Wild Things: YA Grown-Up discussion

This came up earlier but we never started a thread for it. I'm grouping them together because they often overlap.

From Wikipedia: "Apocalyptic fiction is a sub-genre of science fiction that is concerned with the end of civilization either through nuclear war, plague, or some other general disaster. Post-apocalyptic fiction is set in a world or civilization after such a disaster. The time frame may be immediately after the catastrophe, focusing on the travails or psychology of survivors, or considerably later, often including the theme that the existence of pre-catastrophe civilization has been forgotten (or mythologized). Post-apocalyptic stories often take place in an agrarian, non-technological future world, or a world where only scattered elements of technology remain. There is a considerable degree of blurring between this form of science fiction and that which deals with false utopias or dystopic societies.

The genres gained in popularity after World War II, when the possibility of global annihilation by nuclear weapons entered the public consciousness. However, recognizable apocalyptic novels existed at least since the first quarter of the 19th century, when Mary Shelley's The Last Man was published. Additionally, the subgenres draw on a body of apocalyptic literature, tropes, and interpretations that are millennia old."

"The utopia and its offshoot, the dystopia, are genres of literature that explore social and political structures. Utopian fiction is the creation of an ideal world, or utopia, as the setting for a novel. Dystopian fiction is the opposite: creation of a nightmare world, or dystopia. Many novels combine both, often as a metaphor for the different directions humanity can take in its choices, ending up with one of two possible futures. Both utopias and dystopias are commonly found in science fiction and other speculative fiction genres, and arguably are by definition a type of speculative fiction.

More than 400 utopian works were published prior to the year 1900 in the English language alone, with more than a thousand others during the twentieth century."

What are your favorites?
What do you think of this subgenre?
Do the ones you've read provide an accurate social commentary?

Here's a short list, just from my own shelves. However, I found YA lists on Amazon here and here.

Post-Apocalyptic/Dystopian:
*The Hunger Games and Catching Fire by Suzanne Collins
*The Forest of Hands and Teeth and The Dead-Tossed Waves by Carrie Ryan (zombies)

Apocalyptic/Post-Apocalyptic:
*Tomorrow When The War Began (Tomorrow series) by John Marsden
*Z for Zachariah by Robert C. O'Brien
*World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War by Max Brooks (not YA)
*Life As We Knew It and The Dead and the Gone by Susan Beth Pfeffer
* Y: The Last Man Vol. 1: Unamanned graphic novel series by Brian K. Vaughan (not YA)
*Uglies, Pretties, Specials, Extras by Scott Westerfeld

Dystopian:
*Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
*The Giver by Lois Lowry
*The Declaration and The Resistance by Gemma Malley
*Battle Royale by Koushun Takami (not YA)

Brave New World is YA? That's surprising. I would never have considered that one to be YA!

A couple more would be the Obernewtyn series by Isobelle Carmody, and Shade's Children by Garth Nix, although I haven't read either of them yet. I do own Obernewtyn (the first book only) but have Shade's Children on my TBR.

I wouldn't consider Brave New World YA myself, but I did read it when I was 16 for school and I'm sure some libraries include it in their YA sections. Mine has a lot of the classics there, probably for accessibility.

Interesting! I didn't read BNW for school; I actually read it for the first time last year. Maybe that's why I can't think of it as anything but for adults.

I didn't realize the Ugglies etc were dystopian (I've never really looked at them). I read his book So Yesterday a few years ago. It was a really good satire that also might fit in this sub-genre.

I thought So Yesterday was excellent. It was much better than I thought it would be.

The society and authorities in the Uglies series are very much dystopic, and it's set in kind of a future environment where society as we know it is clearly no more. They're fun reads, I recommend them! :)

I really enjoy reading this genre, so I have over 40 books on my shelf (of the same name) on GR, and probably the same amount again to read, that have been recommended by other GR folks. (Some interesting threads on the topic in other groups are HERE and HERE, and of course there is the Dystopias and Social Critiques Group (not YA necessarily.)

