On the WSJ, YA, and Art

And so, here we are again: Someone (this time the Wall Street Journal, via one Meghan Cox Gurdon) has attacked young adult novels and those who write them. This happens with depressing, almost metronomic regularity. Many YA authors were put-upon geeks in high school, and it seems like the bullying from the "cool kids" never ends.

When these disputes arise, I’m always tempted just to post “Go fuck yourselves” and let that be it. Because, in all honesty, “Go fuck yourselves” is roughly the same level of respect and consideration they show to me and mine.

Usually, though, I just hold my tongue and let other folks take up arms. Because I don’t need the spike in my blood pressure, and every minute I spend rebutting these jackasses is one I don’t spend doing something more pleasant, such as chewing glass or driving nails into my skull. And because let's face it -- you're not going to change the rock-solid, paralyzed mind of someone who spouts the drivel Ms. Gurdon spouts. She made up her mind and she's proving how right she is by never being wrong.

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

Strawman much? No one is "bulldozing coarseness or misery" into anyone's lives, you ill-informed puppet. There are books with content you don't like and there are books with content you do like. Let your kids read the latter and leave the former for those who want them. Here's a tidbit for you: If no one wants the former, THEY WILL STOP BEING PUBLISHED. It's called the free market. The halfwits and dunderheads at the Journal claim to be old-fashioned capitalists, so why this fundamental lack of understanding of its most basic principles? There’s a market for YA — people buy it. Done and done. This is the capitalist credo. So shut up already.

But what really bothers me is that these attacks tend to put all of us in a defensive posture. Suddenly we all scramble for heartwarming anecdotes of how we changed or, in some cases, saved kids’ lives. Heck, I can trot out my stash of “You saved me, Barry Lyga!” e-mails, too.

But I won’t. And here’s why:

I refuse to justify my art.

Yes, my books are my occupation. My career. I don’t do them for free; I get paid. But I don’t write them because I get paid. The money’s a nice benefit. And I don't write them to help kids or change them. That, too, is a nice benefit, one that I adore, one that humbles me every single time I think of it or see evidence of it.

But I write because I am compelled to do so. Because to do otherwise would be to hack off my limbs and put out my eyes. Because the stories I tell chomp and chew and gnaw at my soul until I let them out.

As long as there has been art, there have been naysayers and lack-a-wits jeering from the sidelines, mocking the efforts of those who create. I’ve dealt with these nincompoops my entire life and I’m just too old to give a damn what they think or say anymore.

Hear me, Ms. Gurdon and those of your ilk, those of the past and those (depressingly and predictably) yet to come: I will not bow to your idiotic tirades. I will not meekly protest, “But look! I help kids!” and trot out e-mails from those whose lives and sanities I’ve saved, exploiting them in an effort to make you see a truth to which you are willingly blind.

Because that’s playing your game.

That’s declaring that what I do for a living, what I do from my soul, is only worthwhile if and when it benefits someone else.

And that’s placing a requirement — and, therefore, a shackle — on art.

I refuse to justify my art.

And I—

Oh, you know what? I’m bored. Journal? Ms. Gurdon? Go fuck yourselves.

RSS | ShareThis

Write a comment

• All fields are required.

Name:
Email [will not be published]:
Subject:
Comment:

Security Code:
 

Showing comments 1 to 20 of 36 | Next | Last

1

Excellent!
By: RK Charron on Sun June 05, 2011, 14:58:01

That was PERFECT!

2

www.roofbeamreader.net
By: Adam @ Roof Beam Reader on Sun June 05, 2011, 15:04:49

LOL! Can't imagine it being more well-said. I tried my best over on my blog as well (Although, I was defending you YA authors, since I'm not one myself).

3

Bravo
By: danielle on Sun June 05, 2011, 15:06:43

Brilliant. I hope the WSJ and Meghan Cox Gurdon read this. Sadly, I'm sure you're right that they are stuck in their "rightness". Nonetheless, they need to see your response.

dk.

4

Re: On the WSJ, YA, and Art
By: Robin on Sun June 05, 2011, 15:34:50

Well said.

5

AMEN!
By: Laura on Sun June 05, 2011, 17:05:57

Barry, you know I love you to bits and pieces. I am more than a fangirl over you, but damn you said everything I wanted to say. I knew there was a reason why I loved you so much. Even when you're all sweaty:)

6

Perfect
By: Amanda on Sun June 05, 2011, 17:12:09

Absolutely, one-hundred-percent, irrefutably true.

7

You Go!
By: Teresa Raines on Sun June 05, 2011, 18:12:36

I love love love your response to this idiot at WSJ!

8

Awesome!
By: Carrie K on Sun June 05, 2011, 19:28:33

Mr. Lyga, you rock!

9

THIS.
By: Lindsay F on Sun June 05, 2011, 19:35:07

YES. YES. Lately I read articles like the WSJ one and I just want to tear my hair out and scream, "Just because you don't understand doesn't mean we're wrong."

10

Re: On the WSJ, YA, and Art
By: Barry on Sun June 05, 2011, 19:36:23

Lindsay,

That may be the best response I've seen yet!

11

YA Lit
By: storyteller on Sun June 05, 2011, 20:40:01

YA Lit does provide grim reality and I do wonder if kids need more depressing situations / hopelesness in light of the rise of Teen Suicide

12

Re: On the WSJ, YA, and Art
By: Barry on Sun June 05, 2011, 20:43:47

Teens commit suicide because of the real world, not because of fiction.

