One thing that I've found myself noticing about all these books as we read them is the presence or absence of parents in these kids' lives. Gossip Girl is a good example; only one of the 4 characters I've met so far has parents who are not explicitly absent, as in off touring the world and not in any way about to show up. The parents in Boy Toy and Nineteen Minutes were present, but seemed to be entirely missing the point of their kids' lives. Snoop had foster parents who loved her, but who weren't aware of what she was doing, or even what the fabric of her life looked like.
I find this interesting in a couple of ways. First, I don't think all of these books are making a point about parents. It seems more like parents are in general a fairly minor part of the lives that teenagers lead--family life is a known quantity, while the rest of life is what needs to be navigated and explored and figured out. Books for teenagers are about defining yourself apart from family, and so family takes a back seat, or maybe is missing altogether. They also want to be about empowerment--parents are, by their nature, either somewhat controlling or somewhat neglectful. To explore a teenager's power, the story needs to keep the parents in the background or make them agent against which the protagonist is acting.
(Aside: why am I talking like this? I keep lapsing into academic-speak. Not sure why; apologies.)
Also, the nature of a good story usually indicates that a person have a certain level of being on their own, in the same way that most Disney protagonists are either orphans or, at least, missing a mom. Concerned, involved parents make life a little easier in some ways, and relieve the solitude that seems to be such a theme in the lives of the characters in all these books.
I just think it's interesting that this theme comes out in all these books--and so many others. There are different developmental assets at work in all these books, but the presence or absence of parents could be seen as related to all these things.
Huh. Just a thought.
3 comments:
I also think that lack of parental figures gives the characters freedoms they wouldn't otherwise have-- you can't investigate murders or stay out all night or bring home a magic wand if you know that there are parents about who will enforce rules, confiscate things and check on you.
Kind of a plot necessity, I think.
Absolutely, it's a "feature" of books for teens that parents are pretty absent. What I think is also interesting is that in teen oriented TV that is not always the case. For example in the TV version of Gossip Girls parents are very present. So, I always wonder why parents in TV are more acceptable than parents in literature?
I was thinking this as I watched Gossip Girl this week. I wonder if it's an adult draw--someone my age might not tune in just for the kids, but if there is someone my age, we'll stay for the rest of it. OR: in a book, not seeing the parents is more believable, because the difference between "offstage" and "absent" is more vague (for whatever reason). OR: when there's adult drama, there's a lot at stake in the teens' lives, too--think of Dawson's mom and dad splitting up on Dawson's Creek, which was a big deal in his life.
But functionally, I agree with jml--parents are, by definition, boundaries, and adventure is when the boundaries and safety nets are absent.
Post a Comment