A Disturbing Irresponsible Trend or ... ?

As plots go, it's mawkish at best, exploitative at worst.

Diagnosed with stage four thyroid cancer at the age of 13, Hazel spends most of her time tethered to an oxygen tank and is running out of hope.

When she is attracted to a fellow cancer sufferer, she has to weigh up if she has enough time to fall for him before she dies.

Such is the storyline of The Fault In Our Stars, one of last year's most successful children's paperbacks.

It's a scenario seen again in Never Eighteen, also published last year, in which leukaemia-stricken Austin, 17, is in a race against time to tell his best friend he loves her because he doesn't expect to see his next birthday.

Coincidence? Hardly. Another children's novel - Before I Die - about a 16-year-old British girl who, you will have guessed, is dying of cancer, has been made into a Hollywood film, starring Twilight and War Of The Worlds star Dakota Fanning.

According to the blurb, Tessa compiles a list of what to do before she expires: 'Number one is sex. Starting tonight.'

It's not just the fact that these books feature terminally ill teenagers that makes them so questionable - they're also aimed at children as young as 12.

Since the vampire book bubble burst, publishers have been looking to find the next big thing in the lucrative world of young adult fiction.

Indeed, The Fault In Our Stars, published by Penguin, spent half of last year at the top of Amazon's teen best-sellers list. Before I Die sold 70,000 copies in its first four months.

While the Twilight series and its imitators are clearly fantasy, these books don't spare any detail of the harsh realities of terminal illness, depression and death.

Most are also liberally peppered with sex and swearing. The blurbs for 'teen sick-lit' - as it's become known - trip over themselves to promise their books will drive readers 'to tears' or leave them 'devastated'.

As if using children with months to live to build dramatic tension is not distasteful enough, the taboo about writing about suicide in young adult fiction has also been broken by the book Thirteen Reasons Why - a bestseller about a teenage girl who leaves 13 recordings explaining why she killed herself.

While the media stops short of reporting even the most basic facts of suicide for fear of encouraging copycat behaviour, publishers are commissioning entire works of fiction on the subject.

Such novels include By The Time You Read This, I'll Be Dead, published by Disney and Hyperion Books for Children. It centers on a disturbed schoolgirl, who, after a string of bungled attempts, uses a suicide website to set herself a deadline for achieving her goal.

It includes passages on the most effective ways of killing yourself. Though helplines are listed, at the end it's left unclear if the central character decides to go through with it or not.

Children's book expert Amanda Craig is among those concerned about these books. She has been sent about 12 teen sick-lit books over the past year, but she feels so strongly she will not review them.

According to Amanda, the bandwagon began with the success of books such as The Lovely Bones, in which a 14-year-old girl watches her family and friends from heaven after she is raped and murdered.

When the book became popular among young teens, publishers set about commissioning a raft of morbid novels, which all too often inadvertently glamorise shocking life-and-death issues.

'When you write for children, you have a moral and social responsibility,' says Amanda. 'I think there is a cavalier attitude towards this in the publishing industry, especially as children as young as 11 are likely to be reading these books.

'They are aimed at young teens at the time when they are most likely to go through self-harm or experience suicidal thoughts.'

One book that stood out for Amanda is Red Tears - by British author Joanna Kenrick - about a girl who self-harms to cope with the pressure of her GSCEs. It was published by the children's division of Faber.

'I know a girl of 12 in whose class the book spread like wildfire - several of them also started cutting themselves,' she says.

Indeed, the book's website makes it clear it has come to be viewed as something of a classic by self-harmers. While many say the book has helped them, others write that it tipped them back into the habit.

One girl, Jess, says that while the book put into words what she felt, 'it was also too close to home for me to read'. She added: 'I'd finish reading and immediately reach for my blade.'

While Laura Haddow of support group selfharm.co.uk says the book is 'a very useful account', she adds: 'There's often a fine line between raising the profile of the problem so that more young people can seek help versus presenting it as another option for young people to express how they feel.'
While she says she would give the book to the family or friends of a self-harmer to help them understand the issue, she would be 'very cautious about giving it to a young person to read alone'.

