During class last week, I couldn't help but notice the amount of people who raised their hands and shared personal stories of being bullied or intimidated in some way by the "mean girls" from their past. It's something we can laugh about sometimes, but it is also something that every girl seems to clearly remember and probably always will. After class, when I searched just the words mean girls in Google, I was not surprised at what I found: numerous books about mean girls as adults or getting over mean girls as adults.
The main one I looked at was Mean Girls Grown Up: Adult Women Who Are Still Queen Bees, Middle Bees, and Afraid-to-Bees (Paperback)by Cheryl, PhD Dellasega, although, there were links to several others. There were books about dealing with mean girls who are now mean adults and books about how to get over the emotional damage caused by the interactions with mean girls during childhood and youth. This book deal with both of those issues, it seems. Some reader reviews seemed to like that these issues were being dealt with while other reviews criticized the solutions offered, claiming that the damage done could not be so easily repaired.
So what does this contribute to class? I think it's interesting to see how our childhood interactions affect us later in life. I'm sure that we didn't think that the table we sat at in the cafeteria in junior high would have an effect on the people we became years later. In the same way, I wonder how much of an effect the children's literature we were exposed had on us. If interactions with other people are still affecting us years later, what about the ideas and ideals that were being offered to us through children's literature?
This leads me to think about 17 Things I'm Not Allowed to Do Anymore in a different way. While some people may think the book seems like a bad influence on the present child, I think many adults are overlooking what effect the book may have on the child later in life. This seems to happen alot when examining children's literature; we seem to forget that while we are reading to the child, we are also reading to the adult that the child will become. Perhaps remembering this fact would help us to look at books about mischevious children (girl, in particular) in a different way.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
What does it mean to be mean?
What I researched and why: The idea that kept striking me as we were talking about “mean girls” was that in reality what a mean girl was, was a girl who was standing up for herself. One who doesn’t allow others to influence the way she behaves. Of course, this isn’t entirely positive in that mean girls often hurt others around them as a result of her actions. However, it also meant that girls were standing up for themselves. I wanted to delve a little deeper into what being a mean girl meant to others on a deeper level. So, I thought back to Margaret Finders’ book Just Girls.
What I found: In the book there are two social groups which were examined. The first is the “Queen Bees” and the other is the “Tough Cookies.” The queen bees were of course, the popular girls, whereas the tough cookies were not. Almost all of the “cookies” were from a neighboring trailer park…coming from low income families. The study was conducted to find out about the “hidden literacies and life in junior high.” What Finders found was that many literary events in the school were exclusionary toward the tough cookies. Most notably, was the signing of yearbooks which every teacher observed gave time for in class.
“Constant comments from Northern Hills staff that ‘Everybody gets one’ and ‘Everyone loves them’ reveal that [the tough cookies] and many others were invisible to school personnel…While students may not have purchased a yearbook for a variety of reasons, the socioeconomic status of families may have been a critical issue. For whatever reason, when teachers rewarded students with ‘signing time,’ one out of four students was not able to participate” (36).
My Interpretation: The above quote is just one example of how the “Queens” were dominant over the “Cookies” in terms of literacy. The queens would also exclude the cookies from note passing, bathroom wall writing, yearbook signing and often refer to them as the “woof-woofs” (meaning they were dogs--in case you weren‘t sure, yes, that‘s what they meant). The teachers also made general references in favor of the “Queens.” “Some teachers described their class makeup in terms of numbers of students from trailer parks. A teacher’s comment such as ‘I’ve got seven trailer-park kids’ conveyed to other teachers the implicit yet clearly understood assumption of impending trouble for that teacher” (37).
This, to me, represents the “other side” of the mean girl phenomenon. I’m sure each and every girl has been a victim of a mean girl at some point or another; but these girls were basically forced to be uncomfortable in school every single day. To me, that is by far the largest negative of the mean girl phenomenon. While I do think it’s wonderful that girls are no longer required to be seen and not heard, passive, and submissive, I do not think that terrorizing other girls is the most desirable option.
(Another side note from the book--the only time the girls from the two circles would interact via notes was when one received a chain letter stating “You will have bad luck with boys for the rest of your life”--or something of the sort. Therefore making male attention still more important than “being mean.” And therefore suggesting that being a “mean girl” is perhaps not as empowering as I thought.
What I found: In the book there are two social groups which were examined. The first is the “Queen Bees” and the other is the “Tough Cookies.” The queen bees were of course, the popular girls, whereas the tough cookies were not. Almost all of the “cookies” were from a neighboring trailer park…coming from low income families. The study was conducted to find out about the “hidden literacies and life in junior high.” What Finders found was that many literary events in the school were exclusionary toward the tough cookies. Most notably, was the signing of yearbooks which every teacher observed gave time for in class.
