Genre

[jade-sabre-301.livejournal.com]

Between that last post on marriage, and combing through other people's blogs referencing the books, I've come to realize there's an almost violent debate going on about classifying books according to age.  I was shocked when I first heard about people who disliked The Queen of Attolia simply because it was a darker book than its predecessor--it "exceeded" the "bounds" of YA fiction, which immediately brings up the question of "what is YA fiction anyway?"

That, along with some other comments, has prompted me to ask a few questions:

1)  Do you call the MWT books fantasy books?
    1a)  How do you define a "fantasy" novel?
    1b)  Someone--I couldn't find the comment, tell me if you know who it was--used the term "theological fantasy" for the books, which I found interesting.  Anyone else got different terms for them?

2)  What's the difference between "adult" fantasy versus YA fantasy versus children's fantasy?
    2a)  I include "children's" fantasy in there, because Fire and Hemlock is in the children's section of my library back home, and while I haven't read it (yet), my impression of it is that it would be better suited to YA.

3)  Corollary/larger picture of 2:  What makes a book YA versus adult?

Comments

[jade-sabre-301.livejournal.com]

I didn't want to post this within the actual post itself, because that's meant more for asking questions, so that the points can be made in the comments. So, here's an addition of my thinking on number 3:

I think the distinguishing line between children's and YA is easier in terms of issues--kids issues versus the issues you run into after you hit puberty. However, a lot of those puberty issues develop into the sorts of things that are covered in "adult" books, and so that line is greyer.
And even if you want to distinguish based on the main characters' ages--all right, in that case, The Thief is definitely YA. In QoA, Eugenides is still 16-18, so it's more of a darker kind of YA. However, in KoA, he is much more clearly an adult (he still sulks and such, but that's more his natural personality, versus his age, I think). And the other main characters--Attolia, Costis, Relius, Teleus, etc.--are all definitely adults.
(There is, also, the fact that "yeah, he's 18, but in a society that seems to have the age of 'maturity'" (or whatever you call it when people are "adults") "at about that age, so he's got a different place in society." I think Checkers covered that with the "well, why not make him 28?" thing, though.)

Anyhow, discuss away!

[etrangere.livejournal.com]

The secret is : YA books are books published by YA publishers. End of story.

[jade-sabre-301.livejournal.com]

But how do YA publishers pick the books they do? (Aside from the obvious, and depressing, "what they think will sell" answer.)

[etrangere.livejournal.com]

I think it's going to vary a lot depending on who makes the call, and the what they think will sell will matter a great deal too.

But it's obvious a lot of YA fictions could work as adult (and are read by adults indeed), and that some "adult" fictions can work as well as YA.

I don't know, these days, do they call Earthsea adult novels or YA? What about Eddings' books?

I mean, I don't believe there's some kind of platonician idea of what's a YA novel. These kind of categorizations are all about marketting.

De-lurking to say...

[abhyastamita.livejournal.com]

I just went to a talk on writing YA. There was a panel of three authors and then one agent. The agent made a big deal about "cross-over books" (books that can be marketed to both YA and adults; her example was, of course, Harry Potter) and how very desirable they were from a purely monetary standpoint. She did rush to say that yes, you could still publish books targeting only teenagers, but she wasn't exactly encouraging it. So I think the distinction is disappearing.

This is a good thing in that it allows writers more freedom in what they write and also to give due credit to their younger readers whose understanding of life and reading-ability are often much higher than adults tend to believe. But it also means that books in the YA section of the library aren't necessarily "safe" anymore. I remember some of the most horrific scenes I've ever read came out of there, usually in the books that were supposed to depict "real-life situations", usually involving fun stuff like drug abuse, child abuse, incest, etc. This is why I stuck to fantasy.

As for ages, I don't recall ever caring what age my protagonists were, but the publishers think we do...

Re: De-lurking to say...

[estarria.livejournal.com]

I had the exact same experience with YA books...that was the age when I got seriously into fantasy too. Writers think teens like to read scandalous stories...well, a good many of them do, but I never understood what was enjoyable about reading about the suffering of realistic people.

