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!
Saturday, December 11, 2010
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.)
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Dropkicked Your Jacket
What do you do when you have 22 invariably terrible essays on morals in an obscure short story to grade, a paper to write, editing to do on December's center spread, a blog post to think up, revisions on the end of your second novel, and an internship journal to write? Duh! You use Wikipedia and YouTube to research Mr. Belvedere and walk down memory lane. This is an hour and a half of my life that I'll never get back. Sure, I was watching West Virginia lay the smack down on Pitt on behalf of the Huskies at the same time, so I won't consider myself a total loser, but it was procrastination at its best; that's for sure.
What sent me down this road is inconsequential, but what I found was freakin' astonishing. Mr. Belvedere was edgy. In just five seasons, Mr. Belvedere was kidnapped and tortured by an obsessed woman, little Wesley was molested by a Boy Scout leader, Kevin date-raped the supposedly trashy girl at school, and Heather was nearly raped herself (not in the same incident; that would be really edgy!).
Apparently, though I barely remember any of these episodes, these types of shows were so popular in the 80s that they had an industry term for them--very special episodes. These were episodes of family situation comedies that took a break from the silly to highlight a serious issue in society. They were promoted far in advance, and they inevitably brought about controversy. There were racy episodes of almost every 80s situation comedy you could think of. We're talking fairly tame--Punky Brewster's friend getting locked in an abandoned refrigerator--to Alex P. Keaton using speed to help him stay up and study. Did Alf ever have to go to rehab? You can see a top ten of these very special episodes here:
http://tvmunchies.com/2009/10/19/13-most-ridiculous-very-special-episodes/
While these kinds of episodes, and the lessons they taught, were cutting-edge in the 80s, they are basically nowhere to be found on today's televisions. Wait, that's because we don't have family television anywhere on TV today! Let's sit down as a family and watch CSI or The Good Wife. Yeah, right! Basically, if you want something you can sit down and watch with your children, you need to flip to Disney Channel and watch Hannah Montana or The Wizards of Waverly Place. (Phinneas and Ferb happen to by my favorites!)
Do you think we'll ever see edgy Disney programming like Hannah Montana's abortion episode or Alex on The Wizards of Waverly Place gets drunk and loses her virginity to a vampire/ware wolf hybrid on Halloween? Um...no. Not gonna happen. We even had awesome PSAs that really meant something back in the 80s. Who can forget "this is your brain on drugs?" Classic. Today, if kids want to learn the harsh realities of life and how to deal with situations like your British housekeeper helping you through being molested by a camp counselor, where do they turn?
I imagine if a show like Family Ties or Rosanne existed today, we'd be seeing huffing and cutting episodes--very special ones--all over the place or didactic shows exposing the ills of "the pass out game" or internet predators. What strikes me, though, is that as corny as some of this might sound, I think they really did help. I grew up aware that these things could happen, knew to look out for them, and somehow felt like even if I was going to do something stupid, I at least new it was stupid and could take precautions and know if it got out of hand. Today's kids have nothing.
Some argue that these things are so out there in the media today that they don't need to be educated. Kids know this stuff is going on, and they don't need anyone to show them. Well, maybe so. But it doesn't mean they don't need someone to guide them through it. I have so many students that have deadbeat parents or just no real relationship with their parents, that they could use a Mr. Belvedere or a Heathcliff Huxtable to help them through the confusing times in life. Today, they have Google and their friend Terry that masturbates stray cats for fun to help them understand the complexities of moral America.
Part of the issue is the entertainment industry in general, or at least the way kids choose to get their entertainment today. Video games. Internet. They don't sit and watch TV that much anymore anyway. If there were shows like Growing Pains today--which did an episode on eating disorders--there would be no kids that wanted to sit and watch them. I guess the parents could make them from a young age, but I don't know if that would happen. Ah...how I long for the days when life was simple. When child molestation, date rape, drug use, eating disorders, masturbation, teen drinking, abortion, suicide, and drunk driving could all be solved in a 60 minutes very special episode where families were shocked together, cried together, and then talked about it afterward. Good touch and bad touch were as simple as good TV.
