Forum: Author Hangout

There is one other clear and specific criteria other than the age of the characters. It can't rate higher than PG-13.

If they can't sell or market it to tweens it won't be marketed as "YA".

I wasn't focusing on the "YA" label, but rather the general appeal for 'young adult' stories across ALL readers. I've never read a YA novel, but I'm still drawn to stories about young adults.

I've never read a YA novel

I've read some, including Harry Potter, but probably my favourite was Kathy Reichs's Virals series until Brendan Reichs took over most of the writing.

AJ

I've read some, including Harry Potter, but probably my favourite was Kathy Reichs's Virals series until Brendan Reichs took over most of the writing.

I've never considered "Harry Potter" to be "YA", and neither did it's author. It's a book which appeals to all ages, despite being targeted to young, pre-teens. (Though the writing is geared towards advanced readers, which is WHY it was so successful, because it introduced advanced reading to an entire generation who'd never invested much into reading more difficult books before that (being too young to master them).

When the publishers realised that Harry Potter appealed to adults as well as youngsters, they brought out a new set of cover designs they thought would be more attractive to adults. So if you look in your library, you may well find copies of the books with different cover designs depending on whether you're looking in the Young Adult or Grown-Up sections.

AJ

I've never read a YA novel

Never read "Catcher in the Rye"?

Is "To Kill a Mockingbird" YA? The characters are, and it's even a coming of age story, but it has an adult theme — racism.

Never read "Catcher in the Rye"?

Is "To Kill a Mockingbird" YA? The characters are, and it's even a coming of age story, but it has an adult theme — racism.

Lots of this naming is marketing. The "thriller" writers at the seminar I attended recently declined to get into a discussion of the difference between a "thriller" and a "mystery."

All claimed (key word "claimed") they wrote the story they wanted to write and let the marketers decide how to market it.

That said, as far as the general thread topic goes, if one wishes to target a certain audience, read up on what is sold successfully to them, and tailor the story accordingly.

If you're good enough it's erotica (for example) if you write like Anaïs Nin, and if you're not, it's porn.

ETA: Sorry, forgot to respond to the question. No, "Mockingbird" is not YA, despite the beloved Scout. I'd argue "Alice in Wonderland" is what we now call "YA" but it is also adult. It is read on two levels in a way that Harry Potter generally is not.

bb

I'd argue "Alice in Wonderland" is what we now call "YA" but it is also adult. It is read on two levels in a way that Harry Potter generally is not.

I partially disagree. While 'Alice in Wonderland' can be read on two levels, one of which is adult, the other is children's rather than YA.

AJ

they wrote the story they wanted to write and let the marketers decide how to market it.

Except if you self-pub you are the marketer. Amazon gives you two categories/genres to put your book in. I wanted YA Romance. There was no such thing. I ended up with Romance Contemporary (which a teenage girl, my target audience, would probably not check). For the second category I had to choose "juvenile" to get to "bullying". Although looking at the categories under my book, Amazon converted it to "teen."

I've never read a YA novel, but I'm still drawn to stories about young adults.

Have you read Heinlein's stories. Many of them (e.g. Podkayne of Mars, Friday, Have Spacesuit - Will Travel, Tunnel in the Sky, etc.) seem to target what we call the YA market.

Have you read Heinlein's stories. Many of them (e.g. Podkayne of Mars, Friday, Have Spacesuit - Will Travel, Tunnel in the Sky, etc.) seem to target what we call the YA market

Look, I never should have raised the spectre of "YA", as it's a bed of worms. Those books you're quoting are not considered "YA", as that's an entirely new genre of novels which isn't related to the age of characters. However, I was targeting the appeal of young adult characters in stories, observing how it seems to span all age groups.

So please, let's stop arguing over what is and what isn't a "YA" novel.

let's stop arguing over what is and what isn't a "YA" novel.

To me and apparently many others in this thread, Young Adult refers to the target audience not the characters. Thus novels written to appeal to young people are often referred to a YA novels. The books I listed target young adult readers.

