The target marget (i.e. teens) doesn't seem to care about the finer distinctions at this point.

But is that because it's effectively correct (at the scale at which they're talking), or it's wrong but they don't care?

I know nothing other than skimming one article, so I'm not arguing a point--I'm asking you guys for an interpretation of the facts, such as they are.

What Amy said. I'm sure they all have their differences, but it's practically become a genre unto itself like paranormal romance. There's The Maze Runner, which is also being made into a movie, and Matched, which I think is also optioned, and it sure seems like a lot of them are about a teenage girl choosing between two guys. I think Incarceron was also set up to be a successor, but I haven't heard too much about it.

But is that because it's effectively correct (at the scale at which they're talking), or it's wrong but they don't care?

Little of Column A, little of Column B, from what I can tell. Many of them do sound similar, but despite all the different premises, they start to run together.

I respond well to marketing of the "If you like X, you'll love Y" variety, even though I don't always love Y. If I generally like things in the style of X, I'm always looking for more.

Publishers don't care (and all of these were books first). If saying something is like Twilight or The Hunger Games will effectively sell it, who cares what the story is really about?

They're not always that purposely oblivious, but the end goal is selling books (and movie rights). And I can't see that the movie industry is much different.

they start to run together.

Exactly. What they're usually marketing is more opportunities to see a girl kicking ass and saving the world (or her part of it), and getting an awesome boyfriend out of it, to boot.

What they're usually marketing is more opportunities to see a girl kicking ass and saving the world (or her part of it), and getting an awesome boyfriend out of it, to boot.

Katniss being .3 for 2 in this regard...

I respond well to marketing of the "If you like X, you'll love Y" variety, even though I don't always love Y. If I generally like things in the style of X, I'm always looking for more

You know that's not what that is, though, right? Or not much the time, anyway--it's often "the people who like A tend to like B--we make no correlation between the content of A and B because we are an algorithm whose result wasn't sanity checked by a human". Or there's, as I'm assuming Divergent might as well be, a YA book that's not set in the past and there's a chick in a big fight.

Katniss still had two guys in love with her throughout the series (more or less), which counts.

Or not much the time, anyway--it's often "the people who like A tend to like B--we make no correlation between the content of A and B because we are an algorithm whose result wasn't sanity checked by a human".

Well, an algorithm is mostly saying "people who bought A tend to buy B," no? I'm talking about the cover design, blurbs, etc.

Well, an algorithm is mostly saying "people who bought A tend to buy B," no?

No, if Amazon tells you "related to items you viewed" or Netflix tells you "top 10 for Jesse" (it knows I want SPN, so it's good, but let's be clear about how it reached that conclusion), that's just a correlational algorithm, but it's phrased...encouragingly. Like there might be some surface link.

Katniss still had two guys in love with her throughout the series (more or less), which counts

It's your proposition, so it's your call. I would take away points if the definition is "kickass boyfriend", though. I think she gets a great one, but kickass isn't his defining characteristic for the latter half of the property.