Four Dead Horses Beaten By YA Authors

Young Adult fiction is a booming industry, there is no question about it. Massively popular books (and their massively successful film adaptations) are drawing more and more authors and readers to the genre. Some have even credited YA Fic with “saving” publishing, which on the whole is in danger of becoming obsolete in a world where anyone can publish anything they want online. But the volume of published books has exceptionally little to do with either originality or quality of writing; more certainly does not equal better. With every fresh, successful YA book or series, it seems, comes a deluge of copycats and bandwagon jumpers, leading to much dead-horse-beating and oversaturation. Here are four trends in YA which have been thoroughly exhausted and should be laid to rest:

4. Vampires

Who did it first/best? High school students have been reading Bram Stoker’s Dracula and Anne Rice’s Interview With the Vampire for quite a long time, but the current resurgence of vampires in YA books can most certainly be attributed to Stephanie Meyer’s Twilight series.

Who followed suit? Richelle Mead’s Vampire Academy series, Rachel Caine’s The Morganville Vampires series, Ellen Schreiber’s Vampire Kisses series, and hundreds of others.

Why is it time to let it go? Some publishers and editors are turning away so-called “supernatural fiction” on sight, as they believe the market simply cannot bear any more. New vampire fiction (and werewolf fiction, and demon fiction, etc.) is not selling well. The first movers of this new wave of vampires are still popular sellers – partly due to film and television adaptations – but there is simply too much vampire out there for any one book to get noticed in a meaningful way. And also, the moody-kid-falls-in-love-with-sexy-undead story line is exhausted.

3. Serialization

Who did it first/best? The Lord of the Rings is considered by many to be a YA series by modern standards, though it certainly has never lost its appeal to adults either. Six books released in three volumes make up the epic fantasy, one of the first real serial stories for young adult readers. The most obvious culprit in the renaissance of serialization is Harry Potter, which was planned as a seven part series from the beginning, and which has obviously become an ultrasensation.

Who followed suit? EVERYONE. It seems every other YA book released now is book #1 or #5 or #12 of such and such a series. See Percy Jackson, A Series of Unfortunate Events, Pretty Little Liars, etc.

Why is it time to let it go? What was the problem with standalone books? We are FINALLY seeing them come back into vogue with the rise of contemporary realism in YA Fic, which tends towards one-and-done stories. Authors planning out long series before the fist book has even been published, hoping that their final installment will generate the kind of wait-outside-the-bookstore-for-midnight fervour that we witnessed with the last couple of Harry Potters, is backwards. Write a good book first. Then, if it deserves it, write a sequel.

2. Kids with cancer

Who did it first/best? Teens with cancer have been a subject of fiction for a long time, but the runaway favourite in the current round is John Green’s The Fault in Our Stars. It was a YA book like we had rarely seen; fresh, original, heartwarming, heartbreaking, and unapologetically honest about a reality that sucks – and about how we can still live meaningful lives in spite of our sucky realities.

Who followed suit? Jesse Andrews with Me and Earl and the Dying Girl, Megan Bostic with Never Eighteen and many more.

Why is it time to let it go? Though it is true that cancer and other serious illnesses are part of the young adult psyche now more than any time in recent history, we have still reached the kids-with-cancer event horizon for two reasons: firstly, the sheer volume of books published in the last ten years on the subject are more than comprehensive enough to help any teen struggling with any illness ever to cope; and secondly, John Green’s is such a masterstroke that none else need attempt to get to the crux of the matter – he has already been and returned.

1. Dystopia

Who did it first/best? Brave New World? Fahrenheit 451? 1984? Countless dystopias have filled out high school English reading lists for decades.

Who followed suit? Katniss and her Hunger Games pals, and EVERY OTHER YA SERIES SINCE. Divergent. Maze Runner. Matched. Uglies. And the list goes on. And on. And on.

Why is it time to let it go? We have essentially gotten to a point where it has become formulaic. Take an unlikely, reluctant hero or an extremely likely, plucky heroine. Perhaps even both. Throw in a despotic ruler and some oppressive caste system. Have them find love while leading a revolution. It is as if someone decided one day that anyone can write dystopian fiction, and then set out to prove it. The purpose of dystopia – social commentary and thinly veiled warnings of the dangers of humanity – has been watered down into love stories transplanted into a higher-stakes setting. Enough already.

