What’s with all the hand-wringing about the state of genre YA?
The SFSignal posted an article today about the lack of superheroes in YA by YA author KD McEntire:
Why is it that, with all this room for self-expression, with all this space for examining the nooks and crannies of the human (and non-human) condition alike, that you hardly ever see a single Young Adult title sporting a spandex-clad super human? Why are the epic battles that could be spun out between super-powered beings confined to the realm of sexy vampires and sultry witches? Do we really believe that the origin stories of your friendly neighborhood Captain Amazo and Doctor Dreadful are best only told in pretty pictures that can only give the reader a glimpse of the reasoning behind the character’s actions? [...]what gives? Why are there hardly any heroes of the super-persuasion bounding around the YA section?
I have to admit that I read that and saw red. This isn’t the first blog post I’ve seen bemoaning the supposedly fae-and-vamp-ridden world of genre lit for teens. In fact, it’s the second post the Signal’s published in the last month on the topic. October saw indie author Simon Haynes complaining that there’s no sci-fi out there for middle grade readers–though of course he defines sci-fi very narrowly:
I’ve been looking for distant future, realistic (even hard) science, with a bit of comedy to lighten things up. Not Jimmy Neutron, but Tintin’s Destination Moon/Explorers on the Moon or William F. Temple’s Martin Magnus Planet Rover – with young protagonists. Middle-grade for readers 9+, not YA and definitely not dystopian. Fun, entertaining and educational.
These authors aren’t alone, of course. I’ve heard stories–too many stories. Like the one about the YA-ignorant genre writer who, on a con panel, recommended Heinlein juveniles as the best SF works available for modern teens.
Heinlein juveniles. For modern teens.
These authors always have theories about why YA is the way that it is. Maybe teens don’t care about science anymore. Maybe Twilight warped their brains. There’s always a lot of blame placed on publishers, who supposedly think that sparkly vampire boys are the only things that sell.
But what these authors don’t seem to see is that they’re wrong about the state of genre YA. Dead wrong.
I'll say this much: the covers have improved since 2009.
I empathize with them somewhat, actually. Back in 2008 and 2009 when I first got into writing YA, I complained about the same thing. Where was all the sci-fi of yore?! Why weren’t teens reading Animorphs, like I did? Of course, back then the market was different. But even then, I have to admit that I was seeing the shelves through my own warped, limited view. By what measure were books like Alison Goodman’s Singing the Dogstar Blues, Anne Osterlund’s Academy 7, Nancy Farmer’s House of the Scorpion, or even the friggin’ Hunger Games not sci-fi?
And today the bookstore is brighter than ever for teen fans of science fiction. I know that for a fact thanks to the Intergalactic Academy–every month, Sean and I have to winnow down our review list to something manageable. We could easily post twice the number of reviews and still have ARCs left over. Sure, the genre looks different than it did back in Heinlein’s day. I’d venture to guess that this has more to do with the fact that we as a society have mightily changed. Without the space race, and the limitless optimism of the ’50s, most sci-fi’s taken a darker turn, not just YA. But it doesn’t mean that what YA authors are writing–and what YA readers are inhaling–isn’t science fiction.
For the MG science fiction fan, contrary to what Mr. Haynes writes, there’s Circus Galacticus by Deva Fagan, Jacob Wonderbar and the Cosmic Space Kapow by Nathan Bransford, The Boy at the End of the World by Greg van Eekhout, and Stuck on Earth by David Klass, for a start. And that’s ignoring the host of dystopian and poc-apocalyptic titles which–yes, really–are still science fiction.
For YA readers who want some superhero action, there’s Hero by Mike Lupica (not to be confused with the also appropriate Hero by Perry Moore), The Rise of Renegade X by Chelsea Campbell, The Lab by Jack Heath, Shatter Me by Tahereh Mafi and the Quantum Prophesy books by Michael Carroll. Of course, fans of action-packed YA have plenty to choose from these days, from Veronica Roth’s Divergent to Marie Lu’s Legend to, of course, the Hunger Games (significant, I think, is that all three of these last series have cross-gender appeal, but are written by women and feature strong female protagonists. So much for girls not getting into the action game!).
Those who complain about how all YA sci-fi is cookie-cutter dystopians do so at the risk of ignoring popular YA space operas: the recently concluded Seed Trilogy by Pamela Sargent, Beth Revis’ best-selling Across the Universe, Amy Kathleen Ryan’s Glow. We’ve even got sociological sci-fi in YA, in the form of Karen Sandler’s Tankborn.
