Merry Wanderer of the Night:
silence

So, I wasn't going to say anything about the WSJ article. I said my piece on Twitter, I've read many, many posts about the subject and kind of felt that everyone had said all their was to say about the subject and said it very well.

BUT

Then, I started noticing that there are a lot of people rebutting the rebuttal. There are people defending her article and I listened to her defend herself on a radio show (you can listen here) . She talks about how she comes across as anti-reading. She's sad that people are saying that parents do not have the right to have a say in what their kids read.

I don't think that. I don't think that at all.

I'm very anti-censorship. I'm very, very anti-censorship. BUT a parent has the right, has the complete right to be involved in what their children are reading. A parent has the right to make an informed and educated decision with their child and decide that a child isn't emotionally ready for a particular book. That is your right as a parent. A mother called in on the radio show with Meghan and said that she was horrified to learn that her 10 year old daughter and her friends were reading Breaking Dawn and she told her daughter that she was not allowed to read it. So she completely supports the WSJ article. But here's the thing. That book was not written for a 10 year old audience. Stephenie Meyer herself mentioned that she wouldn't let her youngest son read her book because she thought he was too young for it, even though he had read the other Twilight books. You are the parent. You have that right with your own child.

I read those #YASaves tweets on Twitter. I tweeted my own. I was a part of that Twitter conversation for hours. This debate is not about censorship. Not the way you mean. This debate is about whether these books are being written because they 'sell'. To you, this is a debate about consumerism. That because these books are edgy, daring, and gritty, people are reading them. And even though I know the odds of you reading this are slim, I'm here to tell you that YOU ARE WRONG.

Books like Scars, Thirteen Reasons Why, Shine, But I Love Him, and those other books dealing with 'dark' subject matter are not written OR read because they are 'edgy'. They are written and they are read because they save lives. The Twitter hashtag was NOT about why it's cool to read Young Adult novels, was not simply about why people read those dark and gritty novels. Did you read any of those tweets? Did you pay attention to the hashtag? YASaves. SAVES. Those tweets were heartfelt out pourings of emotions. Those tweets were people coming together and talking about which YA books SAVED THEIR LIVES. I'm not talking about books that kept them from being bored, or got them better grades in school. Some of those 'dark' and 'lurid' books out there that you are so quick to brush off as commercial and unnecessary are saving the lives of teenagers EVERY. SINGLE. DAY.

THAT is why people got so upset about your article. To me, it's pretty obvious that you are pro-reading. You are a children's book reviewer and you are actually taking the time to talk about books. You are pro-reading. But you are anti-reality. Your condescending comments about how people 'claim' that these darker toned YA books 'validate' the teenage experience clearly illustrate that you don't get it. As does your radio interview where you talk about how surprised you are to be attacked by so many people about this subject.

You claim that your post was merely a way to point out the 'trend' in YA that wasn't there 30 or 40 years ago, that you were simply making a calm and rational argument, to announce the trend. But that isn't true. Not entirely. If that's all you were doing, you would not have linked vampire themed novels with books dealing with self-harm and suicide. Because they are very, very different kinds of books, very different kinds of dark. So what you have done, is not say that you are anti-book or anti-reading. What you have done is say that you would rather live in a world like the 50s, where bad things happened every single day, but no one talked about it. The main difference between now and then is not that it happens more often now, but that now people TALK about it. People come forward and say I am stronger than the silence.

Meghan, I want you to send an email to these authors you are brushing off as unimportant and commercially sensational. These authors you have condescendingly claimed try to validate the teenage experience. Ask them. Ask them to share with you their reader response. Ask THEM what teens are telling them about the impact of their book. You are going to hear something from them. Something that should soften your heart and open your mind. Each of these authors who write these books you call dark and lurid are going to tell you that they have received letter upon letter, year after year, day after day thanking them because their book saved their life.

These books are SAVING LIVES. So, send a letter or email to Cherly Rainfield (that's her own arm on the cover of Scars you know. That book is written through her experiences and her own pains.) Talk to Laurie Halse Anderson, Ellen Hopkins, Sherman Alexie, Chris Crutcher, Stephanie Kuuehnert and Jay Asher. Do you know what the common theme you are going to find? Redemption. Hope. LIFE. These books save lives. Not in the arbitrary or abstract. In REALITY. People pick up these books, realize they are not alone and they seek help. They stop their destructive behaviors. They tell the truth. They LIVE.

