/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6273871]

If teens shouldn't be reading John Green, Hunger Games and Divergent what should they read? Also what age should people be able to grasp (not necessarily completely) /lit/ worthy material?

[Anonymous No.6273880]

It's not bad if young people read books aimed at young people, and if it gets them into reading other stuff, even better

But if you never ever outgrow or change what you're reading and stick to that one field of books for the rest of your life, then you deserve contempt

It's the mental equivalent of growing up on baby food and eating nothing but baby food for the rest of your life

[Anonymous No.6273897]

People reading those things are not the actual problem but the symptom. Everybody should read what they find interesting and not what other people say they should read. In an ideal society, people would read better books because the society is better and not the other way around.

[Anonymous No.6273898]

>>6273871
Orwell and Huxley are perfectly accessible for a teen. So is Camus, Dickens, Wilde, Fitzgerald, and Hemingway.

[Anonymous No.6273907]

The Greeks. Teenagers should be learning about heros of the past and the philosophies that got them there, not brain-rotting pussifying hogwash about romance, as if the only reason for men to live is to please women. Great men don't exist anymore more, only faggots and whores.

[Anonymous No.6273913]

I don't know the answer but I do know one thing: John Green should be flayed alive.

[Anonymous No.6273920]

>>6273898
Amen.
>>6273913
DEUS VULT

[Anonymous No.6273925]

>>6273907
>Great men don't exist anymore,only faggots and whores
That is going my novel

[Anonymous No.6273926]

>>6273871
they should read things that expose them to new ideas and prepare them for an adult life

people who read young adult literature are going to grow up knowing Nazism is bad (which it is) and they shouldn't support it, but they won't be able to detect fascist control in everyday life because they associate evil with genocide and papers-please systems of control, not with drone technology, CCTV surveillance, disbandment of net neutrality, and torturing brown people in secret prisons.

YA lit is a silly Hitler puppet distracting readers from the injustices that take place every day within their own government. But hey, at least we're not like THOSE people in the YA books who are certainly evil.

[Anonymous No.6273934]

>>6273907
I would like to know what people who said these things were reading when they were teenagers. And if they were reading "the greeks", what did they actually get from all that.
I think that when you're a teenager you should behave like one. Skipping that stage is as bad as perpetuating it forever.

[Anonymous No.6273954]

>>6273934

I was reading the Odysseuy my friend. Before that, admittedly I read Harry Potter, although I thought it was absolute shite in comparison to the Doomspell trilogy. Other than a few novels I mostly read books on the Ocean, ancient creatures and geology.

I picked Classical Civilizations class when I was 14, where we read the Odyssey and the Annead. They're books every child should read.

[Anonymous No.6273965]

>>6273898
u wot m8
If I had to read any of these as a teen, I would probably wouldn't have given a single shit.
Hell I even have shot myself

[Anonymous No.6273966]

>>6273954
Well, so you did read teenage literature after all. Then why are you so bitter about it?
I was also reading some "adult" authors when I was a teenager, but I was reading them along teenage stuff.
I think it's not bad that they read that at an appropriate age, it can actually be good since there are good books for young teens (Michael Ende, for instance). However, I do agree that it's a problem if they don't evolve beyond that.

[Anonymous No.6273967]

>>6273907
Rorschach please go

[Anonymous No.6273969]

I don't think there's anything wrong with reading YA as a teenager. There are so many teenagers today that refuse to read because the classics being spoon-fed to them in high school is "boring". And it's not that the books are boring- many of the books I read in high school and hated at the time are actually quite good books looking back- but it's the sense that books that aren't relevant to their current interests aren't going to keep them reading.
To be more specific, I think all teenagers should have a stab at YA historical fiction: just enough of the real world with a hint of the romance/teenage drama most of them want to relate to.
As long as they don't read YA well into their 20s or 30s. That's ridiculous. Think of YA as a gateway.

[Anonymous No.6273977]

>>6273966

Because the Doomspell trilogy isn't your average shitty tenn romance novel. There's almost no romance in it and the plot is heavily focused on actually killing things and exploring the world rather than the character's pathetic social problems. I stuck with Harry Potter because other kids were reading it, but I always knew it was a shoddy piece of work. Rowling spread herself too thin.

