As an author of young adult, cross-over fiction that is currently writing a novel with teens that have sex (lots of it), I find the discussion over MTV's show Skins very interesting. After reading the online posts, it seems the argument comes down to--primarily--whether this is an accurate representation of the way kids behave and if it encourages teens to act like these kids. This, of course, is idiotic at best.
This, like all works of fiction, is a representation of how THESE teens act. To say that it's not like this in real schools is ignorant. There ARE teens that act like this, and that's the story the writers are telling. Nobody says, "Don't watch Fringe because real FBI agents don't investigate people from parallel universes," do they? Did ER represent what it was like to work in a real ER? Is any show an accurate depiction of what is going on in the real segment of the population it depicts? Not often. I think Skins may actually be coming closer to presenting a certain counter-culture in today's schools than most of those other shows.
Furthermore, sex and drugs are a huge problem. In fact, where I'm from, the number of kids that smoke pot WITH their parents' permission is astounding. I think a significant population of even good kids smoke weed. It's becoming as common as smoking cigarettes in the 20s. Some governments are decriminalizing it and fully legalizing it. The hippies didn't just put down the pipe. As far as hard drugs, that's a much smaller group, but it's still there. The show doesn't say THE WHOLE SCHOOL is doing it, but this group of kids the show follows does.
If you're upset with the show, it's because you recognize it's reality and don't want to deal with it. Do something to fix it. It's out there. Watch with your kids and talk to them about it. MTV is actually doing you a favor. Now you don't have to find a way to bring up these discussions. MTV has done it for you. And Taco Bell? Do you know how many sex-crazed, pot-smoking teens LOVE late night runs to Taco Bell for "4th meal?" There's a reason so many young people are hungry at 2 a.m. It's hypocritical to sell them a cheesy crunch wrap supreme to cure their marijuana induced munchies and then not advertise to them on a show that shows kids gone wild. You think this is bad, you should watch the movie Kids and see what Chloe Sevigne was doing years before she ever did that hard core oral sex scene in Brown Bunny. I remember being a baseball banquet in Darien, CT where my wife commented on Darien High grad Sevigne probably sleeping her way into roles. A mother there said, "I can't believe that for a second. Not a nice, clean Darien girl." Can you say ignorance...or was it intentional blinder time for that lady? IT'S OUT THERE.
As for the sexy nudity by 17 year old actors? Depends on the rules of the state doesn't it? Some states have age-of-consent laws as low as 12. Which is another issue that deserves to be discussed. But the average teen girl loses her virginity at 16. I don't think that's some kind of epidemic. High school girls were putting out back in the 50's, too. Let's stop being hypocrites. We adults lost our virginity in high school (or at least tried very hard to do so). Our parents lost their virginity in high school. Their parents...on and on. This is a very small percentage of religious extremists trying to dictate their morals to all of us.
I know students at my school (where I teach) whose parents have had "the talk" with them and taken them to their family doctor to start them on birth control knowing what's going on with their kids and their boyfriends. But are there cracked out kids having dangerous sex with multiple partners. Yes. In most cases they have absentee parents who do drugs and screw everyone they know. The point? If you're a good, concerned parent, your kids will probably watch Skins and be upset just like you. If you're not, you're kids are probably doing what you're seeing on that wide-screen, HD, plasma television screen, and you should shut it off and get involved. Period. What you're really saying is having this show on TV makes you actually have to parent and deal with something you've been ignoring for years. They can see the same thing with their friends at school if they aren't already making their own real-life version of Skins in YOUR bedroom while your at you business meeting or dating yourself. And before you roll your eyes and gasp about today's youth, think back to the 60s, 70s, and 80s high school scene and remember all the sex and drugs happening then. YOU ARE ALL HYPOCRITES.
My final message--don't blame the messenger. Thanks.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Saturday, January 15, 2011
You Can't Polish a Turd
How do you know when something you've written just can't be saved? You're writing along, spending months of your life creating that first draft, thinking all along you're writing the next Great Expectations or A Tale of Two Cities. You finish, you show it off to the world--which includes like three people at first--and it bombs. You're expectations are shattered, and your book becomes the tale of two shitties: crappy plot and stupid gimmicks.
