There has been some discussion in the book world lately about the prevalence of absent and/or dead parents in children’s literature. In an interesting article in Publishers Weekly called “The Ol’ Dead Dad Syndrome,” editor and author Leila Sales argues that dead parents in children’s literature are not only troublingly common, they can sometimes be symptomatic of lazy writing–after all, it’s easier to write a book if you don’t have to figure out the main character’s relationship with their parents.
Dead and absent parents in children’s books
Now, you may be less than shocked to learn I have written a children’s novel with an absent parent (or at least a parent who is either flying around the universe or currently living in Milwaukee who could say really??). Wherever he is, Jacob Wonderbar’s dad is not living at home with Jacob.
Although I am biased on this subject, I definitely agree with Sales that there is a certain appeal to just getting the parents out of the picture so the kids can go have their adventures. Roald Dahl perhaps knew this better than anyone when he had James’ parents run over by a rhinoceros at the beginning of James and the Giant Peach, and Sophie is already living in an orphanage in the beginning of The BFG.
And yet despite my good luck in the parental department (I had the incredible fortune of growing up with two relatively normal parents who managed to raise me to adulthood without getting run over by rhinoceroses), virtually all of my favorite books as a child involved kids having to fend for themselves with dead or otherwise absent parents:
James and the Giant Peach
The BFG
Tom Sawyer
Island of the Blue Dolphins
By the Great Horn Spoon!
The Wonderful Wizard of Oz
and many many more
The tradition has been carried on in modern children’s classics such as A Series of Unfortunate Events (orphans), Harry Potter (orphan), and The Hunger Games (fatherless), not to mention in movies as diverse as Star Wars (thinks he’s an orphan, father actually a deadbeat/Sith) and The Lion King (father killed by wildebeests).
And it’s not exactly a new tradition. Early and medieval stories across cultures, from Cinderella (orphan) to Aladdin (fatherless), feature characters who lack one or more parental units.
Why are stories with absent parents so timeless?
So what is up with all those dead parents?
I’m not a psychologist or an anthropologist or even a cultural historian (though I play one on a blog), but I am a former twelve-year-old, and I can remember how thrilling it was to read books where the kids were off on their own, fighting and outsmarting adults, dealing with harsh landscapes, facing their deepest fears, making unforgettable friendships, and, while I didn’t know it at the time, learning how to be adults.
Around the age the books in this list are so appealing, we’re starting to imagine life without our parents, we’re starting to develop our own opinions and thoughts, and we’re starting to realize that our parents are not always right about everything (eventually we’ll learn that they were right about more than we realized at the time).
Dead parents, I would argue, are an externalization of this nascent independence. We’re starting to imagine life on our own and love to read about kids who have been suddenly thrust into that position. A tradition this common cannot be accidental.
Modern twists on an old form
Now, that’s not to say that we don’t need more authentic (and living) parents in young adult literature. Sales rightly points to the incredible Someday This Pain Will Be Useful to You by Peter Cameron as an example of a richly rendered life with two different, compelling, divorced, and refreshingly alive parents, and my client Jennifer Hubbard presents a richly rendered two-parent household in The Secret Year.
But even still, it’s inevitably going to be a rare book that features a happy, stable child with happy, stable parents. We’re always going to be drawn to stories about children having adventures on their own, or as in the case of Someday This Pain Will Be Useful to You and The Secret Year, living in broken or flawed families during troubling times.
There’s a reason why when you reach “happily ever after” it means the story is over.
Need help with your book? I’m available for manuscript edits, query critiques, and consultations! And if you like this post, check out my guide to writing a novel.
Originally published at The Huffington Post
Liberty Speidel says
I seem to remember a book about the Nancy Drew series that mentioned the lack of a mother in Nancy's life, and I think you hit the nail on the head: in literature, when parents are out of the way in a kid's life (for whatever reason), it cuts the strings and allows the kids to have their own adventures.