Young adult fiction or young adult literature (YA)[1] is fiction published for readers in their youth. The age range for young adult fiction is subjective. Some sources claim it ranges from ages 12–18,[2] while authors and readers of "young teen novels" often define it as written for those aged 15 to the early 20s.[3] The terms young adult novel, juvenile novel, teenage fiction, young adult book, etc., refer to the works in this category.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_adult_fiction

To me and apparently many others in this thread, Young Adult refers to the target audience not the characters. Thus novels written to appeal to young people are often referred to a YA novels. The books I listed target young adult readers.

While I agree with J.K. I don't aim to write exclusively for preteens. Instead, I write novels for readers of all ages. Labeling it as "YA" is saying "Screw anyone else who may enjoy the story, preteens are the only ones who matter!" I write novels, not ones restricted to kids!

I write novels, not ones restricted to kids!

What you write is your business CW - and more power to you. My only grip with your post was you defining YA to be a reference to the characters instead of the readers.

What you write is your business CW - and more power to you. My only grip with your post was you defining YA to be a reference to the characters instead of the readers.

Sorry, once again I wasn't clear, as that wasn't my intent. I was emphasizing, regardless of the classification of the YA market definition, that stories not only directed, but featuring young adults, continue to perform better than those featuring any other characters.

It makes sense that publishers would market specifically to them, but that doesn't seem to be the ONLY market for those types of books, so it seems self-limiting. Those books are popular because they appeal to EVERYONE, not just young adults (preteens, essentially). Every age group seems to read those stories, so why limit the marketing to only the one demographic? After all, they aren't the ones spending money, it's their parents and the other adults purchasing the stories. Those same kids are more likely to download the stories illegally via torrent sites anyway, while the older folks are more likely to continue actually purchasing the books.

Sorry, once again I wasn't clear, as that wasn't my intent. I was emphasizing, regardless of the classification of the YA market definition, that stories not only directed, but featuring young adults, continue to perform better than those featuring any other characters.

I don't remember if you refer to SOL stories or published works generally. If the latter, do you have any reputable numbers to support your assertion that "YA" novels, whether targeted at or featuring young adults, or both, outsell other fiction?

I'm thinking, to name only a few, James Patterson, Lee Child, David Baldacci, Stephen King (writes about YAs but novels are not "YA"), etc., etc. There's only one Harry Potter empire, granted it's a large one, but it's only one.

bb

James Patterson

Although the majority of his work is for adults, I believe James Patterson has written a series specifically for the YA market.

AJ

I believe James Patterson has written a series specifically for the YA market.

Most of James Patteron's novels today are written by a group of paid writers. I heard he writes an outline and they write the novel.

I heard he writes an outline and they write the novel.

I used to read an adult Western Series where that was done; but I didn't know it at the time. The "Author" kept changing the level of sex content from story to story. It was very confusing to go from a story with a good plot and some sex to a story that was basically a stroke story.

How does Patterson method seem to work?

ETA: Just the multiple writer concept, no outline. They were a group using a group penname.

How does Patterson method seem to work?

It works because he writes a detail outline. My guess is he also "trains" them on his style. And, finally, I bet he reviews the manuscript before it goes to the publisher.

Yes. He has a stable of young authors who he trains to write in his style. Sometimes it fails badly - I picked up a 'James Patterson and' novel in the library, skimmed through a few pages and put it back because I found it almost unreadable.

I believe he still writes the occasional novel on his own - the Alex Cross series, for example. I don't know whether the YA series is his own work or by one of his trainees.

AJ

How does Patterson method seem to work?

He probably pays a professional manager to ensure each author maintains a similar quality while he spends all his time at his house on a Caribbean island.

Most of James Patteron's novels today are written by a group of paid writers. I heard he writes an outline and they write the novel.

That happens with most successful authors, artists, bloggers, etc. It's hardly an isolated phenomenon. It's the same as big names selling their "name" to be placed on completely unrelated products, just so they'll receive a stipend of each sale.

Hell, I used to know a whole collection of individuals (all from Manhattan) who all 'drew' the Peanuts cartoons. Charles Shultz quite drawing them himself dozens of years before his death.

