SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion

YA as a genre is about as descriptive as "literature" as a genre.

There's YA romance, YA Sci-fi, YA Fantasy, YA mystery, YA adventure, so on and so forth.

That's what bugs me about "genres" and trying to cram books into genres. Most of what find in the "literature" section could also go somewhere else... Many romance could also be adventure or mystery, I remember going into a Borders awhile back and seeing that they added a Horror section (teeny tiny) and remembering that a week before all those books had been in mystery/thriller or sci-fi/fantasy.

And so many books now get dumped into YA when they really aren't... I always think of Cherie Priest's Boneshaker. She said in an interview she did not write it as YA and it wasn't really intended for kids... but hey her main character was a teen so BAM! YA... And I think that happens a lot. Ender's Game does not seem like a YA book to me. I've read it several times, the first time when I was 18 and I don't know if I would have enjoyed it/understood it as well if I read it at 12-15. I read it again later in life and enjoyed it even more. Sure the main character is a kid... but the book is not written for kids.

Kenneth wrote: "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."

We have the same complaint but go in different directions.

To me, it does matter. YA is not a genre and in order to have a good conversation we have to be on the same page. And I feel that you (not that you are alone) are essentially changing the definition of a word. That way leads to anarchy. Well, maybe anarchy is a bit of a stretch but still.

This reminds me of the whole "ebonics" conversation. The whole idea of changing a language in that manner makes me want to cry and I get that nails on chalkboard feeling.

Changing definitions is one step from making "Text speak" acceptable English. *shudder*


This is my problem: YA is a big seller right now, even out selling the "mommyporn."

What is happening is that every single writer is trying jump on one of two bandwagons:

1) Twilight FanFic (this is the mommyporn like 50 Shades of Grey)
2) YA (hunger games, here we come!)

The problem with this is that the authors are all bandwagoning and basically churning out the same stuff. YA used to be the most diverse of the age groups (which is how you get Starship Troopers and Rikki-Tikki-Tavi in the same marketing group) since young people are still "trying stuff out."

Now its all carbon copies of the same thing. People are putting down YA because they are getting the impression that all YA is the same YA. I feel that the current crop of YA Authors & Publishers are the problem here, not the marketing age range.


Eh, I'm starting to ramble.

tl;dr = Kenneth, I understand & share your concerns, we are just looking at it from different view points and different levels of understanding. (understanding is the wrong word...I can't think of one more appropriate right now.)

Kenneth,

I think people find meaning in different things. So what one might find shallow, another will find profound meaning in the same thing. Something can be simply expressed and yet still have meaning. Look at the way children express themselves. They state the absolute truth of things, often cutting right to the core of a matter without adding philosophical frills.

I thought Ocean was very deep. While I thought Gaiman's 'Neverwhere' was just a fun fantastical romp. I haven't read American Gods yet.

You've stated your definition of YA. So if Ocean fits that criteria, why wasn't it put in YA category? I can only think of one reason. And it goes back to Brenda's very simple, yet deep, illustration. It's all marketing.

I'd like to add that alot of readers avoid the Fantasy genre for the very reasons you stated, yet as a fellow fan of the genre, I can say that this is not the case.

Kathryn wrote: "YA as a genre is about as descriptive as "literature" as a genre."

Fair point - but literary is considered a genre, at least by some. So is classics, though that's equally uninformative. The fact that it's a broad category doesn't mean it's not a valid one...


MrsJ - you keep stating categorically that YA is not a genre. I believe I have given many valid reasons as to why some people legitimately consider it a genre. You don't have to consider it a genre, but some people do and will continue to do so. Repeating your original assertion isn't going to change anything.

Colleen wrote: "Kathryn wrote: "YA as a genre is about as descriptive as "literature" as a genre."

Fair point - but literary is considered a genre, at least by some. So is classics, though that's equally uninform..."

True. I should no longer stay in the discussion.

Kathryn,

Good points. With every other genre the first word is a descriptive. IE: epic Fantasy, historical romance, etc. in a sense, they are used to place a book into a subcategory of a genre, but the first label is not the genre itself. YA is always expressed as YA Fantasy, YA romance, not the other way around: Romance YA.

I'm waiting for mommyporn it become an official genre. With its own special shelf at bookstores.

I've been reading/skimming as you all debate along. But I can't help notice one thing, those who say YA is simply marketing, appear not to notice that all genre classifications are essentially marketing.

The classifications are to make it easier for fans of that type of writing, to do find more of it. Otherwise, there would simply be no need for genre classifications of any kind, and we'd all make do with the Dewey Decimal System.