“Constant comments from Northern Hills staff that ‘Everybody gets one’ and ‘Everyone loves them’ reveal that [the tough cookies] and many others were invisible to school personnel…While students may not have purchased a yearbook for a variety of reasons, the socioeconomic status of families may have been a critical issue. For whatever reason, when teachers rewarded students with ‘signing time,’ one out of four students was not able to participate” (36).
My Interpretation: The above quote is just one example of how the “Queens” were dominant over the “Cookies” in terms of literacy. The queens would also exclude the cookies from note passing, bathroom wall writing, yearbook signing and often refer to them as the “woof-woofs” (meaning they were dogs--in case you weren‘t sure, yes, that‘s what they meant). The teachers also made general references in favor of the “Queens.” “Some teachers described their class makeup in terms of numbers of students from trailer parks. A teacher’s comment such as ‘I’ve got seven trailer-park kids’ conveyed to other teachers the implicit yet clearly understood assumption of impending trouble for that teacher” (37).
This, to me, represents the “other side” of the mean girl phenomenon. I’m sure each and every girl has been a victim of a mean girl at some point or another; but these girls were basically forced to be uncomfortable in school every single day. To me, that is by far the largest negative of the mean girl phenomenon. While I do think it’s wonderful that girls are no longer required to be seen and not heard, passive, and submissive, I do not think that terrorizing other girls is the most desirable option.
(Another side note from the book--the only time the girls from the two circles would interact via notes was when one received a chain letter stating “You will have bad luck with boys for the rest of your life”--or something of the sort. Therefore making male attention still more important than “being mean.” And therefore suggesting that being a “mean girl” is perhaps not as empowering as I thought.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Mean Girls, Niceness, and Nancy Drew
What I researched and why: With all this talk of mean girls, I found myself remembering that all-around wholesome, good girl hero Nancy Drew, the seeming antithesis to the viperous mean girls who are the subjects of books, movies, and, as we have realized, countless articles and studies. I wondered what happened to good old
The Human Desire for Power and its Effects
What I researched and why: I researched the mean girl phenomenon, what exactly was going on and the impact on young girls today. I was particularly interested in the comparison of mean girls acting in such a way to emulate male behavior. This did not seem correct and as I researched I came to find that there is supporting evidence that it is not in fact true. So why then are young girls attacking one another and in such a sneaky and indirect manner? The issue of power is of course a central concern regarding this topic; power not only for ones-self but over others. The term relational aggression is key in the understanding of the mean girl phenomenon.
What I found: I googled a number of different key words and phrases in my search for understanding of this new phenomenon. One of the most important labels being "relational aggression." www.relationalaggression.com/faq.html This website gave detailed description of such behavior. It stated that there are three main tasks of which an adolescent is expected to complete; development of personal identity, separation from family, fit into peer groups. The emotional and physical violence demonstrated by these "mean girls" in acts of relational aggression have devastating impacts on the lives of their victims including low self esteem, insecurity, inability to trust the external world, and the ability to develop trust and healthy relationships. What we may have been viewing as "funny" and fairly innocent "girl drama" has deep seeded effects on the innocent young victims. Through acts of social exclusion, ridicule, and gossip girls gain a sense of status over one another. The article "Girl Fighting: Betrayal and Rejection Among Girls," gives a more clear explanation as to the meaning behind such acts. The article explains how girls are not encouraged to express anger and frustration. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2294/is_5-6_52/ai_n15344794 Such social inequality leads to underground and indirect aggression to be taken out on other girls. In reality it is a struggle for power that many associate with males. Whereas it is considered the norm for boys to exert their power physically, many see the mean girl phenomenon to be girls "acting like boys." It is important to understand that power is a universal human desire, it is the implementation of such power that differs between men and women.
My Interpretation: Girls are constantly expected to be "good" and "well-mannered" but just like all human beings, are in need of an outlet for their own frustration. It is not socially acceptable for young woman to express their anger in physical violence which in turn leads to the demoralizing practice of controlling others psychologically. It is through this psychological manipulation that distinguishes between the "cool and powerful" and the "uncool and controlled" groups of young women. The desire for power is not a male trait, but in fact an all around human trait. In reality, the result of the actions of "mean girls" can be viewed as much worse than a male’s physical violence. Where did girls learn to be so socially competitive for power and popularity? Perhaps it is the patriarchal and societal sources of mixed messages that teaches young girls that repressed anger expressed underground is the only way to overcome the everyday powerless feeling of being a woman. So with this knowledge the question remains, how do we express to the generations of young women that such power is debilitating to their own personal self esteem, the esteem of others, and the way society views women as a whole?