I don't remember if you refer to SOL stories or published works generally. If the latter, do you have any reputable numbers to support your assertion that "YA" novels, whether targeted at or featuring young adults, or both, outsell other fiction?

I'm not going to get into another tit-for-tat 'prove it to me' exchange, as those discussions are never productive. I'm also not about to waste the time searching for hard evidence for you to simply refuse to accept it once I do.

All I observed, is that I noticed that each of my most successful stories feature young characters, even though most of my readers are much, much older. Thus I reflected that young adult characters, rather than the "YA" marketing, is what seems to sell books. As far as "YA" books, I share JK Rawlings dislike of the trend, since she writes for everyone, not for "young adults".

If you want to debate what marketing trends are true and which aren't, do the friggin' research yourself, rather than demand that others do everything for you. We ain't yo' friggin' slaves!

If you want to debate what marketing trends are true and which aren't, do the friggin' research yourself, rather than demand that others do everything for you. We ain't yo' friggin' slaves!

Ouch! Easy there, big guy. I asked the question to clarify your statement, because to claim that *overall* YA outsells general fiction marketed to adults, struck me as counterintuitive. It still does, and I offered some anecdotal evidence to explain why.

Now you appear to have clarified your statement to refer to your own work, not fiction generally. Fine. That aswers my question. Which, you will note, I had conditioned on whether you referred to your own work (or SOL) or fiction generally.

As to who "proves"what, in general discourse it falls on the party asserting the statement to provide evidence to back it up.

bb

ETA: I did check the NYT bestseller lists before I asked my question. The lists are broken out by adult and YA, among other categories, but do not provide numbers, only who placed first, second, third, etc. So they cannot be compared directly.

Ouch! Easy there, big guy. I asked the question to clarify your statement, because to claim that *overall* YA outsells general fiction marketed to adults, struck me as counterintuitive. It still does, and I offered some anecdotal evidence to explain why.

I reacted negatively, because you were trying to force into a corner where I couldn't defend myself. I never claimed that "YA" was the best-seller market for traditional publishers (what you asked me to 'prove' to you). I merely said that, in my own case, I'd observed that readers, in general, prefer stories about younger characters than they did those about older characters. I never brought up the subject of sales by publishers.

And I asked, mainly because I curious about whether the trend I'd noticed in my own stories extends to other authors. However, the entire discussion got sidetracked into "what is YA and what isn't", rather than whether the age of the protagonists is important or not.

I also blew up because, in the past, you've used the exact same claim to shut down entire discussions: demanding that I prove the unprovable (without industry inside information or extensive research into readership trend which simply don't exist).

When you encounter something you vehemently disagree with (such as following the accepted industry trends), you pull this exact same trick. Instead of discussing the issue, you demand PROOF, rather than discussing the merits of the claim. As such, I take this demands as personal attacks, rather than serious requests for information. If I HAD sources in the publishing industry, I'd reveal what they had to say, but since I don't, I ask questions. You sir, are merely trying to shut down those honest inquires.

But you're correct, I tend to take exception fairly easily, instead of merely politely restating my position again and again.

I never claimed that "YA" was the best-seller market for traditional publishers (what you asked me to 'prove' to you).

No.

Here's what I asked (emphasis added):

"I don't remember if you refer to SOL stories or published works generally. If the latter, do you have [numbers]."

I'm unaware that I've shut down entire threads with "the same claim," whatever that is, but if the thread is shuttable-downable by a single question asking for more evidence, I'd say it wasn't much of a thread to begin with. Unless it was 90% gasbagging, of course.

bb

I'm unaware that I've shut down entire threads with "the same claim," whatever that is, but if the thread is shuttable-downable by a single question asking for more evidence, I'd say it wasn't much of a thread to begin with. Unless it was 90% gasbagging, of course.

There were several VERY contentious arguments, where we were discussing the validity of certain punctuation 'norms', and rather than venture your opinion, you and REP repeatedly demanded that we PROVE that those techniques caused readers to understand better.

When I responded by stating that no one has conducted such research, you both refused to budge until I documented the very claims I was discussing.

