Thursday 24 April 2014

Books without lumps. Or, Are some books trash?

A post on ABBA a couple of weeks ago by Clementine Beauvais prompted a storm of comments. The question it asked - is it better for children to read 'trash' than nothing - mostly brought a resounding 'yes' in response, but with plenty of people pointing out that the definition of trash is up for grabs.

I do think some books are 'trash' in adult terms. I feel entitled to say this because I am also willing to own up to having written trash. You won't find it - it's not under my name, and it's not linked with me anywhere online or offline. I don't include it in my list of publications. I suppose the only people, apart from the editors, who could identify me as the author are the people who work for PLR.

Why did I write trash, and why do I think it is trash?
The books were commissions, and I needed the money. I won't write for peanuts, and I won't write something I think is damaging, but other than that I'm fairly promiscuous. I have to be - I have bills to pay. The trash, as you've probably guessed, was for character-led fiction series, and one was a tie-in with a TV series. The publishers already had the cast of characters, the 'bible', and the scenario for the books. It wasn't one of those in which the plot is also provided, but there were certain limitations and requirements constraining the plot.

Why is it trash? Actually, I'm starting to change my mind as I write this post. But I'll say what I first thought and then review it and you can all join in. Socratic method - all good.

It is not challenging to the imagined reader. It says nothing original in terms of characterisation, themes, or plot. It is formulaic. Once the characters have been set in motion, you know pretty much (in broad terms) what will happen. OK, you don't know whether there will be a ghost, or a burglary, or whatever. But you know there will be some conflict between the central group of characters, which will be resolved. You know there will be some external challenge (the ghost or other antagonist) that will force the characters to be resourceful or resilient or both. You know that at the end the problems will have been solved, the characters will be firmly welded together in their friendship and might have learned a lesson. Good will triumph over evil. No one is going to die of cancer, no one's dog will be run over or killed with a pitchfork, no one will develop a second head, there won't be a pack of rabid, zombie wolves [oh, there's an idea] and the world won't be wiped out by a killer virus. It will all take place in its domestic+school world. (Other types of trash take place in other types of fictional world - with fairies, ponies, talking pants, dinosaurs, whatever. But they all have their tropes and formulae and follow them rigidly.) There are also plenty of books for adults that are written in the same way - look at any of the 'pulp' series of romances, westerns and erotica.

It's anodyne, predictable, shallow and - to adults - dull. But it serves a function. In fact, it serves many functions.

The phrase that starts off Clem's post is "at least they're reading". I suppose this means 'at least they are decoding text, practising the basic skill of working out how marks on the page relate to words'. Yes, my trash books do that. By reading something rather than nothing, the child develops reading 'muscle' - it becomes easier each time as the basic skill is slowly mastered.

The child is not only learning to decode words, of course. They are also learning to understand life. Most of the 'trash' books contain very simplistic depictions of human interactions. They are formulaic in their endorsement of friendship, showing good actions generally rewarded and bad actions reflected on and revised (rather than punished, often - we aren't Victorian moralists). The Enid Blyton-style school or adventure story doesn't have challenging characters, plot twists, stylistic elegance or anything else that adults like. But if a child is still working out how narrative works, they will learn that. I would not defend the outmoded showing of girls as simpering ninnies and boys as adventurous - that type of thing is truly harmful trash. But the books discussed in Clem's post are not, on the whole, toxic - just easy.

We know children struggle with what makes a story and they need to learn that in simple steps.  Look at any 'story' written by a small child: 'The dog went out for a walk and found a bunny. Hello bunny, he barked. Then he went home and went to sleep. The next day it rained.' The stage after decoding words is understanding narrative. My Director of Studies used to say that readers developed in sophistication from interest in plot, through interest in character, to interest in style. Leaving aside whether that scale is useful in assessing adult readers, it certainly maps out the progress of the emerging reader. (Though I could argue for an occasional reversal of character/style in some cases that allows 2D characters to be carried by style - Mr Gumm, for instance.) A trite story about fairy unicorn princesses that illustrates a very simple view of friendship or kindness - the archetypal trash, if you like - provides a useful model of narrative structure and human experience recreated recognisably in fiction. The child - even the child who has no friends, or a distant and cold family - is not alone if they can see some aspect of their experience mirrored in a book. I would consider a lot of the fairy-unicorn-princess stories to be trash, but as long as they don't promote discrimination or endorse an overly gendered view of girls (which sadly they often do), they aren't in my view harmful.

