@Obi,

You're absolutely right, teachers need to do a better job of teaching the classics, but the fact of the matter remains, this isn't just a high school issue. This is an issue from the very beginnings of the education system. So many students are not equipped with the tools to read any novel, much less a classic.

You CANNOT start kids with a fifth grade reading level on a classic novel. They will not understand it. You have to start them on something they will understand, or else they will hate reading, even if the teacher does a great job teaching the novel. It won't be reachable for the students. That's the beauty of these YA novels. They provide a necessary bridge.

"You're absolutely right, teachers need to do a better job of teaching the classics,"

By this, do you mean pick books that aren't so damned boring?

No, teachers just have a knack of ruining perfectly good books by forcing you to turn in pages of meticulously formatted annotations and quizzing you on plot minutia.

Yes, I can believe that, since I've enjoyed most of the classic books I've read on my own.

I agree that the teaching is wrong...kids are expected to analyze books like a critic and still be expected to enjoy it.
I think that all of the time spent re-reading books and writing reports could have been spent reading more of a variety of books and the time in class spend instead discussing the books amongst each other.
Then maybe more kids would pick up books after school, since they wouldn't have been taught that reading is work and a chore.

"You CANNOT start kids with a fifth grade reading level on a classic novel."

Sure you can...not all classics walk around with their noses in the air like a Jane Austen novel or take out their dicks quite so frequently as a D.H. Lawrence novel.

I'd consider "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" a "classic novel."
Ditto "Matilda," "James and the Giant Peach," and most of what Roald Dahl wrote.
(Yes, including the slightly more adult stuff.)
Ditto "The Phantom Tollbooth."
Ditto "Alice in Wonderland," "Treasure Island" and "The Wind in the Willows."
Ditto the Narnia series...never was into that myself, but that's no knock against it...
Ditto the LOTR series...same as the Narnia series...
Ditto "Ender's Game"...even if I do like that far less now than I did as a teen, and I can't speak to the rest of the series, the first book was good, but enough for me...
If they're still celebrated in 10-15 years time, I'll include the "Harry Potter" books here.

Those books cover a wide range of age ranges, a wide variety of genres, have some male and some female authors and some male and some female protagonists, and they don't talk down to their audience OR make high school out to be the be-all-end-all...really, Harry Potter's the closest there, but even then, it's fighting the evil wizards that takes center stage, the school stuff is more of a fun diversion of anything (with a few obvious nods to adolescent trials and tribulations, like the immortal question about women that I will NEVER forget reading in those books--

"Why do they have to move in packs?" Harry asked Ron as a dozen or so girls walked past them, sniggering and staring at Harry. "How're you supposed to get one on their own to ask them?"

"Lasso one?" Ron suggested.

;)

Those books didn't pander to their audience, though, and that's partially due to what most if not all of you are ready to tell me--

For a lot of those books, their original stated audience wasn't necessarily children (Scott Card, Carroll--I think--and a couple others here would fit that bill...so would Swift if we included "Gulliver's Travels," but in fairness, I can see the average teen being a bit put off by that one at times, given both its age and its satire of politics, economics and religion in a way that a lot of kids probably wouldn't care to read about, so maybe include this one for Advanced Placement classes, or for that special brand of crazy kid that LIKED that kind of stuff, or the smug asshole who'd sit in back of class enjoying the fact they got the jokes that went right over everyone else's heads and snickering at their expense--so, basically, Daria. The Almighty Queen of Snark.) :)

But those books didn't pander and, lest I forget, for MOST of those books...

Forced romantic tension?
High school as the center of life?
A "YOU JUST DON'T GET MY PAIN/HOW SPECIAL I AM!" attitude?
Pandering specifically to that demographic?

For the first three, no--some of those will have one, and at most two, but most if not all escape having all three...and NONE of them really pander to their demographic. They were too busy doing other things. Like, you know, writing good characters and good stories that a broad group of people could enjoy...including kids...and surprise-surprise, if you liked Roald Dahl as a kid, chances are you still like him as an adult, because he didn't talk down to kids in his books, but treated them on par (if not better) than a lot of his parent characters...Dahl expected his child readers to be able to handle darker material and some sly innuendos and jokes...if not the first time, then when they read the books again.