THAT is why the YA Universe is so upset about your article. NOT because we think parents don't have the right to have a say in what their kids read. NOT because we think that every single book is a perfect fit for every single kid. NOT because we think you think that no one should be allowed to read anything other than rainbows and lollipops. NOT because we enjoy depravity and get thrills from reading books about disparity. People are upset because you don't GET it. You are missing the point. The justification isn't that these books 'validate' the teen experience. These books ARE the teen experience.

These books teach teens that they are not alone, that their experiences are valid, that the bad things that have happened to them are NOT THEIR FAULT, that there is still hope, that things get better. These books help these kids hold on, seek help, and they teach compassion. I have never been bullied. But, because of books like Thirteen Reasons Why I am able to understand what bullying does to a kid and you had better believe that I'm going to pass that lesson along to my own

Meghan, before you condemn an entire body of writing, you should talk to the people who write it and the people they are trying to reach. Maybe, instead of simply defending your stance and trying to prove that you really are in the 'right' here, you should try listening to what the people are saying. These books save lives. Real lives of real kids. If this is really your opinion, and you are going to stand by it this strongly, maybe you should be the one to talk, individually, to these writers, like Cheryl, who write from personal experience, and go to these teenagers, individually whose lives have been saved by the powerful messages they've read and tell them that it's too dark. Tell them that their experiences don't really belong in books. And then you can come back and tell us that you still believe you are in the right. Listen to teenagers, the very people you feel you are trying to protect tell you why this book is necessary and then come back and tell me that this book that is saving lives isn't really good enough. Try it. I dare you.

British campaigners likened the UK’s stance to “clinging on to stolen booty for dear life” and contrasted it with the “generous act” of returning the sculptures to help a friendly country on the brink of economic collapse. Youth unemployment has hit 50 per cent and suicide rates have soared amid a crisis so severe the Financial Times has warned Greece could turn into a “quasi slave economy”.

In 2013, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) invited the UK to take part in mediation about the marbles, created 2,500 years ago to decorate the Parthenon temple in Athens. Then last year it asked for a response by 31 March.

However a Government source said the UK “won’t be able to make any significant announcement this side of the [May] election”.

A motion calling for the UK to reply to Unesco and move to return the marbles is to be filed in the House of Commons on Monday.

The failure to respond in time could prompt Greece to abandon decades of diplomacy and take legal action, possibly in the European Court of Human Rights. A team of lawyers in London, including leading QC Geoffrey Robertson and Amal Clooney, wife of actor George, is preparing a “book-length” document setting out the options.

A source who has advised successive Greek governments said the main problem was finding a court to take jurisdiction in the case, but once that hurdle was overcome “then the lawyers are saying there is about a 75 to 80 per cent chance of success”.

The marbles are regarded as some of the finest works of art in history and a symbol of the birth of Western civilisation. Some sculptures were taken to Britain by Lord Elgin in controversial circumstances just over 200 years ago when Greece was ruled by the Ottoman Empire.

Dr Elena Korka, director of antiquities at the Greek Culture Ministry, said the central issue was “reunifying these exceptional, outstanding and most important sculptures, which belong as an integral part of a unique symbolic monument for the whole world”.

“This is the essence of it, making something which exists today as whole as it can be… this is what the public wants, every poll shows it. It’s such an important issue. Even if Greece didn’t ask for it, the whole world would,” she said.

She said if the British authorities relented it would be “a day of true joy, not only for the monument itself but I think for the value of the gesture for the sake of co-operation”. “It would definitely help the [public] morale. It would be a huge boost,” she said.

Asked about the prospect of legal action, Dr Korka said Greece was “still so much into the process of mediation that we’re not thinking of the next step”. “We haven’t exhausted the possibilities so let’s not go so fast,” she said.

She added that the UK’s silence since 2013 was “not so polite really”.

David Hill, chairman of the International Association for the Reunification of the Parthenon Sculptures in Australia, said there was a “growing appreciation even among people who are timid about the prospect of litigation that we have reached the point of last resort if this UNESCO gambit fails. The diplomatic and political strategies of the last 30 years have not produced any progress at all.”

Polls have consistently showed strong support in Britain for returning the marbles. In November, a survey for The Times found there was a two-to-one majority in favour.

Andrew George, chairman of Marbles Reunited and Liberal Democrat MP for St Ives, said: “One of our friends is down on their uppers and we can offer something to them that might make their lives easier and give them a lift, which can only be good for their economy.

