When is it too much?

[Isaac]

Well, describe what ages you think YA is and I'll say what I think.

[Isaac]

Well for edgier YA, I think it's okay, because 19-21 year olds are usually mature. For people like 15-18, I think it really depends on how much you can handle, and if you're younger than that, I would say no to sex scenes and graphic, gory violence and junk.

[[deleted user]]

I prefer warnings or knowing ahead of time if I'm going to run into that sort of content in novels. Other people can read whatever they want, so I don't necessarily think that the authors or publishers have to change anything.

As for me...

I can handle an implied sex scene, as long as the writing is tasteful and doesn't shove it in my face. I have accidentally stumbled upon a graphic sex scene before, and I did not continue reading. I do not think that going into that much detail adds much to a story, though there are probably exceptions.

Swearing drives me nuts if it comes without reason with too much force.

Violence only becomes a problem when it becomes--almost literal--overkill, slashing people willy-nilly, etc.

[Pinkgemstone]

I think it all depends on the reader and their maturity level. For example I'm thirteen and I read all kinds of YA books, some are pretty graphic and some are not. But I'm mature enough to handle the story whereas some boys or girls in my class may not. I'm also a really good reader for my age that now my teacher is having me read high school level literature and I had the ability to start to read YA when I was 11 and twelve...so I guess it all depends on who's reading it and how much they will be able to handle.

[Elliott]

YA is such a loose category that it's hard to say. I think any book that is intended to be read by young adults can be considered YA even if it has graphic scenes and things in it. I do think it'd be good if there was some sort of warning/rating system... but I can usually tell if it's going to be ridiculously past my standards by reviews.

[Colby]

I mean, there are seventeen or eighteen year olds who will still giggle at sex scenes. It depends on how mature you are. I generally don't care what goes on. In fact, I'm generally expecting bad things in certain books. It's just something you know is going to be there.

[Elliott]

I don't like graphic sex scenes. I just think they're unnecessary and it makes me feel uncomfortable. Like... that's super intimate and the idea of it kind of grosses me out in the first place so... bleck. I won't not read a book because of them, but I'll definitely skim.

[Colby]

James Patterson has gotten to a level of popularity where he can crank out like four steaming piles of crap per year, slap a cover on it, call it a book, and millions of people will buy it. God. I hate that man.

And I don't think that sex scenes are too bad for YA if they aren't too steamy. The upper level of how bad it should get is like an Ellen Hopkins book, IMO.

I mean, I've read much worse in adult books, so maybe I've been desensitized by it all.

[Jo]

I hate how some people say, "Oh it's already on TV and film. Why not books?" Literature is a very beautiful art that shouldn't become cheap porn.

[Elliott]

But if you don't want to read the cheap porn... then you don't have to. Just because something is marked YA doesn't mean all young adults have to read it.

[Acacia]

There's also reasons other than "cheap porn" for books to depict sex. It can show a really intense level of intimacy between two characters. And who's to say sex can't be a beautiful art, too? It's a very unique connection between two human beings, and when it's well written, it can pull you in just like a description of a castle or a beautiful sunset or anything else.

[Baxter, butts butts butts]

Acacia wrote: "There's also reasons other than "cheap porn" for books to depict sex. It can show a really intense level of intimacy between two characters. And who's to say sex can't be a beautiful art, too? It's..."

Oh man, good thing you came in, because I had no idea how to say that.

Also, balls to being a beautiful art.

[Elliott]

Acacia wrote: "There's also reasons other than "cheap porn" for books to depict sex. It can show a really intense level of intimacy between two characters. And who's to say sex can't be a beautiful art, too? It's..."

This.

Even though it still weirds me out. xD

[Colby]

Acacia wrote: "There's also reasons other than "cheap porn" for books to depict sex. It can show a really intense level of intimacy between two characters. And who's to say sex can't be a beautiful art, too? It's..."

