SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion

Melanti wrote: "My mother is addicted to the dime-a-dozen Harlequin Romances, which she likes for the sheer fact that they're all exactly the same. So if she can read those with no judgement from me (though I do occasionally try to foist a Georgette Heyer off on her) then you surely can read your YA books..."

I used to get those Harlequins for $0.10 each used. That was a long time ago. $5 used to go a long way! I'd come out with multiple bags stuffed full. *sigh*

MrsJoseph (taking back my data & giving GR the middle finger) wrote: "I used to get those Harlequins for $0.10 each used. That was a long time ago. $5 used to go a long way! I'd come out with multiple bags stuffed full. *sigh* ..."

Yep! My mom likes them because she can get a big bag full for a dollar or two so she doesn't worry about wasting money if she ruins them or looses them or doesn't like them for whatever reason. And she also likes that they're predictable enough that she can pick them up whenever she has spare time but isn't putting off housework or staying up too late at night to figure out what happens next.

Me, on the other hand, I personally think sleep is over-rated and housework can ALWAYS wait until tomorrow. Or at least until the weekend when I have enough time to do both...

Melanti wrote: "Me, on the other hand, I personally think sleep is over-rated and housework can ALWAYS wait until tomorrow. Or at least until the weekend when I have enough time to do both... "

Agreed!

In defence of SF be it open SF or YA - The later being merely a supposed demographic at which some stories are aimed- we find within the SF genre both the scientific inspiration for tomorrow and the most compelling philosophies and humanities.
Often the denegation of the SF genre comes from those with a particular religious or philosophical fervour usually based on belief systems rather than a scientific and open search for truth and actuality.
To me good SF is an exciting and entertaining 'space', or dimension jumping adventure which is also carrying deep humanity and philosophy, yet in a non intrusive way.
We each have two temporal lives, the one penned for us by the cosmos, ergo The Divine Comedy, and the unlimited world of our imaginations to which we are transported by the reading of books......of our own choice!
The truth and The Understanding (Google The Understanding by Dennis Pennefather) is a destination we all aspire to. It seems to me that this journey is one we must all make for ourselves on pathways not pre-audited by belief, but guided by our own intuitive spiritual compasses.
It is that same intuitive spiritual compass which will choose for us which books we read and classifications such as YA are merely catalogue devices with little relevance.
There is often more truth in fiction than there is in non-fiction as both come from the perspective of the author.

I read pretty nothing but scifi and fantasy, sometimes the odd other genre. I currently work on policy implementation in transportation services in a Scottish Local Authority. I gain a MSc distinction in a particularly scientific degree And missed out on the PhD opportunity through lack of funding. I am not writing this to bolster my own achievements but I gained all this from year of read complicated and often complex science fiction ideas and learning often confusing magic systems in fantasy. Take the gardens of the moon by Steven Erikson. You have to be patient and have certain level of intellect to even grasp the first part if the book. Enders game, as noted, brings criticisms about our society which would be missed by a casual reader. I think it's up to you to find find how what you read as being a benefit.

Thanks for all your responses. I love the heated discussion in here. Judging by all your replies, I think I'm one of the youngest readers here. But, I really thank you all for having an open mind about this :). It's always great to hear different opinions from different agegroups!

I think if you enjoy it, then read it. Everybody has different tastes in books, movies, and the like. If you like YA then read it. No matter what genre you read, there will always be people who don't like it.

And it is also perfectly OK to learn and change and find new favorites. Just because Harry Potter is your favorite hero now does not mean that he has to be your favorite next year, or in ten years. There are books that you have to be old enough to read, and there are books that you can finally go back to once you are old enough.

There are several threads within this discussion I should like to address;

1) The argument against fiction has been around for a long time. Plato is the origin of it in the Western tradition--he thought all poets (which meant playwrights as well in his day) were liars. Fiction, therefore, presents a false perception and helps a person to see the world in a distorted fashion. (You'll see the same argument in the Eastern tradition, especially among Confucians.) Many great authors in world lit have had to answer to that philosophical diatribe--like Dante and Lady Murasaki. Both wrote great works of literature, epic poetry and a huge novel, effectively saying "Nertz to you guys". So, this is not a new argument, even if it is more muted today--thankfully.

