I think the lines blur, so it's hard to say, really.
Re: adult vs child/YA fantasy... I don't even know how to say what I'm trying to say. *snort*
I think, maybe, part of kid/YA lit is that the characters (especially the protagonists) are generally younger (or, maybe, not human or humanoid), so it's easier for a ten-year old, say, or a teenager, to relate to the characters. And I think it tends to, not dumb down, exactly, but maybe gloss over hard subjects. Like... like Harry being kept in a cupboard for ten years, or Ginny, with the diary.. You and I know that if they'd been real kids, they'd have been seriously damaged by that. If HP had been an adult series, I bet JKR would've touched on that damage more than she did, you know? But a kid isn't necessarily going to think about that when they're reading unless it's put out there in front of them. I think literature tends to be more open about things like that as the audience for the stories gets older (like how we saw HP get progressively darker).
I can't comment on The Hobbit vs LOTR because I haven't read them. (Don't shoot me! I could never get into either of them, and I tried multiple times. I just got bogged down in the words and couldn't ever find the story he was trying to tell.)
I do think it's possible for a prequel to be less mature, especially if it's the author's intent. So, like, if Tolkein meant The Hobbit to be an introduction to his world, so that when kids got older and started to read LOTR, they'd have a bit of background to work with, then sure, it absolutely can be less mature. (I have no idea if that was his intent, but it's a possibility).
I think, genre-wise, the lines tend to blur. I think sci fi can be fantasy and/or action/adventure, just like I think fantasy can be action/adventure and have some sci fi elements in it. I tend to see straight sci fi as more science or technology based, be it spaceships or mutant dinosaurs a la Jurassic Park--to me sci fi tends to focus on the science aspect of it.
Oooh, actually. This just came to me. I think sci fi seems to have some sort of basis in the "real world", in things that, while they may not be possible now, could conceivably be possible in the future. Like, I can see how it might be possible for us to live in space someday, and I can see how it might be possible to clone dinosaurs someday (not that it would be advisable, but that it might be possible).
Fantasy, to me, is more of a "this is a strange world with strange beings and it's not real and never can be real." I think. Maybe. Because where do you put the sci fi with the strange aliens, if strange beings are fantasy? Like I said, the lines blur.
I'd probably call Buffy and Supernatural either fantasy or, more likely, paranormal, rather than sci fi. And yes, they're action, too, but they're more than just action, because there's that...erm...supernatural, not really real aspect. Although I've never even seen a single episode of Supernatural, so me saying that is based on things I've seen around my flist and not out of any knowledge at all.
Straight action/adventure, to me, focuses on the action, and it's all based on things that could happen, right now (or, perhaps, have already happened in the past). I think action/adventure blends really, really well with fantasy and sci fi and paranormal fiction, though.
Did any of that make any sense at all??? These were really hard questions for me to answer, and I'm sort of just rambling off the things that pop into my head. And sorry for the tl;dr-ness of this comment. Like I said, I was rambling.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2010-02-20 04:11 pm (UTC)Re: adult vs child/YA fantasy... I don't even know how to say what I'm trying to say. *snort*
I think, maybe, part of kid/YA lit is that the characters (especially the protagonists) are generally younger (or, maybe, not human or humanoid), so it's easier for a ten-year old, say, or a teenager, to relate to the characters. And I think it tends to, not dumb down, exactly, but maybe gloss over hard subjects. Like... like Harry being kept in a cupboard for ten years, or Ginny, with the diary.. You and I know that if they'd been real kids, they'd have been seriously damaged by that. If HP had been an adult series, I bet JKR would've touched on that damage more than she did, you know? But a kid isn't necessarily going to think about that when they're reading unless it's put out there in front of them. I think literature tends to be more open about things like that as the audience for the stories gets older (like how we saw HP get progressively darker).
I can't comment on The Hobbit vs LOTR because I haven't read them. (Don't shoot me! I could never get into either of them, and I tried multiple times. I just got bogged down in the words and couldn't ever find the story he was trying to tell.)
I do think it's possible for a prequel to be less mature, especially if it's the author's intent. So, like, if Tolkein meant The Hobbit to be an introduction to his world, so that when kids got older and started to read LOTR, they'd have a bit of background to work with, then sure, it absolutely can be less mature. (I have no idea if that was his intent, but it's a possibility).
I think, genre-wise, the lines tend to blur. I think sci fi can be fantasy and/or action/adventure, just like I think fantasy can be action/adventure and have some sci fi elements in it. I tend to see straight sci fi as more science or technology based, be it spaceships or mutant dinosaurs a la Jurassic Park--to me sci fi tends to focus on the science aspect of it.
Oooh, actually. This just came to me. I think sci fi seems to have some sort of basis in the "real world", in things that, while they may not be possible now, could conceivably be possible in the future. Like, I can see how it might be possible for us to live in space someday, and I can see how it might be possible to clone dinosaurs someday (not that it would be advisable, but that it might be possible).
Fantasy, to me, is more of a "this is a strange world with strange beings and it's not real and never can be real." I think. Maybe. Because where do you put the sci fi with the strange aliens, if strange beings are fantasy? Like I said, the lines blur.
I'd probably call Buffy and Supernatural either fantasy or, more likely, paranormal, rather than sci fi. And yes, they're action, too, but they're more than just action, because there's that...erm...supernatural, not really real aspect. Although I've never even seen a single episode of Supernatural, so me saying that is based on things I've seen around my flist and not out of any knowledge at all.
Straight action/adventure, to me, focuses on the action, and it's all based on things that could happen, right now (or, perhaps, have already happened in the past). I think action/adventure blends really, really well with fantasy and sci fi and paranormal fiction, though.
Did any of that make any sense at all??? These were really hard questions for me to answer, and I'm sort of just rambling off the things that pop into my head. And sorry for the tl;dr-ness of this comment. Like I said, I was rambling.