I'll close this with Harry Potter, since I do think it's the best example of how to do this YA series thing well, even if 1. I'd still hesitate actually calling it that, and 2. That's arguably in part because as the "first" to do this (not counting "Ender's Game" as that was definitely not conceived as a YA novel series at first, that's more a retroactive label we give it)--

Truly great movie franchises are rare...especially for "kids' material."

But take a trilogy like Toy Story--3 movies that fit perfectly together, and cover three points in a kid's life (childhood, adolescence, and going off to college) and they were released in real-time, so kids of my generation were usually a few years older than Andy, yes, but still, close enough so that those movies came out in such a way that you could track your progression through life by those movies somewhat...and future generations will be able to do that too, track their age and development by those movies--movies that didn't speak down to their audience, but just sort of guided them along the way.

I think the same's true of the Harry Potter novels.

7 books, for ages 11-18, and based on their evolving pace, tone, themes, complexity and maturity...I CAN see future generations reading those books and going on the same sort of journey from childhood to young adulthood Harry, Ron, Hermione and tens of millions of children in my generation (myself included) did.

I can see them going through the LOTR or Narnia novels too, those have stood the test of time...they might go through the Ender novels...

And the important thing here is--that journey was WORTHWHILE.

That's really the damning factor in a lot of these YA novels...not just that they're cliche and formulaic (heck, plenty of Shakespeare's early comedies, the endings of Austen and Bronte novels, and Dickens novels could all be considered as being one or the other, if not both) and not even that they generally fall victim to at least three or more of those Four Horsemen of the YA Apocalypse (Forced romantic tension, High school is everything, YOU JUST DON'T GET MY PAIN, and Demographic pandering with the stink of marketing all over it)...

It's that the journey's not worthwhile.

The last Twilight book got bad reviews, and even fans were disappointed.
Ditto the last THG book.
Plenty of them--like that Mortal Instruments franchise--just sort of...sputtered.
We'll see about Divergent.

Harry Potter?

Overall the ending went down about as well as you're going to get after seven years of buildup...I remember when I read it I had only one major complaint, but as I was alone in it (I maintain that book should've been far, far darker...and Book 7 already goes dark, and maybe it was the fact my Shakespeare love was firmly entrenched by then and it of course still is today, but damn it, I think there should've been a FAR bigger body county and either you kill off Harry--after all, what do great epic or Shakespearean heroes do but die in the end?--or you make that body count really soar by devastating the huge supporting cast of recognizable characters people had grown attached to for 7 years...killing Ron or Hermione would've felt cheap, but I think killing a good portion of the others would've given the book's ending a bit more weight, which I'd prefer, though perhaps she wanted a lighter ending) I don't see it as crippling at all.

It was worth the trip--on the whole, people weren't disappointed, and don't look back with disappointment.

They do with the other YA series...just one more reason it gets looked on with derision, and one more reason I reject "it gets kids to read" as a valid excuse for bad books--because if you get kids to read and then DISAPPOINT THEM in the end...well, what kind of takeaway are they going to get from THAT?

You're never disappointed with The Phantom Tollbooth...
Or Alice in Wonderland...
Or any of Roald Dahl's books...
And that's why they're classics,
That's why Harry Potter will, in all likelihood, join that group (heck, Voldemort was in the 2012 Olympic Games Opening Ceremony, that's a good omen),
And that's why classics CAN work for kids.

They just have to be the right classics is all, and NOT throwaway, disappointing, pandering, marketing-fueled, cliche, and utterly-contrived and ultimately-failed YA books that, at best are mediocre attempts at something better and, at worst, are insulting pieces of trash that should be taken as an insult to children's collective intelligence.

If you take anything away from Roald Dahl, the writer and the man, it's this--

Kids are smarter than you think they are...if you give them a chance.

"No, teachers just have a knack of ruining perfectly good books by forcing you to turn in pages of meticulously formatted annotations and quizzing you on plot minutia."

+1 ghug...and it continues in college--

I had a professor who, bless her, was as nice a lady as you'll EVER meet...who hobbled to class and was a definite stereotypical "Older Cat Lady"...but damn if she didn't make the Shakespeare reading experience pretty damn dull by going over minutia or else just talking more about the history than the plays themselves (and you need the history, but itshould be supplementary, not center stage, as it were.)