2) Related to the "fiction is a lie" argument is the argument that if there is fiction, it must be moral, improving, "beneficial", didactic. Some of this idea comes in from the religious traditions whilst a large chunk comes from the educational front. It is the argument for which I have the most antipathy. It misunderstands the nature of reading--we don't do the same reading for the same reasons every time we sit down to read. Because it equates all reading as the same, it also it takes all the fun out of reading. (Literary criticism can do that, too, but that's a separate issue.)

3) Everybody should read THE NEVERENDING STORY by Michael Ende. Technically, it would be put in YA Fantasy because of the age of the protagonist, but Ende's point on why fiction is neverending harkens back to Democritus. When the reader comes back to a story, s/he isn't the same person s/he was when he/she first read it. It's a different story. The reader sees different things, gets different things out of the story--and this is true for every story. (Also, try Patricia Spacks's ON RE-READING.)

So, to sum up--nertz to the critics; keep on reading.

THE BROKEN SWORD was slightly re-written by Poul Anderson many, many years after its original publication. In the foreword to the edition I have, he speaks of "the young man with my name" and how he - present-day Poul Anderson, that is - wouldn't think of writing a book so "headlong, prolix and unrelievedly savage". So not only is the reader a different person when they return to a story, neither is the author.

I’ve decided that we are drawn to particular examples of music or art or literature because of what they contain for us at the pre-attentive level; experience with a particular piece or form increases our awareness, and we then attend to what would have been pre-attentive. If the music or art or literature is really “good” you grow with it, and yet there is always something left beyond the edge of your understanding. There is a difference between writing in a genre, and writing to a genre. I never read Science Fiction until ten or fifteen years ago. If you’d asked me before that time, I would have told you that I didn’t read any genre fiction (of course, I was reading academic genre fiction; I just would never have called it that). The bad rap for genre fiction is understandable, since so much of it is written to the genre, and lacks adequate depth.

As we understand fiction better, do we enjoy it less (are we less frequently surprised by joy as we read)? Are we “better off” with lower tastes (push pins)? Or do we have Kant’s imperfect moral obligation to develop more sensitivity to the arts we enjoy?

I read in an interview that Cormac McCarthy doesn't read fiction, considers it a waste of time.

Since most of the information that's fed to us each day is BS you have to figure what comes out of people's mouths is largely that as well.

Time passes. Sometimes we intend to waste the time (e.g., riding a bus) and discover that it wasn't wasted (there was an interesting person to talk with). Sometimes we think we're doing something meaningful, and only realize that it was a waste of time in retrospect. To say that you don't read because you consider it a waste of time is to prejudge the future on the basis of the past (it's what we do). Of course, there is no deductive reason to believe the future will be like the past.

When a writer says he doesn't read fiction because he considers it a waste of time, I suspect that he does read fiction, considers it a waste of time, feels the dissonance of putting effort into wasting the time of others, and assuages the dissonance by disclaiming that he himself wastes time reading fiction. It's a classic, minority cognitive dissonance response. For example, I buy an Edsel. The most common response is to convince yourself that there's nothing wrong with buying an Edsel ("there's nothing odd with a man wearing a fleur de lis on his lapel, either"). The minority response is to own your error ("the grill of my Edsel does look a little incongruous on what is otherwise an obvious phallic symbol...well, I guess I'm just an idiot for buying one").

Reading to me is a form of escape. For those hours I spend reading, I can get away from the every day grind of work or my daily commute on the bus and I can transport myself into the world of the book I'm reading. Is that beneficial? Your darn right it is. I love all different genres and each in it's own way does it for me. As long as you get enjoyment out of it, that's all that matters. If we spent our lives only reading to "benefit" ourselves the way people like to through around that term, we'd all have no imagination. We'd all be robots reading the same boring material. Thank god for the wonderful imagination of writers.

Tastes vary. Not all people like fiction. Not all people like political biographies, either. You read what you like, and I will read what I like.

Greg wrote: "I read in an interview that Cormac McCarthy doesn't read fiction, considers it a waste of time.

Since most of the information that's fed to us each day is BS you have to figure what comes out of p..."

That's great. I consider his books a waste of time too.

Most of the people that I've had tell me reading is a waste of time spend hours watching TV...my opinion isn't that watching TV is a waste, just another form of escape/entertainment.

