The Quizbowl Resource Center

Split from the distribution discussion --Mgmt.

I just really wish NAQT would leave YA/children's lit out of the lit distribution.

AlexLiu wrote:I just really wish NAQT would leave YA/children's lit out of the lit distribution.

Is this a new thing? I don't remember it being a problem until this year's HSNCT.

All of those children's lit questions felt really out of place the one time I was at MSNCT

MorganV wrote: Is this a new thing? I don't remember it being a problem until this year's HSNCT.

It's probably not as big a problem as I'm making it sound, but I've just always been slightly annoyed whenever it's happened, especially seeing how lit is the smallest of the three "major" categories in NAQT's distribution.

AlexLiu wrote:

MorganV wrote: Is this a new thing? I don't remember it being a problem until this year's HSNCT.

It's probably not as big a problem as I'm making it sound, but I've just always been slightly annoyed whenever it's happened, especially seeing how lit is the smallest of the three "major" categories in NAQT's distribution.

There were quite a few kid lit questions in this year's set; I most notably remember the final question of round 4 of the playoffs was a Diana Wynne Jones tossup that decided our game against Maggie Walker, and that the final question of round 8 against LASA was also kid lit.

Is there a set number of kid lit tossups that are mandated in the NAQT subdistros?

I guess I wouldn't know, seeing that Hooch didn't get very far. All I remember was that John Green tossup in the last round of prelims during an extremely frustrating game against Olmsted Falls.

MorganV wrote:

AlexLiu wrote:I just really wish NAQT would leave YA/children's lit out of the lit distribution.

Is this a new thing? I don't remember it being a problem until this year's HSNCT.

This was a distribution change prior to the 2012-13 season.

The current HSNCT distribution calls for 3/2 YA/children's literature; the current IS set distribution calls for 2/2.

MorganV wrote:I most notably remember the final question of round 4 of the playoffs was a Diana Wynne Jones tossup that decided our game against Maggie Walker

This appears to have actually been a tossup on Ursula K. LeGuin.

bt_green_warbler wrote:

MorganV wrote:I most notably remember the final question of round 4 of the playoffs was a Diana Wynne Jones tossup that decided our game against Maggie Walker

\

This appears to have actually been a tossup on Ursula K. LeGuin.

yeah, my bad, it was negged with DWJ

It should be noted that a large amount of Ursula K. LeGuin's work is not, in fact, children's or YA lit. Genre lit is not the same as kid lit, and while there are certainly arguments against including genre lit, those aren't really the same as those against kid lit. LeGuin's The Left Hand of Darkness won a Hugo and a Nebula. Those are not awards normally given to works intended for children, and if you've read that book, you know that it wasn't intended for children.

And indeed this tossup was not classified as children's or YA literature.

Lefty734 wrote:Last year, I felt like there was way too much geography and science, and I felt there wasn't enough literature (but I am biased because that is my specialty). Now this year after reading some packets, I feel that there is a lot of current events, pop culture, and trash lit.

I'm curious to know how many NAQT sets you've read this year.

Pertaining to the topic, I don't mind a small amount of kid lit. However, it could be difficult to determine what is canon, as, aside from Dr. Seuss, most of us probably grew up reading different things.

Capitoline wrote:

Lefty734 wrote:Last year, I felt like there was way too much geography and science, and I felt there wasn't enough literature (but I am biased because that is my specialty). Now this year after reading some packets, I feel that there is a lot of current events, pop culture, and trash lit.

I'm curious to know how many NAQT sets you've read this year.

Pertaining to the topic, I don't mind a small amount of kid lit. However, it could be difficult to determine what is canon, as, aside from Dr. Seuss, most of us probably grew up reading different things.

Well, what I meant by that is that my perception has changed over the summer somehow. I have read one set so far this year, but even using packets from previous years in practice, I started realizing how much trash there is. Something else that I noticed is that the questions are only about 3 lines long. Is it just that certain sets for NAQT are that short, or have I been misjudging how long questions are?

