Is There Any Point in Trying to Make YA and NA Novels Good?

US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously said:

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."

That's kind of the way I think of 'good' writing. Not just my opinion of the work in question, but how it adheres to the highest standards of prose I've enjoyed in sixty years of being a voracious reader.

 

Obviously you take your target audience into account, when you write emotional scenes —as you probably do when you create any effect.

Some readers respond emotionally to stiff upper lip characters who keep their emotions under tight control but feel them deeply, (I'm one of these readers) while others seem to respond to more overt and honest displays of emotion.

Being aware of how to create these effects for your target audience is a definite plus for any writer who wants people to enjoy what they've written and to care about their characters. I maintain that you can learn how to do this, as a writer. This kind of attention to objective writing attributes can result in a very happy and satisfied audience for your work.

 

There have been some long responses (which i did not read lol) but I am currently writing a YA novel. The thing with writing a teen character is that you have to appeal to your audience. The book clearly isnt for you or your demo, but at the same time a good story should be able to transcend that. There should be some depth to the character. I want teens to enjoy my book but lets be real, adults read YA too so I want adults to enjoy it as well. I think your friend should take some of your feed back though, i mean why have you read it if he/she isnt going to listen to what you have to say. A book, no matter the genre should always be good.

 

Ugh yes! "Jennifer flung herself on the bed with anguished face that contorted into a shriveled up prune with water cascading from her eyes. She encased her face into the fluffy white rectangle that laid at the head of her bed."

like for fuck sake just say that Jennifer fell on the bed crying and buried her face in the pillow!

 

Waterworks had dampened the fluffy white rectangle that was used to quiet Jennifer for all eternity.

I like "fluffy white rectangle" as an instrument of death.

 

I watched it. Not sure how it relates to the topic of this thread though?

Also it makes me sad to hear him talk about saying things are popular based on nostalgic exposure to similar things. I can't argue with him, but it feels dirty to me to think of a writer picking a topic not because they love it, but because they think it will make money based on others loving it.

 

LOL thats siggy worthy

 

It could be because they love it too. Perhaps they love it because it reminds them of things they read before. But yea anyone writing a book solely because they think it will make them money rather than loving the idea of the story and writing itself makes me sad

 

@GingerCoffee posted a link to a how-to writer in a different thread, and as I was reading the woman's ideas, I came across:

Writers are continually encouraged to focus on the externals -– words, metaphors, dialogue, setting, place, characters -– as if mastering all these “elements” will somehow result in the ability to tell a story. What’s more, we’re taught each of these things separate from story, when the power they derive stems from one thing only: the story itself.

So what’s the real story here? That you know much more about storytelling than you think you do.

http://writerunboxed.com/2013/04/11/what-is-a-natural-storyteller/
​

And that's pretty close to what I think, too. You can spend a lot of time figuring out new tools, but tools are no good without raw materials. And if the raw materials are appealing enough, they don't need to be polished in order to shine.

 

At the risk of repeating what may already have been stated over four pages of posts... Perhaps if the teen-betas are enjoying and giving positive reviews, that's really all that does matter because it would seem the story is directed at them as an audience and not so much at older readers. It works for them, so it works. I have a hard time giving YA books an honest consideration because a lot of the things that are of importance in novels aimed at this age-group aren't the same things that are of importance to me in my 40's. In your late teens and early 20's, being seen as an adult is tremendously important and people get amazingly prickly at the slightest hint of their adulthood being called into question. It's the time when people are also super invested in the definitions of things that they accept/don't accept, do/don't do, are/aren't, etc. The definitions that we think will serve as scaffolding for who we become as we grow up. When you're in you 40's, you realize that a lot of that energy is kinda wasted since most definitions change drastically as we age and gain the individual experiences that make up our lives.

The book may not be Doritos at all. It may have layers and focus that we're just not tuned into for being older. It may have colors that shine wonderfully for those younger readers because those are the colors that are happening for them right now, but not for you and I, so we don't see it, or if we do, we give it a meh. I've re-read books from my youth that I remember having loved, but now, this older Wrey is chagrinned to discover that... ugh.... they were terrible. But maybe older Wrey is wrong. Maybe they're not terrible. Maybe they're just not for an older reader.

Perhaps?

 

This is a very good point. I've noticed the same thing as an adult. There are several books that I loved as a teen. Loved! I read them over and over, until the pages started falling out. This year, I reread a few of them. And they were.... bad. lol I mean, I still enjoyed the story. But the characters weren't as strong as I remembered, the love story made me want to cringe, and I really hated the main character until about halfway through. But ten years ago? Best book I ever read. And I don't think it had anything to do with my knowledge level changing. The book just didn't resonate with me the way it once did because I was no longer the target audience.

So I think you hit the nail on the head with this one.