I also find the arguments made by those who say YA works have traits in common to be more compelling than those who say all YA fiction could also be classified as other genres as well. Almost all genres overlap with one or more genres. That point has already been well made by others, particularly the person who pointed out that the 'classics' genre has quite a wide variety under its umbrella.

I think all 'genres' come into being when the body of work that might fall under its umbrella reaches a certain 'critical mass', such that there are enough titles to populate a new genre type. And, I wouldn't find it surprising for 'new genres' to meet resistance from some. Such is always the way of 'new things', isn't it? ;-)

Sabrina wrote: "Kathryn,

Good points. With every other genre the first word is a descriptive. IE: epic Fantasy, historical romance, etc. in a sense, they are used to place a book into a subcategory of a genre, bu..."

That's actually a good point. Doesn't change my opinion though, because you can have "romance SF" or "paranormal romance" (basically the same thing?). Neither would I read... but you do have a point about "YA" always being the first word and not the second. Nothing can really be cut and dry. The lines between all genres are pretty blurred.

Back to Ocean... it started off great. So dark and fantastical. And then all of that was reduced into a neat little coming of age story. I felt like I'd seen the ocean in the puddle... only to discover that it's just a puddle. That left me feeling unsatisfied by it. If the story ended half way through, it would make a great short story.

also, what's "MG" stand for?

Kenneth wrote: Nothing can really be cut and dry. The lines between all genres are pretty blurred.

I totally agree with the above, Kenneth. All these new genres and sub-genres just give me a headache, but I realize I'm in the minority. Which is why it's great that everyone can label their own reading list with sites like Goodreads.

At this point, after reading all the comments, I think I'm on the fence as to what the reading community as a whole considers it, although in my mind (with the way my mind works) it's an age grouping. The Wiki page can't even decide if it's a genre or age grouping. We're likely in the middle of a transition or something.

At the risk of sparking another discussion... Is NA already considered a genre? Is it a sub-genre? Are we going to start seeing NA shelves alongside Mommyporn (I hate that word) signs in bookstores?

Kenneth wrote: "also, what's "MG" stand for?"

Middle Grade. 9-12. The level below YA but above chapter books.

MK wrote: "I've been reading/skimming as you all debate along. But I can't help notice one thing, those who say YA is simply marketing, appear not to notice that all genre classifications are essentially marketing."

Yeah, no.

Genres existed as things before the marketers got their hands on them.

Whatever the flavor of the month is will see a dramatic rise in its book population, regardless of how tenuous the connection of the content is to that particular genre.

Just because marketers twist genres doesn't mean they created genres.

For the record, I do think YA is a genre, but it's a genre the way "drama" and "comedy" are genres. They're kind of non-specific, rather like flavors.

Support Your Local Sheriff -- Western Comedy
Back to the Future -- Science Fiction Comedy
This Is The End -- Fantasy Comedy
Get Shorty -- Gangster Comedy
While You Were Sleeping -- Romantic Comedy

...and so on.

Trike wrote: "... genres existed as things before the marketers got their hands on them...."

That is simply an assertion, not grounded in business, Trike. Marketing has existed since products have been sold. Genres are simply a way for people to find more of a certain type of thing. How you can argue that is not, fundamentally a marketing technique, ... I don't know, not seeing it.

For what reason do you assert genres exist, and who might have created them, if not marketers (whether they were booksellers, publishers, or authors themselves)?

Sabrina wrote: "At the risk of sparking another discussion... Is NA already considered a genre? Is it a sub-genre? Are we going to start seeing NA shelves alongside Mommyporn (I hate that word) signs in bookstores?..."

LOL! Couldn't't help , I laughed :-D.

In all seriousness, though, what IS that category? I noticed it for the first time just a few weeks ago, when I was in the library for the first time in over a decade. It was on a cart behind the counter, so I couldn't see what titles were on it. I puzzled out it for awhile, finally thinking that is simply meant New releases in adult fiction. Then I started noticing around the threads on gr, and figured it meant something else. What DOES it mean??? Tia!

Considering that genre, as a concept, goes back to Plato and Aristotle, I'm gonna definitely side with Trike on this one.

Trike wrote: "For the record, I do think YA is a genre, but it's a genre the way "drama" and "comedy" are genres. They're kind of non-specific, rather like flavors.

Support Your Local Sheriff -- Western Comedy ..."


Oh, okay, I see what you're saying. Yea, I can buy that.