When I get home I'm usually thinking about problems at work or something else. If I turn on the TV or a video game I'm still distracted by those thoughts. For me to get a true disconnect I need to pick up a book.

What a person chooses to read, to me, makes no difference. If they like what they read that's great. Telling people that the genre that they enjoy is inferior is pointless. If a person chooses not to read, well that is their choice too.

I don't get hung up on what other people think of how I choose to spend my time.

Kenneth wrote: "Oh, but it is. It has its own shelf in bookstores. That makes it a genre."

Marketing has nothing to do with genres. By that logic, "New in Paperback" and "Staff Picks" would also be genres.

Reading provides an escape into an alternate reality and you could argue that it's a much better use of your time and your mind than many of the other recreational activities available in spades these days. I read everything from YA to biographies to horror...different flavors for different moods. People shouldn't judge. If a book opens up a new portal of imagination in your mind, it has served its purpose - that includes young adult which is often some of the most imaginative material out there.

Trike wrote: "Kenneth wrote: "Oh, but it is. It has its own shelf in bookstores. That makes it a genre."

Marketing has nothing to do with genres. By that logic, "New in Paperback" and "Staff Picks" would also b..."

The difference between those and YA is that the latter has defining characteristic traits, while the former are obviously not genres - they're merely marketing and not both.

Kenneth wrote: "The difference between those and YA is that the latter has defining characteristic traits, while the former are obviously not genres - they're merely marketing and not both. "

If you want to talk about what makes up a YA genre, that's fine, but you absolutely can not point to a bookstore shelf sign and declare THAT is what defines a genre.

People used to do that with movies by relying on Blockbuster's shelving, so I asked them what the defining characteristics were of the genre known as "New Releases."

That's marketing, not genre typing.

YA has genre typing.

Kenneth wrote: "YA has genre typing."

But not by signs in book stores, is my point.

Publishers and bookstores are shoveling EVERYTHING onto the YA shelf because that's the hottest segment right now.

...and that's what I'm campaigning against. Classic SF is not YA. YA is not classic SF. They are distinct genres with distinct characteristics which differentiate them.

Kenneth wrote: "...and that's what I'm campaigning against. Classic SF is not YA. YA is not classic SF. They are distinct genres with distinct characteristics which differentiate them."

You realize you're talking in a circle, right? "Shelves in bookstores denote genre except when I don't agree."

I realize that I'm either not being clear enough in explanation or that I'm talking to people in denial. Can't figure out which, so best cut losses.

Kenneth wrote: "I realize that I'm either not being clear enough in explanation or that I'm talking to people in denial. Can't figure out which, so best cut losses."

You forgot an option: You are wrong.

Okay, we're devolving into nit-picking and pettiness. Instead, consider the basics of our discussion: is 'Young Adult' fiction equatable with science fiction? Really, if we look at it closely, there is no parallel. It would be saying something like "Senior Adult fiction is the same as westerns, because only old fogies would read Zane Grey". Please redefine your positions.

MrsJoseph (taking back my data & giving GR the middle finger) wrote:

You forgot an option"

Thanks for confirming my suspicion.

My position is that YA should not be treated as a catch-all category. The books under its umbrella have common traits and themes like any other genre.

Genre distinctions are all constructs; they’re never going to be perfect, and when they stop working, people construct something more informative. I consider it YA if it feels like juvenilia, and I wouldn’t normally choose to read it on my own (the Harry Potter, Twilight, and Hunger Game books are good examples: I read them because my daughters like them). The term Speculative Fiction is more accurate but less informative than Science Fiction/Fantasy/Supernatural/Horror. Writers are forever blurring the edges of genre—sometimes to good effect—and Ursula LeGuin does a good crossover. I find that as writers focus even more narrowly on a subgenre (e.g., vampires) they tend to become (at best) masters of subgenre cliché.

Kenneth, I'm curious. What do you consider common YA traits? As I understand it, anything with a teenage or young adult hero qualifies as YA. So if it is a genre and not an age grouping/marketing ploy then it would make sense for old books to be moved into that genre.

Someone mentioned earlier in thread that some books are being marketed as both YA and adult fiction, but with different covers. And this is really what makes YA have more of a bandwagon marketing feel to it.

Removed since there was no need for my sarcasm.

It seems like you have to agree on what is a genre, before you can debate whether a thing is one or not?

