YABookgate

This Lauren is right though. Nearly all kids books these days seem to have girls and/or POC on the cover.When I was of that reading age, it didn't matter so much because chances are the surface level traits would be more or less incidental. But kids know what's up, and a cover depicting one of the above could easily be dismissed as "girl shit" or "nigga shit". The industry should be trying to keep boys reading, not turn them away.

White working class boys are the only "group" who don't get specialized help within education, and if any was proposed it 'd be called "waycist". (I'm jus t going to ignore Milo's shit from a few years back)
I believe it was an essay by Beverly Cleary I read that talked about how young boys are the least likely to read for fun and so she was inspired to write a book that would be very appealing to them, leading to the creation of the Henry Huggins series. These stories succeeded in getting boys at the time excited about books because they were timeless stories about regular kids experiencing the sorts of things all kids do regardless of race, gender, etc.

I’m sure little boys love all the YA and MG books coming out now that tell them they’re worthless and evil because of how they were born.
 
I think something that really irks me about YA, that a lot of people have mentioned here, is that certain things like queer, black, disabled, etc get almost fetishize by readers.

Like the black Cinderella talked about a few posts back; the book is not out yet, but so many people are just creaming themselves at the mere idea of the character being gay and black. Like those two things are going to be the most important aspects to focus on.

But that's all there is to a character. There's goals, beliefs, emotions, personalities that are way more important to focus on.

These readers may the laud the books and anything like it, like the second coming of christ, but really, other than a few people here and there, who's really going to remember this book?

Its why people still remember Bilbo Baggins, or Harry Potter or Sherlock Holmes. Because they had more going on with them beside their sexualities or ethnicity.

That's what I think anyway.
 
I think something that really irks me about YA, that a lot of people have mentioned here, is that certain things like queer, black, disabled, etc get almost fetishize by readers.

Like the black Cinderella talked about a few posts back; the book is not out yet, but so many people are just creaming themselves at the mere idea of the character being gay and black. Like those two things are going to be the most important aspects to focus on.

But that's all there is to a character. There's goals, beliefs, emotions, personalities that are way more important to focus on.

These readers may the laud the books and anything like it, like the second coming of christ, but really, other than a few people here and there, who's really going to remember this book?

Its why people still remember Bilbo Baggins, or Harry Potter or Sherlock Holmes. Because they had more going on with them beside their sexualities or ethnicity.

That's what I think anyway.

I agree. You can look at the reading threads on this site and see that people are discussing the subject matter and not the author's race and sexual orientation. That's what makes books interesting - if they are good, bad, scary, etc. An author being gay, bi, trans, black, Asian or whatever has no bearing on my enjoyment. People reviewing books who gush about where authors are on the oppression scale only gives me an idea of what to avoid.
 
I think something that really irks me about YA, that a lot of people have mentioned here, is that certain things like queer, black, disabled, etc get almost fetishize by readers.

By readers? Or by publishers and the Karens who haunt all these review sites and comprise the associated chattering class?

One article that always stuck with me: back when Jon Stewart left the Daily Show, 538 did an analysis of just how popular the show wasn't. In terms of actual viewership, it got fewer eyes than Mike Huckabee's talk show over on Fox- but it was assigned an importance that far outstripped it's actual reach because it wasn't popular with people who watched TV, it was popular with people who wrote about TV.

I took a look at that feminist Little Mermaid book, and it had an audible rank of 69,177. Larry Correia's latest bit of gun porn? 3,688. (I'm comparing the Audible ranking because that's the only category where those two overlap.) I'm reminded of a bit during the Sad Puppies kerfluffle- "the funniest part about this is that if Amazon rankings are anything to go by, Correia outsells all of these people combined."

tl;dr: as we've seen with The Last Jedi and Terminator: Derp Fate, what the aspiring tastemakers like and what people actually like doesn't necessarily have a high degree of overlap.
 
