I was trying not to enter the discussion about dark YA lit, but, alas, I’ve read the article and many responses now, and, go figure, I have an opinion.

First, where I disagree with Gurdon is in her last line:

No family is obliged to acquiesce when publishers use the vehicle of fundamental free-expression principles to try to bulldoze coarseness or misery into their children’s lives.

Well, of course no family is obliged to read any book ever, or to sit silently by while publishers put out dark books, even. But accusing publishers of trying to bulldoze coarseness or misery into children’s lives is as wrong as accusing Christians of trying to shove their religion down people’s throats.

To speak about what you believe or to publish books that reflect what you believe does not constitute shoving or bulldozing. Let’s get over ourselves and quit taking offense when other people speak about their beliefs. To be passionate for a cause does not mean you hate your opponents and you would force your will on them if you could.

Authors of dark books are not trying to bulldoze garbage into children. They are writing about things they think are important. The authors I know want to give their readers stories that entertain, that stretch, that enlighten, and that encourage love and justice and bravery and all kinds of good things. Librarians are not pushing misery onto children because they love to see children turned into coarse, miserable human beings, rather they are giving books they think will be a good fit. Gurdon may disagree with how important, helpful, or fitting the books are, but she shouldn’t suggest that publishers (and by implication authors and librarians) are trying to bulldoze people.

Publishers are trying to make money. They’ll publish what sells. It’s true that publishers are people and they have preferences. It’s true that people in the industry have agendas. But even the people with agendas aren’t trying to bulldoze their beliefs into children’s lives. More likely, because they believe in environmental conservation or gay rights or a woman’s right to choose to abort her baby, they will present those things as reasonable and fair in the novels they choose to publish. Christians do this as well as anyone. (Not saying Gurdon is a Christian. I have no idea what her religious beliefs are. But I’m talking to other Christians here who may share Gurdon’s feelings.) I’m a Christian and if I ever put Christian characters in my books, most of them will be reasonable and fair people. Why? Because I have an agenda. I want to present Christianity in a positive light. Sure, I know some Christians are bozos. But I’m not required to call attention to them. I’m allowed to highlight Christians that are loving and kind and fair.

That’s not bulldozing. No one has to read what anyone else writes.

I agree completely with Gurdon when she says:

Yet let a gatekeeper object to a book and the industry pulls up its petticoats and shrieks “censorship!”

It is of course understood to be an act of literary heroism to stand against any constraints, no matter the age of one’s readers; Ms. Myracle’s editor told Publishers Weekly that the author “has been on the front lines in the fight for freedom of expression.”

I’m just wondering how a claim of “Bulldozing misery and coarseness!” is better than a claim of “Censorship!”

No matter the publishers’ personal beliefs or agendas, they have to make money. If what they’re peddling isn’t selling, they’ll have to find something else to peddle. I suspect they are less enthralled with misery and coarseness than they are with keeping their jobs. I would guess they are selling the sex and violence because these things sell. If we all started demanding Amish YA books, those would be published, I bet. (No! Please! I’m not advocating this.) So to paint publishers as some kind of sadomasochists who love misery and want to make sure all children wallow in it, is, I think, unfair and probably even slanderous.

That’s my beef with Gurdon. Next time I’ll give you my beef with the YA community. (“Why stop with offending one side, when it is in our power to offend both sides?” I always say.) In the meantime you might want to listen to this radio interview with Gurdon. She does a good job of defending her article and presents herself well, I think. In the end, I agree with her far more than I disagree. I simply think her editorial was unnecessarily inflammatory.

I want to be Tahereh Mafi when I grow up. Her first book is coming in November. I already want it. I read her blog and I think she’s brilliant.

And this will surprise anyone that knows me. Because Tahereh Mafi is just 23 years old. Now, I ask you, how can a girl who is barely out the pimply teen stage of life, have anything of any interest to say to me, a woman over twice her age? She’s just a baby. Maybe she’s had some life experiences. I suppose she’s old enough to have been through some suffering and some joy. I guess she’s had time to contemplate some of life’s mysteries.

But you have to admit that Tahereh Mafi is a throwback to an earlier age.

Or something.

Most young women her age are not able to understand human nature the way Tahereh does. Maybe it has less to do with our age than it has to do with genius. There are geniuses in every age. John Calvin wrote the Institutes when he was what? 27? Here I am at 50 and I haven’t even bothered to read them, let alone to write anything that reaches one millionth of their worth. Whether you agree with his theological stance or not, you have to admit the man was brilliant.

In Calvin’s day, men started younger and they died younger, I think. But even then, most men, whether they were in their twenties or their sixties, weren’t writing volumes that would change the world.