Personally, I don't think most of this genre is for young YA readers, most of the topics covered can be quite adult or even disturbing. The point of these stories is to 'scare us straight' when it comes to seeing what the end result of nuclear war or eugenics or unrestrained capitalism (or government, or whatever) might do to the environment or to human society. Those can be some heavy issues and some authors get down to the nitty-gritty of sexual mores or reproduction issues. Others don't get near sex/reproduction issues, but show a heavy drug culture or have graphic scenes of violence or torture. Usually not gratuitously, but to add depth to their world-building.

Except for some of the newer stuff aimed at tweens/teens, most of this genre is not written with a YA audience in mind, although there is no reason why mature teens can't read them.

Like Brave New World - it actually has quite a large sexual context to it, so I wouldn't recommend it for younger teens. I read it myself in the car driving to Michigan to start my freshman year of college, so I certainly think older teens can handle it, especially in a guided discussion of the topics it raises.

I just finished Feed last week, and it is definitely YA and dystopian. I'd recommend it as a good YA read, but as an adult, I've read better.

Here's a direct link to my bookshelf, if you want to see my ratings on the books I've read.

I debated about giving Brave New World the "not YA" tag but I felt that it was fine for 15 or 16 year olds and less graphic than the ones I did make that distinction with. I just threw that list in to start off the topic, but the range on your shelves is far more impressive! :) Check out World War Z when you get a chance. I thought it was really well done, but you'd have more to compare it to.

You bring up an important divide between YA and adult novels in this category. I think it's actually why I prefer the YA novels of this type. They don't get so deep into the "scared straight" lesson, which I feel can get kind of old. Instead, the good ones focus on providing a reflection of our current society and commenting on that. I think The Hunger Games and Tomorrow When the War Began were pretty successful there. I'm going to be reading Surviving Antarctica: Reality TV 2083 for the challenge, so I'll see how that compares. (To be honest, I expect it to be kind of heavy handed.)

I actually already have World War Z on my tbr shelf - thanks! It has been highly recommended by members of my other groups too. = )

The thing about BNW is that besides eugenics and a 'created society', the big challenge of the main characters is that they choose to connect romantically and not just sexually, that the culture they live in does not allow for 'romance' and instead mandates promiscuity for 'mental health'. I remember quite a bit along these lines, which is why I think many might find it objectionable for young YA readers.

I think we're in agreement that it is a fine read for those over 15 or so, I just am still trying to get my head around what ages exactly are considered "YA readers". I was pretty surprised to hear on another thread that 10-12 year olds are reading the Twilight books, and then that another GRer considered people in their early 20's to be 'young adults' and thus YA readers. Really, I think the YA label has never been defined well - is it for kids going through the beginnning stages of puberty and all that stuff, or is it geared towards older teens, who perhaps have the maturity to handle 'real' topics? Since older teens are reading classics like Of Mice and Men in school, which no one would classify as a YA book, should older teens (16+) be considered as 'adult' readers (who can then read from any genre)? Sorry, don't mean to hijack the thread, I'm just finding the classification YA to be troublesome...perhaps it would be better as Tween/Teen for the 10-14 ages, and then YA for the 14-18 ranges...

Back to thread topic:

The whole concept of the genre is to explore all the horrors that lie in wait for taking any one thing to extremes, or in the case of the various means of exterminating the human race (or trying to). I think the very nature of them are as a 'cautionary tale', and that is where they have the most value - in getting us to look outside our personal narrow little window on the world. Perhaps even to give an 'a-ha' moment or two.

I highly recommend Anthem (the shortest book Ayn Rand ever wrote = ), The Handmaid's Tale, and Fahrenheit 451 and to promote some really good mind-stretching.

I'd be interested in hearing what you think of Surviving Antarctica, hadn't heard of that book before. You might also be interested in The Long Walk by Stephen King - it is a similar premise. Haven't read it yet, but it looks good...

I think the unclear age distinction might be why the YA term is getting dropped. At B&N we had "Young Readers" that were about 7 or 8-12, and "Teen." I have always thought of YA as teen, about 12 or 13 and up. It's not a very precise label.

More thorough reply when I'm not using my phone. :)

Carolyn, I actually had a thread here in WT for "The Long Walk" but deleted it after I finished because while it does focus on young adults as the main characters, it is not the type of book that I think should be classified as YA.

