of business. People feel a lot of different things about Borders, but no one can deny that a lot of towns will lose their only local brick and mortar stores if they close. Libraries are coming under fire as well, as they lose funding all over the country. Instead of being able to browse the stacks, customers will be forced to rely on Best Seller lists or computer generated lists of similar titles, as is touched on by this article by Michael Dirda. Now there will no longer be the possibility of getting a staff recommendation to go along with your Tom Clancy or Patricia Briggs. Books like The Hunger Games, which at least at my store was sold purely by booksellers who loved it, would get forgotten and passed over.
I don't know what the solution to all of this is. But if you, or someone you know, decides to start gripping at the actual booksellers for the way things are going, stop. Take a moment to remind yourself of all the factors beyond their control, that are actually controlled by consumers like you. Are you taking responsibility for your local bookstore closing down? Or are you rejoicing at save $2.50 on a paperback you could have just as easily picked up at your local store for the exact same price?
*When I say bookstore, I mean observations and realities as pertains to my bookstore, and ones like it in my town. Perhaps your book store has a different situation, and if so I'd love to discuss how it is effecting your store in the comments, but just saying OMG YOU'RE WRONG isn't helpful.
Saturday, July 9, 2011
Dark Thoughts about Young Adult Reviewers
I thought about doing an introductory post, but decided that intros are for suckers. Also they are probably too cool for me.
What better way to kick off this post than to respond to this article by Meghan Cox Gurdon. I do suggest that you read this in full, if only to realize just how ridiculous some people can get when they become "adults". To sum up, Gurdon posits the idea that the YA genre, a genre geared specifically for teens, is becoming darker. When I say dark, I mean that the themes and language used are adult and upsetting. So dark in fact, that parents should be steering clear of that section, and writers need to get off that depressing and violent crack they are on.
I will allow that she has some valid points. It is true that some YA books are incredibly dark. It is also true that "tweens" sometimes read YA because they are too advanced for the younger books, and sometimes come across things that are too complex for them. It is even true that parents need to become more involved with the content that their children are reading. You have no idea how frustrating it is when a parent buys Twilight for their 10 year old, and doesn't seem to mind all the anti-feminist content, not to mention the violence and the sex. I agree that there are some books that are not suitable for young children, and parents should be aware of this.
However, to suggest that the entire genre has been rendered useless is ludicrous. In her opening Gurdon tells of the woes of parents just trying to find books for their kids, beginning with this one,
She had popped into the bookstore to pick up a welcome-home gift for her 13-year-old, who had been away. Hundreds of lurid and dramatic covers stood on the racks before her, and there was, she felt, "nothing, not a thing, that I could imagine giving my daughter. It was all vampires and suicide and self-mutilation, this dark, dark stuff." She left the store empty-handed.
Um, what? If a parent is flabbergasted at the selection in YA, she should have asked one of the helpful booksellers who would have been happy to point out any number of titles that end happily, are done tastefully, or even ones without violence at all. No one expects a non-bookseller to have a handle on all the different YA titles out there. That's like someone staring at a display of shoes, and when they fail to see one in their size on display they leave, without asking one the people whose JOB it is to find them shoes. Would you blame the shoemaker? The person selling them in the store? Or would you blame the customer who apparently didn't care enough to ask. Must not have wanted that book that badly.
Leaving the fact that not all young adult books are dark aside, there is the issue with the actual dark books. As a bookseller, I am very aware of how dark the books can get. Most of the ones I've read are not violent for violence's sake, nor are they dark just for shits and giggles.
The books, and the authors who write them, are trying to grapple with the issues that face teens every day. This is the time that they are learning that no, Santa isn't real and yes, it is indeed possible that life sucks. Life sucks an unbelievable amount at this age, especially because it had never previously occurred to them that it could suck this much. All of the cute Disney tales they were fed as small children are revealed to be a hoax, nothing more than a lovely fantasy. Things don't just magically work out, and for many teens this realization is earth-shattering. The world doesn't give two shits that "they are really just children", and pretending that things are otherwise is unhelpful. Bad things happen to teens. It isn't fun and nobody likes it, but that's the reality. It's not even a matter of teens already being exposed to it in other entertainment mediums, it's that they see it every. day. On the news, at school, sometimes tragically within their own homes.
