What exactly is the limit to YA where one says "Okay, this is becoming too adult". Likewise...how do we decide what the limit is to ANY audience?

Thanks!

There are a lot of books in all age levels of YA with sexual content, some of it fairly explicit. I don't think you can use that as your sole determinator.

My instinct is saying that if a story becomes too complex or 'intellectualized,' it's no longer for the YA market, but my instinct also tells me there are plenty of examples that could prove me wrong. With such a big difference in reading comprehension and intellectual development amongst younger readers in age niches and as individuals, I think that so long as each age niche can take away something different from a story - as is said of Harry Potter - it can still be YA.

Kids like to read about people who are just older than themselves, so if your MC is 14 through much of the book, your audience is going to be 12 and 13 year olds.

The trouble is, not all authors write books about 14 year olds that are GEARED to 12 and 13 year olds. Sometimes they write books with mature content with young MCs. Also, there is little or no clue from the publisher in MANY instances that would help readers know whether a book is appropriate for kids. They just chuck the books out there and let everyone else figure out the age of the audience.

As an example, I picked up a book at the library that looked interesting, read it, liked it, then looked at the library's shelf tag. It said YA Fiction. NOT. Crap! The book had some seriously explicit sexual content and adult themes. NOT a YA book. So why was it labeled YA? Because the MC was a sixteen year old girl.

Otherwise, Mr. Ware's got it -- it's up to your agent, your publisher, and their marketing department.

Marketability

Most of those posting here have been focused upon marketing. If that is all you are worried about, then they are serving you well. But marketing is only a subset about what should or should not be done, and it is probably the least important of them when dealing with what is appropriate for children.

Good writing

The second issue is good writing. If you tailor your writing for youths, the "mature" material is going to mesh with it less and less. But that can be dealt with in the rewrite, and if it is a natural outgrowth of the story, it is probably not too awful bad. I would agree with Heinlein--write the story naturally, then delete the inappropriate stuff. (Not just sex, but any number of things such as self-mutilation should also be avoided.)

A bigger problem is when authors try to inject mature subject matter into a juvenile story. It almost always comes off as contrived, and it usually detracts from the story and slows it down. I think that would be even more true with fantasy, though I don't ever recall an author trying such a thing in juvenile fantasy.

Appropriateness (and a good conscience)

Well, prude that I am, I don't think any material oriented toward a sex act is appropriate in juvenile literature. I think it borders on child abuse to include such a thing.

(Consider the man who says he isn't a pedophile, yet likes to talk to children or teens about explicit sex. Ew. No doubt he is a perverted creep. Does the textual context of children's literature make an author any better than such a man?)

You probably won't get much help from your editors about this, so you really have to search your conscience, and if you have doubts, you are probably going over the line. If you are completely unsure--maybe you should consult a pastor or a religious figure if you have one.

As you may have guessed I have a lot of opinions on the matter, so if you would like to discuss it off-line (which goes for any of the participants), I'd be happy to.

But the main point is that we seem to be focused more upon marketing than on any other concerns in writing, and making marketing king will eventually give us a kingdom of sellouts--and to hell with art and responsibility. The fact that there are perverted books available that are labeled "YA," simply means that the perverts and marketers have made ground. So you have to decide--do you want to help these trends? Or hinder them?

Steven King once said his opinion on the subject was that if they can understand it, let them read it. If it gives them nightmares, take it away. I might not go that far, but its one parent's perspective.

I don't think that sexual material can be compared to child abuse. A book can't rape a child. And a responsible parent won't let a child read a book they find objectionable.

So, can there be sex in children's books? Why not? By the time puberty hits, kids are going to know what it is. I learned more by listening to my high school classmates about sex than I ever learned at home. My mother would probably blush to hear what I heard at that age.

I think literature is a good way to talk about difficult topics, and scifi/fantasy has always been a good forum to discuss controversial subjects. If my target audience is 14-16, then I'm not going to ignore the fact that there is sex, that there is sex going on between minors, and that minors talk about sex. I don't have to explicit, but I shouldn't ignore it either.

Now, on marketing, if you want to sell your work, you have to make it sell-able. I find it odd that people that want to sell art always seem to be called sell-outs. Isn't that the goal? Don't you want to sell out of a book? It doesn't mean you have to follow the trend, but it does mean you have to write a book someone actually wants to read.

Yeah, I think some YA authors go too far. But, handled responsibly, difficult subjects can be discussed in our literature.

I would also like to echo the words of Dr. Mahmoud "Thank you but I will sin my own sins."

quote:

---

I don't think that sexual material can be compared to child abuse. A book can't rape a child. And a responsible parent won't let a child read a book they find objectionable.

---

I get the impression that you don't believe in psychological or verbal abuse? Many a person with clinical depression would testify otherwise.

There are, of course, ranges of material here, and I used clear language that referred to "a sex act," not just "sexual material." Keep in mind we are discussing lines that should not be crossed, so I am not making a blanket statement about all "sexual material." I will say it even more clearly again: engaging a child vicariously in a sex act through text is abusive to that child. It is a perverted thing to do. If one's writing approaches it, that person should be very alert to the possibility that they are falling into perversion.

Let me give you a few examples. I know of an excellent, widely published writer who for some reason feels the need to engage his generally teenaged readers in masturbation and lust for sex. To me, he is like the creepy man in the park who talks to the passing boys about masturbation and having sex--he's a pervert, and his perversion borders on child abuse. (Imagine such a man speaking to your children. You wouldn't care if he explicitly described the acts, or not--by telling them about someone who has committed specific acts of perversion, he is engaging them vicariously in the acts.)

