Why We Need Dark YA

This week I had the privilege to read readings selected by my fellow classmates, and I've got a great roundup. I've got three fairytales, including my own selection: "The Fisherman and His Wife" and "The Duration of Life" from the Brothers Grimm, and "Parrot Land" from The Brazilian Fairy Book. I've also got some great news articles, including: "The Man Who Built Catan" by Adrienne Raphel and run in The New Yorker, "Darkness Too Visible" by Meghan Cox Gurdon and run in the Wall Street Journal, and Sherman Alexie's response to Gurdon, "Why the Best Children's Books are Written in Blood."

I had actually run across and read "Darkness Too Visible" before, and, if my memory serves me correctly, I had even read Sherman Alexie's response. I was glad to have the opportunity to reread them both and am looking forward to discussing them in class tomorrow. In a nutshell, Gurdon argues that current YA literature is a wasteland of murder, rape, and self-mutilation, and that this is a matter for concern. And it's true- some, even much, of YA literature is dark. We've seen lots of dystopian novels in recent years, lots of mental illness and assault and depictions of incredibly poor parenting. Many of the most recent Printz winners engage with really hard topics that, yes, may not be appropriate for all fourteen year olds, which is the early end of the age range that the award covers. (Though it is worth noting that Gurdon places the category of YA literature from ages 12 to 18. Those six years are, in case you did not notice, HUGE in terms of development. In some ways it is unfair to judge YA books geared towards fifteen or sixteen-year-olds on whether or not they are safe or suitable for a twelve-year-old reader.)  On the other hand, there is a lot of really great YA lit that, while engaging with real topics of interest to real teens, doesn't delve into some of the darker themes and issues that Gurdon finds disturbing. This is, to me, why readers advisory is so essential. To quote Ranganathan's Second Law of Library Science, "Every reader his book." And, if I may be so bold as to add an addendum, "To every reader his book...at the right time" Librarians have the privilege of getting to know their readers (and, in the case of children's librarians and some YA librarians, their readers' parents), and can recommend books based on interest and maturity level, including waiting on books that will be perfect for a child a few years down the road. While the ALA has always taken the position that parents, not librarians, are the ultimate arbitrators of what their children read, librarians acting as readers advisors can help families and readers find books that are what  the reader wants and needs to read and that also fit into the rules and values that a family has. Gurdon is right, to a degree, when she says that, "No family is obliged to acquiesce when publishers use the vehicle of fundamental free-expression principles to try to bulldoze coarseness or misery into their children's lives." (Gurdon). Parents are ultimately in charge of what their children read. On the other hand, I do wish that she had talked to someone in the field before publishing her article. I would have loved to introduce her to Hilary McKay, Meg Cabot, Terry Pratchett, and a host of other authors who are writing the kinds of books that she seems to be looking for.

Sherman Alexie offers a nuanced reply to Gurdon's article in "Why the Best Kids Books Are Written in Blood", particularly since Gurdon singled out his YA novel The Absolutely Diary of a Part Time Indian as part of the trend towards dark YA literature. He argues that in many ways, Gurdon's article is really discussing her own discomfort with what some children (and I use the word deliberately, as she does in her article) do actually live through. The Absolutely True Diary of a Part Time Indian is semi-autobiographical; to say that it should not have been published, to say that is it filth, is to say that Alexie should simply be quiet and not speak about how his life has been shaped by the forces of oppression. Gurdon, in labeling books perverse, "[is] simply trying to protect their privileged notions of what literature is and should be. They are trying to protect privileged children. Or the seemingly privileged." (Alexie). And that, to me, is key. It is deceptively easy, and in reality difficult, to know what teens are actually living through. Many teens who are living through hell hold that fact very close to their chests. They need books, some dark, some not as dark, for solace, to know they are not alone, sometimes to see that someone is worse off than they are. And we, as librarians, as teachers, and regrettably, sometimes as parents, don't always know who those teens are. In arguing against the existence of dark YA books, Gurdon closes her eyes to the teens who are living them. Yes, they may not be the books that every family wants their twelve year old reading, but they should be available to teens who need them and want them.

And, I'm sorry fairy tales....I've given you no love in this post. Rest assured however, I know how dark and scary you really are. You want self-mutilation, Gurdon? Take a look at Cinderella.