And that’s just scratching the surface of what’s out there–not to mention what’s to come. For SF fans, the YA lists of most publishers for 2012 and 2013 look promising, indeed.
I’m not going to pretend that genre YA is perfect–these titles could always use more press to get them into the hands of the readers who want them. So instead of wasting our breath complaining about a non-existent lack, how about we do what we can to help, by reading all the really great science fiction that’s already out there, and talking it up to the teens who will love it?
Phoebe
Phoebe is a 20-something writer who lives in New York State with her husband and cat. She is a dork, not a geek or a nerd.
Her debut novel, Starglass, will be released from Simon and Schuster Books for Young Readers in Summer 2013.
21 comments
Great post. McEntire is also ignoring the entire (sub) genre of YA graphic novels. Just a little light Googling will find you all kinds of recent YA graphic novels with superheroes, like Michael Brennan's Electric Girl.
Thanks, T. I agree that there’s plenty of great graphic novel stuff aimed at teens, too! Worth a look for any teen who is into superheroes.
What IS up with suggesting Heinlein juveniles? I haven't had a conversation or a panel with the traditional sci-fi lit crowd that didn't have the conversation redirected to them in a max of 20 min.
Word! I don't want to downplay their importance historically or for any individual reader, but there are so many modern titles that get ignored. It would be like if every conversation about kid's fantasy ignored Harry Potter in favor of talking just about The Hobbit.
Or deviating every conversation they have about sci-fi literature with talk of 20,000 Leagues or The Time Machine. The classics are classics for a reason, but that doesn't mean they're all that's out there.
We FINALLY managed to have a panel discussion of YA at a traditional SF con this weekend that didn't involve the audience asking going on Heinlein, but only because we explained in the first 5 minutes why this panel wasn't about Heinlein and why we were looking at current books. (The [anel subject was: "Why are teens reading better SF/fantasy than you.")
Related rant: The insistence on still calling YA books juveniles, someone no one reading or working in YA has done for decades.
Oh, awesome! Wish I could have have been there to see that panel.
I'm with you on "juveniles." It's a fundamentally pejorative-sounding term, too, as if novels for teens are just simplistic versions of adult SF.
Um, what ARE Heinlein juveniles? I'm a teen, and I don't know what that is, so…
I totally agree. The YA genre is full of everything you'd like. It's just that trends sometimes overshadow other, different books, which COULD be a bad thing. But I've read lots of offbeat YA books because I was looking for them- and I hope the people who typecast YA do that, too.
Thanks for the comment, Rida! I'm always glad to have a teen perspective. Glad to hear that you've found lots of offbeat YA to read, too!
For info about Heinlein's works for teenagers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinlein_juveniles
*sigh* How about, instead of these people complaining about the lack of superheroes or whatever in YA, why don't they just write those books themselves?
Hi Phoebe,
I might have to disagree with you a bit. Most of the titles you mention, are in my opinion not Sci-fi. They simply dont have anything resounding about them. That is harsh, I know. But while your definition of sci-fi is broader, it isnt exactly far to call other people's definition ignorant. What makes your definition right, and others wrong?
Just saying. It's best to understand that these matters are based on personal opinions. As a person who has read most of the YA you mentioned, especially ATU, I wouldnt not, even after a bottle of wine, classify them as Sci-fi. Simply because compared to real Sci-fi works I have read, they feel like children's play. I could tear the so called science in Revis's work easily. But I wouldnt go there. And the Hunger Games? I could tear the world building down too. Dont let me get started with Divergent.
However, I'd have more problem, trying to tear down other Sci-fi classics, and I think that's where most people who dont classify these books as YA come from. It doesnt mean that they are ignorant. It's how their experiences have shaped them.
Again, its all a matter of opinion. Unfortunately, most of the so called YA sci-fi that publishers are churning out, none of them have resonated with me, or even made me think, the way sci-fi I read growing up did.
"Sci-fi" does not equal "resounding," TheDuchess. These titles fit sci-fi by every standard definition, both within the genre and within the mainstream. They contain extrapolations of existing science. They use common genre tropes, like genetic engineering or space travel or aliens.
I'm not saying these books are perfect works of literature, or are good (in my esteem, or someone else's; I'm reporting on their presence without value judgment, in fact). But they are science fictional. What about Across the Universe was not sci-fi? It uses common SF tropes–space, cryosleep, genetic engineeering. The science there is exactly as hard as what you'd find in Anne McCaffrey's Sassinak. There were world building holes in older SF, too. It wasn't perfect. But it still belonged in the genre.