Colleen wrote: "Considering that genre, as a concept, goes back to Plato and Aristotle, I'm gonna definitely side with Trike on this one."

Well, since money, Greek tragedies, comedies, and choruses predate both of them, I'll side with the marketers ;-)


Edit to add, ps - Laughing a bit ... apparently Plato underwent something of this debate himself! He decided poetry wasn't a real genre ;-)

In literature, genre has been known as an intangible taxonomy. This taxonomy implies a concept of containment or that an idea will be stable forever.The earliest recorded systems of genre in Western history can be traced back to Plato and Aristotle. Gérard Genette, a French literary theorist and author of The Architext, describes Plato as creating three Imitational genres: dramatic dialogue, pure narrative and epic (a mixture of dialogue and narrative). Lyric poetry, the fourth and final type of Greek literature, was excluded by Plato as a non-mimetic mode. Aristotle later revised Plato's system by eliminating the pure narrative as a viable mode and distinguishing by two additional criteria: the object to be imitated, as objects could be either superior or inferior, and the medium of presentation such as words, gestures or verse. Essentially, the three categories of mode, object, and medium can be visualized along an XYZ axis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genres

MK wrote: "Sabrina wrote: "At the risk of sparking another discussion... Is NA already considered a genre? Is it a sub-genre? Are we going to start seeing NA shelves alongside Mommyporn (I hate that word) sig..."

Someone explained New Adult (NA) to me in another thread, because I had not heard of it either. Basically, from my understanding and the way they explained it... it's YA's answer to include sex, abuse, and more violence. Here is what it's wiki page says:

New Adult (NA) fiction is a developing genre of fiction with protagonists in the 18-25 age bracket. The term was first coined by St. Martin's Press in 2009 when they held a special call for "...fiction similar to YA that can be published and marketed as adult—a sort of an 'older YA' or 'new adult'."

New Adult fiction tends to focus on issues such as leaving home, developing sexuality, and negotiating education and career choices.

I wonder if they will come up with some catchy term for the next age brackets:

25-35: Intermediate Adult
35-45: Professional Adult
45-55: Mature Adult
55-65: Seasoned Adult
65-Onwards: Advanced Adult

Sabrina wrote: "MK wrote: "Sabrina wrote: "At the risk of sparking another discussion... Is NA already considered a genre? Is it a sub-genre? Are we going to start seeing NA shelves alongside Mommyporn (I hate tha..."

LOL! Those are great "intermediate adult" *snort*

TY, appreciate the explanation :)

MK wrote: "Trike wrote: "... genres existed as things before the marketers got their hands on them...."

That is simply an assertion, not grounded in business, Trike. Marketing has existed since products have..."

It's not my opinion. I was doing my PhD on genres before I had to leave school due to financial reasons. That's why it bugs me when people dismiss genres as "mere marketing" when they aren't. Marketing in the sense we understand it didn't exist when Plato was forming the prototypical genres.

While some philosophers charged fees for lectures and teaching, others (such as Socrates) did not. Some plays cost a small amount of money to attend, while others were free, or underwritten by a patron. There was no advertising as we think of it today; it was primarily word of mouth alerting people that a new play was available to watch.

There was no "selling" of stories, plays and poems back then. People like Plato and Aristotle were either independently wealthy landowners, earned a living as tutors and/or teachers or had wealthy patrons.

The book market today is dominated by the 14-29 age group. That's why YA is being so strongly catered to and why the New Adult category was created. But there was no such thing back then. It wasn't a competition between plays the way we know it nowadays.

Once people started creating new genres and the middlemen realized there was a buck to be made by selling people stories, plays and songs similar to what they already liked, that's when marketing really came into its own and co-opted the extant genres.

Genres started as academic consideration of storytelling tropes and, despite the salesmen trying to cram whatever they can into the genre du jour, that's really where they belong: away from considerations of the market.

Trike wrote: "MK wrote: "Trike wrote: "... genres existed as things before the marketers got their hands on them...."

That is simply an assertion, not grounded in business, Trike. Marketing has existed since pr..."

I think you make some very good points about the nature of genres. Unfortunately, when people go to book stores, it is going to be the marketing side that they are exposed to. Bookstores, after all, are in the business of making money. If they think that labelling (correct or otherwise) will help, then that is what they will do.

Edit: In case it isn't clear, I do agree with what you're saying about genres, and I think it's a pity that the original meaning of the term has largely been lost outside of a select few areas.

Sabrina wrote: "Kenneth wrote: Nothing can really be cut and dry. The lines between all genres are pretty blurred.

