Most of what we have been talking about so far has had a commonality...there is a happy ending or in other cases a hero. What about the absence of protagonism? Prager explains that there is no hero in Yossel and follows with a discussion of the desire of the "being there" or at least understanding the trauma. Most childrens literature brings forth some lesson or even an ending which leaves the reader with some satisfaction, but a reading which causes such a large amount of questioning for children/teens...is thought provoking.
I have to say childrens literature has always fascinated me and the idea of taking out the hero and giving the story a facet of realism is a welcome change. At the same time it is a bit frightening to think of how exactly such a types of literature could impact teens and even young adults. Are we going from teaching a lesson to giving children the tools to make their own decisions? Do children need a hero? What are we doing by taking this away? Reality so soon!
Even upon continuing the reading and learning about distancing tragedy vs. dealing with it I just can't shake all the questions. I haven't taken many psychology classes so I'm not sure what the true psychological answer is here but I cannot help but think there is a benefit and a cost to both dealing and distancing. It is always the wish of a parent to want to distance their child from tragedy but the truth is you can't...no matter how hard you try. There has to be a point when we stop talking nice about things that are not so nice and admit to ourselves and to our children the things that happen in the world. Losing a protagonist as a teen seems like a necessary evil however what about a little earlier? If children are so desensitized then why do we feel the need to shelter, protect, and present the hero. So, what of the hero? Who was yours and is he/she still such?
No comments:
Post a Comment