BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Paris Hilton's lifestyle seems to have infected young adult literature

 
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
gridley
20:16 / 15.03.06
There's a very interesting article in the NYT book review section by Naomi Wolf. It concerns an avalanche of current young adult books that feature fairly unrepentant teen sex, drug use, petty cruelty, and consumerism.

I read it with great interest partially because I recently purchased one of these books for my twelve-year-old niece (at her request) and was stereotypically alarmed when I happened to flip through it on the subway ride home to wrap it up. I was used to seeing sex in Judy Blume and Francesca Lia Block books, but this wasn't sensitive and meaningful or poetic sex. It was cold, transactional, and explicit. And despite my own consumption of trashy novels, tv, and movies, I was disturbed.

On the other hand, my niece is not a big reader, despite my best attempts, and for her to actually request a book had caused more than a little rejoicing on my part (I've been giving her books to read for ages, almost all ending up unread). I ended up calling her mom and discussing it with her. She said it didn't sounds any worse than what she herself was reading at that age (in adult romance novels), so approved it as a gift. So I did and nothing more was said about it.

Except that from time to time, I have felt guilty, like I had been an enabler of a lifestyle that I probably should have been protecting her from.

It certainly didn't feel any better when I read this in Naomi Wolf's article:

'Unfortunately for girls, these novels reproduce the dilemma they experience all the time: they are expected to compete with pornography, but can still be labeled sluts.'

It's certainly valid to write about the things your audience are currently experiencing, but damn it if I'm not old fashioned enough to expect there to be some morale at the end or at least some recognition that the world doesn't have to be way it is.

And it doesn't end there:

'while the tacky sex scenes in them are annoying, they aren't really the problem. The problem is a value system in which meanness rules, parents check out, conformity is everything and stressed-out adult values are presumed to be meaningful to teenagers.... In the world of the "A-List" or "Clique" girl, inverting Austen (and Alcott), the rich are right and good simply by virtue of their wealth. Seventh graders have Palm Pilots, red Coach clutches, Visas and cellphones in Prada messenger bags. Success and failure are entirely signaled by material possessions — specifically, by brands. You know the new girl in the "Clique" novel "Best Friends for Never" is living in social limbo when she shops at J. Crew and wears Keds, and her mother drives a dreaded Taurus rather than a Lexus."'


I have to keep telling myself that it's hysterical to think that some short, slick, breezey novel is going to program anyone to be something they aren't, but on the other hand I've been profoundly changed by a handfull of books in my time.

Have any of the rest of you seen these books? Or know teenagers that read them? Any opinions? Am I officially an old man now? (Great, now all I can think about is how last summer I told some kids to stop sitting on the steps of my house.)

I'll leave the last word in my post to Naomi Wolf who is far more eloquent than I...

'It's sad if the point of reading for many girls now is no longer to take the adult world apart but to squeeze into it all the more compliantly.'
 
 
matthew.
01:58 / 16.03.06
I liked the article. I thought it was interesting and Wolf makes a reasonable complaint. Unfortunately, I find that I have nothing to add to her argument. Nor can I think of anything to say against her.

To sum up my position, dust off your New Jersey accent and say: "Ehhhhhhhhhhhh, what're you gonna do?"
 
 
Baobab Branches and Plastic
08:29 / 16.03.06
I recently went to dinner party and while picking up a bottle in an offlicence (booze shop)... decided for a laugh to buy a magazine aimed at six year girls as a joke present for the hostess. It had sparkley stickers and a silver lipstick on the front - and at £1.50, bargain!

We all had a laugh about it... but actually reading the content of the magazine I was pretty saddened by what it was saying to young girls (aimed at 6-8 year olds).

From the slightly amusing:
'Achieving your goals this season'

to the more problematic:
'A New Look for Spring and a New You'

Why does 6-8 year need a 'new look' let alone a 'new self'?

Perhaps I'm failing to recognise the problems faced by preteens or maybe this just another example of how children are indocrinated into the ethos of possessive individualism at increasingly early ages?

Arguably children should be brought up to think of themselves other than in terms of their purchasing capability... but then in the world we live in perhaps creating savvy consumers that are hip to where the most social capital lies is creating success?

I found the whole thing really depressing especially when a day earlier I was pretty chuffed at my new Prada shoes.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
09:03 / 16.03.06
Oh Lordy, another moral panic!

Nowhere in that article does Naomi Wolf make a convincing case that these books present these things "unrepentantly" or without moral complications. This thread then makes one leap further, with popular bette noir Paris Hilton being invoked in this thread's title for reasons that are unclear to me except for the obvious reason, which is that Paris Hilton has to be invoked when one is having a moral panic about Young Women Today and how they might be materialistic, hedonistic, and worst of all sexual, in sharp contrast to the person having the moral panic, who is never any of those things, except in all the ways in which they are but that's okay because it's different and therefore good.

