why does /lit/ hate young adults books so much? is it because they're not "smart" enough or too "immature" but isn't /lit/ itself filled with pseudo-intelligent teens thinking that they're smarter than the greeks?
Can /lit/ give me a good argument why someone can't enjoy reading good fictions that they like or why classics is the only acceptable form of literature ? I bet you're just ignorant snobs who think you're better than everybody else.
i enjoyed this book and i'm not and won't be ashamed
>>7790567
Fantasy/science fiction fag here.
I don't hate Young Adult Literature books but I lost touch with them after, well, I stopped being a young adult.
I fondly remember Harry Potter, Artemis Fowl, Abhorsen, Seventh Tower, and several other YA books. I don't retroactively hate them because I'm "smarter" now or whatever. I reread them every now and then for nostalgia.
Most of the genre fiction I read these days, is, well, for people in my age demographic.
A YA book would probably have to either have Harry Potter levels of hype behind it to get me to check it out (Hunger Games, Twilight, and The Fault in Our Stars aren't nearly as big pop culture phenomenons as Harry Potter) or a really interesting concept behind it (Hunger Games sounds like a boring world compared to the worlds in Mieville's books)
>>7790567
If I had to guess, I would say it's the laziness with which it's written that is insulting.
Take for example Twilight, or worse, 50 shades of grey. I'm guessing that you hate those things.
Just imagine that ALL YA is like that to /lit/, and now you understand.
What's the Fault in the Stars really about? "Bad things happen and you can't do anything about it"? That's a lame idea for a book.
>>7790594
That premise has been used before and worked fine. It's the execution to express simple ideas that YA lacks.
>>7790567
we don't hate YA, we hate ADULTS that read YA and who then skew all discourse on "literature" toward genre fiction for children. Then when we tell them to GTFO, they have the gall to be indignant.
It is vexing.
>>7790594
It's about a young man who stands up for eggs as a food fit for all meals.
>>7790567
>pseudo-intelligent teens
yes
>thinking that they're smarter than the greeks
no
Young people sure can enjoy that stuff, but as an adult you are expected to develop better taste.
People in here don't bash YA stuff. The thing is, there's nothing much to discuss about those books, they mostly have no redeeming qualities.
In my opinion people shouldn't be wasting time reading YA because there are so many fucking great books to be read and so little time.
I watched the movie adaptation of the book with my girlfriend and it was ok,nothing I would actually consider reading or watching again, but not the worst thing ever either.(gf cried tho)
OP no one here goes out of their way to start threads bashing YA. There's a general agreement that YA is fine for people who are young adults, as everyone ITT has said. It's not pretentious to think that YA books have less merit than most of the lit-centric books or just literature in general because YA is just genre fiction with a few jokes and surface level deepness thrown in to get kids to stick around with reading until they're of age to want to delve into more impactful and denser literature. Subjectivism isn't okay at every level of literature, there really is an inherent quality that most classics have that is just objectively better than YA. In the same way a music scholar would say Beethoven is more elaborate than a Justin Bieber song, or a master sculptor would say the David is more telling than a sandcastle. YA is fine, not if you're an adult though, then it becomes something for you to make yourself feel better about the fact that you're reading, but you're not really engaging, it also just becomes a thing where adults say they read YA because they're beyond the pretentiousness of literature and they think YA has something more to say, when really it doesn't OP. Give this argument a rest on /lit please.
>>7790567
YA is gratuitously romantic and all the characters are whip-smart, sarcastic Joss Whedon characters. It's garbage for children, who should be expected to grow out of it.
>i enjoyed this book and i'm not and won't be ashamed
Power to ya for liking something, but come the fuck on, dude.
>>7790567
I really enjoyed The Giver
>>7790567
/lit/ loves the stranger and it's a Young adult book.
i dont read t because i simply cant relate. my adolescence was shit & apparently so is my adulthood.
ive read a few things and basically i find it to be too simplistic in terms of emotional connectivity. i think YA fiction perfectly mirrors contemporary western apathy & privilege. and thats just so fucking dull.
classics are classics for a reason. at the end of it, you are more enlightened about something outside of your own bubble of reality & experience.
theres nothing wrong with reading for pleasure or entertainment. if YA does it for you, then go for it op. stop caring what others think about you & your pleb tastes. its time to grow up.
