421 Followers
371 Following
Ceridwen

Ceridwen

You kids get off my lawn. 

Losing It (Losing It, #1)

Losing It - Cora Carmack Cross-posted on Soapboxing.net

So this is my first foray into the New Adult genre, if I don't count [b:The Piper's Son|7417780|The Piper's Son|Melina Marchetta|https://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/books/1333662548s/7417780.jpg|9362085] and [b:Fifty Shades of Grey|10818853|Fifty Shades of Grey (Fifty Shades, #1)|E.L. James|https://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/books/1372516342s/10818853.jpg|15732562], which I'm not sure if I should. They do seem to fall broadly into the category though. For those not up on your recent marketing distinctions, New Adult is, to quote Wikipedia (of course):

New Adult (NA) fiction is a developing genre of fiction with protagonists in the 18-25 age bracket. The term was first coined by St. Martin's Press in 2009 when they held a special call for “…fiction similar to YA that can be published and marketed as adult—a sort of an ‘older YA’ or ‘new adult’.” New Adult fiction tends to focus on issues such as leaving home, developing sexuality, and negotiating education and career choices. The genre has gained popularity rapidly over the last few years, particularly through books by self-published bestselling authors like Jamie McGuire, Colleen Hoover, and Cora Carmack.


Hey, this is a book by [a:Cora Carmack|6535659|Cora Carmack|https://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/authors/1356303182p2/6535659.jpg]!

I don't want to get too pointy-headed here, but the concept of genre is an interesting one to me, so I'm just going to ramble a little about that. I have some discomfort with calling Young Adult or New Adult books a genre, because it seems to me that genre is not as simple as who reads the books, or who the books are aimed at. It's like Atwood claiming her MaddAddam trilogy isn't science fiction, because please. It has all the earmarks: an exploration of culture through invented technology, a thought experiment about current treads extrapolated into the future. What she's saying, when she says she's not writing science fiction, is that she's not writing fiction for science fiction nerds.

When I get done bridling - y u no write for us, Peggy? - I think this is kinda legitimate. Genre can be an engagement with the tropes agreed upon by readerships or fandoms, and she is not writing to that genre engagement, whatever the motifs she might hit. I've argued in many a review against a book being classed as Young Adult, because despite the age of the protagonist (which is a motif often used to class the genre), I felt the sensibility was off. [b:The Reapers Are the Angels|8051458|The Reapers Are the Angels (Reapers, #1)|Alden Bell|https://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/books/1317066698s/8051458.jpg|12707063] or [b:The Age of Miracles|12401556|The Age of Miracles|Karen Thompson Walker|https://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/books/1342487370s/12401556.jpg|17382941] are examples of this: while they may occasionally have the concerns of the young adult - coming of age, emergent morality and social understandings - they lack the tone of novels aimed at teens. I'm not even saying that because they are literary - whatever that's supposed to mean - that they are not young adult. I've seen plenty of literary YA novels that were still squarely aimed at teens.

I guess what I'm saying is that genre, as a concept, is a slippery beast, and can be defined in multiple ways, whether by marketing distinctions made by publishers about intended readership, or authorial intent in who s/he was writing to, or agreed upon motifs that define the genre. As the definition of genre has overlaps and fractures, so too are there books that sit uneasy in one genre or another. I can think of at least two books that switched marketing distinction upon publication in different countries - [b:Pure|9680114|Pure (Pure, #1)|Julianna Baggott|https://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/books/1302743156s/9680114.jpg|14568028] and [b:Tender Morsels|2662169|Tender Morsels|Margo Lanagan|https://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/books/1320416424s/2662169.jpg|2687395] - marketed as young adult in one place, and sold to adults in another. Both made me uncomfortable, although I thought the latter was better than the former in deliberately widening my upset about the way the book charted the uncomfortable middle ground.

If you pay attention at all to the most voted on reviews on Goodreads any given week, you can see just scads of reviews for New Adult titles making the lists, and also just a ton of emotion. People are reading these titles passionately and a lot. Enthusiasts have a whole review style that includes casting the protagonists with photos of milquetoast looking models and soft-core b&w images to telegraph their feels, and the detractors are often meticulous in their hatred. There are a lot of gifs, animated or not.

