The Dark Side of MG (split from "Is 250 pages too long?")
- Thread starter Cyia
- Start date
My though is that it's time to go hit bookstores, libraries and the interwebs. You've got some work to do when it comes to understanding how to sell and how to pitch your book.
As Cyia said, you don't sell a book for ages 10-15 and 25+. Harry Potter was a phenomenon, a class by itself. Don't try to duplicate it.
There are very important distinctions between books for young readers and books for teens. It isn't just whether or not you have sex and drugs. The humor, the characterizations, the pacing, the voice... So many things change. You need to read a lot of books and get a feel for the market. Then you'll know where yours might fit, and what you still need to do to get it ready.
"Fantasy adventure" is an incredibly competitive field now. You can improve your chances a lot by doing your research and really understanding what's already been done and what's selling well. You don't want to be rejected just because you come across as an amateur, when you've worked hard on the writing.
cyia was referring specifically to Neil Gaiman's The Graveyard Book, which was a recent bestseller and won awards. It opens with a mass murder. And, as you say, it is filled with wonder, imagination and joy. The two things aren't mutually exclusive.
(This is about MG fantasy, specifically.) I think the darkness has always been there. It's pretty essential in terms of plot; happy people are boring to read about. Also, much of the wonder and joy comes from defeating evil. Just look at the Narnia books. They are full of darkness. Sad and terrible things happen, but the books are still filled with joy and wonder and, maybe more importantly, hope. The Graveyard Book is similar in this respect.
As for the length, 67,000 may be little long for a debut MG fanatasy, but certainly not unheard of. I don't think it should be a problem. 49,000 words seems fine to me. My MG fantasy, currently agented and on submission, is around 32,000.
I think it's good to have a range of lengths out there because kids are not all the same.
Last edited:
I never said that the MC needs to do rotten things. Having highly moral MCs is great. But, generally speaking, rotten things need to happen, otherwise there's no plot. In fantasy, there's usually a villain doing these things, although this isn't the only way to go about it. (For example, nature could cause the problems.)
Happy people are boring to read about. Name one MG book (or any book, really) in which the MC is happy from beginning to end. Doesn't exist. Of course, I'm not saying you can't have happy endings. Those are quite popular, especially in MG. But there needs to be conflict, which causes unhappiness, and in fantasy, the conflict tends to be of the dark, good versus evil sort. Which means there needs to be evil.
As far as the push for edgier fiction is concerned, this is something I hear about more in YA than MG. And YA is an entirely different issue.
Can you name some MG fantasy books from the past that you find acceptable? And some current MG fantasy books (only ones that you've read, please) that you think are unacceptable?
I've focused on MG fantasy here because this is the kid lit section and the books being discussed in this thread so far have been fantasy. Other genres are different, but they will still have conflict, they will usually have people doing rotten things (although it might be a school bully instead of a mass murderer), and they will always have at least temporarily unhappy people.
Happy people are boring to read about. Name one MG book (or any book, really) in which the MC is happy from beginning to end. Doesn't exist. Of course, I'm not saying you can't have happy endings. Those are quite popular, especially in MG. But there needs to be conflict, which causes unhappiness, and in fantasy, the conflict tends to be of the dark, good versus evil sort. Which means there needs to be evil.
As far as the push for edgier fiction is concerned, this is something I hear about more in YA than MG. And YA is an entirely different issue.
Can you name some MG fantasy books from the past that you find acceptable? And some current MG fantasy books (only ones that you've read, please) that you think are unacceptable?
I've focused on MG fantasy here because this is the kid lit section and the books being discussed in this thread so far have been fantasy. Other genres are different, but they will still have conflict, they will usually have people doing rotten things (although it might be a school bully instead of a mass murderer), and they will always have at least temporarily unhappy people.
Harry Potter includes murder, lies, treason, rape, incest, drugging people to get them to marry/sleep with/obey you, bestiality, violence, gore, child abuse, and on and on and on.
So yeah, some pretty rotten stuff.
So yeah, some pretty rotten stuff.
So you like Harry Potter? I do, too, and I think Harry is very moral, although he does sneak and lie. And he's often miserable. And the books have plenty of darkness. (Cross posted with Cyia, who listed the dark elements quite nicely.)