Imagine you are a child who has just got the hang of reading. You're not desperately struggling, just not fluent yet. You can read a fun romp in which you don't have to worry about themes, complex character motivation, or tricky intellectual (or even imaginative) challenges. Or you can pile on all the challenges in one go - and probably give up. We give babies food that is easy to eat; we give small children tricycles, and then bicycles with stabilisers. We don't feed a one-year-old filet mignon or onion tart with parmesan. We don't ask a five-year-old to take their little bicycle straight up a dirt track over a mountain. Trash books are weaning food, they are bicycles with stabilisers. They are care and concern for the weaning mind.

We don't feed our babies rubbish, though. We don't give them food stuffed with salt and sugar and additives - we just give them food that is easy to identify, hold and digest. Food without lumps made from healthy ingredients (though they are sometimes bland, to adult tastes). And easy books are not necessarily rubbish. As long as they aren't stuffed with unhealthy stereotypes, lies, misleading ideas, they do no harm. They are books without lumps.

So - were my books trash? No, actually, I don't think so. They are not even trash if children choose to read them when they 'should' have progressed to more challenging books. There is a huge elephant in the room here. Writers are always banging on about 'reading for pleasure' and how the GOVErnment pays it no heed. But here we are, the people who are supposed to care and champion reading, saying kids CAN'T read for pleasure if we don't like their reading choice! They must read for challenge, for education, to develop their taste. They must read Northern Lights instead of My Fairy Unicorn Princess Annual. No wonder reading drops off when children get the choice. We all have preferences.

If we want a child to read for pleasure, we have to let them read what pleases them. Only after the stabilisers and the lump-free stage can they progress to allegory and trauma - if they want to. They don't have to. That's the whole thing about pleasure. Some won't progress to more challenging books, and some adults don't read challenging books. I'm sure there are people in the anti-trash camp who would baulk at being told to spend their days reading Finnegan's Wake or Tristram Shandy.




22 comments:

  1. As a fellow secret writer of 'trash' written to order, with a big series bible in front of me (to pay the bills) - and a writer of lumpier books, fiction and nf - I agree wholeheartedly :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. They'd be missing a real treat with Tristram Shandy!

    Thanks for returning to this. As I was reading your post I noticed myself having to fight an urge to propose a distinction between "good" trash and, er, trash trash (and so ad infinitum). This says more about me than it does about trash, probably.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, I think there is toxic trash and trash. For instance, anything that belittles or undermines people of one gender/race/sexuality/level of ability/etc is toxic trash and I would never defend that. So I suppose that's a trash and a trash-trash distinction :-)

      Delete
    2. Oh, I agree - that kind of thing besmirches the good name of trash! But I think it's a different axis - there's plenty of "fine writing" that does that too, usually more dangerously because more attractively and insidiously.

      Delete
    3. "besmirches the good name of trash" :-)

      Delete
  3. I'm inclined to think if people love reading it, then it's not trash. There's plenty of literary authors who do nothing for me (Ian McEwan for example) but I'm happy to accept that they do something for other people, and for that matter, there are literary authors I love that leave many other people cold. Equally, a "good" John Grisham thriller or Agatha Christie is sometimes exactly what I (and many others) want to read. I think children should have the same choices in this respect, at least in their own free time.

    The only children's books I'd really define as trash are those "tie-ins" for very young children where I feel that the company is so complacent about pulling the child in through character recognition, that they haven't taken any trouble with the story at all. Some of these are so dismal to read aloud that they are an act of cruelty to the poor parent, even if the child is happy just to recognise the character. But I'm sure you're not responsible for any of those, Stroppy! (And even then it would surely be going too far to say they do actual harm.)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks for this Stroppy! Very interesting. I don't have much to add that I haven't already said on the ABBA blog post looooong string of comments, apart from the fact that I respectfully disagree with the connection between 'reading for pleasure' and 'easy (/trashy) reading' - which nonetheless many, many people articulated, so I might be wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Agree with Anne but popping in to say that neither John Grisham nor Agatha Christie is trash.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well said, Adele! :-) And I must agree about Tristram Shandy, that piece of classic stream-of-consciousness nonsense! It took me a while to work it out, then I sat back and giggled.

    Nice post, Stroppy!

    I'd like to add that adults judging children's books for competition can be snobbish in their choices. They go for "beautiful writing" over story, characters you can care about and being a pleasure to read; I can actually remember one of these judges saying that a book was readable, enjoyable and would appeal to kids, but those weren't among their criteria! Some writers my students find dull win prizes automatically when they publish a new book, just because of their "beautiful writing."

    ReplyDelete
  7. Well said, Stroppy & all comments.
    As one who's written-to-order occasionally, under pressure to feed life's demanding maw, etc., I identify big-time. A 'nom de plume' for such is 'de rigueur,' even wise!
    The word 'trash' conjures up disposable pulp fiction - each to his / her own. We're grown-ups, we can choose.
    But books for children? H'm. There IS a lot of rubbish out there, e.g., too many with frantic cartoon-y style illustrations and no reflections of real life. They have their place - but ...