That's where the frustration comes from. Contentious arguments, where one side attacks the other, tends to leave last-standing conflicts. As such, it doesn't take much to get my dander up when the newest complaint sounds suspiciously like the old complaints (i.e. 'prove it or shut the fuck up').

As such, it doesn't take much to get my dander up when the newest complaint sounds suspiciously like the old complaints (i.e. 'prove it or shut the fuck up').

For the effing [sic] record, I have never told anyone on this thread or any other discussion or actually to anyone's face (our FAKE president on the radio doesn't count) to "shut the fuck up," thank you very much.

I'll answer for my own sins, but ones invented or committed by others, no. If that's what you heard that's on you, not me.

bb

Lincoln?

Lincoln was despised in his day. Not only did they assassinate him, but they started a damn war simply because of his positions!

Wait, we've had an authentic President in recent history? When did that miracle last happen? JFK? Ford? Carter? Reagan and Bush("read my lips" 41) are possibly stretch options, but I think they'd be "hard sells" for most people.

If you think Bill Clinton qualifies you must have been in an alternate reality, he remains the penultimate embodiment of an unprincipled politician. Bush(43) and Obama alike weren't exactly improvements from that point on either.

I thought he deserved the term, since it's his favorite epithet for real, i.e., not Fox, news, and for probably totally illogical reasons I thought I'd call him fake, because he actually is fake.

That said, the difference between him and all the presidents you name is not whether the others were politicians—after all, for the most part (Eisenhower excepted) that's who we actually want in office—but whether he has (a) the knowledge, (b) the maturity, (c) the consistency, and (d) the interests of the U.S. of A sufficient to qualify him for office.

You can agree or disagree with the policies of some or all of his predecessors and I'll be right there in line happy to join in, but all of them met all of those requirements I listed above. Whether you like what they did with them is another story.

But although it's cheesy of me to say so now after raising the point, the chance of agreement on this topic is so small that discussion is unlikely to be fruitful.

Oh, and what's his thing with Russia, anyway. A joint effort to curb hacking and improve cybersecurity? HAHAHAHAH. And giggle. (Yeah, sure he took it back, or someone made him take it back, but what rational president would have said it in the first place?)

bb

That said, a lot of the rhetoric from both sides regarding him is pretty freaking stupid.

If that includes yelling at the radio, guilty as charged.

bb

the validity of certain punctuation 'norms', and rather than venture your opinion, you and REP repeatedly demanded that we PROVE that those techniques caused readers to understand better.

When I responded by stating that no one has conducted such research, you both refused to budge until I documented the very claims I was discussing.

1. I have no recollection of a discussion of punctuation 'norms' in which I demanded that you prove the techniques caused readers to understand better.

2. As I said in an earlier thread - You have a habit of expressing what I consider 'personal opinions' as if they are fact and in an arrogant manner. Since I have a problem with just accepting what you say, I have on occasion asked you to substantiate your remarks. Your typical response is to either ignore me or just repeat the claim without explaining why you believe what you said is the truth.

3. Asking where you get information and how you know what you are saying is true/fact are not unreasonable requests. Furthermore in your above comment, you said

no one has conducted such research

, so if no research had been done in regard to your claims, how could you have

documented the very claims I was discussing

2. As I said in an earlier thread - You have a habit of expressing what I consider 'personal opinions' as if they are fact and in an arrogant manner. Since I have a problem with just accepting what you say, I have on occasion asked you to substantiate your remarks. Your typical response is to either ignore me or just repeat the claim without explaining why you believe what you said is the truth.

3. Asking where you get information and how you know what you are saying is true/fact are not unreasonable requests. Furthermore in your above comment, you said

The discussion was over the use of 'filler words' (that, seem, etc.). Most writers suggest removing them, as they don't aid the story and they feel writing is easier without the extra words. However, while we were discussing how to process those words, your and REP started getting defensive, demanding that those trying to hold a discussion about cleaning up their text PROVE that simplifying writing actually sold more books.