“Inspired By” and “Based On”: A Peter Pan case study

There are a growing number of pessimists in the world who will tell you that there are “no more original ideas,” and that everything that is being created today has been done before. And while I do not at all subscribe to this faithlessness in human imagination, it does seem to me that more and more creative endeavours, be they books or films or television shows or plays, are “inspired by true events” or “based on the work” of such and such a person. “Inspired by” and “based on” can be used to cover all manner of alteration, from faithful recreation, to thinly veiled plagiarism, to satirical send-up, to shameful butchering of original ideas, and everything in between. They are blanket statements which seem to declare carte blanche for the adapter; as long as they acknowledge that their contribution is influenced by something else, they may feed their audience whatever they please. This, I believe, is dangerous ground. “Inspired by” and “based on” create a grey area in artistic expression, which can be easily manipulated to defend a multitude of grave offenses. There is a fine line between the creative license to alter and change a work to present it in a new way, and the complete obliteration of the original material. Be wary, dear reader, of “inspired by” and “based on.” Here there be monsters.

To demonstrate my point, I have ranked seven different creative works “inspired by” or “based on” the life and writings of J.M. Barrie, judged by how much they try to get away with under the protection of the two magic phrases. Let’s start with…

7. Peter Pan, Universal Studios’ 2003 film

Relation to the source material: Film adaptation of the novel Peter Pan and Wendy

Overall grade as an adaptation: Excellent

What it gets away with: Universal’s film is by far the closest to the original play and novel of Peter Pan, using large portions of the source material as narration for the film. It changes small details, adds a character or two to flesh out side stories, but ultimately sticks not only to the plot of Barrie’s original work, but also its essence and spirit. The only major faux-pas the film commits is having Wendy kiss Peter at the end – it is expressly stated time and again in the novel and the play that Peter must never be touched. Oh, and “I do believe in fairies, I do, I do,” while it gives me goosebumps, is a departure from the traditional cure for Tinker Bell’s near-death – children clapping.

6. Hook, TriStar’s 1991 film

Relation to the source material: Sequel to the story of Peter Pan and Wendy, telling of a grown-up Peter.

Overall grade as an adaptation: Very good

What it gets away with: Though the events of Hook are based almost entirely on its writers’ own imagination, the film is actually extraordinarily loyal to Mr. Barrie’s original work – perhaps even more true to the original than Universal’s film. However, being a sequel, jumps had to be made – some of which, including the notorious Tinker-Bell-is-suddenly-huge scene, are not quite in the spirit of the original stories. But nearly everything else in Hook is truly “based on” Barrie’s masterpiece, from characters’ motivations to origin stories to recalled adventures to names and places. As far as sequels go, Hook is tops.

5. Finding Neverland, Miramax’s 2004 film

Relation to the source material: Biopic of James Matthew Barrie, creator of Peter Pan, and particularly his relationship with the Llewelyn Davies family, who inspired his work.

Overall grade as an adaptation: Good enough

What it gets away with: Biopics are notoriously bad embellishers and exaggerators under the guise of “based on actual events,” and the same can be said of Finding Neverland. The least offensive of all its altered histories is the casting of Johnny Depp as Barrie, who in real life would not have made People‘s Sexiest Man Alive list, and who sported a prolific moustache all of his adult life. The film takes other, more egregious liberties as well: the complete omission of the youngest of the Davies brothers, Nicholas; the omission, too, of Sylvia’s husband, who was alive for most of Barrie’s time with the family; and most unforgivably of all, the presentation of Barrie as a healthy, generally well-adjusted man. In reality, Barrie suffered from psychogenic dwarfism – a growth disorder brought on by extreme trauma or distress. Barrie lost his older brother when he was very young, and the tragedy hit his mother and the young James so hard that he literally stopped himself from growing up. So much of the beautiful tragedy inherent in Peter Pan comes from Barrie’s psychological issues, as well as his own deceased brother’s role as “the boy who would never grow up,” all of which was inexcusably omitted from the film. As a result, what you end up with is a half-true but still passable glimpse into the creator of the mythology.

