YA Fiction: Prestige-free?

[estragon]

Poor J. K. Rowling. Down to her last three hundred million pounds. No prestige. Tell you what, ol' chop, I'll take one-one-hundred-fiftieth of that sum, and y'all can have as much prestige as y'can fit in yer pantaloons.

 

[LettersFromTatyana]

Poor J. K. Rowling. Down to her last three hundred million pounds. No prestige. Tell you what, ol' chop, I'll take one-one-hundred-fiftieth of that sum, and y'all can have as much prestige as y'can fit in yer pantaloons.

I was thinking of the opening ceremonies when I read this thread. Which authors had their stories acted out (beside Shakespeare)? Rowling, Barrie, Dodie Smith (for 101 Dalmatians), and P.L. Tavers (for Mary Poppins).

Almost all women, writing in the "un-prestigious" children's category.

Take that, V.S. Naipaul.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I agree but I aint speaking of the story per se, I speak of the attitude behind the writing. Camille Paglia, Florence King, Peggy Noonan (occasionally), and Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings are females I designate WINNER. I read whatever they write/wrote.

Haha yeah, that list is perfectly in character. All of them make, or made, a living by hating people in print. They are the other exception that proves the other rule, now that I think about it.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I was thinking of the opening ceremonies when I read this thread. Which authors had their stories acted out (beside Shakespeare)? Rowling, Barrie, Dodie Smith (for 101 Dalmatians), and P.L. Tavers (for Mary Poppins).

Almost all women, writing in the "un-prestigious" children's category.

Take that, V.S. Naipaul.

Travers was furious. She refused to sell any more rights to anyone ever again.

 

[LettersFromTatyana]

Travers was furious. She refused to sell any more rights to anyone ever again.

You mean furious at Disney for the movie Mary Poppins? Yeah, I can see that. It's sugary, even for that era of Disney.

It's a shame she couldn't have taken the Rowling approach and controlled a good chunk of that movie.

 

[Stella_Omega]

You mean furious at Disney for the movie Mary Poppins? Yeah, I can see that. It's sugary, even for that era of Disney.

It's a shame she couldn't have taken the Rowling approach and controlled a good chunk of that movie.

yes, it was a shame. There was no system for that-- Rowling got good lawyers.

 

[Verdad]

I was thinking of the opening ceremonies when I read this thread. Which authors had their stories acted out (beside Shakespeare)? Rowling, Barrie, Dodie Smith (for 101 Dalmatians), and P.L. Tavers (for Mary Poppins).

Almost all women, writing in the "un-prestigious" children's category.

A. A. Milne (Winnie the Pooh). Lewis Carroll, too. And of course, you could say William Blake was enacted in a major way, with some Milton and Tolkien thrown in. Still an excellent point, though.

Take that, V.S. Naipaul.

The Salon article actually reminded me of this Naipaul dude only in reverse, and even if that isn't a completely logical parallel, it's why it annoyed me even more.

 

[emap]

There is one thing I don't get, why the hell was it an article?

Seriously think about it, publishers flock to the people who sell books. There is the prestige right there. All the rest of the crap she was spouting off about was what people think of the author in question. Other authors are known to read books and will make comments in support of one they like.

There's no prestige lost because this lady writes YA books instead of whatever other category. Hell I feel old, when I was at the YA age there was a section for it in the library, whole half a row. Half of the half row wasn't really YA books.

Boys don't read the YA books because hell they would rather read comics or shocker of shockers, play games. Used to be baseball, football, and basketball, and it sorta still is, just inside on the 360 or PS3. Seriously, go in to a comic shop or watch who does, it is almost entirely boys ages 10-15.

 

[firesflair]

That's why I try not to exclude people when I write. Once you mention an age, hair colour, body type, ethnicity, breast size, cock size, you are excluding people. Leave that out and we can all imagine we are the "hero/heroine".

I'm not going to say that this is true for everyone, but like mynameisben, I just automatically alter the appearance of the people I read no matter the age they actually are. It's actually really hard for me to remember more then their personalities (But then I read a lot of books fairly fast).

Though beyond mentioning the firm/strong/hot chest of the males in my writing I basically leave it up to the reader to remember the description of the characters. Not that I've written anything I've shared yet (one story is canceled the other I've been editing for over a year. I got distracted...)

 

[firesflair]

from what I remember, YA writing is probably predominately female writes, most likely because girls are more likely to read fiction then guys. I'm not saying that's a hard truth, but it's what I saw growing up and see even now.
I did read a little YA, but before I was finished highschool I'd stopped visiting that section every visit. I find that I cannot make myself read much of what is considered YA because of the writing style, level and vocab. If the writing/book's not awesome I will get bored with a few pages and put it down. Besides that the plot I read on the backs of the books usually make me cringe...like with twilight (no offense), I decided I'd stay with the adult vampire writes I was already reading.