What I found: I googled a number of different key words and phrases in my search for understanding of this new phenomenon. One of the most important labels being "relational aggression." www.relationalaggression.com/faq.html This website gave detailed description of such behavior. It stated that there are three main tasks of which an adolescent is expected to complete; development of personal identity, separation from family, fit into peer groups. The emotional and physical violence demonstrated by these "mean girls" in acts of relational aggression have devastating impacts on the lives of their victims including low self esteem, insecurity, inability to trust the external world, and the ability to develop trust and healthy relationships. What we may have been viewing as "funny" and fairly innocent "girl drama" has deep seeded effects on the innocent young victims. Through acts of social exclusion, ridicule, and gossip girls gain a sense of status over one another. The article "Girl Fighting: Betrayal and Rejection Among Girls," gives a more clear explanation as to the meaning behind such acts. The article explains how girls are not encouraged to express anger and frustration. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2294/is_5-6_52/ai_n15344794 Such social inequality leads to underground and indirect aggression to be taken out on other girls. In reality it is a struggle for power that many associate with males. Whereas it is considered the norm for boys to exert their power physically, many see the mean girl phenomenon to be girls "acting like boys." It is important to understand that power is a universal human desire, it is the implementation of such power that differs between men and women.
My Interpretation: Girls are constantly expected to be "good" and "well-mannered" but just like all human beings, are in need of an outlet for their own frustration. It is not socially acceptable for young woman to express their anger in physical violence which in turn leads to the demoralizing practice of controlling others psychologically. It is through this psychological manipulation that distinguishes between the "cool and powerful" and the "uncool and controlled" groups of young women. The desire for power is not a male trait, but in fact an all around human trait. In reality, the result of the actions of "mean girls" can be viewed as much worse than a male’s physical violence. Where did girls learn to be so socially competitive for power and popularity? Perhaps it is the patriarchal and societal sources of mixed messages that teaches young girls that repressed anger expressed underground is the only way to overcome the everyday powerless feeling of being a woman. So with this knowledge the question remains, how do we express to the generations of young women that such power is debilitating to their own personal self esteem, the esteem of others, and the way society views women as a whole?
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Mean Girl in lime light
What I researched and Why: I researched the different types of ‘mean girls’ in the lime light. Many female celebrities are known for feuding with other female celebrities. Fighting tends to draw attention to the celebrities, but when it is two females feuding it seems to be different. The papers keep bringing it up, even if it is over. One female may even be labeled a ‘mean girl.’ I find this very interesting because when men get into fights, it will be discussed for a period of time and then be dropped. However, when women tend to fight, it is brought up for a longer period of time and sometimes not forgotten.
What I found: Looking up ‘Mean Girls’ on Google brings up many different items. The first thing that came up for me though was People.com and the heading was ‘Mean Girls part 2’. (http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,1215772,00.html) It was a feud between Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton. I then researched fighting between Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton. On Google, 1,860,000 sites came up. Many people are obsessed with girl fights. Some of the websites that came up were blogs about the fights. People can’t seem to get enough of this mean girl phenomenon. This feud between the girls seems to go on for a period of time and then they are best friends again. Many pictures also came up with Paris and Lindsay partying together. So whether they are feuding or partying, the attention seems to be centered around them.
My interruption/what this adds to discussion: I believe that girls tend to 'act out' for attention. Especially in the case of celebrities, I believe that they do it for publicity. If they are fighting one minute and best friends the next minute, it just does not seem plausible. I feel though that female actresses, especially young girls may look up to, should not be acting like this. It shows the younger girls that behavior like this is okay, when it is really not okay. I guess my question is do you think celebrity fights (girl fights) is propelling the mean girl phenomena even further into naughtiness? Personally, I feel like that is happening, but what could be a way to stop it?
What I found: Looking up ‘Mean Girls’ on Google brings up many different items. The first thing that came up for me though was People.com and the heading was ‘Mean Girls part 2’. (http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,1215772,00.html) It was a feud between Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton. I then researched fighting between Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton. On Google, 1,860,000 sites came up. Many people are obsessed with girl fights. Some of the websites that came up were blogs about the fights. People can’t seem to get enough of this mean girl phenomenon. This feud between the girls seems to go on for a period of time and then they are best friends again. Many pictures also came up with Paris and Lindsay partying together. So whether they are feuding or partying, the attention seems to be centered around them.
My interruption/what this adds to discussion: I believe that girls tend to 'act out' for attention. Especially in the case of celebrities, I believe that they do it for publicity. If they are fighting one minute and best friends the next minute, it just does not seem plausible. I feel though that female actresses, especially young girls may look up to, should not be acting like this. It shows the younger girls that behavior like this is okay, when it is really not okay. I guess my question is do you think celebrity fights (girl fights) is propelling the mean girl phenomena even further into naughtiness? Personally, I feel like that is happening, but what could be a way to stop it?
Monday, November 12, 2007
Queen Bees and Wannabees
What I Researched and Why: After our short introduction to the mean girl phenomenon in class, I decided to go home and research the background of the film, Mean Girls. I had seen the movie quite a few times, but did not really know the motivation for the film, or the sources that were used when writing the script.
What I Found: I found that the movie Mean Girls is based on the book Queen Bees and Wannabees: Helping your Daughter Survive Cliques, Gossip, Boyfriends, and other Realities of Adolescence" written by Rosalind Wiseman in 2002. A synopsis and several reviews can be found at this website. This book is essentially a guide to parents who feel that they do not relate to their teenage daughters well, and would like to become more involved in their lives.
