Young Writers discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
Archives
>
When is it too much?
Mod
YA in general, probably ages 14-21. Edgy YA, probably 19-21."
14-21?
...oh.
*creeps away shamefully with other 13-year ..."
There's not really a definition of what YA is, so it's not like anyone below a certain age is restricted to read it. I started reading YA when I was probably 10 or 11, and I think most people define it as being for an audience as broad as middle schoolers through college students.
Mod
Can thi..."
Haha, I like that theory. I mean, I feel like if you're really young and you read something for adults, the most inappropriate things will probably go over your head anyway. And if they don't ... well, you might be a bit disturbed but at least you'll learn something. :P
Maxy wrote: "I prefer warnings or knowing ahead of time if I'm going to run into that sort of content in novels. Other people can read whatever they want, so I don't necessarily think that the authors or publis..."Exactly what Maxy said.
In seventh grade I had to read a "mature" young-adult book for my Leadership class. (I hated that class. If those kids are our next leaders, this world will burn down in flames. Anyway...) I was somewhat mature as a seventh grader, but it really freaked me out a ton. I giggled and blushed when reading those parts because they made me uncomfortable, and I absolutely despised talking about it in front of class. It seriously served little purpose other than scare me away from any physical contact, like, EVER. Ever since than, I have had a tendency to shy away from slightly more explicit books. Even now, several years later, I still don't feel completely comfortable reading about that. I'm beyond the Harry Potter barely-touching-loving-looks-nothing-more-than-snogging sort of stuff, but I don't care for full-blown details on a character's love life. Right now, I am comfortable at the Cassandra Clare level. She writes just enough to make a person blush, and comes really freaking close to crossing the line, but never actually does it. Which I appreciate.
And it does depend alot on the maturity of the person. I have a friend who is a year older than I am, and she can't make it through health class without giggling and cackling and generally making us all uncomfortable. Every time she sees a couple so much as holding hands, she has to stare and gawk and wonder out loud if they've done it yet. (Which is, by the way, extremely embarassing for all in the vicinity.) So I think it's up to the reader to decide what they can handle. Which is part of the reason why I hate school libraries. They always have books reserved for the older students, and say you must have a "parent note" to read them. Then there are the people who try to ban books from schools altogether. That's called censorship, people. Let me decide!
Mod
I make immature jokes all the time, and I can handle big boy books. It's a different thing to have a sense of humor and not to be able to be serious.
That's true and I agree that maturer people can handle those kinds of books but at the same time, lots of times you don't know which books are 'those kinds of books' until you read them. Sometimes, you don't want to read them, but you don't know whether the book you pick up will be like that... so what do you do? Not read books at all just in case? Or read them anyway and find out what happens when you get there? Also, regarding the fact that a character doing something in a book encourages it, I think that a lot of the time rather than actually "encouraging" it, (which most books don't: like the hunger games doesn't encourage killing), it just desensitizes people. For example, nowadays there is war going on all around the world and we read the newspaper or see pictures of death and calamity and it doesn't bother us nearly as much as it should.
It's the sad truth, but the fact is that is just isn't that shocking anymore. And it's the same for all kinds of issues; they are being presented in books and movies: characters are killing, or getting pregnant at the age of 16 or whatever and no, the books aren't saying 'yeah, this is great, everyone should do it' but the more we read about/see people doing it (whatever "it" is), the less it affects us and the less we care.
So personally I think that fine, sometimes it's necessary to have a character with murderous or immoral tendencies (in terms of writing a book) but I also think that its becoming way too widespread and too 'accepted' by society to the point that it is no longer an issue and I strongly disagree with that.
Also, I think that Brigid, you said that characters are not there to influence people or be 'role models' and I agree with that but I think that people know and can differentiate between what to do and who to follow and the issue isn't that there are a lot of people acting going around killing thinking that they should consider Voldemort as their role model but rather that when someone does go around killing, it doesn't affect people much nor strike them as totally and completely wrong.
And for anyone who is going to argue that it's not the books (and movies/TV shows etc) encouraging immorality and violence then why is there more immorality and more violence now than ever before in history? If not the media, then what is causing it?