Is this the niche that the edgier young adult fiction is filling? I don't know. I don't know that a ton of kids are reading this type of book and sitting down and discussing the issues with their parents. The reality of the novels also make it hard to have that cheesy moment at the end where we all learn our lesson, where Dr. Seaver makes a difference. Not to mention, I'm sure those 80s sitcoms had better ratings.
What sent me down this road is inconsequential, but what I found was freakin' astonishing. Mr. Belvedere was edgy. In just five seasons, Mr. Belvedere was kidnapped and tortured by an obsessed woman, little Wesley was molested by a Boy Scout leader, Kevin date-raped the supposedly trashy girl at school, and Heather was nearly raped herself (not in the same incident; that would be really edgy!).
Apparently, though I barely remember any of these episodes, these types of shows were so popular in the 80s that they had an industry term for them--very special episodes. These were episodes of family situation comedies that took a break from the silly to highlight a serious issue in society. They were promoted far in advance, and they inevitably brought about controversy. There were racy episodes of almost every 80s situation comedy you could think of. We're talking fairly tame--Punky Brewster's friend getting locked in an abandoned refrigerator--to Alex P. Keaton using speed to help him stay up and study. Did Alf ever have to go to rehab? You can see a top ten of these very special episodes here:
http://tvmunchies.com/2009/10/19/13-most-ridiculous-very-special-episodes/
While these kinds of episodes, and the lessons they taught, were cutting-edge in the 80s, they are basically nowhere to be found on today's televisions. Wait, that's because we don't have family television anywhere on TV today! Let's sit down as a family and watch CSI or The Good Wife. Yeah, right! Basically, if you want something you can sit down and watch with your children, you need to flip to Disney Channel and watch Hannah Montana or The Wizards of Waverly Place. (Phinneas and Ferb happen to by my favorites!)
Do you think we'll ever see edgy Disney programming like Hannah Montana's abortion episode or Alex on The Wizards of Waverly Place gets drunk and loses her virginity to a vampire/ware wolf hybrid on Halloween? Um...no. Not gonna happen. We even had awesome PSAs that really meant something back in the 80s. Who can forget "this is your brain on drugs?" Classic. Today, if kids want to learn the harsh realities of life and how to deal with situations like your British housekeeper helping you through being molested by a camp counselor, where do they turn?
I imagine if a show like Family Ties or Rosanne existed today, we'd be seeing huffing and cutting episodes--very special ones--all over the place or didactic shows exposing the ills of "the pass out game" or internet predators. What strikes me, though, is that as corny as some of this might sound, I think they really did help. I grew up aware that these things could happen, knew to look out for them, and somehow felt like even if I was going to do something stupid, I at least new it was stupid and could take precautions and know if it got out of hand. Today's kids have nothing.
Some argue that these things are so out there in the media today that they don't need to be educated. Kids know this stuff is going on, and they don't need anyone to show them. Well, maybe so. But it doesn't mean they don't need someone to guide them through it. I have so many students that have deadbeat parents or just no real relationship with their parents, that they could use a Mr. Belvedere or a Heathcliff Huxtable to help them through the confusing times in life. Today, they have Google and their friend Terry that masturbates stray cats for fun to help them understand the complexities of moral America.
Part of the issue is the entertainment industry in general, or at least the way kids choose to get their entertainment today. Video games. Internet. They don't sit and watch TV that much anymore anyway. If there were shows like Growing Pains today--which did an episode on eating disorders--there would be no kids that wanted to sit and watch them. I guess the parents could make them from a young age, but I don't know if that would happen. Ah...how I long for the days when life was simple. When child molestation, date rape, drug use, eating disorders, masturbation, teen drinking, abortion, suicide, and drunk driving could all be solved in a 60 minutes very special episode where families were shocked together, cried together, and then talked about it afterward. Good touch and bad touch were as simple as good TV.