I've also read WWZ, and I really liked it a lot, but I don't think that is YA either. There is a lot of political and military and strategic information in the book, as well as quite a bit of gore and violence, which isn't exactly what I think of as YA. (This is not to say that I would prevent anyone from reading them, I just don't think that they should be categorized and marketed to younger readers.)

But this is all just my own preference. I don't know what makes YA YA anymore than anyone else does apparently, haha! I created a thread for this exact subject but I think it died.

To me, YA books have a simplicity about them. Not that I mean that they are simple, by any stretch, but there is just something about them that makes them accessible to younger readers, and simplicity is the closest word that I can think of. They can include mature themes, and sexual content, but they generally aren't graphic - or not TOO graphic. Likewise the story is generally set up to be thought-provoking, but in a light way, or at least not so heavy that it prevents enjoyment of the story.

Anyway, I didn't mean to run off with this thread either. I just think that YA is difficult to categorize because so much can fit into it. Books like The Hunger Games and The Book Thief are excellent examples of what I mean. The Hunger Games is dystopian in a thought-provoking way, but not gory or graphic. The Book Thief was originally written for adults, but it speaks to younger readers and shows them a little bit of what Nazi Germany was like, so it can also be YA. This is one of the main reasons I love reading YA.

I've read Z For Zachriah, and that book I would say definately fits within the YA genre, as it is an accessible read and the protagonist is a sixteen year old girl. It's a quick read about a girl surviving a nuclear holocaust, parts are a little disturbing, but seeing as how we had the choice to read this in eighth grade, it's not too graphic.

Carolyn wrote: "I think the very nature of them are as a 'cautionary tale', and that is where they have the most value - in getting us to look outside our personal narrow little window on the world. Perhaps even to give an 'a-ha' moment or two."

Very well put. That's why I think the genre does work for YA. Granted, it can't be as graphic or heavy, but it does disguise messages about the world and society within the context of a cool sci-fi story. If a young person reads a book of this type and then does look out their own "personal narrow little window" to see things differently, that's beneficial. It's why I like the YA dystopian and post-apocalyptic novels - social commentary on a smaller scale to broaden the minds of youths. The teenage years, by their very nature, are internally focused. Something embarrassing happens and it's the Worst Thing Ever. You get a pimple and your life is over. No date? Social pariah. So I appreciate books that can turn that attention outward a little. (Now I'm not saying teens are shallow or anything like that. But think back to high school. You were pretty focused on yourself, am I right?)

WWZ is not YA, but I think it's awesome and since this is a group for adults I threw it in there (with the "not YA" distinction). I think teens 15+ could read it, but really I was just trying to stress to Carolyn that it's amazing and I want her to read it and tell me what she thinks. :) In return I'll finally read The Handmaid's Tale, which has been rec'd to me a lot, too.

Carolyn - it's been 10 years since I read Brave New World so I didn't remember any of that. But I do remember that it was one of the only assigned books I enjoyed in high school, right up there with Pride and Prejudice.

Anyway, it seems like for the purposes of this group we're covering a huge range. If something like The Phantom Tollbooth, which I was assigned in 3rd grade, is fair game, then classics we read in high school should be, too.

April wrote: "I've read Z For Zachriah, and that book I would say definately fits within the YA genre, as it is an accessible read and the protagonist is a sixteen year old girl."

I read this last month or so, and really enjoyed it. I only gave it 3 stars because of the writing and story, but I can see why it's an important YA novel and on so many school reading lists. I wish I'd read this in school instead of a bunch of the other things I had to read.

And I need to add one more thing. When I started this thread I had no idea it would lead to this kind of conversation, but I love it! I love how we get such great conversations going in this group. Since I don't work in a bookstore anymore I really did miss having people to talk about books with, as lame as that might sound. Thanks, guys. :)

What is the distinction between utopia/distopia? I read the wiki break down but then looking at some of the classifications I disagreed.

Alexis put the Uglies series into distopia. I would have thought of that as Utopia in the extreme. From looking at it, everyone is equally "beautiful", there isn't war, they are carin for the environment, etc. all good things. It takes away choosing though. It put into perspective how important the ability to choose is and made clear what things are more important than beauty, partying, weight, etc.