So, if you were a YA reader, do YOU want to read about happy fluffy bunnies, rainbows and how nothing bad happens to anyone ever? Probably not. Later you'll come to realize that life doesn't always suck and happy endings are possible if not magical. Right now though, you would gravitate towards those books which deal honestly with you and your life. Books like The Outsiders, which Gurdon references as the first YA book. This is significant because it is one of those books that is dark, deals with violent issues, and is one of the books most taught in schools. Are we saying now that half of America's teachers don't know what's good for kids to be reading? It is also one of the few books that is almost universally enjoyed. Ask a teen, any teen, why they liked Outsiders. They will tell you that it was honest and real, and that they could relate to the characters.
Most teens just want it told to them straight, so they know what to expect and can prepare themselves. When we give them otherwise we become Wendla's mother from Spring Awakening who fails to tell her daughter where babies come from for fear she'll go out and try it. But it is her ignorance of the subject that inevitably causes her to end up with, you guessed it, teen pregnancy! The lie damages more than the truth, and we would be lying to our children if we tell them that the world is never a dark place.
All of that being said, there are indeed some books out there that are gratuitous in their violence and sex. Still others fail to handle it tastefully, or the message of how to deal with it gets lost in the narrative. Being fair here, Gurdon has a point. Parents need to be aware of what their children are reading. Not so that they can forbid them from reading anything with violence in it, but so they can talk to them about it. Parents can and should be reading their teen's books with them so that they can be prepared for questions and discussions, so that they can, you know, do some parenting.
Or, if having read the book himself, Dad decides that the book has no redeeming qualities, then he should indeed prevent his son from reading it and explain why. I find teens react much better when they are told, "I read the book and I didn't like it. I don't think you would like it either, it's kind of gross for no reason, and the writing is awful. If you want to read something about this topic, try this other one which is much better." You know, talking to teens like they have something between their ears and can think and reason. The easiest way to ensure that the kid will find a way to read it on his own is to tell him, "No. I said no, I mean no, and that's a NO."
In the end, I don't blame the authors, as there are bad books in any genre. I don't blame the booksellers for keeping bad books in stock because, well, we still sell Wuthering Heights. I blame parents who are too lazy to read or too frightened of the dark places their children are in to help them deal with the process known as growing up.
Fairy tales do not tell children the dragons exist. Children already know that dragons exist. Fairy tales tell children the dragons can be killed. - G. K. Chesterton
What better way to kick off this post than to respond to this article by Meghan Cox Gurdon. I do suggest that you read this in full, if only to realize just how ridiculous some people can get when they become "adults". To sum up, Gurdon posits the idea that the YA genre, a genre geared specifically for teens, is becoming darker. When I say dark, I mean that the themes and language used are adult and upsetting. So dark in fact, that parents should be steering clear of that section, and writers need to get off that depressing and violent crack they are on.
I will allow that she has some valid points. It is true that some YA books are incredibly dark. It is also true that "tweens" sometimes read YA because they are too advanced for the younger books, and sometimes come across things that are too complex for them. It is even true that parents need to become more involved with the content that their children are reading. You have no idea how frustrating it is when a parent buys Twilight for their 10 year old, and doesn't seem to mind all the anti-feminist content, not to mention the violence and the sex. I agree that there are some books that are not suitable for young children, and parents should be aware of this.
However, to suggest that the entire genre has been rendered useless is ludicrous. In her opening Gurdon tells of the woes of parents just trying to find books for their kids, beginning with this one,
She had popped into the bookstore to pick up a welcome-home gift for her 13-year-old, who had been away. Hundreds of lurid and dramatic covers stood on the racks before her, and there was, she felt, "nothing, not a thing, that I could imagine giving my daughter. It was all vampires and suicide and self-mutilation, this dark, dark stuff." She left the store empty-handed.
