An interesting read on YA publishing

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I thought the overall point was that ill-informed social media mobs were causing havoc in YA publishing. That point, I could agree with. It was all the conclusions the author of the article leaped to that I have issues with.

I'm not so sure political correctness is taking over the YA world. I think it would be easy enough to call changes you don't like agree with political correctness.

If a book about a gay character is an unexpected hit and there's a flood of gay-themed books, is that PC taking over the industry, or the market doing what it does? When wizards or vampires took over the industry, was that political correctness too?



I honestly don't care about awards. But the way the puppies handled the Hugos felt skeevy. Why not just create alternate awards?

I guess we had different views of what the over-all point was.

Of course, the PC is not the same as trying to ride the wave of a popular theme. Personally, I tend to view PC as akin to the old utopia books, aka "wouldn't it be wonderful if everything worked the way I think it ought to". Like the old utopia books, PC tends to require that human nature change. That's why it's call Politically Correct, rather than the way things actually work. Like the old utopia books, they tend to not be very popular as a whole.

[haertig]

I take awards and reviews with a grain of salt. Everything seems to be driven by an agenda these days. Yelp reviews of restaurants and other businesses? Totally untrustworthy. Amazon reviews? Most are fake. These parts of life (internet reviews) USED to be useful, but have been sabotaged by agenda-driven folks to the point of worthlessness. I have been looking at book reviews on Goodreads, figuring "What kind of agenda could a book enthusiast have?" Apparently, maybe I shouldn't even trust this group that I thought would be without bias. Probably most of the biased reviewers haven't even read the book they are reviewing, or any book for that matter, for quite a long while. They're just "reviewing" based on agenda. This is so sad. What kind of life do these poor dolts lead to be reduced to such infantile behavior?

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I guess we had different views of what the over-all point was.

I'm going based on the title of the article "How Never-Satisfied Social Justice Mobs Are Ruining YA Book Publishing"

I could agree with that statement. Well, maybe not 'ruining' but causing the occasional problem anyway.

Of course, the PC is not the same as trying to ride the wave of a popular theme. Personally, I tend to view PC as akin to the old utopia books, aka "wouldn't it be wonderful if everything worked the way I think it ought to". Like the old utopia books, PC tends to require that human nature change. That's why it's call Politically Correct, rather than the way things actually work. Like the old utopia books, they tend to not be very popular as a whole.

I understand what political correctness is. My point is that it is possible that what you view as a wave of political correctness taking over YA fiction could just be the rapidly changing viewpoint/reality/norms of the younger generation these books are intended for.

Your Rick Riordan example is pretty extreme. But my guess would be that it stands out because it is outside the norm.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I'm going based on the title of the article "How Never-Satisfied Social Justice Mobs Are Ruining YA Book Publishing"

I could agree with that statement. Well, maybe not 'ruining' but causing the occasional problem anyway.



I understand what political correctness is. My point is that it is possible that what you view as a wave of political correctness taking over YA fiction could just be the rapidly changing viewpoint/reality/norms of the younger generation these books are intended for.

Your Rick Riordan example is pretty extreme. But my guess would be that it stands out because it is outside the norm.

The title doesn't really capture what the article is actually saying.

The article has two major points - first that PC publishers are refusing non PC books and the second is that books are becoming more PC.

As I said, the first will work it's way out. The fact that the example book found a publisher and was a hit shows that.

The second is more a case of degree. YA books have always been a bit PC, if you go by the technical definition of PC (politically correct). Harry Potter was PC to an extent. After all, the purpose of YA is both to entertain and instruct. The difference is that PC now has been pushed to a more extreme level that might be the norm in some circles, but isn't the norm is society as a whole. I didn't read the article to say that _all_ YA were PC to this level.

[ZodWallop]

Two things:

Originally Posted by pwalker8

The difference is that PC now has been pushed to a more extreme level that might be the norm in some circles, but isn't the norm is society as a whole.

1: If it is the norm for young adults and these books are by definition young adult books, then can you really say that YA publishing is too PC? Too PC for who? Their target audience?

2: What you see as PC, I might not see that way. Was having a black captain on Deep Space Nine PC? Is having Captain Shakespeare as a gay character in Stardust PC? Is having a female lead character in The Golden Compass/Northern Lights PC?

None of these felt that way to me. Your Rick Riordan example, I could follow because it had such a large number of these characters in a single work to the point that it pulls you out of the fiction.

I didn't read the article to say that _all_ YA were PC to this level.

I'm only debating/discussing with you. That article was awful. I quit in about the middle of it. Not because I disagree with the author's viewpoints (as mentioned, I can concede his title at least), but because he made the same mistake every episode of Ancient Aliens makes: He takes a conceit and piles supposition after supposition on top of it, trying to prove points that the evidence just doesn't support.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Two things:



1: If it is the norm for young adults and these books are by definition young adult books, then can you really say that YA publishing is too PC? Too PC for who? Their target audience?

2: What you see as PC, I might not see that way. Was having a black captain on Deep Space Nine PC? Is having Captain Shakespeare as a gay character in Stardust PC? Is having a female lead character in The Golden Compass/Northern Lights PC?

None of these felt that way to me. Your Rick Riordan example, I could follow because it had such a large number of these characters in a single work to the point that it pulls you out of the fiction.



I'm only debating/discussing with you. That article was awful. I quit in about the middle of it. Not because I disagree with the author's viewpoints (as mentioned, I can concede his title at least), but because he made the same mistake every episode of Ancient Aliens makes: He takes a conceit and piles supposition after supposition on top of it, trying to prove points that the evidence just doesn't support.