As for tearing down SF classics, I wasn't doing that at all. I was saying that those who recommend the SF classics, and only SF classics, are doing it out of ignorance of what genre YA writers are doing today. Authors like Pam Sargent and Karen Sandler easily rise to the criticism that other YA SF authors have faced, and do so well.
Again, while I understand your point, I think in my opinion, you do the one thing that has always surprised me for someone with your background.
You assume your opinion is fact. But it isnt. To you, Sci-fi might not equal resounding. However, I would think, you would understand that to others, this is what Sci-fi means to them. Heck, to others, that might be what contemporary fic means to them.
So as you have every right to think some works are sci-fi enough, they have every right to think it isnt.
Apart, from that, I see your point. And to some extent, I agree with you. Again, arent you assuming that others who recommend sf classics, are doing that out of ignorance of what genre YA writer are doing? You cant possibly have any idea what they read. Just as you dont know whether they have read every book you listed, and to them, it didnt meet their standards.
Again, it's all love and respect, and discussion, Phoebe. No malice involved.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "my background," TheDuchess. Anything I write clearly comes from my own experiences and opinions.
Some sci-fi is of high quality; some isn't. That's true of any genre (Sturgeon's Law, naturally. He knew more about SF than either of us). However, these works are still science fictional by the definitions commonly used. What's the use in using words at all if we're to define them overly narrowly, moving goalposts at will? That frustrates the very nature of communication itself, if I can be grandiose about it. And to what end? To define something narrowly, so we can complain about how there aren't any works that fit those narrow genre definitions? Again, I think our time, and breath, is better spent getting books into the hands of readers who will enjoy them. There are a myriad works that will satisfy the YA sci-fi reader these days. You, personally, might not find those works "good." You might not think they're good literature, or good science fiction. That's fine. Some people don't like Star Trek. But it's still, never-the-less, science fiction.
I'm also having a hard time understanding what you're getting at, TheDuchess. There are obviously books that don't fit comfortable within the bounds of one genre or another, and people can (and do) argue endlessly about how to classify them, but none of the books Phoebe mentioned are anywhere close to being that ambiguous. By any reasonable definition of the genre, AtU (to take one example) is science fiction.
Also, I have to strongly object to the idea that people can come up with their own personal definitions of 'science fiction', at least in the way you're talking about it. If you're defining science fiction in a way which is completely at odds with how the term is usually used (again, within reasonable limits), then you're defining it out of existence; if we have to settle the basic tenets of a genre every time it comes up, then there's no point using a genre label in the first place.
I'm not entirely sure, but I think maybe you're saying it only counts as SF if the science and world building are completely accurate? But that would eliminate many older works too, and more, succeeding in terms of world building is only one way for SF to succeed. Sociological SF is SF too–Le Guin is a good example of same.
And also, even if a book doesn't succeed for a given reader, that doesn't stop it from being part of that genre; it just makes it an unsuccessful book in that genre.
I'm glad you wrote this post, Phoebe. I wonder if sometimes, people romanticize books they read in the past, and then can't be satisfied by books that are on the market now. Or are looking for something very very specific so nothing else lives up. The market is always changing, and things are going to cycle in and out of popularity, but there are always plenty of choices no matter what genre you love. Also, there are plenty of books that I don't like in genres I love, but that doesn't make them any less members of that genre.
Thanks, Kaitlin.
So many super hero titles for me to try now
Really fab post. Sometimes I wonder if it's the introduction of romance into YA and MG sci-fi which gets them knocked out of some people's radar. If a book has romance, it must be a romance right? I don't have any evidence to back that up though, but it seems to be a recurring theme that books with romantic plot lines of significance get knocked out of contention in all genres by some very select commentators (lit-fic commentary feels bad for that).
Yay, I hope you enjoy them! I've only read a few of them myself but am now craving more after writing this . . .
I think you might be right about the romance. In fact, I wonder if it's all, or at least partially, a problem of girl cooties: http://www.sff.net/paradise/girlcooties.htm
Thanks for writing this post. I read a lot of YA science fiction, and I will agree that much of it is not as rigorous as most adult science fiction in terms of its world building. Happily for me personally as a reader, the characters and plots tend to hold more importance to me, but for many of my spec fic writer friends, this has been a barrier.
However, I think what would be most interesting for those writers who are concerned with this trend would be for them to try experimenting with combining more thorough world building with what is already working in today's YA market and for today's teen readers. It is not as if these two elements are mutually exclusive, as we can see from Paolo Bacigalupi's Shipbreaker, for example, which combines rigor with a "modern" sensibility.