/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.2959828]

Provide your thoughts on this

[Anonymous No.2959831]

I agree. I think anything can be read well. Demographics should only be a concern of marketing departments.

[Anonymous No.2959835]

Have I ever read a good YA-novel?

Hmmm. I don't think so, of the maybe 5 (Hunger Games included, Book Thief, what else? Can't remember), and they were all meh..

[Anonymous No.2959839]

>>2959835
Doesn't mean you can't read them, right?

I personally think this message is a bit lame. Sure, it can help people get over the line of buying the book, but on a non-business look I think it's unnecessary to tell people this. They can figure it out on their own, and if they feel more comfortable telling others it's not for themselves, then that's all right.

[Anonymous No.2959840]

>>2959835
There are plenty of good YA-novels, however when they were written, the genre YA didn't exist.

[Anonymous No.2959854]

i have read plenty of good teenage novels fuck ya image redefining nonsense but anyone who takes them seriously (thematic complexity, complex characterisation... you kniw those conversations - 'harry potter shows a youth's yearning for indetity in tue shadow of family fame... harry is the quintisential everyman for dont we all wear the burdens inherited from our parents') these people are children and should be slapped when they wag their cud chewing toungs.

[Anonymous No.2959857]

>>2959854

Why do you say that?

[Anonymous No.2959862]

Haven't read any YA novels since I was in the target demographic, but I still think fondly of the first two books in the His Dark Materials trilogy (which I read when they first came out and I was somewhere between 10-15). And I remember at the time I gave them to my mum to read and she liked them, she's not a retard about books, so that kind of corroborates my feeling that they didn't suck.

[Anonymous No.2959863]

because teenage novels do not allow for any subtlty nor any real self reflection, or ambiguity - fundimentally no reality. they do not make readers look at things around them everyday. teenage novels provide a 'realism' in a fantasy. so the general adult readership that try to intellectualise and contort teenage novels do so abstractly and therefore only get what they want from the novels - not what they need to see/read (themes lresented in adult novels)

[Anonymous No.2959865]

>>2959863
response to
>>2959857

[Anonymous No.2959866]

>>2959863

There are so many things wrong with this. But chief among them is that I don't think you have any idea what half the things you've said actually mean.

[Anonymous No.2959869]

>>2959839

people are dumb

this helps them a bit, maybe

I encourage it.

[Anonymous No.2959870]

I've only enjoyed some stuff by Murakami and only after a year or so I've learned that they fell into the YA category.

Apart from that, anything YA that I've heard about recently has had age-old themes and everyone is trying to seem edgy cool and deep. They are just brain-numbing and you'd be better off reading something a bit more subtle and interesting than teenage relationships...

[Anonymous No.2959873]

>>2959865

Oh wow, really? Okay. I'm disappointed as hell.

Let's go to town here.

>because teenage novels do not allow for any subtlty nor any real self reflection, or ambiguity - fundimentally no reality.

Why do those three things constitute reality?

>they do not make readers look at things around them everyday.

What? Why do you think that, and why is it important?

>teenage novels provide a 'realism' in a fantasy.

Okay?

>so the general adult readership that try to intellectualise and contort teenage novels do so abstractly and therefore only get what they want from the novels

I have no idea how this follows from what you've previously said. How do you intellectualize a novel without being abstract? And how does abstraction lead to only 'getting what you want'? Why is 'only getting what you want' a problem?

>not what they need to see/read

Huh? What's that?

>(themes lresented in adult novels)

What themes are you referring to?

I'm seriously considering the possibility that you are drunk. There's like no line of reasoning here. You're just slurring out incoherent thoughts.

[Anonymous No.2959871]

>>2959866
ok, nice. your reaponse was enlightening, fulfilling, and comprehensive.

i know exactly what i wrote. there is nothing wrong there.

[Anonymous No.2959879]

>>2959866

well I've understood what he said and I kinda feel the same way

to try and explain a part of it: the novels are usually pretty straight-forward and do not encourage the reader to use his imagination in order to understand the contents. Thus, more advanced readers overestimate these books because they think the contain deeper knowledge.

It's based on the idea that they are too simple to be true, and thus must contain some deeper knowledge -> they come up with overcomplicated ideas about the novels.

Hope that clarified it a bit. Not a native English speaker.

[Anonymous No.2959880]

To the people who don't believe young adult works can be "deep," try out Red Shift by Alan Garner. If you're willing to.

"In second-century Britain, Macey and a gang of fellow deserters from the Roman army hunt and are hunted by deadly local tribes. Fifteen centuries later, during the English Civil War, Thomas Rowley hides from the ruthless troops who have encircled his village. And in contemporary Britain, Tom, a precocious, love-struck, mentally unstable teenager, struggles to cope with the imminent departure for London of his girlfriend, Jan.