Mod
Props. This is some juicy stuff I can totally agree with.
Mod
I think that there will always be killing and immorality and violence in the world no matter what we have in our media. Back in the times when "everything was simple" there were still serial killers, there was still war, there were still teenagers getting pregnant. People were just less open about it.
Mod
And people were more horrified by it when they saw it. Sure, we still respond to things saying, oh, this is horrible, but we've become more and more accustomed to seeing it. That could just because news travels more quickly, but I don't think so. I forget when, but there was a time in history when they made soldiers play videos games, in which they would shoot people, so it would make it easier to do the actual deed in the future.
Now there's kids playing video games like that all the time, and these ones are much more detailed and better than the ones int he past. Granted, there has always been immorality in human society, but with the change in media (including books) there is just A. either more access to gruesome information or B. more gruesome information to access. I think its probably a mixture of both. Desensitilization is a huge problem with people today, particularly the younger generations. You hear kids talking about stuff, and it just makes you stop and say, how are you doing this? For example, a lot of teenagers don't have respect for women anymore... that might sound a little over-dramatic, but its true. I was talking to my mom the other day about having heard someone talk about "getting it in" or something along those lines, and she said, "That's horrible. No one ever said things like that when I was your age."
I know it doesn't seem like a big deal, but... I think it is. As you've said, and I've repeated, its always been a problem but with access to the internet things like that are getting more and more widespread. Once you've been exposed to information so long, it looses the blunt of the horror, which makes it easier to commit acts of violence.
Mod
YOU'RE TOO SMART FOR ME GO AWAY. xD
Mod
YOU'RE TOO SMART FOR ME GO AWAY. xD"
FF, YOU'RE PLENTY SMART.
I've just been thinking about the subject of desensitilization for a while. SOME MESSED UP STUFF, THAT.
Mod
I agree to a certain extent ... except I disagree that a lot of movies/books about violence (or other issues) will desensitize people to them. I agree that the news can desensitize people when it comes to such issues––because the news has to just report what happens and it isn't as subjective.
So, for example, a news report might just say, "A hundred people died in a fire today." And that's it. But a work of fiction would portray such a tragedy through a single person's eyes; the reader would experience the protagonist's sense of loss and pain and whatnot. And that's what makes it more compelling and personal.
In my opinion, fiction prevents us from becoming desensitized about important issues. It helps us to relate to situations that we might never experience ourselves. Therefore, it gives us a broader perspective of what it is to be human.
Mod
Mod
I agree with this as well. However, I think there are a lot of books--no insult to the authors--that don't portray it well enough to affect everyone? If that makes sense? Certainly, there are a lot of books that open your eyes to tragedy, but there are also some that don't seem to convey any sense of grief or regret. I don't think books as actively contribute to things like this, but they can. If that makes sense?
Mod
True, that's a good point. Sometimes I read books about violence/warfare/etc. and I just feel nothing at all––because the writing isn't good, or the characters aren't compelling enough, and so on. But of course, something that doesn't affect me might affect someone else very differently. And even so, I feel like even a badly-written book on the subject is usually still at least a little more personal.
Mod
Just... just a word on black comedy:
It's vital. Like, super important to your psychology to be able to joke about horrible, horrible things. It helps to keep your stress levels down and..."
I concur. Black comedy is the best.
Mod
Yep, I agree with what you've said there <3
hm.... I agree with some of what's been said but I still feel that while fiction "can help us see things from one point of view" etc, etc it still definitely affects in the sense that we are no longer horrified when we see things like war/death/destruction etc...
I do definitely agree with what you said about the news also being something desensitizes us but when I see the news and I see people have died it affects me more than when I read about mass murder in a book. Is it because I know that the characters in a book are not real or because I'm just used to it? I don't know but I would say its a bit of both.
