Ann and the Mary-Sue Mystery: The Authorized Bio-Snark, Part 2

[alula_auburn]

Woohoo!  Thanks for your warm reception of part one.  I was kind of worried it would all fall flat.  So, without further ado. . .

Chapter 7: Adventures in Baby-Sitting

Sadly, there will be no blues music or 1987 Vincent D’Onoforio.

Comments

[aceattorneysho]

I got worried for a second because I though I was Ann (boring and loves Christmas) but then I realized I couldn't stand that level of babysitting.

Anyhoooo... I agree about the classes that are fun but have little value. As a creative, "artsy" person I always liked projects that let me be creative but even then I felt like it was both tacking on art teaching requirements and the regular class requirements into something that wasn't all that fun in the end. If a class is more than a Short Take (ie- an actual class, not something you do for 3 weeks) and you do both the creative and educational parts all the time, thus learning a skill or whatevs then yes, it's useful. Otherwise you're just having fun and barely committing what you're supposed to be learning to memory.

I also think that Ann watching those 90s shows and seeming to enjoy scifi/horror/thrillers (and yet cartoons are too violent? Is it just because they were marketed to kids?) is perfectly realistic but shows that she often Misses The Point. Like how she says she enjoys the psychologically-based books and likes mysteries but then the BSC mysteries are just, "He really hated her family so he stole their 100-year-old rocking chair!" So either she didn't think kids could understand that mysteries can show us how people think and what they do when confronted with their misdeeds OR she just didn't quite understand what makes things like mysteries so compelling.

Though after reading your snark I kinda get the impression that Ann is a perfectly nice woman but also seems kind of boring. It made me realize a bio about me would be just as painfully boring should I ever become famous enough to bother writing about.

[alula_auburn]

So either she didn't think kids could understand that mysteries can show us how people think and what they do when confronted with their misdeeds OR she just didn't quite understand what makes things like mysteries so compelling.

I think both of those things could be true, lol. In a weird way, I find it kind of fascinating about the series--that she so often writes ridiculously "sophisticated" thirteen-year-olds in terms of autonomy, but places them in this no-real-consequences, mildly cartoon-y setting without a lot of depth. Like, in theory thirteen-year-olds can watch small children unsupervised for hours (or days!) at a time, and solve "mysteries" like "hey, treating your twins like they have no individual personalities makes them feel bad!" but not really deal with good people doing bad things (or vice versa), or snapping under pressure, or a problem that can't be solved in 15 short chapters.

[aceattorneysho]

Exactly. Part of me also thinks it could have been Scholastic trying to dumb things down to be more wish-fulfillment fantasies. The kids do everything, the adults are all dumb, and voila. It's kind of that thing where the company doesn't get that kids are smarter than they think and could handle learning something that isn't on some educational list OR doesn't want to get sued by parents who think that learning about how the world works will ruin their child. I mean, I'm genuinely interested in hearing what Ann or the ghostwriters have to say. On the one hand they could have been clueless (except Lerangis. For some reason I always think he was trying to subvert everything and I don't know why.) but on the other hand I could see how Scholastic could have been dictating what level of drama should happen.

Though at 13 I was reading Agatha Christie novels so maybe I'm not the best example for a kid reading mysteries. ...yet didn't Nancy and the Hardy Boys solve more complicated mysteries than some pet-nappings and crappy attempts at art thievery?