Three separate stories, three utterly different lives, distant in time and yet strangely linked to a single place, the mysterious, looming outcrop known as Mow Cop, and a single object, the blunt head of a stone axe: all these come together in Alan Garner’s extraordinary Red Shift, a pyrotechnical and deeply moving elaboration on themes of chance and fate, time and eternity, visionary awakening and destructive madness."

[Anonymous No.2959881]

>>2959870
Murakami isn't young adult, lol what?

[Anonymous No.2959884]

>>2959880

Of course there are (maybe a lot) of young adult novels that are great and have deeper meaning. But the "popular" ones and most of the ones that people read (I believe) are not.

[Anonymous No.2959885]

>>2959879

>to try and explain a part of it: the novels are usually pretty straight-forward and do not encourage the reader to use his imagination in order to understand the contents.

The book doesn't make them think, so they shouldn't think? How anti-intellectual are you?

>Thus, more advanced readers overestimate these books because they think the contain deeper knowledge.

How do you know when you're 'overestimating' a book? How do you know when it actually 'contains' deeper knowledge? Do you just turn off your brain and read everything literally? How do you deal with metaphors?

>It's based on the idea that they are too simple to be true, and thus must contain some deeper knowledge

Strawperson.

>they come up with overcomplicated ideas about the novels.

How do you know when your ideas are overcomplicated?

Your English is bad, but your ideas are much worse. I don't think you've thought about this much at all.

[Anonymous No.2959886]

>>2959879
>they come up with overcomplicated ideas about the novels.
Who gets to decide what's overcomplicated? You? If you can support your interpretation with the text, it's a perfectly valid reading.

[Anonymous No.2959888]

>>2959873
ok so i am a little smashed, but you are alright.

i'll try to be succinct: teenage novels provide nothing more than self flagellation. in all cases the hero is surrounded by allies who willingly sacrifice themselves for the hero's cause. basically everything written in the alchemist.

[Anonymous No.2959889]

>>2959881
I've read on a couple of sites that some of his books fall into that category (I think it was about Kafka on the shore). I'm not saying they are...

Although I wouldn't be surprised if more people believe that murakami is YA just because some characters are teenagers and there's some sex in them.

[Anonymous No.2959893]

>>2959888

Stop trying to be succinct. It doesn't help your position. You're not making much sense at all. Why is what you've said even relevant? How is it even a response to what I've said?

[Anonymous No.2959906]

>>2959885

How does disagreeing with everything put you on such higher ground? Oh you must be one of those elitist pricks ok. Have fun reading novels about teenage relationships thinking they have some deeper meaning than just plain teenage relationships.

I can already see you fighting for the quality of 50 shades of grey.

Do point out the grammar mistakes in my previous post, though, so I can improve my bad English.

[Anonymous No.2959907]

>>2959906

Please respond to the things I've said and the questions I've asked. If all you can do are personal attacks, I'll get bored.

I don't know where quality is coming from. Are you confused?

[Anonymous No.2959912]

>>2959907
>Strawperson
>Your English is bad, but your ideas are much worse.
>I don't think you've thought about this much at all.

>all I can do are personal attacks

It seems that all you can do "are" personal attacks and making this discussion personal. Not worth my time, go fight for some other pointless cause.

[Anonymous No.2959915]

>>2959893
because responding to you will do nothing but make you ask more questions. i do not want to debate with a person who reponds like alicebot. however you are the closest thing i have to a friend...

>Why do those three things constitute reality?
do you really expect me to try and comprehensivly define reality on 4chan? stop being semantic. the ascenarios provided in most teenage novels are like the mirrors that actors sit before to do their makeup: amd i have found the people who relate to the novels see themselves as twinkling stars.

the three things i mentioned were the first to come to mind and obviously for me define a reality that is overlooked for the favourable view of being the centre of the universe.

>What? Why do you think that, and why is it important?
everyday things are the most important, the most absurd, the most fantastic, and the most beautiful. why isnt the everyday important?

ok enough. please dont just respond with only questions.

[Anonymous No.2959921]

>>2959915
Not the same anon, but you can't pull unexplained definitions of true art out of your ass and not expect someone to confront you about them.

[Anonymous No.2959923]

ONLY HIGH BROW LITERATURE ALL DAY DON'T GIVE A FUCK.

[Anonymous No.2959926]

cheeldren are so pure and noble!