 

Well if what @Wreybies, and @Lea`Brooks say about the books of youth are correct. That in fact that the books read in those teen years, suck now. Then I might just have to re-read an entire series over again. Most of what I read as a teen was typically meant for adults, and have grown to love them more as an adult. But the age appropriate books, I have yet to address in older age. Have to get back to yall on that one (gonna take awhile cause there are alot of books).

 

I agree with you here completely. I have often extolled my love of Frank Herbert and Samual R. Delany. I discovered these two well before the age that most people would consider "age appropriate" for those writers. Especially Delany. Owning his books was like have Penthouse mags hidden under the bed. I was terrified my mom would actually skim one of them and take them all away from me. The last set of books from my youth that were more YA oriented (there really wasn't a YA niche then the way there is now) that I tried to re-read were Alan Dean Foster's Spellsinger books. I couldn't get past the first chapter of the first book and there was a time in my youth when I lived in these books.

 

Which is exactly why I keep telling you I'm not talking about a list or a set of rules when I talk about writing skill.

Look at the rest of the article because it describes what goes into a skillfully written book. It's not some black and white list, it's a much more complex skill than that. But it isn't just arbitrary subjective nothings.

Going back to a key point already posted:

Catrin notes a lack of specific writing skills that could be improved upon and notes if we take the author's word for it, the book is still appealing to the target audience. But it's not the list you think either exists, or, it's no more than opinions.

Sometimes with a very new writer (like me a few years ago), 'show, don't tell' is indeed the first lesson. I think if people understood this was a lesson a lot of new writers need to learn, rather than it being a rule, they would get it. Instead people treat it like a rule.

When you see a new writer (or one that has yet to acquire skill) you can tell right away that the 'telling' indicates the writer lacks skill. If on the other hand a skilled writer produces a piece where telling is a chosen style, like the way some fairy tales are written, it's recognizable as skilled writing.

How does one describe the difference? Recognizing it and describing are two different things. But difficulty articulating the difference (because it takes more than a few words) doesn't mean the difference is no more than subjective.

 

"Fairly Tales"? Anybody remember reading fairly tales?
Do tell more about these fairly tales. The must be good, or at least 'fairly' decent.

 

Hey, typos happen.

I loved fairy tales as a kid, couldn't get enough of them.

The Nightingale and the Rose is a good example of 'telling' a story. It also has the elements of good writing, it draws people in and leaves them crying for the sad fate of the Nightingale, because we care that it died in vain. And the girl was awful, deceitful, only interested in wealth. That made the death of the nightingale even more tragic.

And how about The Little Match Girl? It's another tear-jerker, this one with a tragic yet happy ending.

I used to read all the books with 'fairy tales from other lands'.

 

@GingerCoffee I was more of an Aesop's Fables child my self. Though I have read Politically Correct Fairy Tales once. That was a little strange.

As far as the Main Topic is concerned, I don't think either has anything to do with the well/ill writings of YA.

Considering I was not one to read anything YA (that wasn't a thing when I was teenager), there were just books for children and adults. Typically separated by content. Though read mostly adult books ever since I learned to read, as my parents have a large collection of Science Fiction and Fantasy at that reading level. So I might be out of the 'norm' loop on the subject of YA, as it simply didn't exist at the time. Though I have read a series that can be classified as YA, though I see it as Science Fiction for children. I enjoyed them at the time, but I don't know if I would enjoy them now or not.

 

I did look at the rest of the article, Ginger. It's not like it was that long. Seriously. I think you're being unconsciously patronizing rather than deliberately patronizing, but that doesn't make it any less annoying.

Okay, so we can establish that:

There is no set of rules that makes up good writing. There is no black-or-white set of skills that makes up good writing. Am I good so far?

So then going back to the OP, and reading the question of whether there's any point in trying to make YA/NA writing good... can we agree that YA/NA writing can be good even if it doesn't follow rules (since there is no set of rules) and doesn't display black-or-white skills (since there are no black-or-white skills)?

If we can agree on that, then we agree. There are no black-or-white writing skills. YA/NA writing, like all fiction, should be judged for the story it tells and the effectiveness with which it reaches its audience. Yes?

 

I would say yes but add that is worthy to try to achieve a high level of literary writing skill for a YA novel if the author is willing. I would call it YMA, young mature adult if such a classification exists. I believe GingerCoffee wants to reach for that goal and feels that it is justified, so her answer to the OP's question "Is There Any Point in Trying to Make YA and NA Novels Good?", is yes, there is a point.

BTW, my words, not trying to put words in GingerCoffee's posts.

 

I'm not sure how to reconcile "a high level of literary writing skill" with "no black-and-white writing skills"...?

I'd agree that YA/NA authors should pay attention to what they're doing and work hard to make their writing effective. But I'm not sure "literary writing skill" is going to be the best way to make that happen, since I'm not sure what people mean when they refer to the whole "writing skill" thing.