Um, what? If a parent is flabbergasted at the selection in YA, she should have asked one of the helpful booksellers who would have been happy to point out any number of titles that end happily, are done tastefully, or even ones without violence at all. No one expects a non-bookseller to have a handle on all the different YA titles out there. That's like someone staring at a display of shoes, and when they fail to see one in their size on display they leave, without asking one the people whose JOB it is to find them shoes. Would you blame the shoemaker? The person selling them in the store? Or would you blame the customer who apparently didn't care enough to ask. Must not have wanted that book that badly.
Leaving the fact that not all young adult books are dark aside, there is the issue with the actual dark books. As a bookseller, I am very aware of how dark the books can get. Most of the ones I've read are not violent for violence's sake, nor are they dark just for shits and giggles.
The books, and the authors who write them, are trying to grapple with the issues that face teens every day. This is the time that they are learning that no, Santa isn't real and yes, it is indeed possible that life sucks. Life sucks an unbelievable amount at this age, especially because it had never previously occurred to them that it could suck this much. All of the cute Disney tales they were fed as small children are revealed to be a hoax, nothing more than a lovely fantasy. Things don't just magically work out, and for many teens this realization is earth-shattering. The world doesn't give two shits that "they are really just children", and pretending that things are otherwise is unhelpful. Bad things happen to teens. It isn't fun and nobody likes it, but that's the reality. It's not even a matter of teens already being exposed to it in other entertainment mediums, it's that they see it every. day. On the news, at school, sometimes tragically within their own homes.
So, if you were a YA reader, do YOU want to read about happy fluffy bunnies, rainbows and how nothing bad happens to anyone ever? Probably not. Later you'll come to realize that life doesn't always suck and happy endings are possible if not magical. Right now though, you would gravitate towards those books which deal honestly with you and your life. Books like The Outsiders, which Gurdon references as the first YA book. This is significant because it is one of those books that is dark, deals with violent issues, and is one of the books most taught in schools. Are we saying now that half of America's teachers don't know what's good for kids to be reading? It is also one of the few books that is almost universally enjoyed. Ask a teen, any teen, why they liked Outsiders. They will tell you that it was honest and real, and that they could relate to the characters.
Most teens just want it told to them straight, so they know what to expect and can prepare themselves. When we give them otherwise we become Wendla's mother from Spring Awakening who fails to tell her daughter where babies come from for fear she'll go out and try it. But it is her ignorance of the subject that inevitably causes her to end up with, you guessed it, teen pregnancy! The lie damages more than the truth, and we would be lying to our children if we tell them that the world is never a dark place.
All of that being said, there are indeed some books out there that are gratuitous in their violence and sex. Still others fail to handle it tastefully, or the message of how to deal with it gets lost in the narrative. Being fair here, Gurdon has a point. Parents need to be aware of what their children are reading. Not so that they can forbid them from reading anything with violence in it, but so they can talk to them about it. Parents can and should be reading their teen's books with them so that they can be prepared for questions and discussions, so that they can, you know, do some parenting.
Or, if having read the book himself, Dad decides that the book has no redeeming qualities, then he should indeed prevent his son from reading it and explain why. I find teens react much better when they are told, "I read the book and I didn't like it. I don't think you would like it either, it's kind of gross for no reason, and the writing is awful. If you want to read something about this topic, try this other one which is much better." You know, talking to teens like they have something between their ears and can think and reason. The easiest way to ensure that the kid will find a way to read it on his own is to tell him, "No. I said no, I mean no, and that's a NO."
In the end, I don't blame the authors, as there are bad books in any genre. I don't blame the booksellers for keeping bad books in stock because, well, we still sell Wuthering Heights. I blame parents who are too lazy to read or too frightened of the dark places their children are in to help them deal with the process known as growing up.
Fairy tales do not tell children the dragons exist. Children already know that dragons exist. Fairy tales tell children the dragons can be killed. - G. K. Chesterton
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)