I think we agree on a lot of points. Moral MCs are great, although they don't need to be perfect. (Harry is a good example of this.) I also don't think MG should have explicit sex or drug use. I also don't think it does. YA does, but as I said eariler, that's a different issue. Are you sure you're not confusing MG and YA?
I also like my MCs to have happy endings. But they can't be happy throughout the book, or there's no conflict.
I don't agree that current MG fantasy is too dark and filled with horrible MCs, or that it's much different from MG of the past. Again, the Narnia books are a great example. Edmund did horrible things, but the reader was supposed to recognize them as horrible. In a more current example, Artemis Fowl does horrible things, but again, the reader is supposed to recognize them as horrible, and he does show remorse.
Can you name some current MG fantasy books you dislike and explain why?
Also, can you give some examples of MG fantasy books with the happy characters you want?
I think we agree on a lot of points. Moral MCs are great, although they don't need to be perfect. (Harry is a good example of this.) I also don't think MG should have explicit sex or drug use. I also don't think it does. YA does, but as I said eariler, that's a different issue. Are you sure you're not confusing MG and YA?
I also like my MCs to have happy endings. But they can't be happy throughout the book, or there's no conflict.
I don't agree that current MG fantasy is too dark and filled with horrible MCs, or that it's much different from MG of the past. Again, the Narnia books are a great example. Edmund did horrible things, but the reader was supposed to recognize them as horrible. In a more current example, Artemis Fowl does horrible things, but again, the reader is supposed to recognize them as horrible, and he does show remorse.
Can you name some current MG fantasy books you dislike and explain why?
Also, can you give some examples of MG fantasy books with the happy characters you want?
Last edited:
Wait a minute. "Happy" is not the same thing as "moral".
And conflict doesn't have to be dark and gory.
You can have moral characters who are unhappy. In the excerpt, I'm guessing Mickey is a good kid... but he's not happy, is he? No, he's scared! Everything is not sunshine and buttercups for him right now. Why? Because every good story needs conflict. Pages and pages about someone's life humming along perfectly is not a story.
It doesn't have to be horrible, dark, evil, gory, violent conflict--and in middle grade, I would say these are the exception, not the rule. But, like Ferret said, there do have to be obstacles to overcome.
Teen angst would be YA, not middle grade.
And I'm truly not trying to be snarky, but I have to comment on this, because I see it often, and it really bugs me:
The correct term is middle grade. Not mid-grade, which, I believe, refers to marijauna. Google it if you doubt me.
And conflict doesn't have to be dark and gory.
You can have moral characters who are unhappy. In the excerpt, I'm guessing Mickey is a good kid... but he's not happy, is he? No, he's scared! Everything is not sunshine and buttercups for him right now. Why? Because every good story needs conflict. Pages and pages about someone's life humming along perfectly is not a story.
It doesn't have to be horrible, dark, evil, gory, violent conflict--and in middle grade, I would say these are the exception, not the rule. But, like Ferret said, there do have to be obstacles to overcome.
Teen angst would be YA, not middle grade.
And I'm truly not trying to be snarky, but I have to comment on this, because I see it often, and it really bugs me:
The correct term is middle grade. Not mid-grade, which, I believe, refers to marijauna. Google it if you doubt me.
Last edited by a moderator:
murder - starting with book 1, Harry's parents/professor Quirrell (which is also possession). Then there's the attempted murder of the Weasley's father by way of snake, the death of Bathilda Bagshot, everyone used to create a horcrux, Dumbledore's death (iffy on the murder aspect), Bertha Jorkins and the old man who was fed to Nagini at the beginning of book 4, Cedric, and the teacher who was fed - alive and screaming - to Nagini at the beginning of book 7 while she begged her friend to save her.