4. Walt Disney’s Peter Pan, Disney’s 1953 film

Relation to the source material: Children’s animated adaptation

Overall grade as an adaptation: Fair

What it gets away with: Disney’s animated classic is many people’s first exposure to Peter Pan, and likely the iteration with which they are the most familiar. The film’s opening credits label it an adaptation of the play (which came before the novel, making it the first complete work on the subject of Peter Pan) – calling it an adaptation is one and the same as saying “based on.” All the pieces are present in this one – Peter and the Darling children, Captain Hook, Smee, Tiger Lily and the rest – and so, too, is much of the story of the boy who would not grow up. A few large changes have been made – instead of poisoning Peter’s medicine, an iconic moment in the original story, Hook attempts to blow Peter up with a bomb – hardly the delicacy a man of Hook’s grace would employ. Gone entirely is clapping to save Tink, another essential moment of the play from which the film is derived. Disney also portrayed the natives in the film – Tiger Lily and her tribe – as farcical (and rather racist) comic relief, instead of the invaluable warrior allies they are in the play. What is missing, ultimately, is the spirit of Barrie’s story. Peter is presented as a loveable scamp, if a little moody. The real Peter, if I may call him that, is much more of a tragic hero, beautifully flawed and much more complex. In short, he has been Disney-fied.

3. Finding Neverland, Broadway Musical

Relation to the source material: Musical adaptation of the 2004 film, based on the life of J.M. Barrie and the writing of Peter Pan.

Overall grade as an adaptation: Poor

What it gets away with: All the problems of the Johnny Depp film exist in this fluffy, overwrought musical retelling of Barrie’s relationship with the Llewelyn Davies family, with a bunch of extra nonsense thrown in for good measure. The studly, masculine Barrie (presently being played by Glee‘s Matthew Morrison) is even farther from the historical man than Depp’s more delicate portrayal. The crux of the musical’s many faults in the name of “inspired by” can be seen in the finale to Act 1, when Captain Hook makes himself manifest in Barrie’s imagination, causing Barrie to sing an angsty song about finding the inner strength to face his critics and overcome… DUM DUM DUM… writer’s block. All while tearing open his starched white shirt to reveal his sexy man chest.

2. Pan, Warner Bros’ 2015 film

Relation to the source material: Prequel/Origin story

Overall grade as an adaptation: Yet to be seen, but by all evidence awful

What it gets away with: Judging by the trailer and press releases for the soon-to-be-released Pan, it is set to be the worst film “based on” the story of Peter Pan to date. A back story has been concocted for Peter and the Lost Boys and Captain Hook and Neverland and the rest – a back story that seems to draw heavily from the worst offender, see below – in this all-new reimagining of Barrie’s world. There is just one teeny tiny problem, though: Peter Pan already has a back story. It is well documented in the play and the novel and the original work in which Peter appears, an earlier novel by Barrie called The Little White Bird. Pan, however, chooses to ignore all these completely. An already-adolescent Peter, it would seem, is kidnapped from his dormitory in an orphanage and made prisoner by pirates in a flying sky-ship. Yep. In this, it can be seen that the film has lost sight of the central thesis of Peter Pan, which is this: Peter, for fear of growing up, CHOOSES Neverland. He is not an orphan. He runs away in fear of his own mortality. He secludes himself from love and relationships and other things that are inherently a part of growing up, choosing instead to be carefree and joyful. In making Peter an Oliver Twist-esque orphan snatched from his bed, he is no longer the tragic hero who must choose between the youth and irresponsibility that defines his life and the love he cannot afford to feel; he becomes instead a passive captive, playing no part in the creation of his mythos. I could go on, but I run the risk of ranting. The point is this: to so thoroughly ignore the core ideals of the source material is irresponsible filmmaking.

1. Peter and the Starcatchers, book by Dave Barry and Ridley Pearson

Relation to the source material: Prequel/Origin story

Overall grade as an adaptation: Authors should be made to walk the plank. Or something more drawn-out and painful.