Julie Elman, of the University of Missouri, who has studied teen sick-lit, is worried the genre encourages young girls to believe that the most important thing to worry about when facing serious illness is whether boys still fancy them.

In a research paper, she cites one example, So Much To Live For, in which the central character, who has eye cancer, is traumatised she can't wear make-up around her empty socket for fear of infection. One of the publishers at the forefront of the sick-lit trend is Penguin's young people's imprint Razorbill, which produces 40 books a year for children age 12 and up.

As well as publishing Thirteen Reasons Why, they have also published two teen cancer books, The Probability Of Miracles and The Fault In Our Stars, as well as Zoe Letting Go about a teen committed to an institution for eating disorders.

When the Mail approached Penguin, the firm declined to make a statement, but offered a comment from one of their writers Phil Earle, 39, author of Saving Daisy, in which the main character self-harms.

'When young people are lost in such traumatic states, it's vital that they don't feel alone,' he says.
'Isolation makes the situation worse and their problems more entrenched. Novels and stories on the subject offer a sense of commonality and, most importantly, a sense of hope.

'How do I know this? Because young people going through such trauma have told me so.'
Child psychologist Emma Citron urges parents to keep a careful eye on their children if they find they keep reading these books - particularly if they are under 15.

'I think there are more life-affirming ways for young people to find out about death,' she says. 'It's OK as along as parents are talking to them about these books and what they are thinking and feeling.
'But these subjects should not be consumed by young people alone.

'If they start to head them down a morbid path that makes them sink into a low mood, that is a significant worry.

'Parents should be vigilant if a child is reading a lot of these books.'

So the next time your teen is curled up with a book, ask them what it's about, says Emma.

'Let's hope publishers do have young people's interests at heart - and they are not selling books by sensationalising children's suffering.'

The 'sick-lit' books aimed at children: It's a disturbing phenomenon. Tales of teenage cancer, self-harm and suicide... | Mail Online

For me this line sums up the issue :

'There's often a fine line between raising the profile of the problem so that more young people can seek help versus presenting it as another option for young people to express how they feel.'

If the book is allowing the reader to gain knowledge on where to get help and feel that they are not alone without creating an environment in which destructive harmful behaviour is glamourised or in any way presented as being a solution to problems then its fine, but its a fine line between help and harm when the book makes the entire subject of the book about the problem.

I have read books such as Mercedes Lackey's Bedlam Bard series which deals with teen runaways and abuse in which the message is clear - running away puts you in danger, you can't solve the problem on your own, get help. This to me is the right way to do it.

Meadow337 said:

The 'sick-lit' books aimed at children: It's a disturbing phenomenon.
Tales of teenage cancer, self-harm and suicide...
​

. . . .'Let's hope publishers do have young people's interests at heart - and they are not selling books by sensationalising children's suffering.'

Click to expand...

I didn't bother with all the words, Meadow. Sorry. But sick-lit (it now has a name!) is a trend that began a long time ago and I commented on it back then on BAR. So now I see what it has become these days. Sick, indeed.

But the quote above has to be the most vain hope I have ever seen expressed anywhere! Is it from another planet?

There are/were some publishers who published wholesome books for children when my children were children -- is the Caldecott Award (IIRC) still around, for example? Or does it now sound just too goody-goody and out of touch? I have to expect that publishing "nice" books will just find such books more and more squeezed out in favor of "real-life" books -- parental oversight notwithstanding. (And we can conclude how effective that has been!)

I just don't understand the younger generation anymore. Gettin' old. Very old.

But it's a dismal picture I see.

What I don't understand is how someone can write something like these books let alone read them. If I even read a review or a blurb of a book like these I am upset and disturbed!