[tiloo.livejournal.com]

1) I don't think of TT, QoA and KoA as fantasy, just my personal take, I normally think of fantasy more as something more along the line of Harry Potter, Eragon, LotR, Disk World series, more majical you could say.
Megan Whalen Turner's trilogy seems more historical fiction, but could fall under the line of fantasy.

I bought the TT, QoA, and KoA in a young adult section, I am not sure if the sections are differnt in other places. Because alot of the books I buy are actually adult or young adult not childrens.
Personally I think around 12 years of age would be a good time for the QoA, the intricate politics might be a little above younger readers. I find it very dark, and it makes me feel ill but I still love it.

[jade-sabre-301.livejournal.com]

It does seem more like historical fiction, but it is very much its own world.
(A secret--I'm sort of struggling with that balance, because I'm trying to write something that doesn't take place in our world, but the world it does take place in doesn't have magic. In essence, the same sort of world as MWT's books, except without gods interferring, either. And I'm not sure how people approach that.)

I've seen the books both in the YA and the kids' sections. Heck, they do the same thing with Artemis Fowl. And they keep on sticking Ender's Game in the kids' section, when I believe that's a more YA book--sure, Ender's six, but he's a scary-as-hell six-year-old. I was mildly traumitized, and I read the book when I was fourteen. (on the other hand, perhaps it's good to expose kids to the issues of prejudice and stuff raised in the book, so maybe it does belong in the kids' section. I dunno. I would've been freaked out if I read it when I was eight, but I was a mildly sheltered child.)

[etrangere.livejournal.com]

There's a lot of fantasy novels with as little if not less "magic" as TT, QoA and KoA which are still classified as fantasy.

[avian-xj.livejournal.com]

1) I haven't really thought about it before now. I think i just call them fiction most of the time, but they could be called fantasy a bit too. I'll just stick with fiction.
1a) I never call anything fantasy. No particular reason, i just noticed that trying to define it. I do tend to think of fantasy as having more to do with magic i think... but not always.

2) I'm one of the weird kids who walked into the YA section of the library in 1st grade and hasn't really read anything else since - unless it was a books listed under YA some places and adult others and the only copy available was in the adult section. I didn't really notice any difference in those several books, but I guess that's why they were in both places. so my opinion is pretty useless...
2a) yeah, that's what i meant above, books listed in different places cause people don't really know where to stick them.

Really good questions... i just can't really answer any well :P. When I read a book, it doesn't much matter to me what section it was in or who published it. I just want to read the book for the story and characters and writing.

*doesn't feel like she said what she was trying to but whatever*

[estarria.livejournal.com]

1.) I wouldn't call them fantasy books either, but I've always had a hard time putting these books in a particular genre. Fantasy usually involves magic or a similar kind of abnormal power, and often deals with a specific set of ideas. There's often a central plot that deals with saving the country or the world -- in fact, there are a good many where the world can only be saved if the hero's country is also saved. Of course, the Queen's Thief characters are trying to save their country (countries) as well...but it's still not the same thing. There's no feeling that if they lose, some evil fiend will take over the world and life will descend into chaos. So I might call Queen's Thief historical fiction -- except that the world they're set in has never existed in real life. But that's still closer than fantasy, in my opinion.

[chocolatepot.livejournal.com]

Fantasy usually involves magic or a similar kind of abnormal power, and often deals with a specific set of ideas. There's often a central plot that deals with saving the country or the world -- in fact, there are a good many where the world can only be saved if the hero's country is also saved.

I think that's more a cliche that many or most adult fantasy novels tend toward, and less something that fantasy ought to have.

[ladyofastolat.livejournal.com]

I call the books fantasy, because they take place in a world that never existed. I group them along with certain other books - Lian Hearn's, for example - as magic-light fantasy, strongly inspired by history. My favourite fantasy series ever - George RR Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire - falls into a similar category, since there is barely any magic at all, at least in the first book. Guy Gavriel Kay often does similar, too - setting books in a very recognisable time and place in our world's past, but altering it very slightly.