[Anonymous No.6273991]

>>6273969
spoon-fed? fuck, it was force-fed to us.
Our complimentary reading was Golding's The lord of the flies when I was at 15. The teacher was an old hag, and she was absolutely sure that this kind of shit WE HAVE TO KNOW ABOUT. WE HAVE TO READ IT OR ELSE WE WILL BE STUPID USELESS SHIT FOREVER.
So what does interest the avarage teen when (s)he is 15? girls, avoiding school, rioting against parents and probably curious about drinking/having parties - at least that's what did interest me that time. I liked reading back then but I was reading fantasy. Of course it wasn't good enough or relevant even for the teacher. Fuck, I am sure as hell I wasn't interested about fascism in an island by kids.

[Anonymous No.6274002]

>>6273977
That justification of why Doomspell is better than Harry Potter sounds exactly like what an angsty teen would say. I do like violence more than romance in my fiction, but I wouldn't say that's what makes a work of literature better than other. You just sounded like I would've when I was 16. How old are you?

[Anonymous No.6274025]

>>6274002

>That justification of why Doomspell is better than Harry Potter sounds exactly like what an angsty teen would say

What the fuck are you even talking about? Ah, the good old "accuse the opponant of being underaged" escape hatch. I'm 21 if you must know, not that my age makes any difference to my point.

[Anonymous No.6274032]

>>6273991
i think anyone who will ever become legitimately interested in literature will be interested by 15. maybe they won't be engaging in literature much by that age but they will be interested in it. when i was 15 i didnt live near any good library or have enough money to buy books but when we had assignments where we had to pick a book to read i was pretty excited to pick something like dostoevsky etc.

[Anonymous No.6274041]

>>6273871
A teen can read something like that, as long as they realize that it is not good. That simple. Teens should be able to read /lit/ material at 13, and understand it sometime between 14-17.

[Anonymous No.6274050]

>>6274041
What's the point of a 13 year old reading something they have no idea how to comprehend? So they can say they've read it?

[Anonymous No.6274059]

>>6273907
>The Greeks
>Great men don't exist anymore more, only faggots and whores

Am I being rused?

[Anonymous No.6274060]

>>6274025
And I'm talking about how you said that Doomspell was better than Harry Potter and most YA literature because it was about killing things and had no romance. That sounds like what a teenager would say, and I didn't think you were a teenager that's why I asked your age. If I assumed you were one I wouldn't have bothered asking.

[Anonymous No.6274066]

>>6274060
Oops, I had written some useless crap before that and forgot to delete "And".

[Anonymous No.6274071]

>>6274032
>i think anyone who will ever become legitimately interested in literature will be interested by 15.
I think it's a bit too rough to state like this. A person(ality) is developing until around 22-24? Lots of thing can happen until that age.
I really liked books around that age and I always read something, but sci-fi and fantasy mostly. Teacher didn't give a single shit about this, fantasy wasn't considered literature. I really didn't read anything but these 2 genres and I never thought that one day I am going to be honestly interested in classic literature and non fantasy themes. I am 25 now, and I am reading Fitzgerald for example and I really like him and his themes. You can never know.

[Anonymous No.6274072]

>>6274050
That is no excuse.

If you're 13 years old you should be able to comprehend any book given to you if you take your time.

[Anonymous No.6274081]

>>6274072

>If you're 13 years old you should be able to comprehend any book given to you if you take your time.

Yeah, no, unless "taking your time" means spending years of your life reading the relevant literature and maturing rationally and emotionally.

[Anonymous No.6274082]

>>6274041
Sure. Meanwhile half of /lit/ can't understand The Stranger.
Too understand a good book you need to have some life experience to which you can relate. Who the fuck in the western world have any kind of meaningfull experience at 14? With what? Playing lego?

