What Do 10 Years of the New York Times Young Adult Bestseller Lists Say About YA?

Prior to December 6, 2012, determination was nary standalone New York Times Best Seller database for young big novels. At that time, young big books were merged with different section books, creating a database that was a premix of young big and mediate people titles. This change made it imaginable to amended differentiate among the books for young readers — mediate people and young big — and it opened up the anticipation for much titles wrong each class to deed the list. The New York Times Best Seller database for Young Adults began by including income totals that included hardcover, paperback, and ebooks.

Like different NYT Bestseller lists, the Young Adult lists person evolved implicit their 10 years successful existence. August 2015 marked the biggest displacement since the lists development. Now, alternatively than a azygous database that captured income of each formats of a book, the lists would separate retired the Young Adult Bestsellers successful paperback and hardcover; ebook income were separated out; and bid books would look connected a abstracted database that besides included mediate people titles. This alteration made sense, arsenic paperback titles dominated the bestseller list; it was overmuch easier and cheaper to merchantability boatloads of copies of titles successful paperback than successful hardcover. This helped unfastened up the lists to much titles and much accurately reflected what was selling and how.

But those changes did not past excessively long. In October 2017, the lists changed again. August of that twelvemonth saw the extremity of the YA ebook database — a database wherein titles that were enactment connected mega merchantability successful that format were capable to gain the designation of “New York Times Bestseller.” October brought the displacement of the YA paperback bestseller database to a monthly roundup, keeping its YA hardcover arsenic the premier list, published weekly. This twelvemonth was peculiarly absorbing for the New York Times YA Best Seller list, arsenic it showed however easily the database could beryllium manipulated with the close magnitude of time, money, and effort.

In 2013, I pulled unneurotic a look astatine the database and the demographics represented. The archetypal station of 2 has, unfortunately, been mislaid to server migrations. The 2nd post, though, is inactive available. The database astatine the clip had been precise achromatic and very male dominated. This was erstwhile paperback and hardcover were combined and erstwhile ebook income were a fraction of a fraction of sales.

This captious look astatine practice came astatine the tallness of publication blogging, and it came astatine the aforesaid clip the YA assemblage engaged successful large-scale discussions astir representation…and the deficiency thereof. We Need Diverse Books launched successful 2014, mounting disconnected important changes successful the industry. Those changes, inactive ongoing and inactive evolving, were surely reflected successful the New York Times Best Seller lists for Young Adults.

Now that the database has celebrated its tenth birthday, what has changed? What tin we larn oregon observe from a decennary of tracking the bestselling lit successful a category?

Data Limitations and Notes

First and foremost: we person nary thought however the lists are tabulated. It is ostensibly sales, but income from wherever remains a question. There are reporting institutions, but not each bookstores study income to the NYT. What is listed represents immoderate metric of sales, and yet, it mightiness not really correspond existent income of immoderate title. This is particularly existent for smaller publishers, who tin spot important income of their titles but they whitethorn ne'er beryllium picked up by the Times.

All of the accusation beneath is pulled from the Young Adult Hardcover lists only. Because the lists person shifted implicit the years, including and excluding paperbacks and bid books, it made the astir consciousness to instrumentality to 1 standard. The lists pre-2015 volition person each formats, but pursuing those lists, the titles explored were lone those connected the hardcover list.

The biggest regulation successful this look astatine 10 years of the New York Times Young Adult Best Sellers database is, perhaps, the astir frustrating. Full lists of information from 2012 to 2015 are not included. Despite respective methods of searching, heavy dives into paper’s archives, searches successful archived insubstantial databases, and asking for assistance connected societal media, the afloat 10 rubric lists are obscurity to beryllium found. Instead, each of the information for Young Adult NYT Best Sellers from 2012 to 2015 see lone the apical 5 titles; they were each archived successful an Open Data archive, and thus, they correspond lone fractional of the titles which deed the database successful the aboriginal years.

Despite that limitation, determination is inactive a batch to beryllium learned and considered with the data.

The enactment of compiling, sorting, and categorizing the books connected 10 years’ worthy of lists took a batch of time, and determination was surely an constituent of subjectivity involved. I’ve been blogging astir YA books and the YA publication satellite for implicit 15 years, and my cognition of this class is wide and deep. That said, determination volition beryllium mistakes, and determination volition beryllium categorization choices you don’t hold with. I invited you to bash your ain enactment and stock your findings if thing doesn’t beryllium close with you.

The information utilized begins December 6, 2012, the archetypal time of a abstracted YA list. The last information utilized is December 25, 2022.

That each articulated, let’s dive in.

The NYT YA Bestseller List By The Numbers

Total Number of Books connected the New York Times YA Bestseller List

Remember that determination are 3 years’ of information that lone see fractional of the lists, truthful these numbers bespeak the disposable information and not the titles which are missing.

• A full of 4,446 YA books person graced the lists
• 522 unique YA books person deed the list

Gender Breakdown: Who Is Hitting the List?

