<p>Are books like “Gossip Girl” and “Twilight” the bane of good literature? The problem is not that people read guilty pleasure books, but that people may get addicted to these kinds of shallow and unchallenging books and demand more of the same instead of progressing to more substantial material. The publishing industry responds to market demands, and suddenly, we have a lot less Jonathan Franzens and a lot more semi-romance novelists preaching philosophies of materialism and social status (Gossip Girl) or hokey Gothic romance (Twilight)?</p>
<p>BTW, Harry Potter is children’s lit, not young adult. Children’s lit is a superb genre.</p>
<p>Harry Potter is also in the Adult Fiction section; I know, I’ve shelved countless books. I hate Juvenile Easy books. The shelves are always so messed up due to the little kids taking stuff out and shoving it back in any random spot. Juv Fic is easier to shelve. </p>
<p>But I digress. In my opinion, YA books have no intellectual substance. Simple vocab, simple sentence structure, simple everything. It’s not rock bottom, since many preteens / teens read those books, but it’s definitely not conducive to learning.</p>
<p>SciFi, according to the amount of books checked out, is rock bottom.</p>
<p>Listen you twits, I registered after years of peacefully lurking here to respond to this twaddle!</p>
<p>There are thousands of new titles marketed to the young adult market and to generalize as you have done is similar to stereotyping NASCAR fans as a bunch of beer swilling rednecks or College Confidential junkies as a bunch of egotistical preppy, Ivy League wannabees. </p>
<p>A few exceptions do not disprove the premise (and Lord of the Rings is a dense adult-level work of fiction masquerading as children’s literature). And YA is not just books about young people or intended towards a youthful audience. There’s a certain level of corporate, top-down interpretation and depiction of youth in YA books.</p>
<p>The fact remains that reading Gossip Girl is no more edifying than watching Gossip Girl.</p>
<p>^ So? At least these young people are reading books. And thought it might be true that some teens never move beyond vapid and poorly-plotted YA fiction, many do progress to become occasional, if not avid, readers.
In any case, one of the best books I’ve read all year-- Looking for Alaska-- was YA.
Blanket generalizations of an entire genre of literature are almost never called for and are usually poorly supported and illogical.</p>
<p>Those suck too. If someone at my school is actually reading a book, that’s what they’re reading.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re right! Most of what I read between 4th and 8th grade was from the Young Adult section, and in general, most of the stories were the same and sucked terribly. I didn’t read Gossip Girl or Twilight or Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants or any of that popular stuff though. There were a few gems with a well conveyed message through nicely written literature, but most of it was easy-read, same ol’ high school drama story garbage in one way or another. Thank goodness I’ve matured to explore other genres since then.</p>
<p>Blake Lively is ugly. Leighton Meesters is much prettier.</p>
<p>Anyway, in a generation that seems to avoid reading like the plague, I wouldn’t expect pre-teens and younger teens to flock to books of literary accolade. </p>
<p>As difficult as this is to believe, some people read solely for entertainment. I assume, Gossip Girl and Twilight provide this entertainment. The fact that young adults are even reading greatly outweighs the questioned merit of the books they choose.</p>
<p>The purpose of a novel is to entertain the reader. I haven’t read either of the series you mentioned, but if they do that, I fail to see what’s wrong with them.</p>
<p>There probably are many good Young Adult books out there. But for the most part, I agree. The whole Twilight craze is unbearably annoying. I actually did like the His Dark Materials trilogy when I was younger.</p>
<p>I have read Twilight (and its sequels), and while the series definitely does not have much substance, it *is * entertaining. The masses want to be able to get through the books without falling asleep, which some literature can do. I’m guilty of this - too often I’ve fallen asleep reading assigned reading, and fail my quiz the next day. And let’s face it, some books do require more thinking and focus than a lot of people can handle. I can handle a lot, and Anna Karenina still couldn’t keep my eyes open. </p>
<p>It’s not as high-end as Romeo and Juliet, but it reaches out to the same emotions that any other romantic story would. Some of my intelligent friends enjoy Twilight and Dickens at the same time - shocker, eh? I’ve heard that great literature is not about the plot; it’s about the details and the development. While Twilight (or other young adult books) will most likely never be regarded as literature, it will be remembered as a great story (which it usually is).</p>
<p>There’s an incredible amount of YA lit that I still reread regularly when I just want to relax - Holes, His Dark Materials, House of the Scorpion, Ender’s Game, etc. I do remember being coerced to reading a Meg Cabot novel, and I wasn’t too interested in reading another one, even though it was very entertaining. Either way, there’s tons of stuff out there - you just have to have an open mind for whatever suits you.</p>
<p>On the opposite spectrum, Twilight is filled with Mary-sue, predictable one-dimensional characters.
That is one book that I just couldn’t get into. I now use it as a $20 drink coaster.</p>
<p>Hey, I like Twilight! Mindless, yes, but drama-filled and wholly entertaining (annnnnd Edward is THE perfect gentleman ;)). I like to balance wholesome literature with some pulp fiction :p.</p>
<p>On a tangential note, does anyone care about Gossip Girl, the TV series? I heard that its ratings were really low, and not at all comparable to The OC.</p>
<p>BTW, I watched the first season of the OC on DVD last year, and I actually liked it. Sandy and Seth are really cool characters.</p>