I don't disagree with you Peder. There has been a disturbing trend for a long time. If I think of books like the Goosebumps books ... I looked after a friend's kids the other day - their son is 6 / 7 and he was reading them. I just don't know. When they came out they were aimed at a higher age group, but I won't even read one now. Scary nonsense.

I do think that with the things today's kids face there is a need for books that speak to their problems but IMO there is a right way and a wrong way to do that. There does need to be social responsibility and it is a well known phenomenon that kids emulate what they see / read.

The books I mentioned above are actually really good in hitting the right note between being relateable and not being irresponsible. The difficulties and dangers of being a kid on the street are highlighted enough that the story is exciting but hits the right note of 'this is not good stuff to experience'. There are links at the end of the book and a message for kids who might be in trouble to seek help and where to seek help but even throughout the book the adults in the story offer help in ways that highlight where and how to seek help as well.

It isn't enough to just say 'but kids are experiencing this so it is OK to write about'.

Oh another book that comes to mind that hits the right notes is Skallagrig by William Horwood about kids with Cerebral Palsy.


It is astonishingly hopeful.

I don't have a problem with childrens', middle grade or YA taking on difficult and painful topics, so long as the
story is told in an age appropriate way.


Children do have terminal illnesses, addicts and abusers for parents and all the other ugly things in life. To keep literature from from the ugly side of life isn't realistic. For books to always be happy, with easy to solve dilemmas to me is disingenuous and a
disservice to kids. They are aware of the difficulties, illness and hardships they, their friends and classmates are going through.

Maurice Sendak took a lot of grief for having a naked boy in one of his books, and Where the Wild Things Are was criticized because the MC was angry and difficult,but he defended the stories, saying children are complicated and why should childrens' books sugarcoat everything.

I'm not trying to self promo here, but my book, A Dog of War, is middle grade and takes place during the Holocaust.
There is no on page brutality, death or disturbing images, but the suffering of the Holocaust is talked about and death
does occur off page.


Gore and senseless violence are inappropriate in my mind. I think those things are harmful to kids, it doesn't matter the form, book, movies, video games, etc. But I dislike those in any form adult or children.

I don't disagree with you at all Regdog, (and no I won't view your comment as self promo as it is applicable to the discussion). I completely agree with you on senseless violence although I also include 'scary' books that serve no purpose but to create fear. I am definitely not suggesting that boooks sugarcoat life and make it all sweetness and light - good grief look at some of the classics - even Disney - Bambi's mother is killed in a forest fire, Cinderella is abused by her foster family etc Grimm's Fairy Tales are grim (pun intended) but they all end with the death of the wicked witch and hope, life, light, goodness triumphant. The lessons are clear - evil may look like it's winning but persevere and goodness will overcome.

I's the trend to not offer a good ending that bothers me, that an a too close, too realistic look at 'how to'. Do the authors even stop to think, or have a conscience because kids either start self mutilating or go back to it because of how realistic their book is, or is there some sort of perverse pride in that?

What about suicide or anorexia - both of those are easily influenced by reading about it. There very sick anorexia websites set up by kids themselves where they teach other 'how to'. Do we, as theoretically responsible adults, need to be feeding into this by providing them with books that cross that line as well?

Somewhere adults have lost the plot. We yabber on about kids rights and have the UN Bill of Rights, but in all of that the fundamental responsibility of adults to nurture and protect has been lost, or perhaps we just haven't evolved sufficiently in our social responsibilities yet, given that previous generations weren't so good at the 'nurture and protect' bit. Perhaps that is still coming when we move from 'rights' which are rather self centered to 'responsibilities' which are a more mature concept. The difference being that rights are about what I'm owed and responsibilities are about what I owe others.

I don't think a majority of kids are going to start self mutilating or become anorexic just because they read it, or see it in a movie. The kids who already do it or are considering it have serious problems to begin with. Sadly a few kids, are that impressionable.

I don't have a problem with the book having a sad ending if it is true and honest to the story. Sometimes there is no other way to end the book. To try and have the kid survive their physical illness or recover from a mental illness might not read as believable.