I was used to seeing sex in Judy Blume and Francesca Lia Block books, but this wasn't sensitive and meaningful or poetic sex. It was cold, transactional, and explicit. And despite my own consumption of trashy novels, tv, and movies, I was disturbed.

Because you can handle the trashy stuff, but your niece might be - gasp! - CORRUPTED by it, right? Dude, listen to her mother, who speaks sense. Give a twelve year-old some credit. Trust that she can a) tell the difference between something being depicted and something being promoted, and b) decide for herself what she thinks of the subject matter either way. When I was twelve, I read Futuretrack 5, and it didn't fuck me up.

(Incidentally, "sensitive and meaningful or poetic sex" - is that how sex ought to be depicted in books, in general? I've never had sex that was "poetic" in my life, and doubt I ever will, while "sensitive" and "meaningful" are very much movable feasts, subjective, up for debate.)

damn it if I'm not old fashioned enough to expect there to be some morale at the end

"How's morale, girls?"
"Pretty low, everyone keeps calling us shallow!"

I assume you mean you expect there to be a moral at the end. This isn't a question of being "old fashioned". Expecting fiction to have a didactic, clear-cut moral purpose is one way of thinking, and it has been around for a long time, but so has the idea that that viewpoint is simplistic nonsense that leads to a lot of bad art and cultivates a fear of good art.

I have to keep telling myself that it's hysterical to think that some short, slick, breezey novel is going to program anyone to be something they aren't, but on the other hand I've been profoundly changed by a handfull of books in my time.

You're right: hysterical is exactly what it is. Also patronising, and pretty clearly sexist, since we don't seem to be having this moral panic about what boys of the same age are reading.

You have been profoundly changed by a handful of books presumably in the same way I have been: because they chimed with something deep within that you didn't know was there, which in turn made you question the things you thought you knew/believed - right? Not because you were a tabula rasa on which new texts could write themselves, or because these books were able to brainwash you.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
09:04 / 16.03.06
Hmmm. Does anyone want to talk about Naomi Wolf's article or teen books? We could begin by cutting and pasting the article, as it is behind a password-protected site...
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
09:13 / 16.03.06
That's odd, I can see the article fine without signing in, but here we go:

Young Adult Fiction: Wild Things

By NAOMI WOLF
Published: March 12, 2006

These books look cute. They come in matched paperback sets with catchy titles, and stay for weeks on the children's books best-seller list. They carry no rating or recommended age range on the cover, but their intended audience — teenage girls — can't be in doubt. They feature sleek, conventionally beautiful girls lounging, getting in or out of limos, laughing and striking poses. Any parent — including me — might put them in the Barnes & Noble basket without a second glance.

Yet if that parent opened one, he or she might be in for a surprise. The "Gossip Girl," "A-List" and "Clique" series — the most successful in a crowded field of Au Pairs, It Girls and other copycat series — represent a new kind of young adult fiction, and feature a different kind of heroine. In these novels, which have dominated the field of popular girls' fiction in recent years, Carol Gilligan's question about whether girls can have "a different voice" has been answered — in a scary way.

In Lisi Harrison's "Clique" novels, set in suburban Westchester, the characters are 12 and 13 years old, but there are no girlish identity crises, no submissiveness to parents or anyone else. These girls are empowered. But they are empowered to hire party planners, humiliate the "sluts" in their classes (" 'I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time understanding what you're saying,' Massie snapped. 'I don't speak Slut' ") and draw up a petition calling for the cafeteria ladies serving their lunch to get manicures.

The "Clique" novels are all about status. But sex saturates the "Gossip Girl" books, by Cecily von Ziegesar, which are about 17- and 18-year-old private school girls in Manhattan. This is not the frank sexual exploration found in a Judy Blume novel, but teenage sexuality via Juicy Couture, blasé and entirely commodified. In "Nothing Can Keep Us Together," Nate has sex with Serena in a Bergdorf's dressing room: "Nate was practically bursting as he followed Serena. . . . He grabbed her camisole and yanked it away from her body, ripping it entirely in half. . . . 'Remember when we were in the tub at my house, the summer before 10th grade?' . . . 'Yes!' 'Oh, yes!' . . . Nate began to cry as soon as it was over. The Viagra had worn off just in time."

The "A-List" novels, by Zoey Dean (a pseudonym for a married writing team hired by the media packager 17th Street Productions, which created all three series and sold them to Little, Brown), are spinoffs of the "Gossip Girl" series. Now we're on the West Coast, among a group of seniors from Beverly Hills High. Here is Anna, in Las Vegas for the weekend with her posse: "Was there any bliss quite like the first five minutes in a hot tub? Well, yes, actually. Ben. Sex with Ben had been that kind of bliss. . . . Would sex with Scott offer that kind of bliss?" Her best friend, Cyn, also has feelings for Scott: "She'd shed a lot of her usual wild-child ways as soon as they'd hooked up. No more stealing guys with wedding rings away from their wives just because she could. . . . No more getting wasted at parties and dirty dancing with handsome waiters . . . . No more taking E," or ecstasy, at nightclubs.