This book categorizes teenage girls into groups. There are the "Queen Bees", or the girls who rule the school by tormenting others, the "Wannabees" or those who want to be the Queen Bees, the "Targets" of the Queen Bees torture, and the "Torn Bystanders" who do not know whether to participate in the torment, or to report it to higher authorities.
Not only does the book give parents insight into the secret life of teenage girls, but it even goes so far as to categorize parents into different groups like, hip parents, best friend parents, and others. The book also enables parents to examine their own parenting styles, "Check their Baggage," and identify how their own background and biases affect how they relate to their daughters.
Queen Bees and Wannabees offers step by step strategies meant to help parents gain an understanding of their daughters while avoiding and defusing the "landmines" than inherently plague parent/child communication. It also exposes the hierarchical structure of the girl world, and encourages teens to be floaters rather than basing their happiness off of one group, but to instead be individuals. It also urges parents to be "The Loving Hard-Ass," where unconditional love is teamed together with personal accountability.
My Interpretation and What it adds to our discussion: I think that keeping this book in our minds when watching Mean Girls will be very beneficial to everyone. Each character in the movie directly resembles one of the stereotypes portrayed in Queen Bees and Wannabees. Regina and her "plastics" are obviously the Queen Bees who rule the school and get pleasure out of tormenting others, a very large percentage of the high school girls are Wannabees, and they try to copy everything Regina does, even cutting holes out of their shirts to show their bras. Cady starts out as an innocent bystander, or a Target, but then is swept up in the world of the "plastics" when her plan to sabotage and blackmail them turns on her. The parents in the movie also take on the various roles described in Wiseman's book. Cady's parents seem to have it on the ball, and embody the "hard ass" parent model. Regina's mom resembles the "hip, best friend" parent, who would do anything to have her daughter and her friends like her.
Rather than watching the movie purely for entertainment, I think that keeping these different character roles in mind, and correlating them to real life situations may help us understand how Mean Girls attempts to expose and possibly overthrow the new mean girl culture that is taking over high schools everywhere.
What I Found: I found that the movie Mean Girls is based on the book Queen Bees and Wannabees: Helping your Daughter Survive Cliques, Gossip, Boyfriends, and other Realities of Adolescence" written by Rosalind Wiseman in 2002. A synopsis and several reviews can be found at this website. This book is essentially a guide to parents who feel that they do not relate to their teenage daughters well, and would like to become more involved in their lives.
This book categorizes teenage girls into groups. There are the "Queen Bees", or the girls who rule the school by tormenting others, the "Wannabees" or those who want to be the Queen Bees, the "Targets" of the Queen Bees torture, and the "Torn Bystanders" who do not know whether to participate in the torment, or to report it to higher authorities.
Not only does the book give parents insight into the secret life of teenage girls, but it even goes so far as to categorize parents into different groups like, hip parents, best friend parents, and others. The book also enables parents to examine their own parenting styles, "Check their Baggage," and identify how their own background and biases affect how they relate to their daughters.
Queen Bees and Wannabees offers step by step strategies meant to help parents gain an understanding of their daughters while avoiding and defusing the "landmines" than inherently plague parent/child communication. It also exposes the hierarchical structure of the girl world, and encourages teens to be floaters rather than basing their happiness off of one group, but to instead be individuals. It also urges parents to be "The Loving Hard-Ass," where unconditional love is teamed together with personal accountability.
My Interpretation and What it adds to our discussion: I think that keeping this book in our minds when watching Mean Girls will be very beneficial to everyone. Each character in the movie directly resembles one of the stereotypes portrayed in Queen Bees and Wannabees. Regina and her "plastics" are obviously the Queen Bees who rule the school and get pleasure out of tormenting others, a very large percentage of the high school girls are Wannabees, and they try to copy everything Regina does, even cutting holes out of their shirts to show their bras. Cady starts out as an innocent bystander, or a Target, but then is swept up in the world of the "plastics" when her plan to sabotage and blackmail them turns on her. The parents in the movie also take on the various roles described in Wiseman's book. Cady's parents seem to have it on the ball, and embody the "hard ass" parent model. Regina's mom resembles the "hip, best friend" parent, who would do anything to have her daughter and her friends like her.
Rather than watching the movie purely for entertainment, I think that keeping these different character roles in mind, and correlating them to real life situations may help us understand how Mean Girls attempts to expose and possibly overthrow the new mean girl culture that is taking over high schools everywhere.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Goofs, Gallants, and Offill's Awful Little Girl
What I researched and why: When I was little, I had a subscription to Highlights magazine. It was a wholesome and educational publication featuring innocuous material ideal for display in a dentist’s waiting room or the backseat of a minivan. Yet my recollections of the magazine’s trademark cartoon “Goofus and Gallant” still arouse feelings of annoyance and disdain. In a series of vignettes, the thoughtless, reckless Goofus portrayed poor behavior, while the opposing Gallant showed the proper actions of a “good boy.” When I first encountered the main character of Jenny Offill’s 17 Things i’m not allowed to do anymore, the mischievous Goofus immediately came to mind. After our debate in class over the merits of presenting Offill’s story to children, I decided to explore further how the creators of the cartoon and book address naughtiness and the messages they convey in doing so.
