Abercrombie justifies writing YA

[Brian G Turner]

Thought this was an interesting argument about the treatment of YA by Abercrombie:
He Killed the Younglings! | Joe Abercrombie

I started from the standpoint that young adults are, above all, adults. Just young ones. Many of them are extremely sophisticated in their reading. What they want to read isn’t radically different from what old adults (like me) want to read. ... The last thing they want to read is simplified, childish, toothless pap. The last thing they want to be is talked down to. Talked to as if they’re children. What adult does?

 

[Dozmonic]

It's always interesting to see what various people think makes a novel "young adult". I agree with Abercrombie that, fundamentally, it's having a young adult protagonist. That so many YA novels get a different cover slapped on and placed in the adult fiction sections just goes to show that it's little more than marketing. People aged 14-30 regularly buy YA in store from us, and it's not uncommon to see younger and older people pick things up from there too.

 

[Coolhand]

I think Joe Abercrombie hits the nail on the head with that blog post, especially the comment about young adults not being simple in their reading tastes and not being too different from the adult audience in their demands. When I was in the YA age range, I wasn't really reading YA fiction per sae. I was reading fiction., from all parts of the spectrum, everything from Tom Clancy to Victor Hugo. A YA book had to hit the same level of engagement on all fronts (plot, character, prose, themes) as the "adult" fiction I was reading if it wanted to last more than a few pages in my hands.

That so many YA novels get a different cover slapped on and placed in the adult fiction sections just goes to show that it's little more than marketing.

By and large I tend to agree with that. Whilst I understand the need for marketing to engage a prospective audience and spread awareness of a book, at the end of the day, good writing is just good writing. There is some "adult" fiction that is incredibly juvenile, and some YA that is incredibly sophisticated and adult."

 

[Juliana]

Nice blog post, thanks for sharing Brian.

 

[Mark_Lawrence]

It's always interesting to see what various people think makes a novel "young adult". I agree with Abercrombie that, fundamentally, it's having a young adult protagonist. That so many YA novels get a different cover slapped on and placed in the adult fiction sections just goes to show that it's little more than marketing. People aged 14-30 regularly buy YA in store from us, and it's not uncommon to see younger and older people pick things up from there too.

That would make my work YA - a charge I would strenuously deny!

 

[Jo Zebedee]

That would make my work YA - a charge I would strenuously deny!

I have to agree. It's theme not age of the protagonist that's normally seen to set the audience, and Jorg does not have the focus of your everyday teen protagonist...

 

[Dozmonic]

That would make my work YA - a charge I would strenuously deny!

I'd argue very few works are YA. But at the end of the day Jorg is young, dealing with things above his age for our culture, but not for his, necessarily. So yeah, he's as YA as the Hunger Games

 

[Brian G Turner]

I've opened up a new thread to discuss http://www.sffchronicles.co.uk/forum/548207-what-makes-a-story-ya.html

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

However, I have to take issue with the way he seems to be implying that anything that doesn't have that slap in the face on every page is toothless drivel. If something took a positive view of life, or was life-affirming or encouraging in any way, or was just sheer entertainment, that would be talking down to young adult readers? There is something vaguely puritanical going on here. As if teenagers aren't going through enough c--p just by virtue of being teenagers, there is something wrong with allowing them to just read something and get away from it all for a couple of hours? (And heaven forbid we put any positive thoughts in their heads.)

I understand that for some writers this is a reflection of how they truly see life. That what they write is a prolonged scream from the heart against the cruelty and unfairness and tragedy they have experienced in their own lives. I see honesty there. But to imply that we all have some sort of obligation to introduce young people to the darker realities of life, (as though they aren't capable of noticing these things for themselves) is more than a little condescending. Aren't there other things we could show them about life, that would be equally authentic? If we see those things in life are we not supposed to write about them?

Why should Joe Abercrombie feel the need to justify himself anyway? If he writes with what he believes is truth and honesty, if that's how he sees the world, why does it matter what other people think? But if he does feel the need to justify what he is doing, why is it necessary to characterize everything else as childish pap?




.

 

[Coolhand]

However, I have to take issue with the way he seems to be implying that anything that doesn't have that slap in the face on every page is toothless drivel. If something took a positive view of life, or was life-affirming or encouraging in any way, or was just sheer entertainment, that would be talking down to young adult readers?
.

In all fairness to Abercrombie, I don't think that's what he meant by the "slap on the face in every page." Putting that line in context:

I spent some time with horror writer Adam Neville not long ago, and he explained to me his philosophy of life and death on every page. I modified that just a little to a slap in the face on every page. No wasted space. A driving single thread which is all killer, no filler. My aim was to write something tighter and simpler in its narrative, perhaps, but certainly not simpler in the way it was written or in the themes that it tackles.

it comes across to me more that he's talking about maximising the efficiency of his prose, so that something happens on every page to grab your attention, and pull you into the story. No wasted space, as he puts it. That's my interpretation of it anyway.