I was reading some of the reviews of Feminist Mermaid and saw this little gem. The Little Mermaid is not a Disney original character you stupid twat. The book blurb even says it’s based on Hans Anderson’s story. This is one major issue with YA. These people don’t educate themselves beyond Disney princesses so their reading skills are very limited.
990ED3C8-9A8E-4E44-8402-997C43AC6B0E.jpeg
 
tl;dr: as we've seen with The Last Jedi and Terminator: Derp Fate, what the aspiring tastemakers like and what people actually like doesn't necessarily have a high degree of overlap.
It makes me wonder if it's always been this way and it's just easier to notice or if the gap has gotten wider this past decade thanks to social media. There's always been cult classics and shit beloved by media critics that few people outside those circles care for. But those same critics almost always would review/analyze stuff people actually like, although I guess you always had critics condemning entire genres.

Maybe the difference now is that it's so blatantly ideological. Put the right shit in your book/movie/game or be high on the progressive stack and get tons of free promotion and a personal army ready to fight haters. Put too many men/white people/unwoke stuff or piss off the wrong people and be condemned and driven off the internet with your works forever condemned as "problematic crypto-Nazi shit". It doesn't matter what genre it is, can be literally everything from science fiction to romance. Ideology is all that matters to these critics.

This, I would say, makes them far worse than the critics who condemn "genre fiction". Those people were honest about their biases and came up with coherent arguments why they thought all science fiction or whatever was bad. These people are the sorts of cultural iconoclasts who would ensure landmark works of film like Birth of a Nation are banned or literary classics like everything written before the 21st century because it's inherently problematic are cheated out of their rightful place in studies of literature, cinema, and everything else. And these are the people who want to tell us what's culturally relevant, even though their very ideology demands the abolition of our culture, both the good and the bad parts.
 
This Lauren is right though. Nearly all kids books these days seem to have girls and/or POC on the cover.When I was of that reading age, it didn't matter so much because chances are the surface level traits would be more or less incidental. But kids know what's up, and a cover depicting one of the above could easily be dismissed as "girl shit" or "nigga shit". The industry should be trying to keep boys reading, not turn them away.

White working class boys are the only "group" who don't get specialized help within education, and if any was proposed it 'd be called "waycist". (I'm jus t going to ignore Milo's shit from a few years back)

Trying to make book recommendations for boys in the YA range is like pulling teeth.

It's part of why I hate listening to the SJW crowd crow about how "necessary" feminist teen fiction is; I remember nearly having a fucking aneurysm a few years back when the Maze Runner movies were coming out, because so many women and feminists were bitching about the male-centric novels. It was epitome "I am uncomfortable when things are not being about me?". Girls have so many diverse options in YA and children's fiction; boys have far, far less, and woman have a lot of fucking nerve to complain about this one series doesn't have enough girls in it for them. For all their bitching about how men have "everything" handed to them, they seem chronically incapable of recognizing when they've cornered the market on something (who am I kidding, they recognize it- they just don't want to acknowledge it).

If I had to ballpark it, I'd say (conservatively) about 80-85% of YA fiction features a female main character. And of the 15-20% that does have a male main, about 5% of that would be books with multiple protagonists (collections of short-stories, books that split POVs between male and female characters). The popular male-centric YA books, off the top of my head, are the Maze Runner, the Gone series, and Simon vs. The Homosapiens Agenda. It's worth mentioning that a lot of male-centric YA has a woke spin to it, too: A Long Way Down, All American Boy, Dear Martin, Absolutely True Diary of a Part Time Indian, The Simon book I just mentioned, among others.

Sure, you have classics like Hatchet, the Outsiders, Where the Red Fern Grows, Call of the Wild, My Side of the Mountain- but the problem with these books is that they're often assigned for school, and chances are the boy's already read them and doesn't want to again. You also might have noticed, if you're familiar with these books, that four out of five of them are wilderness-survival based books; and not all boys are into that, so they'll turn them down anyway.

And just because it has a male protagonist doesn't mean it's marketed at boys: There are YA books with male characters (centric or sharing the book with a female protagonist) that are clearly slanted for female readers: Cassandra Clare's stuff would count, so would John Green, as well as a lot of romance and sci-fi books. And don't even get me fucking started on the number of female authors (feminist or not, though many are and the rest probably won't cop to it) that have been applauded for "really giving a deep understanding of what it means to be a boy/man". Can you imagine the fucking explosions that would ensue if a male author wrote a book with a female main character and people said that he had a "real understanding of what it is to be a girl/woman"? every feminist in the country would be frothing at the fucking mouth and rushing to say "No no no, men can never truly understand what it is to be a woman! Only women understand!"