My Findings and Interpretation: The Goofus and Gallant feature first appeared in Highlights magazine in 1948 in an effort to introduce appropriate social skills to children. Two black and white sketches portrayed the yin and yang of child behavior. The trademark juxtaposed, monochromatic scheme further emphasized the contrast of right and wrong; it also made the section feel contrived and pedantic, the reason I resisted it as a child. Updated only recently, the feature maintains its basic setup but has strayed from its textbook-illustration appearance to be more colorful, cartoonish, and kid friendly – similar to Nancy Carpenter’s dynamic illustrations in 17 Things.
Discovering interviews with the writers behind Goofus and Gallant, I found that many fans placed the cartoon’s success on the ability of children to relate to both characters and realize that traits of each boy were within them. Gallant's scene was the less appealing but necessary message sugarcoated by the wicked fun of Goofus's antics. Chicago Tribune writer Eric Zorn observes in his article Goofus, Gallant – The Inside Story that the “feature never offers direct lessons or shows consequences.” The CEO of Highlights explains, “It simply shows a wrong way and a right way of doing things, that's all.” Children observe the parallel stories and draw their own conclusions. In Offill’s work, all decisions are blatantly the wrong ones. While the cartoon’s objective vignettes excuse its lack of consequences, the absence of discipline for the consistently naughty girl raises concern.
Highlights publicist Tom White described Goofus as "a surly, uncooperative, ill-mannered child. But he is not a sociopath." This description certainly describes Offill's leading character as well. The comfort behind the cartoon and story is that the deeds the "bad" characters commit remain in the realm of excusable childhood acts. Goofus takes the last piece of fruit because he's hungry; the main character of 17 Things orders another meal because what has been served doesn't appeal to her. The lead girl of 17 Things may share the same wild personality and unruly hair as Goofus, but a major problem arises because this story lacks a Gallant to offset her personality.
Applications to Class Discussion: Applying the Psychoanalytical theory, the Goofus and Gallant characters portray the animalistic desires of the id and the conscientiousness of the superego respectively. The audience assumes the role of the ego, finding their own compromise between the two extremes in daily life. The main character of 17 Things displays a raging id with the exception of the final page, when her ego’s mediating influence appears in the mocking line, “I had an idea to say the opposite of what I mean to trick everyone.” Goofus and Gallant present a balanced portrayal of the decisions one may make, but the delightfully bad main character in 17 Things incorporates a wittiness and irreverence that is much more appealing and enjoyable to read. An interesting discussion could revolve around the success of these different approaches. Which has a greater effect: a responsible tale that instills tidy values but barely veils its didactic intent, or a funny, wayward story whose message is eagerly received but a bit muddled in the process? Can child audiences handle the naughtiness of the girl in 17 Things without a counteractive Gallant beside her?
17 Things, 17 interpretations
What I researched and why:
From our last conversation in class on Tuesday regarding "17 Things..." I was interested in all of the different interpretations people had about the book. Some thought it was an entertaining book about the creativity of kids, while others thought it would not be good for children because the main character does not get punished for the "naughty" or rather, mischevious things she does. I found myself struggling between these two ideas and wanted to research some more reviews of the book and see how adult and child readers are interpreting this book. I think it is important to consider that adults are more likely to see this book as upsetting due to the lack of discipline, where children may find it simply amusing and entertaining. This is an intersting book because it definetly lends itself to debate and contraversy.
What I found/My Interpretation:
Since "17 Things" is a fairly recent book, there isn't too much to research other than reviews, however I found an interesting blog website called BookMoot. http://www.bookmoot.com/2007/05/17-things-im-not-allowed-to-do-anymore.html#c3762051705062692380.
The blog looks at many varied authors, illustrators, and especially focuses on children's literature. Of all the comments, the most interesting one in my opinion, came from "Proud Dad" and claims to be the author's (Jenny Offill) father. He states, "Glad to see such positve responses to "17 Things.." Jenny Offill is my daughter and the vast majority of the reviews/responses have been very positive. I have found it rather interesting that a small minority of folks have been outraged that the girl "does not see the error of her ways," does not apologize to the adults (who of course know everything!) and is not properly contrite at the end." My interpretation of this quote is that the main character is not meant to apologetic and is a symbol of the innocence, creativity, and spunk that childhood brings. We as adults reading this book, can't help but find her mischevious behavior funny and we laugh at her wit and perhaps even admire her bravery, creations, and audacity. However, we struggle with this because we also can't help but notice that she is not severly punished for her misbehaviors. This is disturbing to us because it seems as though she should be somewhat disciplined so she can learn consequences. We are torn between celebrating her debatable creativity and wanting to punish her for doing the bad things she does. Offill's father's statement leads me to believe that he feels the book is really a celebration of a girl's precosiousness and it is acceptable for her lack of remorse. He makes is seem as though it is inevitable that she "does not see the error of her ways" and isn't apologetic. Also, I sense his sarcasm when he paranthetically states that adults, of course, know everything. I feel like he wants adults to interpret this book as a child who is using her raw talent and wit in ways that could be considered bad to adults, but is beneficial to the child as it is her form of expression.
