My Take on the Wall Street Journal Article About YA

Yesterday I watched Twitter explode in response to a Wall Street Journal article by Mrs. Meghan Cox Gurdon, entitled "Darkness Too Visible." In the article, the author makes the argument that YA is rife with all flavors of depravity and peddled by editors eager to "bulldoze coarseness and misery into children's lives."

My initial reaction to the article was incredulous amusement--when my agent sent me the link, I assumed I was going to be reading something well-informed and balanced. However, it was immediately apparent by the contemptuous and smugly dismissive tone that this was a completely one-sided opinion piece.

OK. The lady is entitled to her opinion.

The problem I have is if her opinion is mistaken for thorough, well-informed analysis.

Here there be dragons. Or, er,
OCD and depression. BEWARE.

Her argument: YA is full of "hideously distorted portrayals of the way life really is." And then she targets several books (most of which I have read, some of which I have discussed here on this blog) that include main characters grappling with mental illness, trauma, or substance abuse. She implies that describing these struggles in "stomach-clenching detail" is harmful to teens, and further implies  books that either omit or gloss over these conditions are preferable.

To which I say: huh?


Guess what? One in five teens has a diagnosable mental illness. Anxiety? Thirteen percent. Mood disorders? Seven percent. Disruptive behavior disorders (this includes ADHD and conduct disorder)? Ten percent. And that's just a few categories. In EVERY high school classroom, there are at least a few adolescents struggling with one of these conditions, not to mention abuse, bullying, dating violence, or other trauma.

To pretend these individuals don't exist is offensive. To imply books written for teens should not include them--as if their experiences are not real, as if knowing what they really go through is harmful to others, as if reading books full of sunshine and light will fix them--is highly distressing. And, I'll say it: harmful.

I mean, is that the message we want to send to teens? Let's brush kids with problems under the rug? Let's only tell the stories of well-adjusted kids from two-parent homes? If you read about someone doing drugs, having sex, self-mutilating, feeling depressed, going through a trauma,  or living the brutal reality of poverty and violence, you'll be messed up or catch a mental illness like a bad cold?

There's NO empirical evidence to suggest that is true.

Mrs. Gurdon asserts that reading about a behavior, such as self-mutilation, gives teens ideas they do not otherwise have and encourages them to try it. Although she probably didn't know it, she was referring to the concept of social learning, a well-tested theory which postulates that human beings learn through watching others engage in a behavior and get rewarded for it. An example: teenage girls might watch ultra-skinny models vaunted for their beauty and portrayed as living glamorous lives, and get the idea that starving themselves is a good idea. There is evidence to suggest that is, to some extent, true (though the mechanisms behind eating disorders are MORE COMPLICATED than that by far, or every girl in the US would have an eating disorder).

However, is that really the case with YA? For those of you who read this blog regularly, you know the kind of books I read. Nearly all of them are about mental illness or trauma. I've read dozens of them. Not once have I read a YA book that glorified unhealthy behavior. YA authors are brilliant at showing the complex consequences of their protagonists' choices. No, the writers are not preaching. But OH YES are they showing realistic outcomes. Do they cultivate sympathy for their characters? Absolutely. Do they show their characters getting out of situations unscathed? No way.

If someone publishes a peer-reviewed prospective study of how reading specific content in YA leads directly to the portrayed behavior (while controlling for other predictive factors, of course), I will humbly eat these words. Until then ...

Mrs. Gurdon also laments that YA books that realistically portray mental illness or disturbance might normalize this stuff.

To which I say: ARGH.

Again, recall how many teens experience mental illness. Think about what they face. In one study, ninety percent of kids diagnosed with a mental illness (and taking medication) reported experiencing some type of stigma. They were socially isolated and felt ashamed of their conditions. Do increased feelings of shame and isolation help a person to heal? One guess as to the answer.

Research shows that the more middle schoolers and older teens know about mental illness and its treatment, the more healthy their attitudes become. Research also shows that fostering empathy is an important tool to prevent bullying. Based on my observations, YA does two things relevant to those research findings: it shows kids they're not the only ones going through this stuff. And it shows all kids the perspectives and experiences of others with whom they share the world.

But here's the thing: each kid is an individual with strengths and vulnerabilities. So is every parent. What will be good, even redemptive and life-changing, to one teen will be triggering or disturbing to another. Just like everything else, literature isn't one-size-fits-all. When parents come into my office and ask if roughhousing or video games are okay, for example, I do NOT say, "no." I answer based on my knowledge of the child (and the parent). And the answer is not AN ANSWER. It's a discussion. A collaborative consideration of the individual kid, parent, and environment.

With teenagers, it's a more complex conversation. At that point, it becomes a matter of negotiation and problem-solving rather than one of parent-decides-kid-obeys (actually, ideally, parents begin having problem-solving discussions with their children long before adolescence--the earlier you're in the game, the more likely your kid is to keep letting you play). Parent-child communication--and appropriate parental limit-setting-- protects kids from all sorts of risks. Parental autocracy? Doesn't.

What I've seen many, many YA authors suggest is that parents should read alongside their kids. These authors are NOT saying every kid should read every book. Rather, they are saying parents should talk to their kids. Decide together (and the older the teen, the more freedom he/she has to make independent decisions). Have frank discussions about the material. Be open and receptive and don't freak out. This is the approach mental health professionals happen to advocate as well.
All right, I'm done.

Have you read the WSJ article? What did you think? Are you concerned about teens being desensitized? That mental illness or substance abuse will be "normalized"? Do you find there is a dearth of light-hearted or "innocent" books out there? Are you a parent? Are you having to negotiate the world of books with your kid, and how are you accomplishing that?