>Generation of millennials refuse to develop adult tastes
>A new genre is invented called new adult
>They never have to grow up
>They can read their teen and YA fiction now the rest of their life without criticism
Have any of you read these new adult books before?
It's just a marketing term you elitist sperglord
It's only curious how we have evolved from a world without teenagers to a world without adults. And we I say "curious" I mean "horrifying"
Why do shitty YA books always get shitty covers?
Generation X is the first generation to do this though. Look at film and television.
Genuine question: What makes a YA novel the way it is? Why does it need its own category?
From what I know, The Catcher in the Rye would count as a YA novel, but no, it's a "classic."
Now they decide to make a sub-sub-category. What makes NA different than YA? Are these just marketing techniques?
It's the same style of writing as YA but with older characters apparently
Sounds dumb, but hey, whatever gets people reading, I suppose.
It's just marketing, if a product addresses itself to you then you are more likely to feel you want it, thus tissues for men and the like.
This is not to say that they don't have outstanding features.
Because they're shit
People on lit will make a big stink about this, but remember, most reading by adults is done by bored housewives, and most fiction that targets bored housewives is YA tier to begin with.
>Whatever gets people reading
Reading should be only for the e/lit/e
This, it's not like romance novels and trash thrillers written in the 79s were patrician or something.
>Have any of you read these new adult books before?
I don't read books with stock photo covers, which I imagine covers the majority of "new adult" books. Maybe that is a stupid metric to go by, but to me, that shit is an instant "get the fuck away" sign when it comes to fiction. What kind of creative writer is okay with using the most creatively bankrupt method of art design?
Has 'new adult' actually gained traction?
I remember a few years ago it was coming into being but i know nothing of how it's developed
Eh i mean at least they're reading. Not everyone is goihg to want to get into lit and philosophy.
Boy, I really hope you aren't calling Frog and Toad entry-level in a roundabout manner.
this just in: plebs read pleb novels, now back to how patrician Veeky Forums is
>It's another "let's ascribe every bad and distasteful thing to millennials" thread: Veeky Forums edition
What does this site have against my generation? Stop trying to make me the butt monkey for whatever retarded social or political agenda it is that you children have.
I don't even read any of that shit.
>>Generation of millennials refuse to develop adult tastes
It's women desu. Look at those covers, do you really think a male would have any interest in those books?
I thought most "YA" was consumed by women in their 20's and 30's anyway
Trashy novels for adults are not a new phenomenon.
What about Penguin and Oxford Classics?
They are pretty repulsive. I don't think I own a book with a photo of a real person on the cover apart from those ducking Wordsworth classics fuck you wordsworth.
If somebody wrote one that included some of my hobbies and interests I might read it.
It's an inevitable consequence of Harry Potter and the acceptance of shitty novels.
Previously, pleb adults would read some pretty terrible genre fiction, but at least it was written for adults. Now you've got these people who refuse to move up to shitty genre fiction and instead want to elevate shitty teenage fiction to the same level as shitty genre fiction.
Fuck me.
>From what I know, The Catcher in the Rye would count as a YA novel, but no, it's a "classic."
Too much aesthetic distance from the protagonist. YA completely buys into the protagonist's tween bullshit, no distance from it or real ugliness/humor of it shown.
Pathetic.
>The Catcher in the Rye would count as a YA novel
No more than What Maisy Knew would count as a children's book.
*Maisie, throw my body into the sea
?????????????????????
You disagree with this obvious fact?
if reading would be only for elite, meaning that there would be no accessible literature written, not only in a sense of literature that's strictly meant to be sold and nothing else, but also that books considered classics would not go through process of opening to broader audience, that took place in XIX century, then you would never pick up a book. I'm disgusted by those who aren't really born into strict elites, who can still take this patritian bullshit seriously. You wouldn't be able to educate yourself two hundred years ago. You just picked up a hobby, tried to make a divide between yourself and "the masses" by reading some allegedly high-brow literature, to make yourself feel special.
Classics studies is only for the elite, or one might say, only for ~an elite~; as for that matter is mathematics, the short-film industry, and theatre. We shouldn't be devoting the better part of our intellectual energy to the task of trying to ~reduce~ literature, as if to make it into 'the people's medium'; i.e. to par it with football. Instead we should be devoting that energy into actually improving the art; increasing the reward available to those who are willing and able to give a damn/the effort. Most aren't able; fewer are willing. But there's an elite who are.
Did you think I meant banning people's access? I mean, come on, user; they're not exactly clamouring for it. I simply meant we'd do better to stop rapping our Sunday hymns.
It's pulp. People have ignored it for hundred years now, why bother yourself with it now?
I agree that democratization of some disciplines might lower their studies' results.But there is a problem with this dichotomy, with thinking that there is an elite and there are masses.