Suggestions come at you like "lose the ghost story," though that's the story's backbone, and "rewrite it in a different time frame of the character's life," though that defeats the purpose of writing it in the first place. So how do you know when it's time to put it in the scrap heap and forget about it? The passion for the story is gone. The character has been exercised. You have nothing left. So do you move on to another project, or do you pig-headedly plow forward trying to polish your turd?
Now, I've never tried to polish an actual turd. Have you? If you have, I'm assuming what happens is you just keep wiping away layers of human fecal matter to reveal more. So you keep polishing, buffing that sucker with all you've got (wearing rubber gloves and a surgeon's mask I hope) until there's nothing left but a brown (or green) smear on your latex covered hands. Then what? Do you have to start over again anyway, pushing out another turd?
But there might be that one time, when you're polishing away at yesterday's dinner in waste form, that you come across that stray piece of undigested corn--the kernel of truth. The kernel that you take and harvest and build a stalk of pure, unsoiled, non-turd writing that becomes the next Great Expectations or A Tale of Two Cities. The next GREAT AMERICAN NOVEL. Okay, so Great Expectations and A Tale of Two Cities were British novels, and you're no Dickens, but you've got something you can work from; whereas, before you only had a turd.
So how do you know? Is there a way to know that there's a kernel deep within your turd of a novel that you can cultivate before you spend time, energy, and gag-reflexes on trying to beautify a giant piece of shit, ending up with nothing but a palm full of crappy residue?
I think you should just be able to tell. There should be a gut feeling. I'm worried I'm getting that gut feeling. That feeling that I just spent six months breaking off a turd that cannot be polished. How do you deal with that? How do you deal with that when it's your thesis, and you only have three months to make it golden. Is there a fairy godmother out there somewhere that can turn literary turds to treasure, taking this book from poop to published? Doubtful.
I suppose it's time to stop whining and being the cliche tortured soul and actually get to work figuring this out, to start polishing my turd. Anyone want to join me?
Suggestions come at you like "lose the ghost story," though that's the story's backbone, and "rewrite it in a different time frame of the character's life," though that defeats the purpose of writing it in the first place. So how do you know when it's time to put it in the scrap heap and forget about it? The passion for the story is gone. The character has been exercised. You have nothing left. So do you move on to another project, or do you pig-headedly plow forward trying to polish your turd?
Now, I've never tried to polish an actual turd. Have you? If you have, I'm assuming what happens is you just keep wiping away layers of human fecal matter to reveal more. So you keep polishing, buffing that sucker with all you've got (wearing rubber gloves and a surgeon's mask I hope) until there's nothing left but a brown (or green) smear on your latex covered hands. Then what? Do you have to start over again anyway, pushing out another turd?
But there might be that one time, when you're polishing away at yesterday's dinner in waste form, that you come across that stray piece of undigested corn--the kernel of truth. The kernel that you take and harvest and build a stalk of pure, unsoiled, non-turd writing that becomes the next Great Expectations or A Tale of Two Cities. The next GREAT AMERICAN NOVEL. Okay, so Great Expectations and A Tale of Two Cities were British novels, and you're no Dickens, but you've got something you can work from; whereas, before you only had a turd.
So how do you know? Is there a way to know that there's a kernel deep within your turd of a novel that you can cultivate before you spend time, energy, and gag-reflexes on trying to beautify a giant piece of shit, ending up with nothing but a palm full of crappy residue?
I think you should just be able to tell. There should be a gut feeling. I'm worried I'm getting that gut feeling. That feeling that I just spent six months breaking off a turd that cannot be polished. How do you deal with that? How do you deal with that when it's your thesis, and you only have three months to make it golden. Is there a fairy godmother out there somewhere that can turn literary turds to treasure, taking this book from poop to published? Doubtful.
I suppose it's time to stop whining and being the cliche tortured soul and actually get to work figuring this out, to start polishing my turd. Anyone want to join me?
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Civil War?