This is the definition that google spits out:

gen·re
ˈZHänrə/Submit
noun
1. a category of artistic composition, as in music or literature, characterized by similarities in form, style, or subject matter.


Is that a good definition? If so, does YA fit? If not, what is a better definition?

sure it fits MK. And in answer to Sabrina, I'd agree with David. Juvenilia sounds about right. The presence of a young protagonist is not enough to get a book shelved as YA, or SHOULD NOT be. (This being part of my campaign). The themes and concepts are those of the juvenile story. Deeper, meta-concepts remain unexplored. The focus is on plot, and when the book is read and discussed, the discussion also focuses on plot elements and not anything beneath it - typically because there is nothing there to be talked about. The book will likely have some sort of teen romance angle, which may or may not pay off for the protagonist. It will be a relatively complex-free type of romance, with problems of expressing feelings and jealousy at the fore rather than long term relationship considerations. The hero can never die in YA fiction. Many fans of the genre read it expressly because they have come to expect this as a genre trait. No one will be killed off who was presented as an important, primary character, or at least, any deaths will be heroic and few and far between. The "bad guys" do not win. Ever. The bad guys are also typically expressly so depicted. They will wear black while the good characters wear white, or some such similar demarcation in costume or language. Vocabulary will be kept simple as well. The primary traits, as I've stated, being to present a "safe" page-turner novel where there are clearly delineated good vs. evil and the good guys win, with basic interaction, and plot driven narrative. Characters will often express their thoughts directly to the reader via some writers' mechanism to even more obviously telegraph their positions at any interchange.

Given all of the above, I can say four things:
1.) This is without a doubt a genre.
2.) This genre is not to my preference.
3.) I personally dislike when books not fitting the genre are sucked into it by reviewers erroneously, on account of #1 and #2.
4.) While I dislike these kinds of books, I do not consider passing judgment on those who do read and like them. Just don't mix up what's what.

MK - I do think that's a decent definition of genre and, personally, I do think YA - at least the many YA books I've read - so share some similarities in form, style or subject matter.

Subject matter: being a teenager/young adult
Style: focused on the personal/internal vs. external/PG-13 level content

Those are really broad strokes, and there are, of course, fuzzy boundaries as there are in many genres - especially nowadays.

I do think it's more a classification than a genre in the sense that every YA book falls into another genre - fantasy, sci-fi, mystery, romance, problem novels (or 'issue books' as I call them), so on and so forth.

I think this blog does a decent job at an attempt to define some of the unifying elements of YA books: http://chavelaque.blogspot.com/2009/0...

***

As to the teenage protagonist issue, I have never agreed with the notion that the age of the protagonist is the end all and be all. It has to not only have a teenage/young adult protagonist, but be focused on the experience of being a teenager/young adult while within the conditions of the story.

Like how YA dystopian novels tend to focus on the protagonist's life and romance and everything within the constraints of living in a dystopia, as opposed to the story being about the dystopian society.

This is, to me, covers both what attracts me and annoys me about some YA books. I tend to like character focused books, so I like that aspect of it, but sometimes the world as a whole seems more interesting than the personal story we're being told.

Anyway -

There are definitely stories which have teenage/young adult protagonists which I wouldn't consider - and which weren't marketed - as YA.

The Magicians, for instance. The Night Angel trilogy. Both feature young adult protagonists, but are either too R-rated and/or too world-focused and meandering to qualify.

Ocean at the End of the Lane has a very young protagonist and simple writing style, but is really an adult reminiscing about childhood, and many of its themes would be, I believe, missed by young adults reading it without having that reminiscent quality themselves - but there's certainly crossover value.

A book I'm reading now, The Incorrigible Children of Ashton Place, has a 15-year old protagonist, but is definitely an MG book. (MG = middle grade = 9-12 = the age under YA.)

***

As to marketing - I would say that there's a certain 'feel' to YA books. There have been books which have not been marketed as YA books, or not considered written to be YA by their authors, but which get called YA books because of said feel - like 'Warm Bodies', for instance.

But, that aside, I would certainly not describe YA as just a marketing ploy, and I don't think the repackaging thing suggests otherwise.

I'm not going to say that marketing isn't a consideration, but I don't think that's all it is. For one thing, the books that I'm aware of which have been cross marketed *started off* as YA books, and were later repackaged in adult format. As I said before, I believe this is to cater to those people who consider themselves too adult to read YA.