But anything can get old eventually. Cyn offers Anna this world-weary romantic guidance: "We used to jump each other, like, three times a night. When we went out to the movies, we'd sit by a wall and do it during the boring parts." She recommends "semi-sex" — not oral sex, because "that is so over" — behind a statue at MoMA.

Unfortunately for girls, these novels reproduce the dilemma they experience all the time: they are expected to compete with pornography, but can still be labeled sluts. In "Invasion of the Boy Snatchers," the fourth novel in the "Clique" series, Lisi Harrison reproduces misogynist scenarios of other girls shaming and humiliating a girl who is deemed "slutty" — Nina, an exchange student from Spain. When Harrison writes that Nina's "massive boobs jiggled," you know she is doomed to the Westchester equivalent of a scarlet letter.

Though "Rainbow Party" got all the attention last year — that was the novel about oral sex in which the characters even sounded like porn stars: Hunter, Rod and Rusty — kids didn't buy it, literally. In spite of a shiny, irresistible cover showing a row of candy-colored lipsticks, it was a book more reported about than read.

But teenagers, or their parents, do buy the bad-girls books — the "Clique," "Gossip Girl" and "A-List" series have all sold more than a million copies. And while the tacky sex scenes in them are annoying, they aren't really the problem. The problem is a value system in which meanness rules, parents check out, conformity is everything and stressed-out adult values are presumed to be meaningful to teenagers. The books have a kitsch quality — they package corruption with a cute overlay.

In the world of the "A-List" or "Clique" girl, inverting Austen (and Alcott), the rich are right and good simply by virtue of their wealth. Seventh graders have Palm Pilots, red Coach clutches, Visas and cellphones in Prada messenger bags. Success and failure are entirely signaled by material possessions — specifically, by brands. You know the new girl in the "Clique" novel "Best Friends for Never" is living in social limbo when she shops at J. Crew and wears Keds, and her mother drives a dreaded Taurus rather than a Lexus. In "Back in Black" the group of "A-List" teenagers spends a weekend at "the Palms Hotel and Casino"; brands are so prominent you wonder if there are product placement deals: "Vanity Fair always prepared giveaway baskets. . . . Last year's had contained a Dell portable jukebox, a bottle of Angel perfume by Thierry Mugler and a PalmOne Treo 600 Smartphone." (The copyright page of the latest "Gossip Girl" book lists credits for the clothing featured on the cover: "gold sequined top — Iris Singer, peach dress — Bibelot@Susan Greenstadt," and so on.)

In these novels, the world of wealthy parents is characteristically seen as corrupt and opportunistic — but the kids have no problem with that. In the "A-List" novels, power is all about favors: "Orlando Bloom was next door with Jude Law, and Sam knew him from a dinner party her father had hosted to raise money for the Kerry campaign." As Anna challenges a young would-be writer, Scott, "Do you think you only got published in The Times because your mother called in a favor?"

The mockery the books direct toward their subjects is not the subversion of adult convention traditionally found in young adult novels. Instead they scorn anyone who is pathetic enough not to fit in. In the "Clique" novels, the "pretty committee," dominated by the lead bitch-goddess, Massie, is made up of the cool kids of their elite girls school. They terrorize the "losers" below them in the social hierarchy: it's like "Lord of the Flies" set in the local mall, without the moral revulsion.

The girls move through the school in what has become, in movies like "Mean Girls" and "Clueless," a set piece for nasty cool-girl drama: they are "striking and confident in their matching costumes . . . like a gang of sexy fembots on a mission to take over suburbia." In the classic tradition of young adult fiction, Massie would be the villain, and Claire, the newcomer who first appears as an L.B.R., or "Loser Beyond Repair," would be the heroine: she is the one girl with spunk, curiosity and age-appropriate preoccupations. Claire and her family live in the guesthouse of the wealthy Block family; Claire's mother is friends with Massie's mother, but her father seems to be employed by Massie's father in an uneasily dependent relationship. In Jane Austen or Charlotte Brontë, that economic dependency on the "great house" would signal that the heroine stands in opposition to the values of that mansion. Yet Claire's whole journey, in class terms, is to gravitate into the mansion. She abandons her world of innocence and integrity — in which children respect parents, are honest and like candy — to embrace her eventual success as one of the school's elite, lying to and manipulating parents, having contempt for teachers and humiliating social rivals.

Over the course of the series, Claire learns to value her own poorer but closer-knit family less than she did before. Indeed, she pushes her father into greater economic dependence on the rich patrons, absorbing Massie's shopping tastes and learning to disdain her mother's clothing. Veronica and Betty morph into mistresses of the universe, wearing underwear to school with the words "kiss it" on the rear.