Furthermore, going on what Lav said about the fact that there was always killing and immorality, of course there was but not as much. Right now, the world and the people in the world are in the worst state that they have ever been in the history of time and I know that can be argued depending on what one considers the worst state to be but I see all the time, kids who kill mindlessly on video games, people who read the newspaper, read about war and get on with life (I confess to doing it myself, and I wish I didn't but what can I do about it?), people who make jokes about the war and I consider this to be the worst state that humanity has ever been in because never before was killing, violence or immorality encouraged or accepted the way it is now.
Rebekka said that its better to makes jokes than to "bawl my heart out" about starving kids and I see where that's coming from but honestly, we shouldn't be doing either of those things. I'm not a missionary, nor am I trying to be, but to be honest I feel like slapping people when they joke about "children starving in third world countries" because in what way is that funny? I totally disagree with making jokes or taking any of the suffering going on in the world lightly.
I think that now this discussion is veering from the topic of how much is too much in novels... but I just feel like this is exactly evidence of the world being desensitized: we are defending the fact that we don't care.
Is that okay?
I know that I have become desensitized to a lot, and I'm trying to change that. I'm not trying to say that I'm better than anyone else because I'm not. All I'm saying is that this is what's happening and honestly, its just a fact. We are becoming immune to everything that does not affect us. Why? Because we see it on TV, we read about it, we watch movies about it but it doesn't come any closer.
So, you can argue with me all you want that books have no impact whatsoever on the situation of the world and that's fine cause I don't blame it all on the books anyway, but they are definitely a part of it, just like music, and movies and TV shows are. Which plays the biggest part, I don't know...
The question is, regardless of what's making the world the way it is... what are you going to do about it?
Kriss wrote: "Lav [we sleep until the sun goes down] wrote: "Nermeen wrote: "That's true and I agree that maturer people can handle those kinds of books but at the same time, lots of times you don't know which b..."oh, btw, i TOTALLY agree with all of what Kriss said. SO true
Mod
I agree with some of what's been said but I still feel that while fiction "can help us see things from one point of view" etc, etc it still definitely affects in the sense that we are no lo..."
I agree a lot with what you just said--but the last comment rubs me the wrong way. previously, you said something along the lines of "I confess to doing it myself, and I wish I didn't but what can I do about it?" That's the thing. That's what people think all the time. They see something and they go, that's sad, but what do you expect me to do? And, on top of that, you said "read about war and get on with life ". Are just supposed to stop living because something terrible is happening somewhere else? Are we supposed to just, as Rebekka said, "bawl our eyes out"? I know a lot of people who avoid watching the news or reading because of the depressing things they read and hear. And I'm constantly hearing people say well, what can I do? I confess to doing it as well, but afterwards I don't ask the same question of others: what can you do. What can you do? People have power in America, sure, and in other countries, but most of us in this goodreads group are very young. There are organizations that you can join, and there's even suffering in America--we act like poverty is "so far from home, when in reality its on our doorstep. Last summer I visited a reservation in Arizona, and when we were driving through one of the neighborhoods, there was a house with a shower curtain for a door and towels over the windows because there was no glass. There were people living there. When we talked to the peoples' kids (another example of what we were talking about a second ago), they would behave violently, distrustfully, and they would cuss more than most teenage boys that I know. Keep in mind that they were all between five and ten. During the four days that we were staying there, however, the more we got to know the kids the more they "opened up" so to speak. I do believe that we, and the other missionaries who went to that same area, had some sort of affect on the children--we showed them love when many of their households gave them none.
I KIND OF VEERED OFF TOPIC. But basically, we make ourselves feel powerless because of the distance between us and others who need help. We are young, and many people don't enjoy acknowledging the depressing things in the world. There are a lot of things you can do, if you get over those two obstacles. Get involved, as cliche as that is. Desalinization is something that is actively happening, and will continue to happen as the media spreads, as wars are raged, etc. People who speak up against it make a difference (even with the cliche saying, again). Someone might say something, perhaps mocking poverty or joking about starving children (as you said), and all it really takes is a reply along the lines of, "Dude. That's not funny." It might not stop it, but things like that stick in people's brains.
That's right. Kriss is a ramble monster. Ramblerambleramble.
Mod
Just... just a word on black comedy:
It's vital. Like, super important to your psychology to be able to joke about horrible, horrible things. It helps to keep your stress levels down and..."
