Two things happened today that got me thinking about children and parentst and responsibility.
One is that I finished reading Corey Doctorow's Little Brother. It was required reading for my sci-fi/fantasy class, the last assignment. It is considered YA fiction and my teacher wanted to know if that knowledge, that preconceived idea of the intended audience affected the way we read it. He also wanted to know if the author's clear and frankly didactic intent ruined the story.
Think V for Vendetta meets Fight Club meets 4chan.
Little Brother is a book that both rubbed me weirdly and that I wish I had written. The main character, Marcus, is 16. He's a nerd. He can code, he used to LARP, he can hack and he plays Action Roleplaying Games (back to that in a moment). He also lives in a world just a tiny bit different than ours which I guess is why it's considered science fiction.
Security has stepped up a bit. The students all get SchoolBooks, notebook computers, however, everything they did is monitored. All textbooks and library books have RFID chips and there's 'gait recognition' cameras in the hallways. All of this is cakesauce for Marcus, who can blow past all the firewalls and whatnot because he lives on the internet, just like most kids.
I'd say about 40-50%, possibly more of the book is dedicated to explaining stuff. Explaining what LARPing is, or how certain kinds of codes or the technology behind spam filters. Some of it I felt was unnecessary, any kid under 25 will know what X is, but that could just be the kinds of kids I know. If they are the kinds of kids who would read this book, they probably don't need anime explained to them. Which made me think maybe it was for the adults or maybe Mr. Doctorow just likes showing off how much he knows. He's clearly well entrenched in nerd culture himself and wanted to include as much of it as he could.
So an ARG is a very Japanese kind of game, and actually something that happens here not uncommonly, although usually it's a kind of viral marketing campaign for movies. Cloverfield and Dark Knight both did something like it. Players are given a clue, well, a clue to find a clue. There's a logic problem or puzzle, a digital component (something like digging through all the fanart of SnapeXLeia for something in one specific entry) and a physical component, which requires finding the right WiFi hotspot and then downloading the information. The winners get to go to Japan.
Marcus and his three friends, his team as it were, sneak out of school to do this. When they reach the right area, there's an explosion. Terrorists have attacked San Francisco and wiped out the Bay Bridge. Marcus and his friends are notarrested and taken to a detention facility. Because Marcus refuses to unlock his phone (likes his privacy and all that), they tell him he'll be watched for the rest of forever and essentially treat him...well, like a terrorist. His friend who was stabbed in the panic, is not let out.
After that, everything changes, all kinds of new surveillance and security. It's depressingly easy to imagine. Marcus, offended that the Bill of Rights is being torn up for 'his freedoms,' and angry about the mistreatment of himself and his friends, wants to fight back. He can't tell anyone they were in jail, so he basically starts a digital underground. Hacktivism, and all that.
That's the basic plot, obviously there's more, but you get the idea. So here's the rub. This book has a lot of heavy stuff in it. Marcus effectively declares war on Homeland Security, admittedly one that is clearly in the wrong. Treasure Island gets labeled Gitmo-On-The-Bay, and that's exactly what it is. So IS he a terrorist? Or is he a citizen looking out for his rights? Can he be both?
He also has sex at one point. It isn't described in any kind of detail, though more than I remember ever reading from books when I was a kid. There's no swearing and while there's obviously violence, there's not a lot of gore. So I try to look at it from a few perspectives.
I would probably not have read this book at 16. Simply because it wasn't the sort of thing I was really into. However, my parents totally would have LET me read it and we would have talked about the subject matter. So as a parent, I would probably let my child read it. I wouldn't necessarily SUGGEST it for anyone under 16, and probably would nudge toward 18. As a teacher, I'd probably never require it as reading, simply because of the flame mail I'd get from parents, but if I was going to, it'd be a Senior year deal.
What does this have to do with responsibility, you ask. As most of you know, I think kids can handle a lot more than we give them credit for. I don't think we need to dumb down issues just because it makes US uncomfortable to go into. Sure, there are time constraints in classrooms, and in Social Studies for example, it would be impossible to give all possible interpretations of some key events. However, that doesn't mean ONE interpretation should be given as THE ONE.
So I wouldn't ban this book or say kids shouldn't read it because they'd get it. Heck, I'd hesitate more because they WOULD. As far as I know, all the technology, all the tricks Marcus and the others use absolutely exist. They aren't futuristic, Deus Ex Machina sort of things. The book could be a manual of Hack the School. Which is part of the point. The information is out there. If someone wants it, they can find it. I'm not saying that since any potentially dangerous information is there, we should just let kids willy nilly at it.