Since women have been writing for and about girls, the core of the tradition has been the opposition between the rebel and the popular, often wealthy antiheroine. Sara Crewe in Frances Hodgson Burnett's "Little Princess" loses her social standing and is tormented by the school's alpha girls, but by the end of the story we see them brought low. In "Little Women," Jo March's criticism of "ladylike" social norms is challenged by an invitation to a ball; while Meg, the eldest girl, is taken in by the wealthy daughters of the house and given a makeover — which is meant to reveal not her victory as a character but her weakness.

This tradition carried on powerfully through the 20th century. Even modern remakes, like "Clueless," show the popular, superficial girl undergoing a humbling and an awakening, as she begins to question her allegiance to conformity and status.

In the "Clique" and "Gossip Girl" novels, meanwhile, every day is Freaky Friday. The girls try on adult values and customs as though they were going to wear them forever. The narratives offer the perks of the adult world not as escapist fantasy but in a creepily photorealistic way, just as the book jackets show real girls polished to an unreal gloss. It's not surprising that Cecily von Ziegesar matter-of-factly told an interviewer that she sees her books as "aspirational" (which she seemed to think was a good thing).

The great reads of adolescence have classically been critiques of the corrupt or banal adult world. It's sad if the point of reading for many girls now is no longer to take the adult world apart but to squeeze into it all the more compliantly. Sex and shopping take their places on a barren stage, as though, even for teenagers, these are the only dramas left.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
10:11 / 16.03.06
Forget morality- authors like the ones that Wolf describes above need the basic writing lesson that Thomas Lynn gives to Polly (about the way that body parts move) in Fire and Hemlock.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:18 / 16.03.06
Coould you refresh my memory, Nina? More generally, do you mean that the real problem with these books is that they are badly written, or that they depict sex in an unrealistic fashion?
 
 
matthew.
13:28 / 16.03.06
Nowhere in that article does Naomi Wolf make a convincing case that these books present these things "unrepentantly" or without moral complications. This thread then makes one leap further, with popular bette noir Paris Hilton being invoked in this thread's title for reasons that are unclear to me except for the obvious reason, which is that Paris Hilton has to be invoked when one is having a moral panic about Young Women Today and how they might be materialistic, hedonistic, and worst of all sexual, in sharp contrast to the person having the moral panic, who is never any of those things, except in all the ways in which they are but that's okay because it's different and therefore good.

Petey, are then you so free-thinking that you are above moral panic? Do you ever have a moral panic? I'm just asking this because you seem to be so "progressive". It's interesting that whenever something like this comes up, your first impulse is to throw it back at the original poster, implying that the person who brought this to our attention, in this case the starter of the thread, is a hypocrite, and that they can't possibly have good morals.

I had roughly the same reaction as you did, but the difference was that I didn't feel like insulting the person who posted this. Considering my brief time on Barbelith, I have learned quite a few things. One of them being that certain "moral" quandries such as teen sexuality is something that is just going to happen and not necessarily a bad thing or a good thing.

Unfortunately, there are people out there who think children should not be having sex, or reading about transactional sex in books. Not all children can understand the difference between description of the fact and promotion of the fact. But I have no statistics to support this claim.

Expecting fiction to have a didactic, clear-cut moral purpose is one way of thinking, and it has been around for a long time, but so has the idea that that viewpoint is simplistic nonsense that leads to a lot of bad art and cultivates a fear of good art.

I have a very good friend who has published numerous children's books, their intended audience running from preschool to teen lit. She has helped me understand and "pitch" my own children's book. She has also explained to me the ethos of children's publishing in Canada: children's books must have a moral or a lesson at the end. I understand that publishing in Canada is different than in the US. Didactic fiction is the rule of thumb in children's fiction publishing in Canada.

I hope I am misunderstanding your point that instructive fiction leads to bad art. I hope what you're saying is that simplistic didactic fiction leads to bad art. I can think of numerous books I read as a child that were didactic as well as hugely entertaining and possibly "art" as well. The Phantom Tollbooth by Norton Juster springs to mind. As well as The Neverending Story by Michael Ende (the novel, not the shit American movie). Both of those books have something complex to say about art and literature and they are both didactic. Both are great art.

To sum up, I think that this discussion would be better suited without throwing claim back at the first poster. I think it's somewhat rude as well as being ad hominem logic.
 
 
matthew.
13:30 / 16.03.06
I'm sorry. My first few paragraphs seem snarky. That was not my intent. And to clarify, I still agree with you, Petey, I just don't like your approach.
 
 
Cat Chant
13:33 / 16.03.06
I have to go to class so, sorry, this is just to try and prod myself into remembering to post here fully later - I read the Gossip Girl books and actually like them a lot, though I haven't come across the other two series Wolf mentions. This ('Preteens and the sexualization of our children' - warning for sexist and misogynistic assertions in the first and some subsequent posts) and this ('Is Oliver James's writing sexist?') might be useful companion threads, addressing as they do the question 'what's wrong with unrepentant teen sex/isn't it better than guilty, coerced, miserable teen sex'?
 
