Why are this demographic's books predominantly shit. It's

Those books are just entertainment for stupid people

>>9961882
So are children's books and they are actually entertaining, these aren't and I can't figure out why.

>>9961956
because you used to read them and are now hating them more to try to distance yourself from it?
modern YA is fine for early teenagers. if you deny that you're just being annoying

>>9961990
Hmmm, depends. I like to think the only difference between good ya and decent adult novels is the size of the font. That said, both genres have a huge selection of absolute shit.

>>9961990
I've never read any of them for fun except for Percy Jackson (which was ok) and Hunger Games (which was awful). I worked at my local library this summer, and ended up reading some so I could talk to the teens who came in.
Out of the 10 YA books I read this summer 9 were bad.

YA books are targeted to an audience that wants to feel more than think. They use simple tropes and relatable characters to rope in readers and keep them reading. There's hardly any connection to greater literature and they're extremely shallow thematically. Children's books don't focus on feels as much and try to impart lessons to growing readers. As an adult you can come back and appreciate the lessons in the books and see why they were so constructive to your childhood.

>>9962054
In addition to this, a lot of good children's books will have added depth/references so an adult reading them to a child will also be able to appreciate them. e.g ASOUFE's postmodernism

>>9961990
>modern YA is fine for early teenagers
No it isn't if anything it stunt's their development as readers. It doesn't provide any challenge, it fails to inspire growth, it teaches bad writing technique and cliches. Really once a teen has outgrown children's books I see no reason for them to not just jump into classic literature or adult novels.

>>9961990
>YA is fine for early teenagers
You do understand that middle-schoolers used to memorize Homer and have to read the KJV, right?

>>9964086
What about stuff like Robert Louis Stevenson or Alexandre Dumas? They could very easily be classified as YA.

> Don't say it's because it's aimed at younger readers, I've read plenty of children's books and enjoyed them, it's not a reading outside of my demographic thing.

I mean, all children's lit is garbage, so at this point we'd only be validating your own shit taste in that [poorly-written book X] is somehow better than [poorly-written book Y].

>>9964205
The Wind in the Willows and Narnia are not garbage. There is more to children's literature than Artemis Fowl and Captain Underpants.

>>9961802

it's the new pulp

>>9964205
>all children's lit is garbage
Besides what >>9964220 said:
Hobbit, Alice in Wonderland, The Mouse and his Child, Mrs Brisby and the Rats of NIHM, most of Roald Dahl.
If you want some recent examples that aren't classics The Mysterious Benedict Society, The Miraculous Journey of Edward Tulane, Tomorrow's Magic, Coraline, and Savvy.
Children's books aren't all bad.

>>9961802
General Teen: Breathing Underwater
LGBT: Will Grayson Will Grayson

If you think this is new, you're delusional.

File: iron-man-ted-hughes.jpg (83KB, 400x600px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 400x600px

Loved this as a kid. I wonder if it still holds up.

>>9964426
Wrong thread, balls

>>9961956
But that's wrong though. Children aren't stupid on their own accord, their stupid because they're children who haven't learned anything yet. YA is the choice genre of those who never, or just barely, advanced beyond childhood, intellectually speaking. There's nothing on the surface of YA novels which presents itself as challenging material, and only in cases where you actually dig for deeper meaning to what you're reading (which, again, the demographic in question most likely doesn't/doesn't know how to do) is there room for argument otherwise.

>>9961802
They're just fast food junk, and every generation since 1860 or so has had plenty of it. It just gets lost in history and we only know the best works from a century ago. I could show you children's/"YA" books from Victorian/Edwardian periods that make the new shit look good.

>>9961802
>>9961990
It's better than not reading at all