I do agree with you, that being scary, gross, or so far over the top for the sake of shock value is cheap and a waste and demeans writing.

Hmm but even in there being a sad ending there can still be hope.

Meadow337 said:

. . . The difference being that rights are about what I'm owed and responsibilities are about what I owe others.

Click to expand...

Very well put, Meadow -- the twin concerns of civilization!

Meadow337 said:

Hmm but even in there being a sad ending there can still be hope.

Click to expand...

True. This can be seen as a chicken/egg conundrum. for me it comes down to if the ending sad or happy is true and honest to the rest of the story then it is okay. If it is being done for shock value or deliberate controversy, it's wrong.

One things I loath, is the intentional accidental controversy.

I think that the point is still that there is a right way and a wrong way to address sensitive issues. Like it or not kids are easily impressionable and are easily led to believe that these behaviours are ways to cope with the stress in their lives. Just developmentally speaking they lack the mental capacity to have an adult perspective on these things. And as adults it is our responsibility to not put things in their path that are going to create a more of a problem than they solve. I'm also of the opinion that if one child takes it the 'wrong' way that is one too many. How many deaths / damaged kids does it take to be 'too many'? How do you think the parents of that one child feel hmm? Oh well my child was an acceptable statistic?

No, however no one can be expected to make sure everything they say or write has no negative impact on every child. That is an impossibility.

but I dont think they can shrug off responsibility with that as their excuse either.

If that were true any author who writes a story involving suicide, cutting, anorexia, runaways, fighting, etc could be sued if any person child or adult who read their work cut themselves, became anorexic, ran away, got in a fight etc. no author is responsible for how someone reacts or what their mental health was before or after their works were read.

By what your saying, any parent whose kids reads Jack and Jill can hold that book responsible for their little kid running and rolling down hills. Kids have hurt themselves doing that but it isn't the books fault for putting the idea in the kids' head. Or that Where The Wild Things Are is responsible for any kid who throws a wholly temper tantrum and runs away.


Similarly it hearkens to the idea that musicians are responsible for their fans committing suicide from listening to their music, IE, Ozzy and Judas Priest.

They might not be legally responsible but they are morally responsible.

I think that if an author (or publisher) starts out with their heart in the right place, and attempts to write a responsible constructive age appropriate book about coping with the human condition, it will show through in the story they tell, without being preachy, or pollyannish, or dumbed down or having a happy, sappy or sad ending, or any other obvious and intrusive clues or turnoffs.

If the motivation is dollars and market share, then one gets the other kind of book.

Meadow337 said:

They might not be legally responsible but they are morally responsible.

Click to expand...

If that's the case then I would be morally responsible for anyone who reads A Dog of War and later in life decides to become a NeoNazi. And I am absolutely in no way responsible anyone thinking Anti Semtism is a good thing or Naziasm is something to embrace and emulate.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this subject.

If you have written your book in such a way that it is crystal clear those things were wrong and were in no way ambiguous about it then, no you aren't responsible. But not all authors are crystal clear. They cross the line into ambiguity, and then it is justified by authors and publishers and many commentators as 'these issues are relevant' and 'you can't protect kids from reality' and 'we aren't responsible for how some react' etc. This is not good enough for me. What the heck are adults here for if not to protect kids? Why bother with age restrictions on books and movies? Why do we fuss so much when parents /guardians fail in their duty to protect? It is a false argument to say there is no responsibility in how things are presented to kids. There is absolutely responsibility and if the best care has not been taken to be responsible in how sensitive issues are presented then there jolly well is moral responsibility for the consequences.

regdog said:

If that's the case then I would be morally responsible for anyone who reads A Dog of War and later in life decides to become a NeoNazi. And I am absolutely in no way responsible anyone thinking Anti Semtism is a good thing or Naziasm is something to embrace and emulate.

Click to expand...

So, just to be clear, you wrote the book because?