Answer for question 4551.

[ladybug_archive]

[Error: unknown template qotd]I do not have any interest in these types of books. I fail to see the appeal of a book series in which humanity has become so evil that they pit children against each other and force them to kill each other off. Just ... what? On the one hand, I'll admit that I find the thought of groups rising up against such evil and triumphing to be very cool. But I don't want to wade through all the horrible things to see the victory. It's just too depressing to imagine things ever becoming like any of the dystopian worlds.

To be honest, though, I've never read many young adult books. It was almost always either children's books or adult books, rarely the thing in between. So I don't know that I'm really a good judge of that level.

I think the few young adult books I've read were almost always part of a series. I read a lot of Hardy Boys Casefiles and Nancy Drew Files, both of which I believe were (and should be) classed as young adult instead of children's fare. I liked those, but I like the children's versions of those series better. The Casefiles/Files got pretty dark sometimes and the Files' more overt focus on romance could be annoying. Also, sometimes there were only three suspects. So uncreative. I prefer a wider range of suspects.

Then I read the book version of That Darn Cat!, called Undercover Cat, and the two sequels. I liked the first sequel better than the first book. I didn't like the second sequel much at all. Either way, though, I wasn't that crazy about these books and preferred the original 1965 Disney film. (I hated the 1997 remake and thought it was one of the stupidest things I've ever seen. The only good thing was the cat.)

And I read Twilight, but only because it was a gift. It's really not my thing.

I think the only other young adult books I've read were by local authors. I liked those much better.

I suppose my favorite young adult books, aside from the local ones, would be the Hardy Boys Casefiles (minus the really dark/graphic installments). But as I said, I'd rather have the children's series versions. So in the end ... I probably never read many young adult books because I didn't much like the topics they seemed to cover and/or how they handled said topics.

Comments

[northeastwind.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I haven't read any YA since Harry Potter, but I'm not sure I'm fond of the dystopia novel trend. I read 1984 for class and if they're all like that, then it's just not my thing. Too much emotional work...

[insaneladybug.livejournal.com]

Harry Potter is classed as YA instead of Children's? Interesting. I suppose it really should be YA.... I'm actually not a big Harry Potter fan either, LOL. I still haven't read the last two books (although I might have, had someone not spoiled the sixth book for me shortly after it came out by posting without an LJ-cut or a warning, sigh).

Emotional work is a great term for dystopian stories!

[northeastwind.livejournal.com]

...That's a good point actually. I guess it starts as children's and becomes YA later? And ugh, sorry about the spoilers...

It really is. This is work! I am not here for work! >O>

[insaneladybug.livejournal.com]

Interesting that it changes levels! I can see how it would probably need to, though. And thanks. Yeah, that was discouraging.

Yes! I like deep things, but I really prefer them to be deep without putting me through a wringer and being more depressing than uplifting in the end. If I have to go through a wringer, I want to be supremely uplifted at the end and not let down further.

[fs-playground.livejournal.com]

I've read the Hunger Games trilogy and found it intelligent and well-written. If you read all the three volumes together, the story makes much more sense than if you read only one book. It's basically about the price of war and the way young people are being manipulated and forced to play a role which eventually destroys them. On the one hand, it depicts the inner life and motivations of teenagers, especially their insecurity in a world which has become too complex to understand. On the other hand, it's a warning against the glamour of violence and unrestrained freedom. They fit disturbingly well into our present world, which must be part of their appeal. I admit the story (and the way it's being advertised) can be a double-edged sword since people could misread the novels and think they glorfy violence.

As for the violence one can find in movies and novels nowadays, I think that people have hardened due to the things which are available. Just as love scenes weren't quite as raunchy in the beginning of the movie era, children's books weren't this violent. The boundaries are being pushed because both the readers and the authors want to explore them. And I don't even think it makes people more violent if they read it with an active brain.

I can't say anything about the other YA books, though, because I don't read YA novels very often.

[insaneladybug.livejournal.com]

Yes, naturally it would make more sense reading them all together. If I ever do decide to read them, I would definitely read all volumes (unless I just can't stomach them upon attempting it).

Your thoughts on the books and musings on why they're popular are very interesting. It's nice to hear an intelligently-worded opinion about them. I recognize that the books do not glorify violence and the whole point is trying to fight against the world having become so evil that events such as The Hunger Games happen; I just simply don't care to imagine a world where such things happen.

Interesting viewpoint on violence in general, as well. Times certainly have changed. To some extent, as a writer myself I can understand wanting to explore things and push boundaries, as my stories have certainly changed from how they used to be when I first started out. (Some key elements are still generally present, however.) I do rather miss the innocence of children's books of long-ago, though.