 

[Verdad]

Besides that the plot I read on the backs of the books usually make me cringe...like with twilight (no offense), I decided I'd stay with the adult vampire writes I was already reading.

Of course, Twilight is hardly a YA book par excellence, which slipped by the author because she was busy categorizing books by the writer's gender. Twilight is first of all a romance. Harry Potter started as a straight children's book and progressed toward YA as the series went on. Of the three, Hunger Games is probably the purest example.

The three books aren't just not in quite the same genre, they’re also not in the same league, which has to be said even if I'm not a great admirer of JKR. There's plenty to criticize about her books; the prose is nothing to write home about; character development, for all there are seven tomes of the story, is practically nonexistent; and if you ask me, Harry is really not a likeable protag at all. I have to wonder if even the rich quirkiness of her world, surely her strongest point, would have been so enticing without movie magic to back it up, but that can only remain an idle speculation.

Be that as it may, though, JKR was read by the world, made history, and as far as it's possible to judge from such proximity, made additions to our collective mythos I imagine will be with us for some time. She barely deserves to be lumped with Meyer just because it's apparently the most prominent feature of both that they're women.

 

[estragon]

"and if you ask me, Harry is really not a likeable protag at all."

Agree completely. Harry Potter is a self-absorbed, self-indulgent, over-entitled (by his own estimation), kvetchy, complaining little twit--which is why he has universal appeal to teenagers, of whom the overwhelming majority are exactly like that, and for adults, who remember their own teenage years or are reliving them through their own offspring.

JKR got him exactly right. And was rewarded accordingly. And she's protected her copyrights like a lioness.

 

[Verdad]

"and if you ask me, Harry is really not a likeable protag at all."

Agree completely. Harry Potter is a self-absorbed, self-indulgent, over-entitled (by his own estimation), kvetchy, complaining little twit--which is why he has universal appeal to teenagers, of whom the overwhelming majority are exactly like that, and for adults, who remember their own teenage years or are reliving them through their own offspring.

Ha, great point! And I’d mind it not at all if I had the impression that was intentional, but the thing is, I think I disliked Harry not because he’s a realistically annoying teen but because JKR felt to me blind to it. I felt she wanted to compensate a beloved character for his Oliver Twist-ish childhood and the burden of the special fate (precisely the things that make us sympathize) so much that he ended up being the privileged brat whose flaws are excused and even exalted and who’s always right simply by virtue of being who he is.

To draw an obvious parallel, it’s never a feeling you get with Frodo. There’s a small guy with a heavy burden you truly feel for, without having an impression he’s winking at you and going “aren’t I such a tragically heroic small guy, carrying such a tragically heavy burden?”

Generally I found there to be a streak of self-righteousness, partisanship, and even vindictiveness in JKR’s ethos that I didn’t appreciate, and as I said earlier, the lack of internal change bothered me. Though some token gestures were made, I felt the characters ended up in the same place they begun.

Don’t get me wrong, though; I don’t mean any of it as completely damning. In the end, for whatever reason, the books captured my imagination, and that’s certainly not a gift to spit at.

 

[PennLady]

See, now I had a totally different take on Harry Potter. I saw a boy who lost his parents, was thrown in with people who didn't like him (although it later turned out they were afraid of him), who neglected if not abused him, and then was thrown into this world where he knew none of the rules, but everyone thought he did, or should, and no one took the time to explain. If he was going to be a little pissed about things, I figured he had some right to it.

I thought Harry held up remarkably well for having all these things thrust upon him with no explanation but tons of expectations.

I'm generally not big on young protagonists, but I sympathized with Harry.

 

[Cruel2BKind]

See, now I had a totally different take on Harry Potter. I saw a boy who lost his parents, was thrown in with people who didn't like him (although it later turned out they were afraid of him), who neglected if not abused him, and then was thrown into this world where he knew none of the rules, but everyone thought he did, or should, and no one took the time to explain. If he was going to be a little pissed about things, I figured he had some right to it.

I thought Harry held up remarkably well for having all these things thrust upon him with no explanation but tons of expectations.

I'm generally not big on young protagonists, but I sympathized with Harry.

I'm sorry if I talk about Stephen King too much, but I have to mention him now.

I always loved that it didn't matter if you HATED one of his characters, he could always make you see their motivations and thoughts and feelings. Henry Bowers (from IT) Is one of his stereotyped leather-jacket 'Bully' characters, but he is still sympathetic. During the parts where he is at the insane asylum, and talking about how he was raised by his incredibly racist batshit father.

My favorite parts of his books are the ones from the POV of the bad guys. Especially Rose Madder, The Stand, and Rainbird, from Firestarter.

 

[desertslave]

Generally I found there to be a streak of self-righteousness, partisanship, and even vindictiveness in JKR’s ethos that I didn’t appreciate, and as I said earlier, the lack of internal change bothered me. Though some token gestures were made, I felt the characters ended up in the same place they begun.