I often wonder if Nancy Drew had had a mother in the series if she'd have been half as successful as a teenage detective.
Joseph L. Selby says
I don't think I've ever agreed with one of your posts more, Nathan. A growing view of individual as decision-maker rather than supplicant would be drawn to the kind of environment where the child protagonist makes decisions for him/herself without the restraints of (or despite of) adults.
You skirt this at the end, too. I think why so many children's adventures have absent/gone parents is because it is the child that goes on the adventure. If the parents were properly ensconced in their position as guardians, they would be able to protect or better overcome the challenge of the story with their adult insight/power/authority.
Joanne Bischof says
It makes sense. So much of fiction is creating a dramatic, larger than life world. And like you said, there is an adventure to reading children's literature where they get to fend for themselves, like in the Boxcar Children series. That was one of my favorites growing up. Although as a mom, I hope to always be a part of my kids' story 🙂
Cowgirl in the City says
Hey, Congrats on getting published in the Huffington Post and on your new book! 😉 Awesome.
I've always loved the orphan=freedom aspect in books and movies as a kid too…and dreamed of being able to be on my own (and was secretly glad I didn't have to be). Great article/post.
Julie Kingsley says
In my former life I taught fifth grade where I ran a parent/child book club for years. I remember being shocked by the venom spewing from the parents mouth about The Mixed Up Files of Mrs. Basil E. Frankweiler by E.L. Konigsburg. Seriously, do the parents really think that just by reading this adventure that their kids are going to hightail it out town with their gambling money and live at the Metropolitan Museum of Art? Hah, I think not. Let the kids live a little!
Bryan Russell (Ink) says
At some point, you have to take responsibility for your own life. And it helps to start with an opportunity to dream inside these stories presented to us. We start to live indepeendent lives inside our own heads first, trying on possibilities, before we truly step out on our own.
Raejean says
From a writing point of view, not having parents around solving the kid's problems so they can have an adventure makes sense. Many of the books that do have parents around, the parents are often clueless or unconcerned about their children's activities.
As a mom, I have an untold amount of respect for authors whose characters work with their parents to overcome challenges. A couple I've read this year are A Week in the Woods by Andrew Clement and The Enormous Egg by Oliver Butterworth.
Jackie says
Disney likes dead, don't they? They built a brand on dead parents.
There is an entire FB page citing the orphans:
1. Snow White's parents
2. Bambi's mother
3. Cinderella's parents
4. Peter Pan's parents
5. Prince Phillip's mother
6. Tod and Copper's parents
7. Ariel's mother
8. Cody's father (The Rescuers Down Under)
9. Belle's mother
10. Simba's father
11. Pocahontas' mother
12. Jasmine's mother
13. Aladdin's mother
14. Quasimodo's parents
15. Olivia's mother (The Great Mouse Detective)
16. Nemo's mother
17. Penny's parents (The Rescuers)
18. Max's mother (A Goofy Movie)
19. Mowgli's parents
20. Dumbo's father
21. Milo's parents and grandfather
22. Andy's father
23. Lewis' parents (Meet the Robinsons)
24. Linguini's parents (Ratatouille)
25. Tarzan's parents
26. Lilo's Parents
Tony Noland says
Interesting. From a dramatic standpoint, the absence of a parent is almost as good as an extremely permissive parent. A child protagonist has to make the decisions and actions him or herself; with any kind of active, involved parent figure in the picture, that's much harder to believe.
M.A.Leslie says
I think that kids can relate better with parentless main characters. Not only does it facilitate the story and allow the kids to go off and do the things that they wanted to do but I really think that most kids today are feeling like the ones in the stories.
Think of it this way, would the show RUGRATS been a hit if the parents were attentive?
The Lemonade Stand says
I think that if the main child character has experienced the tragedy of losing/not having parents then it makes it easier for us to sympathize for them as a reader. You feel sorry for them so when more bad things happen to them, you desperately cling to the hope that the ending will bring happiness. If they already start out happy and tragedy-free, then the happy ending isn't always nearly as gratifying.