 
Cat Chant
13:44 / 16.03.06
we don't seem to be having this moral panic about what boys of the same age are reading

Yeah, we are. See Anne Fine (then children's laureate)'s review of Melvyn Burgess's incredibly brilliant 2003 Young Adult novel for boys, Doing It (here):

All of the publishers who have touched this novel should be deeply ashamed of themselves. Astonishingly, they are almost all female. It's time they sat round a table, took a good long look at themselves and decided that it was an indefensible decision to take this book on. They should pulp their own copies now.
 
 
gridley
13:49 / 16.03.06
You're right: hysterical is exactly what it is. Also patronising, and pretty clearly sexist, since we don't seem to be having this moral panic about what boys of the same age are reading.

I don't agree that being concerned for the welfare of twelve year olds is patronising. If we were talking about eighteen year olds, then sure. But I like the idea of kids being protected for a while from some parts of the adult world.

As for sexist... maybe. I do have less fear of society undermining my nephew's self-esteem. Mostly because it seems to happen far less often than it does to girls.

Also, the young adult books for boys that I've read are still largely devoid of sex, almost as much as the ones in the 1930s. (The only similar concern for boys that I can detect within myself is one towards violent video games.)
 
 
Jack Vincennes
18:23 / 16.03.06
I think that one of the problems here might be that we don't know how the twelve year old girls at whom the stories are aimed are reading these books. I know that when I was reading teen novels (obviously not the ones Naomi Wolf was writing about) it was almost as though they were fantasy novels; it was obvious that life was not like that, because I lived in my life, at no point was it like that. So to use the example of the Clique books, my interest in Claire's success or otherwise would never have been anything other than academic; not so much how would a person get by in this situation, but how will this specific person get by in this specific fictional landscape.

And I think it's important to remember -by the age of twelve, it really is obvious what is fiction and what is not. The main function of books at that time in my life at least was to provide escapism, and oftimes that came in the form of stories about sex, clothes and bitchy girls. I can understand the concern that there isn't some recognition that the world doesn't have to be way it is, but it's more than likely that for the girls reading these books, that is not the way the world is.
 
 
Jawsus-son Starship
20:32 / 16.03.06
As for sexist... maybe. I do have less fear of society undermining my nephew's self-esteem. Mostly because it seems to happen far less often than it does to girls.

I don't know, maybe we don't live in similar societies, but I believe that boys self esteem is undermined just as much as girls. The same social wants effect young men as well as young women.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
21:26 / 16.03.06
I had roughly the same reaction as you did, but the difference was that I didn't feel like insulting the person who posted this.

Hello matt. Could you point me to where I insulted gridley, or made any kind of ad hominem attack, rather than critiquing the content of his post, the viewpoints he was putting forward, etc? Cheers.
 
 
ShadowSax
16:37 / 17.03.06
These books look cute. They come in matched paperback sets with catchy titles, and stay for weeks on the children's books best-seller list. They carry no rating or recommended age range on the cover, but their intended audience — teenage girls — can't be in doubt. They feature sleek, conventionally beautiful girls lounging, getting in or out of limos, laughing and striking poses. Any parent — including me — might put them in the Barnes & Noble basket without a second glance.

so now it's the book's fault that parents like naomi wolf are suckers for advertising. are there any well-known cliches that we might use for ms wolf that involve books and covers and judging?

Yet if that parent opened one, he or she might be in for a surprise. The "Gossip Girl," "A-List" and "Clique" series

how wrong i was. those are perfect names for series of books that i would want my child to read.

These girls are empowered. But they are empowered to hire party planners, humiliate the "sluts" in their classes (" 'I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time understanding what you're saying,' Massie snapped. 'I don't speak Slut' ") and draw up a petition calling for the cafeteria ladies serving their lunch to get manicures.

"i dont speak slut'" is pretty funny, actually.

at what point should i point out that these books cater to the kinds of young people whose parents care enough about them to throw books into their B&N basket without actually reading them, books in series called "gossip girl," "a-list," and "clique"?

The "Clique" novels are all about status.

really.

This is not the frank sexual exploration found in a Judy Blume novel, but teenage sexuality via Juicy Couture, blasé and entirely commodified.

that something came out of a hippie movement like the sexual revolution that turned into something worse should be of no surprise. sort of like SUVs, the housing bubble and investment ads that feature hippie music. buncha hippies. what did they expect would happen when all those naked people started dancing around in the mud?

Zoey Dean (a pseudonym for a married writing team hired by the media packager 17th Street Productions, which created all three series and sold them to Little, Brown),

"and sold them," is a neat way to try to exclude the publisher from any intentional wrong-doing. because that would make the issue complicated and might also invoke discussions about the market for these books, which we know has nothing to do with parents like naomi wolf throwing teen trash novels at their kids.

In "Invasion of the Boy Snatchers," the fourth novel in the "Clique" series, Lisi Harrison reproduces misogynist scenarios of other girls shaming and humiliating a girl who is deemed "slutty" — Nina, an exchange student from Spain.

far be it from me to engage in a debate about misogynist women, but lets just say that it's funny that boy snatching isnt the problem with this book. arent these actually books where girls are the aggressors who also have to deal with resulting labels? can we write a book about boys being the aggressors and have to worry about what we call the boys or would we be more concerned about the victims of their aggression? thats a tangent. sorry.