The holidays are over. It's a brand new year. And I'm back with my first post in a while. The class is over, so what do we write about now? Unfortunately, watching the news this morning sort of forced my hand. What is wrong with this country when we are shooting our elected leaders simply because they don't agree with us? Are we on the verge of a Civil War? Not the "two defined regions participating in a military conflict" kind of Civil War we fought in 1863, but the "small bands of conservative rebels out to take power through fear" kind they are all too familiar with in countries like Colombia. Not here. Not in America. Well...?
On a sadly ironic note, Representative Gifford spoke out against the vitriol being used by our elected leaders to drum up anger and passion in voters. She warned that there would be consequences if groups like "The Tea Party" continued using loaded language to rile up supporters. Someone should "assassinate him" has been uttered far too often in every day discussions about leaders, even President Obama. Where have we gone and where are we going? It's scary.
It was never like this when George Bush was president. No matter how much the Left, Center, and even the Right at times lashed out at Bush in hatred, it never got to this level. For some reason Obama has become a lightening rod for pure hatred of people who simply disagree with your beliefs. Take a look around! There are probably people at your job, at your school, in your own house that don't agree with everything you do. Your wife, your sister, your closest friends may not agree with what you believe. Do you hate them? No. You agree to disagree. Why, then, does this reality not trickle up into our political theater.
Elected leaders of the United States of America, the greatest nation on Earth, there is a reason you are called LEADERS! When you lose, when the votes come in on issues such as health care, tax cuts, anything for that matter, the correct reaction is to be a good sport, shake the other guy's hand, and move forward. Drumming up hate in order to save face and stay in power is not the lesson I want you teaching my kid. I want my kids watching the player that watches the other team run out the clock in the victory formation and goes over and hugs the other teams quarter back, wishing him luck in his next playoff game. I do not want my kids watching the player that takes a pot shot at the other team's quarter back as he takes a knee just because he can. You talk the talk. You have to walk the walk.
Are we hypocrites, or what? Here we are hunting the planet for terrorists while we breed them right here in our country. Sure, we don't have organized groups looking to affect political change through murder and mayhem--YET! Many Americans look at the Middle East like they're some kind of backward, violent heathens since they raise, cultivate, and produce folks capable of such atrocities. Look around America, we're producing them here, they just have guns instead of hijacked jets. Our political discourse has elevated to jihadic levels right here in the good 'ole USA.
So what's the solution? Gun control? We have to think about it, but can't terrorist Americans looking to affect political change through fear simply get guns illegally or use even more dangerous weapons like 747s or anthrax? No, we need to stop trying to treat the symptoms and treat the disease. We need to educate, set examples, and change our ways. We need to preach tolerance. For much too long we've thought of tolerance as a racial thing or maybe a religious one. It needs to extend to all areas where we differ as human beings. Religious tolerance, racial tolerance, political tolerance, handicap tolerance, sexual tolerance, gender tolerance--all tolerance. We need to realize that everyone is different, so no matter how terrible our lives may get, no matter how much we feel like we need a scapegoat, we cannot simply shoot everyone we don't agree with.
Now, I know what's going to happen. We're going to brand this guy a lunatic. We're going to say he had this problem and that. He was a loner. A recluse. He was on the verge of snapping since he turned 13. Whatever. We're going to use every excuse possible to turn our attention away from the real issues, to avoid examining our own demons. But that's not going to solve anything. Look deep inside yourself. The evil is there. We're all capable of atrocities if pushed far enough for long enough. The more we listen to the piss and shit being excreted from the mouths of politicians and political activists only concerned with power and their own personal agendas, the larger the chance more and more of these "lunatics" are going to be coming out of the wood works. How many have to die? How many leaders have to be targeted? How much pain and anguish need to be caused to families across the country before we learn? I know one "tragedy in Tucsan" is enough for me to try and affect change.
Two years ago, in an English class I was teaching, I had a girl wonder why we were debating religious and political issues so often when it was impossible to change anyone's mind, and we just kept going around in circles seemingly getting nowhere. The class seemed to agree. I didn't have an answer for her that day, but I went home and thought about it.
The next day, at the start of class, I gave a little speech. I told them that we lived in a world where pro-life activists have murdered abortion doctors and people with political differences hijack planes and drive them into buildings to make their points, a world where political and religious discourse has elevated to the point where people are killing each other over differences of opinion. I told them the idea isn't to change minds, but to voice opposing opinions without losing respect for one another. Without losing our heads. And to understand each other's side of the story without hatred or condemnation. The class was quiet. They were moved. They got it.
