Zodiac House: Ox chapter
Jan. 10th, 2007 09:19 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mrissaFor those of you coming late to this party, I'm musing about writing this book and about children's books in particular, around different signs of the Chinese zodiac as I finish each corresponding chapter. Tonight it was the chapter of the Ox. The San Francisco Chinese Cultural Center page says, People born in the Year of the Ox are patient, speak little, and inspire confidence in others. They tend, however, to be eccentric, and bigoted, and they anger easily. They have fierce tempers and although they speak little, when they do they are quite eloquent. Ox people are mentally and physically alert. Generally easy-going, they can be remarkably stubborn, and they hate to fail or be opposed.
Hmmm.
One hopes not to write a bigoted children's book. An angry, fierce children's book, though? Well...not this one. But I don't see anything wrong with it, quite frankly. A lot of children's books are gentle, and that's fine, even good. Sometimes it's a welcome break from adult and young adult novels, which can be a bit stormy by comparison. But I think that there's a place for a kids' book to get angry about things that are upsetting.
Also, I'm a bit bothered by the role of anger in children's books. I'm thinking back as far as Little Women, possibly further, and the emphasis seems to be on controlling one's temper to the point that any anger is bad. And I don't think that's so. I think it's disproportionate anger that's bad. Being mildly annoyed is not the worst sin ever, or to take a newer source than Little Women, anger does not necessarily lead to hate any more than fear leads to anger. Sometimes anger leads to action. Sometimes anger leads to change. Sometimes anger leads to self-defense. Sure, kids have to learn to handle it when they're angry, but that doesn't mean by squishing it down and never acknowledging that it exists -- or that it could actually have a valid root cause.
Too much anger in a kids' book is likely to be strident and unpleasant to read, and kids generally have the sense to reject things that are unpleasant to read if they possibly can. Sensibly so. But that doesn't mean all anger in children's books ought to be a party-line rubber-stamp of the "sit down and calm down" lessons Jo March and Anne Shirley get. Some things in the world require us to sit down and calm down. Others require us to stand up. If we don't admit to kids that the difference exists, they'll never learn how to apply it.
Ew, is this more of a theme in Girl Books? I begin to suspect that it is, but I'd welcome any data for or against that theory.
(Although with the Anne Shirley reference I don't want to be unfair to L.M. Montgomery -- Emily Starr's temper is often a good and self-defensive thing, and in fact I wish it showed up more often where appropriate. And it seems pretty clear that Valancy's taking too much of the "sit down and calm down" lessons to heart are at the root of her problems in The Blue Castle.)
As for the rest of the Ox description -- well, I hope this chapter inspires confidence in the rest of the book for me. That'd be nice. It was patient enough with me, a titch at a time until the thing was done. Good way to go, I guess.
Anyway. If my dog is to be believed, there is an ax-murderer/serial-rapist lurking on the doorstep, just waiting to batter the door down, but only if he/she has insufficient indication that there is a watch poodle within. For some reason asking her, "Dog, why are you psycho?" is not helping matters. Further steps seem required.
Hmmm.
One hopes not to write a bigoted children's book. An angry, fierce children's book, though? Well...not this one. But I don't see anything wrong with it, quite frankly. A lot of children's books are gentle, and that's fine, even good. Sometimes it's a welcome break from adult and young adult novels, which can be a bit stormy by comparison. But I think that there's a place for a kids' book to get angry about things that are upsetting.
Also, I'm a bit bothered by the role of anger in children's books. I'm thinking back as far as Little Women, possibly further, and the emphasis seems to be on controlling one's temper to the point that any anger is bad. And I don't think that's so. I think it's disproportionate anger that's bad. Being mildly annoyed is not the worst sin ever, or to take a newer source than Little Women, anger does not necessarily lead to hate any more than fear leads to anger. Sometimes anger leads to action. Sometimes anger leads to change. Sometimes anger leads to self-defense. Sure, kids have to learn to handle it when they're angry, but that doesn't mean by squishing it down and never acknowledging that it exists -- or that it could actually have a valid root cause.
Too much anger in a kids' book is likely to be strident and unpleasant to read, and kids generally have the sense to reject things that are unpleasant to read if they possibly can. Sensibly so. But that doesn't mean all anger in children's books ought to be a party-line rubber-stamp of the "sit down and calm down" lessons Jo March and Anne Shirley get. Some things in the world require us to sit down and calm down. Others require us to stand up. If we don't admit to kids that the difference exists, they'll never learn how to apply it.
Ew, is this more of a theme in Girl Books? I begin to suspect that it is, but I'd welcome any data for or against that theory.