***

Lastly, one thing that I always dislike about some of these discussions is the idea that because it's a "new thing" it's not real. That books weren't marketed to YA before, so why do they need to be now?

Well, for one thing, judging by the history of YA on Wiki, it's not really all that new - though I do think the popularity of Harry Potter and Twilight has made it more a 'thing' than ever before: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YA_liter...

(But, of course, one could just as easily imagine people lamenting this new-fangled fantasy genre back in the heyday of Tolkien, and what is the world coming to with all this nonsense and chicanery?)

But I also think that part of the emerging nature of the genre/classification/whatever goes along with our changing understandings of the stages between childhood and adulthood. We live in a world with an extended process of psychological development.

We - in the developed world, anyway - no longer live in a world where a 15 year old is married and settled, or where a 10 year old is a factory laborer... and we don't even live in a world where a 20-something is almost guaranteed to be living on their own and starting their own families. As social understandings change certainly our artistic endeavors will as well.

The purpose of YA is to speak to the experience of being young adults. Whatever other format it takes, that is its unifying principle.

***

That said, I do disagree with Kenneth's view that just because a book is classic sci-fi doesn't mean it can't be relabeled based on new understandings. I will shelve a book as YA if it "feels" YA to me and if I think YA readers would enjoy it. I don't really give a fig about what others feel about my shelving preference.

But I don't expect to convince anyone, either. I think such crusades are futile. Not that I don't understand the impetus - and lord how my hackles rise when magi-tech gets called steampunk! - but I don't tend to argue the point, because I know that arguing a matter which is opinion is mostly pointless, because no one's going to change their minds - not if they already have a strong opinion one way or the other. (I used to bash my head against the wall repeatedly and endlessly trying to get people to see the errors of their ways, but have since decided that, for me, it's generally not worth the time or aggravation.)

Which is why I'm also not expecting anything I've said here to actually change anyone's mind, 'cause I've long since given up the notion that reasoned discourse can trump emotionally charged viewpoints, and also why I tend to just sigh, roll my eyes, and walk away from these discussions.

But I figured there's no harm in stating an opinion. I'm not asking anyone to consider YA a genre/classification beyond marketing. But I did wish to try and show a reason why some people might legitimately consider it as such, and show that it can be a valid opinion and, as such, its opposite is not the objective fact some would like to make it appear to be.

Kenneth wrote: "sure it fits MK. And in answer to Sabrina, I'd agree with David. Juvenilia sounds about right. The presence of a young protagonist is not enough to get a book shelved as YA, or SHOULD NOT be. (This..."

Thinking back on most of the classic SF/F books that I read growing up, most of them would be considered YA by your definitions. I just read a blog where The Hobbit, when it came out, was considered children's reading--presently it's considered Fantasy.

I personally found Hunger Games shallow, but then others found it very deep and worthy of discussion. I don't think all the Harry Potter books fit your mold either. I found the overall story had a lot of meaning. So like with anything, it's subjective. For example, I have a hard time wrapping my head around how a book with a time travel plot twist can be placed in historical fiction...

Speculative fiction is a fairly new term (genre?) and a lot of books are being pushed into that category. So if something fits your YA definition, not sure why you are on a personal crusade to put a stop to it.

Colleen wrote: "MK - I do think that's a decent definition of genre and, personally, I do think YA - at least the many YA books I've read - so share some similarities in form, style or subject matter.

Subject mat..."

All excellent points, Colleen. I was just thinking of The Ocean at the end of the lane, and how it might qualify as YA. And your comment about differences in age then and now, is spot on. Brings to mind the Grimm's Fairytales, which were children's stories, but now, it's probably borderline horror.

I think it's great that everyone has their own classification system. I still use the old SF/F, Contemporary, Romance, Horror, Western, Nonfiction in my mind. To each his own, I suppose.

