The YA Stigma

[Sparkly Dragon Dust]

After reading many of the posts, I thought I'd throw my hat into the ring. As it stands YA is still my favorite genre. (I'm 23)

And I've tried to figure out why? Perhaps I take a lot of enjoyment out of seeing the cleverness of youth, or perhaps I like the sense of innate 'fun' about them. (at least of the SFF variety) Either way, it's irksome to hear blanket statements that are so detrimental.

When I think of quality YA fiction, I think of Pullman, I think of Ender's Game, I think of Harry Potter (yes HP :P), Narnia (well some of the Narnia books), but I also think of the bad YA books that are like a glass of chocolate milk and sinful brownies during a Segal flick. Those last types are the ones that make the genre look bad; that made the genre looks "Young Adult", if I may borrow the term, and tend to be the first place the negative minded individuals look.

I believe Pullman said that in writing for kids and teenagers, you can't try and write like a teenager. It's too difficult, and it comes across as labored, derogatory . . . etc. That's the problem a lot of authors have. They write kids books as opposed to writing books for kids. They make it equally hard on themselves when they write them in first person. I wonder everyday why Rick Riordan did this. It gives his writing a false tinny feeling that smacks of trying too hard - which is a shame because every now and again there's a splash of brilliance in his works. It's almost like he's holding himself back. Which is a shame, but he's of course not going to change the magic formula.

Also, I grow tired of people's obsession with hyperbole. The Eragon books were not crap. They weren't horrible. They weren't good, or great by any means, but they weren't the piles of waste that people seem to proclaim them as. What they are is Average to Fair. Mediocre. It's the fact that they have gotten so popular that makes people want to tear them down with such overzealous viciousness, when they feel that better written books deserve more praise. Hence we have the anti-Eragon websites that are nothing but an exercise in self righteousness.

I haven't read Twilight yet, but I'll get back to you on that series.

[Maia]

I have to say that I love a lot of books that were at some point marketed as YA. Not HP though - I liked it for a time, but in the end it turned out into everything that YA critics decry.

But Le Guin's Earthsea trilogy, McKillip's Riddlemaster trilogy, many of D.W. Jones's books, "The Hobbit", "Watership Down", "Bridge to Terabithia", "The Dark Materials" trilogy, Nix's "Abhorsen" trilogy, etc., etc. are among my favourites and they are so much better then Rothfuchss, IMHO, that it isn't even funny.

Not to mention that "Name of the Wind" fits the mold of YA much better than many of them. I also find it funny that NotW is being held up as an example of deep depiction of politics (?!). Honestly, now. Even Lackey did it better ;).

[aegon6]

[quote name='kcf' post='1615382' date='Dec 11 2008, 00.34']I really hope that this exchange isn't serious. If it is serious, I'd suggest reading the entire thread again and reading some of the YA books discussed.[/quote]
Looks like you're talking about good books that are wrongly categorized as YA.

[aegon6]

[quote name='Dylanfanatic' post='1615481' date='Dec 11 2008, 01.25']You mean you hadn't until recently? :P

By the way, I wrote my [url="http://ofblog.blogspot.com/2008/12/trying-to-grasp-poor-review-part-deaux.html"]own comment[/url] on it. A bit sarcastic, but hey, what else would you expect from me? :P[/quote]
I'd expect only book porn posts. At least they're not strawmen like this comment on Pat's blog post, and they don't require competence, which makes them your best posts.

[Werthead]

[quote name='Cobblestones' post='1615079' date='Dec 10 2008, 20.41']YA books deal mostly with teenage-appropriate themes I assume? Maybe that's just not very interesting for older readers?[/quote]

[quote name='aegon6' post='1615299' date='Dec 10 2008, 22.48']This quote by Pat is a good definition of YA. If the book is fine for adults, it's not YA, it's a book anyone can read.[/quote]

The term 'YA' is purely a marketing tool, absolutely nothing more and nothing less. Pullman's books deal with dark matter, sexuality, faith, morality and the soul, which I would not normally expect to see in a book aimed at children. Mieville's recent 'YA' book actually reiterates most of his arguments and points from his earlier novels, just with less insectoid-lady sex (and a rather dubious attempt to 'get down' with modern London teenage slang in the first chapter, which he thankfully abandons).

The problem here is that Pat hasn't actually read much YA fiction by his own admission, so when he starts making sweeping statements such as he does in the review, I think he needs to expect to be called on it. Again.