What this adds to our discussions:
Our discussion about the celebration of childhood creativity versus inappropriateness is still interesting to me and I feel like what I found directly speaks to our conversation. It is clear to me why a child reading this book could relate to it and adults may relate as well or feel the opposite and want to punish the girl. One of the bloggers from the website poses the question, "would we want to read about a child who is perfectly behaved, always makes perfect choices and lives an ordinary life?" This would be boring to children and they would less likely relate to it. A huge function of books is for the readers to relate to the characters and the story. This has been a repeating theme in our class as we have discussed in great detail the kinds of readers that relate to the books we've read. I feel that part of the reason this book was created was for adults to take a step back and instead of punishing or limited children, they should find the uniqueness, innocence and pure magic of childhood...even if it is a bit naughty at times, after all, they are kids.
From our last conversation in class on Tuesday regarding "17 Things..." I was interested in all of the different interpretations people had about the book. Some thought it was an entertaining book about the creativity of kids, while others thought it would not be good for children because the main character does not get punished for the "naughty" or rather, mischevious things she does. I found myself struggling between these two ideas and wanted to research some more reviews of the book and see how adult and child readers are interpreting this book. I think it is important to consider that adults are more likely to see this book as upsetting due to the lack of discipline, where children may find it simply amusing and entertaining. This is an intersting book because it definetly lends itself to debate and contraversy.
What I found/My Interpretation:
Since "17 Things" is a fairly recent book, there isn't too much to research other than reviews, however I found an interesting blog website called BookMoot. http://www.bookmoot.com/2007/05/17-things-im-not-allowed-to-do-anymore.html#c3762051705062692380.
The blog looks at many varied authors, illustrators, and especially focuses on children's literature. Of all the comments, the most interesting one in my opinion, came from "Proud Dad" and claims to be the author's (Jenny Offill) father. He states, "Glad to see such positve responses to "17 Things.." Jenny Offill is my daughter and the vast majority of the reviews/responses have been very positive. I have found it rather interesting that a small minority of folks have been outraged that the girl "does not see the error of her ways," does not apologize to the adults (who of course know everything!) and is not properly contrite at the end." My interpretation of this quote is that the main character is not meant to apologetic and is a symbol of the innocence, creativity, and spunk that childhood brings. We as adults reading this book, can't help but find her mischevious behavior funny and we laugh at her wit and perhaps even admire her bravery, creations, and audacity. However, we struggle with this because we also can't help but notice that she is not severly punished for her misbehaviors. This is disturbing to us because it seems as though she should be somewhat disciplined so she can learn consequences. We are torn between celebrating her debatable creativity and wanting to punish her for doing the bad things she does. Offill's father's statement leads me to believe that he feels the book is really a celebration of a girl's precosiousness and it is acceptable for her lack of remorse. He makes is seem as though it is inevitable that she "does not see the error of her ways" and isn't apologetic. Also, I sense his sarcasm when he paranthetically states that adults, of course, know everything. I feel like he wants adults to interpret this book as a child who is using her raw talent and wit in ways that could be considered bad to adults, but is beneficial to the child as it is her form of expression.
What this adds to our discussions:
Our discussion about the celebration of childhood creativity versus inappropriateness is still interesting to me and I feel like what I found directly speaks to our conversation. It is clear to me why a child reading this book could relate to it and adults may relate as well or feel the opposite and want to punish the girl. One of the bloggers from the website poses the question, "would we want to read about a child who is perfectly behaved, always makes perfect choices and lives an ordinary life?" This would be boring to children and they would less likely relate to it. A huge function of books is for the readers to relate to the characters and the story. This has been a repeating theme in our class as we have discussed in great detail the kinds of readers that relate to the books we've read. I feel that part of the reason this book was created was for adults to take a step back and instead of punishing or limited children, they should find the uniqueness, innocence and pure magic of childhood...even if it is a bit naughty at times, after all, they are kids.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Remorse vs. Punishment: Reviewers of "17 Things" Miss the Point
What I researched and why: We've done work in this class to identify different types of "naughty behavior" and possible causes. We've discussed literature's reflection of, and impact on, societal views of children. However, although we've discussed ways parents have dealt with naughty children in the past, we haven't talked much about ideal ways for parents to deal with them now. It seems to me that in "17 Things" the reaction of the parents to the naughty child is a key component, so I wanted to see what readers and reviewers thought
What I found: Reading the Amazon.com reviews of "17 things" reveals that many readers consider it unfit for child consumption; I was surprised to see that much of this was blamed on the action of the child. "I would never read this to a child. The protagonist is rewarded for being manipulative, destructive, and dishonest. I am horrified that this is being lauded as a best book for kids. This is a book that makes a hero out of a spoiled brat, and instructs a child to lie to enjoy themselves," says one Amazon reviewer. This blog post by a teacher is very telling, as well; in reading it to a group of fourth-graders, she notes their lack of enjoyment, and shock at the lack of punishment. "I would be grounded," said one child. However, the teacher still thinks the book could be improved by presenting the child as a "more responsible little girl."