As for age group: that's a tough question. With a lot of books, it's obvious. With fantasy and historical novels, it's a lot harder. I loved the historical novels of Rosemary Sutcliff when I was young, all of which were published as children's books, but usually had adult characters, albeit young ones. I still can't work out why they're children's books, not adult ones, except that they don't fall into the preconceived genres of adult historical novels (romance, whodunnit, or war story). They're just good stories.

I often wish there could be a section in libraries and book shops called "Books for all", which would include novels that anyone who's a competent reader, of any age, can like. This classifying by age only serves to exclude a lot of readers who would potentially like the book. I hate hearing adults say, "I wouldn't normally dream of reading a children's book, but of course Harry Potter is different." They still can't be persuaded to read any of the other great children's books out there. Because they're labelled "children's," they assume they'll be silly and trite. It's a great shame.

[kilerkki.livejournal.com]

Rosemary Sutcliff doesn't do (much) sex (and Blood and Sand, which has some, is typically filed with the adult books). That's about the only rationale I'VE been able to discover.

[ballerina-222.livejournal.com]

hi, I know it's off topic, but I love your name! I was just reading a book where the girl was called Elaine, and people called her the lily maid of astolat.

[chocolatepot.livejournal.com]

Good questions!

I would say that, given the artificial world and presence of actual gods, the books are fantasy. For me, fantasy books have magic, whether wizarding or everyday or godlike, and/or are set in a world that is not this one (exception made for science fiction). I like the term "theological fantasy", but I would apply it more to a book about a real religion that promotes or explores the religion with fantasy elements like god-magic. I'm not really sure where I'd put somethingg like American Gods, as it's about real religions and exploring them, but doesn't have the sort of belief that I'd label "theological fantasy".

I consider YA fantasy to be not less dark than adult, but to treat themes and characters differently. As a perspective thing. A YA book isn't going to go too much into the terror of eventual death, for example, or the minutia of middle-aged married life (asdhjkahdkja White Noise); it could have the possibility of being killed or being married, either romantically or politically. Children's fantasy is more simply written and has a rather innocent perspective, maybe simplifying characterizations.

A very big difference is that YA fantasy is, on the whole, better than adult fantasy. Adult fantasy tends to run to long books and names with apostraphes in them and all of that stereotyped stuff about special swords and things. YA fantasy has more original ideas, I think, likely because the people who love YA grow up to become authors who love YA, and they're tired of the same old adult fantasy books. Or something.

[chocolatepot.livejournal.com]

Oh, and:

I find it very interesting that people in general, I think, tend to identify fantasy with the outmoded cliches and consider a book they like that has fantasy elements as historical or general.

By which I mean THANKS A LOT, ADULT FANTASY AUTHORS.

[keestone.livejournal.com]

Sounds like you're reading the wrong "adult" fantasy. :) As with most adult fiction, the good stuff generally isn't what sells best. It's the whole Lowest Common Denominator thing.

In other words, Douglas Adams rather than Piers Anthony. Bujold and Brust rather than Brooks. Guy Gavriel Kay rather than Terry Goodkind. McKillip and McKinley rather than McCaffrey.

[keestone.livejournal.com]

I'm the one who brought up the term "Theological Fantasy." I really like books that can explore thorny theological questions without getting into sticky religious debate, and I love it when authors use their invented pantheons as more than window dressing. :) One of the things that makes the series fantasy is the real and active presence of the gods. (If it weren't for the gods, it would still be alternate fiction type fantasy along the lines of Guy Gavriel Kay, but we do have real gods that are essential to the plot.) In The Thief we get Gen's very real reaction to discovering that the gods he's paid lip service to out of habit are not only real and active, but are also paying attention to him. In The Queen of Attollia it gets even deeper, with a variation on the question of how bad things can happen to good people if their god is meant to be protecting them.