Can we get married?
Seriously, though, you summed up my thoughts on the matter in a way that I wouldn't have been able to.

[tesni]

Jo wrote: "I hate how some people say, "Oh it's already on TV and film. Why not books?" Literature is a very beautiful art that shouldn't become cheap porn."

Shan't lie, I'm a huge fan of the works of people such as Marguerite Duras and Anaïs Nin, both of whom write some intensely erotic stuff, and I consider them both to epitomise eroticism as an art form in itself (and incorporated into literature). I'm just using them as an example, really, because I can think of so many people who pull it off beautifully.
Sex=\=cheap porn.

I also didn't appreciate your comment that implied that film was worth less than literature because, you know, it already contained those things, because I take film as an art very seriously. I know it's very much a matter of taste, but I don't think any form of media-book, film, theatre, whatever- is somehow less artful because it includes sex, because I consider the way it's represented and conveyed as an art in itself and, if written well, can contribute to it.

[Baxter, butts butts butts]

Take film as an art very seriously? Ha, yeah, and I take butts very seriously as an art.

[Elliott]

T e s n i wrote: "I also didn't appreciate your comment that implied that film was worth less than literature because, you know, it already contained those things, because I take film as an art very seriously."

I love you.

[Acacia]

I did, in my sex-defending, forget to also mention that film is also a beautiful art form.

But thanks to everyone that said I said their thoughts well. :)

[tesni]

Baxter wrote: "Take film as an art very seriously? Ha, yeah, and I take butts very seriously as an art."

Oh, be quiet. *whacks with a copy of Arnheim essays*

[tesni]

Lav [lately I've been feeling] wrote: "T e s n i wrote: "I also didn't appreciate your comment that implied that film was worth less than literature because, you know, it already contained those things, because I take film as an art ve..."

Why thank you :3

[Acacia]

T e s n i wrote: "Baxter wrote: "Take film as an art very seriously? Ha, yeah, and I take butts very seriously as an art."

Oh, be quiet. *whacks with a copy of Arnheim essays*"

You think he's being sarcastic, but I bet you my copy of TFIOS that Baxter does indeed take butts very seriously as an art.

[Elliott]

*gasp* You would bet that lovely fantastic book on something?

[Colby]

I know I do...

[Baxter, butts butts butts]

Acacia wrote: "T e s n i wrote: "Baxter wrote: "Take film as an art very seriously? Ha, yeah, and I take butts very seriously as an art."

Oh, be quiet. *whacks with a copy of Arnheim essays*"

You think he's be..."

Man, you understand me so well.

[Brigid ✩, No tears in the writer, no tears in the reader.]

Well, it's a good point that there's not really a huge definition of YA anymore. Especially in recent years, I feel like the age range has really broadened. I feel like when I was 11 or so, books for 12-13 year olds were considered YA and now most people call that Middle Grade. And now YA seems to be more for people ages 15-21. And even within that range, there seems to be a divide between the fairly tame YA and then the more "mature" YA. So, it's kind of hard to define where the cutoff is. But anyway, this is kind of a digression. Hum dee dum.

Anyway. Personally I don't think there's really such a thing as "too much" in YA books just because the age category is so broad, and not only teenagers read YA. Since YA now seems to include upper high school and college-age readers (who are adults) I think any subject material is fair game, really. Although, I see how that could become kind of a problem for a 12-year-old who picks up a book that's more for 20-year-olds. There's been talk of sort of separating YA into YA and NA (NA being New Adult or something like that). I'm not sure how I feel about that, though...

I mean personally, I've been reading some pretty adult stuff since middle school. And yeah, some of it was rather shocking to me at the time and could be hard for me to handle. But I don't think it was an issue, necessarily. It didn't "give me any ideas" or anything like that. I think the only problem was that more mature themes would sometimes kind of go over my head, or I just couldn't relate to them at the time. But, you know, nothing really bad happened.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, I don't have a problem with there being controversial material in YA. I feel the same way about it as I do about the rest of fiction, regardless of its age range––sure, there can be graphic violence, sex, language, etc. in it so long as it's not too overdone or trying too hard to be "heavy issue" type stuff. But like I said, that's pretty much the way I feel about all books.

