Those are certainly appropriate themes for 8-12. It all depends how the authors write about them. An 8 yr old can definitely relate to care homes, divorce and mental illness. IMO
My point is to open up discussion. And it has.
Actually, your post resulted in 6 PMs objecting that you're being disrespectful to your fellow writers, and
a post from this forum's moderator asking you to comport yourself appropriately. A post you've ignored.
Moreover, I'm pretty sure that your carefully crafted use of "sophisticated" in scare-quotes was an evocative dog-whistle to entice compatriots to an entirely different discussion than the one you've received.
Because we've had this discussion hundreds of times. And we recognize a dog-whistle. We particularly recognize when someone disingenuously dismisses attempts to genuinely engage.
So let's look at your rhetoric.
I don't have any titles on the tip of my tongue, but I have noticed that trend in review publications.
You, not for the first time, can't provide specifics. Which suggests that you're not really interested in the specific topic you began with; YA Themes in MG Books.
That really, you have another topic in mind, one that you introduce:
It seems like mg is getting more "sophisticated". Mg used to be more Little House on the Prairie and now some stories are getting into the I-don't-like-my daddy's-boyfriend area.
You've used "sophisticated" in scare-quotes here; you've carefully marked the use of the word sophisticated as encoded language. And then you provide an example of what MG "used to be" with
Little House on the Prairie (
a 1935 book problematic in several ways) vs the current status: "now some stories are getting into the I-don't-like-my daddy's-boyfriend area."
So you've now provided a specific textual marker for the subtext of "sophisticated": books with same-sex parents.
Which suggests that "sophisticated" is an encoded a dog-whistle for "I don't like books with queers."
Which is fine for you, but you then proceed to clarify your agenda even further, after responding to an attempt to engage with a dismissive comment.
There's nothing about a mother's annoying/unlike-able/abusive boyfriend that makes a plot specifically or exclusively YA.
We both gave our opinions. I'm fine with that.
Except you're dismissing an assertion of fact as one of opinion. That's a failure to engage.
When
I point out some of the problems with Little House On the Prairie, you quote a portion of my post
A lot of kids have dads with boyfriends, partners or husbands. Or their best friend does. Or two moms.
And respond with:
A lot? Do you have statistics to support your view?
This post is problematic in two ways; first, you're asking for statistics to support my view (without yet doing anything to support your own) and then, again, following up with a dismissal that "it's your opinion and I'm fine with that."
Except "A lot of kids have dads with boyfriends, partners or husbands. Or their best friend does. Or two moms. " isn't "an opinion." It's a statement of fact.
One that you're attempting to dismiss. Then you return to your agenda, and again, your encoded dog-whistle:
Some educators and parents might be uncomfortable discussing such a "sophisticated" book with 8-12 yr olds. No statistical support just personal experience.
Now one of the things the
The Newbie Guide to Absolute Write establishes in the
RYFW section is this:
The complexity and diversity in our backgrounds can be much more difficult to face and deal with, honestly, when things are couched in terms of "gosh, it was all just in good fun" because of the built-in refusal to examine underlying attitudes of exclusion, or "I'm normal and you're not" -- which by extension implies that anyone who insists on examining exactly that is humorless and "PC."
Which reminds me -- accusing each other of "being PC" when you disagree really isn't cool. And what it usually boils down to is that someone is being a jerk or a bigot -- maybe inadvertently, maybe not -- and gets called on it which makes that person defensive.
You've essentially repeated yourself. And you've used "sophisticated" again, and clearly established that you're using "sophisticated" in scare quotes to encode same-sex parents.
When I point out that you maybe need to look at books published since 1935, you respond:
You are speaking to someone who has 30 yrs experience in this area.
Which, you know, pretty much underwhelms as a counter argument; it's an attempt to argue from authority, also known as
argumentum ad verecundiam, or the appeal to authority.
Several members attempt to actually get you to engage and discuss. Your response? The same dismissal:
I appreciate your opinions. All of them.
I clarify, again from a factual standpoint, with links: since you invited statistics.
And I make it clear that your attempt to dismiss facts via your use of the
argumentum ad verecundiam isn't sufficient.
You then attempt to dismiss Sage with
You're reading things that aren't there.
Except Sage absolutely isn't; your text (and sub-text) are very clear. And then you post this:
Some educators and parents might be uncomfortable discussing such a "sophisticated" book with 8-12 yr olds. No statistical support just personal experience.
And some educators and teachers might embrace discussing such "sophisticated" books with 8-12 yr olds. For sure.
It's good to have a discussion where different ideas are bandied, isn't it. Diversity of ideas is a good thing.
This is a clumsy and disingenuous attempt to, again, avoid actual discussion. And it's a dismissal. And you follow up with:
My point is to open up discussion. And it has.
It hasn't "opened up" anything; we've had these discussions going back more than ten years. You haven't actually discussed at all.
What you've done is tip-toed around the issue of same-sex parents. You're perfectly entitled to be as heteronormative as you want.
Stop trying to pretend that you're not really objecting to same-sex parents in MG books. Because you are. And since you've made your "sophisticated" dog-whistle a siren, and
made it clear you're not honestly engaging, you've outstayed your welcome.