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

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

But I'm not going to join in the axe-grinding against the Times.

Ditto, mostly because I've read too little of the times to pass judgement. Then again, that article does not leave a good impression. It is a very low grade editorial: it is little more than an opinion with some very poor supporting arguments.

[=X=]

I have to agree with the author here. While a lot of article argument felt more tounge and cheeck than philosophical, he did make at least one valid point.

I appreciate that adults occasionally watch Pixar movies or play video games. That’s fine. Those media don’t require much of your brains. Books are one of our few chances to learn.

Of course I disagree with his first three sentence, it would change it to say watching a movie takes much less time than reading a book.

I feel a lot of people here are under the misconception that reading makes one smarter.

For me feedings the brain is much like feeding the body and what you "put in is what you get out ". Sure it's fun to indulge ever once and a while, but often the indulgence is excess.

I guess the one point I strongly disagree with the bloggers however is for him to have the audacity to tell others what is proper behavior.


=X=

[ucfgrad93]

Originally Posted by paulsalter

I feel guilty now for just starting to read Harry Potter (and I am in my mid 40's), seen all the films but never read the books so I wanted to try them

I'm 46, and currently reading the Harry Potter books and throughly enjoying them. I am currently on The Order of the Phoenix. I was talking to my 20 year old daughter yesterday (she has seen the movies, but not read the books) and I told her that I am really hoping that Professor Umbridge dies a really horrible death. I can feel my blood pressure rising whenever I see the words, "hem, hem."

I'm probably going to read the Hunger Games trilogy at some point this year, as I really enjoyed the movie.

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

Originally Posted by =X=

For me feedings the brain is much like feeding the body and what you "put in is what you get out ". Sure it's fun to indulge ever once and a while, but often the indulgence is excess.

I totally agree. On the other hand, discounting YA books is also a bit short sighted. Consider:

YA books are frequently the only way to get into a new genre. Every genre speaks in its own language, a language that must be learned through exposure. Books targetted at adults are often a poor way to learn that language because it makes assumptions about the reader. YA books are less likely to make those assumptions. Contrast Harry Potter with Lord of the Rings if you wish. (I have never even read the latter since it is inaccessible to me.)

It also short-changes YA books. I'm not going to claim that Harry Potter or Twilight are the heights of literature, but they are not the murky depths of it either. They are popular series precisely because they are well written. The Hunger Games is a great deal better than either if you take the time to look at what the author is saying. There are, of course, YA and childrens books that go far beyond those popular titles. For example: Awake and Dreaming by Kit Pearson.

I would also add the caution that many adult books are pure tripe, and some of them are even worse (they are pretentious tripe).

[hpulley]

Not reading something, anything, because of a category, genre or label is ignorance. Not reading something because a newspaper writer or anyone else tells you not to is disturbing. Being too embarrassed to read young adult, romance or graphic novels is sad in my mind. Suggestions are one thing but telling people to avoid an entire category sounds almost religious or political.

Most of us read for pleasure unless we are professional editors or reviewers so read what you like and enjoy it. Don't let anyone tell you how to spend your free time.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

If that was true, why is the NYT read so widely nationwide? It is obviously sitting quite well with a lot of people outside of New York.

Its not read that widely outside New York. Even in its hey day, major metro areas west of the Apalachians only saw a few copies at airports and the largest bookstores. Maybe the central library.

I live within driving distance of the Sherman/Dennison area in Texas. I don't think either of them gets it for their library system, and I know for a fact neither of the small airports serving the area carry it.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Phogg

Its not read that widely outside New York. Even in its hey day, major metro areas west of the Apalachians only saw a few copies at airports and the largest bookstores. Maybe the central library.

I live within driving distance of the Sherman/Dennison area in Texas. I don't think either of them gets it for their library system, and I know for a fact neither of the small airports serving the area carry it.

But most likely you can get The Economist magazine.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

[The NYT has a rather blatant editorial set of filters. In addition, it embraces in its filters the "New York City is the Hub of the World" mindset that is so inherent to the New York City culture. Needless to say, this doesn't set well with non New Yorkers.

New York City IS the Hub of the World.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Phogg

Its not read that widely outside New York. Even in its hey day, major metro areas west of the Apalachians only saw a few copies at airports and the largest bookstores.

IMHO, much said about the New York Times in this thread is inaccurate, but this is true. The US is not a country of national newspaper readers. This probably will change a bit as eReaders make the New York Times and Washington Post (these being the two US general interest national newspapers with substantial in-house international newsgathering) as easy to obtain as local papers, and as local papers continue to go out of business. The main reason the shift to national papers has been slow may be that many regional papers have been willing to price themselves much lower to compete. For example, at amazon.com, the full* New York Times is $19.99 a month, the Washington Post is $11.99 a month, and the Denver Post is $5.99.