Now Tahereh Mafi is a just a young woman and chances are she’s not writing books that will change the world, yet. I’m not sure. Her first book isn’t out yet. But this is what I think. If she wants to, she can write books that will change the world.  Why do I think this? Because at 23 she has such a strong grasp on human nature. You can read it on her blog. She gets people.

And not only that…she reaches people.

Some intelligent people don’t mix well with the rest of us. But Tahereh empathizes with the rest of us, I do believe. And intelligence and empathy together are pretty powerful. If you can inform others, lift them up to loftier thought, and if you care enough about them to try, then you very well might change the world some day.

Whether she will have a positive impact or a negative one remains to be seen. I haven’t been reading her blog long enough to know what she thinks about the big issues of life. But I believe she will probably have some impact. For good or ill.

And I’d really like to envy her. I’d like to be as smart as she is and as well educated and as well traveled and as well versed in foreign languages. I’d like to be able to be able to express myself as well as she does. I’d like to be quirky and witty and wildly creative. I’d like to envy her, but I’m too busy enjoying her. She has so much talent. She’s not above the rest of us in God’s sight. She sins like we all do. God didn’t give her talent because she’s nicer, or more holy, or more deserving than everyone else. He has his own reasons for giving her talent, but I suspect one of those reasons is that he wanted the rest of us to celebrate his workmanship. Why did he make food taste good? Why did he make sunsets and forests and ocean waves so rich in beauty, full of power and subdued by grace? Why did he give Tahereh such talent? She’s his work of art.

I was playing with my sister’s Sony, trying to find out how to load books on it so I could teach her, and I came across this bit above.  Check out the digital rights box. (Click on the image to make it larger.) Reading aloud not allowed.

I was already ticked because I recently discovered that there is no way to lend my Amazon Kindle books to other Kindle users. That is not OK with me. One of the things I love best to do with books is share them with my friends and family so we can discuss them. I have tried and tried to find a way to share ebooks and I’ve been unable to do it. As a result I never buy or read books on my Kindle anymore. It’s too bad, because I loved that Kindle. But it’s a matter of principle with me. I won’t pay for a book that I don’t own and that I can’t pass around as I see fit.

But now the e-book people want to tell me I can’t even read a book aloud to my children or mother? What a bizarre and stupid rule that is.

So my infatuation with e-books is over for now. I’ll wait until they take off their stupid digital rights thingies and let us own the books we buy before I give them any more money. Meanwhile I’m downloading a lot of free books, which doesn’t help the authors much.

I think we need to start complaining to let the publishers know that they need to get rid of their digital rights devices and let consumers read aloud and even lend books willy-nilly, as wild and uninhibited and dangerous as that might feel to them.

I’ve just discovered a great new blog. Agent Savant, aka Laurie McLean, has some great posts up. This week she cleared up the FTC thingy for us, and also re-posted a PW piece on YA apocalyptic fiction.

I also came across a nifty new site for young authors and artists. It has, so far, eight fantastic writers on its author’s panel. Go check it out.

And here’s an exciting article about a debut author from Australia, who has hit the big time after being snatched from the slush pile in a British literary agency. The book is a riveting psychological thriller, apparently. It brought in bids from around the world at the Frankfurt Book Fair.

This bit confused me:

With its gritty and tough themes, the book is expected to appeal both to teenagers and adults. One publisher likened “Beautiful Malice” to Stephenie Meyer’s successful Twilight series — without the vampires but with the sex.

The thing is, I thought that the Twilight books didn’t have sex. But I only read the first book. No sex in that one. Lot’s of lusting and hunger, but no sex.

Anyway, I’ll probably pass on Beautiful Malice. But it’s encouraging to see that publishers are still getting excited about books.

Yikes! I’d better start talking nice about Stephenie Meyer. She apparently can make an author. I’m not sure if that means she can break an author, too, but it seems like she’d make a better friend than an enemy.

But, wow! What kind of temptation that amount of power would present to a person. I would love to write books that millions of teens loved to read, but I don’t think the rich and famous part of the equation would be very pleasant. If I were in that position, I’m afraid my heart would shrivel and my head would expand. I’m thinking I’d be really tempted to believe the fans when they said I was wonderful.

What could a person do to fight off that temptation?

I know! If I’m ever rich and famous I’ll adopt several children. Kids have so many needs that parents fail to fulfill that every time you see them you’re reminded of what a failure you are. You may be serving millions of kids belonging to other parents but your own kids will keep you living in the real world where you know you’re just plodding along faking it, just like the next guy.