(I've updated this with a bunch of links about YA Literature below)
I apologize. I might, at some point, go back and add more hyper-links, but I figured I’d left my readers waiting so long . . .
Leave me with my illusions!
Young Adult literature is often seen as being exactly that: books for
teenagers -- and that's it.
However, a lot of great books get unread by people who would probably
enjoy and appreciate the writing, if they either A) knew about the
books, and/or B) weren't embarrassed to be reading "kiddie" books.
Think about Harry Potter for example. Here were books (I find it hard to think that anyone considers them strictly YA anymore) that a lot of adults dismissed as being childish. But as they grew in popularity (and, for some reason, infamy), parents started reading the books to see “what all the fuss was about.” Well, it turns out the fuss was about awesome books that were just as much mystery/thrillers as they were children’s fantasy. And as Harry grew, so did the books, so that they got to be as mature (and annoying) as a teenager can be. It’s one of the many reasons J.K. Rowling is a genius.
There are billions of reasons, though . . .
Luckily for you all, I have no compunctions going into the kids
sections of book stores (looking like the bearded pedophile I am) and
buying these books to bring you good tidings.
The book is Speak by Laurie Halse Anderson, and it's a pretty
accurate look at the social hierarchy of high school from the
viewpoint of a freshman girl (I'm assuming, although I’m pretty sure more than one of you out there can relate). What's so great about the story is that there is clearly something that the narrator isn't telling us about what happened the
summer before she enters high school, and her quirks (such as rarely,
if ever speaking – like the title, Dave!), are somehow a result of this event. The mystery isn't really too hard to solve (one of the slight draw backs of the YA
genre), but it still is a good story.
An interesting thing about the YA genre is that just because a book is about children, it is not necessarily for children. For example, Curtis Sittenfeld’s Prep is about a young girl from “the wrong side of the tracks” who ends up at a prestigious (read: rich) prep school and has to deal with not only being poor, but also simply being in high school. The subject matter is similar to Speak but the style, the content, is most certainly more “adult” than “young.” This is not to say that YA necessarily means “childish” (or that, conversely, “adult” literature is necessarily mature) it’s just that Prep feels like you need to have had adult experiences to connect with, whereas Speak makes sense as long as you’ve had high school experience.
Of course, a lot of high school kids probably have more “experience” than a lot of adults, but that’s another topic.
But it is the readers’ experience that is what makes YA able to straddle age-groups. Because, whereas teenagers may not connect with all the aspects of Prep (although, to be fair, Sittenfeld does a good job of painting high school relationships), adults have been to high school – for many, it was the greatest time of their lives – so reading YA actually makes sense. Considering many adults have teenagers of their own (you wacky Baby Boomers!), connections might be made that are even deeper than for those of us without.
What’s different about YA as a genre – as opposed to, say, science fiction or romance – is that it is more about audience than about content. So, while Prep probably falls under “literary fiction,” a book like Holes, by Louis Sachar (Wayside School, motherfu*@&$s!) is considered in the same genre as Speak. And it should, if that genre was labeled “awesome” (and, really, shouldn’t there be an “awesome” genre. I wonder where Dewey would put those decimals?). Holes – which was made into an excellent movie with Shia LeBouf (of “Even, Stevens” fame – well, I watched it) and the Fonz – is the story of a boy who is falsely convicted of theft and sent to a juvenile camp in the desert, where all day, every day, the boys are made to dig holes (once again, ingenious title). Sachar does a great job weaving the various characters and plot-lines (including moving back-and-forth in time), and keeps it whimsical enough for kids to enjoy, while clever enough for adults to not feel ridiculous.
Because that’s the other great feature of good YA: it makes sure that both kids and adults feel comfortable encountering it (think of teens, and how they balance those two age groups. Then think how touchy they can be. The last thing you want to do with that audience is talk-down-to or baby-up the writing. Try to be honest about yourself as a teen when you do this exercise). For example, although Eragon is wildly popular as a book (I think I heard somewhere the movie was not very good – someone needs to tell Jeremy Irons to stay out of fantasy movies), realistically, they do a poor job addressing adults. At least, they do a poor job of adults who have grown up reading science fiction/fantasy. Maybe this is jealousy (okay, this is blatantly jealously – I want to be published, too! (Probably should start writing. . .)), but if Christopher Paolini had been thirty when he wrote the first book, instead of nineteen or so, I doubt these books would have been as much of a success. It’s so obvious that Paolini has read all the books I did while growing up (Dragonlance, David Eddings, Terry Brooks, Robert Jordan, Terry Goodkind, Anne McCaffery – you know, beat-the-nerd fodder), and his books seems to do a fair job “borrowing” from them.