lies - of every kind in every book with every motivation from self-preservation to greed to nobility
treason - the overthrow of the government to replace it with Voldie
rape - as in the use of force or coercion to get sex - What do you think happened to Umbridge when she was carried off by the Centaurs and came back so shattered she wouldn't speak, yet screamed if someone made the sound of hoofbeats? it's implied various other places, but stated plainly in the story of Voldie's mother and how he was conceived
incest - the purebloods are inbred, to a degree most American's find unusual, but there are implications of true incest
drugging people to get them to marry/sleep with/obey you - Meriope Gaunt, the Weasleys' offer to supply their sister/Hermione with love potions, the love potion that was meant for Harry but Ron ate with the chocolates, the entire idea of the Imperious
bestiality - Abertforth and his goats
violence - very present in all 7 books
gore - Quirrell practically melted on the end of Harry's hands, and knowing this, Harry held onto him until he died. The scene with the unicorns is fairly graphic by some standards. It escalates as the books go on.
child abuse - Harry's entire life
and on and on and on. - there's racism, from the use of Mudblood as a slur to the inclusion of the new statuary in the Ministry building with Muggles being crushed as their "proper place". "non-humans" are treated with contempt (such as the Centaurs). there's slavery - Dobby and the elves (mounted heads and all) And there's genocide from Grindlewald on.
You might be interested to know that none of this is from repeated readings or dissection of the story. I've only actually read books 1-3 and halfway through 4 and 5. The rest is simply common knowledge (though I was curious enough to look a couple of these up to see if they actually were in the books).
There's been no "push" for darker stories. Stories have always had dark elements to them, starting with fairy and folk tales. They deal with death in horrible, horrible ways as morality tales.
The Little Mermaid dies.
Cinderella's stepsister chop their feet to bits so they'll fit the slipper, and then have their eyes pecked out by a flock of ravens.
Snow White's stepmother tried to crush her to death with a steel corset which grew smaller and smaller once one, plus two other attempts on her life.
If you never noticed or read dark stories as a child, then you were (extremely) sheltered.
lies - of every kind in every book with every motivation from self-preservation to greed to nobility
treason - the overthrow of the government to replace it with Voldie
rape - as in the use of force or coercion to get sex - What do you think happened to Umbridge when she was carried off by the Centaurs and came back so shattered she wouldn't speak, yet screamed if someone made the sound of hoofbeats? it's implied various other places, but stated plainly in the story of Voldie's mother and how he was conceived
incest - the purebloods are inbred, to a degree most American's find unusual, but there are implications of true incest
drugging people to get them to marry/sleep with/obey you - Meriope Gaunt, the Weasleys' offer to supply their sister/Hermione with love potions, the love potion that was meant for Harry but Ron ate with the chocolates, the entire idea of the Imperious
bestiality - Abertforth and his goats
violence - very present in all 7 books
gore - Quirrell practically melted on the end of Harry's hands, and knowing this, Harry held onto him until he died. The scene with the unicorns is fairly graphic by some standards. It escalates as the books go on.
child abuse - Harry's entire life
and on and on and on. - there's racism, from the use of Mudblood as a slur to the inclusion of the new statuary in the Ministry building with Muggles being crushed as their "proper place". "non-humans" are treated with contempt (such as the Centaurs). there's slavery - Dobby and the elves (mounted heads and all) And there's genocide from Grindlewald on.
You might be interested to know that none of this is from repeated readings or dissection of the story. I've only actually read books 1-3 and halfway through 4 and 5. The rest is simply common knowledge (though I was curious enough to look a couple of these up to see if they actually were in the books).
There's been no "push" for darker stories. Stories have always had dark elements to them, starting with fairy and folk tales. They deal with death in horrible, horrible ways as morality tales.
The Little Mermaid dies.
Cinderella's stepsister chop their feet to bits so they'll fit the slipper, and then have their eyes pecked out by a flock of ravens.
Snow White's stepmother tried to crush her to death with a steel corset which grew smaller and smaller once one, plus two other attempts on her life.
If you never noticed or read dark stories as a child, then you were (extremely) sheltered.
I can understand it's easy to get so focused on the things you don't like, that you only see the things you don't like. But you need to take a step back. Most children's books are not dark. Most people here aren't writing dark books. The sales of dark books won't stop you selling a light-hearted book and won't stop you finding light books on the shelves. Darkness is the minority and that isn't going to change.
(Darkness also isn't new... children have been told dark tales since the traditional versions of fairytales, and probably before. In more modern times, Roald Dahl isn't a new author and wrote dark stories. A few dark tales on the shelf aren't going to bring about the fall of society.)
