NYT Article on the Evolution of Parents in YA Literature

This article was in the New York Times today and I found it interesting:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/books/review/Just-t.html?pagewanted=1

In the YA literature class I took in college, we discussed the "absent" or "incompetent" parent as often being a main component in the central character (a 12ish-year-old child) developing the skills necessary to handle the task at hand once the plot started rolling. If the parent is the same loving, doting parents as say Ward and June Cleaver, the child is still dependent on them, turns to them when there's trouble, and the problem is resolved with almost no conflict in 1/4 the amount of time. They wouldn't need to fix things themselves, it wouldn't be believable if they did.
You have to isolate the child to where they'll fend for themselves to make them the protagonist. They have to be forced to rise to the occasion. Getting rid of the parents is the simplest way to do it. When the parents are absent or unreliable, the child is forced to find the means to resolve conflict on their own. They can also get away with doing so many more things to drive the plot line than the typical child would be permitted.
This lack-of-parents is not such a new thing, like the article may seem to suggest at points. Disney movies are infamous for motherless children--usually as the result of the mother dying before the child is born. They're rife with evil stepmothers. Most, if not all, are based off of old fairy tales (however loosely) written hundreds of years prior to Disney's colorful, possibly "tamed" adaptation. So why all the widowing and orphaning? Character and plot development.
Consider Cinderella--what would that story be like if her mother and father had both still been alive when the prince was seeking a beautiful bride? You can get rid of the evil stepmother and stepsisters. Cinderella's probably not going to have to do chores either, she has a house full of servants to do them for her. With both of these factors gone, would she be as humble or gracious? It's now just the story of a rich girl growing up in her house with her parents and the prince is looking for a princess/queen and throws a ball. Cinderella buys fancy material and her servants make her a fancy dress and she goes to the ball and everything's grand, the prince thinks she's hot, they get married. No conflict. Boring. Also, the prince's main attraction to her was that she was different from all the other girls. Having grown up in the exact same circumstances now, would she be any different? Would the prince still even want her? If not, then all you've got left is a story about a rich girl with perfect parents and servants. The end.
The difference with today's novels is that the problems the parents face seem to be more internal, they're grappling with psychological hurdles. Many times, the parents are good people, they're just having a tough time. The child is forced to "grow up" themselves and take on a roll of caretaker either for themselves, siblings, the parent, or all three. These more real-world situations show most kids that they don't have it so bad. Or, in the unfortunate event that they do, that someone else has gotten through it--they can, too.
The children reading these YA novels are also looking for an escape. In a world where adults get to make all the decisions and it's parents, police, teachers, and other grownups "fixing" things, children like imagining that one day they can make a difference. Reading these books, kids can relate to the characters, feel like they are helping solve the mysteries and saving the day. This propels them to have that hope and naivete about the future we lose in our teenage years, sinking us into angsty despair. Eventually we grow out of it, but the world isn't half as rosy as it once was.