>>7790567
Yeah? are you sort of a libertarian too?
>>7790779
There is so much that is wrong-headed about this attitude.
>Subjectivism isn't okay at every level of literature
Yes it is. The appreciation of all art is fundamentally subjective, and only possible because any individual possesses the mental structures and emotional sensitivity necessary to do so. Claiming objectivity is just unnecessary, it's not like a lack of an objective hierarchy means that somehow everything must be equal in its absence.
Beethoven will only appear to be more elaborate once a person has trained their hearing specifically such that this is so. Someone who hasn't done this, yet claiming they perceive the 'Eroica' symphony to be more agreeable to their ears than a Lady Gaga song, is just likely being a pretentious blowhard, something the world doesn’t need any more of.
>YA is fine, not if you're an adult though
Let's be clear what we're talking about here. I assume by YA that you mean novels directed primarily at children and/or teenagers with protagonists that the reader is intended to self-insert as or otherwise strongly identify with. As such, the genre understandably has limitations that prevent it from having the perspective of novels that would be considered more literary and it would be advisable to not limit oneself to it once you are capable of perceiving the value in other kinds of works.
>it also just becomes a thing where adults say they read YA because they're beyond the pretentiousness of literature
Such adults likely haven’t developed the kinds of mental abilities specifically required to appreciate the imaginative qualities of literary fiction that it demands of them (exactly as it is with the Beethoven example). This is much more common than you'd think, even with people well into their adulthood.
John Green is a whore.
>>7790567
>i enjoyed this book
>Global Rules
>[...]
>2. You will immediately cease and not continue to access the site if you are under the age of 18.
>>7790882
i agree with this - YA is just overall dim and is written for dim people - not necessarily people who are intellectually challenged, just people who lack emotional depth and will live a life of just being average. look at booktube for instance - everybody is as vapid as the books they read. not to mention that writers of YA fantasy & dystopia inparticular write the same fucking series over and over again and the people who read them don't even seem to care because they're too simple minded to think any deeper into what they're reading.
i also think that it's down to people feeling like reading anything that isn't YA will be challenging and too hard to understand, but once again, that just comes down to them being generally dim and not being interested enough in books to find better books to read. but again if they're entertained by books written for 14 year olds with basic themes and messages, then it's probably best to leave them be and just not get hung up on what other people are reading. reading YA books is still 1000x better than reading no books atall, which 90% of the population fall under.
>>7791194
>reading YA books is still 1000x better than reading no books atall, which 90% of the population fall under.
Lol, no. They'd be better off playing vidya.
>>7791200
legitimately this
>>7790993
you're literally contradicting yourself. read schopenhauer on aesthetics.
It depends on why you read.
I used to be a lit snob when I was in college with delusions of being a grand ol' novelist. Dickens, Dostoevsky, Hemingway, Kafka... if they weren't famous as a "serious" author, I would scoff.
I'm 27 now, and while there is a world of difference of quality and nuance between classic lit and YA fiction, I read mainly for pleasure.
I tore through The Hunger Games, which my younger cousin had lying about. I enjoyed it as I would a movie, and it was quite a page turner. I've also been on a bit of a "high fantasy" bender and reading some Sanderson, Erikson, the WOT, etc. I would in no way consider them literature, but at the same time, I enjoy them immensely.
Personally I do a 1 to 2 ratio of books that will enrich me like, say, Love in the Time of Cholera, to "airplane fiction" that is just a good story.
I think if people want to pursue literature and writing that they are selling themselves short if they were to only read YA. Then again, if they want to write YA, they could make a shit load of money and would not be held to the same literary standards were they to try their hand at "serious" fiction.
I say read what you want. There is a lot of trash out there, but some books that others would consider YA I have enjoyed (Hunger Games, some of Sandersons work, etc). Obv 50 shades is trash, though I DID read it just to see for myself. Vidya would definitely be a better option there.
>>7791211
What specifically do you take from Schopenhauer that you believe puts down anything I've said? I still content that our reception of art is fundamentally dependent on perception and brain structure in such a way that it cannot be said to be objective. Do you disagree?