The problem is a value system in which meanness rules, parents check out, conformity is everything and stressed-out adult values are presumed to be meaningful to teenagers. The books have a kitsch quality — they package corruption with a cute overlay.

yes, it is. but the books dont develop a value system. they cater to it.

In these novels, the world of wealthy parents is characteristically seen as corrupt and opportunistic — but the kids have no problem with that.

these are books that seek to empower kids over adults, and theyre actually for kids, these books? wow. next thing you know, we're going to start hearing pop songs on the radio about sex and how great it is and how disgusting it would be to see your parents having sex. cause then, our culture would be in really bad shape.

The mockery the books direct toward their subjects is not the subversion of adult convention traditionally found in young adult novels. Instead they scorn anyone who is pathetic enough not to fit in.

as opposed to when we were growing up, when all the really smart kids were also the popular ones.

The great reads of adolescence have classically been critiques of the corrupt or banal adult world. It's sad if the point of reading for many girls now is no longer to take the adult world apart but to squeeze into it all the more compliantly. Sex and shopping take their places on a barren stage, as though, even for teenagers, these are the only dramas left.

finally. sorry i skipped over so much there. i was getting bored. maybe if we werent as a society so hung up on materialistic things while simultaneously throwing pink trash under the tree for our kids, these books wouldnt be selling as much in the first place. so, in other words, naomi could have written the first paragraph and ended it there.

i'd prefer if critics were more concerned about the quality of writing in these and other popular books like the hideous harry potter ones. sure, kids books are kids books, but if we're going to start considering them to be replacing the "great reads" of adolescence, we should at least want them to be well written. the subject matter of books like this is just a mirror. the real tragedy is that our culture buys this shit, and now we know who to thank: naomi wolf, who throws this stuff into her bookstore basket.
 
 
Cat Chant
19:46 / 17.03.06
i'd prefer if critics were more concerned about the quality of writing in these and other popular books like the hideous harry potter ones.

I haven't read the Clique or the A-List series, but the Gossip Girl books are pretty well-written (certainly compared to Rowling); they're well-paced, the narrative voice is extremely engaging and funny. Perhaps before you talk about the 'quality of writing' in these books, you should read some of them?

the real tragedy is that our culture buys this shit, and now we know who to thank: naomi wolf, who throws this stuff into her bookstore basket.

Well, I was reading them before Naomi Wolf ever mentioned them, so I don't need to thank her, thanks. I think it's a little bit of a stretch to say that someone putting a book into a bookstore basket then taking it out again and writing a long, critical review, is more responsible for the sales of that and other similar books than, say, the author, the publisher, the distributor, the bookstore...
 
 
ShadowSax
19:56 / 17.03.06
I think it's a little bit of a stretch to say that someone putting a book into a bookstore basket then taking it out again and writing a long, critical review, is more responsible for the sales of that and other similar books than, say, the author, the publisher, the distributor, the bookstore...

not really. the publisher, author, bookstores, distributors, etc., wouldnt be making the books if no one was buying them, and i'd expect more of a cultural critique than a literary critique here, since she's admitting that she's enabling the problem without actually admitting it.

obviously i'm generalizing. i dont blame one person for any one thing. i hope thats not what you thought i meant and if so, i apologize for being unclear.

i've read some chick lit that was pretty good and some that was pretty awful. but thats not these books anyway. i usually peruse the kids stuff on occasion just to see whats going on. i couldnt speak specifically to any books i've picked up, but the writing was hardly engaging or original in the ones i've seen; what i've seen seem to fall into the mass produced, brand category. not the "great reads" that she refers to as something from bygone days.
 
 
Cat Chant
20:16 / 17.03.06
But she's not buying them!
 
 
ShadowSax
21:24 / 17.03.06
by relinquishing the responsibility that parents have, she's putting that responsibility wrongly into the hands of the producers of the product. by painting parents as innocent players in this, thats what she's doing, and by accepting that role as something secondary to the actual issue, she's ignoring the real problem, which is that role shouldnt be secondary.

she flips past a critical stage of the whole process by implying that parents, including her, might simply throw these books into their basket, based on something like their prettiness. all i'm saying is that thats the problem, not the details of what's in the books.
 
 
Harold Washington died for you
08:02 / 18.03.06
With no prurient self-interest, I have no problem with teenage girls reading about all sorts of raw sex. I'm sure it's entertaining

But the fact that all these books focus on fabulously rich girls pisses me off, and just not becuase of the usual gripes about the crazy consumer culture. What are the poor girls supposed to read? Is it really posible to write an aspirational novel about a lifestyle you HAVE TO BE BORN INTO? These kids aren't gonna put in overtime so they can afford that designer label the heroine wears, they will beg their parents (or something worse).

