I just read this article, so please excuse me if this post takes on ranting proportions.
But this sort of thing just grates me to the point where I want to hit something… So… Here’s my say.
I write YA.
I write it because teens are at that stage in their lives when anything and everything can happen, depending on the choices they make. It can be a time of endless potential.
The whole world can be an adventure waiting to start.
It can also be a personal hell.
Indeed. Just because we want our world to stretch before us pure and unspoilt, doesn’t make it so.
Throwing a tantrum in the press won’t make global warming go away. It won’t stop the hike in homicides. It won’t make rapists think twice about what they are doing. It won’t make people stop bullying.
In fact, it will make the person throwing the tantrum seem a little naive.
So how does this lock in with the above mentioned article?
Well (and some of my readers might have read this before) we writers have a function in society.
We don’t teach.
We don’t preach.
We don’t tell.
We show the world with its flaws. We show violence. We show the ramifications of that violence. We show that teens aren’t the only ones with self-image problems. We show that people subjected to the most terrifying and horrible of situations can come out of it.
We’re not Teachers. We’re not doctors.
We are oracles.
And refusing to reflect some things just because it makes certain elements in society squirm is an abuse of our skills of writers.
Murder and Suicide among teens?
You guessed it.
Now, I also can’t stomach every terrible event that occurs in YA, but that does not give me the right for criticising writers for being brave enough to pen those words down.
Because writers have a duty to show the pain inflicted as much as the joys experienced. The dark and ugly should get as much attention as the beautiful.
People lose things.
YA is not as terrible as it is being made to seem.
But they ALL have a function for certain sorts of people.
How dare anyone decide for us which books should be allowed and which ones shouldn’t.
Smut don’t reach readers because people don’t like reading it.
But while we’re on the topic of smut… who has the right to decide what is smut and what is acceptable? Smut depends on taste. It depends on individual perception.
As a final point of objection:
Is it so wrong to object to the censoring of good books just because The Guardians of Collective Morality decided what should be allowed?
Oh it is?
Then let the burning of books and the live burials of writers begin…
What’s your opinion?