 

Which has been the issue all along. I have no trouble at all with "a high level of literary writing skill" not being something that you can put into a black and white checklist. While clearly "a high level of literary writing skill" exists.

You resist all examples/analogies and just stick to your concrete guns that if it isn't black and white that only leaves arbitrarily subjective. And yet, it's easy to find examples of "a high level of literary writing skill" contrasting with "a low level of literary writing skill".

That books with not such "a high level of literary writing skill" can still be best sellers only tells one that best selling is not only dependent upon "a high level of literary writing skill". By the same token, "a high level of literary writing skill" doesn't guarantee your book will be a best seller.

To determine "a high level of literary writing skill" based solely on sales isn't the best measure of literary skill.

Now if you stop talking about literary skill and instead recognize some of us are talking skill and you are talking sales, you could also say, you prefer to measure skill by whether people enjoy reading the work. I think it is measuring a separate thing.

 

Well, it exists for you. As I've said many times, it doesn't exist for me, not in a cross-the-board, universal, non-subjective way. I know you don't agree, but... that doesn't actually change my mind.

Okay, this would be excellent. Could you please post some examples? Could you please do anything to make it more clear to me what you mean when you refer to to non-subjective level of writing skill?

And while you're at it - what analogies did you want to stand behind as valid? The one where you tried to compare judging fiction to the science of climate change? Was that one you were particularly proud of?

You already tried this back in post #36 and I already responded, back in post #40. I don't think I have anything to add, so if you need a response to this, please read post #40.

Now if you stop making up what you think I'm saying and recognize I'm not talking about sales at all, you'd realize that I have, repeatedly, said I measure skill by whether people enjoy reading the work. See posts #27 ("They enjoyed the book; that makes it a good book, for them") , #30, ("To me, writing is good if it evokes a positive response in readers, and bad if it evokes a negative response"), #40 ("To me, writing is a tool. Its function is to reach the hearts and minds of readers. If it does that? It's a good tool, so I guess that makes it good writing"), post #64 (" I believe in writing that achieves the goals of the author or doesn't achieve the goals of the author. Assuming an author's goal was commercial success, and assuming the book succeeded on its own, rather than by piggybacking on the fame of the author, then a book that achieves commercial success is good because it has achieved its author's goals"), #73 ("Good writing is writing that appeals to its audience and engages them") and... I'm tired of re-reading.

So, you think I'm measuring a separate thing. Fair enough. I'm still struggling to figure out what the hell you're measuring, so, yeah, I think they're definitely separate.

You can't give me a list. Can you give me a description? Can you give me anything that will describe what you mean when you talk about well-written vs. poorly written? In order to take my "evokes a positive response in readers" element out of things, you should probably compare books that have similar levels of critical or reader response. Like, if you compare Harry Potter to something a fourth grader scribbled in response to a picture of a cat, it's not going to do much good, because Harry Potter does meet my criteria for good writing (insofar as it worked well for a lot of people) and the cat story does not.

So I guess we'd need two equally popular books, one of which is well-written according to your standards, one of which isn't. And then maybe you can explain why the well-written one is well-written?

Because if you can't do that? I don't really think you have much credibility in terms of this discussion. "I know what's well-written, but I can't say why it's well-written" isn't going to take us far, not unless you accept my definition of well-written as "whatever works for the reader".

 

Yes!!! That, that, that! "She felt sad and humiliated," period/full stop--- that's the sort of writing I'm encountering in the work in question. I guess if the author is lucky, he or she will get enough readers who know what it's like to be sad and humiliated and are willing to fill in the blanks with their own experience. But isn't it better to do what it takes to grab the readers by the viscera and make them feel just what "sad and humiliated" in this context means?

 

It's funny, but I'm reading and enjoying a lot more YA now that I'm sub teaching middle school English than I ever did as a teenager. When I was that age, I found the typical YA to be juvenile and boring. I bypassed it for Mary Stewart and Anya Seton and the whole line of British romantic/thriller/historical novelists whose work I still enjoy, lo, these many decades later. Maybe the fact that I do read a decent amount of YA now has me convinced that YA authors owe their teenage audiences the best they can give.

 

I think there's a time for telling, and a time for showing. YA tends to move at a quicker pace than adult fiction, and showing tends to take more words. If you want there to be a huge scene with full, deep emotional impact, I agree, showing is probably the way to go. But not every scene will be that important to the work, not every scene should be gushing with emotion (or maybe they should be - subjective again!).

Some readers like more telling, some like more showing. Some genres favour more of one or the other, some writers' personal styles involve more of one or the other. I don't think you can make an across-the-board pronouncement that showing emotions is always better than telling emotions. There's a time and a place for both, and the balance between them will vary depending on circumstances.