Is this the niche that the edgier young adult fiction is filling? I don't know. I don't know that a ton of kids are reading this type of book and sitting down and discussing the issues with their parents. The reality of the novels also make it hard to have that cheesy moment at the end where we all learn our lesson, where Dr. Seaver makes a difference. Not to mention, I'm sure those 80s sitcoms had better ratings.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Kids Say the Darndest Things
Teens talk funny. They say things like "yer" to mean "I agree wholeheartedly" and "sketchy" to mean "suspicious and possible a rapist." Now, while every generation has it's own lingo, and spending so much time with teens has led to me adopting plenty of these speech patterns, there are a few things that they say, along with some adults, that some feel are extremely, even if accidentally, offensive. Those are "gay," "fag," and "retard."
We'll attack "retard" first. It's almost universally accepted that when someone says you are a retard or are retarded that it has nothing to do with an actual mental disability. It simply means you're being dumb, doing something stupid, or both. Everyone knows this, yet some are still offended by it. I, personally, am not offended, but I realize why some would be--especially those with family or friends with mental disabilities. They're used to people making fun of their loved ones by using these words. I'm torn on the subject. The technical terminology has been changed to several more PC terms like "mentally challenged," "mentally disabled," and even "exceptional." So retard is almost always NOT a direct attack on the mentally challenged. Times have changed. Maybe it's as acceptable as stupid, dumb, or idiot. You can't constantly worry about who you are offending, and it's become so much a part of our daily verbal ejaculations that it's hard to yell at every kid that says "retard." But, I do worry that I might be wrong, and if that's the case, I apologize.
Next comes "gay." Gay almost never means homosexual in today's teenage lexicon. It just means lame or boring or sometimes too feminine. Now, while we do not refer to the mentally challenge as mentally retarded anymore, we do still call homosexuals "gays." In fact, most homosexuals I know refer to themselves as gay. So, in my opinion, there is a difference here. I have to admit, I've let a "gay" slip here and there. I was an insensitive teenager once upon a time, and it's hard not to just let old habits slide. But I've come to be annoyed by those who use the term "gay" a bit. I understand they don't mean it, in most cases, as a slight to homosexuals. They simply don't think at all. I will, from time to time, let them know that they should say what they mean and mean what they say, but I will forgive the transgression from time to time. I'm a very forgiving person.
Finally, we come to "Faggot." Faggot was never an acceptable term for homosexuals--it has always been an insult. Sometimes teens use it as an insult for a friend jokingly having nothing to do with homosexuality, but usually it is a sign of homophobia. Even when not used on a gay or lesbian individual, it is a way of saying "you're just as bad as those foggots who I hate for being gay." There's historical context for it, too. It originally came from burning mass quantities of homosexuals to death for being different. Some students joke, "What? It's just a bundle of sticks for burning. That's what it says in the dictionary." Then I follow up with "Do you know why that term became used by some to homosexuals?" And, of course, they don't. I liken "faggot" to "nigger" in that the words just conjure up feelings of violent hatred and a history of murder, torture, and pain. They are ways to dehumanize. They create victims. I don't say it. I don't like others saying it.
This is an issue for me because I am so anti-censorship it hurts. Also, fear of a word only increases it's power. There are those that say we should overuse the words in order to "take them back" and lesson their impact on society. I'm not so sure. But, as usual, I can see both points. I don't know.
I was teaching Kohlberg's stages of moral reasoning to my students in order to use them to judge characters, something I do every semester because I find it fascinating and it helps students to find sympathy for characters who may not always be perfect. Kohlberg's point was that morality isn't embedded in an act but rather the reasoning behind the act. It's not what you do but why you do it. So, if I truly believe that, which I think I do, I would have to say that using those words, any of them, in itself is not immoral. It's the way they're being used and why they're being used that matters. That, of course, would force us to judge every time we heard those words why they were being used. So, maybe I'm being retarded or gay, maybe I'm a big faggot or even a pussy, but if you have another word you can use instead, why not chose that word and avoid the whole damn controversy in the first place?