Lefty734 wrote:

Capitoline wrote:

Lefty734 wrote:Last year, I felt like there was way too much geography and science, and I felt there wasn't enough literature (but I am biased because that is my specialty). Now this year after reading some packets, I feel that there is a lot of current events, pop culture, and trash lit.

I'm curious to know how many NAQT sets you've read this year.

Pertaining to the topic, I don't mind a small amount of kid lit. However, it could be difficult to determine what is canon, as, aside from Dr. Seuss, most of us probably grew up reading different things.

Well, what I meant by that is that my perception has changed over the summer somehow. I have read one set so far this year, but even using packets from previous years in practice, I started realizing how much trash there is. Something else that I noticed is that the questions are only about 3 lines long. Is it just that certain sets for NAQT are that short, or have I been misjudging how long questions are?

A-sets have tossups that are about 3 lines long. I think regular IS sets are 4.5-5 lines long for tossups (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, Jeff).

What was the thought process behind adding YA lit to IS sets? Is it to make them more accessible to the average highschooler?

Hurrah!Praga! wrote:Is it to make them more accessible to the average highschooler?

If this is the reason, I don't really think it does. But there are conversion stats available, that would be cool.

The Two Hearts of Kwasi Boachi wrote:A-sets have tossups that are about 3 lines long. I think regular IS sets are 4.5-5 lines long for tossups (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, Jeff).

This is quite correct.

Hurrah!Praga! wrote:What was the thought process behind adding YA lit to IS sets? Is it to make them more accessible to the average highschooler?

Yes. In general, we thought we were under-asking YA topics that would likely be far more easily converted than (whatever the most difficult non-YA literature tossup in a given IS set is).

We'll see if we succeed in meeting that goal, but here's some data:

2013 HSNCT, all literature: 81.3% conversion
2013 HSNCT, YA literature: 98.6% conversion

What kinds of answerlines are being categorized as YA Lit?

Alliance in the Alps wrote:What kinds of answerlines are being categorized as YA Lit?

2013 HSNCT:

Tossups: Narnia, John Green, horcruxes

Bonuses: Holes/Sachar/elevators, Katniss Everdeen/Caesar Flickerman/Enobaria

:kenj:QAreWeNotKen: Do we have the new distribution prepared?

HENTZELBOT4000: YES BZZT YES

HENTZELBOT4000: 10 INCREASE DISTRIBUTION OF CHILDREN'S LIT

HENTZELBOT4000: 20 WAIT FOR HSQB POSTERS TO OVER-EXAGGERATE HOW MUCH IT WAS inCREASED BY

HENTZELBOT4000: 30 FINALLY REPLACE ALL SCIENCE TOSSUPS WITH GEOGRAPHY

:kenj:QAreWeNotKen: Brilliant!

HENTZELBOT4000: I CALL IT WAG THE IRC CHATLOG

HENTZELBOT4000: ONCE I REPLACE ALL PAINTING TOSSUPS WITH ONES ABOUT VELVET ELVISES

HENTZELBOT4000: I WILL NO LONGER HAVE TO RELY UPON HAMSTER POWER WITH THE RAGE OF HSNCT PLAYERS WHO FINISH T65TH

HereComesTheCheyne: But there aren't enough questions about My Three Sons!

HENTZELBOT4000: NO ONE CARES

HereComesTheCheyne: This is the saddest I've been since The Phil Silvers Show was canceled.

:kenj:QAreWeNotKen: We must now summon our scribe to record our changes.

HENTZELBOT4000: COME HERE MORDECAI

HOPPESONPOPPES: /soars in, lands on prosthetic arm attached to hentzelbot mainframe
/is magnificent

HENTZELBOT4000: I NEED YOU TO CARRY THIS MESSAGE TO THE LAND OF THE FORUMS. THE LAND OF WEENZ.