I'd already read all those plays, but if *I* am bored by your Shakespeare class...

You're probably not doing the best job teaching the Bard. ;)

What makes "Hamlet" or "Henry V" 2/5 of my All-Time Shakespeare Top 5 are NOT the countless little historical minute details you could go on about...

Hamlet's the ultimate exploration of human experience, intrigue and is, in a lot of ways like one big poker game being played with the highest stakes imaginable, bluffs and killer bets and all...

And Henry V--ESPECIALLY if you're going to teach it to an American audience that doesn't feel connected to English history and, quite frankly, couldn't care less about the (admittedly very interesting and of course hugely significant) Battle of Agincourt just about 600 years ago because, hey, most don't consider it part of their history or heritage--works best as both one of the great endings to one of the great national and war epics as well as a fantastic coming of age story in its own right.

Students don't care and, frankly, unless they're specializing in Shakespeare, don't need to know every bit of royal history pertaining to the wars between England and France leading up to the Henriad in general and Henry V in particular--a 15-20 minute overview should be more than enough to suffice, because the drama comes from the situation and characters.

Who doesn't like the story of a guy transforming over time from a fun-loving schmuck who skirts responsibility (like so many of us do at that age) and pals around with one of the funniest guys ever (who's a bad influence) to his finally outgrowing that friendship in what's a pretty heart-rending way (for Falstaff and fans of that character, anyway) to someone who finally does start to live up to his potential and fulfill his potential to the guy who'll start a war on dubious circumstances because he's high and mighty as the king to the guy that walks amongst his troops in the night and then gives the ultimate rallying speech to unify them and lead them to an improbable victory, capping nearly 70 years and 4 plays of "history" seen through the eyes of dubious kings with the person once so irresponsible now becoming one of the truly great leaders of his nation?

(At least the way Shakespeare tells it.) :p

We do not NEED to know every little scrap of detail about the mud of Agincourt, or every last letter sent, and we don't need to analyze every speech every character gives.

The crazies like me will enjoy doing that, but no one else need do so...

The takeaway from Shakespeare isn't things like complicated theories lit professors dream up while sitting around and being mandated by the university to write essays (so not all the blame is on the professors for this, they're MADE to do it in cases by universities who value publishing and obscurantism over accessible smarts.)

The takeaway is the St. Crispin's Day speech, what that means for that character, that character's journey, the journey of his men and that nation, what it can mean for our people and our nation and, most importantly, what it can mean or do for YOU...

"If we are mark''d to die, we are enough
To do our country loss, and if to live
The fewer men the greater share of honour.
God's will! I pray thee, wish not one man more!"

"Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember with advantages
What feats he did that day."

"We few, we happy few, we band of bothers,
For he today that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother, be he ne'er so vile"

"All things are ready if our minds be so."

"We are warriors for the working-day."

And so on. :) (The last two are a bit after the speech in proper, but still...)

Obi, I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you almost completely.

First off, I would classify half of your examples as children's books. Yes, they might be classics, but there is a huge difference between The BFG and Crime and Punishment.

Second, the other half are books that children would not understand, except the very rare minority. I read a lot of these books as a kid, but I know I was in the minority. Most kids would not be able to read and appreciate Treasure Island, or even Ender's game. Plus there is a huge difference between getting a child to read at age ten (easy) and having that carry over to a high school student.

Plus, though I agree with you that kids are smarter than we give them credit for, many kids in America are stunted intellectually by the garbage school system. And, if you are missing key building blocks, you will not be able to comprehend the great classics in high school, even if you have a great teacher.

But, that is the beauty of YA novels, they can fill in those gaps between fifth grade books and high school books. (Also, bullshit that gulliver's travel is even remotely accessible to the average student).

That being said,I find your defense of HP refreshing, as another kid who grew up with that fantastic series!

"First off, I would classify half of your examples as children's books."

Yes...I think children's books can count as classics.

I'm not so lofty and foolish as to think a kid will go from Dr. Seuss to Shakespeare...children's lit is important...