I've read Children's, YA, and "Adult" books just about indiscriminately since I was seven or so. (I read 1984 when I was eight, and it scared the pants off of me.) I currently teach tutorials for a "Children's Literature" university course, and Blake's Songs of Innocence and Experience and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn are both on the course along with Harry Potter and The Wizard of Oz. Blake did not write for children, but adults decided the poems were suitable for children. Why? Because they described children? Because the poems have simple rhythm and strong imagery? Twain wrote Huck Finn as for children, but it's considered a Great American Masterpiece and Serious Literature. Once again, why? Because it's not overtly didactic and Huck isn't a "good" boy? Because Twain critiques racism and other problems with society? Because Huck doesn't use Standard English? It's murky trying to classify things or even trying to decide if there truly can be such a thing as "Children's" literature. There are marketing categories, there are prejudices as to what is considered worthy, what is considered appropriate, etc. There are not easily definable boundaries.

YA is a pretty new marketing category, and it is just that. Some authors write more directly to perceived markets than others do. I never really liked many non-fantasy YA books, because so many of them seemed to be making sure to Discuss Issues Relevant to Teens in a serious manner deserving capitalization. When it comes to fantasy, I don't think there's too much difference other than the name of the publisher, with the possible exceptions of vocabulary and possibly sex / violence. I don't know how you'd find the cut off point for acceptable levels of sex or violence though. Lloyd Alexander's Westmark series treats war and its horrors very seriously, yet it's written in wonderfully simple language, is generally considered YA (I think), and was shelved in the Children's section of my library.

[jade-sabre-301.livejournal.com]

I really like books that can explore thorny theological questions without getting into sticky religious debate

hee! That's exactly what my last post was about. It's also something I've been working on in my own writing--I created a paladin, and then one day, it occurred to me that maybe I should figure out why he's so devout when so many other people don't care. (of course, it's easier when you know the gods exist, but still.)

Lloyd Alexander's Westmark series treats war and its horrors very seriously, yet it's written in wonderfully simple language, is generally considered YA (I think), and was shelved in the Children's section of my library.

Oooh, I LOVED those books. *needs to reread* But I think you hit the nail on the head for why his books are "children"--it's the simple language. He also wrote a book called The Iron Ring, which is set in an India-type land and follows the adventures of a prince deeply ingrained in the caste system, and at one point, he falls so far he is forced to do something unclean. When I read it--I'd say it's written for kids of a minimum of 8-10 years old, and I was fifteenish--I was overwhelmed by what I knew was going on--Lloyd didn't expressly say it, or really even delve that deeply into it, aside from setting up the character's positions early on, but I knew what was going through his mind, and I wished that it had been written, just a little more fully. But it hadn't because it was a "kid's book"--not that kids couldn't understand it, but that he tries to keep things simpler so that kids can still get the basic idea...you know? Whereas someone from my POV, who'd studied that sort of thing before, had more knowledge and therefore wanted something a little more comprehensive.

The important point, of course, is that he went there at all.

Gah, I love that man's books. (I constantly recommend him when people say "oh, there's no real fantasy for kids to read these days, Eragon's all right for a start--no, it's not. All right for a start is this stuff: Simple in writing, but not in concepts. Taran doesn't get his Summer Country ending; people die in the Westmark books; and the Raja ends up near the dung heap.) ♥

/waxing poetic about how fantastically wonderful Lloyd Alexander is

[philia-fan.livejournal.com]

You know, Jade, this is a huge can of worms, and kidlit blogs all over the place have been debating these points endlessly. But I have to say, the comments I've seen here are very well-thought-out and bring up some great points, some of which I hadn't considered before.
I wrestle with this kind of stuff all the time. How, as a writer, do you label your work, when you don't even WANT it to fit into a genre? Unfortunately, agents and publishers seem to desperately want to put it into one.
No one really knows what the categories mean, though -- or rather, they can't agree on it. Some say YA starts at 12, some say 14, some say 10. I've seen QoA in the children's section. Also Alexandre Dumas. I've seen Eva Ibbotson shelved in YA. In the same library. It's confusing.
And fantasy -- it took me the longest time to admit I wrote fantasy, because I was afraid people would assume that meant dragons and sorcerors and prophecies.
Anyway, I love the idea of the "Books for all" section!!!
And welcome to all the new folks expressing themselves so thoughtfully here!