“It would be a generous act which would improve Britain’s standing in the world. At the moment we look rather grubby… like we are clinging on to stolen booty for dear life.”

He said he planned to lodge an early day motion in the Commons tomorrow calling for  the Government to “demonstrate that Britain is prepared to... reunite these British-held Parthenon sculptures with those now displayed in the purpose-built Acropolis Museum in the shadow of the monument to which they belong, the Parthenon in Athens”.

The British Museum, which denies Elgin stole the marbles, argues that it “tells the story of cultural achievement throughout the world” and the Parthenon sculptures are “a significant part of that story”. It regards itself as “a unique resource for the world” with visitors able to “re-examine cultural identities and explore the complex network of interconnected human cultures” within its walls.

“The Parthenon Sculptures are a vital element in this interconnected world collection. They are a part of the world’s shared heritage and transcend political boundaries,” it says.

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport said it would “respond in due course” to UNESCO.

Author: Ian Johnston | Source: Indpendent [March 07, 2015]

VIA Take Steps for Crohn's & Colitis Walk

My hope is that I'll be able to be so passionate and intense about A Field of Silence by Annie Dillard that you will all go out and find a copy of it in some book (probably Teaching a Stone to Talk) and read it immediately. Unfortunately when I am super excited about a book or an essay I become a blubbering idiot. But let's give it a go. The essay is about fields and farms and spirits. Dillard once lived on a farm with another couple, "an ordinary farm, a calf-raising, haymaking farm, and very beautiful." She spends a few pages talking about what she loved about the farm, the clutter of it, the loneliness of it. She gets the description exactly right when she calls it "self-conscious." Then she says something that made me squeal like a pig I was so thrilled to read this section of this essay.

"My impression now of those fields is of thousands of spirits--spirits trapped, perhaps, by my refusal to call them more fully, or by paralysis of my own spirit at that time--thousands of spirits, angels in fact, almost discernible to the eye, and whirling. If pressed I would say they were three or four feet from the ground. Only their motion was clear (clockwise, if you insist); that, and their beauty unspeakable.
There are angels in those fields, and, I presume, in all fields, and everywhere else. I would go to the lions for this conviction, to witness this fact. What all this means about perception, or language, or angels, or my own sanity, I have no idea."

I really can't explain why I loved this section so much. I think it perfectly encompasses the mystery of fields and the feelings I had about them as a child. I really liked Annie Dillard before, but now I love her. I love her. She goes from describing the loneliness of fields and the country to understanding how she is surrounded by tradition, by those who lived there before her. By the farmers who farmed and died and left their fields. It's just so completely beautiful.

I am an Amazon Affiliate. If you make a purchase using one of my links I will earn a small percentage which will then go back into this blog.

1. War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy I'm going to have to agree with Jamie on this one, this ginormous doorstop is the book I am most scared of. I don't really have plans of reading it right now.
2. Vanity Fair by William Makepeace Thackeray I've had this book for about four years and have never gotten around to reading it. It's so long and the language makes me a little sleepy.
3. Middlemarch by George Eliot I had to read this multi-plot 800+ page novel for a Victorian literature class and was terrified to start it. I'm so glad I read it though because it turned out to be one of my favorite books.
4. Speak, Memory by Vladmir Nabokov I wasn't terrified of Lolita when I read it, but the experience of reading it has me afraid of Speak, Memory, Nabokov's autobiography. I read a selection from it for a writing class and was a little dense about some of the imagery. I think I would be able to tackle something like this in a group of people who could talk it out with me.
5. In Search of Lost Time by Marcel Proust Proust, need I say more?
6. Lady Chatterly's Lover by D. H. Lawrence I've wanted to read something by Lawrence ever since I read How to Read Literature Like a Professor, but I think the book kind of scared me of it at the same time.
7. The Shining by Stephen King I don't read scary books and I've never read anything by Stephen King. Every time I think about this book I think of when Rachel was reading it on Friends and how freaked out she got. I get scared fairly easily so I'm sure I would too.
8. The Silence of the Lambs by Thomas Harris This is basically for the same reasons as number seven, except for I've seen the movie of this and I was terrified for months afterward.
9. The Waves by Virginia Woolf I'm running out of stuff to read by Woolf, but this one I just keep putting off. My professor went into detail about what a challenging book it is and I just don't think I'm ready for it.
10. One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez I know a lot of people who loved this and a lot of people who hated it. I know it will be challenging but I also feel like I should read it.

Have you read any of these? Join in the fun or check out other lists at The Broke and Bookish.