[aegon6]

[quote name='Werthead' post='1616314' date='Dec 11 2008, 19.58']The term 'YA' is purely a marketing tool, absolutely nothing more and nothing less. Pullman's books deal with dark matter, sexuality, faith, morality and the soul, which I would not normally expect to see in a book aimed at children. Mieville's recent 'YA' book actually reiterates most of his arguments and points from his earlier novels, just with less insectoid-lady sex (and a rather dubious attempt to 'get down' with modern London teenage slang in the first chapter, which he thankfully abandons).

The problem here is that Pat hasn't actually read much YA fiction by his own admission, so when he starts making sweeping statements such as he does in the review, I think he needs to expect to be called on it. Again.[/quote]
Well, I understand, but that's if you consider this "marketing" definition to be the valid one. I think I'm using the definition that's the most commonly used, which is why I understand Pat. If people use different definitions for the same word, you get these off-topic comments like DF did on his blog... :-/

[Larry.]

[quote name='aegon6' post='1616277' date='Dec 11 2008, 12.33']I'd expect only book porn posts. At least they're not strawmen like this comment on Pat's blog post, and they don't require competence, which makes them your best posts.[/quote]

Who are you again? I can't seem to place you...

But a word to the wise: my comments were directly focused on what was written, so whether or not you agree with me (and I didn't expect all to do so), "off topic" is probably the furthermost thing from describing what I did.

*shrug* To each their own. Tribalism is sweet, when it isn't sour ;)

[Werthead]

[quote name='aegon6' post='1616406' date='Dec 11 2008, 19.46']Well, I understand, but that's if you consider this "marketing" definition to be the valid one. I think I'm using the definition that's the most commonly used, which is why I understand Pat. If people use different definitions for the same word, you get these off-topic comments like DF did on his blog... :-/[/quote]

Wiki's definition seems sound:

[quote]Young-adult fiction (often abbreviated as YAdult fiction, or simply YA) is fiction written for, published for, or marketed to adolescents, roughly between the ages of 12 and 18.[/quote]

There is nothing stopping people older than 18 from reading a YA book, of course, and increasingly we are seeing writers putting things into allegedly YA books to directly appeal to older readers ([i]Un Lun Dun[/i] is packed with these), similar to the way that Pixar whack jokes that parents will get that kids won't into their movies.

The definition does fail to take into account retconned YA books, such as Eddings' [b]Belgariad [/b]series, which is now classified as YA, or the first two [b]Wheel of Time[/b] books which are now considered to be YA for somewhat dubious reasons known only to Atom Books.

I suppose I could boil the argument down to the fact that sure 90% of YA fiction is crap but so is 90% of allegedly 'adult' fiction and going overboard on the distinctions between them is meaningless.

[aegon6]

[quote name='Werthead' post='1616439' date='Dec 11 2008, 21.09']...

The definition does fail to take into account retconned YA books, such as Eddings' [b]Belgariad [/b]series, which is now classified as YA, or the first two [b]Wheel of Time[/b] books which are now considered to be YA for somewhat dubious reasons known only to Atom Books.

I suppose I could boil the argument down to the fact that sure 90% of YA fiction is crap but so is 90% of allegedly 'adult' fiction and going overboard on the distinctions between them is meaningless.[/quote]
Thank you. I see why there's confusion. I understand that as "for adolescents only" (otherwise it would be "for everyone"). You can understand that as "for adolescents and maybe adults". Both are valid and the "stigma" is just people using different definitions.

[Joanna vander Poele]

[quote name='aegon6' post='1616257' date='Dec 11 2008, 11.21']Looks like you're talking about good books that are wrongly categorized as YA.[/quote]
Because the two are exclusive?

[Moshe Goldberg Rubinshteyn]

[quote name='Joanna Nox' post='1616795' date='Dec 11 2008, 20.56']Because the two are exclusive?[/quote]
That's it, isn't it? If it sucks, it's YA?

Same with genre literature. If it sucks, it's genre?

[kcf]

[quote name='aegon6' post='1616257' date='Dec 11 2008, 11.21']Looks like you're talking about good books that are wrongly categorized as YA.[/quote]

No, I'm talking about good books - their classification as YA is irrevelent to the quality.

There are plenty of YA books that are very good and can (and should be) enjoyed by adults.

[aegon6]

[quote name='Joanna Nox' post='1616795' date='Dec 12 2008, 02.56']Because the two are exclusive?[/quote]
No.