[Anonymous No.6274084]

>>6274072
pls go

[Anonymous No.6274087]

>>6274059
Meaning that they were Greek, great, faggots, and whores but now they are just faggots and whores

[Anonymous No.6274090]

>>6274072
You are completely ridiculous, I'm sorry we weren't all reading the divine comedy at 12 or some shit

[Anonymous No.6274092]

>>6274082
the only real "experience" it takes to understand literature is depression, plenty of people will have been depressed by 14

[Anonymous No.6274096]

>>6274072

I can guarantee you've never really read or comprehended anything of significance if you think even an intelligent 13 year old should be able to digest "any book" at that point. Even if you just restricted it to fiction you are so wrong.

[Anonymous No.6274097]

Is it really bad that teens read shitty YA novels?
I mean it's still reading so it's a step in the good direction already.

[Anonymous No.6274106]

>>6274092
I don't know, I think in order to fully grasp a lot of novels you need to know something about its historical context and the standpoint of the author. Sure, you can read all of that online, but when I was 14 I didn't care about all of that, I wanted to read cutesy love stories to make up for my lack of one (the only thing I and most others cared about at 14)

[Anonymous No.6274111]

>>6274072
Somehow I think you are 20 and you think - "I understood classics at 13 as well as I understand them now so 13 years old should comprehend literature." The fact that your comprehending abilities didn't improve since 13 doesn't mean you were mature at 13 - it means you are still immature now.
Also you want to fuck your father

[Anonymous No.6274123]

They should be reading Marx and Engels.

[Anonymous No.6274129]

Brent Hartinger and Alex Sanchez were great for me as a teen.

Eating Animals was also a good one.
Hitchens' "God is not Great" too.

I'd recommend accessible stuff like Maya Angelou, Kate Chopin, Orwell, Huxley, Salinger, Clive Barker/Stephen King, Mark Twain, and Douglas Adams. An occasional John Green book is ok (I read most of them, except for Paper Towns), but it should be if they're bored and there's nothing else. These books should not be taken as literature or as "good." They're high levels of mediocre and low levels of urban 1st world liberalism.

[Anonymous No.6274131]

Sometimes I think people try hard not to get it.
People don't seem to realise that although post-irony is beyond irony itself it still owes much of its authenticity to its fore-bearer and teacher.
Less often do people realise that philosophically, their shells, or principles, can be used as shields against a hardening climate of pre-irony revival.
In other words, they have to make better use of what they've already mastered before trying to move on to a newer version of what they already have -- mere irony -- which isn't completely redundant yet.
Nevertheless, I think it's inevitable that there will come a time when the three ironies -- pre-irony, irony, and post-irony -- will be brought together, in a sincere way, to form a new kind: ultra-irony.
This will signal a new epoch and begin a new era of intellectual, truly philosophical narratives.
Either that or irony will cease to exist because people will abandon its principles in favour of something that requires less intellect and skill.
Rats, you know, WILL desert the skip.

[Anonymous No.6274135]

>>6274123
This, teens living in the first world are exposed to pro-capitalist propaganda all throughout their lives. They should definitely read critiques of capitalism and potential alternatives.

[Anonymous No.6274138]

I recently 18, so I guess I feel somewhat qualified to speak to this prompt. I didn't really get into literature until I had already acquired a taste for film (first) and other visual arts (later). It didn't read seriously until a person at my school (this kid in my grade with aspergers who has read many philosophy textbooks and worked at the university for writing papers) challenged my atheism with ontological arguments and that sort of thing (which of course my little Dawkins-reading mind). So I started reading philosophy and I enjoyed it. But quickly I became uninterested in philosophy for its arrogance and self-importance. So I just read it for the prose (Camus, Sartre, Kierkegaard). I started to read political lit too, a bit of Chomsky, Foucault, Greeks, even Zizek (somewhat regrettably). But as people noticed my uncharacteristic interest in books, they felt I had changed (I was noticeably more reclusive after reading Kafka and Schopenhauer).

Anyway, my story besides the point, I think most teenagers legitimately don't have the mental acuity necessary for an autonomous interest in heavy lit. This isn't a bad thing, I don't think - yeah, they'll read Foucault in college, for now they're occupied with filling empty space. So let them read their young adult fiction, Ovid will find them.