It's this new YA phenomenon that irks me--putting series ahead of great individual efforts (most of the books I listed were one-offs, and in the cases where they weren't, those sequels only happened because the first one succeeded, and even with HP, those planned sequels were tweaked as she went along) and playing up those four tropes (forced romance, high school is everything, oh my God no one understands me/my pain/why I'm the chosen one and so special/pander to that teen demographic all the way to the bank.)

"Most kids would not be able to read and appreciate Treasure Island, or even Ender's game."

How young of a kid are we talking? Because I think kids today, tech-savvy as they are, would get the world of Ender pretty easily...a lot of that book is (if in the plot more than the meaning) video games and the most epic combination of laser tag and futuristic paintball ever. To his credit, as much as I take issues with other parts of his work as an adult...Card captures the voice of kids pretty decently, I think...they don't sound like 19th century l'il Oliver Twists or anything...

I've never in my life heard anyone actually call anyone else a "fart-eater," but it sounds like the sort of insult a kid would come up with, today or in two hundred years' time (one constant about younger boys...my how they love butts...and farts...and poop jokes...and such...)

What wouldn't they get about Ender, besides the politics (which, frankly, even years later, I STILL think is kind of a mess in that book, as some of it's well-defined East/West tension and some of it...well, the parts with his fictional commands and factions and how they all fit together and come into conflict is interesting, but not always the most coherent, especially on the first read through) and maybe some of the deeper issues in there as well?

I think they'd get the basic plot, story and characters.

They may not get the significance of the multi-national cast, in the good (Ali and Petra, an Armenian, I think, with a last name like "Arkanian" or something, but good job making token female friend for Ender a strong character with actual skills and NOT A LOVE INTEREST), the bad (kind of sucks for Latino readers the one Spanish-speaking character's a total asshole) and the...weird (the Jewish kid, Rose da Nose, I...I don't even...that's half funny and just half WEIRD, and I can't tell if Card wants us to laugh with or at that character, but I hope it's the former, or at least a mix) or some of the better one-line or paragraph-long thoughts (I like Violet wondering what Hitler was like at eight years old, and if the world might have been better if he'd just died then, and what that says about him and her and her brother and how we view people in general and kids in particular...and I like the throwaway line about there being a superstition that Jewish generals don't lose wars, I don't know how accurate that really is, but it's a line that works in a world where Israel's fought and won an absurd amount of wars over the last 70+ years while being outnumbered and surrounded, and given Card's a Mormon I wouldn't be surprised if he's trying to draw on the Old Testament with that statement, too) and the psychology, but still...

All of that's stuff for LATER in life, anyway.

I think they'd get the basics. Heck, they might get it easier than they'd get "Treasure Island," as that's older and arguably further removed from this tech-saturated world that Card (to his credit) did a decent job predicting in that book.

"Plus, though I agree with you that kids are smarter than we give them credit for, many kids in America are stunted intellectually by the garbage school system. And, if you are missing key building blocks, you will not be able to comprehend the great classics in high school, even if you have a great teacher."

I agree, which is why I've said I want a total overhaul of how this is taught--

I've said before I think FAR too much emphasis is put on learning things like vocabulary and ESPECIALLY grammar.

I say "especially" there because, frankly, in my experience working with students, they make just as many grammatical errors when trying to AVOID errors and over-thinking it...a lot of grammar just flows from natural speech, and you still have to teach the difference between nouns and verbs and adjectives and all that, but some teachers go way too far in making things almost algebraic, which the English language simply is not. As for vocabulary, I'd rather have kids learn vocabulary the way I did--you learn enough to start reading, and when you read, if find a word you don't understand...

You look it up...

Which isn't even a hassle now the way hunting through the dictionary could be sometimes as a kid because, hey, you can type a word into Google and get the definition in two seconds--and more and more kids are owning iPads, smartphones, or both nowadays (lucky bastards) so they literally can have the answer at the touch of a button...or a screen, whatever, you get the idea.

More emphasis needs to be given over to literature, because that's what makes grammar and vocab both interesting and worthwhile...you need to learn scales before you can play an instrument, but who wants to bother with all that practice if you never get to play any good songs?

