I always wondered, and still do, why The Catcher in the Rye shouldn’t be categorized as a young adult novel. One good reason, I imagine, is that J.D. Salinger himself, still alive, would never permit it, and I can understand why. That aside, the question persists for me, and I’d love to hear an experienced editor comment on it.
For what it’s worth, here’s my theory:
When Catcher was published, in 1951, young adult novels could be defined by their conventional (if well told) subject matter: teen romance or adventure, high school sports, history, nothing head-on eccentric or controversial. Even though Catcher was told entirely from an adolescent’s point-of-view, it would have been out of the question to market it in 1951 as a YA.
Were Salinger submitting it new today, however, his agent would almost certainly see it as a possible YA goldmine.
I’m sure I’ll get an argument about that, but there’s no doubt about the larger point, that today’s young adult category has vastly matured in sophistication of subject, to mirror the abundant street wisdom of today’s young reader. Does this mean mainstream novelists have a whole new pasture to play in? Ask Jane Smiley, who has a new YA due this fall. Ask Carl Hiasson, Sherman Alexie, Alice Hoffman, Francine Prose…
Why the rush from mainstream to YA? Like most “genres” they sell reliably. But beyond that, it may be that YA novels are now displaying basic mainstream fiction values more consistently than mainstream itself.
What do you think? Is YA the new mainstream? Shoot me a comment–and to prime the pump, here’s the post that got me turning this issue over in my own mind in the first place. It’s Betwixt and Between: YA in an Adult World by Lauren Baratz on BiblioBuffet.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