And I'd like to think that lesson will stay with them for the rest of their lives. This stuff can be taught, and it's up to us adults to do it. It's up to parents, teachers, and religious leaders to spread the word to our youth, to tomorrow's future. But most importantly, it's up to our elected leaders, the one's who spend their lives embroiled in this political discourse, to set examples--as leaders for God's sake--for the rest of us to follow. If not, we're only a few more incidents away from Columbia, from Civil War. I, for one, don't have the energy or time to fight one. So, as Gandhi said, "Be the change you want to see in the world" and start setting the example of tolerance...before it's too late.
On a sadly ironic note, Representative Gifford spoke out against the vitriol being used by our elected leaders to drum up anger and passion in voters. She warned that there would be consequences if groups like "The Tea Party" continued using loaded language to rile up supporters. Someone should "assassinate him" has been uttered far too often in every day discussions about leaders, even President Obama. Where have we gone and where are we going? It's scary.
It was never like this when George Bush was president. No matter how much the Left, Center, and even the Right at times lashed out at Bush in hatred, it never got to this level. For some reason Obama has become a lightening rod for pure hatred of people who simply disagree with your beliefs. Take a look around! There are probably people at your job, at your school, in your own house that don't agree with everything you do. Your wife, your sister, your closest friends may not agree with what you believe. Do you hate them? No. You agree to disagree. Why, then, does this reality not trickle up into our political theater.
Elected leaders of the United States of America, the greatest nation on Earth, there is a reason you are called LEADERS! When you lose, when the votes come in on issues such as health care, tax cuts, anything for that matter, the correct reaction is to be a good sport, shake the other guy's hand, and move forward. Drumming up hate in order to save face and stay in power is not the lesson I want you teaching my kid. I want my kids watching the player that watches the other team run out the clock in the victory formation and goes over and hugs the other teams quarter back, wishing him luck in his next playoff game. I do not want my kids watching the player that takes a pot shot at the other team's quarter back as he takes a knee just because he can. You talk the talk. You have to walk the walk.
Are we hypocrites, or what? Here we are hunting the planet for terrorists while we breed them right here in our country. Sure, we don't have organized groups looking to affect political change through murder and mayhem--YET! Many Americans look at the Middle East like they're some kind of backward, violent heathens since they raise, cultivate, and produce folks capable of such atrocities. Look around America, we're producing them here, they just have guns instead of hijacked jets. Our political discourse has elevated to jihadic levels right here in the good 'ole USA.
So what's the solution? Gun control? We have to think about it, but can't terrorist Americans looking to affect political change through fear simply get guns illegally or use even more dangerous weapons like 747s or anthrax? No, we need to stop trying to treat the symptoms and treat the disease. We need to educate, set examples, and change our ways. We need to preach tolerance. For much too long we've thought of tolerance as a racial thing or maybe a religious one. It needs to extend to all areas where we differ as human beings. Religious tolerance, racial tolerance, political tolerance, handicap tolerance, sexual tolerance, gender tolerance--all tolerance. We need to realize that everyone is different, so no matter how terrible our lives may get, no matter how much we feel like we need a scapegoat, we cannot simply shoot everyone we don't agree with.
Now, I know what's going to happen. We're going to brand this guy a lunatic. We're going to say he had this problem and that. He was a loner. A recluse. He was on the verge of snapping since he turned 13. Whatever. We're going to use every excuse possible to turn our attention away from the real issues, to avoid examining our own demons. But that's not going to solve anything. Look deep inside yourself. The evil is there. We're all capable of atrocities if pushed far enough for long enough. The more we listen to the piss and shit being excreted from the mouths of politicians and political activists only concerned with power and their own personal agendas, the larger the chance more and more of these "lunatics" are going to be coming out of the wood works. How many have to die? How many leaders have to be targeted? How much pain and anguish need to be caused to families across the country before we learn? I know one "tragedy in Tucsan" is enough for me to try and affect change.