I think there's a difference between black comedy and not just caring--I use black comedy a lot, but then there's some people who just seem totally unbothered by stuff, y'know what I mean?
Kriss wrote: "Nermeen wrote: "hm.... I agree with some of what's been said but I still feel that while fiction "can help us see things from one point of view" etc, etc it still definitely affects in the sense t..."
yeah, I totally get your point
and I agree, I mean, I'm 15, I still have exams right now my priority to be honest isn't saving the world (I wish it was, but it isn't) and whenever I say anything about well... anything I always get told, 'well then, go do something about it' OR 'there's nothing you can do'... and I don't live in America and there aren't as many opportunities for me to get involved in helping others. But you are totally right, war may be far away but poverty and suffering isn't that far from home and this summer I do plan on "doing something about it".
I just feel that although I admit to being desensitized I am at least changing my perceptions on things and I'm just trying to raise awareness because the more I talk to people the more they go, 'actually, no, we're not desensitized, we're not doing anything wrong' and I just think that if one can admit that they are doing something wrong its the first step to changing themselves, right?
But I see why my comment may have come across wrongly, I was simply saying that in the situation that I am in, I can't really help people in Egypt, Syria or Afghanistan... but I can do other things and other people can do other things to.
I guess, in my head if everyone does a little something the world might become a better place.
But then, I look around and realize that there are 7 billion people in the world... how on Earth is anything I do going to make a difference?
But I'm not a pessimist so at least I can try to help.
Rebekka (ἈΝΆΓΚΗ) wrote: "Yes, black comedy doesn't diminish the seriousness of it all, it just softens the blows.I'll write up something better to what you all have said... later. When I know what to say and how to say it."
haha, okay :)
Mod
I'll write up something better to what you all have said... later. When I know what to say and how to say it."
Indeed.
Also, I shall await this. :| srs business face.
Mod
I agree with some of what's been said but I still feel that while fiction "can help us see things from one point of view" etc, etc it still definitely affects ..."
Exactly. And when you really aren't able to go out there and save thousands or whatever, exams should be your priority. There are a lot of things you can do, but there's also a lot more that you can do with a proper education, y'know? And eee, I didn't know that. I really don't know the situation with "help" in other countries, but I'm involved with my church primarily to help people--I've figured that a lot of religious organizations, if you find a good one, organize a lot of things to help people, even if it's only little things.
Most people don't even know what desensitized means, so I get how this could be a problem. And yeah, that's one of the main issues--most people don't recognize it or admit it, which causes a huge problem. That, and there's just so many people who are becoming desensitized to things. You say something about it, and they look at you like you're crazy.
And its not so much that it came across as wrongly, because I understand wanting to be able to do something but not being able to do it, it was more that it just came across as a little contradictory--saying that you can't do anything and then asking what other people can do. And yeah. There isn't really much I can do there now, but like I said, start little. Things nearby. You'd be surprised how many people "close to home" can use help.
I get what you mean. Thinking about how many people there are makes you feel kind of small--but a lot of people just need a leader to rise to the occasion, and when someone shows willingness to actually do something, people respond.
And I'm a realist with pessimistic tendencies :P
haha, I feel like I've finally found someone who actually agrees with my rants! xDYeah, religious organisations do do the most amount of 'helping'
I'm just waiting for summer to start so that I can contribute my time too.
Oh, by the way, I do tend to contradict myself a lot. I don't even know why... when I get worked up I just end up saying a lot which ends up making no sense xD
its natural :)
oh and about people who don't know what desensitized means, there are sooo many who don't know and who dont't want to know! it scares and worries me at the same time- what I espeically hate is when people argue that 'no, video games do not encourage violence...' and things like that. I mean its practically a proven fact that they do!
sorry, here I go again... I think now is a good time for me to shut up and finish my homework :D
Brigid *Flying Kick-a-pow!* wrote: "Well, it's a good point that there's not really a huge definition of YA anymore. Especially in recent years, I feel like the age range has really broadened. I feel like when I was 11 or so, books f..."Here, here!! I totally agree with everything you said! I dont think sex etc. should be taken out of YA because it sometimes gives the story some depth and meaning. I think there are some people who arent mature enough for it and so they should put the book down or skim. YA books should have YA issues and things that happen in realit and so why should we get rid of sex scenes and offensive language when it is stuff that is happeneing all of the time!