Is utopian lit only if good things make things turn out better or can the idea of utopia be a negative?

I love Utopian/Dystopian literature! Great thread idea!

Lauren, I've read the Uglies series (loved it by the way!) and I think it is one that could be classified at both Utopian and Dystopian. I think it is more dystopian because of the nature of perfection- what they do to turn everyone into a 'pretty' and the fact that it is also post apocalyptic.
It might also have something to do with the desire to create a completely controlled world, and not a perfect world as well. Who knows, you can definitely make a case for that one both ways.

I know it isn't YA, but I just finished 1984, and I loved it. It really makes you think, and is a little scary to think about. It made me a little paranoid for a few days. ;)

I am actually going to start BNW right after I finish the last Narnia book, so I am excited about that. This kind of literature really makes you think about life, and what and where yours is headed.

I think it was Fiona that said YA cuts out all the bullcrap and just gets to the point. Something like that, anyway.

I think, like everyone has said, the writing is not generally gory, grapic, overtly sexual, whatever, but the subject may be all those things. I think young adults aren't interested in reading 9 pages describing a whale's eye (Moby Dick) but would probably appreciate the essence of that story.

YA to me is a big story, or idea, boiled down to it's essence.

Lauren wrote: "What is the distinction between utopia/distopia? I read the wiki break down but then looking at some of the classifications I disagreed."

Great discussion topic! :) I don't think utopias can really exist, so I just always use "dystopia." Maybe there's some fantasy novel somewhere that takes place in a world where everyone is happy and does the right thing all the time, but I'd rather read a dystopian novel. In Uglies I'm sure most of the citizens are under the impression that they live in a utopia, but they don't. It's not an ideal world to a fully functioning human being; the residents are not even allowed to know the difference. They basically live in a fish tank. (I'm trying to stay away from spoilers here.) So yes, the Uglies series does combine both ideas, but I feel that at its heart it is dystopic. Besides, I think a book about a "perfect" world and "perfect" people who never have any problems would be kind of boring to read, so there always have to be some dystopic elements. I agree the Uglies setting does seem like "utopia in the extreme" but to me that makes it a dystopia.

Alexis wrote: "I thought So Yesterday was excellent. It was much better than I thought it would be.

The society and authorities in the Uglies series are very much dystopic, and it's set in kind of a future envir..."

Plus its a world sprung u pout of the ruins of the old one (that of the "Rusties") -- classic sign.

I edited my earlier post. I moved Uglies into the "Post-Apocalyptic/Dystopian" category. It's been a while since I read them and I couldn't remember the circumstances surrounding the Rusties, but I do think it falls under post-apoc. as well.

I just got the next three books in John Marsden's "Tomorrow" series and I'm so excited to see what happens next.

A few more for the list (from my shelf):
YA:
The House of the Scorpion by Nancy Farmer
Feed by MT Anderson
The City of Ember series by Jeanne DuPrau
Gathering Blue and Messenger, companions to Lowry's The Giver
Invitation to the Game by Monica Hughes
Lord of the Flies by William Golding
Little Brother by Cory Doctorow -- an interesting one, cause its not "post" anything; it takes place as things are falling apart.

Adult:
Oryx and Crake and The Handmaid's Tale, both by Margaret Atwood, and both seriously excellent
Cloud Atlas by David Mitchell (well, parts of it anyway; an overall stunning book)
The Dark Tower Boxed Set series by Stephen King
The Host by Stephenie Meyer
Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson
The Road by Cormac McCarthy
Jennifer Government by Max Barry
1984 by George Orwell
Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury

These are all such great ways to start a discussion and get people thinking about the world around them, cause one common thread in all dystopic fic is social commentary: there is something about the fictional society that makes us squirm because in its creepy way, it mirrors or sprngs from our own.

Here is a goodreads list of books shelved as dystopic.