That being said, however, we have to be careful when it comes to these words being used in literature. Even if you believe using these words makes a kid the Antichrist, you can't deny that some do talk like this. Some talk like this constantly. So when characters in a work of literature use them, let's not attribute them to the author. We can't confuse the ideas and thoughts of characters with the author. Somebody wrote the Saw series of movies. Is he a serial killer? (Maybe subconsciously if we want to get into Freud and all that.) What about Mark Twain? Was he a racist for using the word "nigger" 2.7 billion times in his writing? Some think so. They are dumb. So if a character drops a few "retards" and "fags," let's not crucify the author. It's a short jump from making that mistake to total censorship.
Down with the man.
We'll attack "retard" first. It's almost universally accepted that when someone says you are a retard or are retarded that it has nothing to do with an actual mental disability. It simply means you're being dumb, doing something stupid, or both. Everyone knows this, yet some are still offended by it. I, personally, am not offended, but I realize why some would be--especially those with family or friends with mental disabilities. They're used to people making fun of their loved ones by using these words. I'm torn on the subject. The technical terminology has been changed to several more PC terms like "mentally challenged," "mentally disabled," and even "exceptional." So retard is almost always NOT a direct attack on the mentally challenged. Times have changed. Maybe it's as acceptable as stupid, dumb, or idiot. You can't constantly worry about who you are offending, and it's become so much a part of our daily verbal ejaculations that it's hard to yell at every kid that says "retard." But, I do worry that I might be wrong, and if that's the case, I apologize.
Next comes "gay." Gay almost never means homosexual in today's teenage lexicon. It just means lame or boring or sometimes too feminine. Now, while we do not refer to the mentally challenge as mentally retarded anymore, we do still call homosexuals "gays." In fact, most homosexuals I know refer to themselves as gay. So, in my opinion, there is a difference here. I have to admit, I've let a "gay" slip here and there. I was an insensitive teenager once upon a time, and it's hard not to just let old habits slide. But I've come to be annoyed by those who use the term "gay" a bit. I understand they don't mean it, in most cases, as a slight to homosexuals. They simply don't think at all. I will, from time to time, let them know that they should say what they mean and mean what they say, but I will forgive the transgression from time to time. I'm a very forgiving person.
Finally, we come to "Faggot." Faggot was never an acceptable term for homosexuals--it has always been an insult. Sometimes teens use it as an insult for a friend jokingly having nothing to do with homosexuality, but usually it is a sign of homophobia. Even when not used on a gay or lesbian individual, it is a way of saying "you're just as bad as those foggots who I hate for being gay." There's historical context for it, too. It originally came from burning mass quantities of homosexuals to death for being different. Some students joke, "What? It's just a bundle of sticks for burning. That's what it says in the dictionary." Then I follow up with "Do you know why that term became used by some to homosexuals?" And, of course, they don't. I liken "faggot" to "nigger" in that the words just conjure up feelings of violent hatred and a history of murder, torture, and pain. They are ways to dehumanize. They create victims. I don't say it. I don't like others saying it.
This is an issue for me because I am so anti-censorship it hurts. Also, fear of a word only increases it's power. There are those that say we should overuse the words in order to "take them back" and lesson their impact on society. I'm not so sure. But, as usual, I can see both points. I don't know.