Two years ago, in an English class I was teaching, I had a girl wonder why we were debating religious and political issues so often when it was impossible to change anyone's mind, and we just kept going around in circles seemingly getting nowhere. The class seemed to agree. I didn't have an answer for her that day, but I went home and thought about it.
The next day, at the start of class, I gave a little speech. I told them that we lived in a world where pro-life activists have murdered abortion doctors and people with political differences hijack planes and drive them into buildings to make their points, a world where political and religious discourse has elevated to the point where people are killing each other over differences of opinion. I told them the idea isn't to change minds, but to voice opposing opinions without losing respect for one another. Without losing our heads. And to understand each other's side of the story without hatred or condemnation. The class was quiet. They were moved. They got it.
And I'd like to think that lesson will stay with them for the rest of their lives. This stuff can be taught, and it's up to us adults to do it. It's up to parents, teachers, and religious leaders to spread the word to our youth, to tomorrow's future. But most importantly, it's up to our elected leaders, the one's who spend their lives embroiled in this political discourse, to set examples--as leaders for God's sake--for the rest of us to follow. If not, we're only a few more incidents away from Columbia, from Civil War. I, for one, don't have the energy or time to fight one. So, as Gandhi said, "Be the change you want to see in the world" and start setting the example of tolerance...before it's too late.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
You've Come a Long Way Baby
With the holidays and new year on the horizon, along with my thesis semester, I think it's time to look back and reflect. With the spirit of reflection in mind, I now present you with THE TOP TEN THINGS I LEARNED THIS SEMESTER (some of which I already knew).
10) Studying what is marketed as young adult doesn't necessarily tell you what young adults really want. After all, those decisions are made by people who are most definitely NOT young adults. Maybe young retirees.
9) No amount of shocking language, situations, sexuality, or violence precludes a novel from being marketed as young adult. Many young adults gravitate toward this.
8) Young adult books tends to be focused on the life of a teenager in the here and now. Those that look back nostalgically at teen life tend to be marketed toward adults.
7) While certain types of young adult that get reluctant readers to open a book through racy plots or larger font are great, we can't make the mistake of thinking that all young adult readers are reluctant readers. Some like a challenge.
6) Some young adult writers didn't set out to be young adult writers. They wrote. A guy in a suit called it young adult. Bam. Young adult writer.
5) What is marketed as young adult does not necessarily make it what young adults want to read. Once again, adults made these decisions. More accurately, you can't make conclusions about what's interesting to young adults by studying what is marketed to young adults.
4) In fact, you may not be able to judge what is interesting to young adults to read by looking at what they are reading. They were told they wanted to read that by the big, bad adults in expensive suits that told them they liked it by labeling "young adult."
3) You don't set out to be edgy. The story sometimes requires it, and backing down from telling the story as accurately to your vision as possible is wrong. Writing it that way simply to make a statement that you can be edgy is LAME.
2) Less people are offended by "edgy" content than you would think. In fact, in the northeast where I live, most people really aren't offended by much at all. Or at least not to the degree that can cause protest and bloody battles. The issue is that those select few that do give a shit CAN MAKE A LOT OF NOISE!
1) Reading makes you want to write. I read A LOT this semester. Like a freakin' ton. And fast. So, my memory might be a little bit of a blur on some of it, but it certainly makes you want to get on the computer and write write write. I remember as a kid watching football and baseball on TV and just wanting to pick up a ball and go do it. Same thing. Let's roll!
Well, that's it for the semester. I imagine this blog will take on a little different look now that each weekly entry is not mandated by my own syllabus. I'd like to talk about whatever floats my boat, and I probably will. But I like the name, so that will probably stay. Who knows what lies in the future. (Hopefully a nice publishing contract). See 'ya at the res if you're a WestConn student. If not, I probably won't see ya, which is probably for the best.
Tootles!
10) Studying what is marketed as young adult doesn't necessarily tell you what young adults really want. After all, those decisions are made by people who are most definitely NOT young adults. Maybe young retirees.
9) No amount of shocking language, situations, sexuality, or violence precludes a novel from being marketed as young adult. Many young adults gravitate toward this.