Misty, I was thinking of putting a request for more titles in my last post, but apparently you already knew I was going to say that. :)

Same wave length, Alexis ( makes fortune-teller wiggly-fingers from her temple to yours, wherever it may be, accompanied by "ooh" sound, and the realization that she is a dork )

I had to restrain myself from typing "ESPN!" in my last post. It was an inside joke with my cousin, where we'd recite all of the ESPN channels when we were on the same wavelength, but now when I say it people are like "don't you mean ESP?" *sigh* Obviously that's what I mean, and apparently I'm the only one amused by it. So yeah, dork. ::points to self::

Getting back on topic, is Lord of the Flies worth reading? As in, is it something I should read or something I'll like reading?

Alexis, in my experience Lord of the Flies is one of those books that you will love or hate. I really liked it. It was fascinating to read, and truly interesting. It was especially interesting, because the same time I was reading it, in my Political Theory class, we were talking about different theorists and their ideas about the basis of society, and if, when, and how it will degenerate into a 'state of nature'. This book is classic Hobbes.
I have several friends who go both ways. One good friend (with whom I have very similar reading tastes) absolutely hated it, but another kid (I don't know all the he reads- but this is the only book in common we have talked about...) loved it.

I personally think it is worth the read. To me, it is one of those books that makes you think about how you would react, and is important to read, even if you hate it. Be warned though, I thought the beginning very slow, and the flow is a little weird. It didn't take too long to get the hang of the book, and once you do, it is a much better read.

Sorry if I sound like I'm rambling. It's getting late, but I wanted to say that I, for one, did like this book, I own it, and will most likely read it again.

Wow! Don't check a thread for a couple of days and pow - grows exponentially! (Love it!)

Re: Utopian/Dystopian - Utopia is a theory (no one's achieved it yet = ), but you're not going to find as many works of literature using it as a backdrop, just because the concept of utopia means that everything is perfect, so often the plot is secondary to the descriptions of just how the society is so perfect. Often there are pages and pages of fairly dry descriptive. Dystopias, on the other hand, are very fertile ground for fiction, and I'm sure we could all name some IRL. = )

There are a bunch of works about utopias listed in the wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia), for anyone who wants some further reading. I read Thomas More's Utopia back in college, which was dry, but fascinating to read as source material. This is where the concept of utopia, and their opposite, dystopias, spring from. Interestingly, Wiki considers The Giver to be utopian.

Re: Lord of the Flies
I read it as a young teen, when my mother was assigned it for a college course she was taking and brought it home (that's also how/why I read Anthem.) Personally, although I foud it difficult to read (because of empathizing with the characters), I loved it and consider it a must-read.

Gotta run - great discussion!

Alexis wrote: "Getting back on topic, is Lord of the Flies worth reading? As in, is it something I should read or something I'll like reading?
"

READ IT! Man, is it creeptacular. It's disturbing and a perfect example of dystopia, and in the weirdest way since it actually takes place in "normal" society (well, on an island, but with people from norm soc, left to their own devices.) Certain images you will not be able to get out of your head.
Ashley's right, there are times when it is slow going or disjointed, but there is always a reason, and it will stick with you.

My poor TBR. I guess I should read it, since it is the book all the other YA books of that type get compared to.

EDIT: Before I commit to it, I have one question. Is this one of those books about boys doing horrible and cruel things to each other?

Alexis wrote: "Before I commit to it, I have one question. Is this one of those books about boys doing horrible and cruel things to each other?"

Well, it is all boys on the island, and some of them do some nasty things to each other, but I wouldn't call it a catalogue of that kind of stuff - that isn't what the book is about. It is a struggle for power/dominance in a group of young boys left to their own devices after their plane crashes onto the island. I'd say it's more about what society do they create, how do they treat each other, what kinds of rituals and 'religion' do they follow, etc.

But fair warning, some of the stuff that happens is pretty gruesome.

Becky wrote: "Brave New World is YA? That's surprising. I would never have considered that one to be YA!"

Just spotted it yesterday - my library does have Brave New World in YA. I sometimes wonder if they include things from NYC high school reading lists in YA, or if they just don't have enough room in adult fiction.

I just finished Brave New World, and I would definitely not classify that as YA. I think that a lot/most HS students could probably handle it, but I still wouldn't call it a YA novel. Much more adult. That's strange to me, but- a great book!

