Post by Lady Ten on Aug 30, 2012 15:44:42 GMT -6
It is. Warriors, the series, is for kids. As one of the older haters fans, I recognize this. However, there are some other fans (I suspect the younger ones, but it may well include some ones older than myself) seem averse to the idea, based on the nature of the content, such as the amount of death, gore, and thematic concepts such as questioning one's loyalties and handling responsibility (I am not even kidding). Their assumption seems to be that such content is "for adults" -- or at least, for older people/young adults, not children.
Not only is this dubious, but it's also a relatively recent paradigm, historically speaking. What's considered a "kid" is kind of flexible, but in some cultures and during some time periods, it is/was entirely normal and expected that someone as young as twelve might be learning how to handle an axe to chop firewood or be preparing for their wedding.
"Citation needed", yeah, I know, but I'm thinking this is just a generally-accepted common-knowledge thing. We can agree that kids doing all these things has happened on a mass scale before, yeah? I can provide more specific examples if anyone wants, but for now I'll move on to my next point.
This notion of violence and problem-solving as "not for kids" is bullbutter. Kids are not so sheltered and innocent that they can't handle characters dying or hurting each other. Granted, initially the very young may be more wary of it, and drawing some lines and boundaries is important regardless of age. But this hogwash about stories "for kids" not including bloodshed? Where does that even come from?
With a few localized exceptions, kids want to be treated like grown-ups. They're attracted to stories that are "cool," stories that feature dragons and battles and "epic" things (this is a broad generalization, but who doesn't like dragons?). They may not be ready for some things, but they're still interested in stories that pursue "real" problems, by which I mean problems bigger than learning to share their cookies or finding their lost pair of shoes.
We may not be adults, but we're still people, with thoughts and conflicts and problems of our own that we deal with in our daily lives. Some of us may even have been victims of violence ourselves, however mild or severe. Books that are "for kids" don't have too keep everyone alive and healthy and agreeing 100% of the time.
While I would definitely argue that the Erins make some unethical choices in their writing, in terms of double standards and such, there's nothing described within the series that I would rule as too inappropriate for a child's eyes. Yet look at how the Warriors tvtropes page is written.
Yes, kids are the target audience. The series is written at a level not outside a ten-year-old's grasp, with flat characters and insubstantial conflict (insubstantial, here, meaning not "nonexistant" but rather "not of real substance"). The books are very child-friendly in their simplicity, vocabulary, (relatively) clear good guys and villains, and low-levels of gore (compared to, say, some scenes from 1984). I've never read Watership Down, but from what I know if it, Warriors is nowhere near in its league.
There's nothing about the books to suggest that kids aren't or should not be the target audience. So where does this attitude come from?
I can't be sure, but given what I know of tvtropes demographics, this part of the tvtropes page was probably written by minors, not some old fuddy-duddy moral watchdog who doesn't want her children reading these "mature" books. But why would kids write something like this?
As I've said, kids want to be treated like grown-ups. And that's just it. Because being a "baby" is so stigmatized when you're young, they try to distance their own interests from being labeled as "childish stuff," even when that's exactly what it is. Then again, perhaps another part of the problem arises from the misconception that it's the content (violence, death, "grappling with questions of faith") that determines a work's age-level, regardless of depth or presentation. Looking at the way the characters and themes are handled, Warriors isn't "mature" at all.
Warriors is for kids. And I, for one, am at peace with that fact.
Not only is this dubious, but it's also a relatively recent paradigm, historically speaking. What's considered a "kid" is kind of flexible, but in some cultures and during some time periods, it is/was entirely normal and expected that someone as young as twelve might be learning how to handle an axe to chop firewood or be preparing for their wedding.
"Citation needed", yeah, I know, but I'm thinking this is just a generally-accepted common-knowledge thing. We can agree that kids doing all these things has happened on a mass scale before, yeah? I can provide more specific examples if anyone wants, but for now I'll move on to my next point.
This notion of violence and problem-solving as "not for kids" is bullbutter. Kids are not so sheltered and innocent that they can't handle characters dying or hurting each other. Granted, initially the very young may be more wary of it, and drawing some lines and boundaries is important regardless of age. But this hogwash about stories "for kids" not including bloodshed? Where does that even come from?
With a few localized exceptions, kids want to be treated like grown-ups. They're attracted to stories that are "cool," stories that feature dragons and battles and "epic" things (this is a broad generalization, but who doesn't like dragons?). They may not be ready for some things, but they're still interested in stories that pursue "real" problems, by which I mean problems bigger than learning to share their cookies or finding their lost pair of shoes.
We may not be adults, but we're still people, with thoughts and conflicts and problems of our own that we deal with in our daily lives. Some of us may even have been victims of violence ourselves, however mild or severe. Books that are "for kids" don't have too keep everyone alive and healthy and agreeing 100% of the time.
While I would definitely argue that the Erins make some unethical choices in their writing, in terms of double standards and such, there's nothing described within the series that I would rule as too inappropriate for a child's eyes. Yet look at how the Warriors tvtropes page is written.
In this book series, cats run wild in large family groups, fighting each other, falling in love, and worshiping their starry ancestors.
Those of you expecting sweet little stories about cats lazing about licking each other and falling in love are in for quite a shock (although that happens too, of course). The books are quite mature, thanks to Erin Hunter's Anyone Can Die policy, and the series can be quite graphic, as the characters face certain death and possible annihilation at least once a series, and, early on, usually once a book. They also grapple with questions of faith, loyalty, honor, and responsibility on a very regular basis. These books are about as child-friendly as Watership Down.
Yet kids are the target audience...
Those of you expecting sweet little stories about cats lazing about licking each other and falling in love are in for quite a shock (although that happens too, of course). The books are quite mature, thanks to Erin Hunter's Anyone Can Die policy, and the series can be quite graphic, as the characters face certain death and possible annihilation at least once a series, and, early on, usually once a book. They also grapple with questions of faith, loyalty, honor, and responsibility on a very regular basis. These books are about as child-friendly as Watership Down.
Yet kids are the target audience...
Yes, kids are the target audience. The series is written at a level not outside a ten-year-old's grasp, with flat characters and insubstantial conflict (insubstantial, here, meaning not "nonexistant" but rather "not of real substance"). The books are very child-friendly in their simplicity, vocabulary, (relatively) clear good guys and villains, and low-levels of gore (compared to, say, some scenes from 1984). I've never read Watership Down, but from what I know if it, Warriors is nowhere near in its league.
There's nothing about the books to suggest that kids aren't or should not be the target audience. So where does this attitude come from?
I can't be sure, but given what I know of tvtropes demographics, this part of the tvtropes page was probably written by minors, not some old fuddy-duddy moral watchdog who doesn't want her children reading these "mature" books. But why would kids write something like this?
As I've said, kids want to be treated like grown-ups. And that's just it. Because being a "baby" is so stigmatized when you're young, they try to distance their own interests from being labeled as "childish stuff," even when that's exactly what it is. Then again, perhaps another part of the problem arises from the misconception that it's the content (violence, death, "grappling with questions of faith") that determines a work's age-level, regardless of depth or presentation. Looking at the way the characters and themes are handled, Warriors isn't "mature" at all.
Warriors is for kids. And I, for one, am at peace with that fact.