13

Say it, brother!
By: Jim Hill on Sun June 05, 2011, 20:49:18

Perfectly said.

14

YA Lit #2
By: storyteller on Sun June 05, 2011, 21:02:10

The basic question remains -- do Teens and Sub-Teens need the added hopelessness and depression found in YA Lit

15

Re: On the WSJ, YA, and Art
By: Barry on Sun June 05, 2011, 21:14:10

Sigh... No, "storyteller," that "basic question" does not remain because it's not a "basic question." You're making a false assumption, and I'll assume you're making it out of earnest good intentions, not to set up an absurd strawman argument.

No one in the world "needs" any book about any subject. Reading is an optional, voluntary past-time. If a kid opens a book and finds it depressing, then he or she will put down the book and stop reading it. Books do not possess a preternatural ability to force kids to continue reading them against their will, thereby exposing them to subject matter or emotions they'd prefer not to read about.

Furthermore, you are lumping "teens and sub-teens" into one monolithic group. Some kids do not want to read what Ms. Gurdon calls "dark" books. To which I say: Excellent! Great! Don't read 'em! Please live long and happy lives.

But some kids DO want to read them. In fact, some kids are enormously helped by them. HELPED, I say. So...why would you take those books away from those kids? If Book A will help a child, why would you take it out of that kid's hands?

And then you compound your logical error by referring to "YA Lit" as if it, too, were a monolithic whole. Trust me -- there's plenty of retrograde, reactionary, 1950's-morality-style literature out there for kids, if they want to read it.

This, though, has nothing to do with my central thesis, which is this: Books are art. Who is the WSJ or Ms. Gurdon or anyone else to dictate what art does or does not sit on a bookshelf?

Like I said, I'm assuming your errors in logic are well-meant and accidental, not intentional attempts to derail the conversation, so I hope this helps. :)

16

Art in Books
By: storyteller on Sun June 05, 2011, 21:41:57

I'm not advocating censorship of any type but a reader de-selecting a book that focuses on rape and incest should have choices beyond fantasy and "1950's morality tales" AND it does seen that the available selection today is skewed toward depression and hopelessness and these books remind me of the poorly-written distopias found in inept science fiction.

17

Well Said!
By: Maria @ BiculturalMama.com on Sun June 05, 2011, 21:46:52

Thanks for writing this - yes, no need to justify our art!

18

Re: On the WSJ, YA, and Art
By: Barry on Sun June 05, 2011, 21:48:31

Storyteller, you're just moving the goalposts every time you post. Come on -- stick to an argument!

There is a wide variety of material available for today's teens to read, a wider selection than at any other point in human history since for the first time ever there are actually books aimed at them. Books that run the gamut from treacly sweet to bone-chillingly brutal. The current NYT bestseller's list for children includes such fare as Diary of a Wimpy Kid, Theodore Boone: Kid Lawyer, The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian, and Rick Riordan's latest action-adventure series. No overwhelming darkness, no 1950s morality.

I won't even comment on your "inept science-fiction" comment because its hilariously ambiguous to the point of utter meaninglessness.

So. We've established that the books you decried aren't harmful because kids aren't forced to read them. And we've established that there's plenty of other material out there for kids. What, I wonder, will you decide is the issue now?

19

Art in Books #2
By: storyteller on Sun June 05, 2011, 22:00:37

Since when is a discussion a tightly-bound
argument ? Granted there is more on the shelves between Dark Books and 1950's Morality. I'm simply reporting my feeling that the market is skewed to Dark Books [as you referenced them] and you can disagree with this or not. My remarks are not even remotely a cry for censorship Yes books are a voluntary pleasure selected by the reader. My "hilarious" remark about poorly written Sci-Fi distopias was simply to establish that not all books are Art. I think we can agree that numerous books are simply pot-boilers at best. However, ever book should be judged by readers not by self-appointed censors.

20

Re: On the WSJ, YA, and Art
By: Barry on Sun June 05, 2011, 22:21:52

Storyteller (what's your name, BTW? C'mon -- mine's public!): Well, at this point you've backpedaled so much that you pretty much agree with me. In other words, you're fine with there being dark YA out there. You "feel" that the market is "skewed" towards dark books, which is different from your earlier posts, which implied that "kids" were committing suicide and thus didn't "need" what dark books had to offer.

Can you really not see the difference between "Well, it just seems to me like there's a lot of dark books out there, but we shouldn't censor them" and "Do kids really need books steeped in despair...especially when they're already committing suicide?" Do you really not see how different those statements are? The former is a reasonable (though I'm not sure supportable) thesis, while the latter is several steps down the slippery slope that begins with "Think of the children!" and ends with book bannings.

Maybe you don't see the difference. Maybe you just chose your words poorly early on. As I said when we began this, I was willing to give you benefit of the doubt.

In any event, you're wrong about this: All fiction is, by definition, art. Whether you like it or not. Whether it's a pot-boiler or not. Some art is just more appealing, and that -- of course -- is in the eye of the beholder.

With that, I've said my piece, as we are in accord on the uselessness of censors, and so I'll wish you a pleasant night!

Showing comments 1 to 20 of 36 | Next | Last