"But, that is the beauty of YA novels, they can fill in those gaps between fifth grade books and high school books. (Also, bullshit that gulliver's travel is even remotely accessible to the average student)."

1. I did admit myself Gulliver was a stretch...though I still think an except could work...and if I had to choose...Chapter V...which concludes:

"The case seemed wholly desperate and deplorable; and this magnificent palace would have infallibly been burnt down to the ground, if, by a presence of mind unusual to me, I had not suddenly thought of an expedient. I had, the evening before, drunk plentifully of a most delicious wine called glimigrim, (the Blefuscudians call it flunec, but ours is esteemed the better sort,) which is very diuretic. By the luckiest chance in the world, I had not discharged myself of any part of it. The heat I had contracted by coming very near the flames, and by labouring to quench them, made the wine begin to operate by urine; which I voided in such a quantity, and applied so well to the proper places, that in three minutes the fire was wholly extinguished, and the rest of that noble pile, which had cost so many ages in erecting, preserved from destruction.

It was now day-light, and I returned to my house without waiting to congratulate with the emperor: because, although I had done a very eminent piece of service, yet I could not tell how his majesty might resent the manner by which I had performed it: for, by the fundamental laws of the realm, it is capital in any person, of what quality soever, to make water within the precincts of the palace. But I was a little comforted by a message from his majesty, “that he would give orders to the grand justiciary for passing my pardon in form:” which, however, I could not obtain; and I was privately assured, “that the empress, conceiving the greatest abhorrence of what I had done, removed to the most distant side of the court, firmly resolved that those buildings should never be repaired for her use: and, in the presence of her chief confidents could not forbear vowing revenge.”"

Dude pissing on a palace to put out a fire, and pissing off (haha) the empress in doing so...come on, kids are going to get THAT...again, poo, pee, farts...kids get that kind of thing. ;)

2. But there are BETTER books to fill that gap is my point! :)

well Obi, you're no longer a preteen/teen, and so aren't the target audience of most of the books you are referring too. Being an adult, series which target teens seem lamer to you then they do to teens.

Also you put 100 Years of Solitude, a book that is only relevant to a grade 11 English class in your top 10 books of all time list. Young adult novels aren't going to be enjoyed by someone who actually enjoys the books the rest of us had the suffer through in high school.

Now for the record I haven't read any of the books on his list, I did enjoy THG movie and Catching Fire was great. I thought twilight was ok, but haven't watched any of the other movies in that series (which presumably suck given how much hate they get).

I haven't read or seen movies relating to the Mortal Instruments or Divergent.

OBi - you are an English major that can't write his way out of a paper fucking bag. You are a blithering idiot, and based upon your own complete inability to effectively convey information, or to recognize exactly how bad your own writing is, it is clear to anyone that knows you that you have NO PLACE judging literature.

You are an asshole. You can shut the fuck up now and let *reasonable* people that are not ridiculous and foolish looking elitest "literature snobs" talk. You truly are a victim of your own demented education.

that hilarious thing is for someone like you, who tends to reject group-think in all other areas of life, you have been stamped in the fucking English Department mold and robotically spit out your "best of" lists and arguments against anything mainstream whether or not you have any real experience with them because that is what the department told you to think and say.

What a moron.

The last time I walked into Barnes and Nobles, I saw that there was now an entire section called "Teen paranormal romance."

And that should be all the explanation one needs to see why writing for kids is terrible.

@Obi
I must admit, the more I think about it, the more I do find Ender's Game fairly accessible for the average child, but my point is they will miss the whole them of the novel, which is kinda sorta the reason why books are written....

Also, I said that children's books can be classics, so I'm not sure what you're attacking there.

Also, the vernacular applied in Treasure Island and Gulliver's Travels is not accessible to children until at least high school. They might be able to stumble their way through either of these literary works, but they will not understand the theme or a vast majority of the language used. I know it is easier now to look up words than ever, but when the entire book is written in a different English dialect, they will not want to take the time to comprehend this difficult writing.

Also, just because one, extremely insignificant part of Gulliver's Travels could resonate with children, that does not mean the rest of the story will mean squat to them. Frankly, by the time they can even comprehend this section, they will be old enough where toilet humor is not as widely accepted.