Do you think you are in the elite? I hope you do realize that the boundaries of social classes are blurred and even if you can back up your claims, there will be someone above you, who would be very pleased, if "a peasant like you" would try to play in big-boy's playground,and that he pollutes it with his plebian taste and ways of thinking.
Nb. it demands a lot of distance in looking at oneself to, when asked: do you belong to the top, or the rest, be able to place oneself where one belongs, and, that is, most of the time, at the rest.
*wouldn't try to play. sorry for this oversight. gramatical errors are due to the fact that i'm not a native english speaker.
and to lazy to learn english further.
I know it's a thoughtcrime to claim one's of an elite group; and, when someone is, in fact, of an elite group, that you are also free to ignore one's politics as inherently aggressive versus whatever's your own niche social category (which you, user, have to believe in as your only possible category, because to look upward is a thoughtcrime) - the result of all of which being that, if I say, 'Yes I'm an elite,' you get to ignore me as either a hostile enemy or a rabid schizophrenic, whereas if I say, 'No I am not,' you can push me to admit to some kind of categorical duty to contribute to the degradation of good taste; so that you win either way - but really, you wandered off there, in the first place, along a non-sequitur.
You went from this:
>I agree that democratization of some disciplines might lower their studies' results.
Which, more or less, is total agreement with me, to this:
>there is a problem with this dichotomy, with thinking that there is an elite and there are masses
Which, to me, reads like you being afraid of the fact you totally agree with me.
I mean, if there ~is~ such a thing as a lower or higher result, then there ~is~ a dichotomy, however unsavoury the taste of that fact. Because you've got two points, between which you can arrange a spectrum; good and bad. Elite and mass.
Do I think I'm better than most?
Or, say: Do ~you~ think you're better than most, user?
Because you can answer yes without claiming to be God.
And considering how tragic 'most' are, claiming superiority to that group's still a fairly humble remark.
Men usually don't read, but when they do it's not YA, it's in the vein of Stephen King and sci-fi.
>People are going to keep reading bad books
>They will not develop better taste
>Meaning that that qt at the library that I've never seen but that I know who exist will feel even more alienated
>She might become more desperate to find companionship
>(Me)
>This increases my chances of getting a literary gf
Those idiots are playing right into my hands.
why do you need a new genre if you want to read teen/ya fiction?
why can't you just read what you want to read?
Embarrassment.
why would someone be embarrassed for reading something?
Because it's awful self insert garbage used to escape from the small problems in your life instead of doing something about it. Good books are supposed to challenge you to think.
This is the same thing as watching harem anime or playing video games. Completely degenerate.
but why can't you do both?
i mean what is holding you back from reading garbage and great books?
Time. Why read both when I can read two good books?
because of enjoyment
why should you not be able to enjoy something that is bad?
kinda like there are people who enjoy watching those shitty movies like birdemic etc
That's a waste of your, and my, time.
but time spent enjoying something is not time wasted
sorry about your unrefined taste
literary fiction just isnt for you
so your implication is that if someone enjoys something deemed bad it is impossible for that person to have a good taste?
If someone enjoys things which are bad then by deifninition they don't have good taste....
I don't understand the appeal of YA
Why? What does it give you that your average television show doesn't?
That's just the free market at works, you filthy commies.
you can say you're avid reader and impress your peers
>you can say you're avid reader and impress your peers
Most people aren't impressed by literature. Many take pride in the fact they don't read the writings of "dead, white men"
The only people you could impress are other readers, who'd look down on you for solely reading YA
Someone should make a language and write books in that language so that only e/lit/e people can read them.
Teen, young adult, and this are all the same recycled shit-tier garbage in all seriousness
That's a controversial thing to say here, user. Be careful.
Those series generally use works of art from the same era as the work that's printed. That's different from stock photos.
>he still hasn't realized that, like every other person ever, he is a chance blip of ineffectual ephemera
This guy
>I don't understand the appeal of YA
Because you're not a "young adult" maybe? Why is everyone get all butthurt at a genre that's not even aimed at them and scream "I don't get." Yeah, no shit you don't get it? Why would you. I don't like YA either, but I'm not a member of the target audience. It's that simple.
Okay
So what's its appeal to the target audience?
Wish fulfillment
The word "degenerate" is just about played out at this point in the meme cycle. Not that I disagree with your point, I'm only mentioning that it weakens your argument significantly to associate yourself with the other mouthbreathers who throw that term around.
But, yeah. In short, literary fiction will never be compromised. There have always been cheap, forgettable pieces of entertainment for the masses. The world won't abandon literature because the YA meme is popular now, get a grip people.
The feeling that they read books
¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿
¿_¿