NYT goes trolling - "Adults shouldn't read read YA fiction"

[Joshua.P]

What's sad is this guy has probably read a hundred children's books just because they're "classics".

[pdurrant]

I like many YA books. I don't feel any need to justify that.

[applesauce]

I am extremely jealous of all the amazing YA books out there these days. There was nothing when I was a teen. I had read all the little women type books before I was 10 and had to beg my way into the adult section. I am now 44.
Now having said that nothing on the planet would get me reading YA books at my age. I play games on facebook so have added masses of people to play with. I just get so creeped out when women my age gush over twilight. I go so far as to hit the del button on them. It is out and out creepy like being friends with a pedo.
I have friends who read harry potter and I tend to ignore that, But seriously gushing over emo teen love is scary.

applesauce

[tompe]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I like many YA books. I don't feel any need to justify that.

But what you maybe need to justify is why you read books that you only like instead of reading a book you feel is really good.

I like a lot of YA books also. But the main reason I start to read most of them is because I am interested in the sf/fantasy genre and read books that people are talking about. But I have noticed that nearly all YA I read are just OK, it is hard to find a really good book among them. And if I did not have additiona reasons to read broadly in the sf/fantasy genre I would propably not read so many YA book (currently reading _The Gorl who Circumnavigated Fairyland an a Ship of Her Own Making_ but it is also just OK).

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by tompe

But what you maybe need to justify is why you read books that you only like instead of reading a book you feel is really good.

That is a loaded question.

[ATDrake]

Originally Posted by tompe

But what you maybe need to justify is why you read books that you only like instead of reading a book you feel is really good.

Because trashy fun stuff* is fun and sometimes one just wants a piece of tasty mind candy to enjoy which may not be particularly nutritious or edifying, but provides entertainment value far beyond its otherwise perceived quality.

* Also, many now-"literature" classics such as Sherlock Holmes started out as trashy fun stuff in their creators' and the public's minds (cf. Arthur Conan Doyle's hopes that he would be remembered for his "White Company" seriously-for-serious historicals).

And many YA books are indeed of a very high quality, comparable to the best "adult"† works. The field is just subject to Sturgeon's Law like anything else.

† And speaking of "adult" works, many romance/erotica things are by the same token also as good as more mainstream-appealing "serious" literature.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

Are you saying that shame and guilt are the same?

Shame is a mechanism societies use to control enforcement of local mores.
Guilt is a learned reaction to breaking local mores.
One is driven by external forces--public perception, the other by internal forces--self-perception. (Shame is about group action and effective in collectivist cultures, guilt is a personal feeling and more effective in individualist cultures.)

Or maybe not.

[Phogg]

Guilt is not learned.
Infants look to their parents to see if they got caught.
Changes to guilt can be inculcated, but the basic mechanism is inborn.

[fjtorres]

The emotional mechanism is hardwired.
The trigggers to guilt are learned.
That's why different cultures feel guilt about different things.
No different than sex. (One reason why porn desensitizes.)

[steven522]

* Follows link and reads brief NYT article *

Hey, wait a minute. I actually re-read the Tales of a Fourth Grade Nothing and following "Fudge" books again just a few years back with my daughter when she read them for the first time. I don't see this as being any different than someone sitting down and watching an old TV show from their past with their child. And the time these were published were pretty close to my actual 4th grade experiences, so this would be a literary equivalent of sitting down and watching The Wonder Years.

Now, on the flip side, although I see no problem with reading any form of publication from weekly magazine to classic lit to Doctor Seuss, those adults who line up a midnight to be the first to buy their own copy of the next YA craze have always stuck me as being a little odd. But then, I'm not the kind of person who would willingly wait in a long line at any time be it for book, movie or three dollar toaster.

[Rizla]

I know at least one person who thinks reading Harry Potter is below him.

[odiakkoh]

So should we anticipate an article about adults who read children's literature? I love the Chronicles of Narnia, Pippi Longstocking, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, The Phantom Tollbooth, etc.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Rizla

I know at least one person who thinks reading Harry Potter is below him.

Well, the Intelligence Supreme is a snob, anyway.
At least according to Kl'rt.

[tvuongpham]

Originally Posted by ucfgrad93

....

That said, I wouldn't be caught dead reading Twilight.

Ditto.

YA novels aren't super complex in presentation but topics aren't necessarily watered down.

I read HP, and Hunger Games Trilogy. Good reads complex ideas engagingly presented -not too complex method.

I am sure I had a different experience than my 10 yo daughter who blazed through the HP and HG series. She is an advanced reader and it is a challenge to find age appropriate books for here.

Point being the topics of the novels are important. Look at Animal Farm, very simple book on the outside.. very deep disturbing, complex theme/message on the inside.

What about Lord of the Flies? The Hobbit?

HG isn't a tween romance novel, so not easy to dismiss. haha

HP has been heavily criticized for its simplistic writing and language structure.. I think that just conveys both the writer's style and voice.

I dunno. Read what you like as long as you are reading.. How many "adults" read something other than a newspaper or magazine lately??

[tompe]

Originally Posted by ATDrake

Because trashy fun stuff* is fun and sometimes one just wants a piece of tasty mind candy to enjoy which may not be particularly nutritious or edifying, but provides entertainment value far beyond its otherwise perceived quality.

Of course. But that does not mean that there is not thrashy fun stuff that is more thrashy and more fun than other trashy fun stuff. So it seems to me that you will probaly find trahsier and funnier stuff among the non-YA books.