Tom Storer Posted October 22, 2007 Report Posted October 22, 2007 Mark me down as someone who believes that it is inappropriate to have homosexual heroes in children's literature. OK, I have marked you down as such a person. You can mark me down as a person who believes that it is not inappropriate to have homosexual heroes in children's literature. I believe that in children's literature, celibacy should be considered the normal behavior of unmarried people. For goodness' sake. Children live in the real world. They know full well that unmarried people have sex, including, for a great number of them, their parents, their grandparents, their siblings, their uncles and aunts and cousins. So literature should pretend that this is not so? There's a word for an approach like that, GA: dishonesty. You would have children be introduced to literature through literature that denies reality--a fine way to lead them to distrust and disregard literature from the very start. Quote
rostasi Posted October 22, 2007 Report Posted October 22, 2007 For goodness' sake. Children live in the real world. They know full well that unmarried people have sex, including, for a great number of them, their parents, their grandparents, their siblings, their uncles and aunts and cousins...ummm, and they themselves? Quote
ejp626 Posted October 22, 2007 Report Posted October 22, 2007 I believe that in children's literature, celibacy should be considered the normal behavior of unmarried people. For goodness' sake. Children live in the real world. They know full well that unmarried people have sex, including, for a great number of them, their parents, their grandparents, their siblings, their uncles and aunts and cousins. So literature should pretend that this is not so? There's a word for an approach like that, GA: dishonesty. You would have children be introduced to literature through literature that denies reality--a fine way to lead them to distrust and disregard literature from the very start. To get fancy, we can classify the Potter novels as a massive bildungroman, where she deliberates ages the characters and does have them experience hormonal urges and so on. By the end the novels are much darker (and really only appropriate for say 13+). So this does introduce a dilemma for future parents who read the books well ahead of their kids. When would you start the Potter series for new readers, since it isn't going to be spaced out and the audience aging with the characters the way it was the first time around. The idea that you could have your child read one a year is kind of laughable. If they start when they are 8 or 9, they will not be ready for the bad things that happen in books 6 or 7. I suppose if you tried to start them at age 11 or 12, they probably will have already discovered them on their own (or will be bored by a character much younger than they are). I guess I'll find out myself, since my children are now 3 and 1 and not quite ready to read on their own. Quote
Jazzmoose Posted October 23, 2007 Report Posted October 23, 2007 I believe that in children's literature, celibacy should be considered the normal behavior of unmarried people. Well, I suppose when you write a book, you can make that decision. Quote
Jazzmoose Posted October 23, 2007 Report Posted October 23, 2007 Mark me down as someone who believes that it is inappropriate to have homosexual heroes in children's literature. OK, I have marked you down as such a person. You can mark me down as a person who believes that it is not inappropriate to have homosexual heroes in children's literature. I believe that in children's literature, celibacy should be considered the normal behavior of unmarried people. For goodness' sake. Children live in the real world. They know full well that unmarried people have sex, including, for a great number of them, their parents, their grandparents, their siblings, their uncles and aunts and cousins. So literature should pretend that this is not so? There's a word for an approach like that, GA: dishonesty. You would have children be introduced to literature through literature that denies reality--a fine way to lead them to distrust and disregard literature from the very start. Yeah, then it would just be a fantasy! Quote
Jazzmoose Posted October 23, 2007 Report Posted October 23, 2007 And in related news, it's just been announced that George Bailey - the star of It's a Wonderful Life - once cheated on his wife. ...and every time a bell rings, an angel gets laid! Quote
clifford_thornton Posted October 23, 2007 Report Posted October 23, 2007 Some of those angels are, you know, like, pretty hot... I've seen the paintings! Quote
Tom Storer Posted October 23, 2007 Report Posted October 23, 2007 (edited) Yeah, then it would just be a fantasy! But seriously, a fantasy is just another way of addressing reality. I think GA thinks that children's literature should be didactic and moralizing--that it should exist to teach them what societally approved behavior is (assuming there is any real consensus on that). Or in any case it should pretend that no other behavior exists. In which case it is useless, just another sermon. Edited October 23, 2007 by Tom Storer Quote
Jazzmoose Posted October 23, 2007 Report Posted October 23, 2007 And, of course, if it becomes a sermon, kids just plain won't read it. Just because they're little doesn't mean they're stupid! Quote
