In Defense of Reading Young Adult Literature As a Grown-Up

[Nymphs]

A very concerned Slate writer recently published a viral hit piece shaming grown-ups for having the gall to like young adult literature. "Adults should feel embarrassed about reading literature written for children," Ruth Graham writes, taking issue with 55% of YA lit now being purchased by those over 18 (their lack of mortification likely indebted to the theatrical successes of Twilight, The Hunger Games and, more recently, The Fault in Our Stars). "Fellow grown-ups, at the risk of sounding snobbish and joyless and old, we are better than this."

Link here

How do you feel about YA books?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Link here

How do you feel about YA books?

I read children's literature all the time. Every year I read Peter Pan, Beatrix Potter, Wind and the Willows and stuff like that. Some children's literature cn have some very deep themes.

 

[oldbadger]

I haven't read any of those books, but my 46 year old wife just read Twilight in 2 days flat and loved it. She sent me out to get New Moon yesterday! We watched the whole twilight Saga films and thought they were great.
And as for the Hunger Games and Catching Fire....... what brilliant films! I loved 'em and I'm 65 years!

Nobody is ever too old to enjoy what interests and entertains them.

Ruth Graham should read the lot......... and try not to be so 'past-it'.

 

[Nymphs]

I read children's literature all the time. Every year I read Peter Pan, Beatrix Potter, Wind and the Willows and stuff like that. Some children's literature cn have some very deep themes.

Those all seem very 'classic', and well, to put it bluntly -- old. How do you feel about newer children's literature?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Not enough sex and violence for my tastes.

 

[Penumbra]

I don't think I've ever read a YA book. Things I read tend to have a lot of violence and sex in them, actually. Or nonfiction.

I do watch some movies that are intended for a younger audience, though, because I like them. People should read what they like.

 

[Sunstone]

Is Playboy young adult literature?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I don't think I've ever read a YA book. Things I read tend to have a lot of violence and sex in them, actually. Or nonfiction.

I do watch some movies that are intended for a younger audience, though, because I like them. People should read what they like.

I'm the same, and I agree. I watch stuff like Twilight, Harry Potter and the Percy Jackson movies. My mom really likes those movies, too, and so we watch them together. I keep meaning to read those books but I always end up reading adult books.

I think the last book I read that could fall into the YA genre is Warm Bodies.

 

[HonestJoe]

How do you feel about YA books?

There's no such thing, it's just a marketing ploy. There is no reason writing for "young adults" would be any different to writing for "old adults" which is why a lot of books marketed as "young adult" are read by older people and lots of books that aren't are read by teenagers. A good book is a good book regardless and condemning people for reading any "class" of books just strikes me as sad.

 

[Sabour]

For some people, memories begin flashing back when reading such stories. I am not one of them though

 

[Quintessence]

Well, I rather prefer to let the speaker speak for themselves, so I went and looked at the original article. If you go and read what Ruth actually says, they're concerned about YA literature replacing literary fiction in adult reader's lives. They are concerned, for example, about the relatively uncritical portrayals life that don't capture the depth of more adult/mature understanding of the world; they're concerned about the simplistic endings in YA literature compared to more emotionally and morally ambiguous endings of adult literature; they're concerned about people gravitating solely to pleasurable "feel good" literature instead of more complex storytelling. Though I don't agree with moralizing the reading of literature and suggesting people who read predominantly YA should be "ashamed" of themselves, I don't disagree with Ruth's point. The content and diction of YA literature is pretty vacuous, comparatively. Some is better than others, but the core of what Ruth is saying is correct: YA literature is not a substitute for adult literature.

However, Ruth doesn't make the point against YA literature that, in my mind, is the far more substantial and valid criticism of adults reading YA literature. Sure, YA literature tends to be more simplistic, but so is an awful lot of mass-market adult literature. What really sets YA literature apart is diction: simple vocabulary and structuring that is easy to follow for people whose grasp of the English language is still in development. If adults are reading YA literature because they never managed to move past an eight-grade reading level, that's a problem. And while I didn't agree with moralizing the reading of YA literature for its own sake, I definitely do not disagree with moralizing the reading of YA literature because you're poorly educated. Or, as the case unfortunately is, because our culture has been fostering a pervasive dumbing down of language. Also, I think, a problem.

