Tuesday, 22 July 2014

Don’t fear bleak books for teenagers (and why we do) - Nicola Morgan

(Reposting a post I wrote on my Heartsong blog a couple of weeks ago, because I still think it.)

I rarely review books but I did when Bunker Diary by Kevin Brooks first came out, so I'm on record as thinking it brilliant and brave. Now it has won the prestigious Carnegie Medal, and a storm has brewed. Many adults vehemently object to the book's bleakness, darkness and violence.

I’m not addressing whether it’s the right sort of book for the Carnegie because I want to tackle the wider issue of whether it’s right to write books like this for teenagers and whether it’s OK for them to read them.

I don’t seek to change the minds of those who dislike the book – anyone is free to dislike, even detest, any book. Many of the detractors are experts in children's books; their opinions are strongly held and well-meaning.

What I want to do is shed light on the following things, as someone who spends a lot of time thinking about adolescence, human nature and the psychology and science of reading:
  1. The reasons why many adults wish teenagers wouldn't read such books.
  2. The reasons why many teenagers do.
  3. Whether it matters that they do.

1. Why do many adults wish teenagers didn't read such books? Or, perhaps, that such books weren't written?

Good adults are programmed by biology and culture to protect babies and children. We protect them from actual harm and, when we can, from fears and nasty thoughts. We hope they never have to deal with nasty things themselves, though we realise many eventually will. We know, somewhere in the logical part of our brain, that they must learn to take risks, one day, but we try to control when that risk-taking happens and how. This is right and proper. We want to "protect their innocence" as long as possible. This is understandable.

When I did my first talk as a YA novelist at the Edinburgh Book Festival, I was floored by a question: "How do you feel knowing that you damage children?" It turned out that the questioner had 11 year-old grandchildren and since then I have often met this fear in parents or other relatives of that age group. Through my work, I understand how hard it is to move from being the parent of a child to the parent of a teenager. It's tough to let go. And tougher when it’s the young people themselves who insist on pulling away – as they are biologically driven to do. We don’t like the fact that some of them choose nasty books. We worry.

So, adults who protest against novels like Bunker Diary are being nurturing and protective. That's what we do with young children. At some point, however, we need to remove the cotton wool and tolerate bruises gained in the pursuit of knowledge and independence because they are not damaging. Bruises are temporary, after all.

Teenagers are not children. In the arguments about Bunker Diary, the word "children" has sometimes been used instead of "teenagers". This is not a small distinction. “Adolescent” means "becoming an adult", and that needs to be allowed to happen.

2. Why do many teenagers like bleak books?

First, let's remember that all readers, within any age range, are different; some teenagers will and some won't like reading such books. But why might some be drawn to dark stories? Because fiction is, among other things, for exploring emotions, testing them, feeling what experiences are like. Fiction is for breaking boundaries if we want to break boundaries, and for coming back safely as we wake up and realise that it was "only a story". Just as when we wake up from a nightmare we feel relief that it was only a dream. Sleep researchers tell us that a purpose of dreaming may be to process emotions, stresses and fears healthily. I argue that fiction has that role, too.

The magic of fiction is that we get carried away into the fictional world and almost forget that we aren't really there. That no one is; that it was all constructed inside a writer’s imagination. So strongly does this narrative transportation happen that we can end up having heated arguments about made up stories…

Teenagers often feel extreme emotions; their emotional and reward centres are highly active, bombarded by the changes in their lives, bodies and brains. Hardly surprising that they need extreme books, whether extremely frightening, passionate, funny, or sad.

And how do we practise empathy - that supreme effect of fiction - if we can't practise extremes of feeling? Those extremes will be different for each person. Each of us has our limits. I won’t argue with yours if you will allow me mine.

Teenagers don't always think the same things are horrible or for the same reasons as we do. Adults often require less or different stimulus to be shocked, saddened or scared. Many adolescents love watching horror films or reading misery memoirs. They sometimes feel the need to, perhaps to exorcise some of their fears, to practise the emotions, to test their limits. In safety.

In safety. Freely chosen. And you can stop the moment you want to. (In books, if not so easily in films.)

I remember the first time I cried in a film: Ring of Bright Water. You know the bit. The ditch. The spade. I was nearly twelve. I was shocked - and embarrassed because I didn't know films or books were things you cried in. (I was born and had lived all my life in a boys' school. Does that explain it? It did then. We didn't have YA fiction, either.) When my mother said of course it was OK to cry in a film, I wanted to watch it again, just to cry again. And, remember, RoBW is not fiction. (Actually, at the time I thought it was, which was probably a relief.)

Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four. The bleakest fictional ending ever. The moment when Winston gives in to his torturers and betrays his girlfriend with the searing words, "Do it to Julia" and, later, betrays himself and the rest of humanity. I know, it's not a teenage book. But we make teenagers read it. We don’t tell them it’s too bleak for them.

3. So, does it matter that they often choose to read bleak books?

Hell, yes, it matters. It matters that they read, that they engage passionately and willingly with stories and reading. And it matters that if that is what they want to read, it's there for them. Whether it’s Nineteen Eighty-Four or Bunker Diary or whatever. It matters, too, in my opinion, that their choice is not disparaged. It matters that adults don’t imply that they are sick for enjoying it. (And adults are now using a vile term for books in which young people die. I'm not using it here as I think it's also demeaning to the readers of those books.) We don’t have to enjoy the books they choose but we should be very cautious before undermining their enjoyment and choices. (Not all the adults have - I'm just saying we should make sure we don't.)

On the other hand, carry on - teenagers like to read what adults don't like...

But doesn't it damage them? I think it might, conceivably, if you forced a young person to read a book that they didn’t want to read because it was making them feel things they didn’t want to feel or making their low mood worse. Or if the young person had to face ideas or scenarios they weren’t ready to think about. And if they had no way to process those ideas and fears healthily, by talking them through with others, for example.

I admit, too, that reading bleak books when you are already sad is not likely to be therapy. And that reading a book about suicide when you have suicidal thoughts yourself is a very bad idea. In The Teenage Guide to Stress, I recommend fiction as relaxation strategy, but I caution against reading books that make you feel sad if you are already sad.

But those are specific circumstances and Bunker Diary is not a book about suicide. Bunker Diary is a book in which the characters find themselves in a horrifying situation and try to work together to get out of it. (Regarding the Carnegie, I agree there's a possible issue because it's for a wide range of ages and there are shadowing groups, in which a younger than 12yo might be in a position of reading before he or she is ready. But the responsible adults will handle that situation with care, I'm sure. We can't exclude an eligible and highly recommended book because it only suits parts of the valid age range. Very few books suit a 9yo and a 14yo. Anyway, as I say, this isn't about the Carnegie argument.)

Books don’t damage – they do change and transform us. Everything we read and hear and see and think changes us. We are never the same at the end of an engaging book as we were when we started. And that's somewhat scary if you're a caring adult nurturing an adolescent. But we have to be brave and trust teenage (as opposed to younger) readers to make their own choices and feed their thirst for knowledge and ideas, so that they can decide for themselves.

A friend of mine told me how her then nearly-twelve-year-old daughter started reading The Lovely Bones. After a chapter or so, the daughter had to stop, too scared to read on. So scared that she buried the book under a pile of clothes in a cupboard. Next day she took the book out and read the whole thing. Her choice. She was ready. Changed but not damaged. At any time she could have stopped again - and she would have if it was making her feel awful. But she knew it was a story. She knew how to read it. She took control as she explored her emotions.

So, for those teenage readers who want to push the boundaries of their emotions, we need brave and risky books like Bunker Diary, even if it's too bleak for adults. If you can't block them from hearing or reading about the dark side of the real world in the news, don't try to stop them reading about such things in the safety of fiction, where they can explore and experiment on their own, without fear of actual harm.

Let go. Don’t stop caring, but worry less. 


Stroppy Author said...

Totally agree, Nicola, and I think it's a brilliant book, too. I'd only add - it's not just about feeling, it's also about thinking. BD is a highly philosophical book. Anyone who reads it as a teenager and later encounters the arguments by Rousseau and Hobbes about whether human nature is innately good or bad, or who reads Lord of the Flies, will discover they have already begun to think about those issues and many other. Learning how to think and using that skill to ponder really important questions is a vital skill if one is to become a fully autonomous and critical citizen and not just party-political vote fodder. Some of the most important questions are approached through bleak books.

Nicola Morgan said...

Absolutely. A point I make when I talk to adults about the teenage brain and teenage reading is that they are ready (and there are good brain developmental reasons for this) for Big Ideas and Questions.

Nick Green said...

It could even be argued that the very purpose of 'bleak fiction' is to make us stronger, not damage us. I saw a fascinating TV programme once about a man suffering from paralysing OCD, which was linked to his irrational fear that his son would have an accident and die.