HOPPESONPOPPES: /writes tossup on Don't Let the Pigeon Drive the Bus
/flies away

Where could one find the current distribution for A-Sets? I think I noticed substantially more than 2/2 children's lit in the set I was reading today.

As an English teacher, I have noticed the increase in YA/"kids" lit references, but I think it is worth pointing out that this shift is also occurring in the larger world of literature right now, not just in NAQT's distribution. Walk into a library or a bookstore, and the largest new section you're going to find is the Teen Lit/YA section, which is dominated by odd paranormal and dystopian fiction, but has some work with surprising depth to it as well. The reality of our country's literary development is that so-called YA lit is a seriously large marketplace, and authors are pouring into it. It's getting a ton of publicity and marketing push, and all of that raises the cultural prominence of the genre. It is taken much more seriously than it used to be within educational circles, for better or for worse. I can understand people objecting to increased YA representation in the high school game based on the lack of a clear canon, as it means that people are really forced to rely on bestseller lists or word of mouth to know what they need to know, but I don't see the inclusion of YA as being an extension of trash or widening of pop culture as opposed to reshaping the lit category to include a major new area of growth.

vinteuil wrote:Where could one find the current distribution for A-Sets? I think I noticed substantially more than 2/2 children's lit in the set I was reading today.

I've asked R. to post a copy of the A-set distribution. It does contain more children's/YA literature than the distribution used for regular-difficulty IS sets.

I've noticed that there's something like 0/1 Harry Potter per tournament distribution at every HSNCT, can anyone confirm this?

The 2012 and 2013 HSNCT contained Harry Potter questions (1/0 and 1/1 respectively); the 2011 set did not. (that is: there is no fixed quota of Potter-related questions)

In the IS-A tournament I moderated for this weekend. 6 out of the 11 rounds used contained a Young Adult "Lit" tossup. Of these 6, the conversion stats:
2/6
0/7
0/8
8/8
5/5
5/5

Leaving aside the discussion of whether NAQT should use YA "Lit", if the goal is conversion, then 3 out of the 6 questions failed for our tournament, and were not more convertible than whatever constitutes a conventional "hard" lit tossup. Because we had many close games this weekend, having a YA "Lit" question go dead potentially affected the outcome of many games. The answer line choice for these questions should be examined.

Personally, I think YA "Lit", if it must be used, should be shoved into trash and not come at the expense of the Lit distribution.

Capricious wrote:In the IS-A tournament I moderated for this weekend. 6 out of the 11 rounds used contained a Young Adult "Lit" tossup. Of these 6, the conversion stats:
2/6
0/7
0/8
8/8
5/5
5/5

Leaving aside the discussion of whether NAQT should use YA "Lit", if the goal is conversion, then 3 out of the 6 questions failed for our tournament, and were not more convertible than whatever constitutes a conventional "hard" lit tossup. Because we had many close games this weekend, having a YA "Lit" question go dead potentially affected the outcome of many games. The answer line choice for these questions should be examined.

Personally, I think YA "Lit", if it must be used, should be shoved into trash and not come at the expense of the Lit distribution.

Do those numbers signify gets/negs, powers/gets, or something else? They're not immediately clear to me.

It's simply the number of rooms that converted the tossup / the number of rooms that heard the tossup.

Basically the YA Lit that isn't super famous/has been made into a movie had a lower conversion rate than Math Comp. I'm pretty sure out of every tossup read, those two YA Lit tossups were the only ones to not have been converted by anyone. Obviously this is a small sample size at only one tournament in Arizona, I am curious if this is a problem with other NAQT sets at other tournaments.

At the A-set tournament we played at Tipp, out of the x+1 YA lit tossups we heard, I only recall one of them getting answered (my teammate powered it). The other such tossups I recall just simply went dead w/ no negs. Of the x+1 YA Lit bonuses we heard, all but one were just simply converted for zero points. The one that wasn't converted for zero points was swept for all thirty points by my same teammate who powered the YA lit as previously mentioned. The conclusion we drew after the tournament is that YA lit is an "all-or-nothing" sort of deal.