[Anonymous No.6274147]

>>6273871
Im only familiar with this guy through a video of him explaining capitalism and socialism on YouTube. In it he said the same dumbfuck liberal "Dude we have to combine the best of capitalism and best of socialism LMAO!" bullshit.

[Anonymous No.6274153]

>>6273871
History and the news.
Nothing beats cultural indoctrination quite like History and the news.

[Anonymous No.6274170]

>>6274153
>implying there's objective reporting and unbiased historical sources not eschewed by reactionary bourgeois propagandists.

[Anonymous No.6274181]

>>6274090
Is this a game of "spot the grammatical error in my bitchy, insecure response"?

[Anonymous No.6274182]

>>6274170
>implying that there's a better way to find information on current events besides this status quo

[Anonymous No.6274184]

>>6274170
Yes, there are. Besides that, you don't even need the specifics of history, just the commonly accepted facts will suffice.

[Anonymous No.6274185]

>>6274138
>atheism challenged by ontological argument
pleb alert, all hands on deck!

[Anonymous No.6274196]

>>6273965
>I even have shot myself
You sound like a fourteen year old. Please go.
I read all of those authors as a teenager.

[Anonymous No.6274197]

>>6274185
What, is that directed at me?

didn't you catch that I mention that it blew my dawkins-reading mind? I was dumbfounded because I didn't really understand anything about philosophy. I eventually realized his claims to be sophistry.

[Anonymous No.6274209]

The biggest issue with YA is the attitude of the writers. Often people like Maureen Johnson or John Green or Lauren Myracle (or you can combine them all in the Let It Snow anthology) are trying desperately to prove how well-connected they are with contemporary teens. They aren't trying to engage teens--they're trying to placate them. Some YA books are exceptions, for example:
>>6274129
You're talking about books that are dealing with very specific teen issues, which is fine. Teens should be reading those--and by that I mean whatever happens to be relevant to them (whether it be Judy Blume or Alex Sanchez). John Green is more about looking impressive to kids, Sanchez is at least trying to explore something relevant to a certain group of people.

[Anonymous No.6274225]

The teenage disdain for literary fiction seems to come from being forced to read books and listen to the teachers preachy interpretation of the message. I took a class where kids could choose which book they read and analyzed and the results were great. Kids started by reading the stranger or the old man and the sea because they were short and they would finish the class reading catch 22

[Anonymous No.6274241]

There are some classic books that would make decent YA reads like Demian, Watership Down and The Count of Monte Cristo. These were books I read outside of school and nearly regretted not reading earlier. I'd also throw in LotR/The Hobbit but the latter was something I knew kids were reading in elementary school, and I read the former in middle school so it's more of an answer to OP's question about age.

I don't know if I'm just speaking of these just because they were the YA books of my generation but His Dark Materials, Bartimaeus and Abarat are all pretty good.

[Anonymous No.6274249]

>>6273871
The only answer is Joyce.

[Anonymous No.6274250]

>>6274092
back to tumblr, faggot

[Anonymous No.6274263]

>>6274050
I'm >>6274041 . I said they should be able to read it because many people are unlikely to understand on the first time through, so when they can eventually have a better understanding of it on the second or third time through. Even an introduction is better than nothing.

[Anonymous No.6274273]

>>6274082
>life experience
>on 4chan
Understanding is closely related to interpretation. Different experiences can give different conclusions. By /lit/ worthy material, I think OP means much of the stuff on the wiki. The Catcher in the Rye is on the wiki, and it's not too complicated.
Not every 14 year old will understand it, but the ones that want to may be able to.

[Anonymous No.6274330]

Don't forget that there are a lot of good books for children and teenagers. Lite-literature you might say.
When I was 12 I read a children's version of the Odyssey. I loved it and it certainly has more merit than your average YA novel. It's not that good literature is out of reach for teenagers, that's just what the marketers prefer.

[Anonymous No.6274427]

>>6274330
Yeah, and the same goes for adult literature.

[Anonymous No.6274443]

>>6274196
But most teens hate that kind of literature. You may be an enlightened god of intellect, but this thread is about the average young person, not neckbeards who read everything 24/7 because they had no friends.

[Anonymous No.6274471]

Orwell, Huxley, Vonnegut, Heller, Bradbury, PKD.