    Your 'fairy unicorn princess' reminds me of reading Andrew Lang & Co when I was young, books with exquisite line drawings and Rackham colour plates. Some of the tales are def. not all sweetness and light, and not everyone lives happily ever after, either.
    If you think of what a child reads in its formative years, surely that which is laid down in the mind and imagination as a base layer informs much of what comes later, whether reader or writer?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Fabulous blog post...
    When I talk to the kids I work with I liken the so-called 'trash' to McDonalds... easy, predictable and necessary at times. Then I compare those to Masterchef reads... complex, unpredictable, challenging and potentially life-changing. There ain't nothing wrong with McDonalds, AS LONG AS you also have a go at the Masterchef fayre somewhere along the line. I feel it is my job as a librarian to encourage and promote the Masterchef books, as McDonalds will sell itself!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, Penny. You sound like the ideal librarian :-)

      Delete
    2. Awwwww Stroppy, you have made my day. There are some who think I am NOT ideal because of my opinions, but I do stand by this one!!

      Delete
  9. Now - at the risk of sounding like a dodgy stalker, I see that you are in Cambridge. I trained as a teacher there in the late 80s/early 90s and have only been back once since. I loved it there and one day I will get back (I live in NZ now, so not such an easy task... although I hear your sigh of relief as you realise that I am definitely not a stalker!!!) Heffers CHildren's Bookshop was my absolute favourite... is it still there?
    We have a couple of your books in our kiwi library (Revolting Records and 1001 Horrible Facts)... but I am going to be keeping my eyes open for more! (Sadly I am not the budget holder and so am not the boss!!!)

    ReplyDelete
  10. You trained in Cambridge? At Homerton? I taught at Homerton occasionally in the 80s and 90s but I don't think our paths crossed. For Elizabeth Brewer and Victor Watson. He is still there, though retired; she sadly died a few years ago.

    Do visit when you can :-) Heffers Children's Bookshop is no longer a separate shop, but still has its own devoted area behind the main shop and is still delightful!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes Homerton. I graduated in 1991. I remember the name Elizabeth Brewer, but can't picture her. I worked with Morag Styles and Victor Watson during a fabulous Children's Lit course. Actually, Victor and I went head to head a bit during my final teaching practice!!! I thought he was a fabulous children's lit lecturer, but not a great help as a teaching practice advisor!! Funnily enough, I have been doing a few library papers and I came across a reading by him! It brought back some memories!
      Pleased to hear that Heffers is still there... loved loved loved that place! One day I will get back... just have to save up as there are 4 of us to pay for these days to do the trip!
      Is The Mill pub still there?

      Delete
    2. The Mill is till there. And Morag's retirement dinner was last term - this is her last year. But she is well - I last saw her about two months ago.

      Delete
  11. Crikey, these lecturers are long-standing and made of strong stuff! She must've been there for well over 25 years. Poor woman took me back to Scotland once (where I am originally from) - and I was a typical dodgy (Scottish) student... not paying for petrol. I still feel guilty about that at times!!! Not even sure how that eventuality came about... I usually took the bus or train home!!!

    ReplyDelete
  12. I like the distinctions between different kinds of trash! I do think that there are some books that should be pulped and made into something useful, like loo roll. Wow, didn't think I felt that strongly. Then there are the books that are bad for you in the way that sweeties are bad for you, or fast food. I read really quickly, so it's the perfect analogy for me - I pick up those books because I'm bored, or someone leaves them lying around. I flick my way through them, not caring about character or dialogue, or even description - purely to find out what happens. Afterwards I feel as bad as if I'd eaten a chocolate bar, or a cheap burger: bloated and slightly sick. And annoyed for wasting precious minutes of my life reading trash. Then there are the 'proper' books, books that I want to read over and over, books that I will pick up, re-read a passage or two, smile, and feel better, or empowered, or informed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Becca. I think there are extra forces at work for new readers, though - for us, reading isn't an effort so the junk food analogy stands up better. But for kids who are just mastering reading, including all the gettings to grips with how plot and characters work, something quite simple need not be bad.

      Delete
    2. My gripe is really with adult trash, I suppose - I'm all for letting kids read at their own pace.

      Delete
  13. I like the analogy with learning to eat food - better than the junk food versus vegetables one! But some of these formulaic simple 'learner' books are better written than others, and some, as Emma said, amount to acts of unnatural cruelty perpetrated on the adults forced to read them!

    ReplyDelete