I feel like I have a different perspective on Larbalestier's post although I agree that the "write your own book" thing is silly and derailing.
There is a long tradition in YA of novels that are written with therapeutic and/or informational intent. This is what it's like to have anorexia, and this is what you should do about it. This is what it's like to be a victim of child abuse, and this is what you should do about it.
Usually those books don't work as art, and don't work as therapy. (They work, to an extent, as information sources; but kids are more likely to turn to the internet). They are too glib about the emotions involved; they feel paternalistic and condescending; they're concerned far more with hot-button social issues than real nuance and depth. (I'm thinking particularly about one book about the dangers of cyberbullying written by an author who, by his own admission, could barely use his own computer.)
My own experience is that when writers treat young adults as people who need to be treated a certain way because of their youth, the books they write do a disservice to young people. And when writers treat young adults as people very much like themselves, who are less experienced and less apt to pick up on subtext but smart and thoughtful and capable of handling some very complicated stuff, the books they write respect the audience's developmental level.
I think Larbalestier is being a bit disingenuous to say that she doesn't feel a duty of care. But at the same time, I approach all the writing I do with a sense that I have a duty of care -- I want to approach readers, whether teenage or adult, with nuance and respect and hope. But the books that are written from a position of "I know how things are, I know how you should feel, I know what the right thing to do is" -- those are bad books, and far too common in YA, and they're written by the people who see themselves as having a duty of care.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-08-19 09:22 pm (UTC)There is a long tradition in YA of novels that are written with therapeutic and/or informational intent. This is what it's like to have anorexia, and this is what you should do about it. This is what it's like to be a victim of child abuse, and this is what you should do about it.
Usually those books don't work as art, and don't work as therapy. (They work, to an extent, as information sources; but kids are more likely to turn to the internet). They are too glib about the emotions involved; they feel paternalistic and condescending; they're concerned far more with hot-button social issues than real nuance and depth. (I'm thinking particularly about one book about the dangers of cyberbullying written by an author who, by his own admission, could barely use his own computer.)
My own experience is that when writers treat young adults as people who need to be treated a certain way because of their youth, the books they write do a disservice to young people. And when writers treat young adults as people very much like themselves, who are less experienced and less apt to pick up on subtext but smart and thoughtful and capable of handling some very complicated stuff, the books they write respect the audience's developmental level.
I think Larbalestier is being a bit disingenuous to say that she doesn't feel a duty of care. But at the same time, I approach all the writing I do with a sense that I have a duty of care -- I want to approach readers, whether teenage or adult, with nuance and respect and hope. But the books that are written from a position of "I know how things are, I know how you should feel, I know what the right thing to do is" -- those are bad books, and far too common in YA, and they're written by the people who see themselves as having a duty of care.