![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
This weeks class reading was William Sleator's House of Stairs and Robert Cormier's The Chocolate War. Oooohh, these books got me riled. At first I wondered how schools, which work so hard to get kids to obey authority and do as they're told, could assign books to teens which so advocate the morality of resisting authority. But then I thought more about it. In both of these books, there is an implicit message that resistance is futile. Though the reader roots for the kids in one to resist their operant conditioning, and the kid in the other to hold out against the secret society bullies of the Vigil, in the end both sets of resisters give in. It's just that by the time they give in, they're so close to death that the authorities don't realize they've given up.
Though they seem like books about resisting authority and following your own moral vision, these books actually teach that this resistance will lead to starvation and horrible beatings. And that in the face of all that pain, even strong people will crack and decide to do what they're told.
I called my mom, who was a teen in the early seventies, to ask her about this. She says that a) teachers really were much more countercultural in the early seventies, and really did want kids to question authority in a much more serious way than they do now, and b) there was a movement then in literature to eschew happy endings, to show the suckiness of the world and its real effects.
So that made more sense (thanks, Mom!) but I'm still on record as disliking both of these books. No matter which moral they're aiming for (resist! , give in!) their message is muddied. I feel that moral books should have that old fashioned fairy tale quality: bad is punished, good is rewarded, the moral structure of society is cleansed/repaired/upheld.
Maybe that's why I like fantasy so much. And romance novels. I'll take the deus ex machina ending if that's what's required. Not fussy. I like my literature prettier and more meaningful than real life, not uglier and more confused.
And as usual, I seem to have started a fight over young adult lit (though at least not in my young adult lit class! Thank god, I took it to my collection development class, though there's some crossover). I seem to have very unpopular views. I don't mean to be contrary. I can only draw on the knowledge I've gained from tutoring and working with different teens. Maybe working with the smart/struggling/having-trouble-adjusting groups has skewed my perception of what teens want to read, but it seems to me that current and outsider-feeling are big big factors of importance, and any book thirty years old or recommended by an adult already comes loaded down with some negative points in the reading competition for teens.
Of course, as a teenager I read mostly horror comics like Hellblazer, Anne Rice, fantasy novels, classic ballads, the occasional Milan Kundera or Herman Hesse. All my friends read strange things. Maybe the bulk of teen readers do want to read stuff recommended by their parents and teachers. When I was actually a teenager any book I saw in the classroom, I tried to avoid reading. I was convinced if my teachers liked it, I wouldn't. Maybe everyone else isn't that contrary. I dunno.
Though they seem like books about resisting authority and following your own moral vision, these books actually teach that this resistance will lead to starvation and horrible beatings. And that in the face of all that pain, even strong people will crack and decide to do what they're told.
I called my mom, who was a teen in the early seventies, to ask her about this. She says that a) teachers really were much more countercultural in the early seventies, and really did want kids to question authority in a much more serious way than they do now, and b) there was a movement then in literature to eschew happy endings, to show the suckiness of the world and its real effects.
So that made more sense (thanks, Mom!) but I'm still on record as disliking both of these books. No matter which moral they're aiming for (resist! , give in!) their message is muddied. I feel that moral books should have that old fashioned fairy tale quality: bad is punished, good is rewarded, the moral structure of society is cleansed/repaired/upheld.
Maybe that's why I like fantasy so much. And romance novels. I'll take the deus ex machina ending if that's what's required. Not fussy. I like my literature prettier and more meaningful than real life, not uglier and more confused.
And as usual, I seem to have started a fight over young adult lit (though at least not in my young adult lit class! Thank god, I took it to my collection development class, though there's some crossover). I seem to have very unpopular views. I don't mean to be contrary. I can only draw on the knowledge I've gained from tutoring and working with different teens. Maybe working with the smart/struggling/having-trouble-adjusting groups has skewed my perception of what teens want to read, but it seems to me that current and outsider-feeling are big big factors of importance, and any book thirty years old or recommended by an adult already comes loaded down with some negative points in the reading competition for teens.
Of course, as a teenager I read mostly horror comics like Hellblazer, Anne Rice, fantasy novels, classic ballads, the occasional Milan Kundera or Herman Hesse. All my friends read strange things. Maybe the bulk of teen readers do want to read stuff recommended by their parents and teachers. When I was actually a teenager any book I saw in the classroom, I tried to avoid reading. I was convinced if my teachers liked it, I wouldn't. Maybe everyone else isn't that contrary. I dunno.