As to the basic thrust of his argument:

People in that 12-18 age range are dealing with serious issues of sex, money, identity, responsibility. The last thing they want to read is simplified, childish, toothless pap. The last thing they want to be is talked down to. Talked to as if they’re children. What adult does?

I tend to agree with that point, that the YA target market is already living in the adult word to a large degree, so fiction written for their enjoyment has to acknowledge this and not pretend that young adults are ignorant or uninterested in these things. I don't think he's saying these things cannot be acknowledged in a positive, entertaining or life-afferming context. The way I read his blog post, what he's saying is that to pretend altogether that these things don't exist and consciously and inorganically try and take them out of a story that would otherwise naturally include them just because you're writing for a YA market would indeed generate "toothless pap." That a YA audience would pick up on the "edits" in the fiction, and that the tale would ring less true because they already know life doesn't work like that.

That was my take on it, anyway.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

That a YA audience would pick up on the "edits" in the fiction, and that the tale would ring less true because they already know life doesn't work like that.

There is a lot in YA fantasy that isn't the way that life really works -- perhaps as much in the grittiest fantasy as in pure escapism -- but as far as I can see YA readers don't seem to mind. It's been a long time since I was a teenager myself, so I wouldn't presume to say for certain what would make them feel that they were being talked down to.

I guess we would have to ask Joe Abercrombie himself exactly what he means by "a slap in the face" and what he thinks a story has to have in order to achieve it.

 

[Silver Owl]

When I was a in me pre teens (not all that long ago) I read YA books that had lots of main character deaths and I think it really does help you accept death more. Also lots of crapsuck worlds and so on.

The only main difference that I've noticed between YA fiction and the stuff I read now is the prose which is a lot more complicated and flowery in the stuff I read now. Also there is strictly no sex in YA stuff, I think I'm not a fan of books with sex in even now unless it's done particularly well.

 

[Parson]

However, I have to take issue with the way he seems to be implying that anything that doesn't have that slap in the face on every page is toothless drivel. If something took a positive view of life, or was life-affirming or encouraging in any way, or was just sheer entertainment, that would be talking down to young adult readers? There is something vaguely puritanical going on here. As if teenagers aren't going through enough c--p just by virtue of being teenagers, there is something wrong with allowing them to just read something and get away from it all for a couple of hours? (And heaven forbid we put any positive thoughts in their heads.)

I understand that for some writers this is a reflection of how they truly see life. That what they write is a prolonged scream from the heart against the cruelty and unfairness and tragedy they have experienced in their own lives. I see honesty there. But to imply that we all have some sort of obligation to introduce young people to the darker realities of life, (as though they aren't capable of noticing these things for themselves) is more than a little condescending. Aren't there other things we could show them about life, that would be equally authentic? If we see those things in life are we not supposed to write about them?

Why should Joe Abercrombie feel the need to justify himself anyway? If he writes with what he believes is truth and honesty, if that's how he sees the world, why does it matter what other people think? But if he does feel the need to justify what he is doing, why is it necessary to characterize everything else as childish pap?

.

Well said!!

When I was a in me pre teens (not all that long ago) I read YA books that had lots of main character deaths and I think it really does help you accept death more. Also lots of crapsuck worlds and so on.

The only main difference that I've noticed between YA fiction and the stuff I read now is the prose which is a lot more complicated and flowery in the stuff I read now. Also there is strictly no sex in YA stuff, I think I'm not a fan of books with sex in even now unless it's done particularly well.

??? Is this a rule? If it is, then an awfully large number of books I thought was Y.A. most emphatically were not.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Absolutely. BEFORE I DIE has several sex scenes in it. It depends the age you're aiming for, I guess, but certainly at the older end of the spectrum sex can be in it, and has done for a long time*

* Judy Blume's FOREVER was passed around my school for weeks when I was about sixteen**

** so that's like, forever ago.

 

[AnyaKimlin]

There was another one about a boy who ended up as a single dad. His son was called Mason - although I can't remember if there was a sex scene or not lol Very unhelpful but I think it did.

 

[Toby Frost]

So, er, who is doing all this talking down, then?

 

[Nerds_feather]

For the record, YA these days is often quite dark--gritty in theme if not in level of gore.

 

[Silver Owl]

I only got the idea about there being no sex from Darren Shan who said in an interview that he was told he can be as violent as he wants as long as there is no sex. He wasn't even allowed to mention puberty.

 

[HareBrain]

Darren Shan is younger than YA, though.