Finally, while I agree there are better books in the world (though not many to fill this gap) what defines a good book? Frankly, it is a matter of personal taste, which is not even worth debating.

"well Obi, you're no longer a preteen/teen, and so aren't the target audience of most of the books you are referring too."

That's a defense of these books I also hear a lot, and it always strikes me as a hollow one--

We don't have to belong to the target demographic for the latest "Smurfs" movie to know it's bad...we don't have to be Star Wars fans to know "The Phantom Menace" sucks...and there's a reason--to a certain extent, we CAN make objective qualitative judgments free of being part of that demographic.

"Young adult novels aren't going to be enjoyed by someone who actually enjoys the books the rest of us had the suffer through in high school."

And yet I didn't mind "Ender's Game" and liked "Harry Potter"...not strictly YA, but they get lumped in with that crowd now, retroactively...and anyway, it's not as if one can't like both "Macbeth" and "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory."

"I must admit, the more I think about it, the more I do find Ender's Game fairly accessible for the average child, but my point is they will miss the whole them of the novel, which is kinda sorta the reason why books are written"

I think they'd be able to get the basic-basic themes...at the very least they'd get the coming of age angle and probably get a few of the basic themes...

And then they'll be able to come back later, if they want, and enjoy it again (and all the more) when they CAN appreciate those other themes. Thar's part of the fun of reading, re-reading, and yet another reason why Shakespeare's my favorite author--I can watch his plays again and again and find something new or think about it differently each time...same goes for Shaw and Woolf and my other favorites.

As to the Gulliver's point--

I still think it's more workable today because they'd be able to look up words in a second, or heck, even just listen to the book on audiobook while reading (I think that'd help with the understanding.)

And they'll be past toilet humor...but the sheer absurdity of that passage (which is a fair sample of Swift's style, the dual absurdity of the situation and their being upset with Gulliver despite his just saving their palace just because he employed some, um, "unique" methods to do so, there's a definite degree of satire in there) could work...and after all, Swift's original audience would've been adults, so if they could go with the passage, I think teens could enjoy it, too. After all, the comedy DOESN'T come from the peeing itself (that's the mistake plenty of schlock Hollywood comedies make, thinking body/toilet humor in and of itself is funny) but from the situation and the people to whom the situation is happening.

"Finally, while I agree there are better books in the world (though not many to fill this gap) what defines a good book? Frankly, it is a matter of personal taste, which is not even worth debating."

I think it both is and isn't a matter of personal taste insofar as I think there are some objective merits and demerits you can give a book, and then there's a lot of subjectivity and grey area.

For example, gaping plot holes?
Demerit.
A story's internal logic not being consistent/logical?
Demerit?
A story being almost entirely cliche (ie, high school is everything/forced romance?)
Demerit.

And taken from the other angle...

Clear, flowing prose?
Point (and we have different ideas of different styles we like, but still, most of us, at least, would agree that we can appreciate styles that we don't care for as being "good" if they're exemplary in its own right enough...for example, I'm far more a fan of Faulkner's long, descriptive sentences than Hemingway's minimalism--shocker, I know--but I can still appreciate Hemingway's style as being accomplished...and for as much as her characters can irritate me, I can appreciate Jane Austen's ability to put together sentences with nice alliteration and altering the pitch and flow to fit the tone of the story or the character speaking.)

Dynamic characters?
Point.

Natural, logical progression of events/a consistent internal logic for the story?
Point.

And so on.

So, basically, there are some points for style, and some for substance, and as stated above, I think there are a few elements for both of those that can be objectively-appreciated as "good" or "bad" from a pure compositional standpoint.

After THAT...we get into taste and purpose.

Henry James might have good ideas and characters, but is his style plodding?
I'd argue it is.
Jane Austen might have great style and dialogue, but do her romance plots seem to get repetitive or maddening?
I'd argue sometimes, yes.
Hemingway is a great author, but also arguably sexist...does that impact your evaluation/enjoyment of him?
It can...Pound's virulent antisemitism utterly ruins him for me...Hemingway's nowhere near as bad as Pound (at least on that front) but still, flawed or bad views towards humanity can damage a story or author's reputation...