I really think a lot of libraries/book stores just do like Alexis said. They put books YA would be made to read where they are easily found. They aren't neccesarily YA books, just frequently read by young people.

I think that is misleading though... Yes, HS kids might be alright reading about that kind of world, but if a younger kid picks it up, they are going to be disappointed. Either they won't understand it, or they will (at least partially) and it's too mature for them.

BNW has quite a lot of drug use and promiscuous sex, etc, and I don't think should be shelved with childrens or YA books.

If a kid picks it up from an adult shelf, there's a pretty good chance that they realize that there will be adult content - but shelving it with a younger age groups books is just misleading and lazy on the library's part, in my opinion.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that kids shouldn't READ BNW, just that it should be appropriately shelved so that kids who aren't ready to read it won't mistakenly pick it up.

I know what you mean Becky. I mostly agree with you too.
My library has a weird shelving system- I live in a really conservative small town, and there are sometimes I feel that if the library thinks the content might be a little too adult for the YA crowd, they shelve it in the adult section. And I don't mean books like BNW, I mean books like Bloood and Chocolate by Annette Curtis Klause. Very YA, but shelved in the Adult section of my library. Crazy librarians... ;)

Yeah, that's weird. I mean, I don't think that the library should determine who is mature enough to read something, by any stretch. If a book is written and marketed for YA, then it should be in the YA section. If it was NOT, then it should be in the adult section. If unsure, please check where the book should be shelved. I'm fairly certain that librarians are trained researchers, so this shouldn't be too much to ask. LOL

I wasn't saying I agree with them shelving the books inappropriately, just that that seems to be why they do it. Like Becky said, there is a lot of sex and drug use in BNW. Censorship isn't okay, but making it easier to determine the content of a book by where it's shelved can help make better reading choices.

Part of what makes a book YA is who it may appeal to. I don't see BNW even appealing to a 12 year old.

I know what you meant, K. I was just saying that they shouldn't do it. :D

Can you see the outrage one of these days when a kid does pick up BNW and mom comes screaming into the library wanting someone's head for "promoting" a sex and drug laden book to children? LOL

You know, I have seen a LOT of books in the YA section I don't feel belong there. More since this group, because I wasn't as aware of it before.

There has to be a better system of shelving. Whose job is it to figure that out? The Library Police? (Not King's, I hope)

I think you're right, but what bugs me, is when they put sexually explicit books in YA just because the main characters are teens. That does not make the book YA appropriate!

I definately agree with Fiona, 13-18 is a wide range. I tend to think of 12-14 as middle readers and 15-18 and more young adult, due to the simple syntax of the words young adult, so basically a younger version of a grown up. To me 12-14 are more like older children, if that makes any sense to others at all.
I think it's a bit ironic how people can be so opposed to sexually explicit passages in books, when all you have to do is turn on the tv to see sexual reference after sexual reference. Not, that I am critical at all of people who are concerned about what their children read, but I do think you should face up to the fact that when your kid is 15 and older chances are they aren't going to consult with you whether it's okay for them to read a book or not. That's not to say it's a terrible thing for parents to care about what their kids are exposed to, please don't take what I'm saying the wrong way!!
That being said, I really really want to read Brave New World!!

I think it works both ways when it comes to shelving. We've been discussing things shelved as YA that may not be appropriate, but I think that it can be bad shelving them as YA when they are really adult because I think there are many adults who would be less likely to read them if they had to go to the YA section (obviously none of us here, but how many of us have had someone say "you're reading that? Isn't that for kids/teens, etc?"). I know there is some gray area here, and sometimes the ALA reclassifies something, or a pub house does to market it, and there probably is no set way to classify; opinions are always going to differ. But I think more attention needs to be paid.

The thing is that there are a lot of books that are definitely YA that have sex and drugs. I don't think that works as a classification. Look at Sarah Dessen. Or Scott Westerfeld, Francesca Lia Block, Sara Zarr, etc. The list goes on. Part of being a teen is dealing with sex and drugs. Whether participating or not, it is still a fact of teen life. The subject is ever-present. And so it shows up in the books. The YA section is not for children, and neither are the books housed there. So while I agree that books like Brave New World or A Thousand Splendid Suns are not marketed towards YA, and therefore adult books, I can see why a library who encounters those on high school reading lists would stick one copy in YA to make it easier for teens to find. Teens are notoriously bad at asking for assistance in that setting.