[Anonymous No.2959928]

i dont even read

[Anonymous No.2959929]

>>2959923
Damn, is that Denzel Washington?

[Anonymous No.2959935]

>>2959921
>unexplained definitions of true art
i did no such thing. all i said was that adults who talk about teenage novels as next level shit are still children. i love teenage books 'i'm the king of the castle' changed my life so to did 'chocolate wars' and 'the underneath' and 'catcher in the rhy' but they still didnt get high enough to kiss the kneecaps of more mature fiction.

[Anonymous No.2959940]

>>2959912

>How do you know when you're 'overestimating' a book? How do you know when it actually 'contains' deeper knowledge?

>How do you know when your ideas are overcomplicated?

Selectively quoting me is cute. It's like you think I can't go right back to my post and point out my actual serious questions.

I pepper them with personal attacks because I don't take you seriously and it's fun for me. Your post, on the other hand, was entirely personal and had no actual substance.

Also, strawperson is not a personal attack.

>>2959915

>do you really expect me to try and comprehensivly define reality on 4chan?

If you're going to criticize things for lacking 'fundamental reality', yes I would expect you to be able to justify that.

>the ascenarios provided in most teenage novels are like the mirrors that actors sit before to do their makeup: amd i have found the people who relate to the novels see themselves as twinkling stars.

What does this have to do with the idea that YA novels shouldn't be analyzed?

>the three things i mentioned were the first to come to mind and obviously for me define a reality that is overlooked for the favourable view of being the centre of the universe.

But self-reflection was a part of your definition. That's pretty self-centered.

>everyday things are the most important, the most absurd, the most fantastic, and the most beautiful.

I find your romanticism distasteful.

>why isnt the everyday important?

It is. However, it is no more important than the fantastic. And criticizing a book for lacking reality is not something that can be justified, I think. Chiefly because you can't even properly define your criterion. I can't either, but I'm not trying to.

[Anonymous No.2959942]

>>2959935

What does the quality of the novel have to do with what we're talking about?

[Anonymous No.2959946]

>>2959935
They are generally the same. Both can deal with the same issues, have the same underlying themes, use the same metaphors. Only YA tends to have a smoother, less verbose prose style, and has adjusted the plot to conform to a more rigid structure; chapters ending in cliffhangers, good vs evil, sexy clichéd protag - Because that is the kind of audience it is geared towards. You can pit the worst of YA against the worst of 'mature fiction' and notice no discernible difference. You can also hold good YA against good 'mature fiction', and again, not much difference.

[Anonymous No.2959947]

The Onion has made the perfect video on this whole hype.

http://www.theonion.com/video/adults-go-wild-over-latest-in-childrens-picture-bo,14388/

[Anonymous No.2959958]

>>2959940

>fundamental reality
breath, food, death, food.

>What does this have to do with the idea that YA novels shouldn't be analyzed?
would you analyse fantasy novels? romance novels? most teenage novels lack significant character arch. and considering that most focus on outalndish events the analysis provides no real insight... how would you act in war? can you really answer having no knowlesge of the monstrosity of the reality of war?

>But self-reflection was a part of your definition. That's pretty self-centered
no it isnt think about it.

>I find your romanticism distasteful.
wanna poo sex?

>However, it is no more important than the fantastic
thank you for pinning real reason why teenage novel intellectualisation is so disgusting.

[Anonymous No.2959968]

Well, I enjoyed The Catcher in the Rye, The Great Gatsby, and The Old Man and the Sea and the Eragon series... so yeah... there's nothing really wrong with Young Adult stuff.

[Anonymous No.2959972]

>>2959968
> The Great Gatsby, and The Old Man and the Sea

If these are now being seriously classified as YA I'm going to murder a bookstore-owner

[Anonymous No.2959975]

>>2959947
Actually, there are a few picture books that can be appreciated by adults as well, like Where the wild things are and The giving tree. Insisting there's only meaning in high-brow literature for high-brow people such as yourself makes you sound like a 16-year-old who has just read his first Dostoevsky.

[Anonymous No.2959978]

>>2959975
>cannot into satire

[Anonymous No.2960006]

>>2959940
YA books are written in a way that may or may not be 'thematically complex', something that is just endlessly arguable. The uptick in popularity is not due to any complex change in people's attitude vis a vis high art/popular art.

Here's the big reveal: It has everything to do with the books being written at a level the average quasi-literate American adult can comprehend.

[Anonymous No.2960012]

As a certified patrician, YA is entertaining shit. But there's absolutely zero artistic or literary merit. They should be reserved for boredom only, and you should never buy them. Just look at that unnecessary note; it's already presuming that the type of people who would want to read this shit in the first place are morons who can't even make their own decisions.