That was such a nebulous demand (who the hell determines what's a simplification and what's 'normal' editing) it's impossible to prove. What's more, at the time no one was insisting that anyone else bother with the process, we were simply discussing how we cleaned up our text in order to suggest alternatives for others to use.

Anyway, dredging up old fights isn't going to resolve anything aside from restarting old fights. We never resolved it before, and are unlikely to make any headway now. However, since the discussion got so pointed, with your insisting the rest of us shouldn't discuss anything unless we could PROVE something that's physically impossible to prove, I took it as a personal attack (the attempt to shut down the discussion, rather than the an attack against me specifically). That's why I interpreted it as an attempt to 'shut the discussion down'.

However, then as now, I'd rather waste my time in more productive ways, and since this discussion has degraded into "You did it", "No I didn't, you did", I'll abandon yet another discussion. Which only reinforces my interpretation of your interests (i.e. that you prefer shutting down people searching for information, rather than a willingness to help anyone).

Which only reinforces my interpretation of your interests (i.e. that you prefer shutting down people searching for information, rather than a willingness to help anyone).

To start with, your participation in most of the threads that I recall reading is not someone searching for information. Your posts are you telling us the way things are and come across as "I'm right so just accept it" . You do not discuss or ask, you tell.

Secondly, I have no interest in shutting down discussions. What I am interested in doing is stopping you from shoving your personal opinions down my throat as if they are facts. Frequently what you say is not a fact, it is an opinion. The rest of us have opinions and on occasion we strongly disagree with your opinions. We have the right to disagree with you and standup for what we believe is correct. When we do, you get angry because we aren't accepting what you say as fact. Comments like, "If you want to debate what marketing trends are true and which aren't, do the friggin' research yourself, rather than demand that others do everything for you. We ain't yo' friggin' slaves!" are what shuts down a conversation.

If you go back and review that part of the conversation, Bondi politely asked if you had any numbers to support what you said. You later said, you felt backed into a corner where you couldn't defend yourself (i.e., that sounds to me as if you stated an opinion as fact and you had nothing to support your opinion.)

Our requests for supporting information , not DEMANDS, are a means of determining if what you say is opinion or fact. Since you object to providing this information or telling us where it can be found, I must conclude that your statements are opinions with no supporting fact or foundation based on facts. If you have facts, then sharing them with others promotes discussion.

I have a vague recollection of the conversation you are referring to, but still no details of the respective positions or resolution. Frankly I don't care and the only reason I brought it up is that I don't recall ever demanding something from you.

In general, it's probably a fantasy/wish fulfillment issue. The young want to be adults (but not old) and the old want to be young again (youth is wasted on the young)

That was my initial impression, but it doesn't seem likely. It's not like older people don't want to read something that reflects their lives. Instead, it seems more likely that it takes more time to set up the situation, whereas the traditional teenage drama largely sets itself up, so the author can then focus on the secondary conflicts, rather than establishing the principal conflict.

Some of the Naked in School Stories have conflicts with Principals.

And with principles, too, of course, until the lure of the flesh proves too much and we all enjoy the result.

bb

Some of the Naked in School Stories have conflicts with Principals.

That's cause no one wants to see their Principal naked! Teachers, maybe, but Principals, almost never.

Those books are popular because they appeal to EVERYONE

It is not that the books don't appeal to everyone, but books with adult plots, not erotic, don't have as high of an appeal with the younger market.

I think this is because, young people do not have the experience that older people have acquired. Therefore they can fantasize themselves as the MC in a YA story much easier than they could in an adult story.

Those books you're quoting are not considered "YA", as that's an entirely new genre of novels which isn't related to the age of characters.

Except that other than Friday, those books WERE written specifically for the teen audience. Heinlein himself said that many times in 'Grumbles from the Grave', in his letters to and from Lurton Blassingame (his agent). They were the 'annual' teen novel. And I certainly read those books when I was a young adult ... many, many times. (Still got a box with my copies out in the storage unit.)

Many of them (e.g. Podkayne of Mars, Friday, Have Spacesuit - Will Travel, Tunnel in the Sky, etc.) seem to target what we call the YA market.