There's also a lot of flamewarring coming from writers and fans and non-fans, and it's pretty fascinating to see this emergent genre get sorted out on the threads. I don't ever see this kind of flamewarring in more established genres, like romance, where both the well-defined readership and those who don't define themselves as romance readers more or less know what to expect from a romance novel. I've shat on my share of romance novels (and loved a few too) and I rarely get flamed because romance fans can take just one look at my review and dismiss me as not part of the in-group. But because New Adult is so new and contested, there's a hand-to-hand combat going on over how this genre is defined, who constitutes the readership, and what the motifs are. Everything is up in the air.

Point of my long-winded digression being: so New Adult? To the untrained eye, much that gets classed as New Adult looks to me like either contemporary romance with college-aged protagonists, or young adult with sex scenes, or an engagement in the concerns of emergent adulthood. [b:Losing It|16034964|Losing It (Losing It, #1)|Cora Carmack|https://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/books/1348459319s/16034964.jpg|21807237] falls into the first and second category, but fails at the third, and as such, pretty much is not for me. We find Bliss Edwards, College Student, opening the novel by enacting an unbelievably stupid plan to lose her virginity by picking up a stranger in a bar. It's a young adult situation in a contemporary romance setting, complete with a meet-cute and rom-commy flighty-but-funny behavior for everyone from the sass-talking roommates to the protagonists. I have precious little patience for either the concept of virginity or stories about its loss, and romantic comedies and their situational fremdschämen make my skin crawl. (This is my asshole fancy way of saying I hate situation comedies based on people being embarrassing.) So far, we're in it's-not-you-it's-me territory with this book.

My real problem is that the dude Bliss brings home and then abandons like a lunatic - Garrick - turns out to be Bliss's new professor ZOMG. Putting aside that he is perfect and hot and British in a way that makes me feel tired, this is an entirely plausible ethical situation to be in - fucking a professor (or even being Clintonesque with a professor, which is mostly what happens here) - that is treated so lightly as to be uninteresting. It's been a while since college, but university can be an over-sexed hothouse with profs, adjuncts, students, TAs, RAs, undergrads, overgrads, and everything in between all getting it on in every permutation. Most schools have forbidden prof/student dalliances, at least within the same department - I think anyway, and I'm too lazy to look it up - but these power dynamics and sexual dynamics are important parts of college sexual life.

I'm not even saying that Bliss and Garrick's relationship is unethical or unmatched. I myself am the direct product of a professor and a student falling in love - though as both my folks like to point out, things were different in 1969. (Hi Mum and Dad. Sorry I'm talking about you on the Internet again.) What I'm saying is, as a reader, I was bored by a sit com that breezed over the parts of their relationship that had an ethical import. Which is fine, and if you're looking for light entertainment, you could certainly do worse. Much as I hated the character of Garrick - not because he's an asshole, but because hot British people written by Americans are dodgy as bubbles and squeak, cheerio - Bliss does have some active engagement with theater, her chosen major, which read to me as not-bullshit. That aspect of the New Adult motif-set was fine.

I read this and its sequel, [b:Faking It|16172634|Faking It (Losing It, #2)|Cora Carmack|https://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/books/1360560023s/16172634.jpg|22020637], pretty much in a sitting, in the middle of some dire personal stuff that is both none of your business, and of course I've already written about on the Internet. [b:Losing It|16034964|Losing It (Losing It, #1)|Cora Carmack|https://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/books/1348459319s/16034964.jpg|21807237] was serviceable and inoffensive, and my two-starring it has more to do with retrospective consideration than my feelings about the prose at the time I was reading it. I liked the sequel considerably better, and Carmack seems to improve as a novelist. I've got some other NA titles on deck, and given my general malaise, I'm sure I'll be reading them well before the smart stuff I've already assigned myself as a reader. Young adult, new adult, can be attractive to me as a reader, because in lots of situations, I'm looking for inoffensively silly and light. That the ethical concerns are so much simpler can be a plus when I'm in the middle of exhausting, brutal, depressing situations in my real life. Being an old adult is no picnic.

So, that is my first foray into the New Adult genre. You're welcome.