Capricious wrote:Personally, I think YA "Lit", if it must be used, should be shoved into trash and not come at the expense of the Lit distribution.

I agree with this. I am fine with trash lit coming up at tournaments, but it is extremely frustrating when one of the four literature questions per game is taken by a trash lit question.

The YA literature in the IS-A set we heard today (IS-131A) did not go over well at the tournament I was at. Other coaches complained about it and I didn't see much of it converted by the players. Definitely recommend it gets taken out or pushed into the trash distribution.

cchiego wrote:The YA literature in the IS-A set we heard today (IS-131A) did not go over well at the tournament I was at. Other coaches complained about it and I didn't see much of it converted by the players. Definitely recommend it gets taken out or pushed into the trash distribution.

I agree. Our lit player constantly gets annoyed that this takes away from his distribution. Frankly, it is super annoying and takes away from the general experince of playing quizbowl.

Chunky Sean wrote: I agree. Our lit player constantly gets annoyed that this takes away from his distribution. Frankly, it is super annoying and takes away from the general experince of playing quizbowl.

Mr. Scogan wrote: The conclusion we drew after the tournament is that YA lit is an "all-or-nothing" sort of deal.

I agree with both of these statements.

Having just played on half of the set 131A yesterday, I too can attest to the number of people who were unhappy with the young adult literature that appeared in the set. In the morning I counted two, possibly three, questions of the kind, out of those I found that only one was "widely" converted, around 40% of the people I asked said it was converted in their room. This is opposed to around 10% compared to the other two. I understand that NAQT Intro sets are trying to be inclusive to newer players, but seeing as even new players aren't getting these questions I don't see the point of counting it as literature, which requires actual knowledge as opposed to luck.

I think a lot of the problem here is that NAQT writers are using any best-selling YA author or title as an answerline instead of looking at the (extremely! limited) canon and using clues from that like they do with other literature—i.e. slightly deeper questions on the Hunger Games, Harry Potter, Twilight, etc. (and by "slightly deeper" that still doesn't mean the answerline can be much deeper than "Katniss Everdeen," even if the question can be much harder than that answerline suggests).

vinteuil wrote:I. slightly deeper questions on the Hunger Games, Harry Potter, Twilight, etc. (and by "slightly deeper" that still doesn't mean the answerline can be much deeper than "Katniss Everdeen," even if the question can be much harder than that answerline suggests).

As much as I dislike YA lit for taking away from the more traditional lit distribution. I think that the idea suggested by Jacob would be much more effective in carrying out NAQT's goals in helping newer players.

A lot of people in this thread are unjustifiably assuming that anything written for people under the age of 18 cannot qualify as literature. Harry Potter or The Hunger Games, for example, are good books that people engage with through pop culture, but if you think that The Little Prince or Ursula LeGuin have no literary merit and that nobody looks at them seriously, I don't really know what to say. Questions on the former are totally appropriate for the trash distribution; putting questions on the latter there is silly.

I guess I feel sort of like I'm making the same arguments from "are the Beatles or Bob Dylan FA" thread, but the equivalent for this situation would be saying the Benjamin Brittan should be trash because he wrote some stuff targeted at kids.

Put it in trash lit. The trash distro for NAQT is already large enough...

Most people grow up reading books like Holes and Harry Potter for English/language arts class in primary school as a way to learn basic literacy skills. So it's actually part of the school curriculum and therefore fair should be grounds in the distribution. That being said no one ever writes PhD dissertations on John Green or Louis Sachar, unless it was some sort of social criticism, so it's not like YA lit is truly academic in most senses. Therefore YA lit should be like language arts in that it's exclusive to lower difficulties of play, unless it's part of the trash distro.