[Anonymous No.2960016]

>>2960012
>But there's absolutely zero artistic or literary merit.

Like, okay, do you really think the average fiction-buying dullard is up for something with literary an artistic merit? You're making this harder than it needs to be. People have trouble comprehending the words on the page and sustaining their attention spans long enough to finish an "adult" book. It appeals to shallow, stupid people in the same way "airport fiction" does and then some, since the stories are charged with hokey teenage emotion and imaginative fictional conceit.

[Anonymous No.2960029]

>YA fiction
>provocative themes and complex characters

[Anonymous No.2960046]

>>2960012
>But there's absolutely zero artistic or literary merit.
You're doing it wrong.
Even if you can't get into it or it's not complex as you like, or as clever as you like, you can't just write it off as having no merit. Everything has merit. Literally everything has artistic merit. Literally. Everything.


On a general note, people need to stop being so goddamn embarrassed by things they like or have an interest in. There shouldn't need to be a sign.

[Anonymous No.2960104]

You are now aware that every book you've read in high school is classified as YA fiction.

[Anonymous No.2960110]

It would be OK for adults to read YA fiction, if it were any good. As it is, children shouldn't even be reading that crap. OH well.

[Anonymous No.2960113]

>>2960104
Hamlet is YA drama, according to /lit/.

[Anonymous No.2960115]

I want a fantasy novel that takes you through the life of a believable character, not a family saga. Most I find are YA novels, and I can't really expect believable characters in a YA novel.

[Anonymous No.2960118]

Hell, YA is just an artificial construct anyway. The term's been around for what, 3 years?

[Anonymous No.2960165]

Young adult literature is like fast food for the adult mind.

[Anonymous No.2960169]

>>2960113
It is what /lit would call "totally edgy teen suicidal trip". And it actually features teens who are kinda edgy and talk about suicide at some point.

[Anonymous No.2960171]

>>2960165
Also a child's mind

[Anonymous No.2960598]

>complex characters
i giggled a little

>the equal of most of the books you'll find on the "adult" fiction shelves these days
that's probably because the big bookstores only stock shit

[Anonymous No.2960825]

I really enjoy YA novels. Having said that, I do not value them nearly as much as a proper novel. They are much easier to read because they don't have all the symbolism and undertone that's present in an adult novel.

For example, I'm reading Chabon's "Summerland" right now because that's easy to read so I can get used to his style. Im really enjoying it because the story is really good, but Im not reading it as closely as I will be when I read Kavlier and Clay. I'm reading this so I can understand his style and better appreciate that novel, but in no way to do consider Summerland a waste of time.

>see filename

Also, I read Miss Peregrine's Home and loved it

[Anonymous No.2960858]

>>2959828
Social forces tend to work in predictably cyclic ways, with counter forces arising solely due to the perception that their antithesis is too prevalent. They are morons telling other morons that it is okay to be a moron, which is not terribly surprising. Imagine you weren't very well read, and were one of those monoglots that only reads King every other month or something. You can either go your entire life aware of your own stupidity, thinking of yourself a John Q. Public "The man who has read nothing and understands nothing", or you can say that reading trash is OK, and that's it's all well and good. Not terribly accurate, but the brain will go through some pretty convoluted mental gymnastics in order to get out of the almost guaranteed depression that results from knowing you're an idiot.

[Anonymous No.2960879]

>>2959828
I'm reading the Wind in the Willows right next to Tolstoi.
And you can't fucking stop me.

[Anonymous No.2960896]

I'm no /lit/ elitist, but I just don't see the point of reading YA stuff when you can tell which books are good or not.

There's nothing wrong about a book being for kids, it's just that the author is placing limits on themselves in terms of the writing or whatever.

I tried to read that Peregrine book in the OP pic as well as Youth in Revolt; they just felt imature and babbyish.

There are many adult books which are easy to read and I'd recommend those to kids instead of YA stuff.

[Anonymous No.2960908]

>americans in charge of YA literature

I guess it really sucks to have your kids swallowing propaganda instead of sensitizing them for serious topics.

[Anonymous No.2960976]

>>2960896
YA literature is about suspending your disbelief and anticipating a story. If you pick up a book like that Peregrine book expecting Ernest Heminway, you're doing it wrong.

[Mohawk No.2960992]

A book is a book. Read it or don't.

