Why lump SF and Fantasy together

[GreenMonkey]

Originally Posted by HarryT

In no conceivable way is LOTR "YA", any more than the Anglo-Saxon epics which Tolkien studied as his "day job" and was, in a sense, attempting to copy in LOTR, are children's stories. LOTR is written by a scholar, for an adult audience, dealing with adult themes.

Bingo

I tested as having a 12th grade reading level in 5th grade. I read LOTR for the first time in 6th grade. I was good up through, I'd say, half of Fellowship - after that, it was a very tough read. I don't think I really, fully "got" it until a couple of years later when I read it in High School. Even now I find it's a pretty high-level read. It strains my brain a little bit, kind of like Gene Wolfe strains my brain a lot. Honestly, the Frodo/Sam branch is an easier read by far than the Aragorn/Gimli/Legolas branch. Frodo/Sam is more of a straightforward adventure tale.

YA books are normally books written with a lesser vocabulary, more straightforward - not a lot of symbolism and such. Simpler stories. Tolkien might have hated allegory (I'm sort of with him on that) but he used lots of symbolism and lots of tough vocabulary.

You can argue the Hobbit is a kids' book. But not LOTR. Arguing LOTR is YA is like arguing that Beowulf or the Aeneid is YA.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by GreenMonkey

You can argue the Hobbit is a kids' book. But not LOTR.

The Hobbit is unquestionably a children's book. Tolkien himself said so.

[GreenMonkey]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The Hobbit is unquestionably a children's book. Tolkien himself said so.

Yeah, I know (watched a lot of hours of LOTR:EE special features). It seems like a far cry from the children's books and YA of today though somehow.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by GreenMonkey

Yeah, I know (watched a lot of hours of LOTR:EE special features). It seems like a far cry from the children's books and YA of today though somehow.

Sure, but so do, for example, C.S. Lewis's "Narnia" books, don't you think?

[JD Gumby]

Originally Posted by GreenMonkey

Bingo

I tested as having a 12th grade reading level in 5th grade. I read LOTR for the first time in 6th grade. I was good up through, I'd say, half of Fellowship - after that, it was a very tough read.

So, about half of Fellowship - in other words, the point where the style changes from rather easy and light (a little heavier than The Hobbit, but not by much) to fairly somber and heavy.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Sure, but so do, for example, C.S. Lewis's "Narnia" books, don't you think?

Apparently the original "Hardy Boys" series was a lot more complex than the versions we have now; when they were rewritten in the 50's, they were dumbed down because they had to compete with TV. (They also took out a lot of racist bits, too.)

The books used to be advertised as being "For boys aged 10-14" - I had read pretty much all of the ones in the library by the time I was 10; I wonder if the age range was carried along from the older books. I don't see many 14 year olds being interested in Hardy Boys books.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Apparently the original "Hardy Boys" series was a lot more complex than the versions we have now; when they were rewritten in the 50's, they were dumbed down because they had to compete with TV. (They also took out a lot of racist bits, too.)

The books used to be advertised as being "For boys aged 10-14" - I had read pretty much all of the ones in the library by the time I was 10; I wonder if the age range was carried along from the older books. I don't see many 14 year olds being interested in Hardy Boys books.

They were indeed. I collect turn of the 20th century children's books, and have all the original Hardy Boys, Nancy Drew, Tom Swift, etc, books. The original versions are written for a much more literate audience than the 1950s rewrites, although what you say about the (from a modern perspective) unpleasant racial stereotyping in the original books is very true.

[charlesatan]

Originally Posted by GreenMonkey

Yeah, I know (watched a lot of hours of LOTR:EE special features). It seems like a far cry from the children's books and YA of today though somehow.

Just to clarify, Children's Books aren't YA. The older classification that's more appropriate for yesterday's YA would be the Juvenilles. The Hobbit is more around MG (Middle Grade).

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by charlesatan

Just to clarify, Children's Books aren't YA. The older classification that's more appropriate for yesterday's YA would be the Juvenilles.

Heinlein's HAVE SPACESUIT, WILL TRAVEL; Asimov's LUCKY STARR stories are examples of 50's era SF juveniles.
Heinlein's formula: "Make the protagonist 19 then write him like anybody else."
Today's formula: "Make the protagonist 19 then write her like a clinically depressed teenager."

[hidari]

I guess fifty shades of grey orc S&M would not sell too well....but maybe the Martian variant would???

[StephenM]

Originally Posted by hidari

I guess fifty shades of grey orc S&M would not sell too well....but maybe the Martian variant would???

50 Shades of Green?