My interpretation/What this adds to discussion: It seems that both the Amazon reviewer and the teacher have missed the point which the book is trying to make. The jacket of "17 Things" reads "It's just too bad grown-ups don't seem to understand her genius..." It seems to me that this is the true problem in "17 Things:" a child's misdirected creativity being channeled through the wrong sort of actions. Whose responsibility is it to guide a child's creativity along the right paths? We would assume the parents', of course. By forbidding her activities, but never recommending anything to take their place, the parents throughout the book are curing the symptoms of the problem, but not striking it at its base. It's no surprise to me that, at the end of "17 Things," the girl doesn't show any remorse for her actions. It would be impossible to depict a girl in such a situation as "more responsible," as her parents have failed to teach her the responsible way to channel her creativity. "The fact that the little girl continued and continued to misbehave and not make any change even though consequence was offered was troubling to me as a teacher and a parent," concludes the teacher in her review. However, what consequences were offered? By forbidding the child to perform certain actions, without striking at the heart of her misbehavior, the parents have offered no consequences at all; in fact, it seems she enjoys coming up with new ways to act out. It troubles me that someone in charge of children, as both a parent and a teacher, fails to make the connection between the insufficient parenting and the child's bad behavior in "17 Things."
This opens up an entirely new realm of discussion in class: how should we deal with naughty children? The question of whether what we label "naughtiness" is just a manifestation of creativity which hasn't found an acceptable channel yet calls to mind our discussion of the transformation of mental crises into art. How does that translate into parenting? Also, both these reviews assign responsibility to children for their bad behavior. Is this a new trend, and is it truly appropriate?
What I found: Reading the Amazon.com reviews of "17 things" reveals that many readers consider it unfit for child consumption; I was surprised to see that much of this was blamed on the action of the child. "I would never read this to a child. The protagonist is rewarded for being manipulative, destructive, and dishonest. I am horrified that this is being lauded as a best book for kids. This is a book that makes a hero out of a spoiled brat, and instructs a child to lie to enjoy themselves," says one Amazon reviewer. This blog post by a teacher is very telling, as well; in reading it to a group of fourth-graders, she notes their lack of enjoyment, and shock at the lack of punishment. "I would be grounded," said one child. However, the teacher still thinks the book could be improved by presenting the child as a "more responsible little girl."
My interpretation/What this adds to discussion: It seems that both the Amazon reviewer and the teacher have missed the point which the book is trying to make. The jacket of "17 Things" reads "It's just too bad grown-ups don't seem to understand her genius..." It seems to me that this is the true problem in "17 Things:" a child's misdirected creativity being channeled through the wrong sort of actions. Whose responsibility is it to guide a child's creativity along the right paths? We would assume the parents', of course. By forbidding her activities, but never recommending anything to take their place, the parents throughout the book are curing the symptoms of the problem, but not striking it at its base. It's no surprise to me that, at the end of "17 Things," the girl doesn't show any remorse for her actions. It would be impossible to depict a girl in such a situation as "more responsible," as her parents have failed to teach her the responsible way to channel her creativity. "The fact that the little girl continued and continued to misbehave and not make any change even though consequence was offered was troubling to me as a teacher and a parent," concludes the teacher in her review. However, what consequences were offered? By forbidding the child to perform certain actions, without striking at the heart of her misbehavior, the parents have offered no consequences at all; in fact, it seems she enjoys coming up with new ways to act out. It troubles me that someone in charge of children, as both a parent and a teacher, fails to make the connection between the insufficient parenting and the child's bad behavior in "17 Things."
This opens up an entirely new realm of discussion in class: how should we deal with naughty children? The question of whether what we label "naughtiness" is just a manifestation of creativity which hasn't found an acceptable channel yet calls to mind our discussion of the transformation of mental crises into art. How does that translate into parenting? Also, both these reviews assign responsibility to children for their bad behavior. Is this a new trend, and is it truly appropriate?
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Repeat Juvenile Delinquency and "Flight"
What I researched and why
I decided to look up statistics and articles relating to the connection between repeat juvenile delinquency and foster homes, as well as the background causes that contribute to both situations. In "Flight," Zits is a clear example of a chronic juvenile offender, and I wanted to research non-fictional examples of people like him.