Of course, as Jonathan Lethem (of Fortress of Solitude and Motherless Brooklyn fame) wrote in his article “The Ecstasy of Influence” (February 2007 issue of Harper’s), writers have been biting off each other since the beginning of time.
(NOTE: The brilliance of Lethem’s essay is that he goes through example of example of borrowing, only to show in the end that his entire essay was in fact constructed entirely of “plagiarism.” It’s very cool, and I highly recommend it. On the flip-side, as a big fan of web-comics, you can check out this douche-berry (it could be a word) to see the “dark side” of plagarism. I'm changing an earlier position, to an extent).
That little tangent aside, read YA literature – because it truly is literature. If you don’t believe me, think about these titles: Lord of the Flies, Huckleberry Finn, Ender’s Game (okay, the last one might be a stretch), and tell me they aren’t literature. Go ahead. I dare you.
I double dare you.
Physical challenge!
Suffolk County, NY -- Library
theliterarylink.com
Alan-YA
Wikipedia--YA Literature
If you haven't read the comments, I suggest you do so -- they're pretty interesting.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
David, I have two comments:
1) I bet you can relate fairly well to that freshman girl in Speak.
2) Huck Finn is not "YA" literature; the deeper text offers a mature, caustic critique of American society that I doubt most eighth graders would understand. You might as well classify Gulliver's Travels as YA lit. as well, under your criteria.
Good stuff, man, good stuff.
Oh, I made that last comment.
Sean
1) Real mature. Maybe you should stick with Golden Books?
2) I think the "mature, caustic critique" of America is actually pretty apparent, though. Yes, there are meanings and subtleties that may not be clear to a reader the first time around, but I doubt an eighth-grader wouldn't understand that the book is criticising slavery while taking on the form of a "buddy story." That's what makes Twain such a genius -- his language is simple enough for anyone to understand, and it's not designed to create a deeply-hidden allegory.
Swift, on the other hand, not only requires a fairly sound background in the political structures of Eighteenth century Europe, but also is in a language that's not easily accessible to adults, let alone kids.
Remember that Twain is essentially the father of modern prose. By being a humorist, he was essentially writing the vernacular, such as Chaucer was doing seven-hundred years ago. Twain, at the time, was pop-lit: he was Stephen King without telepathic fire-starters, haunted hotels, dogs from hell, or murderous alien-clowns (although I haven't read all of Twain's stuff, so there might be Pennywise-like character in A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court.
But I suppose we'll just have to agree that you're wrong.
Thanks for reading!
David, you neglect Twain's rich satirical style and criticism. There's a lot more subtlety in the text than a mere "boy book" that condemns slavery. That's just the surface meaning which Twain assumes the UNEDUCATED public will understand and purchase. It took him about eight years and three different sustained efforts to compose it, which indicates the complexity and sophistication of the ideas running beneath the printed page. Rowling produces books three times as long in less than half the time, to give you a sense of comparison. Twain discusses the ideal life and the possibility of actually attaining it in America. In addition to the slavery issue, he slams government, religion, Southern mores, etc. Ultimately, though, he does NOT slam slavery as clearly as you suggest, as the whole adventure has had no real meaning since Jim's been free the whole time. Twain evades the harsh reality of having his protagonist (who stands for himself) actually free a slave. Huck himself thinks slavery is a valid, moral institution, ALL THE WAY TO THE END. Most readers don't understand that nuance either. Read deeper, David, read deeper (I know that pisses you off).
You are right, however, in applauding Twain's intent on reaching the mass market (he was first and foremost a producer, always concerned with money, then a writer).