Determining the sex breakdown of the New York Times Young Adult Best Sellers database is tricky. It requires defining sex to statesman with, which we cognize is fluid arsenic opposed to rigid. To marque determinations connected gender, I went by the pronouns utilized by each of the authors. This is not deterministic of gender, but it is the easiest instrumentality to make a breakdown by sex for examination sake.

There were 3 wide categories of sex assessed: those utilizing he/him pronouns were enactment successful the “male” bucket; those utilizing she/her pronouns were enactment successful the “female” bucket; those utilizing they/them oregon immoderate neo-pronouns were enactment into the “nonbinary/genderqueer” bucket.

An further hiccup successful this information is that 2 authors are utilizing pseudonyms that could relationship for aggregate authors of immoderate fig of genders. We cognize that Pittacus Lore is simply a fictitious sanction for authors moving successful the James Frey packager, and we cognize that A.W. Jantha, the writer attributed to the publication Hocus Pocus and the All New Sequel, is besides a pseudonym. I’ve enactment books similar that nether the “??” bucket for gender.

Author sex was counted each clip they had a publication connected the list. Again: 3 years’ of information lone see fractional of the afloat list. These numbers beneath correspond singular authors connected the list, truthful books wherever lone 1 writer is named.

• 2,941 were pistillate authors by themselves
• 874 were antheral authors by themselves
• 144 authors were included successful the nonbinary/genderqueer category
• 36 pseudonyms were used, constituting the “??” sex

But solo authors weren’t the lone ones making the list. There were galore writer duos, author/illustrator collaborations, and different combinations of radical moving connected a publication that deed the list. I categorized the genders of these authors based connected however they were listed connected the publication title. In immoderate cases, this meant that alphabetically, a pistillate writer came earlier her antheral coauthor; successful different cases, the antheral writer came archetypal due to the fact that helium was the superior writer and the pistillate coauthor oregon illustrator was secondary.

Again: this is per clip the rubric appeared connected the list. There were not, for example, 48 antithetic groups of 4 men who wrote a YA bestseller together; successful that instance, it represents a azygous radical of 4 showing up 48 times. It whitethorn beryllium the lawsuit determination were respective antithetic pistillate penning duos included successful the number for that category, though.

• 29 women collaborated with different women connected their YA bestsellers
• 1 trio of women created a bestseller
• 12 groups of 4 women collaborated connected enactment together
• 3 groups of six women collaborated connected a publication together
• 139 collaborations happened betwixt women and men (that is, the pistillate writer was listed first)
• 76 men collaborated with women (that is, the antheral writer was listed first)
• 1 antheral writer worked with 2 pistillate collaborators
• 141 men collaborated with different antheral authors
• 48 antheral quad penning groups were represented

Some firsts:

• The archetypal pistillate writer connected the YA Best Seller database is Veronica Roth for Divergent, which reached #2 connected the precise archetypal list, December 6, 2012. Insurgent was connected the aforesaid database astatine #4.
• The archetypal openly nonbinary writer to grace the database was Marike Nijkamp with This Is Where It Ends, March 20, 2016.

Diversity successful the Young Adult New York Times Bestsellers List

Same caveat present applies successful that the archetypal 3 years bash not see the full lists, truthful information present whitethorn beryllium undercounting.

Each author’s individuality was determined by their ain bios. If they included their taste oregon radical inheritance arsenic 1 that was not white, they were included here. It is and has to beryllium imperfect, but it is arsenic adjacent arsenic tin beryllium accurate. Again, this fig indicates instances, not unsocial numbers. So 1 writer could beryllium included successful this number 50 oregon 100 times.

A hitch successful this is arsenic follows: these numbers correspond idiosyncratic BOOKS, not idiosyncratic authors. In immoderate cases, this means books written by an writer duo composed of 1 Black writer and 1 achromatic writer was popped into the bucket of “diverse books.” A publication by six Black authors was a singular title, arsenic opposed to six abstracted titles.

• 1,347 divers books were represented connected the list

In isolation, what does this fig adjacent mean? 1,347 books retired of 4,446 were diverse. This comes retired to astir 30% of the full titles were by authors of color. Not excessively bad, fixed that the U.S. colonisation itself is astir 40% radical of color.

More interesting, though, is the TREND successful divers books.

• 2012: 2 divers books
• 2013: 2 divers books
• 2014: 1 divers book
• 2015: 20 divers books
• 2016: 52 divers books
• 2017: 165 divers books
• 2018: 182 divers books
• 2019: 228 divers books
• 2020: 258 divers books
• 2021: 244 divers books
• 2022: 193 divers books

In 2017, we saw the work of Angie Thomas’s phenomenal The Hate U Give, which remained connected and disconnected the bestseller database up until the past year. We saw divers books deed their highest successful practice connected the database successful 2020, and they person been slipping backmost down again successful the past 2 years. In 2020, divers books represented astir fractional of the full books connected the list.

Does the dip successful divers books successful the past 2 years correspond anything? It’s hard to say. The large players connected the YA Best Sellers database successful the past 2 years person been books by Karen McManus, Holly Jackson, and franchise tie-ins to Hocus Pocus, The Nightmare Before Christmas, and Star Wars, the immense bulk of which are by achromatic authors.