I know of a book that is very well written except for parts of it that slow down the action and really come off as contrived. These scenes have a Jr. High level girl considering whether or not she should have sex with her boyfriend. The book is completely agnostic on whether she should do it or not. Such a book is probably not abusive and perverted to the extent that the previous example is--but it is completely inappropriate to encourage young teens to consider sexual intercourse with other children. Is encouraging Jr. High level teens to consider having intercourse child abuse? I'm not sure--but it is encouraging the perversion of 13-year olds, which seems abusive enough.

A very mediocre book slated for fourth graders had a scene where two girls reconciled on the playground with a hug. A boy in the school started making questionable enough remarks, but he ended with the taunt: "Here comes the bride. Here comes the groom. The only way they can do it is with a broom."

In terms of writing, it fit perfectly into the scene, and it may very well be realistic to some schoolyards (hint: fourth graders are not interested in "realism"); however, it was an excessively lewd thing to write for 9-year olds to read. So--is speaking in lewd terms to 9-year olds abusive? Probably.

But whether or not they are to be unambiguously categorized as "child abuse" or not does not resolve issue at hand. (The fact that it can be reasonably considered is very telling, though.) The issue is really whether or not it is responsible to do. Clearly such things are not. The fact that many otherwise good-hearted people might object to my issues simply illustrates how much headway the perverts have made in influencing the rest of us to tolerate them.

quote:

---

So, can there be sex in children's books? Why not?

---

Quite specifically--because we do not want to actively participate in the degeneracy of our children. (Or anyone else's.) That should be good enough reason "why not?" for anyone.

quote:

---

By the time puberty hits, kids are going to know what it is. I learned more by listening to my high school classmates about sex than I ever learned at home. My mother would probably blush to hear what I heard at that age.

---

The fact that they are already being drawn into degeneracy and self-destruction is no reason to encourage it.

quote:

---

I think literature is a good way to talk about difficult topics, and scifi/fantasy has always been a good forum to discuss controversial subjects. If my target audience is 14-16, then I'm not going to ignore the fact that there is sex, that there is sex going on between minors, and that minors talk about sex. I don't have to explicit, but I shouldn't ignore it either.

---

There is a difference between not ignoring it and encouraging consideration of sexual intercourse. All the same--I think most of it is gratuitous. A work can deal with these things and still maintain human dignity--the sacrifice of human dignity in the face of so-called realism and "trying to relate" to the age group is abhorrent. I'm not sure how prevalent it is, but it encourages teens to fall into their worst elements, and discourages them from growing up. As a responsible writer, I say--no thank you. I hope most of the rest of you feel the same. (Another hint: There really isn't any such thing as true "realism" in writing. To be a true "realist," you would have to expand most one-page scenes into an entire book. So an author must choose what is *good* for the story and *good* for the reader.)

quote:

---

Now, on marketing, if you want to sell your work, you have to make it sell-able. I find it odd that people that want to sell art always seem to be called sell-outs.

---

Where did I say that anyone was a sell-out for considering what needs to be considered for marketing? I was specifically addressing the problem that marketing seems to trump everything else--and such a circumstance will cause radical degeneration of quality and responsibility. (It already is.) That doesn't mean that you shouldn't consider--with the *more* important factors of responsibility and artistic merit--what you need to do to make it marketable.

quote:

---

Isn't that the goal? Don't you want to sell out of a book? It doesn't mean you have to follow the trend, but it does mean you have to write a book someone actually wants to read.

---

I really think that is a non sequitor to this whole topic.

quote:

---

Yeah, I think some YA authors go too far. But, handled responsibly, difficult subjects can be discussed in our literature.

---

Sure. They can be, but we seem to agree that there are limits.

quote:

---

And my last point, I've always been a big fan of a person's right to change the channel.

---

I think this is a non-sequitor, too. The topic isn't "what should be allowed." The topic is "what are reasonable limits" for a good and decent writer to have. They are probably very closely related--but they aren't the same thing, so we should focus on the latter to assist our friend who started the thread. (The former belongs in a political discussion group, while the latter arguably belongs here.)

quote:

---

A parent can't complain that their kids are reading books they don't like, they should be monitoring them.

---

Except that that is completely unrealistic and virtually impossible without keeping your child in a closet for his entire life.

quote:

---

It's like the lady in Georgia that's trying to get Harry Potter banned from the school library. If she doesn't want HER kids to read them, then she should tell them not to. But she shouldn't make that decision for everyone.

---

There will always be public disagreement on what is tolerable to expose to children--but the fact there is disagreement and difficulty is no excuse to turn the perverts loose on our children.

Cheers,
Mark

quote:

---

Limits are only as real as the person living by them.

---

I doubt you really believe this. The moral limitation against murder is only as real as the person who lives by it? The moral limitation against chattel slavery is only as real as the person living by them? The moral limitation against torturing innocent people is only as real as the person living them?

If you are that much of a relativist, you really have no firm foundation to make any statement whatsoever.

quote:

---

Laws have never and will never keep people from doing wrong or encourage people to do right, rather they are flagrantly broken when they are silly and openly scorned when they are unjust.

---

Is it the same way with violence? For example, in my story I have created a three legged monster made of poor fitting human body part. The fact that he is made of body parts is not necessarily essential to the story, but rather one of the many ideas I have in bringing a more original selection of villains.