I was teaching Kohlberg's stages of moral reasoning to my students in order to use them to judge characters, something I do every semester because I find it fascinating and it helps students to find sympathy for characters who may not always be perfect. Kohlberg's point was that morality isn't embedded in an act but rather the reasoning behind the act. It's not what you do but why you do it. So, if I truly believe that, which I think I do, I would have to say that using those words, any of them, in itself is not immoral. It's the way they're being used and why they're being used that matters. That, of course, would force us to judge every time we heard those words why they were being used. So, maybe I'm being retarded or gay, maybe I'm a big faggot or even a pussy, but if you have another word you can use instead, why not chose that word and avoid the whole damn controversy in the first place?
That being said, however, we have to be careful when it comes to these words being used in literature. Even if you believe using these words makes a kid the Antichrist, you can't deny that some do talk like this. Some talk like this constantly. So when characters in a work of literature use them, let's not attribute them to the author. We can't confuse the ideas and thoughts of characters with the author. Somebody wrote the Saw series of movies. Is he a serial killer? (Maybe subconsciously if we want to get into Freud and all that.) What about Mark Twain? Was he a racist for using the word "nigger" 2.7 billion times in his writing? Some think so. They are dumb. So if a character drops a few "retards" and "fags," let's not crucify the author. It's a short jump from making that mistake to total censorship.
Down with the man.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Cutting the Cutting
What a mess we human beings are.
I just finished reading the book Cut for my Individual Aesthetic and Process class, and I began thinking about what I've been writing recently. I've finished one novel and the first draft and some light revisions of a second, and one thing that keeps coming up is self-harm (or self-mutilation).
"Self-mutilation" has sort of gone out of vogue because it becomes confusing if you're talking about things like tattooing or piercing or actual, harmful mutilation. So, we'll call it self-harm. I'm not an expert by any means, but I have a little experience from my own past that I could share. I also have some experience with it due to issues I've discussed with students, and I also did some quick research in conjunction with teaching The Catcher in the Rye where some might see Holden as involved in cathartic self-harm. He get's himself beat up twice when he could easily have stopped the abuse, punches out windows of his garage, and admits his favorite person in The Bible is the "lunatic" that sits alone in a cave cutting himself with rocks.
What I've learned is that most of what we think about "cutters" is false. There are some shocking facts out there.
1) All cutters are not Marilyn Manson listening, black leather wearing creatures of the night. In fact, there's cases of teens from all walks of life participating in self-harm. And it's not always cutting. Some use hot water, some punch walls, some poke themselves with pins or flick themselves in sensitive areas with rubber bands. Some bite themselves. Some rub at their flesh with all kinds of objects that cause pain. All teens are going through the toughest time of their lives, and all teens have problems that are important to them (even if they seem shallow to us). Princess Diana was a cutter. Google celebrities that have come out as cutters; you'll be surprised. The research when I checked, three years ago, was something like a third of all college students have participated in some type of self-harm at some time in their lives. That's a lot.
2) Cutters are not looking for attention. On the contrary, most are extremely ashamed of their habit, their compulsion. They WANT to stop. They just can't. Some people can't stop drinking, some smoking, some doing drugs, some eating, some having sex. Well, cutters can't stop cutting. The most common of the two big reasons is a sense of anxiety and stress that can only be temporarily relieved through pain. It's a release, endorphins and all that, and momentarily all that crap that's freaking them out goes away. The only problem is, the self-hatred from the cutting leads to more of those anxious feelings, more of that confusion and worry, and the the need to cut more. The other reason is dissociative feelings. The feeling that you don't exist. The feeling that you can't feel. These cutters feel they are so far removed from reality, that it's going on around them and they aren't included, that they cut themselves subconsciously (or sometimes consciously) just to feel that they are real. They're so dissociated that a pinch isn't enough. Either way, the last thing these people want is attention. They hide the scars. They put them in hidden places--upper thigh is popular. They make up excuses when they can be seen. "I run into a lot of doors" is one I've heard.