What I found
I found several articles dealing with the topic. Here is one:
http://www.mncourts.gov/district/4/?page=1889
Written by a judge, this is a short account of various problem children who have come into the system, and a promotion for a new program that is supposed to help ease the problem. It is easy to see in the judge's description of the children how Zits would fit right in. From a young age he has had no true home, bouncing from foster parent to foster parent, often in and out of abusive or neglectful situations. The person he knows best is the cop who often arrests him. As the article says, "Children who started out as “children at risk” a few years ago [are] now being jailed as serious juvenile offenders." Zits is another case of a child that "slipped through the cracks" and acting out in criminal ways seems both natural to him, and a way to gain the attention that no one gives him (although he may not realize this himself.)
http://www.sfms.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&SECTION=Article_Archives&TEMPLATE=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=1429
Here is an article that mentions the story of a young boy who was tried as an adult and convicted for murder-- at age 11. It goes on to discuss more general problems and statistics related to repeat juvenile crime. "What has been found in study after study in countries as diverse as Sweden and Australia and the U.S. is that a small percentage of boys who begin with serious behavior problems in toddler-hood account for upwards of 60 percent of adult criminal behavior." Obviously, a pattern of crime or misbehavior started early in life makes one much more likely to continue such behavior after the age of majority. In most cases, little intervention is made to try and steer the child away from this path other than the various punishments that seem to have no effect. As described in "Flight," Zits has been a juvenile offender for many years and is well-known to the police, yet no one has tried to turn him from his path. He is sent to abusive or uncaring foster homes, runs away, is put in another home or in juvenile prison-- rinse, repeat. Not until the end of the book (when he has come into change through himself) does he receive any kind of promising help.
My interpretation / What this adds to the class discussion
On the outside, based on this information, the message in "Flight" appears to be that someone like Zits cannot get help unless he is willing to receive it. While this might be true for a sixteen-year-old, who has reasonably developed mental faculties, it seems to be an unfair condemnation for younger children who may not fully understand the consequences of their behavior. In these cases, positive adult intervention is crucial, but is often not possible given the large amount of "criminal" children and the physical limitations of the system in place.
I feel that this adds to class discussion in terms of the reasons for Zits' behavior (other than what is specifically spelled out in the book), the meaning of the book's ending, and larger cultural ramifications of juvenile crime in general, which definitely fits with the theme of this course.
I decided to look up statistics and articles relating to the connection between repeat juvenile delinquency and foster homes, as well as the background causes that contribute to both situations. In "Flight," Zits is a clear example of a chronic juvenile offender, and I wanted to research non-fictional examples of people like him.
What I found
I found several articles dealing with the topic. Here is one:
http://www.mncourts.gov/district/4/?page=1889
Written by a judge, this is a short account of various problem children who have come into the system, and a promotion for a new program that is supposed to help ease the problem. It is easy to see in the judge's description of the children how Zits would fit right in. From a young age he has had no true home, bouncing from foster parent to foster parent, often in and out of abusive or neglectful situations. The person he knows best is the cop who often arrests him. As the article says, "Children who started out as “children at risk” a few years ago [are] now being jailed as serious juvenile offenders." Zits is another case of a child that "slipped through the cracks" and acting out in criminal ways seems both natural to him, and a way to gain the attention that no one gives him (although he may not realize this himself.)
http://www.sfms.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&SECTION=Article_Archives&TEMPLATE=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=1429
Here is an article that mentions the story of a young boy who was tried as an adult and convicted for murder-- at age 11. It goes on to discuss more general problems and statistics related to repeat juvenile crime. "What has been found in study after study in countries as diverse as Sweden and Australia and the U.S. is that a small percentage of boys who begin with serious behavior problems in toddler-hood account for upwards of 60 percent of adult criminal behavior." Obviously, a pattern of crime or misbehavior started early in life makes one much more likely to continue such behavior after the age of majority. In most cases, little intervention is made to try and steer the child away from this path other than the various punishments that seem to have no effect. As described in "Flight," Zits has been a juvenile offender for many years and is well-known to the police, yet no one has tried to turn him from his path. He is sent to abusive or uncaring foster homes, runs away, is put in another home or in juvenile prison-- rinse, repeat. Not until the end of the book (when he has come into change through himself) does he receive any kind of promising help.
My interpretation / What this adds to the class discussion
On the outside, based on this information, the message in "Flight" appears to be that someone like Zits cannot get help unless he is willing to receive it. While this might be true for a sixteen-year-old, who has reasonably developed mental faculties, it seems to be an unfair condemnation for younger children who may not fully understand the consequences of their behavior. In these cases, positive adult intervention is crucial, but is often not possible given the large amount of "criminal" children and the physical limitations of the system in place.
I feel that this adds to class discussion in terms of the reasons for Zits' behavior (other than what is specifically spelled out in the book), the meaning of the book's ending, and larger cultural ramifications of juvenile crime in general, which definitely fits with the theme of this course.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)