I agree that in an ideal world I shouldn't worry about an audience when writing. However, I feel that in order to have a substantial audience, you need to understand who you're writing to at least at some level.

Why does a person stop?

Some people stop because they should, Some people stop because they don't want to get in trouble, Some people don't stop at all.

All three are responses to a limit but the limit is not "real" because it generates three separate responses. A "true" limit is one that cannot fail but generate one response, inability to go beyond.

What is murder?

Legally (first degree murder), its pretty cut an dry e.g. a premeditated and willful act but on a moral or ethical level?

Is killing in war, murder?

Is killing in the name of God ("Christian" abortion Clinic bombing included), murder?

Is killing in self defense, murder?

Is killing in passion, murder?

Is killing by accident, murder?

Is slaughtering animals, murder?

From just these few questions of deeply problematic ethical issues, some more problematic than other, that it becomes possible to see that limits are only as real as how we percieve them.

What does this have to with writing?

Consider the final paragraph of RMatthewWare's post

quote:

---

And my last point, I've always been a big fan of a person's right to change the channel. If you see something objectionable on TV, turn it off. The reason programs like Jerry Springer are on the air is that people watch them. The reason there is YA fiction that people might find objectionable is that people read them. A parent can't complain that their kids are reading books they don't like, they should be monitoring them. It's like the lady in Georgia that's trying to get Harry Potter banned from the school library. If she doesn't want HER kids to read them, then she should tell them not to. But she shouldn't make that decision for everyone.

---

Those that share the same moral universes will be able to define limits the same and thus agree to generally play by the same rules.

For example it is morally wrong in our society for adults to engage in any sexual act with children. However it becomes less morally clear in our society when it is a 17 year old and a 14 year old.

Moreover is morality our standard for appropriateness of material at all ages?

Then what is moral for a 4 year old is not necessarily what is moral for 8, 12, 16 etc year old youth. (here I am thinking of the movie/video game rating system where G/PG/PG-13/R)

Morality is often conflated with ethics and vice versa. (Again see rating system. I won't go into the problematic nature of holding moral laws (ie 10 commandments) as the only laws a society needs because well things are bit more complicated than that.

Writing should be a reflection not of the author but of what the author chooses to convey. YA novels should be written by authors in such a way that the story portrayed is clear to the reader. This allows readers choose to read the novels they find moral and ethically acceptable.

quote:

---

There are limits--of explicitness of description, for example--but the proposition of a total ban on the subject is absurd.

---

quote:

---

Consider a stop sign.

Why does a person stop?

Some people stop because they should, Some people stop because they don't want to get in trouble, Some people don't stop at all.

All three are responses to a limit but the limit is not "real" because it generates three separate responses. A "true" limit is one that cannot fail but generate one response, inability to go beyond.

---

That is an utterly circumscribed interpretation of "limit." You are speaking of some absolute, impossible to cross limit, which--to my knowledge--no one here has proposed. It seems a bit odd to me that someone would propose that interpretation in the context of moral and legal limits, since the possibility of passing those limits into immorality or illegality is nearly always a possibility.

In terms of your stop sign, it is a very real limit on determining a *violation* of the traffic instruction it represents. Someone having chosen to *violate* that limit does not change the fact that it was there.

A very odd interpretation, indeed.

quote:

---

What is murder?

---

These are all generally well-understood things, so I'm not sure why you are asking them, or what you are trying to demonstrate by presenting them.

quote:

---

Legally (first degree murder), its pretty cut an dry e.g. a premeditated and willful act but on a moral or ethical level?

---

Positive law and natural law are two different things, so there is more to it than that. Plus there is a huge caveat in terms of interpretation of language--It's probably not as cut and dried as you think.

quote:

---

Is killing in war, murder?

---

Generally not. Moral theology is pretty clear on this, and nearly unanimous. However--it *could* be murder in some circumstances.

quote:

---

Is killing in the name of God ("Christian" abortion Clinic bombing included), murder?

---

Generally speaking, it is still murder. Christian authority is nearly unanimous in condemning this.

quote:

---

Is killing in self defense, murder?

---

Usually not, if it was truly intended to defend. But it could be in some circumstances.

quote:

---

Is killing in passion, murder?

---

Pretty much, yeah.

quote:

---

Is killing by accident, murder?

---

No. There could be other forms of guilt, though. (Such as negligence.)

quote:

---

Is slaughtering animals, murder?

---

No.

quote:

---

From just these few questions of deeply problematic ethical issues, some more problematic than other, that it becomes possible to see that limits are only as real as how we percieve them.

---

These things are hardly "deeply problematic ethical issues." They are really quite well understood, and easily answered. I would hope that the average writer, and the initiator of this thread would have a pretty firm grip on these things.

But at issue here is limits. We know there is a moral limitation against murder. The fact that you might be able to "fuzzy it up" (though not as fuzzy as you seem to think) with a bunch of examples doesn't change the fact that the moral limit exists. The examples just show points where some might need some more crisp discernment.

This is how I interpret the notion of limits in YA fiction.

It is currently legal to write novels with 16 year old MCs who are crack addicted prostitutes who butcher small children and it is currently legal for children to read such novels.

Does this mean simply because one limit has been met, legality, that the reading of this novel is thus acceptable? Well it all depends on how one views the connotations of fictionalized behavior and the condoning of this fictional behavior by reading this hypothetical novel.

At what "bright line" limit of brutality/illegality/'immorality' portrayals does a book become morally or ethically off limits?