And then, I'd argue, one of the more important ways of deciding this--

Take the work out of existence...is the art/literature world better or worse for it?

Get rid of Hamlet, and yes, most of us would say we've lost a world treasure...
Get rid of The Merry Wives of Windsor...and even Shakespeare fans like me would be hard-pressed to care or say we've lost too much.

This takes more than influence into account, however--originality (or some facsimile of it, as everything comes from a previous work) counts too.

That's why a work that's highly derivative--such as Divergent--suffers...

We could expunge it entirely and not lose much in the way of "new ideas" or new characters or creations...

But get rid of "1984" or Kafka's novels and you lose some very impactful and, for their time, bold new ideas, not to mention ideas and phrases (Big Brother, Kakfkaesque, etc.(

I just read this whole thing (excluding a couple of Obi's posts, because god damn, man, learn to convey information in a concise manner. This is a conversation, not a friggen essay exchange. You also tend to repeat yourself from post to post.)

Anyways, as a big SFF reader and a proponent of the YA genre/industry, as well as an English major, and a prospective future editor, I feel like tossing my opinions into the fray.

I've read Ender's Game, and all the series beyond it, the whole Twilight series (only way I slogged through that one was via audiobook), the whole His Dark Materials (Golden Compass), and several other YA-targetted books/series such as Fablehaven, Beyonders, Eragon, and others further in the past. As a whole, I think the only books classified as YA that I have felt were BAD books were Twilight.

Having not read hunger games (too much hype for me to be interested in the books. Movies are above average) or Divergent (I agree with obi that the premise just sounds stupid and from what little I've picked up about it it sounds at least as poor a read as Twilight.) I won't really comment on those except from the commercial standpoint. Books, no matter how poorly written will appeal to someone. All you have to do is look at something like the various fanfiction subcultures. No matter how good or bad, someone is going to declare it a masterpiece and someone else is going to call it shit. That's the subjective nature. With hardcore fans, any flaws you find, they will embrace as features or more character to the text. That's how the fan culture works. Some people break out when they get confronted by flaws they can't gloss over, some become even more entrenched. Why book series like Twilight and Divergent are so popular has more to do with current culture than the books themselves. They take advantage of current trends, and I think a discussion about why these books are so successful would need to deal much more with current culture than textual merit. The story and the writing are almost irrelevant.

Now, the way I see it, most of that sort of books won't stand the test of time, except maybe in a footnote about the screwed up tastes of the time. Perhaps books like Ender's Game will. Now, whether removing a story from the history of literature would result in a boon or the loss of a treasure, I think once again you run into subjectivity much more than you acknowledge obi. I for one would be perfectly content for several authors I've covered in my lit classes to vanish, or at least lose focus. The traditional canon is far overrated, but the difficulty comes in trying to replace it. But once again, this is far removed from the real point of the thread.

Why must YA books suck so much, or do they? I'm going to argue they don't actually suck, and that obi is just good at selecting examples of poor craftsmanship. There are plenty of good works out there, and they DO have their share of a following even if they don't get to be heralded by fans as the greatest things ever. It's my experience that it's the things with quieter fans which are actually best. (Pick up Beyonders: A World Without Heroes by Brandon Mull)

PS I feel like I may have fallen into obi's trap of a long post, but I'm a little late and wanted to touch on a lot of things. Let's sharpen the focus though.

I guess I'm just going to close this argument with one man's trash is another treasure. YA books don't necessarily suck, just like Shakespeare doesn't necessarily classify as great. For all intents and purposes, beauty is in in the eye of the beholder.

Just because you think there are gaping plot holes doesn't mean other people will. Do I think we should be pushing for classic literature to occupy more of a place in society? Absolutely! However, when it comes down to it, people do enjoy reading the present-day YA novels. THG is a fun series to read. While I didn't enjoy it (crummy writing imho), I can see why Twilight resonates with the teen girl crowd, as it does directly relate to their lives, is easy to read, and is comprehensible.

Will most of these books stand the test of time? No, but then again, I doubt people thought Shakespeare would still be popular hundreds of years later. Artistic popularity is completely subjective, and I think it is foolish for anyone interested in literature to say certain books aren't good enough.