Teen fiction

How has research developed my understanding of children’s literature and the issues surrounding it?

As the main focus of my recent research has been on teenage fiction, that is the area of children’s literature that I am going to talk about. One issue that I was aware of prior to embarking on this course was the changing status of ‘adolescents’. Erikson may have high-lighted the plight of the teenager back in the 1960s, but my perception of teenagers today shows a remarkably different picture to that which I believe Erikson would have based his theories on. This makes the task of defining teenage literature extremely hard, but I agree that it should be aware that an adolescent is essentially a child who is becoming an adult, and with that change, comes a relinquishing of play. Generally speaking, the age at which children start to do so is becoming lower and an important element of teen fiction should be that it reflects the gradual disappearance of play in the adolescent’s life. The fact that adolescence is to some extent taking place earlier in life means that children are being exposed to dangers at a younger age than they were fifty years ago. Literature is a useful tool for people to explore issues that they experience directly and also issues that intrigue them. For this reason I disagree with the notion that Junk should not be read by teenagers. Its content is not going to damage them because it’s scary nor does it glamourise drugs. Whilst reading ‘Junk’ I found myself comparing it to another book that was written to portray reality that is likely to shock its reader, ‘Birdsong’. I initially decided that ‘Birdsong’ was a far better book because it had the ability to transport my imagination into the trenches and the claustrophobia of the tunnels. However, I began to reason that I am undoubtedly biased in my fascination with historical literature and I have to admit that there is part of me that does find the thought of teen fiction a bit cringey (!). As the book progressed I found myself getting emotionally caught up in the actions of the characters, but not from the perspective of begging them not to carry on taking heroin to protect themselves. I was actually more concerned for myself, because I just did not want to read about deceit and wasted life any longer – it was incredibly harrowing, but surprisingly lacking in tedium.

I would have been 15 when ‘Junk’ was first published, but yet I never came across it. I think I was very much encouraged to miss out the adolescent stage of literature. It was never studied at school, and, as I have alluded to in the past, there was this sense of competition over what we read in our spare time. In fact there was a division: most of my peers as a teenager read music and fashion magazines, but the ‘elite intellects’ read award winning adult literature such as Tolstoy and whoever wrote ‘Sophie’s World’. Therefore I was sort of forced to reject Point Horrors (thankfully) and my reading choices transferred to adult literature – not always of ‘intellectual’ variety though! ‘Old school’ teachers, recommending the classics was probably another reason why teen fiction passed me by and this kind of literature was never studied in the classroom. I definitely feel that adults directly imposed influence on my reading choices, and I wish I could have experienced this imposition more subtly by reading a book like ‘Junk’ or ‘Wolf’ that is written by adults but has teenage protagonists with teenage issues. Having said that, I do remember finding the characters in the Point Horror sagas slightly irritating because I could not relate to them. As I’ve matured I have obviously become much more tolerant and open-minded of people from different cultures and societies compared to my childish self. I am very aware of the development that occurs when an adolescent begins to distinguish between their inner and outer selves, but I think as an adolescent I was reluctant to explore issues outside my inner self – God I was narrow-minded!!

If I was to make a preference between ‘Junk’ and ‘Wolf’ based on the criteria for enjoyment of reading that Appleyard distinguished, I would say that I found the characters in ‘Junk’ easier to relate to. This may be due to the fact that the characters expose themselves so openly to the reader, and this honesty makes them more amiable. For example, throughout the majority of the book, Tar’s father is painted as a monster, but I found myself feeling sympathy towards even him when I read his thoughts on the story. In ‘Wolf’, on the other hand, I felt dictated to about which characters I should like and dislike, and I did not appreciate having Cassie’s pompous personality narrating the story to me. The multiple narratives featured in ‘Junk’ also help reflect the resounding effect addiction has on those around the addicts. The reader witnesses the teenage protagonist’s reasoning that they are making decisions for themselves and the gradual realisation of the impact these decisions actually have. I would be interested to read Burgess’ original version which he wrote from just Gemma’s point of view, although I think it is likely that I would find her arrogance and selfishness irritating. The idea of relating to a character because the are a mixture of “the me I am” and “the me I would like to be” is something that I can identify with, and there are certainly elements of many of the characters in ‘Junk’ that I see in myself, however, I am not sure there are many character traits that I actually aspire to.

Another benefit of ‘Junk’ is that it does not dictate to the reader, it trusts them to make up their own mind, and according to one of the students Appleyard interviewed, “A story that doesn’t give you the answers is better than a story that gives you a solution but doesn’t leave you with anything to think about”. Surely the fact that (despite being written by an adult) there is no didactic tone and therefore the reader does not feel patronised, means that they will be more inclined to read more literature. The general consensus amongst ‘the experts’ is that children’s literature consumption decreases during adolescence leads me to think that literature such as ‘Junk’ is most likely to reduce this trend. I think that, had I been aware of ‘Junk’ as a teenager, it would have definitely captured my teenage interest in the subversive elements of society, which Appleyard sees as being typical of adolescent interests.

From a teaching perspective, I was interested to read in Appleyard about Petrosky’s findings that even older teenagers find it difficult to analyse passages of text. I used to mark my A Level Psychology student’s work according to two levels: AO1 carried a maximum of 5 marks for knowledge and understanding; AO2 carried a maximum of 3 marks for evaluating and analysing. I may be making cross-curricular generalisations, but I assumed that A Level English students would need to be able to evaluate and analyse. Appleyard’s findings, therefore, I find slightly concerning – or it may just be the case that the ability to analyse and evaluate in something I should expect only from the highest achieving students….?

Though reinforcing the impression I got from working in a secondary school that teenagers are generally not keen readers, my research has given me inspiration on ways in which I can 'sell' the concept of literature to my students. I am keen to relate literature to my students' experiences, but I very much want to show them how it can have advantages over the popular media that they're used to. I really want to impress upon them the notion that reading is very much a form of escapism. Wish me luck!!!

I agree completely that Wolf dictates to the reader who the 'goodies' and 'baddies' are. Junk lets the reader decide for themselves. Although i couldn't find much sympathy for Tar's dad! The characters are far more complex in Junk a characteristic of teen literature, which makes me think that Wolf is meant for a much younger audience.