[jade-sabre-301.livejournal.com]

I know. Y'all keep linking to these blogs, and I keep reading them and getting confused--but yeah, this group is pretty fantastic.

Fantasy, for me at least, involves the tiniest hint of a power that exists beyond what we as humans can understand, but as a part of the world in which you're dealing. (I suddenly realize that this could, in some cases, be applicable to God; but while I would say God exists as a part of the world we deal in, he's not so...hm...heavy-handed, perhaps? Which is wrong, because for me, this "heavy-handedness" is often better lightly served, as in KoA, but hopefully I get my meaning across. Talk about a can of worms...XD)

[crazyviolin.livejournal.com]

I always refer to them as historical fantasy, so a cross between historical fiction and fantasy. However, my favourite books are lined on a shelf running the width of my room and they're all shelved in chronological order. The Thief is at the end of the medieval section next to The Greatest Knight by Elizabeth Chadwick and KoA is next to The Shakespeare Stealer series (with QoA in the middle obviously). Now I seem really sad but there we go. All my fantasy is at the end after a few futuristic ones, about as far away from the historical fiction as possible.

I mainly only read YA but some of my friends like adult thrillers which I occasionally peruse if they're set far enough back in time.

From a friend

[peggy-2.livejournal.com]

Here is an interesting view point from a friend of mine via email on this post (reprinted with permission) ~

i liked jade's opinion of ya, that it lies in the accessibility of the language more than in anything else. it's seems like a working proposition anyway.

in my youth, (probably yours, too?) the phrase i heard was "adolescent problem novel." librarians used to chase me down waving books like, "summer of my german soldier" and "the outsiders" and "the chocolate war." after all, I was a "good" reader, right? i am a sensitive person, I suppose; reading those books was like living through the experiences of the main character. why, i wondered, would people expect me to enjoy experiencing parental neglect and abuse?

i think the biggest reason for my interest in fantasy and science fiction was an attempt to avoid YA problem novels. (i missed chicklit, I guess.) i think other people on the list may have taken a similar path, tilting toward ursula leguin and andre norton and alistair maclean novels.

i know there are people, some of them friends of mine even, who went for all those misery books. I'm glad the books exist for those readers. Chacun son gout and all that, but it does bother me how defenders of the these books and their places on library shelves can slip from saying "everyone should be able to read this book" to "everyone should read this book." as if you're a better person after reading the chocolate war. and if you are not willing to read it, it can only be because you are an "escapist" trying to avoid "real life." as if science fiction and fantasy, don't deal with stepfamilies, and alienation, and self-determination, independence, responsibility, or the nature of privilege. and as if you can't really be enlightened without suffering, and as if you can't be trusted with the responsibility of choosing the right book at the right time.

i'm a bad person, i guess, but i don't think Bridge to Terebithia should be automatically assigned to the fifth grade year after year. there will be children who just aren't ready to deal. one size doesn't fit all. have you read medinger's blog Educating Alice? i do admire the fact that she checks her class out and thinks carefully before she reads coraline by neill gaiman, and that some years she doesn't read it. i think we can trust kids to identify tough books and to reach for them when their ready for them. hmm. i also think I am being waaay too pedantic here. sorry. a book can be brilliant without me enjoying it (octavian nothing for example) but holy cow did I resent those librarians who tried to inveigle me into reading Judy Bloom. My response was always, "that's my life. I AM a fifth grader, why would I want to READ about it? isn't it enough that I live through it every day?"

To you I say "Down with assigned reading! Freedom of Choice for all!"

[checkers65477.livejournal.com]

The freedom of reading choice issue makes me think of what aged_crone is going through right now, with the powers that be wanting her to list Lexile levels on all the books to steer kids to books on their "level." Gah!

it does bother me how defenders of the these books and their places on library shelves can slip from saying "everyone should be able to read this book" to "everyone should read this book."

I blame teachers for a lot of that. A collegue of mine had an author come to her school and they did a "whole school read" of his book. They were going to have book discussion groups prior to his visit, too. Some of the English teachers said they would teach the book in class and my friend said, "No! Anything but that!"