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
- 2051 Views
There's only one thing about this literature that disturbs me
05/06/2011 05:39:35 PM
- 1004 Views
This is a thought out, finely articulated response.
05/06/2011 06:47:13 PM
- 1042 Views
If it were just vampires that would be just fine
05/06/2011 08:03:02 PM
- 823 Views
People have been complaining about this since the novel was invented
05/06/2011 11:02:58 PM
- 895 Views
Apparently the article did paint far too bleak a picture,
06/06/2011 12:39:46 PM
- 983 Views
Why waste time with "YA literature" at all?
06/06/2011 02:14:03 PM
- 760 Views
Re: Why waste time with "YA literature" at all?
06/06/2011 02:28:42 PM
- 718 Views
I think that's a post factum justification, not a reason.
06/06/2011 05:08:09 PM
- 908 Views
Maybe. It's hard to separate, I think.
07/06/2011 01:06:29 PM
- 948 Views
One certainly has to choose the real literature to present, certainly.
07/06/2011 02:27:00 PM
- 968 Views
Very good post.
06/06/2011 08:52:22 PM
- 780 Views
You seem to be the only one who thinks so.
*NM*
07/06/2011 01:17:18 AM
- 278 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
- 1040 Views
Suicide rates have gone up significantly
07/06/2011 02:42:55 PM
- 716 Views
Heh.
08/06/2011 07:24:44 PM
- 1021 Views
you are having trouble finding cultural ideas that turned bad?
08/06/2011 11:56:23 PM
- 938 Views
The classic problem of the overprotective parent- underestimating your kids
09/06/2011 05:33:54 AM
- 877 Views
the classic problem of people who have no idea what they are talking about
09/06/2011 04:16:25 PM
- 826 Views
Are you really equating reading about trauma with trauma? They are not the same. *NM*
09/06/2011 07:10:34 PM
- 291 Views
I'm sure the percentage of good books must be higher than they make it sound,
05/06/2011 05:53:21 PM
- 1073 Views
I'd say books offer a fundamentally different experience than movies
05/06/2011 06:53:55 PM
- 998 Views
I'm not sure that makes a difference here.
06/06/2011 04:47:05 AM
- 1000 Views
Because thinking makes you LESS susceptible to these things you're afraid of
06/06/2011 05:27:26 PM
- 1029 Views
I don't completely agree with that.
06/06/2011 07:26:21 PM
- 984 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
- 975 Views
To think the content described is acceptable, when they ban "Huck Finn" for using 'nigger'.
*NM*
05/06/2011 09:45:15 PM
- 309 Views

CNN: "On a website, a person named 'Macharius' used the 'N-word'".
06/06/2011 01:58:35 AM
- 762 Views
Parents have the right and resonsibility to know what their children are reading
06/06/2011 03:41:22 AM
- 791 Views
Re: Parents have the right and resonsibility to know what their children are reading
06/06/2011 12:40:24 PM
- 926 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
- 1055 Views
Depends on the subject matter.
07/06/2011 01:07:57 PM
- 804 Views
Basically? Yes.
07/06/2011 06:42:04 PM
- 1049 Views
why do think there is value in letting them read whatever they want?
07/06/2011 06:52:20 PM
- 717 Views
Don't be an idiot.
09/06/2011 05:25:26 AM
- 901 Views
Well, I wrote a long piece related to this
06/06/2011 05:21:06 AM
- 989 Views
Great post. She really tries to muddy the waters relating to censorship and parenting.
06/06/2011 08:05:21 AM
- 871 Views
She kind of conflates some issues that are quite different, if you ask me.
06/06/2011 08:47:33 PM
- 924 Views
Wait wait wait wait wait... NYT reviewed Game of Thrones? I must read this
07/06/2011 03:20:08 AM
- 801 Views
Having now read one of the books mentioned, Cheryl Rainfield's Scars...
08/06/2011 02:18:23 AM
- 1025 Views