Hacker News Reader

Comment by ojbyrne | Hacker News Reader

"Noting that nearly a third of Y.A. books were purchased by readers ages 30 to 44 (most of them presumably without teenage children of their own), Graham insisted that such grown-ups “should feel embarrassed about reading literature for children.”"

When I was a kid adults read lots of books that were very pulpy, low-brow, "genre" kinds of books - mysteries, westerns, etc. I don't see how Y.A. books are in any way a step back from those books.

View on HN

What kind of challenges do the characters face? In the YA I remember, characters were struggling to define themselves while figuring out social standing, who their friends were, how to interact with their parents and managing their obligations(typically schoolwork). Those struggles could be abstracted by adding in genre challenges, but were still recognizable, and that was the appeal.

I don't know a ton about pulp genre fiction, but the stuff I read is about people trying to be good at their jobs, take care of their families, meet their obligations, and still end up good and/or alive.

It's still escapist, but I feel more comfortable escaping in to stories where the characters have the same problems I do. I don't judge anyone for reading what they want to, but I don't understand the appeal of reading books about teenagers' problems. and that's fine.

As an adult who reads a large variety of fiction and non-fiction alike within varying degrees of quality, I find myself enjoying the occasional YA book because they're often such shameless, reductionist broth that you're entirely freed from taking it too seriously and just take it at face value. Whether the protagonist is 10, 18, 25 or 40 is somewhat insignificant for me. Anyone of any age will deal with "struggling to define themselves while figuring out social standing, who their friends were, how to interact with their parents and managing their obligations."

At the end of the day, I'm just glad people are still reading.

I agree that it's not necessarily a step backwards in the sense of quality of writing or plot, but I do think the subject matter makes a difference. The detective stories, espionage tales, or even the Harlequin Romance novels were different in that although certainly pulpy and low-brow, the characters were _adults_ facing (moreless) adult situations...not wizards, demons, and dragons.

How is that different? There is a lot of "serious / adult" literature that includes wizards, demons, and dragons, and that is not a recent development. (Or in older times, ghosts, spirits, and monsters in general).

Why does it really matter if the setting is more-or-less consistent with now or with recent history, vs older history or extrapolated near-future, or speculative advanced technology (sci-fi), or magic aka "sufficiently advanced technology" (fantasy)?

I'd think the part of "subject matter" that would matter, would be what the problems are. Are the characters trying to stay alive, trying to keep their jobs or get promoted, trying to find the best parties to go to, trying to sneak around while avoiding their parent, etc.

Cory Doctorow's novels are in the Young Adult section and they have a lot to offer for adult readers.

The main thing to blame for that was WWII, where a lot of people learned to read. When they returned, there was a deluge of inexpensive pulp novels and magazines, in addition to abridged and simplified versions of classic or important works (notably from Reader's Digest.)

Many of the adults consuming these books had just learned to read. I adore that stuff and collect it (for both lurid cover art and lurid content), but the actual gems are not so common and 98% of them are completely unremembered.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com