[Colby]

I just say we make it mandatory for everybody to read erotica when they're six and they'll never be shocked again.

[Brigid ✩, No tears in the writer, no tears in the reader.]

Colby wrote: "I just say we make it mandatory for everybody to read erotica when they're six and they'll never be shocked again."

I don't think they'd really understand what was happening, though. XD

[Elliott]

Colby wrote: "I just say we make it mandatory for everybody to read erotica when they're six and they'll never be shocked again."

Thaaaat sounds likes a fantastic plan.

[Annemarie, hi]

I'm not offended by sex or anything in YA books. I think it's fantastic. Sometimes I think authors are a little too careful with what they write and need to be a bit more risqué.
Lolol, I dunno.

[Brigid ✩, No tears in the writer, no tears in the reader.]

6 year olds are much more eloquent than that. :P But yeah ... I really don't think they'd understand what was happening due to their lack of uh ... certain vocabulary.

[Colby]

Lav [lately I've been feeling] wrote: "Colby wrote: "I just say we make it mandatory for everybody to read erotica when they're six and they'll never be shocked again."

Thaaaat sounds likes a fantastic plan."

It'd work...but then we'd have whole new problems XD

[Colby]

Brigid *Flying Kick-a-pow!* wrote: "6 year olds are much more eloquent than that. :P But yeah ... I really don't think they'd understand what was happening due to their lack of uh ... certain vocabulary."

Yes. Which is what parents are for. To answer awkward questions. MY PLAN HAS NO FLAWS, BRIGID. Lol

[Grouphug]

well, i'm 16, and i love sex scenes but i'm a prude whenit comes to swearing

[punkasaur]

Acacia wrote: "There's also reasons other than "cheap porn" for books to depict sex. It can show a really intense level of intimacy between two characters. And who's to say sex can't be a beautiful art, too? It's..."
THIS.

I'm thirteen and I actually don't really care. It all depends how the author handles it. I really hate it when they portray every single detail for no random reason and it doesn't help the character develop--unless it adds some trouble, of course.

[tesni]

Acacia wrote: "T e s n i wrote: "Baxter wrote: "Take film as an art very seriously? Ha, yeah, and I take butts very seriously as an art."

Oh, be quiet. *whacks with a copy of Arnheim essays*"

You think he's be..."


I'll take your word for it, then, because I already own a coy of TFIOS and wasn't nearly taken by it as I expected to be, and two copies would be two too many.

[Mandy]

Oh! This is a fantastic topic. YAY FOR REAL TOPICS THAT AREN'T SPAM.

[Elisabeth]

GREAT TOPIC!

Sex scenes freak me out. I don't believe that sex scenes add anything to books. I don't want to know about the romantic intimacy between two characters (people). That's private. And in the case of YA characters, they really have no business doing those things anyway. (Are they ready to be parents? That's what nature intended for that stuff.)

I hope I haven't offended anybody, but it's my opinion.

Oh, and I don't know if it's relevant, but I'm sixteen.

[Krys]

I think its a matter of whether or not the author is tactful about it. There are certain details that I, personally, don't want to know. They have entire novels dedicated to that sort of shiz--I don't think that sort of stuff belongs in YA, but its a matter of whether or not the person reading it is mature enough to handle it. I really don't believe in restricting literature. People are allowed to read what they want to read; but I think that YA authors should be especially tactful with their writing. They have to keep in mind their target audience, and they should keep it reasonable. Those are my thoughts, anyways.

[Elliott]

Kriss wrote: "I think its a matter of whether or not the author is tactful about it. There are certain details that I, personally, don't want to know. They have entire novels dedicated to that sort of shiz--I do..."