This is an country to support an oculus on. Is the selling of books by authors of colour softening? Is a deficiency of adaptations by these authors contributing to the gaffe successful numbers? We cognize that some play a relation successful ensuring the database accurately represents not lone the books being published but besides successful the readers being served.

Recall that bid books determination from the hardcover bestseller database to the bid list. This dip could beryllium typical of books making the leap successful lists.

Some firsts:

• The archetypal writer of colour to deed the New York Times Young Adult Best Sellers list: Gabby Douglas, for her memoir Grace, Gold, and Glory.
• Don’t privation to number a personage memoir? Keeping successful caput that the information from aboriginal lists is missing, the adjacent writer of colour to onshore connected the database is Prodigy by Marie Lu, connected February 17, 2013.

Queer Books connected the YA Bestsellers List of the New York Times

How bash you quantify queerness of books? Is it the author’s identity, suggesting that immoderate a queer writer writes comes from a queer perspective? If so, past what happens erstwhile the author’s sexuality evolves? Is 1 much “real” than the other? (The reply is no.)

If it’s contented of the book, this, too, gets tricky. Queer books person queer-themed content, but does that mean it needs to beryllium a main quality who is queer? Or is it conscionable a notation of thing related to the LGBTQ+ community? A broadside character?

The reply is determination is nary bully answer.

Malinda Lo has been astatine the forefront of tracking queer YA since the opening of her career. I cannot urge capable that you walk immoderate clip with her data, arsenic she’s thought done these questions and offered insights into the patterns and trends successful queer YA books.

For the involvement of this information collection, “queer” is defined arsenic a large taxable oregon a large quality successful the story. This could beryllium indicated by idiosyncratic cognition of the book, oregon by a hunt for however often the publication is categorized arsenic LGBTQ+ connected bookish societal media. This whitethorn beryllium an under, arsenic opposed to over, count, and I deliberation that is important to consider. Books wherever queerness is not overt — books similar The Perks of Being a Wallflower, which galore see present to person a large queer taxable — are not included due to the fact that they were not seen arsenic specified successful 2012.

The fig present is based connected books, not connected authors, and it is inclusive of repetition titles, alternatively than unsocial titles.

• 268 queer books person appeared connected the YA bestseller list.

That is astir 5% of the lists, representing what major polls person suggested arsenic astir the complaint of U.S. individuals identifying arsenic queer. Of course, the halfway assemblage of YA books — young radical — place astatine higher rates, truthful this fig is tiny successful comparison.

How does this look by year?

• 2012: 0 queer books
• 2013: 0 queer books
• 2014: 0 queer books
• 2015: 2 queer books
• 2016: 10 queer books
• 2017: 4 queer books
• 2018: 35 queer books
• 2019: 19 queer books
• 2020: 18 queer books
• 2021: 34 queer books
• 2022: 143 queer books

The maturation present is highly promising to see.

And immoderate firsts to know. Again, retrieve the information for 3 years is incomplete, truthful this is based disconnected accessible information:

• David Levithan was the archetypal openly queer writer with a publication connected the database (Another Day, which landed March 20, 2015)
• Not counting Another Day, which does not halfway the queer experience, the archetypal queer YA publication connected the database was Carry On by Rainbow Rowell connected October 25, 2015.

Nonfiction connected the YA Best Seller List

Despite campaigns for the New York Times to see YA nonfiction abstracted from fiction, the lists proceed to number nonfiction against fiction. What this means is astir nonfiction ne'er has a changeable astatine the list. The titles that bash onshore determination are those with a personage sanction attached oregon that are by large sanction YA authors. I’ve included, for example, poesy arsenic nonfiction, truthful Ain’t Burned All The Bright by Jason Reynolds and Jason Griffin is included here.

• 197 titles implicit 10 years were nonfiction

YA nonfiction is diverse, wide-ranging, and often heavy ignored by large manufacture resources. These numbers amusement conscionable that.

Fun Trends successful YA Seen via the NYT Best Seller List

We’ve present looked astatine immoderate of the biggest categories and topics that person emerged connected the New York Times Best Selling Young Adult Books list. How astir immoderate amusive oregon off-beat stuff, too?

• The Hate U Give is the astir often occurring publication title, followed by One Of Us Is Lying, The Fault In Our Stars, Looking for Alaska, and Five Feet Apart.
• The twelvemonth with the astir royalty related publication titles — deliberation Court, Queen, Sword — was 2016.
• But successful 2017, those titles shifted to a celestial theme: Moon, Stars, Night, Sun.

Finally, for a small much fun, here’s a WordCloud visualizing the astir fashionable words successful YA publication titles from the past 10 years of the New York Times YA Best Seller list.

---

If there’s 1 happening to instrumentality distant from this, fto it beryllium that the louder we advocator for inclusive lit — books by and astir BIPOC and queer radical — the much wealth we enactment into ensuring their success…those successes wage off.

But successful a civilization wherever these books are connected the line, wherever extremist publication banners privation to eradicate these books and the radical down them and represented successful them, we request to bash a batch much than simply bargain them. We request to amusement up connected the beforehand lines and request intelligence state for ALL.