>>7791215
then you are just a poser, I get absolutely no enjoyment out of reading genrefiction but reading Homer or Philosophy is joyful.
If you have to make a distinction between things you enjoy and things that are of quality then you are just a pleb because for me, those two are the same.
>>7790567
There are children's books. This is understandable. Children *are* less developed than adults.
Then there are -- books. Just normal literature. It's not adult or childish. This is the kind of stuff you should read if you're a teenager -- should, in that it'll be more fun.
Then there's the completely unnecessary and damaging YA genre. It's boring. It's rehashed. It's full of desperate shitty writers ripping each other off. The few original YA hits (that inspire the derivatives) are all right in terms of intent, but also shittily written. But the concept as a whole is just insulting -- teenagers are bright enough to not need their own cordoned-off kiddy section.
Really, though, YA is generally no worse than the pop stuff you'd find in a WH Smith's adults section.
>>7791211
>literally contradicting
How the fuck would one figuratively contradict oneself?
>>7791224
>prescriptivists cannot into linguistics
>>7791194
>reading YA books is still 1000x better than reading no books atall, which 90% of the population fall under.
I disagree. There's no inherent value to reading -- it's no different to listening, or watching. The "intelligence" (or rather what people mistake for intelligence) in reading comes from the ideas imparted (and -- let's be honest -- the education often required to get the ideas imparted) and the complexity (one way or another) of the narrative. Both of which can be found in any medium -- and neither of which can be found in YA fiction.
Reading YA will do nothing. It is better to take up an entirely different occupation, because then you won't be tricking yourself into thinking you're fulfilling some general reading-quota.
>>7791224
shut
the
fuck
up
>>7790567
Basically, for something to be considered literature it needs to have intellectual value. While this is subjective, YA fiction is clearly designed for the purpose of entertainment -- conveying a beautiful, exciting or original idea is not the author's intent. This is why I personally do not bother with it, and it is why I don't think it should be discussed on /lit/.
>>7790993
Okay saying that listening to Beethoven is being a pretentious blowhard is the wrong-headed attitude here, as well as everything else you've said.
I agree with >>7791211, reread it and see if you still think the same, but I'm not here to argue that anons point.
>appreciation of all art is fundamentally subjective
No. At it's fundamental core art begins as objective, we don't look at a brick wall the same as we do Roman Cathedrals, we don't look at children's drawings like we do Flemish painters or artifact. At its very core art can be objectively good or objectively bad, its only when you start to go beyond the art as an object that the discussion begins to be more subjective (it's good because embraces other suggestively poor forms, it's good because of the cultural context, it's bad because it's a template design, etc). Once you go deeper into a work, that's where subjectivity plays a role, and an important one don't get me wrong. But you are wrong saying that fundamentally art is subjective.
>Such adults likely haven't developed the kinds of mental abilities
Let's not forget that these books are words on a page, objectively good or canonical doesn't mean reading it is either pretentious or requiring skills. There are no strong demands of literary fiction, every book is a relationship based on the reader's involvement, if people don't like literature that is decisively good by experts, which once again, expert opinion is important in every field as it should be in literature, not that canonization doesn't have it's own obvious problems (see Hamletmachine), but literature is a field of study like any other and deserving of objective qualifications, of course you can read The Death of the Author and think that's still relevant, but in no way is that how the field of literature operates entirely nor should it.
>>7790567
As children develop into adults, they must also work to develop their reading comprehension skills. The first step is picture books. Very simple language, very simple plot, uses pictures to help children understand if they are having trouble with just the words.
Next comes children's fiction. Here the pictures disappear, leaving only words. Plots and vocabulary begin to develop some complexity. This is where children can be taught the basics of writing, by showing them simplistic but workable models for how to create a story, how to write dialogue and characters, how to express an idea in a way that is both interesting and understandable.
The final step, and a step that never truly ends, is the step into true literary fiction. Within this step there are varying degrees of difficulty. You wouldn't give someone as their first real book something like Finnegan's Wake or Gravity's Rainbow. This step is much less structured, and it becomes the job of the reader, now mentally an adult, to seek out new books that interest them and can teach them something.