Steppe says
I think stereotyped parents that are kind, loving, and attentive could be cooked up and worked as a pretty funny sub-plot as comedic relief for a crime fighting kids network that never lets on about their secret life fighting all manner of evils. Even a secret organization that enforces rules of non-disclosure to parents to qualify its heroes for service in the Juvenile Justice League. That could work for a talented YA Fiction writer. Have the kids range from 8-19
with the retired members sent out to earn money for The League with the twist that some of the kids parents are former members who contribute anonymously.
MIMI CROSS says
Have you checked this out Nathan?
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/books/review/Just-t.html
I finally get the Disney thing. Knocking off mom (or in the case of The Lion King, dad) allows the protagonist the freedom they need.
For folks who don’t want the parents to be the main character (YA) or part of the main plot and just want them nearby, the ‘vague parent’ is kind of perfect. My personal choice.
Moving away is nice because you don’t have to kill mom and dad off or get all involved in their dysfunction. After “The Corrections” I suffered family dysfunction burnout.
Moving away with dad is especially nice, since many father figures prefer the less is more relationship, especially with their daughter. I know mine did. Some guys are just more comfortable being a friend instead of a father, works nicely for fiction and sometimes, for real life.
Throw in a separation or upcoming divorce for the parents to help facilitate the situation, and voila!
The main thing is, especially for girls, mom has to be gone in some way in order for the daughter to begin to explore her own life. I mean if her mom had been around would my main character have fallen from a cliff? No way! She would have been hanging with mom, having tea, shopping, whatever.
Love you blog.
Best,
Mimi
swampfox says
Hey, the father was there in RUMBLE FISH. Well, mostly. OK, partly.
Ted Cross says
I ran into a logic problem in my book, set in a medieval-type fantasy world. A normal family in such times would have many children, but in writing we are taught to cut the number of characters down to only those necessary. It becomes unwieldy to introduce a dozen or more brothers and sisters, even if that would be the truly logical setup. I keep having characters with only two or three children, even though I know it just isn't logical. At least my main character does have both the father and mother.
Mira says
"There's a reason why when you reach "happily ever after" it means the story is over".
That's excellent – quotable.
This is a terrific article. Very much agree with all your points about that age group beginning to imagine independence, and the developmental stages involved. Absolutely. You said it so well, I can't really add much.
And this not to disagree with that, but there may be additional factors that make these books attractive to children. There is a sad reality that many children have absent parents – even if the parent is in the home. The parent may be distant emotionally, or just away from the home for long periods of time. Or divorced, etc., and live elsewhere. That the absent parent is often the father may explain the Ol' Dead Dad syndrome.
There are also many children who have parents who are not actually parenting them, or not parenting them well, so the child needs to learn how to grow to adulthood on their own.
The 'hero journey' in books about orphans may speak not just to children who really are orphans, but to those who are orphans on an emotional level, for various reasons.
Anonymous says
Conflict = interest = relatability.
Growing up I was the only one in my group of friends that had two parents. My best-friend's mom left her family, left, like, gone and moved to a different state and didn't come back; another friend only saw her dad once a year even though he only lived a thirty minute drive away; another's dad ran off with a hot blonde, leaving her and her mother high and dry; another's dad was deceased.
I always think, who are these people that have such perfection in their own lives? And even if their life can be considered ideal, don't they realize that life is hard for you know, everyone else?
Patricia A. Timms says
In my opinion as a mother of three, kids who have happy homes with two functioning parents still wish their parents would disappear from time to time. It's kids who want these stories where no parents exist.
As a small child, I wanted my parents to fade away occasionally and I wondered if I was really adopted and from France (who doesn't want a sexy accent?), and then when I was 15 they did divorce out of the blue and it wasn't as appealing to read about for awhile. But I still write my stories this way.
Kids want to be empowered and if that's through reading then awesome. That doesn't mean they want to be disfunctional later. Kids run back home when they are all grown (at least I did.)
