Why do you hate VC Andrews? No really, I never read Flowers in the Attic.
When I was a young pre-teen tweak in the making, I was well read. I was just one of those reader kids, and I was lucky enough to have parents who had good taste, and aunts who thought books were the best presents. I read everything in the house, and then I read it again and again.
I don't know if I got them from the library or friends, or who knows, maybe my parents, but somehow The Babysitters Club and Sweet Valley High made it into the house. Babysitters Club was mostly harmless. The adventures of high school girl stereotypes as they maintain friendships and make money and have silly boyfriend and kid debacles was not literature, but it was mindless and mostly innocent. Sweet Valley High however was more insipid. The Twins were perfect blonde barbies with perfect boyfriends and cars and beaches, and the books made a point to mention over and over again how perfect their size 6 bodies were. Interesting and depressing side note: the more recent Sweet Valley books make the girls a perfect size 4. Thanks guys.
I was embarrassed to read these books even then, but they were my go-to books when I was home sick or just wanted something quick to read. Cause you could go through any of those books in an hour. It was my pre-teen equivalent of watching One Tree Hill reruns. Mostly I picked them up if I had nothing new to read that was better.
However when the Sweet Valley Twins hooked up with guys, it was kissing and mostly making out in cars. It was not having sex with your brother in an attic because your Super Christ Freak grandmother has you locked in the attic, because she thinks of you as inbred Devil Spawn freaks.
VC Andrews books were basically what the Twilight series is now, bad formulaic writing that makes copious use of the sexualization of young girls. It is pre-teen porn. Everyone good is beautiful and blonde, everyone evil is either ugly, or slutty. There is no subtlety, every moment is overblown and dramatic. The plots exist solely to railroad you through to the end, jumping from sexy scene to violent scene to sexy scene. But all with a veil of Wrongness draping over every Louisiana bayou scene. It is WRONG to do these things, it is WRONG to be sexy, it will lead to you being kidnapped, tortured, or murdered if you are sexy, being a young girl is Wrong and Dangerous.
VC Andrews was herself an anti-social cripple in her young life, just like Stephanie Meyers is a repressed Mormon. What they've both done is figure out a way to produce over and over again a representation of their own fucked up mental states in legalized child porn.
And you know, if adults want to read that stuff, fine. I don't even think there's a problem with smart well read kids reading it every once in a while. Everyone picks up a romance novel or a pulp horror novel sometimes. But when I was young, I was reading one, maybe even two books a day. Most kids don't do that. And when they are only reading a book occasionally, I don't think they should only be reading trash. Because it doesn't encourage them to read good stuff later, it just guarantees they will keep reading trash. Like bad CSI and lawyer novels, or NY Times paperback bestsellers.
And the really bad part about these books is that you don't learn anything from them. You don't learn about sex. You don't learn about people. You learn nothing about the real world, or science, or imagination. In fact, you don't even learn how to properly fantasize about sex or relationships, which is ridiculous, at least if the books did that they would have some defensible purpose. Maybe, MAYBE, you could argue it builds vocabulary. But they use the word bosom in Jane Eyre too.
There's this idea that as long as kids are reading, and it's a young adult novel (which of course is perfectly safe), then it's better than nothing. I hate that idea. What you read as a child impacts your life in such a heavy permanent way. It dictates what part of culture you're going to identify with, what you'll choose to read when you're older, and what kind of interests you develop. It changes how you'll do in high school, what kind of friends you'll make, what kind of conversations you'll have with strangers. It's fucking important.
So that's why I hate VC Andrews, and also why I will be the aunt who buys books. Just watch. You start popping out kids, I am going to sign you up for the Madeleine L'Engle book of the month club.
back in the dark days of Library School, we had that debate about the Gossip Girl books and some of this other stuff that really sucked, and your second to last paragraph totally articulates everything I want to say about reading in the formative years that I couldn't articulate nearly as well.
ReplyDeleteand I think we read a lot of the same books as kids, this has been an awesome nostalgia trip to remember "Damn! that was a good book!"
You know what I would have a girl read instead of Flowers in the Attic? Member of the Wedding.
ReplyDeleteI was always amazed at how many VC Andrews books kept popping up long after she was dead.
ReplyDeleteFlowers in the Attic, indeed.
Oh, that was because her estate used her name and some guy named Marchfield? I think? kept writing the books. Like Nancy Drew!
ReplyDeleteI am the aunt who buys books!
ReplyDeleteI didn't grow up in a reading house. (I immersed myself in music) I've always regretted that I didn't discover good books on my own until I was older. I learn a lot now about authors and classics from you literary types. So, I'm catching on. lol
Thanks for the tip above about "The Member of the Wedding." I was just reading about it on Amazon. It's going on the list for my niece.
I should start a blog for Aunts Who Buy Books.
ReplyDeleteBut I'm not an Aunt yet, so I can't.
You can do anything you want on the Intertubes. Be a virtual aunt to all those people who never had cool ones!
ReplyDeleteaunts who buy books are coolest fucking aunts around!
ReplyDeletethats all I've got nothing of substance other than that.
I never read any of that stuff when I was younger, but Holy God I'm a total Twilight douche now. Sometimes, no matter how bad you know they are for you, you just want to sit down with an entire bag of snicker minis and listen to the top hits of the 80's you know? I know what you're thinking. "That girl really knows how to party."
ReplyDeleteSeriously, I dig where you're coming from on the kid front. But I think I read A Wrinkle In Time fourteen times, so I might not count.
I'm an aunt who buys books too. That is all my nephew gets from me. I buy him Richard Scarry and Eric Carle and all the classic Golden Books. And children's encyclopedias, and books full of maps of real and imagined places.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to throw you into a room with a bunch of YA librarians and see who wins. When I was a YA librarian I was always really conflicted over the conventional wisdom that reading crap is OK as long as they're reading. Also with the idea that reading ANY book is better than watching ANY television - i.e., that reading Danielle Steel will always make you smarter than if you had watched Twin Peaks.
There was this idea when Harry Potter started to get popular, that since kids who didn't normally read were now reading Harry Potter, they could be introduced to other books too and they would eventually become voracious readers. But it didn't really happen - the "reluctant readers" (that's what you call them, really) were just reading Harry Potter and nothing else. And sometimes HP over and over again. I wasn't too bothered by this -- better to have a kid find a book he loves and read it to death, especially if the book follows the hero cycle. Because I think that's why those kids glommed on to HP - not because of the clever language or lively characters. They needed a coming-of-age tale that incorporated the epic forces of good and evil. The medium (books) wasn't important - a generation ago, they would've gotten the same thing from Star Wars.
I think your last point is the most valid here, and true. And also why A S Byatt was anti-HP, because she felt that the evil was not presented in a stark enough way, and the magic was too Disney. I think the later books got better on that front though.
ReplyDeleteI didn't think that Voldemort or the Death Eaters seemed as scary as they could have been, either. Particularly in the fifth book, I thought she was playing things too safe. (That might've been an editorial decision, I dunno.) For me, the part that made Voldemort & Friends scary was the impact they had on the older generation (i.e., they killed Harry's parents, which led to Sirius Black getting wrongly imprisoned, etc.), and what that did to the kids. It's a creative interest of mine -- how the awful things that befell a character's parents before they were born can have a direct impact on him/her. It was a theme I was looking forward to in the second set of Star Wars movies, but needless to say, Anakin and Natalie Portman Skywalker were kind of disappointing. Philip Pullman does much more compelling anguished parents in His Dark Materials.
ReplyDeleteI should have preceded this comment with a Nerd Alert.