 

[Drolefille]

Well, I rather prefer to let the speaker speak for themselves, so I went and looked at the original article. If you go and read what Ruth actually says, they're concerned about YA literature replacing literary fiction in adult reader's lives. They are concerned, for example, about the relatively uncritical portrayals life that don't capture the depth of more adult/mature understanding of the world; they're concerned about the simplistic endings in YA literature compared to more emotionally and morally ambiguous endings of adult literature; they're concerned about people gravitating solely to pleasurable "feel good" literature instead of more complex storytelling. Though I don't agree with moralizing the reading of literature and suggesting people who read predominantly YA should be "ashamed" of themselves, I don't disagree with Ruth's point. The content and diction of YA literature is pretty vacuous, comparatively. Some is better than others, but the core of what Ruth is saying is correct: YA literature is not a substitute for adult literature.

However, Ruth doesn't make the point against YA literature that, in my mind, is the far more substantial and valid criticism of adults reading YA literature. Sure, YA literature tends to be more simplistic, but so is an awful lot of mass-market adult literature. What really sets YA literature apart is diction: simple vocabulary and structuring that is easy to follow for people whose grasp of the English language is still in development. If adults are reading YA literature because they never managed to move past an eight-grade reading level, that's a problem. And while I didn't agree with moralizing the reading of YA literature for its own sake, I definitely do not disagree with moralizing the reading of YA literature because you're poorly educated. Or, as the case unfortunately is, because our culture has been fostering a pervasive dumbing down of language. Also, I think, a problem.

I'm wondering if there's more of a shift - people who might have read other "fluff" whether Romance, Chick-lit, Clive Cussler or Patterson's latest ghost written novel, or Fantasy - are reading YA now.

Personally I read YA because I'm a fan of dystopian stories as well as social-science fiction (or "soft" SF). I don't think it's something that needs defending. But I look at the fluffy fantasy that I still like and realize that had it been written 20 years later, it would have been YA, instead it was just fantasy. So I'm not sure how much has actually been "dumbed down" rather than just "Re-classified." YA typically for teens, so most of them have a good grasp of language just still learning some of the vocabulary, unlike "Early reader" or "Chapter books" - i don't know what else to call them - that are indeed aimed towards a lower reading level.

However Twilight I will complain about not just for the writing but for the unhealthy relationship(s) in the book.

I also don't agree that we're dumbing down language, but that's an argument for another thread. Newspapers and magazines are generally aimed at an 8th grade reading level and this has been standard for a while AFAIK.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

If adults are reading YA literature because they never managed to move past an eight-grade reading level, that's a problem. And while I didn't agree with moralizing the reading of YA literature for its own sake, I definitely do not disagree with moralizing the reading of YA literature because you're poorly educated. Or, as the case unfortunately is, because our culture has been fostering a pervasive dumbing down of language. Also, I think, a problem.

Instead of moralizing about it, why not support changes that would help those with below-par reading skills? We should be happy that anyone is reading anything at all beyond text messages and tweets.

I'll be honest, I sometimes struggle with some books that use "higher" forms of voculary that I'm not familiar with, such as Anne Rice books and books written in the mid-20th century and older. (I'm actually having some trouble understanding some of the stuff in the Glen Duncan novels I've been reading lately, due to his rather extravagant vocabulary.) But my education effectively stopped at 8th grade or early high school because I stopped going to school due to mental illness. Since my Kindle has a dictionary, it's not as bad but I still struggle to comprehend some things.

 

[Penumbra]

I'm wondering if there's more of a shift - people who might have read other "fluff" whether Romance, Chick-lit, Clive Cussler or Patterson's latest ghost written novel, or Fantasy - are reading YA now.