Becky Levine says
Great post. I think it's half us authors needing to get the parents out of the way and half the kids wanting to "believe" in a world where they are free and independent and can take off on any adventure. Especially at a young age, I think kids like the safety of following those adventures from their own bed or back deck or beanbag chair and being able to roll their eyes and say, "Dude, my parents would NEVER let me do this." 🙂
Matthew Rush says
Glad to see you getting up on the Huff again Nathan. I wrote about this on the forums not too long ago and my stance is still the same: I don't see it as lazy writing, I see it as entertaining. Normal parents, in general, are boring. I play one in real life and trust me, I'm boring. That's not to say there couldn't be exceptions. You've obviously mentioned some here.
Also, since my mom died was I was 11 and I didn't see my dad for 6 or 7 years as a teen does that mean I can get away with writing absent parent stories without being called a lazy writer? Probably not.
Amy B. says
I kind of agree on both sides. Where parents are rubbed out just for the sake of getting them out of the way, it's lazy. Where either parent is out of the way for real reasons and it's actually part and parcel of the book and character, it can be amazing.
And actually, Cinderella wasn't an orphan, at least not in the Grimm version. Her father was alive for the entire tale; he was just horrible and negligent. That made the story far more interesting for me. It's also part of the reason I loved Matilda so much. She had two parents and a brother and they were just AWFUL rather than being dead. As a young kid, I hadn't dealt with grief much, but boy had I dealt with mean people, so even though my parents were wonderful, I could see how others could awful.
Like all things in writing, if it's in your book for a reason, go for it. If it's there just 'cause, it's probably falling short.
Yat-Yee says
It is quite a tradition, the absent or dead parents. I am, right this moment, struggling with how to deal with the issue of what role the adults should play in the problem-solving area.
On the one hand, the protags, which are twelve in my MG novel, have to make important decisions, to grow, to solve problems. And you mentioned a good point about readers at this age trying to imagine what life would be like if they were independant.
On the other hand, in reality, a lot of the problems kids get into require the help of parents and other responsible adults. In fact, kids are often not left alone long enough to do it even if they could.
Yat-Yee says
Oh, also, I wanted to add to the list of the absent/permissive parent in popular culture:
My Neighbor Totoro (and all the Miyasakis that I know)
Penderwicks
LaylaF says
As in all things in life, it is important to have a balance that would allow readers to have choices..some stories with parents, some without.
But, since the topic here is those books without parents, I have to agree with Nathan, that having the parents absent in the book allows the reader to imagine what life would be like on their own…experiencing their own adventures, solving their own problems etc.
And those readers who are truly without parents can relate; while the ones with parents, safely making dinner in the other room… it allows them a bit of freedom and fantasy, without the risk of hardship.
Cheryl says
Having parents bogs down the story because then the kids have to answer to someone. You can't have an adventure if you have to be home for lunch. And in todays day and age, you aren't even allowed to leave your front yard without a parent.
Parents also will only be of 3 types: absent with work (or whatever excuse), abusive, or coddling. Absent is still the same as dead so we can throw that out since that's what the topic is. Abusive means the kid is going to run away, kill them or have a miserable life. Running away gives the adventure part so that's good but again puts us back in the position of absent parents. Killing them is too mature for kids, and having a miserable life is too miserable for kids. Coddling is simply boring.
Instead of calling the Dead Dad scenario lazy, look at it from another perspective: it's exciting. Having the parents limits what kids can do. With parents gone, it opens up the imagination to limitless possibilities. Kids don't want to hear the lecture from the dad about not hitting. And they certainly don't want to have to stop in the middle of the adventure because the kid has to go home for lunch. Or go to bed. Or take a bath. Or do their chores.
And dead parents gives them a reason to be troubled and make us sympathize. They have something to search for, some meaning to their lives, their greater purpose. You won't find your greater purpose when your mom is telling you to do your homework and study for your math test.