8) Young adult books tends to be focused on the life of a teenager in the here and now. Those that look back nostalgically at teen life tend to be marketed toward adults.
7) While certain types of young adult that get reluctant readers to open a book through racy plots or larger font are great, we can't make the mistake of thinking that all young adult readers are reluctant readers. Some like a challenge.
6) Some young adult writers didn't set out to be young adult writers. They wrote. A guy in a suit called it young adult. Bam. Young adult writer.
5) What is marketed as young adult does not necessarily make it what young adults want to read. Once again, adults made these decisions. More accurately, you can't make conclusions about what's interesting to young adults by studying what is marketed to young adults.
4) In fact, you may not be able to judge what is interesting to young adults to read by looking at what they are reading. They were told they wanted to read that by the big, bad adults in expensive suits that told them they liked it by labeling "young adult."
3) You don't set out to be edgy. The story sometimes requires it, and backing down from telling the story as accurately to your vision as possible is wrong. Writing it that way simply to make a statement that you can be edgy is LAME.
2) Less people are offended by "edgy" content than you would think. In fact, in the northeast where I live, most people really aren't offended by much at all. Or at least not to the degree that can cause protest and bloody battles. The issue is that those select few that do give a shit CAN MAKE A LOT OF NOISE!
1) Reading makes you want to write. I read A LOT this semester. Like a freakin' ton. And fast. So, my memory might be a little bit of a blur on some of it, but it certainly makes you want to get on the computer and write write write. I remember as a kid watching football and baseball on TV and just wanting to pick up a ball and go do it. Same thing. Let's roll!
Well, that's it for the semester. I imagine this blog will take on a little different look now that each weekly entry is not mandated by my own syllabus. I'd like to talk about whatever floats my boat, and I probably will. But I like the name, so that will probably stay. Who knows what lies in the future. (Hopefully a nice publishing contract). See 'ya at the res if you're a WestConn student. If not, I probably won't see ya, which is probably for the best.
Tootles!
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Who am I? v2.0
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.
Ralph Waldo Emerson's Self-reliance spells it out for me and gives me permission to take back everything I've said before about edgy material in books. While I've called my writing edgy based on some sales advice and some other internet mumbo-jumbo, that was freakin' lame. As the semester winds down, I still find myself fighting for the right to put and the benefit of putting edgy content in young adult books. That, I proudly proclaim, will never change. Books should not be banned. Kids should read everything--the good, the bad, and the ugly. But I am finally understanding after a semester of digging through the young adult genre and the marketing of said genre that calling yourself edgy is a bit like Emerson running around calling himself The Great Ralph Waldo Emerson. For anyone who rolled their eyes at Michael Jackson dubbing himself "The King of Pop," I apologize.
There was absolutely no intent on my part to include edgy content in my writing as a gimmick. When I've written edgy content in my novels, it was simply because that shit is out there, in the real world, and those are the stories I wanted to tell. The content existed to highlight issues that we all sometimes ignore and conveniently forget about, but that can tell us a lot about ourselves as we try to sort through it and deal with it--however dark it is. Not many kids have to deal with falling in love and lust with their twin sisters, but turning a blind eye to the abuse and guilt that pushed the incestuous couple together doesn't help anyone.
What's more, telling teens they shouldn't read my book simply because it will somehow make them worse off or less of a person to read about a brother groping his sister's breasts is simply insane. I think one of the best things literature does for us--through the concept of a flawed hero--is it makes us, if read with an open mind, more caring and compassionate human beings. Even if they don't identify with Holden Caulfied, maybe students who read and try to understand his plight can then do the same with real classmates having trouble in their lives. Maybe there would be less bullying and the resulting suicides if kids read more. Get them to identify with, or at least cheer on, the kid that's boinking his sister, not so they'll think that's okay (in my novel it is obviously the result of trauma and confusion) so when they run into a confused and abused kid in school they don't think of of him or her simply as a "freak" or "emo" or a "cutter," but rather they try to understand their problems and get the person some help. Or maybe they'll even extend their own helping hands.