3) Self-harm is not harmless. Those committing self-harm are not suicidal (at least not most of the time). But it doesn't mean that if you find out a friend is doing this, you should just let it go and be happy they aren't doing any "permanent damage." What might be more harmful if untreated than the symptom of self-harm, is the condition causing it. The feelings that lead one to self-harm could be some severe psychological issues and disorders. Sometimes we forget that our psychological health can be as important to us as our physical health. They are, in some ways, interconnected. You should be just as worried about your friend's mental health as his or her physical health. And accidents can happen. When someone is routinely doing something like this to his or herself, chances are, eventually it will go too far. They need someone to talk to. They may need medication. But most of all, they need to stop the compulsion.
When I was 17, I remember a few straight days of just lying in bed all day listening to mixed tapes, wondering what the point was. I was madly in love with one of my best friends who had no idea, or if she did, she was happy pretending she didn't so she wouldn't have to hurt me. She wasn't interested. I was like a brother. My other friends seemed to lead such exciting, happy lives. I just lay in bed wondering why I wasn't part of it. While feeling particularly dissociative, I remembered reading about Marilyn Manson and his cutting. Remembered seeing the lattice work of scars across his chest when I saw him live in concert. Remembered him breaking a wine bottle on stage after taking a swig, and drawing it across his ribs, letting the blood leak out. I read about how it was such a release and how Princess Diana did it, too. I went into the junk drawer, grabbed a box cutter, and went at the back of my calf where I had a scar from something else in childhood. Nobody would notice. I started to drag the blade across the muscle, wondering if it would actually help.
The blood came out in gobs. I never expected so much. I'd barely done anything. It wasn't even that deep. The cut was less than a half inch long. But it bled. It bled a lot. Doogie, my miniature poodle who was wallowing in my depression with me, pounced on the floor and began licking it up. Apparently, I tasted pretty good. A roll of paper towels, a Band Aid, and a quick doggie snack later, I sat on the bed laughing at myself. What a scene. I couldn't even mutilate myself correctly. But I would never do that again.
From then on, I did find solace in hurting myself from time to time--but I limited it to punching myself really hard in the legs, leaving pretty harsh bruises. I can talk about it now--no problem. I know why I did what I did, and I know it wasn't a smart way to deal with my issues. I also know that I wish I had someone, something to make me not feel so alone. I wish I had Cut to read, or one of my own novels.
This was only a couple months, if that, of my life. The "cutting" was just one stupid kid experiment, and I never then or now considered myself a "cutter." But I will never judge or stereotype teens who participates in this behavior. They need help. They need to talk. And we should all try to understand and help the right way, not by ridiculing or dismissing it as "teenage angst."
The end. Go Patricia McCormick.
I just finished reading the book Cut for my Individual Aesthetic and Process class, and I began thinking about what I've been writing recently. I've finished one novel and the first draft and some light revisions of a second, and one thing that keeps coming up is self-harm (or self-mutilation).
"Self-mutilation" has sort of gone out of vogue because it becomes confusing if you're talking about things like tattooing or piercing or actual, harmful mutilation. So, we'll call it self-harm. I'm not an expert by any means, but I have a little experience from my own past that I could share. I also have some experience with it due to issues I've discussed with students, and I also did some quick research in conjunction with teaching The Catcher in the Rye where some might see Holden as involved in cathartic self-harm. He get's himself beat up twice when he could easily have stopped the abuse, punches out windows of his garage, and admits his favorite person in The Bible is the "lunatic" that sits alone in a cave cutting himself with rocks.
What I've learned is that most of what we think about "cutters" is false. There are some shocking facts out there.
1) All cutters are not Marilyn Manson listening, black leather wearing creatures of the night. In fact, there's cases of teens from all walks of life participating in self-harm. And it's not always cutting. Some use hot water, some punch walls, some poke themselves with pins or flick themselves in sensitive areas with rubber bands. Some bite themselves. Some rub at their flesh with all kinds of objects that cause pain. All teens are going through the toughest time of their lives, and all teens have problems that are important to them (even if they seem shallow to us). Princess Diana was a cutter. Google celebrities that have come out as cutters; you'll be surprised. The research when I checked, three years ago, was something like a third of all college students have participated in some type of self-harm at some time in their lives. That's a lot.