(Although with the Anne Shirley reference I don't want to be unfair to L.M. Montgomery -- Emily Starr's temper is often a good and self-defensive thing, and in fact I wish it showed up more often where appropriate. And it seems pretty clear that Valancy's taking too much of the "sit down and calm down" lessons to heart are at the root of her problems in The Blue Castle.)
As for the rest of the Ox description -- well, I hope this chapter inspires confidence in the rest of the book for me. That'd be nice. It was patient enough with me, a titch at a time until the thing was done. Good way to go, I guess.
Anyway. If my dog is to be believed, there is an ax-murderer/serial-rapist lurking on the doorstep, just waiting to batter the door down, but only if he/she has insufficient indication that there is a watch poodle within. For some reason asking her, "Dog, why are you psycho?" is not helping matters. Further steps seem required.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-01-11 05:12 am (UTC)Anger as a No-No is a Girl Book theme in my experience. The Great Brain and his brothers never got told not to be angry. Heinlein's boy protagonists in his YA stuff get to have tempers. Nobody ever told Jim Hawkins or Tom Sawyer to calm down. (Okay, Tom got told not to be an ass in Sunday school, but you know what I mean.)
no subject
Date: 2007-01-11 07:51 am (UTC)But there's an odd dichotomy going on. It's true that girl characters in books keep being told to calm down, be quiet, take smaller steps, take care not to muss their clothing. On the other hand, *readers* are clearly told that we should be far more interested in the girls who struggle with those things, who want to run and shout, than in the ones who are docile by nature. Jo is much more engaging than Meg March, Anne Shirley than Diana Barry, Alice Bastable than her sister Dora.
Interesting because Emily Starr is also the only one I can think of who has a friend who is wilder than she is (a real friend rather than a Bad Influence) and yet we get the sense that Ilse is too over the top and Emily is still more interesting.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-11 01:21 pm (UTC)That was one of the things I always liked about Emily and Ilse: I felt that a lot of children's books have a main character and a sidekick. And while Ilse Burnley is clearly not the main character, she is nobody's sidekick. "I'll side kick you!" one can imagine Ilse saying furiously.
I've been putting off reading Emily's Quest because I remember it has having some immensely cruel bits. Probably I should get back to it eventually.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-11 02:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-12 04:00 am (UTC)As for anger in general, most treatments seem to show two choices:
1. lose your temper and sputter
2. repress and be walked over
It was news to me when someone said, "Anger is the energy that helps you make changes." Such as exert yourself to look for a new job or whatever.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-12 01:12 pm (UTC)Oh God, not one of those whiny "How our parents screwed us up" stories!
Date: 2007-01-11 01:58 pm (UTC)I was never permitted to get upset or act out about anything, because nice girls should sit quietly with hands folded in lap. It's still a huge effort to overcome the meekness programming.
My brother, on the other hand, was always allowed -- nay, encouraged -- to act like a loud-mouthed short-tempered thug. And his first wife left him because he hit her.
Re: Oh God, not one of those whiny "How our parents screwed us up" stories!
Date: 2007-01-11 05:12 pm (UTC)Have your parents given any indication that they might think of themselves and/or the upbringing they arranged for your brother to have as relevant to his abuse of his first wife?
I have long held the suspicion that parents who have little or nothing to do with such traits/behaviors are likely to blame themselves while parents who directly contributed are far, far less so. But I don't have much data one way or the other, because quizzing people, "Do you think the way you raised your kid has anything to do with his physically abusive tendencies?" is just not very socially on, most times.
We are all glad you are making the effort to overcome the meekness programming. Soldier on.
Re: Oh God, not one of those whiny "How our parents screwed us up" stories!
Date: 2007-01-11 05:42 pm (UTC)There has been no clear indication of my parents recognizing their direct influence on my brother's abusive behavior. However, they both know how short-tempered my brother can be, and I think they sometimes wonder if they let my brother get away with too much when he was a teen. Though I think Mom is just as likely to blame it on the chauvinistic selfish attitudes my brother learned/inherited from Dad, like there's nothing she could have done about it ("boys will be boys" was an excuse I heard from her more than once). Dad is more likely to say cluelessly, "Gosh, how did that happen?"
Overall, I would agree with your suspicion.
Re: Oh God, not one of those whiny "How our parents screwed us up" stories!
Date: 2007-01-12 01:11 pm (UTC)Re: Oh God, not one of those whiny "How our parents screwed us up" stories!
Date: 2007-01-12 01:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-11 03:24 pm (UTC)On the other hand, Pippi Longstocking is a delight because of its chaos. Not sure if I remember Pippi ever getting angry, though.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-11 05:13 pm (UTC)Chinese New Year
Date: 2007-01-11 06:54 pm (UTC)B