You've described how I feel on this the most accurately, I think. <3

[Elisabeth]

Annie (Juliet) wrote: "I'm not offended by sex or anything in YA books. I think it's fantastic. Sometimes I think authors are a little too careful with what they write and need to be a bit more risqué.
Lolol, I dunno."

Why do you think it's fantastic? I'm just curious.

[Brigid ✩, No tears in the writer, no tears in the reader.]

Elisabeth wrote: "GREAT TOPIC!

Sex scenes freak me out. I don't believe that sex scenes add anything to books. I don't want to know about the romantic intimacy between two characters (people). That's private.

I agree to a certain extent, but not completely. When sex scenes get really graphic I am kind of like, "Haha. Okay ... that's enough." It's just one of those things I don't really want to read about in great detail ... you know, like pooping or whatever. But sex scenes do add something to a story if they have a specific purpose––if they're essential to the characters' development, or it's needed to get a certain message across. I think it's usually enough just to imply that it happened, though.

And in the case of YA characters, they really have no business doing those things anyway. (Are they ready to be parents? That's what nature intended for that stuff.)

I think that's judging the characters (and other people) in an unnecessary way. It's their choice. If they choose to do it safely, then they run less of a risk of becoming parents ... And well, teenagers do it in real life. There's no point in denying that.

[Elisabeth]

Brigid *Flying Kick-a-pow!* wrote: "Elisabeth wrote: "GREAT TOPIC!

Sex scenes freak me out. I don't believe that sex scenes add anything to books. I don't want to know about the romantic intimacy between two characters (people). Tha..."

I must seem like the epitome of a prude to you guys. The kind of girl who wants to be a nun or something. And what I'm about to say probably isn't going to change your minds.

About the sex scenes sometimes being beneficial to the story... let's just gracefully agree to disagree on that one. We're all entitled to our opinions, after all, and I respect everyone else's views.

I know that teenagers "do it" in real life and I don't deny it, but I don't think that means it's something that should be encouraged. (There are teens who do drugs, too. How many books show that in a positive light?) In my opinion, having sex at that age can only result in emotional damage and it's not a good idea. I don't think it means the people involved are bad, I just don't support it. In cases where it's appropriate, I don't mind when the characters get frisky, but, like you, I don't want to know every little thing that happened.

Again, I respect the opinions of others, but this mine.

[Brigid ✩, No tears in the writer, no tears in the reader.]

Elisabeth wrote: "Brigid *Flying Kick-a-pow!* wrote: "I know that teenagers "do it" in real life and I don't deny it, but I don't think that means it's something that should be encouraged."

See, this is the argument that I always have a problem with. People assume that if something happens in a book, the book is therefore "encouraging" it. I don't understand this view point. Just because a character does something doesn't mean the author is trying to promote what the character is doing. The author is trying to create a believable character and to tell a story. It might just be part of the story that the character has sex or does drugs, because it either says something about who the character is, it develops the character somehow, or it's essential to the story line.

You're entitled to your personal choices of course, but I don't think you should let it stand in the way of understanding an author's purpose. I choose not to do drugs or have sex. (Well ... my face chooses the latter for me. But, even if that wasn't the case I probably wouldn't choose to do it.) But I have no problem reading about characters making choices to do these things. I don't see it as the author trying to "promote" anything. (And as a writer who has written about such things, I know the intention is to develop characters/plots and not to promote these decisions.) Yes, in some books things like drugs and sex are utterly unnecessary. But in many cases, the author has a specific purpose in writing about such topics, and it isn't to encourage teenagers to make decisions that might be unhealthy for them.

I also think it's kind of an insult to teenagers to assume they're that impressionable. Just because a teenager reads about something doesn't mean they're going to go out and do it. I mean, everyone loves The Hunger Games ... yet I don't see kids running around in the woods killing each other.

[Brigid ✩, No tears in the writer, no tears in the reader.]