This book got me thinking, which is, I think the point, and obviously, it rattled in my head enough to want to talk about it. I think the author's purpose was to generate discussion, especially between adults and young people. In the end, I think it would be up to the parents to decide how they wanted to handle their child reading it.
Which brings me to Event 2.
I went to see Dredd today. It was...everything you thought it would be. I really wanted to get into the bloodboobsbulletsmelodrama, but there was a problem. Someone had brought to kids with them. And when I say kids, I don't mean like teenagers.
I mean, I think one was 10 and the other was 8. Maybe a little older, but not much. And that pretty much ruined the whole movie for me because every time they swore...which is a LOT (I mean, like whoa) or there was gratuitous blood, I winced and thought 'What's wrong with you, get them out of here.' Me, I'm a big kid, and I don't really like having f-bombs hurled at me all the time, but I could have ignored it. I like ridiculous action movies. But that's just it. I'm a big kid. These were LITTLE kids. In my opinion, they should not have been there. It isn't the theatre's fault, there were all sorts of signs. Either seeing this movie was more important than staying home because they couldn't find a babysitter or these parents and I have a very different value system. Because apparently it was hunkydorey.
There are a lot of students at my school who play M-rated games. In fact, pretty much all of them. And I know that my boss doesn't like it and she rumbles about it and whatnot. I tend to keep my mouth shut. I played M-rated games as a kid, but they weren't the ONLY thing and it was not the be-all-end-all of my entertainment. I get that kids are going to get some exposure no matter what, but there's still age-appropriateness and level/duration of exposure. And that's not on anyone but the parents. Not the school, not the government, not the library or the Blockbuster or anyone else. Not all rated R movies are the same or Mature games or more mature shows. And of course, not all kids are the same. Some can handle some subjects better sooner, some it would probably be a best idea to keep away for as long as possible. So I don't want there to be huge sweeping rules. I just want parents to be responsible for their kids.
At least until those kids are old enough to read books that may or may not turn them into the kinds of people who wear Guy Fawkes' masks.
One is that I finished reading Corey Doctorow's Little Brother. It was required reading for my sci-fi/fantasy class, the last assignment. It is considered YA fiction and my teacher wanted to know if that knowledge, that preconceived idea of the intended audience affected the way we read it. He also wanted to know if the author's clear and frankly didactic intent ruined the story.
Think V for Vendetta meets Fight Club meets 4chan.
Little Brother is a book that both rubbed me weirdly and that I wish I had written. The main character, Marcus, is 16. He's a nerd. He can code, he used to LARP, he can hack and he plays Action Roleplaying Games (back to that in a moment). He also lives in a world just a tiny bit different than ours which I guess is why it's considered science fiction.
Security has stepped up a bit. The students all get SchoolBooks, notebook computers, however, everything they did is monitored. All textbooks and library books have RFID chips and there's 'gait recognition' cameras in the hallways. All of this is cakesauce for Marcus, who can blow past all the firewalls and whatnot because he lives on the internet, just like most kids.
I'd say about 40-50%, possibly more of the book is dedicated to explaining stuff. Explaining what LARPing is, or how certain kinds of codes or the technology behind spam filters. Some of it I felt was unnecessary, any kid under 25 will know what X is, but that could just be the kinds of kids I know. If they are the kinds of kids who would read this book, they probably don't need anime explained to them. Which made me think maybe it was for the adults or maybe Mr. Doctorow just likes showing off how much he knows. He's clearly well entrenched in nerd culture himself and wanted to include as much of it as he could.
So an ARG is a very Japanese kind of game, and actually something that happens here not uncommonly, although usually it's a kind of viral marketing campaign for movies. Cloverfield and Dark Knight both did something like it. Players are given a clue, well, a clue to find a clue. There's a logic problem or puzzle, a digital component (something like digging through all the fanart of SnapeXLeia for something in one specific entry) and a physical component, which requires finding the right WiFi hotspot and then downloading the information. The winners get to go to Japan.
Marcus and his three friends, his team as it were, sneak out of school to do this. When they reach the right area, there's an explosion. Terrorists have attacked San Francisco and wiped out the Bay Bridge. Marcus and his friends are notarrested and taken to a detention facility. Because Marcus refuses to unlock his phone (likes his privacy and all that), they tell him he'll be watched for the rest of forever and essentially treat him...well, like a terrorist. His friend who was stabbed in the panic, is not let out.