I am being rude and skipping reading a lot of comments. BUt. oh well. so... here is my thing...I don't care about whether or not sex is being encouraged or discouraged at this point. WHAT ABOUT THE KIDS WHO AREN'T HAVING SEX BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO AND THUS DON'T WANT TO READ ABOUT IT?? Seriously people. I want to read stuff for MY age level that I can relate with. And so do my friends. That group of us who are not disguising lust as love (sorry, that's what it is in wayyy too many books) and are actually still virgins and okay with it. That is my issue with the way that publishers are pushing boundaries. Make another genre or some warning or somthing for the more graphic stuff as not all of us want to be surprised by random sex scenes. Yup.
I think that if it adds to the story, it should be included. If it's just to develope the character, then I think knowing what is happening is enough. Specific details are rarely neccessary, and if it goes on too long people who don't want to read it just skip through it.
Mod
I don't care about whether or not sex is being encouraged or discouraged at this point. WHAT ABOUT T..."
I don't really understand your logic. You don't want to read about something just because you don't participate in it? What about what's essential to the plot and characters?
I agree that a lot of YA books confuse lust and love––that is, two characters will be supposedly "in love" when there is really nothing between them besides physical attraction. And in those cases, I don't think sex is always necessary to the book.
But that doesn't mean all sex scenes in YA books are unnecessary and/or inappropriate for the audience. As a reader–– when it comes to these subjects––you have to see beyond what you would do, and understand what the characters' decisions and actions mean for the story.
You can have sex in a book without the sex scenes. Gayle Foreman did a good job with that. The pushing the boundaries too far, being too graphic and including too much that doesn't advance the plot any is my issue. Characters can have sex. It is the scenes that have the sex being described that I find offensive. And the fact that they are in most books now being published. Or. Authors can have the scenes. And be vague. That idea is fine with me. But. Unless something critical happens beyond the fact that sex is being had, I would rather not know it. I can hop on over the the romance and pick up one of those books if I want to.
Mod
Okay, I agree to a certain extent. Graphic sex scenes are not always necessary. Usually the most important thing is that the reader knows the characters had sex, and that it's important for some reason. I do think there are cases when describing the sex adds more to the story––for example, if it's a particularly traumatic situation for the character, and the author really wants to convey that.
But I think you're exaggerating a little. For example: "And the fact that they are in most books now being published." I mean, this is just not true. A vast majority of YA books I've read did not have sex in them.
It's okay if you find sex scenes uncomfortable, and I'm not trying to change your mind about that. But I don't think you have to be so alarmist about it, either. There are many YA books that tackle the subject, but it's not as if the world of YA books has suddenly become a giant orgy. (Unless I'm reading all the wrong YA books...)
Call me sheltered, but sex in YA is becoming a little too strong. With the advent of Twilight, I am seeing an increased inclusion of the sex drive of teenagers in mainstream YA. No, there are not many NYT Bestsellers with explicit sex scenes (except The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo), but if we look at the trends, teen characters will soon be dropping their pants in many popular books. So, I don't believe having sex scenes is good -- from a moral perspective, as well as the perspective of someone who wants to sell more books. Sex can kill off a large readership, and you can never go wrong with having a clean book.
message 88:
by
Brigid ✩, No tears in the writer, no tears in the reader.
(last edited Jul 10, 2012 08:02AM)
(new)
Mod
You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm not saying you have to like sex scenes in YA. What I take issue with is the "sex in YA is becoming too strong" part. Authors are allowed to make their own choices about whether or not to include sex-related issues in their books, and I think it's unfair to make such a broad generalization.
I also don't think Twilight is to blame. Sure, it's a popular book, and it explores sexual themes. And yes, it has caused an increase in paranormal romance (although as I said earlier, I have read VERY few YA books––of any genre––where the two main characters actually had sex). However, it is definitely not the first YA book to do so.