Kenneth wrote: Juvenilia sounds about right. The presence of a young protagonist is not enough to get a book shelved as YA, or SHOULD NOT be. (This being part of my campaign). The themes and concepts are those of the juvenile story. Deeper, meta-concepts remain unexplored. The focus is on plot, and when the book is read and discussed, the discussion also focuses on plot elements and not anything beneath it - typically because there is nothing there to be talked about. The book will likely have some sort of teen romance angle, which may or may not pay off for the protagonist. It will be a relatively complex-free type of romance, with problems of expressing feelings and jealousy at the fore rather than long term relationship considerations. The hero can never die in YA fiction. Many fans of the genre read it expressly because they have come to expect this as a genre trait. No one will be killed off who was presented as an important, primary character, or at least, any deaths will be heroic and few and far between. The "bad guys" do not win. Ever. The bad guys are also typically expressly so depicted. They will wear black while the good characters wear white, or some such similar demarcation in costume or language. Vocabulary will be kept simple as well. The primary traits, as I've stated, being to present a "safe" page-turner novel where there are clearly delineated good vs. evil and the good guys win, with basic interaction, and plot driven narrative. Characters will often express their thoughts directly to the reader via some writers' mechanism to even more obviously telegraph their positions at any interchange."

It sounds to me like you're taking the worst aspects of a bunch of lesser books and then damning the entire genre because of them. That's unfair, and we should be mindful of Sturgeon's Law when we have this sort of knee-jerk reaction.

(I have recently run into a number of SF/F readers who have never heard of Sturgeon's Law, which boggles my mind, but just in case here it is: "90% of everything is crap." Someone once remarked to author Theodore Sturgeon, "90% of Science Fiction is crap!" To which he replied, "Yes, but 90% of everything is crap.")

The Young Adult label has existed for as long as I've been aware of genres, going on 40 years now, and it almost certainly existed before I did. (I just checked, and the closest I can narrow it down to is "mid-1960s." So YA and I are the same age.) I don't know how they divide it up today, but it used to consist of two major divisions: books for pre-teens through maybe 14-15 and then books for older teens and early 20s.

The first group had books like Tom Swift, the Hardy Boys, Nancy Drew, Encyclopedia Brown, the Little House series, etc. The second group had books like Call of the Wild, The Outsiders, Lord of the Flies, Tunnel in the Sky, Emma, Mrs. Mike, Catcher in the Rye and so on.

As you can see from those groupings of books, as we get older and advance in the "teen reads", plot often gives way to a focus on character and ideas. The younger set still has exploration of character, but plot is more important.

The only commonality I can really see in the overall YA genre, especially in what's known as the "Teen Reads" group of 14 to 18-year-olds, is the notion of transformation, growth and change. An exploration of the emotions associated with those themes is paramount, and the books often have teenage protagonists as the vessels for the exploration.

To claim that no classic SF can be called YA is spurious at best, especially as we have many classic Science Fiction and Fantasy novels aimed directly at that teen demographic. The Heinlein Juveniles, for example. (Star Beast, Have Spacesuit Will Travel, The Rolling Stones, Tunnel in the Sky and many more, including Starship Troopers.) The aforementioned Tom Swift series. Madeleine L'Engle's A Wrinkle in Time. C.S. Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia. Kipling's The Jungle Book. The Hobbit.

Some of these are truly great books. To judge them based on dreck like Twilight does them a disservice. The vocabulary of the books aimed at the low end of the age range is simpler, but the use of language in many of these books would challenge adults.

Trike wrote: "To judge them based on dreck like Twilight does them a disservice. The vocabulary of the books aimed at the low end of the age range is simpler, but the use of language in many of these books would challenge adults. "

I think you chad made your point without making potshots. I'm not a huge fan of Twilight, but that's just because I don't get it, and will readily admit that. That doesn't mean it is "dreck".

As a reader I refuse to get slotted into categories created by marketers. I'll read anything. What I enjoy is what I enjoy. I still enjoy re-reading Laura Ingalls Wilder and Frances Hodgson Burnett and Beatrix Potter.

Kenneth wrote: "sure it fits MK. And in answer to Sabrina, I'd agree with David. Juvenilia sounds about right. The presence of a young protagonist is not enough to get a book shelved as YA, or SHOULD NOT be. (This..."

YOu have not described all YA. You have described some of the YA you've disliked.

As I said before, you are welcome to your opinion but you cannot create your own facts.

If you don't like YA, fine...but you can't take a system that existed for years (and is probably older than you) and change it into a genre because you don't care for the most recent offerings.

Shit, The Awakening was taught as YA when I was in HS. (view spoiler)[The main character is an adult who is married with children. She cheated on her husband and committed suicide. (hide spoiler)] That book fits none of your preconceived notions.