And the number one reason why it's okay to not have parents:
KIDS DON'T WANT TO READ ABOUT THEM, they want to read about kids, to imagine themselves as that kid having that grand adventure.
They have their own parents. Books are to get away from them. Parents are boring.
D.J. Morel says
The dead parent thing is definitely nothing new. Love your examples. I'd add Dickens. He didn't write kid's books, but created some of the world's most famous orphans.
It's not at all lazy writing, just the opposite. If the parents are there, and the main character has a good relationship with them, then she'd ask them to help. That's not a kid's book. If the parents are in the story and she doesn't have a good relationship with them, then that deeply influences the character in ways that don't work for the story. That pretty much would become the story, for most kids. Alternatively, if the parents do try to help and fail so that the kid has to save the day, then the kid has lame parents. Kid's may question their parents, but they don't want to read a book where the parents are weak or ineffective, that's reserved for teachers, random adults, relatives, or step parents. The only thing to do is get the parents out of the picture, and in a way that doesn't totally traumatize the protagonist.
Rick Daley says
I think a book with a happy, stable kid and happy stable parents could work…if the protagonist is a neurotic schnauzer.
WORD VERIFICATION: heron. It's a bird. Look it up.
Melanie says
I can see both sides here. On one hand, it would be nice to see kids learning how to grow up in less tragic or too-obviously-freeing circumstances, just to have a more rounded ouvre of books for kids to identify with — and I think there probably are a good number that portray functional, involved families even though there's a surprising number of the other variety. On the other hand, part of being a good storyteller is choosing or creating a narrative occasion, a good reason to bother with the story in the first place. Dead and absent parents, whether they're central to character development or just convenient for the young protagonist, help to shape the impetus for a story.
Theoretically, there are probably a gaggle of stories not told because the character gets confronted with an exciting, tension-filled change, but her parents ground her and forbid her to traipse off through the wilderness for weeks on end. I'm just saying… That's not a very interesting story unless it becomes a story about something else.
Amanda says
You could do it "Fablehaven" style and have the parents be on vacation. =)
Anonymous says
Didn't the kids in the Time Warp Trio series have parents? It's been awhile since I read them or that my kids did but I seem to recll them going on some interesting adventures and also having parents.
Remilda Graystone says
The problem I have with absent parents is when they're put into a situation where the outcome is absolutely unrealistic. What I mean by that is (and this is a big exaggeration) say the kid ends up blowing up half the house, the absent parent(s) (the way they're portrayed sometimes in literature) wouldn't even notice. It's like, I get getting them out of the way, but I don't get when the child does something that ANY sort of parent (except maybe the really drunk, unconscious, and dead ones) would notice–but in the story, they don't, and we're just supposed to buy that. They don't even provide good excuses in those cases, and THAT is when I think the writer is just being lazy.
If the parent is out of town or dead or somewhere else where they can't notice that magical creatures are shacking up in their house, then, yes, I can buy that. But if the parents are there and they don't notice AND there is no excuse provided for why they don't notice, then I get really irked because the writer is being lazy, the writer is COMPLETELY overlooking the parents' existence AND they're asking us to buy this nonsense or to even make up a reason for why they wouldn't notice what is completely noticeable.
Aside from those times, though, I'm fine with the parents being out of the picture. Oh, and I agree with this article.
WritersBlockNZ says
Young adult novels are usually about growing up. Without parents, children are thrust into adulthood much sooner, propelling the story on and invoking change in the character. Plus, you'd be surprised at home many children have lost their parents young. It's a huge fear for children, and a reality for many. Why wouldn't it be worth writing about?
J Scott Savage says
Technically, James' parents didn't get run over by the rhinoceros. They got eaten by it, which I always found both slightly disturbing and fascinating to imagine as a kid. Only Dahl could get away with starting a kids book by explaining how the boy's parents got eaten by a runaway rhinocerous.