Don’t get me wrong, though; I don’t mean any of it as completely damning. In the end, for whatever reason, the books captured my imagination, and that’s certainly not a gift to spit at.

Because that ethos, in the vernacular, is called "high school." The houses, the partisanship, the code-speak....it's cliques, it's nerds vs jocks, it's the cool jargon. The setting is changed, but the attitudes are all painfully familiar.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I'm sorry if I talk about Stephen King too much, but I have to mention him now.

I always loved that it didn't matter if you HATED one of his characters, he could always make you see their motivations and thoughts and feelings. Henry Bowers (from IT) Is one of his stereotyped leather-jacket 'Bully' characters, but he is still sympathetic. During the parts where he is at the insane asylum, and talking about how he was raised by his incredibly racist batshit father.

My favorite parts of his books are the ones from the POV of the bad guys. Especially Rose Madder, The Stand, and Rainbird, from Firestarter.

Yes, the ability to make an unpleasant character understandable or even likeable is a basic storytelling skill in modern writing. King is one of thousands of writers who use that device.

It's odd that Rowling doesn't use it more, but I think her success might partly be because her characters are so damn sketchy. It allows readers to graft their own details onto the skeleton she provided.

 

[Verdad]

Because that ethos, in the vernacular, is called "high school." The houses, the partisanship, the code-speak....it's cliques, it's nerds vs jocks, it's the cool jargon. The setting is changed, but the attitudes are all painfully familiar.

Apt translation. But in case I didn’t make my opinion clear, it’s not that I mind high school characters having high school mentality. Neither am I generally confused about characters’ views vs. author’s views. The reader has a reasonable expectation, though, that at some point the characters are going to graduate. Especially if the book supports this expectation by taking it upon itself to introduce adult(er) themes, begins questioning authority figures, etc.

Similarly, I hope it was clear that by a likeable character I didn’t mean one who smells strictly of roses. Sympathetic would have been a better word, I guess, for it’s possible to sympathize with someone even as you want to smack them upside the head, and then there are characters who aren’t even that but are still fascinating.

In HP, my interest was held by Snape, possibly the only character who really goes through a change, although I felt that too was taken back in the denouement, where the possibility of personal transformation was explained in terms of an unhealth—sorry, romantic, attachment to the past.

I agree with Stella’s explanation of the appeal, though, certainly as far it goes for me. The sketchiness of the characters and indeed the world is what lures in the imagination.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Wanna add Virginia Satir to my list of WINNER WOMEN.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfkWnQNWCRE&feature=relmfu

 

[lovecraft68]

The female motto is, IT AINT FAIR. And THAT translates to LOSER. Blacks have the same problem, ITS TOO HARD is their motto.

That said, there are females who ignore their IT AINT FAIR crutch, and forge ahead; ditto for some blacks. People who embrace the DAMN THE TORPEDOES! FULL SPEED AHEAD! fly the WINNER flag.

A little more ignorant than I would put it, but I see and understand your point.

I fully believe that many people claim they want to run wild, but can't do it while they're still afraid to let go of their crutch.

I mean if they didn;t have that crutch, what else could they blame if they fail at something? heaven forbid it be their own shortcomings that lead to said failure, must be some one they can blame.

 

[Stella_Omega]

A little more ignorant than I would put it, but I see and understand your point.

I fully believe that many people claim they want to run wild, but can't do it while they're still afraid to let go of their crutch.

I mean if they didn;t have that crutch, what else could they blame if they fail at something? heaven forbid it be their own shortcomings that lead to said failure, must be some one they can blame.

I love watching the way each of us interprets jimmy's gnomicisms differently.

He didn't say that "it ain't fair is" a common motto, (which it most certainly is), he said the female motto (and that of course, is hogwash).

Jimmy claims to be a writer of unsurpassed precision and ability. If he were the usual illiterate schmoe, I wouldn't place such emphasis on his grammatical construction.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

A little more ignorant than I would put it, but I see and understand your point.

I fully believe that many people claim they want to run wild, but can't do it while they're still afraid to let go of their crutch.

I mean if they didn;t have that crutch, what else could they blame if they fail at something? heaven forbid it be their own shortcomings that lead to said failure, must be some one they can blame.

Is it fear or narciscism. Or both?

I watched a vid of Carl Whitaker today. He was working with a family and got down on the floor to stir up the shit with the kiddies coloring down there. Sometimes he tossed frisbees at inattentive teens. I cant imagine any female doing the same.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I love watching the way each of us interprets jimmy's gnomicisms differently.

He didn't say that "it ain't fair is" a common motto, (which it most certainly is), he said the female motto (and that of course, is hogwash).

Jimmy claims to be a writer of unsurpassed precision and ability. If he were the usual illiterate schmoe, I wouldn't place such emphasis on his grammatical construction.

Its cuz I hypnotize each of you differently.

 

[damppanties]

Its cuz I hypnotize each of you differently.

. .

 

[damppanties]