Goodreads has a list assembled here of YA books with male protagonists (I glanced through it as I was writing this because quarantine has fried my brain) and here's the problem, coming from someone who works in a bookstore: A chunk of the books on this list (Harry Potter, Artemis Fowl, Percy Jackson, Holes, Ranger's Apprentice, and Cirque du Freak) are actually classified as children's lit, not YA, and I don't think I have to tell you that bringing a sixteen year-old boy to the kiddie section to find a book is an unpopular move. Additionally, some of the books are not marketed as YA, but as Adult Lit (of varying genres): Perks of Being a Wallflower, Ender's Game, Life of Pi, Ready Player One. This is a problem because A) the reading level might be too advanced depending on the boy, and B) a lot of parents will hesitate to get their child a book whose content has not been moderated for their age; some parents are very picky about what sort of content they want their kids exposed to and when.

I should also mention that a lot of the books on the list are older- not classics, per se, but written a decade or more ago and are therefore not as readily available in stores or libraries as other more recent books are.

Children's lit isn't as bad because the genre was around long before YA became a recognized, distinct genre, but it's still difficult to think of popular male-centric books off the top of your head in that category that isn't Harry Potter, Diary of a Wimpy Kid, or Percy Jackson. And nine times out of ten, with these and the YA options, I hear "Oh, he's already read those."

The point of this long-ass rant is that I am ready to drop-kick any dumbass who throws a temper-tantrum over a YA book being centered around a straight-white male protagonist, I will gladly read and recommend Lauren Myracle's book when it comes out to spite the dipshits, throw me 'dem top-hats and have a lovely evening.
 
That reminds me of Describe Yourself Like a Male Author Would meme some feminist writers on twitter tried to force. It eventually backfired when most of them realised male writers wouldn't write about them at all. They got so triggered they had to start a support group for each other (yes, that really happened...Wish I still had the receipts).
 
(Harry Potter, Artemis Fowl, Percy Jackson, Holes, Ranger's Apprentice, and Cirque du Freak)

Oh shit, they are children's literature, aren't they? But they're so good, though (well... Cirque du Freak's manga was amazing, anyway, so I'm assuming the books are still the same way).

I dunno, I could swear I've read books with an equal percentage of male and female protagonists, but in terms of YA, yeah... yeah, that's a good point. Even the YA horror by Christopher Pike, which might actually be geared for male readers, tend to have female protagonists with maybe a male deuteragonist, though I think most of them still involved co-ed friend groups if I'm remembering right.
 
Was looking at reviews for a book, and found this one who liked the book but was beaten down until she changed her rating to one star:

View attachment 1271280

And that's why I stay the hell off these review sites. Imagine being forced to publicly disavow something you liked because a bunch of woke internet shitheads browbeat you into submission for wrongthink.
 
Good reads is the tumblr of book reviews.
The amount of shitty gifs in a review, dumb whining of problematic shit and long winded juvenile gushing paragraphs is way too damn high, especially if it's reviews on YA, LGBT+ and "feminist"/"woke" books. The only thing going for it is the book lists and even then some lists have shit taste. (It's bad when I trust /lit/ of all things with book recommendations, especially in the scifi/fantasy threads)

Then there's booktube or whatever, a few years back you would find these booktubers giving weird writing advice like "how to write like JK Rowling" or "the great writing of Harry Potter". Ah yes the pinnacle of writing, Harry Potter...
nowadays the content creators are just putting out simple book reviews and writing advice, but sometimes you'll stumble across people who are tumblr/twitter in personality/comedy "haha the story of Goldilocks is a metaphor for white privilege. That dumb white bitch XD XD XD" or "I'm so quirky and sassy! heehee how ya do fellow queerios! I'm sooo self aware u guys ;)))" but they're fortunately avoidable.
 