porcy62 Posted October 23, 2007 Report Posted October 23, 2007 (edited) Mark me down as someone who believes that it is inappropriate to have homosexual heroes in children's literature. OK, I have marked you down as such a person. You can mark me down as a person who believes that it is not inappropriate to have homosexual heroes in children's literature. I believe that in children's literature, celibacy should be considered the normal behavior of unmarried people. For goodness' sake. Children live in the real world. They know full well that unmarried people have sex, including, for a great number of them, their parents, their grandparents, their siblings, their uncles and aunts and cousins. So literature should pretend that this is not so? There's a word for an approach like that, GA: dishonesty. You would have children be introduced to literature through literature that denies reality--a fine way to lead them to distrust and disregard literature from the very start. Indeed! "Children Literature" doesn't mean nothing, as every parent knows, today's Children's books are classified in age-range, they are printed with bigger fonts for the youngest, ecc.. The very same happened with toys. At least in Italy. About sex before marriage, it seems to me pretty bigot, unrealistic, discriminatory and dangerous for the growing majority of the children. In Italy in primary schools the traditional family is getting a minority. From "teaching" them that sex outside marriage is wrong to "blaming" them for their parents aren't "good" (because they're not married, or divorced or single or gay) the step is short, expecially in their fragile psychology. Think about it before speaking about "Children Literature". Children are very cute and fragile persons, you can't cut issues like this with an axe. Edited October 23, 2007 by porcy62 Quote
rockefeller center Posted October 23, 2007 Report Posted October 23, 2007 Do not rotate -90° (hidden message) Quote
sal Posted October 23, 2007 Report Posted October 23, 2007 Mark me down as someone who believes that it is inappropriate to have homosexual heroes in children's literature. OK, I have marked you down as such a person. You can mark me down as a person who believes that it is not inappropriate to have homosexual heroes in children's literature. I believe that in children's literature, celibacy should be considered the normal behavior of unmarried people. For goodness' sake. Children live in the real world. They know full well that unmarried people have sex, including, for a great number of them, their parents, their grandparents, their siblings, their uncles and aunts and cousins. So literature should pretend that this is not so? There's a word for an approach like that, GA: dishonesty. You would have children be introduced to literature through literature that denies reality--a fine way to lead them to distrust and disregard literature from the very start. Quote
Brad Posted October 23, 2007 Report Posted October 23, 2007 Not sure that it matters one way or the other. Quote
king ubu Posted October 23, 2007 Report Posted October 23, 2007 Grindelwald is a village in Switzerland, that I know...but what the hell is a Dumbledore? Quote
king ubu Posted October 23, 2007 Report Posted October 23, 2007 I believe that in children's literature, celibacy should be considered the normal behavior of unmarried people. For goodness' sake. Children live in the real world. They know full well that unmarried people have sex, including, for a great number of them, their parents, their grandparents, their siblings, their uncles and aunts and cousins. So literature should pretend that this is not so? There's a word for an approach like that, GA: dishonesty. You would have children be introduced to literature through literature that denies reality--a fine way to lead them to distrust and disregard literature from the very start. for goodness' sake, why don't you want children to learn how to turn into hypocrites from the git-go? They live in the real Forld, after all! Quote
catesta Posted October 23, 2007 Report Posted October 23, 2007 Do not rotate -90° (hidden message) Quote
Aggie87 Posted October 23, 2007 Report Posted October 23, 2007 Grindelwald is a village in Switzerland, that I know I picked Grindelwald as a place I'd love to live - it's breathtaking! Quote
king ubu Posted October 23, 2007 Report Posted October 23, 2007 Grindelwald is a village in Switzerland, that I know I picked Grindelwald as a place I'd love to live - it's breathtaking! I missed that thread before - funny coincidence... I've only been there once as a kid, but my parents got a hut in a pretty remote area, so when small, I was in the mountains each summer for 2-3 weeks, of course loving it... nowadays, I prefer big cities for vacation... I'm weird, I know. Anyway, you'd have to do away with all the stoopid tourists if you wanted to live in Grindelwald, I'm sure it's horrible in that respect! Quote
Jazzmoose Posted October 23, 2007 Report Posted October 23, 2007 Do not rotate -90° (hidden message) Not that hidden, if you ask me... Quote
BruceH Posted October 23, 2007 Report Posted October 23, 2007 Do not rotate -90° (hidden message) Not that hidden, if you ask me... Holy pederasty, Batman! Quote
Jim Alfredson Posted October 24, 2007 Report Posted October 24, 2007 This just in: Dumbledore and Tinky Winky have been seen together at a posh London gay nightclub. Quote
Guy Berger Posted October 24, 2007 Report Posted October 24, 2007 (edited) When the first book came out, it was marketed as children's literature. As far as I know, all of the succeeding books were as well. Mark me down as someone who believes that it is inappropriate to have homosexual heroes in children's literature. In this case, apparently the guy was celibate during the course of the extended narrative. I don't see any reason for the author to explain why, if it was not important enough to include in one of the books. And, as I say, if it was important enough, it should not be children's literature. I believe that in children's literature, celibacy should be considered the normal behavior of unmarried people. I'm largely oblivious to these things in general, and haven't read the 7th book yet, so maybe it's obvious in that one. And frankly, I don't care much either way. But GA Russell's comments are... puzzling. I agree that in general explicit sex doesn't belong in kids' literature,* but romance (with occasional hints of more) has been in there since the beginning of time. And it's present in hefty doses inside the Harry Potter. That's not surprising because the series (particularly the later books) is aimed at young adults, who are experiencing this kind of stuff (along with more explicit stuff, as they age) daily in their real lives. Since I am guessing that GA Russell doesn't find this kind of largely chaste romance to be objectionable, it's pretty obvious to me why he is upset by the fact that a celibate character (who, after all, engages "the normal behavior of unmarried people") is homosexual. Guy *Anybody else read Piers Anthony novels as a teenager? Edited October 24, 2007 by Guy Quote
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.