I walked into Costco a few months ago and was accosted by a couple of young men in white shirts and ties. Because I have no tattoos or piercings, eschew black eyeliner, and look like the typical middle-aged mom that walks into Costco, it's hard to look at me and see that I am an avid crusader for human rights and politically and socially liberal.
So these two young men practically drag me over to their display. "We have something you'll really like."
First of all, thanks for labeling me based on my appearance and deciding what I like/want/need, and second, respect my personal space by kindly removing your hand from my arm.
I thought it was perhaps the latest Greg Olson paintings or some religious book series, so genuine was their zeal, but the "something" turned out to be even more "epic"-- a gizmo that you could connect with your DVD player and set to edit your movies as they play. The settings are quite sophisticated--for language, nudity, sexuality, violence, etc. But no setting to edit out stupid or insipid, I mused silently.
What I said, however, was: "I know I look like someone who would be interested in this, but you are soooo barking up the wrong tree."
Stunned looks from the sales guys.
"I believe in personal responsibility, not censorship," I continued. "I help my kids choose movies and recommend they wait till they're a certain age on some of them."
"Thanks for showing me this, and good luck with your crusade," I said as I departed. I don't think they realized I meant "crusade" in a negative context, because they thanked me for my good wishes.
Yesterday I came across this article about a literary agent who refuses to accept a manuscript for a post-apocalyptic YA book series that includes a gay character. The action in the book never gets beyond kissing, but this agent is refusing to represent the book series unless the authors make the character straight, or at least asexual. Maybe he can "come out" in the third novel, once people are hooked on the series. The longer linked Publisher's Weekly blog article tells of more incidents of similar censorship--some of it happening once the manuscript has been turned over, and the edits taking place without the authors' knowledge.
I admit that I am not as current with all YA lit as I should be, but I know there are many YA novels out there that portray teen sexuality very frankly, in detail, and portray teens engaging in adult behaviors, often irresponsibly, and not always as cautionary tales as YA novels have heretofore been wont to try and accomplish. For example, Judy Blume's Forever (the title is ironic) is about how devastated two teens are after having had sex before they were emotionally prepared to handle the consequences or ramifications of their choice.
Apparently hetero teen relationships are okay in YA fiction, no matter how far they go, and no matter what the message to impressionable teens may be.
Homosexuality exists. In humans and in about 400 different animal species. Whatever the prevailing religious or social convictions, there are gay teens out there who feel confused and alone. As the article states, how are gay teens supposed to react to the message that they are such horrible people that characters like them aren't allowed to exist in fiction? The article also addresses the "whitewashing" of American YA fiction, but that is another post altogether.
I know, I know. The publishing world is more about the bottom line than about providing diverse characters to foster tolerance and understanding. Follow the money and steer clear of any possible feather-ruffling. But I can dream, can't I?
No comments:
Post a Comment