And the award for outstanding achievement in mediocrity goes to...
OK, we're going to start this one off with a skill-testing question. Here it is:
What does the acronym "YA" stand for?
a) Yugoslavian Aristocrat
b) Yak Artery
c) Young Adult
d) Yikes! Ameoba!
If you said a, b, or d - congratulations! Your prize is waiting for you at the nearest psych ward. If you said c, you are boring but correct (trust me, being boring is way underrated).
So, I really like YA literature. It's kind of embarrassing. It often leads to awkward situations like when you take your kids to the library and you spend the whole time browsing in the section that has the vampire romances; meanwhile, two rows over, your youngest kid is eating The English Patient and when the librarian finds him you're still trying to decide between A Series of Unfortunate Events and the newest Eric Walters book.
Of course, if you are a YA fan like me, you already know how ridiculous this scenario is: you CAN'T ever take out the newest Eric Walters book, because by the time you've picked up the one on the shelf, he's published another! And by the time you've walked to the librarian's desk to reserve your copy of the one he just published, there's another one! And another! Ah, yes, Eric Walters books: they're kind of like rabbits, but with fewer adjectives and less character development. BUT WAY MORE EXCLAMATION MARKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Anyhow, when it comes to books, every genre has its angels as well as its black sheep. YA is no exception, except for the fact that with THIS genre, publishers seem to have a mentality that goes something like this:
SCENE: Board room, fifteenth floor of Generic Publishing Company
BOSS: OK, everyone, we all know why we're here. Sales are way down in the YA market. What we need is a...
WEEBLES (The CFO): Wait, we write books for Yugoslavian aristocrats? Since when?!
BOSS (shaking head and face-palming): No, Weebles. We do not write books for east European royalty. But we DO write books for YOUNG ADULTS.
WEEBLES: Oh. I guess that's the one acronym I missed in accounting school.
BOSS: Anyways, as I was saying, YA sales are way down, so what we need to do is create a strategy for how we can reach this market. Now, I'm open to any ideas - there are no stupid ideas!
AUTHOR #1 (eyes downcast, fidgeting with pencil): Um, sir?
BOSS: Yes, Smithkins? Or is it Wizzledorf?
AUTHOR #1: Um, it's Bob, sir. But, what I was going to say is that, well, we know that young people want books that are intelligent and well-written, and that show a depth of engagement with complex issues like...
Drowned out by uproarious laughter around the conference table.
BOSS (spewing coffee across the table): BA HAHAHAHAHA!... Ha ha haaa! oh, please stop! Hee hee! Did you just say "intelligent and well-written?!" "Complex issues"?!?! HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA (collapses under the table).
AUTHOR #1: Well, um, but what about The Boy Sherlock series? Or anything by Kenneth Oppel or Christopher Paul Curtis? They're all great, and they respect the intelligence of their audience by...
(Further explosions of laughter; several people have heart attacks and fall out of windows)
BOSS (again recovering from convulsive weeping): OK.... whoo.... slow down... slow down (subsides into chuckles). All right, OK, folks, I guess I need to clarify what I meant before when I said there were "no stupid ideas." Apparently some of us didn't get the "memo" on the sarcasm there! Now, do we have any REAL ideas, please?
AUTHOR #2: Umm, sir?
BOSS: Yes, author #2?
AUTHOR #2: Umm, well, sir, I was thinking, what if we took a bunch of half-baked characters with no discernible personalities or motivations, threw them into a derivative world based largely on The Hunger Games, and then added some under-developed plots and lots of angsty kissing?
BOSS: Done! You've just got yourself an 84-part series and a movie! Weebles, get Michael Bay on the phone!
Sigh. Although it may sound exaggerated, the above scene is, sadly, not far from reality. Or at least you could be forgiven for assuming as much if you've read a decent cross-section of modern YA lit ('lit' as in "literature," not to be confused with 'lit' as in "My fanny pack is lit, bro"). I for one have read a disturbing amount of YA, but I assure you that this is strictly for "professional development" purposes in my role as a middle school teacher to grow in a deeper understanding of my students' needs and OK I'm totally lying I'm just a nerd.
Now, YA is like everything else: there is good YA and bad YA. There is YA that makes me feel that all is right with the universe, and there is YA that makes my eyes bleed. The gap between the wonderful stuff (ie. Kenneth Oppel's Airborn trilogy or Trenton Lee Stewart's The Mysterious Benedict Society) and the eye-bleeding stuff (ie. every dystopia EVER minus The Hunger Games) is pretty wide, and there's lots that gets lost in the middle. They're not great; they're not terrible. They're just mildly irritating. When you read them you can't shake this feeling of tragically squandered potential.
In a way, this is even worse than being terrible! At least when I waste my time on a terrible book I have no one to blame but myself. But the mediocre stuff is nasty: it lures you in with false promises of greatness, the first few chapters get you hooked, and by the time you realize you've been duped, you're 100 pages in and can't turn back! Two whole evenings of your life GONE. And more pain to come! Because of course I have to finish almost every book I start. Sigh....