[Anonymous No.2961810]

>>2959975

Pretty much this

[anonymous No.2961822]

>>2960046
>Literally everything has artistic merit. Literally. Everything.

get that post-structuralist faggotry out of my face. yeah, twilight has merit if your idea of artistic quality is poorly-written superficial teenage dog-anus, but we are not playing in the babby leagues. there exists an objective standard of literary beauty, and when we focus on that spectrum we are obliged to purge the undesirable shit away from that category, leaving room for only the most refined work. lol go read some more hunger games and babbysitters club you faggot bitch

[Anonymous No.2961829]

Implying half of any given fantasy or sci-fi book in "adult" shelves are different in any way from something for young adults.

Plenty of books are enjoyed simply because they have great stories, not because when you get older you must take part in the /lit/ circlejerk of toodeepforyou garbage. God forbid people read a book as a book instead of hoping to get caught reading eng101 approved material in the hopes of seeming deep.

There are some interesting reads that easily match most adult books out there. Think Neil Gaiman without arbitrarily throwing in a few "fucks" to make it seem a bit more edgy.

Ending my defensive rant after reading through a Garth Nix series because it was fun.

[Anonymous No.2961830]

>In fact, you'll find they often have provocative themes and complex characters

shit plebs actually believe about young adult fiction?

[Anonymous No.2961831]

>>2959828
1. who ever wrote teh message is pretentious

2. YA is for teens and dumb fucks. >tfw you realize the public is dumb

[Anonymous No.2961835]

>>2961822
post-structuralism? nah, that is some warhol garbage.

maybe you're thinking of .... ? fuck idk, edgy relativist teenagers. certainly not post-structuralists

[anonymous No.2961853]

>>2961835
but post-structuralism is relativistic. and i'm not denouncing it, i actually agree with that poster to a certain extent that everything has 'artistic merit.' but in the vein of literary merit? i shig

[Anonymous No.2961859]

>>2961829
You can endlessly debate the tastefulness and depth of high vs. low art or whatever, but the reason these books are popular is that they are written for a particular (lower) reading level.

http://nces.ed.gov/naal/kf_demographics.asp

See more here, all quantified for you in tidy graphs.

[Anonymous No.2961865]

>>2961859

I'm sorry, were we debating the popularity of YA novels? Or the fact that YA's are easier to read in general? Because I had no intention to comment on either of those.

[Anonymous No.2961871]

>>2961865
Okay, well it is also an explanation of their appeal to the hypothetical person reassured by that sign????

[Anonymous No.2961874]

>>2961871

Fair enough. Buy you a beer sometime?

[Anonymous No.2961889]

I put YA fiction on the same level as genre fiction. I don't look down on adults who read either.

[Anonymous No.2961890]

>>2961889
> I put YA fiction on the same level as genre fiction. I don't look down on adults who read either.

Only the dumbest of the plebs think that the 'genre'/'non-genre' dichotomy has any literary meaning.

'Genre' is a category used by book stores, so that they know where to shelve the book. Even then, 'genre' is mostly about the book cover design, not the contents of the book.

[Anonymous No.2961905]

>manchildren who still want to be told stories past 18
All fiction is nonsense garbage.

[Anonymous No.2961910]

>>2961905
WHAT DO YOU READ THEN, ANON, HUH
HUH

[Anonymous No.2961913]

>>2961890

> Only the dumbest of the plebs think that the 'genre'/'non-genre' dichotomy has any literary meaning.

oh shit, you're one of those fuckfaces who think stephen king is a legitimate writer, aren't you?

[Anonymous No.2961956]

>>2961913
> oh shit, you're one of those fuckfaces who think stephen king is a legitimate writer, aren't you?

No. I'm just pointing out that the difference between King and Updike isn't some ill-defined admixture of 'genre', whatever that is.

[Anonymous No.2961967]

I have no thoughts on that image, but I'm flattered you'd ask my opinion.

I believe it is accurate to say that different genres of literature are written to serve different purposes.

In determining personal value, you may find it prudent to apply the same criteria of measurement to all literature without discrimination. You might compare Ulysses to Harry Potter, and consider the former to be more valuable.

In light of my previous statement of belief, I consider this an unrealistic practice.

I would not presume to say that this consideration is fundamentally truthful, but I have found it to be a far more convenient than the alternative.

Particularly when one wishes to avoid being bothered and haughty.

[Anonymous No.2961969]

literally none of those commas were necessary

[Anonymous No.2962197]

>>2961822
>Can't into art or capitalization.

Why did you even bother replying?

[Anonymous No.2962937]

The YA designation is totally arbitrary and as such means nothing. Many books that are sold as "adult" novels in Europe are sold as YA in the United States because publishers think it will drive sales, particularly via school run book fairs. The Book Thief is a good example of this: Sold in Europe along side adult fare, and sold in America as YA.