What it gets away with: Peter and the Starcatchers attempts many of the same atrocities as Pan, with the same creation of ridiculously unfounded back stories completely ignorant of the source material, but it strays even farther from Barrie’s ideals than the film would appear to. Fairy dust is relabeled “starstuff.” Instead of fearing whatever else females might have to offer besides motherhood, Peter has pubescent sexual attractions to girls. Once again, Peter is an orphan kidnapped by pirates. A pirate laughably named Black Stache is later transformed into Captain Hook when Peter cuts off his hand. And it is not even the same hand as the original story. Fairies are birds who fell into “starstuff,” in spite of a very specific and iconic mythology introduced by Barrie. And again, Peter’s choice and free will, so essential to who he is as a tragic hero, are completely removed from the equation. In this version, Peter will never grow up because he swims in water polluted with “starstuff.” So he is a mutant. Or something. Barry and Pearson have gone far beyond the realm of artistic license and tweaking for the sake of retelling, and have committed that most cardinal of sins: IGNORANCE OF THE AUTHOR’S ORIGINAL WORK.

Please Rise and Remove Your Hats: The future of national anthems in sports

Canadians roared with indignation on May 17th when the defeated Russian national hockey team left the ice during the playing of Canada’s national anthem after the gold medal game of the IIHF World Hockey Championship. By our global reputation, some might be surprised that anything could make a Canadian roar with indignation, but perceived disrespect in our great game from the hated Russian side is not just anything. The response was instantaneous and impassioned. Social media erupted with incensed fans, shaming the arch-rival Russians for their bad form. The dust began to settle when it was announced that the Russian team would be sanctioned for their breach of protocol. In the wake of the outrage, other interesting discussions began to pop up throughout social media and the sports world, including this one: Is it still necessary, or even appropriate, in the modern era, to play national anthems at sporting events?

Those in the anti-anthem camp have a fairly strong argument. Some cite the fact that having the anthem(s) played at every professional sports game makes the sacred commonplace – we get used to hearing the anthem, and so it loses some of its deserved majesty. People use it as a last call to line up for the bathroom before the game starts, or a first call for beers. Instead of stopping and standing at attention, people take the anthem as a signal to move, get to their seats, get ready for action.

Others take umbrage to the anthems themselves, citing the antiquated religiosity present in both Canadian anthems. “God keep our land glorious and free,” anglophone Canadians sing. “Car ton bras sait porter l’épée, Il sait porter la croix!,” intone les Canadiens. These critics argue that the forum of sports is meant to be completely open, free from political or religious inclination or agenda. They hold that the blatantly Christian and unavoidably patriotic values imposed by the mandatory playing of the national anthem violates that unwritten contract – that sports are a place wherein differences of creed, faith, political and religious background need not matter.

And the discussion is not exclusively a Canadian one. Adding fuel to the end-the-anthem fire, reports surfaced recently that the American Department of Defense has been paying NFL teams to hold tributes and salutes to members of the armed forces as a form of advertising. What was always viewed as an emotional, patriotic part of sports games (particularly football) is now being seen through a different lens – that of government interference and subliminal advertising. From this point on, game goers will look skeptically on any military tribute night or veteran’s day at the gridiron or the ballpark, wondering in the back of their mind how much the team is profiting off of the gesture.

The overwhelming sentiment is that the playing of the anthem at sports events, whether through overuse or corruption, has watered down what should be a reverential, if not sacred moment. Perhaps that is why Canadians reacted so strongly to the Russian “snub” – international competition tends to see the anthems take on a higher meaning. At the Olympics, the World Hockey Championship, and other international sporting competitions, only the anthem of the winning country is played – and because it is a national team, playing for national pride, the anthem is not only more appropriate, but fans also care that much more.

The fate of anthems at sports games remains to be seen, but the time is certainly coming for a decision to be made. Where do you sit? Would it change the experience of sports for you to have the anthems removed, or replaced with some other tradition? Do anthems, with their political and sometimes religious undertones, have a place in an industry that is essentially entertainment driven? When the anthem plays and you are at the arena or the park, or sitting on your couch at home, do you stop and listen? If you never gave it a second thought, perhaps it is time to pause, remove your baseball cap, and put on your thinking cap for the national anthem.