Young Adult is 'Exploitative' and 'Sensational' Says Daily Mail

'Sensationalising suffering' is histrionic and misrepresentative of Young Adult fiction

Once again I was exasperated with the Daily Mail this weekend, this time over the 'sick-lit' article. Claiming youths were being fed a morally vacuous tales for sheer profit, the piece guts a body of young adult literature to present stark, dripping morsels as unambiguous horror shows that will ruin your child's mind, turning them to self-harm, thoughts of suicide, sex and, um, eyeliner.

Without wishing to take a journalist to task for what's clearly an overreaching editorial policy that's probably carved in moss-covered tablature somewhere, there are a few elements of this article that really annoyed me.

The main one concerns the basic lack of intelligence it assigns to young people, whom it perceives do not understand the idea of subjective experience, or, to put it in plain terms, the fact that everyone is different. Yes fine, fads happen - I remember Twilight and I'm still getting over half the office (read: the female half) reading the Fifty Shades books - but the idea that a teenager doesn't understand that cutting their wrists is bad because this will make their wrists bleed and then there is a chance they will die of lack of blood is the sort of patronising sentiment I'd expect of an institution from the 1950s. The article quotes a study by Julie Elman of the Uni of Missouri and finds, horrorstruck, that:

"In a research paper, she cites one example, So Much To Live For, in which the central character, who has eye cancer, is traumatised she can't wear make-up around her empty socket for fear of infection.:" http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2256356/The-sick-lit-books-aimed-children-Its-disturbing-phenomenon-Tales-teenage-cancer-self-harm-suicide-.html#ixzz2HEhBWE8K

Cancer is an extremely serious subject, obviously. Does the Mail really feel children would be better off - i.e. ignorant - of a disease which affects one in three people in the UK? Children attain all sorts of skills from reading about what is going on around them - insight, empathy, a broader vocabulary, tone, and for many a deeper understanding of action and consequence. Denying these elements is surely a self-defeating exercise.  And the eyeliner - well. What young person would not feel an affinity with this remark? Empathetic behaviour makes for better relationships and books build that in people. Or as Michelle Pauli put in The Guardian - do we want a nation of stone-cold psychopaths?

The author should get an ear-bashing for describing The Lovely Bones as a novel popular with children - highly disingenuous and irresponsible. Objective fact it may well be, but it is certainly not a book for kids, and never was intended to be. I guess in essence my contention is that the young adult genre is exactly what it says on the tin - if young adult did not deal with themes that affect young adults, they would simply go elsewhere for their kicks. There was very little in the way of the genre for me as a teenager so guess what - I went to the adult stuff. And of course, your perception of what 'adults' read when you're developing into one yourself is radically stronger than the reality (which I admit I found somewhat depressing having read a ton of Stephen King and James Herbert novels as a skinny teenager - I thought life was so much more X rated).

And whilst it is always a safe bet in media to suggest a PLC is acting in a nefarious way to undermine your utopian existence - this one states that suffering is being sensationalised to sell books - this too feels disingenuous and downright tricky. The idea that every child will want to read a narrative that in no way they can relate to and be content with that is amazingly naïve and written from a viewpoint that feels detached from the reality it seeks to critique. Principles are admirable but this for me does not feel rooted in modern society; the fundamental flaw of any media story, I would guess.

This argument reminds me of the one put forward by David Cameron earlier this year when he suggested he may force UK internet service providers (ISPs) to 'block' access to porn sites to protect minors. All well and good, but why are kids being given the ability to access these sites anyway?. As Charles Arthur amusingly pointed out, it isn't the industry that needs regulation, it's the kids. By the parents. Because that's presumably what parents still do. Right?

At least the article ends on a note of common sense, stating that parents should be vigilant if they see their kids reading lots of these books, and that they should ask what the book they are reading is about. I'll skip the underlying assumptions made there and simply state that this evening I have spent lots of time scooting through the Independent Book Blogger Awards and read a lot of the blogs that were up for nominations (favourites: Dunce Academy, The Grammarian's Reviews, Okay, I Blog and Some Smart, Some Don't). Young Adult is clearly something that kindles (not that Kindle) fires in people and inspires some really good writing from all walks of life and a sense of community - and with that in mind the Mail's histrionics ought to be given short shrift.