2) Cutters are not looking for attention. On the contrary, most are extremely ashamed of their habit, their compulsion. They WANT to stop. They just can't. Some people can't stop drinking, some smoking, some doing drugs, some eating, some having sex. Well, cutters can't stop cutting. The most common of the two big reasons is a sense of anxiety and stress that can only be temporarily relieved through pain. It's a release, endorphins and all that, and momentarily all that crap that's freaking them out goes away. The only problem is, the self-hatred from the cutting leads to more of those anxious feelings, more of that confusion and worry, and the the need to cut more. The other reason is dissociative feelings. The feeling that you don't exist. The feeling that you can't feel. These cutters feel they are so far removed from reality, that it's going on around them and they aren't included, that they cut themselves subconsciously (or sometimes consciously) just to feel that they are real. They're so dissociated that a pinch isn't enough. Either way, the last thing these people want is attention. They hide the scars. They put them in hidden places--upper thigh is popular. They make up excuses when they can be seen. "I run into a lot of doors" is one I've heard.
3) Self-harm is not harmless. Those committing self-harm are not suicidal (at least not most of the time). But it doesn't mean that if you find out a friend is doing this, you should just let it go and be happy they aren't doing any "permanent damage." What might be more harmful if untreated than the symptom of self-harm, is the condition causing it. The feelings that lead one to self-harm could be some severe psychological issues and disorders. Sometimes we forget that our psychological health can be as important to us as our physical health. They are, in some ways, interconnected. You should be just as worried about your friend's mental health as his or her physical health. And accidents can happen. When someone is routinely doing something like this to his or herself, chances are, eventually it will go too far. They need someone to talk to. They may need medication. But most of all, they need to stop the compulsion.
When I was 17, I remember a few straight days of just lying in bed all day listening to mixed tapes, wondering what the point was. I was madly in love with one of my best friends who had no idea, or if she did, she was happy pretending she didn't so she wouldn't have to hurt me. She wasn't interested. I was like a brother. My other friends seemed to lead such exciting, happy lives. I just lay in bed wondering why I wasn't part of it. While feeling particularly dissociative, I remembered reading about Marilyn Manson and his cutting. Remembered seeing the lattice work of scars across his chest when I saw him live in concert. Remembered him breaking a wine bottle on stage after taking a swig, and drawing it across his ribs, letting the blood leak out. I read about how it was such a release and how Princess Diana did it, too. I went into the junk drawer, grabbed a box cutter, and went at the back of my calf where I had a scar from something else in childhood. Nobody would notice. I started to drag the blade across the muscle, wondering if it would actually help.
The blood came out in gobs. I never expected so much. I'd barely done anything. It wasn't even that deep. The cut was less than a half inch long. But it bled. It bled a lot. Doogie, my miniature poodle who was wallowing in my depression with me, pounced on the floor and began licking it up. Apparently, I tasted pretty good. A roll of paper towels, a Band Aid, and a quick doggie snack later, I sat on the bed laughing at myself. What a scene. I couldn't even mutilate myself correctly. But I would never do that again.
From then on, I did find solace in hurting myself from time to time--but I limited it to punching myself really hard in the legs, leaving pretty harsh bruises. I can talk about it now--no problem. I know why I did what I did, and I know it wasn't a smart way to deal with my issues. I also know that I wish I had someone, something to make me not feel so alone. I wish I had Cut to read, or one of my own novels.
This was only a couple months, if that, of my life. The "cutting" was just one stupid kid experiment, and I never then or now considered myself a "cutter." But I will never judge or stereotype teens who participates in this behavior. They need help. They need to talk. And we should all try to understand and help the right way, not by ridiculing or dismissing it as "teenage angst."
The end. Go Patricia McCormick.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)