Anyhow, without further ado, allow me to present the first ever
This books begins with an amazing premise (teens who are the sons and daughters of international diplomats get up to hijinks on a street lined with embassies in the capital city of a fictional country, where one wrong move can start the next world war) that gets completely sidelined in favor of a generic and uninspired mystery that makes NO REAL USE of the incredible setting. This is the literary equivalent of traveling to Singapore and then never leaving the Motel 6 (let's pretend they have those in Singapore). Started out loving it, then downgraded to just liking it; by the end I was somewhere between "indifference" and "mild contempt."
GRAND-PRIZE WINNER: The Compound
If this book's potential for greatness could be personified, that person would be a 6 foot tall, 250 pound, world-champion boxer who takes an uppercut to the jaw five seconds into the fight and never gets up off the mat. So much potential. And so. Much. Disappointment. In much the same way as the previous title, this one starts out with a fantastic premise and a setting that offers limitless opportunity. And then does nothing with it. Seriously, the setting is so rich - an underground, doomsday bunker with labyrinths of hidden secrets - I know, right!?! And a family that is hiding out down there with an overbearing and mysterious father whose intentions may not be what they seem. I know!!! It's like all the best parts of 10 Cloverfield Lane without the grossness.
So, why the award? Because the setup is perfect - but there's no execution. As a setting, the bunker SHOULD feel alive and menacing and brimming with terrifying possibilities, but instead it's duller than a Mennonite's razor blade.* If you want to know how a master author uses setting, look no further than Shane Peacock's Boy Sherlock series. They're set in 19th century London, and the best character in that whole series is 19th century London. The city itself is alive - it seethes and moves and lives and breathes and infuses all the action of the plot with an incredible sense of weight and reality. You feel the grime of the street, the coal-dust in your lungs, the smell of the gas-lamps and the touch of the oily water of the Thames. The fact that I can recall all these details years after reading this series tells you something about the author's skill - or that I have no life.
"Now," someone may say, "I see where you're coming from. But let's get some perspective here. It's not like these books are terrible, right? I mean, they could be so much worse, couldn't they? Shouldn't you at least be happy that they have some redeeming value?"
Yes, imaginary devil's advocate, you have a point. Neither of the above books were overtly bad and it certainly was not a waste of time to read them. They are somewhat interesting and somewhat memorable. They have some redeeming value.
...
But what about when they don't?
Hoo, boy. This one's gonna take some time.
Of course, if you are a YA fan like me, you already know how ridiculous this scenario is: you CAN'T ever take out the newest Eric Walters book, because by the time you've picked up the one on the shelf, he's published another! And by the time you've walked to the librarian's desk to reserve your copy of the one he just published, there's another one! And another! Ah, yes, Eric Walters books: they're kind of like rabbits, but with fewer adjectives and less character development. BUT WAY MORE EXCLAMATION MARKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Anyhow, when it comes to books, every genre has its angels as well as its black sheep. YA is no exception, except for the fact that with THIS genre, publishers seem to have a mentality that goes something like this:
***
SCENE: Board room, fifteenth floor of Generic Publishing Company
BOSS: OK, everyone, we all know why we're here. Sales are way down in the YA market. What we need is a...
WEEBLES (The CFO): Wait, we write books for Yugoslavian aristocrats? Since when?!
BOSS (shaking head and face-palming): No, Weebles. We do not write books for east European royalty. But we DO write books for YOUNG ADULTS.
WEEBLES: Oh. I guess that's the one acronym I missed in accounting school.
BOSS: Anyways, as I was saying, YA sales are way down, so what we need to do is create a strategy for how we can reach this market. Now, I'm open to any ideas - there are no stupid ideas!
AUTHOR #1 (eyes downcast, fidgeting with pencil): Um, sir?
BOSS: Yes, Smithkins? Or is it Wizzledorf?
AUTHOR #1: Um, it's Bob, sir. But, what I was going to say is that, well, we know that young people want books that are intelligent and well-written, and that show a depth of engagement with complex issues like...
Drowned out by uproarious laughter around the conference table.
BOSS (spewing coffee across the table): BA HAHAHAHAHA!... Ha ha haaa! oh, please stop! Hee hee! Did you just say "intelligent and well-written?!" "Complex issues"?!?! HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA (collapses under the table).
AUTHOR #1: Well, um, but what about The Boy Sherlock series? Or anything by Kenneth Oppel or Christopher Paul Curtis? They're all great, and they respect the intelligence of their audience by...
(Further explosions of laughter; several people have heart attacks and fall out of windows)
BOSS (again recovering from convulsive weeping): OK.... whoo.... slow down... slow down (subsides into chuckles). All right, OK, folks, I guess I need to clarify what I meant before when I said there were "no stupid ideas." Apparently some of us didn't get the "memo" on the sarcasm there! Now, do we have any REAL ideas, please?
AUTHOR #2: Umm, sir?
BOSS: Yes, author #2?
AUTHOR #2: Umm, well, sir, I was thinking, what if we took a bunch of half-baked characters with no discernible personalities or motivations, threw them into a derivative world based largely on The Hunger Games, and then added some under-developed plots and lots of angsty kissing?
