YA Writers and Shock, Shock!

[sartorias]

Anent the earlier discussion about reviews, here's Justine Larbalestier about being accused of writing edge for the sake of shock

Comments

[david_de_beer]

ah, this is the book and that is the scene Nancy Kress described as "brutal", an unfortunate choice of word I thought.

I don't know, depends on the kid doesn't it? I don't think children should be sheltered, nor should they have their noses rubbed in stuff they don't want to know about. Let them decide for themselves, they are generally more intelligent than adults give them credit for.
And they'll do what they want anyways.

I'm wondering if those who shake sticks at authors who contain edgy elements are conflating the presentation of these elements with the glamorizing of themI got accused of that once; bit of a despondent comment to receive, "one of those shocker pieces". It was the "one of those" that took me back a bit

[sartorias]

Your comment is a good reminder that reading is a handshake deal--and a handshake takes a pair of hands.

[kateelliott]

[sartorias]

Yes, that makes sense--at least to me, who has dome much the same.

[karenthology]

Books like The Pigman and The Outsiders, which I read in class, were my among my first conscious exposures to dark storytelling and a world that wasn't always as bright as I wanted it to be. The experience was absolutely valuable for me and a number of others at twelve, even though I am quite sure those two books were waved around as "inappropriate" and "unnecessarily edgy" in their time.

It always, always, always depends on the kid.

[karenthology]

(Now, on the other hand, I'm one of those people that doesn't think very highly of stuff like Gossip Girl...)

[sartorias]

*nodding*

For what it's worth (and it may not be, much)

[carbonelle]

Here's something I was thinking about in the dentist's chair today, after reading Justine Larbalestier's post[1] and sartorias' earlier ruminations on Jo and the Professor.

There's so much evil, and cruelty; so much spite and indifference and malice in this sorry old world; the good and the lovingkindness and all sometimes seem like candles guttering in a great darkness.

Ought not one have an awfully good reason for adding to it? And I mean a better one than, "it's fun" and "it's cool" and "why not?"

Just thinking...

[1] I have to really thank her for unpacking her family crest: I can now spell her name, no worries!

Re: For what it's worth (and it may not be, much)

[sartorias]

Definitely worth considering.

Re: For what it's worth (and it may not be, much)

[bookaddict88]

And as a reader, that's what I look for. I often say I don't like dark stories or stories with sad endings, but what I mean is that I don't like stories with darkness and no hope. If you're telling me that there is no good in this world or that life has no meaning or that society is going to pieces and there's nothing you can do about it (or any of these things on a smaller scale), then I'll avoid your book as much as I can. You're simply adding to the darkness of my world, where things often seem hopeless and pointless. If however, you tell me that there's darkness (because I agree that there is plenty of it in this world), but focus much less on the darkness than on the ways to overcome it, then I'm more apt to read your book because it sheds some light on the real world as well. When I'm escaping into a book, I need to be able to see good come out of the darkness, because it's often hard to see it in real life (though I admit I'm of the sort that believes that even in real life there's light in the darkness, though I may not be

[rhinemouse]

My first reaction is, does any YA writer really do this?My first reaction is, heck yeah! But that's my native cynicism showing through

[sartorias]

That's how I feel about steadicam. Why does film have to have that "realistic touch" that makes me want to hurl? It's not real. It's okay to let film be film. The medium is not the message.