Maurice Sendak is another children's writer who's very vocal in his opinions of the damage "beautifying" kids' books can do. He gave a recent interview talking about his new book, as well as, Where the Wild Things Are, in which he gave his reason for not writing "good" characters and "happy" worlds.
He grew up in WWII and lost most of his family to the Holocaust. He wasn't living in a pretty world as a kid, and found the stories that pretended everything was good and bright to be insulting. He wanted someone to show him a world that was more like the one he understood.
He grew up in WWII and lost most of his family to the Holocaust. He wasn't living in a pretty world as a kid, and found the stories that pretended everything was good and bright to be insulting. He wanted someone to show him a world that was more like the one he understood.
Two more thoughts:
1) I get what you're saying, and you certainly don't have to do that on this thread. But it is very, very, very important to do this on your own. Read critically in the genre you want to write. Analyze what works and what doesn't, and why. This will teach you more as a writer than anything else I can think of.
2) And of course you have business being here. Surely we can disagree and have interesting debates without making someone feel they don't belong. Your comments and questions have spurred a lot of us to want to comment. Thanks for contributing to the discussion.
Do you have links, Cyia?
iwriteforkids,
As others have said, MG doesn't have to be super dark, but some dark MG, especially dark MG fantasy, has always existed. It's not new. And I think it can be very good because it shows the children overcoming the darkness. And isn't that what we want to show them?
I like characters who are generally good and moral but not perfect. They make mistakes. Sometimes they lie. Sometimes they try to solve problems themselves when they really should get help. In other words, they're human.
People often think that modern society/literature/etc is horribly corrupt, and that in the good ol' days we got it right. But at least in the case of MG literature, I don't think things have changed that much.
Added: And I agree with Ruth. Of course you have business being here. I might not agree with everything you say, but it is an interesting conversation.
More Added: Darkness can be a little hard to define, and I think it's been used in slightly different ways in this thread. Some MG novels have an overall dark feel, but not all. You certainly don't have to write like this. But fantasy books generally have some dark elements, especially if it's a good versus evil sort of story. And all books have rotten things that happen and lead to unhappiness. That's what's necessary for plot. It can't all be puppies and butterflies. (Although I am grossed out by butterflies. No. Seriously. Disgusting bugs, they are. Too much like glorified moths. But I digress.)
Last edited:
Here's his interview with The Guardian.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/oct/02/maurice-sendak-interview
Just popping in to say that MG is a huge and varied market. There are long books and short books. Dark books and light books. Funny books and serious books. Books with complicated language and books with simple language. On and on and on and on. MG is varied because kids are varied.
It's a good thing. And there's room for pretty much every type of book - and everybody.
It's a good thing. And there's room for pretty much every type of book - and everybody.
I have to say, this thread rocks. Cyia? Love your breakdown of HP darkness. Even if I never once thought Umbridge was raped.
I'm writing a piece for a magazine on MG darkness in the next few months (to coincide with the debut of my own MG novel). This thread is giving me a lot to think about!
I'm writing a piece for a magazine on MG darkness in the next few months (to coincide with the debut of my own MG novel). This thread is giving me a lot to think about!
Yeah, I'm actually not convinced Umbridge was raped. But it doesn't really matter. Books are interpreted differently by different readers - which is also a good thing.
And even if she wasn't raped, something bad happened to her. There's no question that Harry Potter has some very dark elements, even in the earlier books. And it's that darkness that makes the happy ending even more significant, in my opinion.
But again, there are books for everyone. My advice is to read read read read read!
And even if she wasn't raped, something bad happened to her. There's no question that Harry Potter has some very dark elements, even in the earlier books. And it's that darkness that makes the happy ending even more significant, in my opinion.
But again, there are books for everyone. My advice is to read read read read read!
Last edited:
Interesting discussion, indeed. I hope the OP doesn't mind that we have completely and totally derailed the thread. In the future, we might try a little harder not to do that...