BOSS: Done! You've just got yourself an 84-part series and a movie! Weebles, get Michael Bay on the phone!
***
Sigh. Although it may sound exaggerated, the above scene is, sadly, not far from reality. Or at least you could be forgiven for assuming as much if you've read a decent cross-section of modern YA lit ('lit' as in "literature," not to be confused with 'lit' as in "My fanny pack is lit, bro"). I for one have read a disturbing amount of YA, but I assure you that this is strictly for "professional development" purposes in my role as a middle school teacher to grow in a deeper understanding of my students' needs and OK I'm totally lying I'm just a nerd.
Now, YA is like everything else: there is good YA and bad YA. There is YA that makes me feel that all is right with the universe, and there is YA that makes my eyes bleed. The gap between the wonderful stuff (ie. Kenneth Oppel's Airborn trilogy or Trenton Lee Stewart's The Mysterious Benedict Society) and the eye-bleeding stuff (ie. every dystopia EVER minus The Hunger Games) is pretty wide, and there's lots that gets lost in the middle. They're not great; they're not terrible. They're just mildly irritating. When you read them you can't shake this feeling of tragically squandered potential.
In a way, this is even worse than being terrible! At least when I waste my time on a terrible book I have no one to blame but myself. But the mediocre stuff is nasty: it lures you in with false promises of greatness, the first few chapters get you hooked, and by the time you realize you've been duped, you're 100 pages in and can't turn back! Two whole evenings of your life GONE. And more pain to come! Because of course I have to finish almost every book I start. Sigh....
Anyhow, without further ado, allow me to present the first ever
"YAK ARTERY" Award
for Outstanding Achievement in Mediocrity
(based on the books I can actually remember right now which isn't very much, and not including titles that are well known or have already been repeatedly skewered by bloggers like me)
(based on the books I can actually remember right now which isn't very much, and not including titles that are well known or have already been repeatedly skewered by bloggers like me)
HONORABLE MENTION: All Fall Down: Embassy Row #1
This books begins with an amazing premise (teens who are the sons and daughters of international diplomats get up to hijinks on a street lined with embassies in the capital city of a fictional country, where one wrong move can start the next world war) that gets completely sidelined in favor of a generic and uninspired mystery that makes NO REAL USE of the incredible setting. This is the literary equivalent of traveling to Singapore and then never leaving the Motel 6 (let's pretend they have those in Singapore). Started out loving it, then downgraded to just liking it; by the end I was somewhere between "indifference" and "mild contempt."
GRAND-PRIZE WINNER: The Compound
If this book's potential for greatness could be personified, that person would be a 6 foot tall, 250 pound, world-champion boxer who takes an uppercut to the jaw five seconds into the fight and never gets up off the mat. So much potential. And so. Much. Disappointment. In much the same way as the previous title, this one starts out with a fantastic premise and a setting that offers limitless opportunity. And then does nothing with it. Seriously, the setting is so rich - an underground, doomsday bunker with labyrinths of hidden secrets - I know, right!?! And a family that is hiding out down there with an overbearing and mysterious father whose intentions may not be what they seem. I know!!! It's like all the best parts of 10 Cloverfield Lane without the grossness.
So, why the award? Because the setup is perfect - but there's no execution. As a setting, the bunker SHOULD feel alive and menacing and brimming with terrifying possibilities, but instead it's duller than a Mennonite's razor blade.* If you want to know how a master author uses setting, look no further than Shane Peacock's Boy Sherlock series. They're set in 19th century London, and the best character in that whole series is 19th century London. The city itself is alive - it seethes and moves and lives and breathes and infuses all the action of the plot with an incredible sense of weight and reality. You feel the grime of the street, the coal-dust in your lungs, the smell of the gas-lamps and the touch of the oily water of the Thames. The fact that I can recall all these details years after reading this series tells you something about the author's skill - or that I have no life.
***
When it comes to this subject of mediocrity, perhaps the most painful thing of all is the end result of books like this. Not only have they squandered a perfectly good premise, but they have taken it and rendered it unusable for all the other authors! What!?!? That's like ripping open the Doritos bag and licking all the flavour off and then saying "Hey guys! Want some Doritos? What, no? OK, then, suit yourself! NOM NOM NOM." Just imagine what a Kenneth Oppel or Shane Peacock or Christopher Paul Curtis could have done with a premise like the ones described above! But we'll never know for sure, because copyright."Now," someone may say, "I see where you're coming from. But let's get some perspective here. It's not like these books are terrible, right? I mean, they could be so much worse, couldn't they? Shouldn't you at least be happy that they have some redeeming value?"
Yes, imaginary devil's advocate, you have a point. Neither of the above books were overtly bad and it certainly was not a waste of time to read them. They are somewhat interesting and somewhat memorable. They have some redeeming value.
...
But what about when they don't?
Hoo, boy. This one's gonna take some time.
***
*Come ask me how long it takes me to use up a single Mach 3 blade. The answer will disturb you.
Comments
Post a Comment