I see so many kids talk about not liking this or that person because he or she is different or "weird" or strange in some way. So, being different makes you unlikeable? I know that's not true. I know there are some compassionate teens out there that are open-minded and "cool" enough to try and understand and treat them like humans. We have a Gay-Straight Alliance at my school with over 40 members. Many more show up to the meetings. Yes, there are straight kids that are friends with openly gay students. Sure, there are those that are "grossed out." I choose, however, to believe that those kids probably haven't read enough to identify with and understand people with an open mind. So how is keeping kids away from books about gay boys and girls going to help anything? That's just silly.
So, over the next couple weeks, as a result of my studies this semester, I will be updating my website, this site, and everywhere else I made the ridiculous claim that "William Friskey writes edgy and trendsetting young adult fiction." I feel dirty. Yes, my books may be edgy, and yes, that's great. But to use the term to drum up sales is pretty lame (and hasn't worked). If you've got a problem with that, and can't quite understand me...good. I guess that means I've finally achieved greatness. Thanks Ralph! (But between you and I, I'd lose that "Waldo" part. Most people associate that with a dork that gets lost in crowd, not one that stands out.)
Ralph Waldo Emerson's Self-reliance spells it out for me and gives me permission to take back everything I've said before about edgy material in books. While I've called my writing edgy based on some sales advice and some other internet mumbo-jumbo, that was freakin' lame. As the semester winds down, I still find myself fighting for the right to put and the benefit of putting edgy content in young adult books. That, I proudly proclaim, will never change. Books should not be banned. Kids should read everything--the good, the bad, and the ugly. But I am finally understanding after a semester of digging through the young adult genre and the marketing of said genre that calling yourself edgy is a bit like Emerson running around calling himself The Great Ralph Waldo Emerson. For anyone who rolled their eyes at Michael Jackson dubbing himself "The King of Pop," I apologize.
There was absolutely no intent on my part to include edgy content in my writing as a gimmick. When I've written edgy content in my novels, it was simply because that shit is out there, in the real world, and those are the stories I wanted to tell. The content existed to highlight issues that we all sometimes ignore and conveniently forget about, but that can tell us a lot about ourselves as we try to sort through it and deal with it--however dark it is. Not many kids have to deal with falling in love and lust with their twin sisters, but turning a blind eye to the abuse and guilt that pushed the incestuous couple together doesn't help anyone.
What's more, telling teens they shouldn't read my book simply because it will somehow make them worse off or less of a person to read about a brother groping his sister's breasts is simply insane. I think one of the best things literature does for us--through the concept of a flawed hero--is it makes us, if read with an open mind, more caring and compassionate human beings. Even if they don't identify with Holden Caulfied, maybe students who read and try to understand his plight can then do the same with real classmates having trouble in their lives. Maybe there would be less bullying and the resulting suicides if kids read more. Get them to identify with, or at least cheer on, the kid that's boinking his sister, not so they'll think that's okay (in my novel it is obviously the result of trauma and confusion) so when they run into a confused and abused kid in school they don't think of of him or her simply as a "freak" or "emo" or a "cutter," but rather they try to understand their problems and get the person some help. Or maybe they'll even extend their own helping hands.
I see so many kids talk about not liking this or that person because he or she is different or "weird" or strange in some way. So, being different makes you unlikeable? I know that's not true. I know there are some compassionate teens out there that are open-minded and "cool" enough to try and understand and treat them like humans. We have a Gay-Straight Alliance at my school with over 40 members. Many more show up to the meetings. Yes, there are straight kids that are friends with openly gay students. Sure, there are those that are "grossed out." I choose, however, to believe that those kids probably haven't read enough to identify with and understand people with an open mind. So how is keeping kids away from books about gay boys and girls going to help anything? That's just silly.
So, over the next couple weeks, as a result of my studies this semester, I will be updating my website, this site, and everywhere else I made the ridiculous claim that "William Friskey writes edgy and trendsetting young adult fiction." I feel dirty. Yes, my books may be edgy, and yes, that's great. But to use the term to drum up sales is pretty lame (and hasn't worked). If you've got a problem with that, and can't quite understand me...good. I guess that means I've finally achieved greatness. Thanks Ralph! (But between you and I, I'd lose that "Waldo" part. Most people associate that with a dork that gets lost in crowd, not one that stands out.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)