But authors should not feel they have to "do funny" and I wouldn't like schools to fall into the trap of thinking that the only engaged audience is one falling off its chairs with laughter. I say this because I've seen children's authors recently worry that their events aren't "funny enough" and comparing themselves unfavourably with talented comic authors and speakers.
We should not forget that not everyone always wants to be made to laugh; not everyone laughs at the same things; and some people have different needs. I, for one, given the choice between an hour of laughter and an hour of having my heart and mind spun dizzy with new ideas or shocked into a new groove by fresh images and stories, would opt for dizzy or shocked. And I was always like that. Doesn't mean I don't have a sense of humour or like laughing, just that they are not at the top of my priority list. They are fairly high up it, but not at the top. I know I'm not alone.
If our books don't feature pants, slime or slapstick, our talks may not lend themselves to funny. I've written funny - and in my talks on Chicken Friend, yes, it was great to see the kids laughing when I chose the funny bits to read, though I preferred the more thoughtful bits, the bits where my main character really struggled with things in her world. But my YA novels are far from funny. A mastectomy without anaesthetic isn't funny; nor is being stalked; nor is mental illness or alcoholism. Even my talks on the teenage brain - which some adults might say, unjokingly, was a genuine comedic mine - only look for the occasional release of laughter. And that's usually when I quote Shakespeare.
She didn't want to laugh about her stress - even though laughing about serious things is no bad thing. She wanted her mind to be "settled". A book and a talk should do whatever they should do: inspire laughter or excitement or thoughts or emotions or resolution, whatever.
Today, I'm heading to Gordonstoun for two days of almost entirely unfunny events. However, I will at one point wear a knitted brain on my head (thanks, Cat!) and people will laugh. That's fine. Especially since the brief laughter will flood their brains with chemicals which will make them better able to absorb the serious stuff.
But the value of an event is not measured in the decibels of laughter. If you set out to be funny, then it is, of course; if you set out to be thought-provoking, you might measure it in the silence and stillness. Or in the chatter afterwards. Or in a single question or email. Measure it how you like but don't be overwhelmed by the hegemony of humour.
So, to my fellow authors planning events: you do not have to wear your pants (or a knitted brain) on your head. Just wear your best ones.
The Teenage Guide to Stress is published on July 3rd by Walker Books. It's not funny so don't laugh.
10 comments:
Very good points, Nicola. Will try to remember this wise advice. However - speaking of primary audiences - quite often it's adults who are keen on having the funny approach to show the children that "reading can be fun", or similar.
Good wishes for your busy week.
Thanks Nicola! And you are so right - laughter is good but, given a choice, I think I prefer new ideas and quiet reflection. There is surely no point in using laughter to teach something if your audience remembers the joke but not the point you were making?
Penny, I know, and my message is as much to those adults - laughter is not the only way to inspire the reading bug. Laughter is not the only "fun". :)
Great post, Nicola, and you're absolutely right. It does sometimes feel as if a successful author talk is measured on the same scale as stand-up, but maybe if we're not naturally comic we need to be more confident about what we DO do. There's room for lots of different approaches in inspiring children.
Out of interest, do you think there's a gender dimension to this? There's been some discussion recently about whether male authors are more likely to write slapstick kids books, to give 'funny' talks, to generally be seen as in more successful as a result at inspiring the 'reluctant (read boy) reader'. I can think of a lot of exceptions to this in all respects (funny books written by women, more serious male authors, reluctant readers gripped by non-slapstick books), but I wonder if it's a perception held by teachers/educationalists/publishers? The recent Reading Zone live streaming event was almost entirely a line-up of male funny authors.
I enjoyed this post very much. It is good to be reminded that different children like different things.
No-one who is not naturally funny should ever try to be funny. It's like having perfect pitch - you've either got it or you haven't. You can't learn it.
And it's also worth remembering that not all kids find things like slime and pants and poo funny. I remember being an incredibly fastidious child who loathed that kind of thing. I found it patronising and demeaning to us kids.
Nick, hear, hear!
CJ, yes. In fact this post was in part inspired by the homogenous nature of that particular conference line-up, lovely and talented though each of the speakers may be. Such lack of diversity is not good.
Thank you for this, Nicola. As someone who is about to give her first talk to young teens about a book which deals with grief and loss, I needed to hear it! Especially since, up till now, my talks have featured impressions of stick insects and kittens peeing in sugar bowls. Time to get serious...
Well said, Nicola!
Post a Comment