After this I'll leave the rest of my statements strictly to writing:

I'm happy for you that you are not required to consider society in bigger pictures than your own reality.

Edit: I'd also like to add we can take this off list if you like

quote:

---

Does this mean simply because one limit has been met, legality, that the reading of this novel is thus acceptable?

---

You were the one who brought up legal limits. It is a worthy subject, but it wasn't the issue I was discussing. And--no, being legal does not make something acceptable. (Positive law does not insure moral or natural law.)

quote:

---

At what "bright line" limit of brutality/illegality/'immorality' portrayals does a book become morally or ethically off limits?

---

I think you are mistaking me for someone who must have claimed they were an omniscient god. Not having absolute knowledge about a limit is no excuse for claiming it doesn't exist. Murder is wrong--no matter how you fuzzy it up. Perverting our children is wrong--no matter how much you fuzzy it up. A poorly written first 13 is poorly written--no matter how much you fuzzy it up.

There isn't an evil thing in this world that you can't fuzzy up (you even--for the sake of argument--try to fuzzy up "pedophilia" above)--but it doesn't make it "not evil."

quote:

---

Limits are again as limits will.

---

If you mean moral limits are not something you can "will," then you are right.

quote:

---

After this I'll leave the rest of my statements strictly to writing:

I'm happy for you that you are not required to consider society in bigger pictures than your own reality.

---

I'm really not sure what you mean. It sounds quite condescending by the look of it, which might bother me if it seemed to actually carry any meaning. (Hint: You haven't a clue how extensively I have considered beyond my "own society," so you might advisably dispense of such cheap rhetoric. Second hint: Among intelligent interlocutors, ad hominem reflects badly upon the user of it.)

quote:

---

Edit: I'd also like to add we can take this off list if you like

---

I suppose we could, but we really went way off the topic of interest. You seem to be hung up on some extremely limited understanding of "limit" and legalisms, while I was more concerned about advising someone to be a responsible writer.

Still, there are interesting points, so if you genuinely would like to continue--send me an e-mail.

Therefore in judging the limit of writing for the YA audience and the appropriteness of writing for a YA reading child the question, "What is moral?" must be answered by both author and by responsible adult.

For example, Is drug use immoral?

If it is, then Is reading about a happy marijuana using hippie wrong and therefore encouraging "positive" portrayals of drug use, wrong and immoral?

Drug use is not immoral in all circles. I realize it is in many others but morality is not a pragmatic universal, even if in one person's phenomenological perspective the morals they practice are by their very nature universal, this assumption of universality is still inscribed by acceptance of said assumption.

If it is true you are this relativist, then you really have no foundation for objecting to any moral statement whatever--it's all relative, after all.

If this isn't true, I can't make any sense out of your last post, and it needs further clarification.

What is clear is that our points of view are completely incompatible, so it doesn't make much sense to try to appeal to each other. I will appeal to SchamMan89 as someone who believes in a greater Good and rejects moral relativism--whether it is about his writing, his general treatment of children, or in his treatment of Jews. You can appeal to him your way.

The real question of limits proposed here doesn't address what's actually right or wrong, or what individual parents are comfortable with their children reading, but rather with what some editor is going to think of as over the line.

To consider the issues of sex, drugs, slavery and violence in writing is to consider them in life. We tell stories that describe life or that preach how life should be. All of those have to address the questions in the minds of the readers in order to be effective – or marketable.

Teens have minds filled with questions. The questions close to their own lives may not include slavery, but the other three are right in there. I have a vivid memory of carpooling my daughter’s ninth grade team mates. (Ninth graders - 15 year-olds - are considered high school freshmen in this district, although other districts have them in junior high.) Their discussion centered around who just got pregnant and bets about who would be next. Did those teens think about their bodies, anatomy, physiology, dating, making out, fooling around, first/second/third base and intercourse? Absolutely. Did that mean they were abused or that they were corrupted to the point they’d go ‘too far’ themselves? No. They were also well aware of consequences.

It did mean that the subject could not be avoided by wishing it away. No normative thinking could make them stop considering what was going on around them and their own feelings. (Normative thinking: I think it should be that way, so it must be that way.)

If we are to bring morality tales to YA writing, how can we ignore that teens think of these things? If we leave all consideration of sex out of stories, how can we show characters making the ‘right’ decision or running into consequences. Authors who try to address the things teens are actually doing should not be subjected to epithets nor criminal accusations from those who don’t believe the reality of teen actions or interests.

“Let me give you a few examples. I know of an excellent, widely published writer who for some reason feels the need to engage his generally teenaged readers in masturbation and lust for sex. To me, he is like the creepy man in the park who talks to the passing boys about masturbation and having sex--he's a pervert, and his perversion borders on child abuse.“

On violence:
“Murder is wrong--no matter how you fuzzy it up.”
This is stated so as to force agreement. It is too narrow to disagree with.

Not all killing is murder, now matter how sharply you try to separate black and white. There will always be those who do not stop at the sign – those who will do murder or use any other violence for their own aims. How are we as a society, or we as writers in our stories, to oppose those wrong-doers without engaging in some violence in the opposition? Is it wrong to show killing at any time? There are Harry Potter threads galore on the forum already.

