Active Users:333 Time:20/04/2025 01:33:04 PM
Agreed. *NM* Camilla Send a noteboard - 09/09/2010 11:07:09 AM
I may not have been entirely representative as a child, but really, many of my peers did the same thing: reading books for 8+ when aged 6, and for 12+ when aged 8-10. As a result, I'm rather sceptical about the upper part of the professed range for YA books. At 16 or more, one is plenty old enough to read normal adult literature, surely, and also old enough to feel that "YA" books are more for younger children (though they can still be fun, of course). Though if one counts The Catcher in the Rye or To Kill a Mockingbird as YA, which I personally wouldn't but one of the Wikipedia articles seems to, then yes, those are very much suitable for 16-year olds.
*MySmiley*
structured procrastinator
Reply to message
What does "young-adult literature" mean? - 08/09/2010 05:08:54 PM 1006 Views
Re: What does "young-adult literature" mean? - 08/09/2010 06:29:33 PM 603 Views
Hm - 09/09/2010 12:56:32 PM 697 Views
Re: Hm - 09/09/2010 08:45:28 PM 739 Views
books marketed to teenagers - 08/09/2010 06:56:21 PM 632 Views
I agree with this pretty much. - 08/09/2010 10:12:23 PM 591 Views
Harry Potter and Twilight - 09/09/2010 03:55:52 AM 727 Views
I've always thought the age labels on children's books were silly, and these are no exception. - 09/09/2010 10:19:02 AM 574 Views
Agreed. *NM* - 09/09/2010 11:07:09 AM 242 Views
I think it could be how we use the term young adult in the US - 09/09/2010 02:27:38 PM 545 Views

Reply to Message