His therapy? The psychiatrist made the man imagine the very scenario he dreaded, and to repeat like a mantra: 'My son has had an accident. My son is dead.' In a bizarre way, learning to 'accept' this nightmare enabled him to see that it had not, in fact, happened... and so he managed to overcome his compulsions.

I think bleak fiction can serve a similar function, digging up our own buried fears and helping to defuse them.

C.J.Busby said...

Great post and I think you are right that part of the furore arises from that very understandable parental impulse to protect children. I think you're also right to draw a distinction between children and teenagers - but it's as much about emotional maturity as age. Some eleven or twelve year olds are ready for these kind of books, some 14 year-olds will find them too much. The great thing about books is you can stop reading if you don't like it! And it's not as if the cover and blurb of Bunker Diary don't make it abundantly clear what's inside! I'm reading it at the moment, and finding it very gripping, but have yet to hit the controversial territory...

Emma Barnes said...

I had a rather different take on this controversy recently http://awfullybigblogadventure.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/in-defense-of-real-realism-in-childrens.html. But I find your points compelling and a lot more subtle than the usual "real life is grim so that's why teenage books are grim" line that is often quoted and with which I argued there.

I'm still a bit suspicious of the "fiction as therapy" line though. Teenagers love to experiment - previous generations scared themselves silly with Stephen King and felt mildly sick reading Flowers in the Attic. Now lots of adults seem to like reading increasingly dark crime fiction featuring increasingly graphic violence. I think people should read what they want to read. But is there always some kind of valuable therapeutic or philosophical purpose to that reading? Hmm...

Nicola Morgan said...

Emma, I haven't mentioned fiction as therapy. Nor did I say or remotely suggest that there should be "always some kind of valuable therapeutic or philosophical purpose to that reading?" I think there can be, very much so, if that is what people happen to want, but it's not what I'm suggesting. I'm saying that choosing to engage with particular fiction is part of the healthy, natural process of developing as a human. It can have many effects, some of them therapeutic.

And, by the way, I've often spoken and written about the danger of over-emphasising reading as being "for" a benefit, using the analogy of spinach and strawberries. But that's only a danger in the hands of didactic adults. If some readers treat fiction as therapy, and they want that therapy, I have absolutely no problem with that. My book Blame My Brain is actually offered as a "book on prescription" and I think that's wonderful. Where any prescribed reading becomes a problem is when it's taken unwillingly. But if any reader chooses to read any book to salve any feeling or wonder, I see absolutely no problem with that.

Great books expand our minds. They can be challenging or therapeutic, life-changing or life-affirming, and a whole load of other things.

C.J.Busby said...

Well, I'm late to this party, but just finished The Bunker Diary, and I think it's a fabulous book. It's quite unlike I was expecting from all the comments and debate on it, and from the blurb. It's funny, astute, humane, heart-warming and knotty and opens up all sorts of questions about what it means to be human. It's also very gripping and very sad. It's WAY less bleak or dark than Anne Fine's book, despite the subject matter, and I'd say it's actually less bleak than The Elephant's Child too. It would make a great GCSE text. And OK, it's not representative, but it's not like these things don't happen at all ever, and exploring them in fiction is one way of trying to understand who we are and what life is about. (One way - not the only way - but still a legitimate way.) But I agree with Emma that quieter sorts of exploration can get pushed aside sometimes.

Emma Barnes said...

Sorry Nicola - think I was just being contrary there. I'm blaming Nick for his comments about OCD for sparking off my response!

Nicola Morgan said...

Actually, Emma, i was just going to apologise to you! I was a bit cantankerous-sounding! It's just that I feel so strongly about this and there was much more I could have said in the original post about the other reasons for reading, but I wanted to focus on one aspect of the "bleak books discussion", that adults should not *worry* if teenagers want to read them, and why they do, and how anything that restricts teenagers' choice to explore anything in books is misguided.

I think the OCD issue is interesting. My niece, as you may know, has it. (She was featured on Extreme OCD Camp.) The therapy Nick mentions is exposure therapy and it's very very tough - and you'd want it to be under medical supervision rather than while reading a novel, I think! I would not prescribe a novel to deal with any kind of mental illness, but then I'm not a doctor. My instinct is that the outcome would be too unpredictable.

Diana Kimpton said...

I thought you might be interested in this article on a very similar issue.
I worry about bleak books being used in schools where children and teenagers have to read them whether they want to or not. This takes away the option of stopping reading if the story is too upsetting and can be particularly difficult for young people who are affected by the issues raised by the book.