I think we as parents are far more worried about things like this than our kids. They go, "Yep, parents got eaten. What's next?" Which is what makes it so fun to write for them.
Nathan Bransford says
scott-
Ha- good memory!
Stephanie Barr says
I agree there's something to be said for children's books to focus on children who have to fend for themselves.
Separation is another option, but dead has a particular poignancy.
Livia says
I think it would be interesting to see how this trend varies across cultures. In a Western individualistic society, the idea of growing up is almost synonymous with idea of cutting ties with your parents and becoming your own person. Therefore, in order to grow up, or to have a coming of age story, you have to get rid of the parents, either figuratively or literally. In a more collectivist society (often associated with Asian cultures), growing up is associated with taking your place and responsibilities in the community. I wonder then, if Eastern coming of age stories have parents that are more around. Unfortunately, I'm not all that up to date with Eastern young adult literature. The only example I can think of is Mulan, where she takes her father's place in the Army. She goes out, fights the battle, wins honors, and when offered an official's post, she says she just wants a camel to go back home. Interesting, huh? There is a translation of the poem here.
Melanie says
I think it's also interesting to consider the kind of environment young people live in now. Even just in the mid-80s, when I grew up, my parents knew everyone on my block, and I was allowed to run around for hours until dinner time without supervision. I didn't have video games or anything to distract me or keep me inside. I didn't have a nanny. I didn't have absent parents either, not until they divorced in the 90s, which made for a different kind of freedom but didn't change the fact that I had freedom.
The point is that, when I was young, I had a lot of free time. I wasn't afraid of the world or distracted by technology, and my parents let me be a kid and have that space. I don't know what it's like to grow up now, if kids have the same freedom of imagination afforded them, but it wasn't hard at all then to imagine kids going on adventures without parental interference.
Maybe today, with all the attention to divorce rates and family dysfunction, on top of the ways people often "occupy" their children's minds with TV and video games to keep them safe inside, it might be harder to buy that kids can have an adventurous life without having to kill off the parents. But I also think dead and absent parents, as well as negligent or abusive parents, are as much an emotional response to our present culture as they are a convenience for the writer.
Maria Alexander says
As someone who recently lost a parent, I can say that the loss makes the child become the parent. The child must then own his or her own authority — carry the torch, if you will. But it's a heavy torch to carry, indeed, when you're young.
I don't see it as much of a crutch as a trope. You don't need it. I'm writing a YA adventure that has excited lots of publishing folk, and the parents are very much alive, present and inadvertent catalysts.
Elie says
It never seemed at all strange when I was a child reading about children adventuring alone.
Reading from a parent's perspective – it's a different story!
As a writer .. well ..
hillary says
I think many stories for children "rub out" the parents to keep the content appropriate for the age group. If parents are around, they either fix problems (therefore working against the plot), or they don't. If they don't fix the problems their children face, there is often a complicated reason that is tough to treat in a child-friendly way. For example, if Cinderella's stepmother is mistreating her while her father is present, suddenly her dad isn't such a nice guy either and Cinderella's relationship with him is more complicated. If he's dead or away, he (and the author) are absolved of responsibility for the abuse. Historically writing for children has dealt mainly in the business of distinguishing good from evil, and dispensing with parents makes the distinction all the more clear. Alive, present, flawed parents are a messy gray area.
melissa says
I was never bothered by the main characters of children's books having adventures on their own (like many of the other people commenting). In fact I seem to recollect that at times I fantasized that my parents weren't actually my parents (which doesn't make them dead or absent), but suggests that kids do want to experience life in the way that a lot of kids in books do.
Jennifer Hoffine says
Wonderful post. I've noticed this also and even commented on it as a popular cliche on a blog post earlier today.
I think the orphan is also an outsider protag who is instantly sympathetic to readers, and there's the "chosen one" aspect for Fantasy and paranormal.
Love the Disney list earlier in the comments. I think Sleeping Beauty is one of the only Disney movies where the protag has two parents.
