More To Say

I didn't get a chance to say a couple things at the end of my presentation on Thursday, nothing too, too important, but things I would have said if there had been time.

One thing is that I talked about how literature has changed, but I didn't get a chance to say that I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing. Nor do I think it's a particularly good thing. The lessons to be gained from a lot of popular literature today involve lessons about friendship, following your "heart" (read: id) and encouragement to use one's imagination, all are important values to internalize. More important than lessons about honestly, equality and self sacrifice? Nope. But they certainly do deserve a place on my book shelf. Balance is important, here, as in so many places.

The other thing I didn't get to talk about is the question "why has the situation reversed itself?" This question seems to have an answer based largely in capitalism. Happy Endings sell. Why read a copy of Little Red Riding Hood that ends starkly with Red's death? That's not a happy feeling at all. (but it does give you something to think about!) Why not bring Red back to life by killing the wolf, having her pop out of his belly uninjured, and completely overshadow the warning of the story? Don't mind if I do! Happy endings don't make most of us think the same way a stark ending does.

I can't be the only one who has noticed that more and more people seem to want to live in a consequence-free society. I mean, that's why we buy insurance for our cars right? To dodge the consequences of our mistakes? (yes, I do believe in insurance) That's also why we tell lies, why we convinced our parents to call us in sick to school when we had a test we didn't study for, and a miriad of other ways we dodge consequences. If we can't face consequences in the literature we read, how are we supposed to do it in our own lives?
On the other hand, although literature with dark or serious messages does exist in bookstores, it has lately come under fire by a concerned citizen writing for the Wall Street Journal.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303657404576357622592697038.html?mod=wsj_share_twitter

 After reading her "article" I was left with the impression that as a child, this woman comforted her fears by throwing a blanket over her head and pretending the bad things couldn't find her, and somehow I doubt she ever stopped. My point is that avoiding acknowledging that bad things happen doesn't prevent them from happening, and likewise, acknowledging them isn't the same as inviting them to happen. Reading about tough subjects, experiencing loss, or hurt, or fear through literature can help a person to cope in the event that something similar ever comes their way.

A quote by YA author Chris Crutcher summarizes my view (and his) on the subject quite nicely,

 "I think people who believe we can protect our children by keeping them ignorant of hard times and the language those times are told in, don't realize that by showing our fear of issues and language that are "everyday" to our children, we take ourselves off that short list of people to turn to in a real crisis."
No, I don't think it would be healthy to fill our minds with only the darkest, most didactic images available, stories about hope and friendship and silliness are absolutely necessary to uplift us and offer us some distraction from what can be a daunting world. But you cannot fully appreciate the light if you never experience the dark.

I Guess I'm a Writer...