The problem comes in with YA fiction. YA fiction targets readers during the transition from children's fiction to literary fiction. Instead of replacing shallow depth with complex writing, it instead replaces the topics appropriate for children with more mature ones, while addressing them with the same level of complexity as a children's book. That is the issue with YA. It is an infantile presentation of a subject that could be worthwhile to understand, purposely chosen by a reader who doesn't want to evolve mentally.
The best way to deal with those who are choosing to remain in a phase of undevelopment is to treat them as you would a child. When a parent tells a child not do something, they don't attempt to justify it, at least in the moment. Do not bother trying to explain to a YA reader why they are hurting themselves, they will just dismiss your words. Just use blunt, emotional appeals to get them to stop and to read something else.
>>7790567
>is it because they're not "smart" enough or too "immature"
yes, both
>but isn't /lit/ itself filled with pseudo-intelligent teens thinking that they're smarter than the greeks?
no, that would be /b/, /tv/ and /mu/
>>7790646
>they have the gall to be indignant.
>It is vexing.
perfect post, Cathrine.
>>7790567
These are perfectly fine books for children, it's adults reading them that I have a problem: Grow up already; there's more adult literature that can read in a lifetime, you may read, without being emotionally or intellectually stunted to the mind of a teenager.
>>7790567
Young adult books have nothing beyond their face value.
I'll use Blood Meridian as an example since most people on /lit/ are familiar with it. We seem to have threads every day about what happened to the kid in the jakes and what exactly The Judge is meant to represent. As trite as these discussions have become, they welcome critical thinking. They invite you to read and re-read looking for clues and to come up with your own interpretation of events. Other people might even point out details you completely overlooked. And these are just two examples from Blood Meridian, the story-within-a-story of the harnessmaker, the fortune telling scene, why the kid wasn't at the ferry massacre, these are all things that can't be gleamed by reading the book passively. You need to actively look for these answers, and even then your answer can be scrutinized. And it isn't just Blood Meridian, any real work of literature from Faulkner to Dante invites this sort of analysis.
As much as you like The Fault in Our Stars there's nothing to discuss about it, nothing to debate, nothing to discover in subsequent reads. Everything is on the surface. It's written not to engage, but for readers to passively understand everything, because there's really nothing to get other than the character's feelings.JOHN GREEN IS A HACK AND YOU ARE A FAGGOT FOR LIKING HIM.
>"Why are breakfast foods breakfast foods?" I asked them. "Like, why don't we have curry for breakfast food?"
>"Hazel, eat."
>"But why?" I asked. "I mean, seriously: How did scrambled eggs get stuck in with breakfast exclusivity? You can put bacon on a sandwich without anyone freaking out. But the moment your sandwich has an eggs, boom, it's a breakfast sandwich."
>Dad answered with his mouth full. "When you come back, we'll have breakfast for dinner. Deal?"
>"I don't want to have 'breakfast for dinner,'" I answered, crossing knife and fork over my mostly full plate. "I want to have scrambled eggs for dinner without this ridiculous construction that scrambled eggs-inclusive meal is breakfast even when it occurs at dinnertime."
>"You've gotta pick your battles in this world, Hazel," my mom said. "But if this is the issue you want to champion, we stand behind you."
>"Quite a bit behind you," my dad added, and Mom laughed.
>Anyway, I knew it was stupid, but I felt kind of bad for scrambled eggs.
>When adults say, "Teenagers think they are invincible" with that sly, stupid smile on their faces, they don't know how right they are. We need never be hopeless, because we can never be irreparably broken. We think that we are invincible because we are. We cannot be born, and we cannot die. Like all energy, we can only change shapes and sizes and manifestations. They forget that when they get old. They get scared of losing and failing. But that part of us greater than the sum of our parts cannot begin and cannot end, and so it cannot fail.
Saying 'I notice you're a nerd' is like saying, 'Hey, I notice that you'd rather be intelligent than be stupid, that you'd rather be thoughtful than be vapid, that you believe that there are things that matter more than the arrest record of Lindsay Lohan. Why is that?' In fact, it seems to me that most contemporary insults are pretty lame. Even 'lame' is kind of lame. Saying 'You're lame' is like saying 'You walk with a limp.' Yeah, whatever, so does 50 Cent, and he's done all right for himself.