To the people who read these series, do any of the characters have jobs? Any of them have to put in serious time taking care of elders or younger siblings?

But the sex is OK in my book! (so to speak)
 
 
Cat Chant
10:16 / 18.03.06
she flips past a critical stage of the whole process by implying that parents, including her, might simply throw these books into their basket, based on something like their prettiness. all i'm saying is that thats the problem, not the details of what's in the books.

Oh, okay. I don't agree, especially since these books are probably aimed at thirteen-to-sixteen-year-olds, and I really don't think parents have (or should have) much control over what children read at that age, but I see your point.
 
 
ShadowSax
21:35 / 18.03.06
Oh, okay. I don't agree, especially since these books are probably aimed at thirteen-to-sixteen-year-olds, and I really don't think parents have (or should have) much control over what children read at that age...

really?

it seems crazy to expect more responsibility to fall into the hands of big-business than into the hands of parents. if parents of 14-yr-old kids dont feel a need to monitor their exposure to popular culture, why in the world would we demand, or even ask, that writers or anyone else be more responsible with their messages, themes or characters?
 
 
diz
21:59 / 18.03.06
it seems crazy to expect more responsibility to fall into the hands of big-business than into the hands of parents. if parents of 14-yr-old kids dont feel a need to monitor their exposure to popular culture, why in the world would we demand, or even ask, that writers or anyone else be more responsible with their messages, themes or characters?

Are we demanding that?

I think Deva is spot on about parental influence on the reading habits of teens and preteens. The idea of someone, anyone, telling a 12-year what ze can or cannot read is abhorrent.

I'm really not expecting the writers, editors and publishers to be "more responsible" (whatever that means), and I'm certainly not expecting the parents of children in that age range to monitor and/or censor their reading material. I would like to believe that good parenting and a decent education would produce 12-year olds who can think critically and can digest pretty much anything they read without major problems, but I recognize that that's not the case with all 12-year olds. However, I'm not sure what can be done with a 12-year-old who hasn't somehow come to be able to think for hirself - at that point there's not a lot of direct control parents, educators, or the media have over someone's intellectual development.
 
 
diz
22:04 / 18.03.06
Petey, are then you so free-thinking that you are above moral panic? Do you ever have a moral panic?

Is there a value to having a moral panic? I can see the value of morals, certainly, but when has panic ever helped a situation? Any situation? Isn't it sort of implicit in the idea of panic that panic is the point where your anxiety overwhelms you to the point where you are not thinking and performing on an optimal level, and instead just lashing out irrationally in reaction to whatever has triggered your anxiety?

I know from many interactions with Flyboy that one of his most notable traits is his strong moral compass, but if that never translates into moral panic for him, I think that's to his credit.
 
 
Cat Chant
09:15 / 19.03.06
ShadowSax, what were you reading when you were fourteen? Did your parents/guardians approve it in advance for you? Did you appreciate it then? Did you bitch about it then, but feel grateful for it now, in hindsight? Or did they not 'gatekeep' your access to popular culture, and do you wish that they had?

These are open questions, by the way. I do think that many adults talk about fourteen-year-olds in a way that doesn't really gibe with their own experiences of being fourteen, and I'm interested to know if that's what you're doing, or whether your thoughts are coming from your memories of your teenage years.

ShadowSax and diz - I do think that writers, editors, publishers and distributors of books for young adults should be responsible. I'm very invested in the idea that young adult literature is a site for what Walter Benjamin calls counsel, and have been meaning for well over a year now to explain why in the Young Adult Literature thread. I think that YA fiction, as an uneasy intersection between a marketing category ('you know... for kids!') and a genre, is (at its best, aspires to be, in essence is) somewhere where writers are passing on ideas and resources and pleasure that can make the world a more livable place for young adults, and hence for everyone. I think that Gossip Girl has the potential to make the world more livable in some ways. (I think I think that, but I'll need to think about it more.)

I think, though, that part of the point of Young Adult literature and culture in general is that children need to have emotional, intellectual and imaginative resources outside the ones their family provide, as a counterbalance to the unconscious, smaller or bigger, limitations in what they can get from their family. That's why I'm so against the idea of the parents as gatekeepers of culture for children. (The extent to which parents have to 'gatekeep' for younger children, or how that gatekeeping might diminish as children age, is perhaps something for another thread.)

And before I can say anything else I'm going to have to get to my Sedgwick collection and start posting up lengthy quotes about the way literature provides alternatives to children/teenagers/adults caught within the structures, the worlds, that their familial background has left them with...
 
 
Disco is My Class War
10:05 / 19.03.06
"Do you ever have a moral panic?" should be on the list of 100 best rhetorical questions ever. Who would ever say yes to that? The whole definition of 'moral panic' is that the people having them don't think it's a moral panic...

These books, to me, seem the equivalent of movies like Cruel Intentions. I can imagine parents flipping out at their kids watching Crual Intentions, but who among under the age of 45 wouldn't get the irony of that movie?
 
