Well, I finally get around to writing the 'first' in this series after a year and a half. Let's hope it's worth the wait.
When I say I read almost anything, I mean it; and one of my favourite genres is what is called 'young adult'. Someone smart a few years back figured that there would be a market for books written for teens containing what had up until that point been thought of as 'adult' themes in nature. By which I mean anything and everything from vampires to divorce, with possibly a side order of politics and environmental destruction thrown in. The main difference being that the protagonists are themselves teenagers, and although the themes are adult, the stories are told with a background of more or less 'normal' teen life: school, cliques, crushes, that sort of thing.
Though this second difference isn't so much in certain books; for obvious reasons. There are a few books set in dystopian futures, some of them well known classics. Like 1984 and Brave New World, for instance. And it may be somewhat surprising to realise that this is quite a popular theme among young adult books. I didn't find it surprising at first, I just read and enjoyed them; but, after a while I began to think this was an odd choice of theme. I mean, essentially, dystopian novels are political allegories-why write something like that for a market that, as a whole, hasn't really expressed an interest in, or knowledge of politics yet?
But, again, there are differences. The first, and most obvious difference is in tone. The previous ones, for 'adults', are very dark in tone; quite grim in a lot of places. For instance, there is a scene in 1984 where Winston Smith, the protagonist, goes to visit a prostitute; something that I can't imagine appearing in one of these young adult ones. It's a scene that adds nothing to the story (so if you haven't read it, I haven't spoiled anything); its purpose, as far as I can see, is to underscore exactly how hopeless it is for the people living under the regime of Big Brother. Which it achieves brilliantly.
The second major difference is in content; which actually links to the first. The most common device used in these new dystopian novels is that they are set at some point after a major event/tragedy/holocaust, which is referred to, but never really described. This neatly sidesteps the problem of dealing with politics as such, because, although there always is a government, the whole set-up is so different from our world that the things the story focusses on are the things that are the same i.e. the people and their relationships. But it also has the effect of creating a completely different tone, in general.
Because the 'adult' ones are set in a world which is recognisably similar to our own, they serve two purposes. One is that they are a twisted sort of mirror, showing the darker side of human nature; and two, they serve as a warning. Basically saying if we keep going down this path, this is where we will end up-or somewhere very much like this. Whereas the 'young adult' ones are quite different; they are basically saying 'yes, the world is messed up, and if things keep going in this direction, it could be apocalyptic; but the story doesn't end there. There is always hope, as long as individuals don't give up'.
So, what can we conclude from this? That young people are more hopeful than adults-or that people think they are? Possibly, but why then are some of these dystopian novels classics, and still sell well? That it's easier to write about people than politics? Not really; I think that's always been the case. That it's easier - and more enjoyable - to both write and read about hope than despair? I think that is definitely the case, at least.
To point this up, I'd like to compare two recent dystopian novels, one for an 'adult' market, and one for the 'young adults'. They are 'Blind Faith' by Ben Elton, and 'The Cure' by Michael Coleman; and they have in common, apart from being recent, that they both deal with themes of religion and celebrity/fame in a dystopian setting. And they couldn't be more different. The first clearly comes from an attitude of anger and confusion, and, quite frankly, is a mess; while the second is all the better for being calm, it comes across with more force. The other main difference is that the first just doesn't describe a believable world; while, although the second is about as far from reality as the other, it is quite convincing. It is also more powerful by being hopeful, whereas the main (only) cause for hope in the other is that at the end, there is the possibility that the world as it is will collapse. I recommend reading 'The Cure', if you haven't already.
And a post script note, as it were. Some other recommendations: the 'Uglies' series by Scott Westerfeld and the 'Delirium' series by Lauren Oliver, and as a one off, 'The Last Book In The Universe' by Rodman Philbrick.
Also in this series: What I Learned From Books 0.5.
No comments:
Post a Comment