Personally I read YA because I'm a fan of dystopian stories as well as social-science fiction (or "soft" SF). I don't think it's something that needs defending. But I look at the fluffy fantasy that I still like and realize that had it been written 20 years later, it would have been YA, instead it was just fantasy. So I'm not sure how much has actually been "dumbed down" rather than just "Re-classified." YA typically for teens, so most of them have a good grasp of language just still learning some of the vocabulary, unlike "Early reader" or "Chapter books" - i don't know what else to call them - that are indeed aimed towards a lower reading level.

However Twilight I will complain about not just for the writing but for the unhealthy relationship(s) in the book.

I also don't agree that we're dumbing down language, but that's an argument for another thread. Newspapers and magazines are generally aimed at an 8th grade reading level and this has been standard for a while AFAIK.

Instead of moralizing about it, why not support changes that would help those with below-par reading skills? We should be happy that anyone is reading anything at all beyond text messages and tweets.

I'll be honest, I sometimes struggle with some books that use "higher" forms of voculary that I'm not familiar with, such as Anne Rice books and books written in the mid-20th century and older. (I'm actually having some trouble understanding some of the stuff in the Glen Duncan novels I've been reading lately, due to his rather extravagant vocabulary.) But my education effectively stopped at 8th grade or early high school because I stopped going to school due to mental illness. Since my Kindle has a dictionary, it's not as bad but I still struggle to comprehend some things.

I guess there's a lot of privilege in that argument, then.

It's true that a lot of written media, like newspapers and magazines, are written for a relatively low reading level. So it's not too surprising that a lot of successful books, would also be written with at a fairly low reading level. If someone wants their book to be read by everybody, it makes sense to make it accessible to everybody.

I've never really thought of that before, because I've never really read a book that challenged my reading level, which is high. It's something that I've not noticed.

I guess there could be a potential market for books with rather complex and intelligent themes, that are nonetheless written at a more accessible level.

 

[Drolefille]

I guess there's a lot of privilege in that argument, then.

It's true that a lot of written media, like newspapers and magazines, are written for a relatively low reading level. So it's not too surprising that a lot of successful books, would also be written with at a fairly low reading level. If someone wants their book to be read by everybody, it makes sense to make it accessible to everybody.

I've never really thought of that before, because I've never really read a book that challenged my reading level, which is high. It's something that I've not noticed.

I guess there could be a potential market for books with rather complex and intelligent themes, that are nonetheless written at a more accessible level.

Which I think that some YA books do, though certainly not all, just as some adult books are pure fluff (and enjoying those is fine sometimes, I will read Mercedes Lackey forever and anything she writes by herself I classify as fluff.)

I'm like you in that little has challenged my reading level since I was in grade school - my biggest problem was in not knowing how to pronounce the words I was reading and understanding - I've been read to as a little kid, read to others in pre-school and read on my own in kindergarten. So when I read YA I typically slam through it in a day or so depending on my schedule. In contrast a more dense book - genre or general fiction - will suck me in for longer because it's meatier.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I guess there's a lot of privilege in that argument, then.

It's true that a lot of written media, like newspapers and magazines, are written for a relatively low reading level. So it's not too surprising that a lot of successful books, would also be written with at a fairly low reading level. If someone wants their book to be read by everybody, it makes sense to make it accessible to everybody.

I've never really thought of that before, because I've never really read a book that challenged my reading level, which is high. It's something that I've not noticed.

I guess there could be a potential market for books with rather complex and intelligent themes, that are nonetheless written at a more accessible level.

I do think it was a rather privileged argument to make. Moralizing such an issue doesn't help at all. I mean, how are going to go about that? Shaming someone because their reading level isn't where it "should" be?

 

[columbus]

Link here

How do you feel about YA books?

Sounds like Ruth Graham is snobbish, joyless and old. Give me my Tolkien and keep your "adult" fiction.

Tom

 

[Skwim]

Most I've picked up, which isn't many, haven't been well written. The Harry Potter series is one of the exceptions.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Those all seem very 'classic', and well, to put it bluntly -- old. How do you feel about newer children's literature?

Today's children's literature? You mean like Harry Potter and Twilight? I think most of it is mostly low brow pieces of consumerist bull ****.

 

[Vinayaka]

Things I read tend to have a lot of violence and sex in them, actually.

The reason I don't read fiction.