To give you an idea of how my library is set up, there is a Children's section on the main floor that is very large. It's where I found Goose Girl and The Graveyard Book and Anne of Green Gables. It's an old church, so up a set of winding stone stairs (or up an elevator) you can find the YA section back in a corner. There is a table with a sign asking that it be left open only for the use of teen library patrons. (I guess so homeless people don't sleep there and make the teenagers uncomfortable, and so the teens don't spread out and annoy the old folks.) It's small, and I would say the books are exclusively geared towards teenagers. And this is why I hate the term "YA" and I'm glad it's getting used less. It's too vague. I like "Middle Grade" and "Teen," although when I was 12 I definitely read teen books that had sex in them. I think what is more important than hiding books from 12 year olds is making sure they have a strong sense of reality so they can deal with anything they encounter.

Alexis, your library sounds beautiful! I love the idea of a library housed in an old church.

Alexis wrote: "It's an old church, so up a set of winding stone stairs..."

(jealous)

I don't censor the books my children read, I just want to be aware and ready for questions. Sex, drugs and alcohol ARE definitely issues teens need to deal with on a daily basis. I find those issues in BNW above younger YA not because of what they are, but because they are encouraged, actually enforced, by the "government" in the book.

The Uglies series deals with the exact same issues, but is much more clear that this is wrong and against the natural flow of life. It's also less graphic. Westerfield wrote those books with YA the intended audience, so it is much more palatable to them.

I would be much happier with my youngest son (12) reading the Uglies series, than with a Brave New World. It would mean more to him and I feel he would walk away with a moral. He may not get that from BNW.

If BNW was not shelved in YA, it would probably never occur to him to seek it out. I'm not saying I would discourage him. It's on MY bookshelf at home. I just don't think it would interest him, if not pushed in his section of the store/library.

I think you make a good point, Kandice. Things have to have the appropriate tone for a YA audience. I am not sure teens are ready to deal with satire; parody, maybe, but not satire, where things are presented one way, but disingenuously, to make a point that might be lost on some.

Okay, so my library was a courthouse, not a church, but it has stained glass windows. Here href="http://www.nypl.org/branch/features/i... some info from NYPL and here are some pics of the outside. It's a gorgeous building.

Regarding Westerfeld...it's true, the Uglies series is vague about certain activities, so they're acceptable for younger readers. (Also because the books get kids thinking - always a plus!) I was thinking more about Peeps, which is less vague, although still not too graphic. (Somebody correct me if I'm wrong about that, it's been awhile.)

I think this all comes back down to "what is YA?" Based on the books housed in the YA section of my library, I wouldn't consider it the right section for 12 year olds to find books in. I think it is very
specifically for actual teenagers. It could be possible that the NYPL - or even just my branch, I'm not sure - just shelves books in YA that are recommended for 14+. If that's the case (and that is what it seems like), I can see why they'd include copies of high school reading list material in the YA section.

I can really only speak from the bookseller side of this, but I'm trying to think about it from the library's side, based on what I've observed. At B&N it was always a question of whether or not to include
books from the adult fiction section on the teen summer reading table, since so many ended up on summer reading lists. The answer was sometimes.

Now, since we're only talking about BNW, what about something like Animal Farm? I haven't read it, but I think it falls under satire. I read BNW for school in my junior year of HS, but we were encouraged to
read Animal Farm in 6th grade. Obviously, I chose not to, but plenty of my classmates did. I don't think Animal Farm is YA, and yes, it's marketed towards adults, but again, I wouldn't be surprised to see it in YA for the same reason. (I'll have to look.) And the word "marketing" brings up the big difference, that libraries aren't selling the books, they're just trying to put them where people will
most likely look. If I worked in a library and only got asked by teenagers for Brave New World, I'd stick it in YA, too, because for every person who asks a question there are at least 10 more who don't.