[Anonymous No.6274482]

>>6274471
>this

(but Orwell was a cunt; though 1984 was still a fun read, if not for the idiocy of the allusion)

[Anonymous No.6274485]

Obligatory

[Anonymous No.6274493]

>>6273871
>If teens shouldn't be reading John Green
While it doesn't really count as reading, both youth and mature people definitely can gain a lot from his amazing "Crash Course" online series.

[Anonymous No.6274579]

>teen
>not reading John Green
>still pleb

[Anonymous No.6274603]

>/lit/ worthy material

Fuck what /lit/ says is worthy, don't be a fucking sheep. Just let them read whatever so they gain reading habits. One of my teachers read "Les Misérables" when he was 12. So it really depends on how much they want to read.

[Anonymous No.6274613]

>>6274485
The sad reality of this picture is that they probably all sold

[Anonymous No.6274625]

>>6274443
>But most teens hate that kind of literature
Most teens are idiots

>You may be an enlightened god of intellect
None of those authors are difficult reads

>this thread is about the average young person, not neckbeards who read everything 24/7 because they had no friends
There's a middleground

[Anonymous No.6274687]

>>6274493
>Crash Course
>not opinionated drivel passed off as "teaching kids"
good trolling m8, u got me

[Anonymous No.6274752]

>>6274082
By 14 I had been exiled from my dysfunctional, abusive family, homeless for 4 months, had witnessed the girl I, at the time, had fully believed myself to have been in love with (and lost my virginity to) cheat on me with a "friend" and die in a car accident less than a year later, been in a relatively serious (broken bones(femur)) car accident myself that left me disabled for months, had my best friend commit suicide along with my father, plus a whole bunch of other stuff that would constitute as "life experience." Not everybody lives such a sheltered life in a good home, Legoboy.

I can also say I didn't give the slightest fuck about literature until I was about 17 and realized that all the fucked up shit I've gone through doesn't define me, grew out of my depressed edge master phase, and started caring more about what I consume, regarding both body and mind. Most 14 year olds don't have that kind of maturity regardless of their life experience.

[Anonymous No.6274797]

>>6273907
>Great men don't exist anymore more, only faggots and whores

[Anonymous No.6275070]

Honestly, most myths and heroic legends are pretty accessible. Beowulf, the Tain, The Iliad and the Odyssey would all be good things for people to read, good strong role models in the shape of a cultural hero in some way or other. It would also promote a sense of healthy cultural awareness.

Having kids read Orwell, Huxley, Hemingway, I think turns them into clever Reddit-tier witticism creators. Modernist/science fiction is relatively new, and I think as a result it would be better for them to read something that's kind of... I don't know - pure? Unironic? Bold?

I do dislike this trend of having the hero be some wallflower with a big heart, it seems pandering to lazy disaffected teenagers to me.

[Anonymous No.6275350]

>>6273871
I liked Mockingjay. It was ballsy for a YA series to kill off most of the popular characters in the last chapters.

[Anonymous No.6275365]

>>6274072
I'm a teacher- I've had kids surprise me with some things, but a certain level of comprehension only comes with time. You can read a book, understand all of the words, but you need experience in life to appreciate deeper meaning.

[Anonymous No.6275393]

>>6273871
Well, I'd read The Canterbury Tales, the Lord of the Rings, and The Silmarillion by age 15

[Anonymous No.6275513]

My reading path
Shitty scooby doo books
Starfist (military sci-fi) that my brother gave me
Assorted video game fiction
Warhammer 40K shit
2001 by Arthur Clarke followed by Phillip Dick
Vonnegut
Heller
House of Leaves
Neal Stephenson
more Vonnegut, and more Heller
Start getting big into Doestevsky after Ap English
See Thomas Pynchon's name on a list of Neal Stephenson's influences. Read The Crying of Lot 49, and then I never looked back.

[Anonymous No.6275537]

>>6275513
ugh, once a faggot always a faggot i guess

[Anonymous No.6275545]

Teenagers shouldn't be reading anything. They should be studying math and the sciences. At 18, they should then begin with the Greeks.