Drug use is an even more perceptive morality. Many who are reading this will have a much different perception than I. Some will consider marijuana to be as recreational as alcohol. Some will see no harm in cocaine. I have had it happen that pot smokers hiding in the tall grass burned down several buildings while they were too stoned to care. There are too many drunk driving accidents every day. Cocaine has wrecked the ability of a co-worker to do anything, let alone a complex technical job. Those are just my first-hand observations without regard to statistics. I believe all those things are wrong. Children and teens cannot be encouraged to do drugs. Does that mean we writers don’t recognize that teens think about them? With all the temptations around them, drugs are right up there. Stories about them are not the same as advocating them. We have our heads in the sand if we try believe drugs aren’t on the minds of YA readers.

quote:

---

Except that that is completely unrealistic and virtually impossible without keeping your child in a closet for his entire life.

---

To me this sounds like the kind of excuse put up by people who want to pass laws and/or regulations by which they say that what I allow MY child to read will be governed by what they want THEIR child to read. I see no difference in this and the people who want Harry Potter out of libraries.

It is for me to decide what is appropriate for my child to read and for me to write, not anyone else. If I write YA material with sexual content, I'm not going to worry too much about if you consider that makes me a "pervert." Maybe I'm just realistic about children living in a sexualized world and write about a world they can relate to. 14 year old girls DO debate about having sex with their boyfriends. And I don't write to preach. I write to tell a story. You can write for your own goals.

Back to the subject, the days when sexual content was verboten in YA is long since over. Use your own judgement and preference in what you put in.

Edit: However, while I don't write for a YA audience, I do have a child. Deciding what is appropriate IS something that I do--not anyone else. I don't have to keep her locked in a closet to know what she reads. (gasp) I just read it.

This sidesteps some of the incompatible philosophy people are throwing around here. (Not that the philosophy isn't relevant, of course.)

The question is now in the form "What should I do?" The answer to "What should I do?" depends on what goal you have.

Do you want to be published? One answer: write compelling fiction.

Do you want to write stories that will be popular with children? One answer: write stories that they can understand and relate to.

Do you want to write stories that will inspire children? One answer: write stories that show them that people matter, giving them the message that they matter, too.

Do you want to avoid turning children into murderers? I don't think the answer, "avoid all discussion of murder" works, but "avoid all glorification of murder and all needless titillation through violence" does.

Do you want to avoid encouraging children to have irresponsible sex? I don't think the answer, "avoid all discussion of sex" works, but "avoid needless titillation and put sex in a responsible context" does.

People will differ on these answers. They will differ on what "responsible context" means. They will differ on what are reasonable questions are (e.g., the emphasis on marketing earlier, compared to the emphasis on sexual morality later). But there is a clear need to try to find answers to those questions, and simply saying "limits will as limits will" is unhelpful. This isn't about legality or about absolutes or about never uttering a word about disturbing things; it's about being a good writer, which to some extent means being a responsible writer, regardless of market.

On a personal note, I know Mark very well, and some of the things stated here completely misrepresent his purpose.

* "Not all killing is murder, now matter how sharply you try to separate black and white." No one disagrees with this.

* "Children and teens cannot be encouraged to do drugs. Does that mean we writers don’t recognize that teens think about them? With all the temptations around them, drugs are right up there. Stories about them are not the same as advocating them. We have our heads in the sand if we try believe drugs aren’t on the minds of YA readers." No one has said otherwise.

* "To me this sounds like the kind of excuse put up by people who want to pass laws and/or regulations by which they say that what I allow MY child to read will be governed by what they want THEIR child to read. I see no difference in this and the people who want Harry Potter out of libraries." Mark said nothing of the kind. He said that it is impossible for a parent to know everything that his child is reading at any given time unless he locks them away. The expectation of what constitutes YA literature could help if it meant that a parent could trust YA literature to avoid inappropriate topics. (We can get into what it means for a topic to be "inappropriate" later.) As marketers make more prurient material available labeled as "young adult", that potential to assist the parent evaporates.

In other words, though I'm not Mark, I know him well, and I think the reactions to him thus far assume that his views are much less nuanced and much more stereotyped than they actually are, and have therefore largely missed his points.

Regards,
Oliver

I'm violating my no more non-writing promise to say I'm not personally a relativist, I'm actually fairly conservative politically, personally and religiously.

But that doesn't mean I believe that everyone shares my definitions of morality.

I perceive that your personal beliefs require you to accept that your standards of morality are universal constants. Such is your belief that you also have to believe that everyone has agreed to play by them.

I am a graduate student in the field sociology. Sociology if you are not aware is an immensely diverse field where queer studies, Marxism, feminist thought, world systems theory, Critical theory etc are taught right along side and often taught rather than more "traditional" sociology such as functionalism, structuralism and demography.

I bring this up to let you know that no matter your personal stance on an issue such as say the immorality of homosexuality, the LGBT community is not worried about what you believe because they don't have to follow your beliefs. (you can religiously of course believe they're all damned but that still won't bother them)

Now to tie this into writing...

the limits wihtin the LGBT community and those who are their allies for a YA novel with a Female MC who is discovering she likes girls, really likes girls with writing designed to skate on the edge of titillation to make things scandalous, probably going to be different than the limits you set for your own children.

Likewise if I were to write a YA story about a teenage boy who chooses to be a suicide bomber, I probably wouldn't have much of a market in the US but I might just find a pretty decent market in certain circles in the middle east.

When I asked if killing in the name of God was murder(among other questions) I wasn't asking you specifically, I was making use of a rhetorical question to illustrate that all across this world there are groups of people,some small and some large who would answer differently.

Writing is more about target audience than many writers are willing to admit.

I can't write in the style required by many academic sociological journals for mass consumption anymore than I can write science fiction for my thesis.