________________________
* Full, or almost, full compared to print. I believe it still excludes ephemeral internet opinion peices as in the OP here. By the way, the New York Times web opinion area is an obvious copy of the "Comment is Free" feature of the Guardian, a national newspaper in the UK.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by ucfgrad93

I'm 46, and currently reading the Harry Potter books and throughly enjoying them. I am currently on The Order of the Phoenix. I was talking to my 20 year old daughter yesterday (she has seen the movies, but not read the books) and I told her that I am really hoping that Professor Umbridge dies a really horrible death. I can feel my blood pressure rising whenever I see the words, "hem, hem."

I'm probably going to read the Hunger Games trilogy at some point this year, as I really enjoyed the movie.

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

Yeah, Umbridge is the teacher from. . . well you know. I had a teacher who was difficult like that (no blood quills though). Put your name in the wrong spot on the paper and you got points taken off. And he liked his coffee and cigarettes a lot. He'd been so unpopular in the high school of the town I was living in at the time that they shifted him over to the jr. high which is where I had him for a teacher. I think it's that universal nature of the books that attracts many readers. While many of us don't/didn't attend a boarding school we all had teachers and experiences growing up that mirror at least some of those that Harry has at Hogwarts. Kids pick up on that in a big way too I think. What I've never understood is the hype against the books. I mean they have inspired several generations of kids already (since they started coming out in the 90's) to become better readers. And of course they offer us adults a chance to recapture a bit of the magic of childhood as well I think. YA books in general provide an escape from the worries of adult life. I suppose if we're not supposed to read YA if we're adults that LOTR will have to go as well.

[Kumabjorn]

It surprises me to see that shame would be an incentive NOT to read something. The West is sometimes descrbied, albeit with a broad brushstroke, as a culture of guilt. Whereas the East is described as a culture of shame.
Yet, on the subways in Osaka and Tokyo (rest of Japan too, at least on trains) you can see middle aged men with some of the most kinky Manga imaginable, lots of S&M, bukkake scenes, young girls watching yaoi Manga. The culture of shame feels nothing about openly showing that they are viewing hard core pornography, yet the culture of guilt would feel shame about reading HP and Hunger Games?
Doesn't add up.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

It surprises me to see that shame would be an incentive NOT to read something. The West is sometimes descrbied, albeit with a broad brushstroke, as a culture of guilt. Whereas the East is described as a culture of shame.
Yet, on the subways in Osaka and Tokyo (rest of Japan too, at least on trains) you can see middle aged men with some of the most kinky Manga imaginable, lots of S&M, bukkake scenes, young girls watching yaoi Manga. The culture of shame feels nothing about openly showing that they are viewing hard core pornography, yet the culture of guilt would feel shame about reading HP and Hunger Games?
Doesn't add up.

I think it goes back to religion. In the west we are taught that certain things are wrong etc. and traditionally that has imparted a guilt about sex and such things. In the east however such topics are more open in some ways. I mean India had the Kama Sutra and the Chinese had pillow books etc. centuries ago while the west was being taught to feel guilt about things that are all too human. Feeling guilty about reading YA books is taking it a bit to an extreme though I agree. And some books are condemned, reviled etc. by people who often don't even read them themselves.

[Kumabjorn]

Are you saying that shame and guilt are the same?

[kacir]

I have read the NYT "Article" and following discussion. I even wanted to leave a few warm words for Mr. Stein. NYT wanted me to register, so I gave up.
There many things that are more embarrassing then looking at pornography or reading YA books on plane. Like spewing such drivel as Mr. Stein does.

One thing surprised me. In the comments many people said that they read some YA - for bonding experience, to see what their kids are reading and so on. Why do they need to explain? Can't we simply ... gasp ... like the books? Or simply start reading a book with an open mind to see whether we would like it?

I do read *SOME* YA books (*). The ones I like. I also read serious stuff, and sometimes even trashy stuff. So what?!? I do not feel compelled to look for excuses explaining why. There are books that I like and books that I don't. I will not let likes of Mr. Stein to tell me what I am supposed to like.


(*) well, before reading through this thread I did not even realize that some of those classics are labeled Young Adult nowadays

[Gorgonseyes]

How do these people get hired?! Or a better question to ask... How to they remain hired!!!

There are no rules on who can read what...

Its like saying adults cant watch cartoons :P Or cant play video games!

Next he will be telling us we aren't allowed to have an imagination after 20!

No brain I tell you... No brain...