What about The Zero Stone? Also YA...read that one in elementary.

YA is NOT a genre. Sorry it bothers you but there it is.

I notice you don't speak of any YA that is more than 10 years old (if that). So, what do you do with the rest of the YA/MG books? Those don't count anymore?


Only books that fall into your narrow range of categorization so that you can point and yell, "See!"

Strangely enough, if we take away the requirement of changing YA into a genre, Kenneth and I agree somewhat.

I do feel that publishers are trying to shove as many things as possible into the YA category for sales purposes. It annoys me quite a bit - I'm really big on categorization being correct.

I had a neighbor once who when he was a boy worked in a garment factory. All the dresses were on racks. When they ran out of size 12 dresses, he had to roll over a rack of size 10s, and they would sew size 12 labels into them.
You see what I'm saying? A dress, a book, can be slotted into more than one category. Which category it actually winds up in is purely a marketing decision. If YA is hot this year, yeah, then a lot of size 12 dresses suddenly have a size 10 label. Next year, a bunch of them will suddenly be Westerns, or New Adult, or whatever the latest hot category is.

Brenda wrote: "I had a neighbor once who when he was a boy worked in a garment factory. All the dresses were on racks. When they ran out of size 12 dresses, he had to roll over a rack of size 10s, and they would ..."

That's a great example.

No wonder clothes don't fit sometimes.

LOL I was thinking the same thing, David. That's a wonderful example, Brenda, and well said.

That is the other moral: that if you're buying a dress, try it on first.

This discussion reminded me a little of the protagonist in Ian McEwan’s The Child In Time:

“That Stephen Lewis had a lot of money and was famous among schoolchildren was the consequence of a clerical error, a moment’s inattention in the operation of the internal post at Gott’s, which had brought a parcel of typescript onto the wrong desk. That Stephen no longer mentioned this error—it was many years old now—was partly due to the royalty checks and advances that had flowed from Gott’s and his many foreign publishers ever since, and partly to the acceptance of fate that comes with one’s first aging.”

Colleen: you've done a better job than me at condensing the essence of what YA genre is: "the experience of being a teenager". Perfect!

Sabrina: The Ocean At The End of the Lane is definitely YA. Having read American Gods, I was excited for new Gaiman. I didn't read any reviews, just opened it. It was sadly not for me. I wanted something deeper, something more. The Hobbit has a lot of the "YA" traits, BUT it is not shallow, has deeper themes and language, and a few primary characters are killed.

Trike: I hated just about all of those books, perhaps except Call of the Wild. Would have to disagree about The Hobbit (see above) and Jungle Book might be debatable, but fair. Those two I also enjoyed. From my perspective, having read many books when I was a teenager which were considered then or are considered now "YA", I can only say it left me the impression to develop the genre criteria I previously posted and that it led me to conclude the genre was not for me.

David: IMO, Twilight is dreck in my opinion. It's a shallow story one step above fan fiction (50 shades) and with cardboard characters, poor writing, no subtext. But people love their thriller romance page turners. Not for me.

Brenda: I read a lot of different genres. Must confess my favorites are SF/Fantasy, history, philosophy. My personal issue is that it is perceptible as an insult when I hear some books I enjoyed being brought under a genre umbrella I ascribe negative characteristics to. Must again stress it's a personal conviction and the only thing I'm asserting here as 'fact' is that YA is a genre. People are of course free to enjoy it.

MrsJoseph: I am a categorization person. Why do I care so much? It doesn't matter right? I'm aspberger's autistic to some degree. It is a spectrum, they say. So it bugs me. And while we disagree that YA is a genre, my core personal issue is that so many publishers are dumping every new book into that 'category'. - and then others are retroactively re-assigning other books too.

Brenda: I don't try on dresses. I window shop and hope for a pleasant surprise based on author and reader recommendations. Usually things fit, but sometimes I find the size 12 and regret it.

Kenneth wrote: "Colleen: you've done a better job than me at condensing the essence of what YA genre is: "the experience of being a teenager". Perfect!"

That does seem to pretty much sum it up - more than genre or plotline or content, YA is from the teenage point of view, giving the teenage experience and perspective.

Which is why I don't usually read YA. Nothing against it, but I was already a teenager once and don't care to relive the experience *shudder*