Limits are as limits will. Audience is key. There I'm done.

Limits are as limits will because People are as people will.

quote:

---

In other words, though I'm not Mark, I know him well, and I think the reactions to him thus far assume that his views are much less nuanced and much more stereotyped than they actually are, and have therefore largely missed his points.

---

The question was, "what limits are there to what I should write for the YA market?"

If the question is _only_ related to sales figures, then you're right -- all that matters is what the publishers will buy, and what the audience will buy. But the point is that your limits shouldn't just be dictated by what other people think or do. They should be dictated by what's right and wrong: what you should or shouldn't do.

For example, you might think that you shouldn't legitimize moral absolutes. A book that legitimizes moral absolutes, you might say, is a bad book, no matter how great the writing is. In fact, better writing makes this bad idea appear more attractive, so good writing makes it a worse book -- it tricks more people into thinking that its ideas are good.

Mark's original point, with which I fully agree, was something like this: if the question is, "what limits should I adhere to," the answer should include, "...and what I write should not be bad for the people in my target market." If it doesn't, then you're selling out -- you're writing something that you know isn't good for that audience so that you can make more money.

You complained about the idea of selling out before, but not every successful author is a sell-out. Everyone wants to sell a billion copies, but only sell-outs want to do it regardless of whether they're a positive or negative influence on the people who read their stories. (There are other types of sell-outs, of course: not all sell-outs will be this type.)

We may disagree about what's right and wrong, true and false, good and bad. But if someone writes something that he knows is bad for his audience, even if he's successful, he's gone past limits he shouldn't have gone past.

quote:

---

You complained about the idea of selling out before, but not every successful author is a sell-out. Everyone wants to sell a billion copies, but only sell-outs want to do it regardless of whether they're a positive or negative influence on the people who read their stories. (There are other types of sell-outs, of course: not all sell-outs will be this type.)

---

when?

I am Matt Lust the overenthusiastic debater, scholar and wannabe writer.

RMatthewWare made those comments to which you refer.

quote:

---

…I'm not personally a relativist, ….

---

If that is true, what on earth do you mean by this:

quote:

---

…morals are not universal because the perspectives (religious, philosophical, ethical etc) which allow human beings to operate under a shared reality are not.

---

It seems to say that morality cannot be universal (and thus are relative) because it is subject to "perspectives." If rejecting an objective morality by subjecting it to relative perspectives isn't relativism--I don't know what is.

Additionally, if you are not a relativist--why do you assert this:

quote:

---

… morality is not a pragmatic universal, even if in one person's phenomenological perspective the morals they practice are by their very nature universal, this assumption of universality is still inscribed by acceptance of said assumption.

---

I think you might be confusing objective morality and the relative phenomenological understanding of that morality. Phenomenology, philosophically speaking, does not determine objective truth. Phenomenology deals with the relative awareness of objective truth.

In other words, a given person or culture might have varying degrees of understanding and awareness of the objective evil of murder and what constitutes murder--but objective truth about murder is not altered in the slightest due to the phenomenology of it.

Relativism--whether in the guise of phenomenology or some other façade--as a practical matter rejects any appeal toward truth and morality--much like you have rejected mine--on the basis that you cannot determine what it is. But, of course, this is bosh. If we cannot know what it is--then we cannot know that gassing the Jews was an abhorrent thing. After all--phenomenologically speaking, Hitler had a different "perspective."

There is another problem that is rearing its ugly head in this argument, too, and that is one of *positivism*. There is this very erroneous notion that in order to say something objective about something, you must be omniscient about it. You must know something completely and without ambiguity in order to make a judgment about it. Again, I say this is bosh.

The example of murder that you presented is illustrative of this. I don't know every single possibility and every single nuance of every single incidence involved with killing somebody--and I do know that some instances of killing somebody is not murder, but I don't know every possibility in every one of those cases. But that doesn't mean that I cannot unequivocally and with absolute moral confidence say that murder is evil. And I shouldn't be afraid to talk about it--and if others are undermining the moral objection to murder, I certainly shouldn't be silent about such a propagation of evil.

The same goes for topics of perversion. I don't know every single possibility and every single nuance of every single incidence involved with writing about sexuality--and I do know that some instances of writing about sexuality are not perverted, but I don't know every possible one of those cases either. That doesn't mean that I cannot unequivocally and with absolute moral confidence say that sexual perversion of children through the written word is evil. And I shouldn't be afraid to talk about it--and if others are undermining the moral objection to the perversion of children, I certainly shouldn't be silent about such a propagation of evil.

Whether you are relativistic or just phenomenologically confused, you are advocating an open door for perversion that should only be "judged" by the marketing minds of the editors and this murky and elusive thing you call "other persepectives." I reject this notion that I should be tolerant of perversion on the basis of "other perspectives."

The fact that other selected cultures "might" enjoy the destructive propagation of evil in the form of stories about suicide bombers should have absolutely no influence over my knowledge that it is evil, and it should have absolutely no influence upon my advising another writer what good and responsible limits are. Ironically, my good judgments are not bound and enslaved by your suppressive god of relativism.

The fact that there are phenomenological challenges in the world is no excuse for turning loose the perverts and the suicide bombers upon our children. And it is even less of an excuse to become one of those perverts, or to advise another writer in favor of becoming one.

quote:

---

I perceive that your personal beliefs require you to accept that your standards of morality are universal constants.