Good reads is the tumblr of book reviews.
The amount of shitty gifs in a review, dumb whining of problematic shit and long winded juvenile gushing paragraphs is way too damn high, especially if it's reviews on YA, LGBT+ and "feminist"/"woke" books. The only thing going for it is the book lists and even then some lists have shit taste. (It's bad when I trust /lit/ of all things with book recommendations, especially in the scifi/fantasy threads)

Then there's booktube or whatever, a few years back you would find these booktubers giving weird writing advice like "how to write like JK Rowling" or "the great writing of Harry Potter". Ah yes the pinnacle of writing, Harry Potter...
nowadays the content creators are just putting out simple book reviews and writing advice, but sometimes you'll stumble across people who are tumblr/twitter in personality/comedy "haha the story of Goldilocks is a metaphor for white privilege. That dumb white bitch XD XD XD" or "I'm so quirky and sassy! heehee how ya do fellow queerios! I'm sooo self aware u guys ;)))" but they're fortunately avoidable.
booktube is nothing but cringe and sponsored paid shills. I swear, they all came from the same incubator
 
Imagine knocking off four stars because a m/m romance (IDK if it was that, just offering an example) was written by a straight woman. Like, I would only do that if the author just did a bad job representing gay men or if the writing was bad.
most m/m romance fiction is already written by women for women so unless the author did something "problematic" (like Cassandra Clare) they don't care.
On the other hand, if a straight guy writes about lesbians he gets slammed for"objectifying." And I strongly dislike that kind of logic because some of my favorite f/f couples were written by men (Sunstone by Stjepan Sejic for example)
 
most m/m romance fiction is already written by women for women so unless the author did something "problematic" (like Cassandra Clare) they don't care.
On the other hand, if a straight guy writes about lesbians he gets slammed for"objectifying." And I strongly dislike that kind of logic because some of my favorite f/f couples were written by men (Sunstone by Stjepan Sejic for example)
I was just using m/m as an example. Could go the other way too. Unless the person's portrayal of the group was offensive or just straight-up shitty writing, I wouldn't knock off 4 stars on an otherwise good book because a straight man wrote a lesbian romance.
 
And that's why I stay the hell off these review sites. Imagine being forced to publicly disavow something you liked because a bunch of woke internet shitheads browbeat you into submission for wrongthink.
Good reads is the tumblr of book reviews.
The amount of shitty gifs in a review, dumb whining of problematic shit and long winded juvenile gushing paragraphs is way too damn high, especially if it's reviews on YA, LGBT+ and "feminist"/"woke" books. The only thing going for it is the book lists and even then some lists have shit taste. (It's bad when I trust /lit/ of all things with book recommendations, especially in the scifi/fantasy threads)

If you ignore the reviews, Goodreads is an excellent website for keeping track of what you read and want to read. I think it's less a problem of the website than it is a problem of the users (who, incidentally, can add or subtract books to lists as they like whether it fits or not): Unless there is evidence of harassment on threats from one user to another, a website isn't just going to ban someone because they're an annoying SJW clique-brat.

As with all things, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. For every one loud, obnoxious Tumblr-esque twit on Goodreads, there are dozens of others who just mind their own business and don't get involved in drama. Most readers will not allow themselves to be told what to do by some uppity child on social media- but they're also not interested in picking a fight over it either. They've got better shit to do than argue with someone who's not going to listen at best and actively harass them at worst.
 
I was just using m/m as an example. Could go the other way too. Unless the person's portrayal of the group was offensive or just straight-up shitty writing, I wouldn't knock off 4 stars on an otherwise good book because a straight man wrote a lesbian romance.
It was a book with a trans character. The reeing commenced because the author is cis and the character was the victim of a hate crime.
 
It makes me wonder if it's always been this way and it's just easier to notice or if the gap has gotten wider this past decade thanks to social media.

Yes.
I'm guessing that, like the MSM, they were always this way, but the disintermidation and feedback loops provided by the internet, we've seen the mask slip. More than just slip; the participants now need to be "on" all the time, be the most anti-racist, the most anti-sexist, the most socially conscious, otherwise they'll get lapped by someone who outdoes them in one of those category and they'll become a dreaded rightwing gamergater Nazi incel by comparison. Purity spirals are a bitch like that.

Well, that, and social media allowing people to spew their stream of consciousness onto the internet for public consumption lets us see in real time what speds most of them actually are. See also: celebrities.
 
It was a book with a trans character. The reeing commenced because the author is cis and the character was the victim of a hate crime.
I remember how I was blocked by one of those trans activists (who wasn't even trans) by asking "What if a trans writer doesn't want to write a trans character?"
 
Back