Nicole Zoltack says
In literature, kids are supposed to be the ones that solve the problems. They can't go running to their parents and get them to solve the problem. Kids want to spread their wings and fly away. How many kids dream of running away and joining the circus? It's like that.
maine character says
I've never seen it as lazy writing, but simply a necessity to make the character achieve their goal on their own.
Look at Treasure Island – Jim Hawkins had to rely on himself and no one else. And the same with Huck Finn and The Outsiders. Or, as with Hatchet and Ender's Game, the parents are too far away to help.
Whirlochre says
Personally, I'd be concerned about dead children in children's literature, particularly if they'd been murdered by parents so absent, they couldn't possibly have been murdered.
Nightmare.
Corky Smith says
There are potential positive and negative lessons in every aspect of life, including the stories we read to our children. As those who guide children, we must recognize that a child cannot always distinguish the difference from fantasy and reality. Although children have the most vivid imaginations and that is something that should be encouraged, they should not be deceived about the truth of things. The positive use of stories can stimulate courage, inspire nobility of heart, modeling the honor in the truth and give hope for better things to come. It’s our responsibility as parents and educators to the help children differentiate between what is reasonable and what is absurd. Evil witches, wicked stepmothers, ugly stepsisters, and fairies are all popular characters in fairy tales, but stepmothers aren't always wicked, stepsisters aren't always ugly and fairies aren‘t real. The same truth applies that princes aren't always charming and peasants aren’t always courageous and heroic. Fairy Tales make too extreme of examples for children and they have a “two-edged sword” sort of approach when teaching a moral because it seems to always leave an unrealistic example of “every dream that you wish, will come true” Should we choose to read fairy tales and stumble across a lesson of a moral, we must show the reality of the situation and then explain the importance of the lesson if we choose to adopt it. We must also explain the unrealistic nature of the tale as a whole. The lessons can be reasonable and the stories can be fantastically magical and inspiring with the proper guidance.
Josin L. McQuein says
You have to get mom and dad out of the way somehow, otherwise there's no way the kids in those books could do half the things they need to do to advance the plot.
If they had parents who allowed it, said parents would be in jail.
k10wnsta says
Parents are the first great antagonist in most kids' lives (or so they think), but since most stories involve far more extraordinary conflicts, they are antagonists who usually need to be put to bed early.
Interesting timing on the subject. Some time ago, I resolved that, because the anti-hero of my story was 14, I wanted no interaction with (and limited mention of) adults throughout the work. I felt if I could pull it off, it would emphasize the exaggerated sense of self-reliance most 14 year old boys act upon. Ultimately, however, it required compromising the story's integrity. That would not do.
So, from one extreme to another, now the very first word of the MC's narrative reference's his dad.
Simon Haynes says
There's a teen character in my latest novel, and the first thing I realised was that the parents had to go. You can't save the galaxy when Mum and Dad are hovering around vetting your friends and packing your lunches.
Kristin Laughtin says
A lot of these books are written for children who want to go off on their own adventures, as you said, but most importantly, are beginning to master their worlds on their own, whether this involves saving the world or surviving a harsh situation or simply becoming an adult. Parents, in most cases, would impose limits on the kids in these stories, and that would make them boring and stunt the kind of growth (or other development) the author wants to portray.
Can you imagine if Karana's mother had held her back from jumping over the side of the boat in ISLAND OF THE BLUE DOLPHINS, or at least been the one to jump over herself? And yet this is likely what would happen in reality (except not, I guess, since that book is based on a historical account, although the details are disputed). LORD OF THE FLIES might not count since for all we know, the boys' parents are alive somewhere, but if they had been present on the island, they would have been supervising all the children, who wouldn't have devolved the way they did.
If a parent's there, they're going to be making all the decisions. Not the kid. The kid, in most cases, is going to obey, or suffer some sort of consequence for not doing so. And not only does that kill half your plots before they start, it would probably also bore all the kids who want to read about people their own age having adventures.