---

You assume too much here. You assume that I think I have all the answers, while you ignore the fact that I have ameliorated my language from the beginning. My personal perception may or may not be spot on regarding any given judgment about perversion--but that is irrelevant to the notion that a responsible and prudent writer should guard himself against perversion. Some knowledge and understanding is often enough to avoid it--and if a writer suspects he may be brushing upon perversion, it is a far better thing to avoid it than risk doing it. Imperfect judgment is the best we have--but the fact that our judgment is imperfect is no excuse for rejecting all responsibility for using our human judgment and avoiding the perversion of our children.

quote:

---

Such is your belief that you also have to believe that everyone has agreed to play by them.

---

Please indicate where I have stated that everyone has agreed to play by my beliefs. I am in good faith trying to give prudent and responsible advise to a writer who requested help on how to deal with limits. When I attempt to do just that, the relativists attempt to suppress it. (Yes--relativism is really all about suppressing and destroying thought.)

quote:

---

… the LGBT community is not worried about what you believe because they don't have to follow your beliefs.

---

Who the blazes is the LGBT community, and why on earth would I care one wit what they have to say about my advice to a fellow writer? Why on earth should I consider their judgment a negation of my own? Why should I let them suppress my work to discourage perversion in children's literature? Do they encourage perversion in children's literature? If they do--I don't want anything to do with them.

quote:

---

(you can religiously of course believe they're all damned but that still won't bother them)

---

Why would you think that I would consider them damned? I am Catholic. As such, I am forbidden to consider anyone damned. It is only God's place to judge the final destination of any individual, not mine. It comes off as a backhanded ad hominem to attempt to paint me as some narrow-minded fundamentalist, and it is cheap rhetoric.

quote:

---

When I asked if killing in the name of God was murder(among other questions) I wasn't asking you specifically, I was making use of a rhetorical question to illustrate that all across this world there are groups of people,some small and some large who would answer differently.

---

Sure. But why in the world should good judgment be governed by the fact that there are wacko fanatics out there who kill innocent (or even guilty) people in the name of God? Because there is a nut job out there who would answer "yes" to the question "Is it good to kill abortionists in the name of God?"--you want me to concede that I cannot make judgments of my own? Do you realize that you are empowering the insane with this line of reasoning? Do you realize that you are in effect saying that insanity should not only have its say--it should be empowered to neutralize all good judgment?

No way. I am not going to stifle my judgment based on the lunacy that suicide bombers and abortionist killers have another perspective. You can group yourself with them if you want--but that just means the rest of us should really keep our distance from you.

quote:

---

Limits are as limits will.

---

That really is a meaningless statement, since we all know that limits don't "will" anything. Limits are what they are--they are not simply something you will.

quote:

---

Audience is key.

---

Audience certainly is relevant--but "audience" is not an excuse to refuse responsibility, and it certainly isn't an excuse to tolerate perversion.

quote:

---

Limits are as limits will because People are as people will.

---

quote:

---

But if someone writes something that he knows is bad for his audience, even if he's successful, he's gone past limits he shouldn't have gone past.

---

This is actually one of my early points--and one that acknowledges the phenomenological aspects of this discussion. I explicitly appealed to SchamMan89's conscience, and advised him to seek council rather than pushing my own judgment.

This was in support of my general point that objected to this notion that marketing rules all. And phenomenologically or otherwise, if marketing rules all--art and responsibility will suffer, and the result will be shameful and cheap.

I think that is a fair and satisfying result even if he completely disagrees with me about the particulars.

What is relativsim?

As Mark would have you believe I am endorsing things like terrorism, slavey and what not.

What I have been saying is that my PERSONAL beliefs aside there are people in the world who are relativists, or are absolutists but hold views widely disparate from my own and their limits are set by what they choose to believe not by what others or a different particular set of beliefs asks them to believe.

I'm not endorsing any particular set of beliefs nor do I feel the need to share my own on this forum (though they do probably closely match yours Mark and to apologize as the bard said "If we shadows have offended, Think but this, and all is mended,").

Thus when writing for a market as wide open as the YA market, you have to understand as a writer, you're going to offend someone either by being too bland, too cliche or too risque.

However, people are people and we are in the business of telling stories about all the wild and crazy things people do.

If you don't want to write a story that violates your beliefs don't but realize that just because you don't agree something is YA suitable doesn't mean somebody else won't find that same subject a must read for all kids of a certain age.

I believe we all need to agree to disagree here, and go our separate ways. Whatever use this topic once had has likely been lost in the ceaseless banter between mfreivald and Matt Lust]. Please, let's move on, or if you wish to continue debating, please move this conversation to email.

quote:

---

As Mark would have you believe I am endorsing things like terrorism, slavey and what not.

---

I neither said, nor intended such a thing. The point I was making is that relativism leaves the door wide open for such things--regardless of your intentions.

quote:

---

What I have been saying is that my PERSONAL beliefs aside there are people in the world who are relativists, or are absolutists but hold views widely disparate from my own and their limits are set by what they choose to believe not by what others or a different particular set of beliefs asks them to believe.

---

This seems to me to simply say that you don't want to believe like a relativist even though you live like one. This would still be a functional relativist, and this relativism is pretty clearly the ruling factor of your approach to things. If you think all relative judgments about truth should prevent any attempt to state judgments about truth--then you are a relativist regardless of your own internal judgments. In effect--you subordinate your own inferior judgment to your perceived superior judgment of relativism. Relativism is your ruling ideology. There are numerous forms that relativism takes, and relegating relativism to how you deal with things rather than how you believe does little to dissuade me from understanding you to be a relativist.