Not to mention, the truth is ... teenagers do have a strong sex drive. Not all of them, but many of them. I would rather that kids be reading about sex and learning about it––instead of thinking that they are the only ones who are curious and clueless about it. That said, I do think there are a lot of YA books that portray teenagers as being unrealistically experienced with sex. However, there are other books that are more informative about what it's really like, and I wouldn't want those to go away.
"No, there are not many NYT Bestsellers with explicit sex scenes (except The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo), but if we look at the trends, teen characters will soon be dropping their pants in many popular books."
Firstly, I'd like to point out that The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo isn't really a fitting example because it's an adult book. And tons of adult best-sellers do have sex in them. We're discussing YA here. And when it comes to YA, you're kind of making up statistics. You say "if we look at the trends..." but then you say "teen characters will soon be dropping their pants...". You don't have proof of that. And personally, I don't think it's true. I believe that there will always be sex in YA books. But there will also always be authors who don't want to include it in their work. All authors make different choices, and that isn't something that's going to change.
"So, I don't believe having sex scenes is good -- from a moral perspective, as well as the perspective of someone who wants to sell more books."
This is something that I have a big problem with. I don't mind people being uncomfortable reading sex scenes; I understand that. What I have an issue with is people criticizing books for not being "moralistic." I've gone on this rant before––but often when a character does something, it's not always because the author is trying to convey the character's actions as "a good idea." Characters make choices, and make mistakes, in order to convey a certain message. But every time a character does something, it's not as if the author is saying, "You should totally do whatever this character does!"
Furthermore, I have issues with slut-shaming. A lot of teenagers choose to have sex, and I don't think they should be shamed for making that decision. In fact, that's one of the reasons I think sex should remain in YA books; it realistically portrays how teen relationships can become sexual. Not to mention, it probably informs a lot of teenagers how to go about doing it safely, if they choose to do so.
"Sex can kill off a large readership, and you can never go wrong with having a clean book."
Well, if you want to water down your books just so that more people will read them, that's fine by me. That's your choice.
I don't know about you, but for me writing is not about money or popularity. It's because I have something to say, and I'm going to write it the way it was meant to be written. Sometimes that means that I will encounter sexual themes that are important to the plot/characters––and I'm not going to ignore those themes just to appeal to more conservative-minded people.
Plus, as Rebekka said, I totally disagree that "you can never go wrong with having a clean book." Yes, you can. Because you can lose a sense of believability, and lack the dark themes and grittiness that are more true to real life.
For example, I have one story where a sex scene is pretty much the pivotal point for the main character. Since there are major themes about sexuality, and this sex scene is the turning point for the protagonist, I believe it is essential to the story. It's not an explicit sex scene and it doesn't go into much detail, but it still happens––and it needed to happen. Sometimes that is the case, and if the author chooses to leave it out just because he/she is afraid of being judged, the book could lose a lot of its impact.
Over all, I would much rather have a small readership and an authentic version of my book, than to have a large readership based on a censored version of what I actually wanted to write.
I've probably said this again and again, but it's fine if you don't need sex scenes in your books and/or don't want to write them. What sets me off is when people discourage other writers from exploring certain themes––because really, it's the author's decision. The author knows what is best for his/her story, and it's really no one else's business what themes he/she chooses to include.
Mod
You do realize that the current number one and two and three New York Times Bestsellers are the Fifty Shades of Grey series which has more graphic sex scenes than you can count. I'm also pretty sure more on the list have explicit sex scenes. Sorry, that argument just bothers me that YA books have so many worse morals than adult books.
The truth is, I have no idea what YA books you are reading, but more than half of the books on my shelf have no sex scenes whatsoever. And a lot of those that do are along the lines of "and then we had sex lawlz." I don't think teenagers reading scenes and books like that disrupt any morals.
Mod
Aw shucks. But actually, I think you said it very well, and your comment helped me to put my thoughts on the matter together. It's just that I'm more ... long-winded. lol. :P
Mod
I kind of run out of steam and fumble over my words. Tangents, derailments, flight-of-ideas... the works."