I totally agree with the above, Kenneth. All these new genres and sub-genres just give me a he..."

I hope not. I've not discovered what could possibly fit in New Adult. Even the mommyporn stuff could still be shelved as Romance or Thriller or something else.

After reading the definition given above, I can see what kind of book it might be. Also something I'm not interested in. The shallow, simple writing style of YA, but with adult themes.

To Sturgeon's Law, there is Edsall's Corollary (for academic writing)--most books are better served as articles; most articles don't need to be written.

For fiction, Edsall's Corollary would look like this--most novels are better served as novellas or short stories; most short stories don't need to be written.

Son to Dad: "I don't want any of your science fiction." On son's bookshelf: Ender's Game, Mockingjay, Ready Player One.

Cracks me up.

one and a half out of 3 aint bad. :)

And therein lies the big issue, I think. Shallowness isn't part of the publishing world's definition of YA. So if Ender's Game and The Hobbit came out today... they would both be shelved as YA. The Name of the Wind might even be shelved as NA. It goes back to Brenda's illustration, which is why I won't dismiss a book just because of its label.

I sometimes get comments from people who tell me that I read rubbish.
Who are these people? They sound like total snobs. Read what you enjoy, what makes you happy, what gets you off, what makes you sad, or mad ... just read for the sheer joy of it, whatever you read. Nothing else matters.

Gerhard, hurray! I echo your sentiments wholeheartedly!

Kgwhitehurst wrote: "To Sturgeon's Law, there is Edsall's Corollary (for academic writing)--most books are better served as articles; most articles don't need to be written.

For fiction, Edsall's Corollary would look like this--most novels are better served as novellas or short stories; most short stories don't need to be written."

Related to this (and not the overall YA discussion or the OP's initial post), Jack Chalker once said that he didn't think turning short stories into novels did anything but increase the length of the story.

In my experience, he's correct. In many cases, increasing the length actually ruined the story.

I think it's fairly true. It's hard to turn a short story into a novel and not have it full of emptiness. Less truly is more, in most cases.

A perfect example of your trenchant comment, Trike, is "Flowers for Algernon".

Adeeb wrote: "Hi,

So this has happened to me and I am really curious to why this happens. Being a huge booknerd in the family, I sometimes get comments from people who tell me that I read rubbish. I read the yo..."


Adeeb wrote: "Hi,

So this has happened to me and I am really curious to why this happens. Being a huge booknerd in the family, I sometimes get comments from people who tell me that I read rubbish. I read the yo..."
I am always amazed by this or whichever form this kind of prejudice takes. Sci fi has no value? Show them the stories of how Star Trek changed the world.
Do they make the claim that the classics of yesteryear told stories that preached values and history? If they do ask them why it always seems so thrilling for them to read or watch stories that never happened,(or at least not the way they are being told)yet blast you for watching stories that could still happen if we play our cards right. Or if we get everything wrong, they might just be the thing that gives somebody the idea that might just save us all. Tell them that stories are supposed to inspire. Whether the battle it tells of is fought with a club or a ray gun. They are supposed to show the part of humanity that is better. The biggest difference is that today, that part is more dissected and examined, letting the reader see that every hero isn't always a perfect person. That's always been the part to me,(oh I have dealt with these kinds as well,)that made me maddest. Heroes used to be one dimensional. The readers liked the idea that their heroes did their job and went home without any regard for what was coming next. They also like the idea that the hero didn't worry about paying his rent or food bills. in westerns they just sat around the campfire and ate whatever they killed for supper.
Oh I love the way they say sci fi has nothing going for it. Next time just ask what theirs is actually about or what they get from it. My guess is the answer will amuse you.

Kgwhitehurst wrote: "A perfect example of your trenchant comment, Trike, is "Flowers for Algernon"."

To be fair, it's not my observation, but I'm perfectly willing to bask in the reflected glow.

Another excellent example is Ender's Game. The short story is quite good and short enough that you don't see the ending coming. The novel, however, telegraphs that ending to you ahead of time. I wish I had read the short story first, because it would have been much more enjoyable.

Adeeb wrote: "Hi,

So this has happened to me and I am really curious to why this happens. Being a huge booknerd in the family, I sometimes get comments from people who tell me that I read rubbish. I read the yo..."

I happened to just read a short story that directly relates to your experience. Recommend you look up "Casey's Empire" by Nancy Kress.

A good book is a good book; a great story is a great story; a well-written work is well-written - regardless of genre, format, or in what area of the library or store it happens to be shelved.