But I do have to chime in on the "good old days" of kids' lit. If they ever existed, they only lasted for a very short time--maybe the 30s to the 50s? Because for most of history, stories for children were meant to scare them into being good and moral.
iwriteforkids, have you ever read any of the original Grimm fairy tales? My goodness, they're more gory than anything you'll find in The Graveyard Book. And there's that German children's story about Peter something-or-other, where children who suck their thumbs get them chopped off!
The idea that childhood should be a protected time of innocence is very recent. A product of the Victorian rise of the middle class, for one thing. And then, yes, there was a trend towards making stories for children "safe." But as has been mentioned, Maurice Sendak and others blew the lid off of that. Children's lit is subversive. At least the good stuff is...
But I think the real point is that there is no one right type or length or genre of book that will get published these days. The Penderwicks are probably just the sort of book you think kids should read--and guess what? They can! Origami Yoda and Diary of a Wimpy Kid are other good examples of short, sweet stories about real kids having great adventures on a small, human, non-gory scale, and those books are also selling well. Geronimo Stilton would be an example of a mild fantasy series that sells fabulously. Oh, and the Clementine series. Or anything by Andrew Clements. And The Wordeater by Mary Amato.
I could keep going, but I really think you need to read more. The books you would feel more comfortable with are definitely being published.
Now, most of those are not fantasy. And I would agree that fantasy tends to be more dark and violent. But that's a product of the genre. Fantasy is supposed to be about the epic battle between good and evil. So how do you write one without exploring the nature of evil? And the kids who love fantasy really do want those high stakes. If things are too safe and easy, they'll toss the book aside.
There are different audiences for different types of books. I think that's what cyia was trying to say in the post that you found snarky. You're making blanket generalizations, which most of us would argue aren't true. SOME books are very dark. But not all.
But I do have to chime in on the "good old days" of kids' lit. If they ever existed, they only lasted for a very short time--maybe the 30s to the 50s? Because for most of history, stories for children were meant to scare them into being good and moral.
iwriteforkids, have you ever read any of the original Grimm fairy tales? My goodness, they're more gory than anything you'll find in The Graveyard Book. And there's that German children's story about Peter something-or-other, where children who suck their thumbs get them chopped off!
The idea that childhood should be a protected time of innocence is very recent. A product of the Victorian rise of the middle class, for one thing. And then, yes, there was a trend towards making stories for children "safe." But as has been mentioned, Maurice Sendak and others blew the lid off of that. Children's lit is subversive. At least the good stuff is...
But I think the real point is that there is no one right type or length or genre of book that will get published these days. The Penderwicks are probably just the sort of book you think kids should read--and guess what? They can! Origami Yoda and Diary of a Wimpy Kid are other good examples of short, sweet stories about real kids having great adventures on a small, human, non-gory scale, and those books are also selling well. Geronimo Stilton would be an example of a mild fantasy series that sells fabulously. Oh, and the Clementine series. Or anything by Andrew Clements. And The Wordeater by Mary Amato.
I could keep going, but I really think you need to read more. The books you would feel more comfortable with are definitely being published.
Now, most of those are not fantasy. And I would agree that fantasy tends to be more dark and violent. But that's a product of the genre. Fantasy is supposed to be about the epic battle between good and evil. So how do you write one without exploring the nature of evil? And the kids who love fantasy really do want those high stakes. If things are too safe and easy, they'll toss the book aside.
There are different audiences for different types of books. I think that's what cyia was trying to say in the post that you found snarky. You're making blanket generalizations, which most of us would argue aren't true. SOME books are very dark. But not all.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2011
- Messages
- 493
- Reaction score
- 31
- Location
- Spokane, WA
- Website
- gutsandglorybooks.com
MsJudy, I just read your post above mine and I want to say I entirely agree with you on all points. I remember worrying so much over whether my antagonist was too dark or whether I should include parental abuse in the character's backstory... but really, as you said, how can you give heroic glory to good for defeating evil that's just... kind of bad? And kids aren't nearly as fragile as we think. A lot of them have been through some crap now a days, too. It's hard to think about, but it's a fact.
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2011
- Messages
- 282
- Reaction score
- 10
Don't mind the taking over of this thread at all - Love the discussion! 
Re' taking the magic away from our children - I really sympathise with this POV. I told my son at a very young age that pretty much everything he saw and read was 'pretend'. This was as a direct reaction to my hatred of today's media. It was important to me that he question everything he read and saw and tried to see through the BS and realise what was true and what was lie.