After that, everything changes, all kinds of new surveillance and security. It's depressingly easy to imagine. Marcus, offended that the Bill of Rights is being torn up for 'his freedoms,' and angry about the mistreatment of himself and his friends, wants to fight back. He can't tell anyone they were in jail, so he basically starts a digital underground. Hacktivism, and all that.
That's the basic plot, obviously there's more, but you get the idea. So here's the rub. This book has a lot of heavy stuff in it. Marcus effectively declares war on Homeland Security, admittedly one that is clearly in the wrong. Treasure Island gets labeled Gitmo-On-The-Bay, and that's exactly what it is. So IS he a terrorist? Or is he a citizen looking out for his rights? Can he be both?
He also has sex at one point. It isn't described in any kind of detail, though more than I remember ever reading from books when I was a kid. There's no swearing and while there's obviously violence, there's not a lot of gore. So I try to look at it from a few perspectives.
I would probably not have read this book at 16. Simply because it wasn't the sort of thing I was really into. However, my parents totally would have LET me read it and we would have talked about the subject matter. So as a parent, I would probably let my child read it. I wouldn't necessarily SUGGEST it for anyone under 16, and probably would nudge toward 18. As a teacher, I'd probably never require it as reading, simply because of the flame mail I'd get from parents, but if I was going to, it'd be a Senior year deal.
What does this have to do with responsibility, you ask. As most of you know, I think kids can handle a lot more than we give them credit for. I don't think we need to dumb down issues just because it makes US uncomfortable to go into. Sure, there are time constraints in classrooms, and in Social Studies for example, it would be impossible to give all possible interpretations of some key events. However, that doesn't mean ONE interpretation should be given as THE ONE.
So I wouldn't ban this book or say kids shouldn't read it because they'd get it. Heck, I'd hesitate more because they WOULD. As far as I know, all the technology, all the tricks Marcus and the others use absolutely exist. They aren't futuristic, Deus Ex Machina sort of things. The book could be a manual of Hack the School. Which is part of the point. The information is out there. If someone wants it, they can find it. I'm not saying that since any potentially dangerous information is there, we should just let kids willy nilly at it.
This book got me thinking, which is, I think the point, and obviously, it rattled in my head enough to want to talk about it. I think the author's purpose was to generate discussion, especially between adults and young people. In the end, I think it would be up to the parents to decide how they wanted to handle their child reading it.
Which brings me to Event 2.
I went to see Dredd today. It was...everything you thought it would be. I really wanted to get into the bloodboobsbulletsmelodrama, but there was a problem. Someone had brought to kids with them. And when I say kids, I don't mean like teenagers.
I mean, I think one was 10 and the other was 8. Maybe a little older, but not much. And that pretty much ruined the whole movie for me because every time they swore...which is a LOT (I mean, like whoa) or there was gratuitous blood, I winced and thought 'What's wrong with you, get them out of here.' Me, I'm a big kid, and I don't really like having f-bombs hurled at me all the time, but I could have ignored it. I like ridiculous action movies. But that's just it. I'm a big kid. These were LITTLE kids. In my opinion, they should not have been there. It isn't the theatre's fault, there were all sorts of signs. Either seeing this movie was more important than staying home because they couldn't find a babysitter or these parents and I have a very different value system. Because apparently it was hunkydorey.
There are a lot of students at my school who play M-rated games. In fact, pretty much all of them. And I know that my boss doesn't like it and she rumbles about it and whatnot. I tend to keep my mouth shut. I played M-rated games as a kid, but they weren't the ONLY thing and it was not the be-all-end-all of my entertainment. I get that kids are going to get some exposure no matter what, but there's still age-appropriateness and level/duration of exposure. And that's not on anyone but the parents. Not the school, not the government, not the library or the Blockbuster or anyone else. Not all rated R movies are the same or Mature games or more mature shows. And of course, not all kids are the same. Some can handle some subjects better sooner, some it would probably be a best idea to keep away for as long as possible. So I don't want there to be huge sweeping rules. I just want parents to be responsible for their kids.
At least until those kids are old enough to read books that may or may not turn them into the kinds of people who wear Guy Fawkes' masks.
No comments:
Post a Comment