You still haven't answered the question: What have any disparate views have to do with my advice about limitations? If there is a disparate view that objects to my line of reasoning, let that view put me to the test--but the mere existence of another view is no reason for me to suppress good sense--I will not be deterred by the wackos you mentioned. And the mere existence of another view is no reason to stand by and allow good sense to be suppressed by the soulless ideology of relativism.

quote:

---

I'm not endorsing any particular set of beliefs nor do I feel the need to share my own on this forum (though they do probably closely match yours Mark and to apologize as the bard said "If we shadows have offended, Think but this, and all is mended,").

---

No sweat about the shadows--but there are two things to be aware of here. First--SchamMan89 specifically requested that we share our understanding about the limitations he should be concerned about. Second--whether you feel the need or not--you are in fact sharing your personal beliefs regarding this subject. Your beliefs are clear--that my beliefs and your own beliefs should be subordinated to your *ruling* belief of relativism. I think you are grossly stifling yourself by allowing it to rule you, and I'm certainly not going to be stifled by it myself. It's your false god, not mine.

quote:

---

Thus when writing for a market as wide open as the YA market, you have to understand as a writer, you're going to offend someone either by being too bland, too cliche or too risque.

---

That is a complete non sequitor. I have not given a single bit of advice about how to avoid offending someone--nor has anyone else. I have been giving advice about what are prudent and responsible limits.

quote:

---

However, people are people and we are in the business of telling stories about all the wild and crazy things people do.

---

If by that you mean we should accept perversions as an "okay" part of the business--I completely reject that notion. "Being in the business" to tell about "wild and crazy things" is not a reasonable justification for perverting children.

quote:

---

If you don't want to write a story that violates your beliefs don't but realize that just because you don't agree something is YA suitable doesn't mean somebody else won't find that same subject a must read for all kids of a certain age.

---

You are right. Just because I believe something is perverted, it doesn't mean the perverts will believe it is perverted. But I'm not going to base my advice to someone on the existence of perverts.

So...what I get from this topic is this:
-write what you want, but steer away from extremely graphic scenes if they can be avoided
-write what needs to be written: don't sacrifice the integrity of your work to please a couple of extra readers

With all due respect, I think we are right on topic here.

The question was posed: How does one understand the limitations one should be concerned about when writing juvenile fiction?

This question is a direct concern for writers, so, unless the moderator says otherwise, it is appropriate for this forum.

The present discussion between Matt Lust and I is directly related to the question--and the initiator of the question encouraged and lauded us for our exchange. (Although it earlier did threaten to go off into more political/legal areas.) There seem to be some sputters left in the discussion, so there very well may be more to be learned, and the initiator of the question may very well benefit from it.

So I really don't know why you are objecting to us having an innocent discussion here. If you don't like the discussion, why not simply ignore it? Unless...maybe...you have a moral reason for shutting us down?

I agree with you that there should be limits but this is branching into political and religious realms that are not explicitly writing related.

quote:

---

Am I right?

---

Well, if I were to sum it up, I'd probably say this:

-Use good marketing sense, but don't let it rule good judgment or override art and responsibility.
-Pay attention to your conscience and attentively consider what is good for your audience--and what might be bad for it.
-Cut out anything that bothers your conscience, and if you have great uncertainty about it, seek some moral council.
-"Do what's right for the story" is valid if it doesn't override the previous three items.

I hope you have benefitted from this exercise, SchamMan89.

Who decides what is moral for other people? You? God? Who's version of God?

I wouldn't let my children near the creepy man in the park talking about sex. By the time their older I'll give them the sex talk myself because they need to know what's out there and the funky things their bodies are doing.

I believe in abstinence before marriage, but I will also teach my children about birth control While I don't want my children having sex, I also don't want them saddled with an STD or a child out of wedlock. Too many people harp on abstinence, then their childrens have a baby because no one bothered to tell them about birth control. I believe in repentance as well.

I don't disagree that some things shouldn't be in children's books. But who is to decide? Where is the line and who decides where it is drawn?

You can't keep children from learning about sex. Responsible parents will teach children about it and what is expected of them (abstinence or whatever).

I disapprove of censorship because who is the censor? The Catholic church, the way it was in the fifties and before? The Mormons, the Jehovah's Witnesses, TV Evangelists? Give me a rating and a v-ship and let me decide.

If you can't keep children from reading inappropriate books, what's to keep them from reading adult fiction or romance? I think a school library can set up a computer system where parents can choose what their children read. Sure, they can get inappropriate books from their friends, but they can get porn from a friend too.

You can't compare murder and torture to morality in literature. Murder and torture hurt someone against their will. You have to choose to read a book for it to harm you. Unless someone throws it at you. Then it can hurt you against your will, and I am definitely opposed to book-throwing assaults.

Again I ask, who decides what is right and wrong? Society can't do it, they can't agree on anything. So, is it the writer? If so, then they have license to write whatever they feel is right.

I remember several years ago a law was passed banning depictions of underage sex in movies. The Supreme Court ruled the law unconstitutional.

200 years ago, it was acceptable for a 14-year-old to get married. Now it's immoral. It seems even in the world view morality can shift.

I am a religious person, I believe God has set the bounds on morality. But does that give me a right to restrict the doings of others? As long as one person doesn't hurt another, they can do as they wish. If you believe a children's book can cause psychological abuse, then lobby for a rating system.