To go back to an earlier example, if you see 50 movies about murders and explosions, you'll definitely become a bit inured. On the other hand, if you read 50 murder mysteries, each one with a different characters, with different motivations, different examples on the ramifications of murder, then you're much more likely to say, "Hm. Murder is bad."
I have seen enough gory movies to know that when I'm hiding behind the couch, someone is going to say "It's just a movie!?" Becoming desensitized to violence in movies is not the same thing as becoming desensitized to violence in real life. And as I said, I'm not simply looking at homicidal maniacs - think of all the gray area in between.
Thinking about things is NEVER a bad idea. No matter what your age.
Unless you don't know how to find the silver lining. I'm not made to only see the bad side, but I have met people in my life who were very out of touch with what and how "normal" people think. And a few of them were young. If a kid sees few positive things in his /her life, reading a book that distills those dark thoughts and feeds it back to them w/o offering a bright ending is not going to help them. It's not to say every book does that, but I think you are over-simplifying the situation to suggest that they all have a positive moral or that children will automatically know how to manufacture one for themselves.
As for "picking up an unpleasant book w/o warning," that's what reading the back of a book is for. Or... you know, they can just, stop reading. If they don't like what they're reading, they won't read it. If they do like what they're reading, they will read it.
Again, that's oversimplification. I mean, seriously -- I accidentally bought a book that was basically erotica because it was on sale and the blurb sounded interesting. The back of the book does nothing but give you a few plot points and hooks. It doesn't say "Your child probably shouldn't read this because there is a graphic passage somewhere around page 118 concerning the exchange of bodily fluids." And what teenager who gets to that passage isn't going to read it, whether they it's the kind of book they like or not?
This message last edited by nossy on 06/06/2011 at 07:27:21 PM
This WSJ article has kicked up a huge fuss on the internet - YA is "too dark".
05/06/2011 03:46:50 PM
- 2073 Views
There's only one thing about this literature that disturbs me
05/06/2011 05:39:35 PM
- 1049 Views
This is a thought out, finely articulated response.
05/06/2011 06:47:13 PM
- 1063 Views
If it were just vampires that would be just fine
05/06/2011 08:03:02 PM
- 844 Views
People have been complaining about this since the novel was invented
05/06/2011 11:02:58 PM
- 915 Views
Apparently the article did paint far too bleak a picture,
06/06/2011 12:39:46 PM
- 1006 Views
Why waste time with "YA literature" at all?
06/06/2011 02:14:03 PM
- 783 Views
Re: Why waste time with "YA literature" at all?
06/06/2011 02:28:42 PM
- 740 Views
I think that's a post factum justification, not a reason.
06/06/2011 05:08:09 PM
- 929 Views
Maybe. It's hard to separate, I think.
07/06/2011 01:06:29 PM
- 969 Views
One certainly has to choose the real literature to present, certainly.
07/06/2011 02:27:00 PM
- 994 Views
Very good post.
06/06/2011 08:52:22 PM
- 807 Views
You seem to be the only one who thinks so.
*NM*
07/06/2011 01:17:18 AM
- 289 Views

I don't think it's a bad post... I just think that the "despair" is a teen fad, and not as bad as
07/06/2011 03:19:03 AM
- 1065 Views
Suicide rates have gone up significantly
07/06/2011 02:42:55 PM
- 735 Views
Heh.
08/06/2011 07:24:44 PM
- 1039 Views
you are having trouble finding cultural ideas that turned bad?
08/06/2011 11:56:23 PM
- 960 Views
The classic problem of the overprotective parent- underestimating your kids
09/06/2011 05:33:54 AM
- 898 Views
the classic problem of people who have no idea what they are talking about
09/06/2011 04:16:25 PM
- 846 Views
Are you really equating reading about trauma with trauma? They are not the same. *NM*
09/06/2011 07:10:34 PM
- 306 Views
I'm sure the percentage of good books must be higher than they make it sound,
05/06/2011 05:53:21 PM
- 1097 Views
I'd say books offer a fundamentally different experience than movies
05/06/2011 06:53:55 PM
- 1039 Views
I'm not sure that makes a difference here.
06/06/2011 04:47:05 AM
- 1022 Views
Because thinking makes you LESS susceptible to these things you're afraid of
06/06/2011 05:27:26 PM
- 1057 Views
I don't completely agree with that.
06/06/2011 07:26:21 PM
- 1005 Views
I feel like I just can't relate to parents determined to shelter their kids from everything
06/06/2011 10:21:44 PM
- 995 Views
To think the content described is acceptable, when they ban "Huck Finn" for using 'nigger'.
*NM*
05/06/2011 09:45:15 PM
- 316 Views

CNN: "On a website, a person named 'Macharius' used the 'N-word'".
06/06/2011 01:58:35 AM
- 782 Views
Parents have the right and resonsibility to know what their children are reading
06/06/2011 03:41:22 AM
- 810 Views
Re: Parents have the right and resonsibility to know what their children are reading
06/06/2011 12:40:24 PM
- 944 Views
I'd argue if you're old enough to be interested in the subject matter, you're old enough to read it
06/06/2011 05:32:33 PM
- 1072 Views
Depends on the subject matter.
07/06/2011 01:07:57 PM
- 821 Views
Basically? Yes.
07/06/2011 06:42:04 PM
- 1066 Views
why do think there is value in letting them read whatever they want?
07/06/2011 06:52:20 PM
- 737 Views
Don't be an idiot.
09/06/2011 05:25:26 AM
- 927 Views
Well, I wrote a long piece related to this
06/06/2011 05:21:06 AM
- 1012 Views
Great post. She really tries to muddy the waters relating to censorship and parenting.
06/06/2011 08:05:21 AM
- 892 Views
She kind of conflates some issues that are quite different, if you ask me.
06/06/2011 08:47:33 PM
- 941 Views
Wait wait wait wait wait... NYT reviewed Game of Thrones? I must read this
07/06/2011 03:20:08 AM
- 820 Views
Having now read one of the books mentioned, Cheryl Rainfield's Scars...
08/06/2011 02:18:23 AM
- 1046 Views