You are also right that Twain intends on conveying meaning directly rather than creating it subtley through structure, form, or florid language, but his humor, at least his more satirical stuff, requires a more sophisticated intellect. Satire is one of the most complex forms of communication, and most kids, including seniors in high school, fail to understand it. Now it's possible that with your natural gift of intellect you could analyze such meaning in diapers, but, David, knowing you, I doubt it. Ouch.
Interesting you mention allegory in your response, especially since one of the other texts you mention in your initial post, Lord of the Flies, is one of best examples of modern allegory. There is no way young adults understand its allegorical meaning; they simply like to watch the boys maul themselves and poke fun at Piggy. Again, I see this surface reading every day in school.
Okay, enjoy being stupid all day. I'm off to read about our Puritan ancestry.
But that's why it's so great as a YA book: because it works on those multiple levels.
The allegory is there for the taking, with a deeper reading. But that's the same for adults as it is for teenagers.
Clearly he wrote a book that's not just about slavery and friendship. But at the end of the day, it is still a story about a boy, narrated by a boy, and, most ingeniously interpreted by that boy.
And that's why it's great literature. Huck's innocence deflects Twain's commentary, and even if you don't realize that, there is still plenty to get out of the book. In other words, it's entertaining and not too deep for the kiddies, but provides a great deal of depth (while still being entertaining) for adults.
That's basically what I'm arguing here. The same applies to Lord of the Flies, and I would contend, Harry Potter and Speak.
I think the problem is that we're on the same page, but you're being an obstinate fool.
Peace.
By your "multiple level" argument, Gulliver's works too, which you denied earlier--where's the consistent logic here???
I have no problem with reading Huck and such for entertainment, but I do have a problem with then classifying them as YA literature. And I still argue with your final assessment of Huck: it's not simply about a boy and his narrative; such a claim negates the very material that makes it an American classic, a designation that I know you loathe on principle. Huck's simple account and vernacular certainly forge its uniqueness (at least at the time), but the story's essence extends beyond that assessment. It's BOTH the delivery AND weighted content that establish Huck (the novel) as an important part of American literary history. YA readers really only appreciate the non-satirical aspects of the delivery (which dilutes most of its style)and bare aspects of the content (which dilutes most of its significance).
Basically, I'm saying it's invalid to equate Huck, Lord, Gulliver's, etc. to true YA lit, whatever that means.
Just admit you're wrong so we can go about our business.
-- Not Sean
I will say this, and then if you want the last word, it's yours:
Exactly.
My problem with classifying Gulliver's Travels is because it is dense throughout. There is no point of entry for a teenage reader (and it's pretty tough for most adult readers).
Huckleberry Finn, though, is accessible to both those age groups, and both groups can get a great deal out of it. I'm not saying YA literature is simple, because it's not. It is just the fact that the complexity does not keep readers away, and on the basic "character/plot" level, it allows for teenagers of any reading skill to engage the text. AS they grow older, and gain in experience, their appreciation and interaction with the text will grow.
Realistically, none of the books I mentioned in the "literature" section of my post are technically YA. But they have been appropriated into that genre because they have all the aspects that makes YA books such universal texts. That's why I think YA is so underrated -- because it allows for multiple interpretations, and thus are actually books that grow. Huckleberry Finn, even without the politics, is a wonderful story, and a very readable text. You can't say the same for Gulliver's Travels. There's a reason why one is read in high school, and one isn't.
That reason, my friend(s), is YA.
YA, baby. YA.
Couple of flaws here, David.
1) Gulliver's IS read in high school, and I've even heard kids, eighth graders, by the way, say that they like its adventure/fantasy aspects. Although the language's more difficult than something like Huck, there's plenty of "access" for kids, according to your YA criteria. I even have an illustrated version of it at home.
2) By your criteria, ALMOST ANY SINGLE TEXT is YA, as every single damn story that's even halfway mainstream has at least a plot, which is essentially what you seem to deem by "multiple interpretations." Scarlet Letter is YA, then, as is Jane Eyre, Wuthering Heights, Antigone, etc. Heck, even things like Crime and Punishment and Invisible Man. You're a smart guy, David, and you know I respect you, but c'mon. There's a clear difference between surface reading and deeper comprehension. Just say that YA entails surface reading and end it.
Okay, I'm done with this conversation. I won't check this for awhile because I can't take a glass of beer and douse you with it. Bastard.
Post a Comment