Or maybe you are just concise! And I just don't know how to shut up... XD
Mod
Haha, I was going to bring up Fifty Shades of Grey, but yeah ... that's an adult book. Although it does prove that explicit sex doesn't always cancel out a huge readership. I was just a little iffy about using it as an example since it's not for teens ... However, that doesn't mean teens aren't reading it, because a lot of them are. :P
Yes, exactly. Like I said, I've hardly read any YA books with sex in them. And those that did have sex in them ... I can only think of like, one that really went into detail (and that was in Forbidden). Most of them, like you said, just kind of implied that the sex happened.
Mod
Well, I just mentioned 50SoG because Taylor was talking about how a lot of adult books don't have explicit sex scenes.... and that's pretty false.
Mod
Well done ladies! As a teenager and a YA lover and reader I agree with your points and want to tell you that it is true! Yes some YA have sex! Yes some I hav encountered may have gone that extra step and was a bit out there but it isn't as bad as what goes through the minds of teenagers everywhere! Whether or not they read books with sex in them, sex is still common thoughts and conversations for teenagers!
I feel YA can be informing and it shows reality and sex is apart of many teenagers lives, so why take that out? I am also a strong believer that why should you take it away when not everyone is unhappy with it? if you don't want to read it thats up to you but otherwise get over yourself and don't buy the book! People seriously it isn't that hard!!
I'm going to stop arguing this point. Bottom line is, I have a solid belief that sex is a special thing that allows us to have children and that we've made a mockery of it because it feels good. It's in a lot of books today, and while I can understand the benefits of having it in a novel, I think it is too special to be desecrating it like that. I also believe that a lot of people are still offended by explicit sex in books, and I don't want to risk losing a chunk of my fan base because I thought it would be cool to turn the reader on. And, as for the prevalence of sex in YA, I am not saying it is common right now. What I am saying is that things are getting edgier. It is no longer Cinderella romance tales, it is a realistic rehashing of lust over and over again. Ten years ago, sex was not so directly addressed as it is now. Now, it is brought up in every YA book with a romantic twist. Do they have sex? No. Will characters in future books have sex? Most certainly. In this said future, do I want my kids learning about sex from people who don't respect the powerful feelings it causes? No.
There. I've said my piece. Go ahead and screw me over (ha) for my sheltered views.
There. I've said my piece. Go ahead and screw me over (ha) for my sheltered views.
A number of people have asked just what does YA stand for? What age group is this really meant to include, and I think this is an important question as YA does stand for YOUNG ADULT. Also, as others have said I think how the content is presented, and why is important.Personally I think YA should be about dealing with coming of age problems, which includes sex. A few months ago I blogged about this, so if anyone is interested I share all my thoughts here.
http://laurynapril.blogspot.com/2012/...
Okay...sounds good. I enjoy a friendly debate with other writers...even the not-so-friendly debates are fun too! XD
So...sex in YA. Let's start with the initial point of the topic. Where do you draw the line? What is too graphic for you?
Nope...not quite "awkward as shit" as you would suppose. I've been in a lot worse. Though my replies are going to be sporadic. I am cleaning the house before I head out to D.C. tomorrow, so I'll be on and off until about 2:30, then I won't be back on until later tonight.
Let the games begin!
So...sex in YA. Let's start with the initial point of the topic. Where do you draw the line? What is too graphic for you?
Nope...not quite "awkward as shit" as you would suppose. I've been in a lot worse. Though my replies are going to be sporadic. I am cleaning the house before I head out to D.C. tomorrow, so I'll be on and off until about 2:30, then I won't be back on until later tonight.
Let the games begin!
Mod
Well yeah, that's why I was confused. XD
Sorry...I had always thought Girl with the Dragon Tattoo was YA...nice to have that clarified for me. Obviously, we don't know the author's intent, as he's very dead right now. But I can see how it is adult-focused. I put it down when it got too edgy for me.
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
Can this potentially destroy some kids? Sure. But who doesn't want to be destroyed like that?