Societal Issues in "A Girl With a Pearl Earring"

The book that I'm currently reading (I still didn't finish it!) is A Girl With a Pearl Earring by Tracy Chevalier. As I'm getting further to the end of the book, I'm starting to notice the big and small conflicts in the novel and the things that cause these dilemmas. I've noticed that a lot of the big problems in the plot are caused by the societal pressures of the 1660s Holland, the setting. For instance, the love triangle between Vermeer, Griet and Pieter the Son/Catharina would've not even evolved enough to become a problem if it happened during modern times. If a modern-day young woman became a maid for a famous painter's family and fell in love with him, she would either quit the job, have an affair with the painter without his family knowing, or confess her attraction towards the man. In the novel, however, Griet could and would not be able to do any of those because of the strict values and prejudices of the society during that time period.

 Griet mentions multiple times throughout the novel about interpersonal and inner conflicts in her life that can be rooted back to societal pressures of the time period. For example, the only reason Griet becomes a maid for the Vermeer household is because her father was no longer able to work as a tile maker and thus she had to work to support her family. In the modern times, if her father was injured during his job, he would've gotten financial assistance from the government. Even if they needed another source of income, she couldn't be legally able to work in a major laboring job, like housekeeping. Griet also has major shame relating to becoming a maid. It is mentioned several times throughout the book that becoming a housekeeper is not an honorable job and usually means that her family is poor (also another thing that is considered shameful). Today, people aren't as judgmental as they were in the 1600s.

Griet also feels shame about her attraction towards Vermeer. She is so scared of people finding out the truth about it that she even fears talking about his paintings at home. Today, it might still be a source of guilt and shame to be attracted for a married man you're working for but it wouldn't be so feared if someone found out about it.

These are only the social pressures that people nowadays can relate to. There are more pressures mentioned in the book that are much more traditional and conservative in nature. Griet, for example, thinks that showing hair or opening her mouth is dishonorable. Now this might be only what she thinks, but generally since the whole story is narrated from her point of view, the readers have no choice but to interpret that as what the society thought back then. These apparent "scandalous actions" were so new to me that it took me a while to realize that they were actually real prejudices (if that even makes sense).

Overall, if the plot of the book took place in the modern days, the "big" conflicts in the novel would not be so dramatic and important to even be worthy of being the book's subject. Noticing this has made me realize how much a book can rely on its setting and how important it can be for a novel.

No Book Should Ever Be Banned!

When I first heard of countless spectacular books being banned from libraries and schools all across the United States I couldn't help but be angry and confused. Sure it  didn't seem like a country so democratic and liberal would limit one's access to such enlightening things like books. I was also shocked that the reason for their banning was because the books were considered "explicit" in some way. That is ridiculous, because compared to what teens see on TV or on the Internet or the songs they listen to on the radio, books are nowhere close to "explicit". If a book seems inappropriate for your son or daughter, you have the right to forbid them from reading it, but you cannot take that opportunity from the hands of hundreds of students. 

First of all, if songs about sex or drugs are not restricted from radio stations accessible during the daytime, books about the same topics should most definitely not be banned just because they contain these elements. I mean, have you seen the music videos on YouTube lately? YouTube is a very accessible site that many teenagers go on daily. Like the author of The Absolute True Diary of a Part-Time Indian states "There's nothing in my book that even compares to what kids can find on the Internet". YA books might contain some profanity too, but at least they educate adolescents! Instead of spending so much energy trying to ban books, maybe you should direct that energy to restricting explicit songs from popular radio stations.

I do not think that in any way someone has the right to limit so many young adults' access to books. No matter what you think or feel about a book, you should not forbid others from reading them. I believe that while a book's topic might seem inappropriate to you, that does not state the views of other parents and students. As Mary Elizabeth Williams states in her argumental article opposing pro-book ban critic Megan Cox Gurdon, "Is there a problem here, besides, perhaps, the offense to Gurdon's sensibilities?"

I understand that sometimes YA fiction can seem disturbing and grim for teenagers to read. But when do we expect the youth of this generation to learn about the hardships of life? Do we except them to eternally be the little children that believe in our tales of princesses and happy endings? Sorry to break it to you, but your children need to grow up sometime in life, and adolescence is the time for that. Like William's daughter claims, "...they're called 'Young Adult'. Adult!" (Williams 2)

In conclusion, I strongly believe that no book, including YA fiction, should be banned from the use of anyone, anytime, and anywhere. Banning books is limiting the basic freedoms of citizens and it is both morally and logically wrong to forbid people from accessing them, especially great ones like "The Absolute True Diary of a Part-Time Indian" and "The Hunger Games".