Friday wasn't targeted for YA, but the others were, part of his Scribner's teen books.

Friday wasn't targeted for YA

You are probably right on that one; from my recollection it seemed YA. I wanted to list several stories, but have a terrible memory for titles and names. One of the ones I wanted was about the family traveling in a spaceship and the tribles.

Friday is definitely not YA. (I typoed that as "TA", which probably better describes it. At least the cover on the printing I have.) Heinlein did write a dozen YA novels for Scrivener's, though (including The Rolling Stones), and a handful of others for other publishers, including a couple for the "Boy's Life" scouting magazine.

The handful of 'sci-fi' magazines of the time were also predominately focused on children (pre-teen to early high school), since few adults at the time were terribly interested in such 'far out' stories. Thus those magazines purchased short stories (often pieces of stories which went on to become full novels) which didn't feature anything that those younger kids couldn't read.

family traveling in a spaceship and the tribles.

Martian Flat Cats. As BlackKnight said, The Rolling Stones. (And later on, the whole Stone clan ends up in with the rest of the Long family, due to the universe as myth proposition, and those stories were definitely NOT YA. With just a little tweaking, they could post here on SOL as really decent erotica, actually.)

If you've read David Gerrold's book, he apparently got the idea for tribbles from Heinlein, without consciously trying to steal it. (That was his story, and he's sticking to it.) He had to send an autographed copy of the script to Heinlein.

More likely everyone reads to the middle. The young read up, the old read down.

My point is that everyone seems to fixate on the teen years, regardless of where they find themselves. Thus there seems to be something about those characters which appeal to every reader. The key, for authors, is to identify what that specific appeal is, so they can capitalize on it (other than writing yet-another "YA" story).

There are plenty around. A common theme seems to be military and ex-military protagonists.

AJ

There are plenty around. A common theme seems to be military and ex-military protagonists.

Biographies are a classic exemption. After all, who the hell wants to read the 'life history' of someone who's never experienced life?

You're right about ex-military protagonists, since they couldn't have served without being of legal age. But it doesn't answer the question. Do veteran protagonist stories score better, or worse, than stories with teens or 'young adults'?

It's not a matter of whether the stories exist or not, but defining the extent of the trend. Are there definite limits on the trend (stories which are popular despite breaking it), and if so, under what circumstances can we get away with breaking this 'teens are just more popular' rule.

Although, I can see all the Jack Reacher or 'ex-spy goes nuts and kills all the bad guys' working, but merely because it's ALL action with little actual character building.

Something happens to their family/loved ones, they go apeshit, and mayhem(and lots of explosions) follow suit.

I'm reading Stephen Hunter's Pale Horse Coming, about the father of the "Shooter," the series remake with Ryan Phillipe of the earlier movie with one of the Wahlburgs. Exactly that premise, except that there's plenty of character-building, including secondary characters. But at its core it is mostly revenge/shoot-em-up/bring justice.

bb

Which cycles back to my earlier comment about older characters usually being "placed" in the position of having just had something happen to them which threatened or radically altered "the stability" of their day to day life.

That's basically the premise of ANY story, something upsetting happens, creates a conflict which has to be resolved. Without conflict, you'll have a pretty boring story. But not every story requires explosions, alien invasions or mass killings of Arabs.

But you're right, the conflict over 'the establishment' not liking a new approach is easier to sell, as it's something that everyone can understand and doesn't take long to establish. (I've used it myself in most of my books.)

There are also a BUNCH of 'life stories' which revolve around much more everyday conflicts (acceptance, fitting in, petty jealousies, misunderstands) which don't fit into those molds. Since we don't encounter them as much on SOL (mainly because they're generally written by women), I suspect we're not getting a fair representation.

Most of those revolve around young or middle-aged women (the latter often when their kids leave home and they're forced to restart their lives with an entirely new focus). But still, while that's a broader age range, there aren't many successful stories featuring 70 or 80 year-old women.

does anyone here have examples of stories (theirs or other's) which succeeded with older characters

Always a Marine by Ernest Bywater (score 9.23).

AJ