Posts tagged Reading

Please! How is making books more accessible to the “weaker (reading) sex” going to endanger girls? This library is merely trying to change the perception (among boys at an image-sensitive age) that reading is somehow “less manly” than other activities.

Source

Except that I don’t see how measures like this even begin to deconstruct the notion that reading is “less manly” - on the contrary, they subtly uphold it. Instead of normalising reading for boys and girls alike, they reinforce the idea that “normal” boys don’t read if there are no bells and whistles involved; that they all “naturally” required special measures like this to even consider picking up a book. These solutions fall under what researchers have called “recuperative masculinity politics”: instead of telling boys that it’s okay to like books, that it’s okay to read for fun, that it’s okay to have interests that fall outside what society deems “manly”, they assume you have to make reading “manly” enough, or else no self-respecting boy will ever come near it. It would be far more useful to let boys know that they don’t need to constantly worry about whether or not what they enjoy is “for boys” - and yes, that’s a huge battle, but it has to start somewhere, and librarians and educators can make a huge difference. The thing that always seems to be overlooked when these policies are discussed is that not all boys are the same. Not all boys are in fact interested in traditionally “manly” things. And what message does this send out to the boys who aren’t? Do we really want the library to become yet another place where they’re reminded that society at large doesn’t consider their gender performance appropriate?

[FTR, I didn’t address what these policies communicate to girls because several commenters had already done so; obviously I don’t think this is a lesser concern. I also find ideas like this excellent as long as they’re not marketed in gendered terms. And no, saying “it’s for boys, but girls can also go in the cave! And those unmanly boys too, I guess” doesn’t count - there’s a steep social cost to deviating from normative gender performances, especially at this age. This comment is basically my MA dissertation in a nutshell.] 

As awesome as it is to see an author I love do so well and get so much attention, I’m slightly saddened by the tone of some of the posts/tweets/comments about John Green’s best-sellerdom ten months in advance. Obviously I want his always excellent books to be successful, and it makes my librarian heart rejoice to see this many readers, many of them young, be this excited about a book they won’t get to read for many months to come.

But the implication that this is not only the end-result but the real point of everything John Green does online misses the point completely. Don’t get me wrong - I’m not saying this in a wide-eyed marketing is crass! money is evil! art wants to be ~*free*~ sort of way. I know that authors/musicians/etc. have to reach out to their fans directly in this day and age, and there’s nothing wrong whatsoever with this including reminders that yes, you should buy their stuff so they can make a living and carry on making more art you enjoy and find meaningful.

Having said that, I hate seeing a passionate, engaged, active community of human beings who are growing up together and forming significant and in many cases life-defining connections with each other be reduced to a concept such as “brand loyalty”. All this human engagement is not an added bonus that you foster so people will want to stick around and buy your stuff. It’s actually the real point of the whole thing. Sadly, I can very easily imagine other authors who aren’t really all that experienced when it comes to the Internet reading the commentary on what happened with The Fault in Our Stars, thinking, “Hey,  I could do this too!”, and becoming just one more in a long line of social media spammers.