Stop hitting me! You're a jerk!
>>7792255
Christ
>>7792262
literally my first post on my first facebook account when I was a 13 year old beta
>>7790567
For me it's less about the books themselves, it's more that almost everyone I know who professes some deep love of books only ever reads YA. For teenagers that wouldn't be so bad, but these are people in their mid to late 20s.
>>7790656
Kek
how do you pronounce YA?
>/lit/ still not aware that valente is a god tier spec fic writer who just finished a modern classic of children's literature
Soon all will worship her and despair
>>7792366
Yuh-Ae.
>>7792366
"garbage"
>>7792087
>Okay saying that listening to Beethoven is being a pretentious blowhard
Then you've clearly completely misinterpreted the entire point of what I've actually said. The Eroica is one of Beethoven's most difficult to grapple with works, a complete beginner to serious music listening is simply unlikely to have the cognitive abilities to understand it at all, and even professional music critics at the time of its début had trouble with it. I'm simply saying that ignoring this fundamentally subjective aspect of perception (because yes, people really do hear entirely differently, I've experienced this myself), is a mistake with regards to art and I see no point in lying to myself or anyone else. For this reason I advocate against false pretence, and especially that done for the sake of social status.
>>7790876
>/lit/ loves the Stranger
Imgur, please.
A lot of them are the same. Romance, vampires, fairy tale spinoffs, what have you.
>>7792087
This. I think it's more correct to say that the enjoyment of art is subjective but the actual accomplishment of art is objective.
>>7792588
>especially that done for the sake of social status
I completely agree, we might be arguing different sides of a similar point. I don't think people should read for social status, I think people should read canonical literature if they say things like "books are my life" or any of those other derivative comments. Other than that though, people should read for themselves rather than any social image, the kid reading DFW (I'm an IJ fan so shitposters don't crucify me) in a coffeeshop nodding along with it is just as unappreciable to me as the person who reads the hottest the YA bestseller, if the former reader is doing it mostly for image then that's much worse than pulp that's just making some talentless publication money. In regards to this thread though
>why does /lit/ hate YA so much
Well it's a little split between the people reading for social status (but I have no evidence for that only assuming because every thread has one person saying they only buy books to show off to people when they come over) and the people who are genuinely interested in literature for their own sake, in my opinion if you wish to take a personal investment in literature for more than it just being an activity that you do every few months or so, then you should be taking the time to read the canon and invest yourself in different periods, movements, contexts surrounding works, connections, publishing histories and whatever else suits your interests. That is why /lit/ doesn't discuss YA, and also why not discussing YA isn't pretentious.
>>7792366
like yaaaaaaaassss w/o the 's'
>>7790567
They are for pure entertainment. As one matures reading should be a challenge. Like runners challenging themselves with marathons. The more one reads the more difficult the literary pieces should become.
>>7790578
>Meiville
Anybody who reads Un Lun Dun and discounts it for being "YA" is a pretty shitty reader. Sure it's not advanced fiction, but it's so imaginative.
>>7790567
>Can /lit/ give me a good argument why someone can't enjoy reading good fictions that they like or why classics is the only acceptable form of literature ?
Well obviously there is nothing stopping you for read and liking it and no one is forcing classics on you.
I don't like YA because I find them boring. That is literally it.
I like to have that "blown away" feeling from reading a book. I can't get that from YA. It seems so manufactured. It is made to sell so it is no surprise.
Think about what Dostoyevsky went through. It comes though in his books. It all feels so raw and real to me, reading his work makes me feel this way I can't describe at all.
I've never gotten that from any YA book ever and if I want to get into a mindless fun story, I'll just watch TV or something online.
As pretentious as it sounds, reading feels like a religious experience to me. It is so much more to me than just entertainment.
I'm not an ignorant snob though. I really don't care what others like. Good for you that you like it.
Honestly I think everyone else is better than me.Sometimes I shitpost about John Green though. I like to laugh at other's shitposts too. Don't take /lit/ so seriously.
>>7792366
"WHY-AYE"