Did he have the hair to back up his supposition? That was the first thing I thought of when you said Ancient Aliens.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Did he have the hair to back up his supposition? That was the first thing I thought of when you said Ancient Aliens.

Alas, in his picture the author is wearing a camouflage baseball cap. I don't have an easy way of knowing if he has anything that could match the beauty of this:

[bgalbrecht]

I don't read much YA, and it does sound like the negative review campaign against The Black Witch is pretty bad. My personal impression is that in the culture wars, there has been a lot of campaigning both for and against individual works and authors by people who have not read the authors at all, from both sides of the culture wars. I wouldn't be at all surprised if a bunch of the 5 star reviews for that book are fake reviews from the "anti-SJW" crowd who had not read the book either.

Earlier this year the author of the article at the Federalist, Jon Del Arroz, was claiming to be a victim of PC forces when a science fiction convention chose not to invite him back this year this year as a guest author like they did last year (i.e., comp his membership and appear as a panelist), and was making a lot of claims of bias about the convention organizers which I thought were refuted by the organizers. On his blog, he was also encouraging people to vote for things he admitted not reading for the Dragon Awards (although I could be misremembering, and he might have only been encouraging people to nominate things he hadn't read), mostly either because he was friends with the authors, or they shared his political and/or religious views.

BTW, If You Were A Dinosaur, My Love, was nominated for a Hugo (a fan-based award) and did not win, but won the Nebula, which is voted on by the membership of the Science Fiction Writers of America. The rest of the commentary about the Hugos and the Sad Puppies are inaccurate, especially since most of the nomination hijacking was done by the Rabid Puppies, far right wing followers of Ted Beale, and I can assure you, having read the crap they nominated, there was little or no fun fiction in most of the stuff they and the no awards given in the categories where they stuffed the selections with their slate were deserved.

Anyway, to get back to YA, it may be that many parents don't want their kids to be reading YA books with sexual situations, romance, LGBT characters coming out, etc, but if the books getting chosen by YA kids (12-18 year olds), they're probably buying them because they're going through puberty and they're looking for validation that what they're feeling is normal. For the record, I don't think LGBT characters even when they are the protagonist influence kids sexuality. I don't think the publishers have an LGBT agenda, I think it's just that it's no longer a taboo subject like it was when I was young. if kids want to read about LGBT characters, it's either because they know they are, or they're not sure, or they have friends who are LGBT.

[haertig]

I am turned off by anything that is "preachy". I don't care what they're preaching about. Things I disagree with, or things I agree with. It gives me the feeling that what I'm "consuming" is just their stupid advertising or some other agenda-driven thing.

I've seen many TV shows where if you look closely, every single car on the road is a Ford. I happen to like Fords. But when I see that pushed at me, I feel cheapened to think that I'm just some dupe who thought they were being entertained, when the real motive was to brainwash for profit or agenda. I don't go back and "consume" any more of that tripe after noticing it, be it in a TV show, a book, or whatever.

If I find a book is preaching at me, I put it aside and grab me a better book.

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by haertig

I am turned off by anything that is "preachy". I don't care what they're preaching about. Things I disagree with, or things I agree with. It gives me the feeling that what I'm "consuming" is just their stupid advertising or some other agenda-driven thing.

If you've never read Atlas Shrugged, then I recommend you skip it.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by haertig

I am turned off by anything that is "preachy". I don't care what they're preaching about. Things I disagree with, or things I agree with. It gives me the feeling that what I'm "consuming" is just their stupid advertising or some other agenda-driven thing.

I've seen many TV shows where if you look closely, every single car on the road is a Ford. I happen to like Fords. But when I see that pushed at me, I feel cheapened to think that I'm just some dupe who thought they were being entertained, when the real motive was to brainwash for profit or agenda. I don't go back and "consume" any more of that tripe after noticing it, be it in a TV show, a book, or whatever.

If I find a book is preaching at me, I put it aside and grab me a better book.

You must not be able to watch many TV shows. Even old '60's TV shows will have a tag in the end credits saying 'Vehicles generously provided by General Motors' or somesuch. Granted, shows have gotten worse. They will now occasionally work a commercial into the show itself.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by bgalbrecht

...I don't think the publishers have an LGBT agenda, I think it's just that it's no longer a taboo subject like it was when I was young...

Thank you. That is a much more succinct version of the plodding argument I have been trying to make.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

You must not be able to watch many TV shows. Even old '60's TV shows will have a tag in the end credits saying 'Vehicles generously provided by General Motors' or somesuch. Granted, shows have gotten worse. They will now occasionally work a commercial into the show itself.

Bones and a car company.
Don't forget if you see a Pepsi, Coca-Cola or Budweiser can/bottle in a show, they are one of the sponsors.

[haertig]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

You must not be able to watch many TV shows.

That is so true! I don't watch many. Even shows that I do like and watch are can sometimes get ridiculous. I think it's Hawaii 5-0 ? (the new one, not the original) where everybody and his brother has a Mac Book computer. Those things show up everywhere, and they must have magnetic properties in their lids that keep dragging the cameras to them and forcing the cameramen to struggle to break the bond. Maybe it wasn't Hawaii 5-0 ... I can't remember ... but is was one of those cop shows.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by haertig

...everybody and his brother has a Mac Book computer. Those things show up everywhere, and they must have magnetic properties in their lids that keep dragging the cameras to them and forcing the cameramen to struggle to break the bond.

Yeah, Macs are much more popular in imagination-land than they are in reality. I see Macs from time to time in the wild and have a friend that has one. But in TV and movies, they are the de facto computer of the world.