Several years later, I regret that decision after I realised I stole a little bit of magic from the world for him. He knew there was no Santa Claus, he knew there was no tooth fairy. It made me very sad when I realised what I'd done and I've tried to fix this a little by ensuring he reads imaginative books with wonderful worlds etc.
I do think that we have blurred the line between what's ok for children and what's not. Their uptake of technology is incredible and it means that they see things that they were previously protected from...
Re' taking the magic away from our children - I really sympathise with this POV. I told my son at a very young age that pretty much everything he saw and read was 'pretend'. This was as a direct reaction to my hatred of today's media. It was important to me that he question everything he read and saw and tried to see through the BS and realise what was true and what was lie.
Several years later, I regret that decision after I realised I stole a little bit of magic from the world for him. He knew there was no Santa Claus, he knew there was no tooth fairy. It made me very sad when I realised what I'd done and I've tried to fix this a little by ensuring he reads imaginative books with wonderful worlds etc.
I do think that we have blurred the line between what's ok for children and what's not. Their uptake of technology is incredible and it means that they see things that they were previously protected from...
Last edited:
Harry starts off MG (books 1-3) and ends up YA (4-7).
FWIW - With Umbridge, you have to understand that the implied "punishment" for Umbridge is part of Centaur mythology. Considering how well JKR utilized existing mythologies in other parts of the stories, there's no reason to think she deviated there. Otherwise, why Centaurs? Why not have Aragog just eat her?
FWIW - With Umbridge, you have to understand that the implied "punishment" for Umbridge is part of Centaur mythology. Considering how well JKR utilized existing mythologies in other parts of the stories, there's no reason to think she deviated there. Otherwise, why Centaurs? Why not have Aragog just eat her?
I'm not saying that wasn't JKR's intention, Cyia. It may have been. It may not have been. That part of the action takes place off the page, and we can't know for certain what happened. And I don't think the not knowing harms the story at all.
Also, there were lots of reasons for the centaurs. It's been awhile since I read that particular book, but I'm fairly certain the centaurs had previously told them to stay out of the forest. It was a plot point. I'd have to read the book again to remember the specifics regarding that.
Also? Umbridge is a very important character in the later books. She needed to survive the encounter in the forest. Aragog eating her wouldn't have worked.
And? Umbridge hates half-breeds/half-bloods. Another important plot point throughout the books.
I'm not saying you're wrong, necessarily. I just think it's a little misleading to speak of something as fact when it's never directly confirmed in the books or by the author (that I'm aware of).
Also, there were lots of reasons for the centaurs. It's been awhile since I read that particular book, but I'm fairly certain the centaurs had previously told them to stay out of the forest. It was a plot point. I'd have to read the book again to remember the specifics regarding that.
Also? Umbridge is a very important character in the later books. She needed to survive the encounter in the forest. Aragog eating her wouldn't have worked.
And? Umbridge hates half-breeds/half-bloods. Another important plot point throughout the books.
I'm not saying you're wrong, necessarily. I just think it's a little misleading to speak of something as fact when it's never directly confirmed in the books or by the author (that I'm aware of).
Last edited:
I think Rowling left the Umbridge thing intentionally vague and off screen. I think she knew about the centaur myths, but she also knew covering it explicitly was too much, so she let readers come to their own conclusion. She did the same sort of thing with the goats. That's my interpretation, at least.
I think this strategy works well in MG. More mature themes can be hinted at, so readers will understand only what they're ready to understand. It also lets adults enjoy children's books on a different level-- and leads to fun discussions like this.
I think this strategy works well in MG. More mature themes can be hinted at, so readers will understand only what they're ready to understand. It also lets adults enjoy children's books on a different level-- and leads to fun discussions like this.
I never said it was fact, only implied. The only "factual" rape I know of was the rape of Tom Riddle, Sr by his wife, as he was under compulsion to marry, sleep with and "love" her during their marriage.
I think this is a good point. As adults reading MG books, we have more background knowledge and experiences, which will influence our perspective on things. I guess what many children might take at face value, we tend to interpret more deeply.