Should Access to YA Literature be Limited? (Argument Essay)

        Nowadays, young adult literature has been containing more caliginous content (or so some say); and this has caused a stir among adults and teens all across the nation. Some say that access to young adult literature should be limited to teens due to the content it provides—they believe that said content is too much for the teenagers and that it will corrupt their innocence and/or happiness, and so they shouldn't be allowed to view concepts. Personally, young adult books should not be limited in any way—limiting access would not work and YA fiction can be seen as reassuring to its readers.
       
        Access to YA literature should not be limited because limiting it to children/teens will simply not work. In the article, "Should young adult books has ratings?" Patrick Ness, an author with a Carnegie Medal-winning novel, argues that rating systems for young adult literature won't work because, "children are great self-censors." He states, "'if it's got an 18 certificate for adults, then younger children will look it out when their parents are not around…. They know what they can read and they know what they want to read, and if you don't give it to them, they'll find it somehow." This is completely true when it comes to children and teens, in general. It happens with other types of media as well. For example, if a minor wanted to buy a mature-rated video game, they would still get it even if their parents or the seller didn't allow them to. They could get it online or ask to borrow it from a friend who was able to get it.

        YA books shouldn't be limited because it is comforting and supporting to the teens reading it. The author of the article, "Why the Best Kids Books Are Written in Blood," Sherman Alexie states, "And there are millions of teens who read because they are sad and lonely and enraged. They read because they live in an often-terrible world. They read because they believe, despite the callow protestations of certain adults, that books—especially the dark and dangerous ones—will save them." This shows how YA books can be helpful for teens who are struggling. They (books) make them feel like they're not alone and literature encourages them.

        It's easy to see why some people think YA books should be restricted; these books can contain dark content that, according to some people (like Meghan Cox Gurdon), may alter a teen's thinking or perspective on life. Gurdon says, "If books show us the world, teen fiction can be like a hall of fun-house mirrors, constantly reflecting back hideously distorted portrayals of what life is…. It has to do with a child's happiness, moral development and tenderness of heart." I can see where Gurdon is coming from and her thinking process, but I just have to say that books don't show us the world. And not all teen fiction contains such "lurid" or "horrendous" content. Also, if the book has some dark concepts, the readers may be seeking it out for their own good. They want to know that they are not alone and that others have experienced what they're going through. In other words, these teenagers look for reassurance when they can't seem to find it anywhere else. Additionally, if the content in YA literature is too disturbing for the reader, then they don't have to read it! It's their choice if they would like to read it or not. And if one particular teenager doesn't like YA literature, that doesn't mean that a whole bunch of teenagers have to have it taken away from them.

        In conclusion, young adult literature should not be limited because any limitations will not work and the books, that are being challenged, encourage readers to thrive on, despite their struggles. To be completely honest, I don't even know what goes on in the minds of people who want to restrict particular books or genres to adolescents and teens. Reading is good for the mind, even if it has dark content and such. Those people in particular should look past the gory concepts and try to find an important lesson or moral reason as to why that book was written. As I said before (countless times), YA literature can have aspects that encourage teens to thrive on, or as Sherman Alexie would say, "to give them weapons—in the form of words and ideas—that will help them fight their monsters." Maybe those people could try and find the better aspects of young adult literature. What is something positive that YA fiction has taught you or made you think about?

"Popular Crime: Reflections on the Celebration of Violence"

          "Popular Crime: Reflections on the Celebration of Violence," by Bill James, is a book that focuses on popular crime in America from the 1600s to present day (well, 2011-12). Throughout the book, Bill James wrote sections that were about crime in general and he explained the analogy of crimes and such. Some examples: "On American Crime Rates," "On Why Certain Crimes Are Chosen for Fame," "On Weighing Evidence," "On the Evolution of the Legal System," "A System of Categorizing Crime Stories," etc. He would basically bring up an idea (a general idea) on crime, explain it, and tell us about crimes that supports that idea and how the crime supports it. While reading "Popular Crime," I also came up with an idea; well, it's more of an observation. (It showed up a lot and I'm sure James himself has already addressed it, so I can't take credit for it.) It is the problems that occur with/in a lot of crime stories and the negative (problematic) role that the justice system played in the stories.

          There were a lot of parts in the beginning, and throughout, the book that provoked my initial thinking/thought-process but one that sticks out the most was on page 101 and it says, "Pruiett, Rogers, Leibowitz and others defended legions of murderers with hardly a loss. We posed a moment ago the question: How is it even possible that they did these things? Or, stated more accurately from a historical standpoint: How did it happen that these things became impossible, since certainly they are impossible in modern America?" Then, James goes on an answers the question (but of course there's more to it when you look in depth) and I found that these answers are just a part of the central idea and that you have to find more evidence to support these "answers". 1) Bar associations in the years 1915-1940, (gradually) brought under control practices such as: jury tampering, suborning perjury, bribing judges and intimidating witnesses. •These are some practices that resulted in unfair solutions/convictions; these were major problems that occurred in popular crime stories and affected the outcome of them. 2) "The largest charge in American criminal trails over the last 100 years has been the accumulation of layers of pretrial discovery….the Supreme Court ruled that defendants had the right to know in advance what testimony would be introduced against them at trial." 3) "A dramatic shift in the ratio of acquittals to convictions….a high percentage of persons who were accused of murder in that era, were in fact, acquitted or found guilty of lesser charge."

          One part that really secured my thinking/reasoning—"Our system was a disaster [basically my point of view]. The system failed in these four cases; it has failed, at least so far, in the JonBenet Ramsey case, it failed in the assassination of President Kennedy—allowing the accused to be murdered—it failed in the case of the Black Dahlia. In cases like Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy and Jeffrey Dahmer, the system 'succeeded' only after many people were dead. This part really secures my reasoning because it gives some examples, vaguely, of when and how the system has failed throughout American history. There are other, more specific examples, as to how the system has failed. "In the O.J. Simpson murder case, the system failed in substantial measure because of the attention given to the case. In the JonBenet case, I think the same is true: that had the press never gotten interested in the case, it is more likely that the investigation would have been handled properly." This is problematic; it's one of the many reasons as to why results to crime stories turn out to be unfair and unjust. "It turned out, at that time [mid 1970s], 'life in prison' generally meant four to six years. The maximum sentence for murder in Kansas was called life in prison, but it was actually fifteen years to life. After fifteen years, you were eligible for parole. You were more than eligible for parole; you were legally entitled to parole, unless you had 'bad time.'" The system was so terrible because it lied and let criminals go when they weren't supposed to leave. "It was a fantastic system. It enabled prosecutors to go before press and announce that they had obtained a life sentence for A.J. killer, but it allowed A.J. to walk quietly out of prison five years later—sometimes less." This, again, goes with the fact that the system was terrible because it lied to the press and the people and just everyone. It was unfair because the criminal deserved to stay in prison, but he/she didn't.

          In conclusion, there have been many problems that have occurred in popular crime throughout American history and the system has been playing a negative role alongside. There were other things I noticed that were problematic in crime stories besides what has already been stated/mentioned. One thing, people don't take all clues/evidence seriously or disregard them completely. Another thing, technology for solving cases was very un advanced, so lots of things (evidence) were not analyzed thoroughly. That, and the system was unfair when it came to rulings. They even let criminals go when they weren't supposed to. Ultimately, popular crime in American history has had a lot of problems and the justice system has played a very negative role in them.