Haha, no problem.

[Elisabeth]

Brigid *Flying Kick-a-pow!* wrote: "Elisabeth wrote: "Brigid *Flying Kick-a-pow!* wrote: "I know that teenagers "do it" in real life and I don't deny it, but I don't think that means it's something that should be encouraged."

See, t..."

"The Hunger Games" isn't the best example in that sense. Sure, kids may not go around killing each other (in public), but how many of them are going to take up archery now? "The Hunger Games" doesn't cast the killing in a positive light, it condemns it and uses the violence as a negative way to showcase the cruelty of a totalitarian regime.

If a person (not just a young one) likes a character in any form of media, chances are that they will want to be like that character. Even if they wouldn't change their behavior based on the actions of just one character, when you add up dozens of characters doing the same thing it begins to have a greater and greater influence over our personal choices.

Wow, that response was a lot longer than I planned. Anyway, I'll back out now. It seems that everyone supports your view and I know that no matter how long we argue, neither of us will change the other's mind.

But though I am vanquished, I refuse to be conquered! :)

I'm going to go start a new topic now...

[Brigid ✩, No tears in the writer, no tears in the reader.]

"The Hunger Games" isn't the best example in that sense. Sure, kids may not go around killing each other (in public), but how many of them are going to take up archery now? "The Hunger Games" doesn't cast the killing in a positive light, it condemns it and uses the violence as a negative way to showcase the cruelty of a totalitarian regime.

But what's so wrong with archery? I mean, I'm sure the book/movie has inspired teens to start learning archery as a sport, but not to actually kill people. I don't know about you, but I haven't heard anything lately about teenagers shooting each other with bows and arrows.

If a person (not just a young one) likes a character in any form of media, chances are that they will want to be like that character. Even if they wouldn't change their behavior based on the actions of just one character, when you add up dozens of characters doing the same thing it begins to have a greater and greater influence over our personal choices.

I strongly disagree with this. In fact, I would say most of my favorite characters are nothing like me, nor do I want to be anything like them. For example, I tend to love really crazy/scary villains. But do I love them because they kill and/or manipulate people in horrible ways? No, of course not. I love them because they are fascinating as characters, because it's intriguing to find out what their motives are and why they ended up a certain way.

And I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels this way. People like characters because they make the story interesting, which usually means that they are not "normal" people and aren't intended to be role models. Personally, I enjoy dark books and insane characters and whatnot, but it hasn't encouraged me to be a psychopath. As I said before, you have to separate your personal values when you're reading literature. Characters are not you, nor are they created to tell you who to be. They're tools the author uses to craft a story.

But you're right, I don't think I'll change your mind.

[Elliott]

Brigid *Flying Kick-a-pow!* wrote: "People like characters because they make the story interesting, which usually means that they are not "normal" people and aren't intended to be role models."

This is very true.

[Shreya=Drastically Random. Find the emoticon.]

I'm generally pretty squirmy about mature content in books. Heck, I cover my eyes when my parents kiss. But I've also noticed that it's becoming more and more acceptable. There are suicide scenes, fight scenes, and a lot of swear words in the books we're assigned to read for school, so I suppose people think that our generation of readers is more mature in general.
I just stay away from the extreme content, but I'm going to try and become more comfortable with a little bit of adult writing.

[Shreya=Drastically Random. Find the emoticon.]

John wrote: "Of course, it's edgy YA I'm talking about, but it is still YA.

YA in general, probably ages 14-21. Edgy YA, probably 19-21."

14-21?
...oh.
*creeps away shamefully with other 13-year olds*

[Jordan, The Picture Magician (aka Probie)]

Hey, I read Looking For Alaska at twelve. So I'm not really the best to debate this. But I think that there is really no age limit per say, more of a maturity limit. If you believe you can handle the material enclosed without having it affect you outside of the story, feel free to pick it up. but I think there are some people who aren't mature enough to read certain edgier YA novels.