 
Jawsus-son Starship
10:16 / 19.03.06
it seems crazy to expect more responsibility to fall into the hands of big-business than into the hands of parents. if parents of 14-yr-old kids dont feel a need to monitor their exposure to popular culture, why in the world would we demand, or even ask, that writers or anyone else be more responsible with their messages, themes or characters?

agree that it isn't only the responsibility of the publishing industry, but to lay the responsibility at the parents feet in it's entirity is also missing the issue. Don't you think there may be a middle ground between parental responsibility and the publishers?
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
10:52 / 21.03.06
matthesis:

Petey, are then you so free-thinking that you are above moral panic? Do you ever have a moral panic? I'm just asking this because you seem to be so "progressive". It's interesting that whenever something like this comes up, your first impulse is to throw it back at the original poster, implying that the person who brought this to our attention, in this case the starter of the thread, is a hypocrite, and that they can't possibly have good morals.

I'm glad that I seem to be progressive to you, matthesis - I can assure you I'm nowhere near as progressive as I'd like to be, while at the same time feeling that that term is not ideal to describe the mindset to which I'd aspire - however, this thread is not about me, and I'm rather confused as to why you would desire to make it so.

If the alternative to "throw it back at the original poster" is "accept not only the original poster's arguments, but also what you perceive to be some of the underlying assumptions in the post, without question", then I'm happy to do some throwing back.

As Disco points out, "moral panic" is not a term one usually uses to self-describe, but I have panics, and I'm sure one or two of them have been moral. However, I think when the metaphor of disease creeps unbidden into a thread title in regards to a young woman's lifestyle, including her sex life, that might be a tell-tale sign that moral panic is underway - that is to say, a bunch of frightening associations that do not have anything inherently to do with the subject at hand cannot be kept out of the way in which the discussion is being framed.

More to follow.
 
 
matthew.
13:22 / 21.03.06
a bunch of frightening associations that do not have anything inherently to do with the subject at hand cannot be kept out of the way in which the discussion is being framed.

Then perhaps within the context of this thread, and not threadrot at all, we should discuss exactly why some people would consider these books to be "promoting" or "depicting" a "deviant" behaviour. Where do we get these "frightening associations"?
 
 
gridley
14:46 / 21.03.06
I think that Gossip Girl has the potential to make the world more livable in some ways. (I think I think that, but I'll need to think about it more.)

I think, though, that part of the point of Young Adult literature and culture in general is that children need to have emotional, intellectual and imaginative resources outside the ones their family provide, as a counterbalance to the unconscious, smaller or bigger, limitations in what they can get from their family. That's why I'm so against the idea of the parents as gatekeepers of culture for children.


I think you're absolutely right, Deva. And a quick read through the comments section on Amazon backs you up. The readers who liked the books mostly say that it's fun to see a world that isn't their own. I guess that makes them a sort of fantasy genre, which is a connection I wasn't able to make at the time, mostly because they're more grounded in reality than the types of genre writing I'm used to.

And the whole gatekeeper thing is funny and perplexing to me. On one hand, I have this fierce instinctual desire to protect the kids in my family (from any possible threat), but on the other I know that's silly and even oppresive. And more than a little grounded in a selfish disappointment that kids have to grow up.

Certainly as a kid I consumed plenty of culture that I kept secret from my parents because I knew it would have freaked them out. I wonder if that made things easier for them or if they were just as worried without knowing what they had to worry about. And I wonder if my relationships to culture and my parents would have been different if we had had confrontations about it.
 
 
Cat Chant
19:43 / 21.03.06
I have this fierce instinctual desire to protect the kids in my family

There's only one child in my family - my sister's son, who's two and lives very far away from me - so I should probably issue a disclaimer that I haven't got personal experience of negotiating the desire to 'gatekeep', which is probably why I can come down so unambiguously against it. I'm sure I'd have more complicated feelings about it if I were involved more in the lives of more (and older) kids.

The closest I've got to formulating an idea about why the Gossip Girl books are defensible is that idea about fantasy - I mean almost literally, generically fantasy. The brand names, designer cocktails, charity benefits and Manhattan locations seem about as related to my life as the folklore of the Elves in The Lord of the Rings. But then I'm a reasonably-affluent adult living in the UK, and I'm not likely to think I could live the life of a wealthy American teenager: presumably there are American teenagers (both wealthy and not-so-wealthy) who think these things are more literally achievable and/or desirable than the Gold Cup of G'na-Vdr. So I don't know. I'm still thinking about all of this.
 
 
Hallo, Paper Spaceboy
20:45 / 21.03.06
Just an off thought, but there is something to be said for gatekeeping (within reason) simply to give the kids something rebel against or go around. More opportunities to push an envelope. With a definite emphasis on the "within reason" up there, because oppression doesn't always lead to healthy rebellion.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
22:26 / 21.03.06
I keep half-writing and then deleting a post about Nina Won't Tell - once I clear the cobwebs out I will try again.
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply