I would say that this list, and the original list that was voted on to get this list, has a lot of books I like, and a few books I love, and is missing a lot of the YA books I really love.
Let me see if I understand this. A public radio station that caters mostly to adults polled its readers (whoever the readers of a radio station might be) to identify the best novels written for teenagers?
I would guess that a decent chunk of the people who voted in this poll were actually teenagers sent over the site by the books' authors. It explains why there's so much John Green and so much Sarah Dessen.Also, wow, I read most of these through the neighborhood mother-daughter book club I was in from ages 8 to 17.
Boy I so don't understand the exclusion of A Tree Grows in Brooklyn due to mature themes when looking at list of things which were not considered mature themes.
Many of my favorites are on here, and lots of more recent books that I'll probably check out. What I find really interesting is the drastic shift in YA fiction towards science fiction, fantasy, alternate/future worlds, etc. I know that was always a part of young adult fiction, but it seems particularly dominant on this list.
I'm pretty sure "My Sister's Keeper" doesn't really qualify as YA--it certainly wasn't marketed as such (though Picoult's new book, co-authored with her daughter, was). Not sure about Hitchhiker or Dune, either.Green and Dessen also benefitted from the decision to score series as a whole rather than as individual books. I'll guarantee all 4 Twilight books and most of the Potter books would have made it separately. Since they write stand-alones, they get more slots.I'm shocked nothing by Gary Paulsen (in particular, the Hatchet series) made even the long list, but they might have been deemed too young-skewing.
I believe most, if not all, of today's adults were teenagers once, and may be able to recall which novels affected them most during those years.
And why isn't "A Wrinkle In Time" on that list? Or did I just not see it?
Excluding "Ender's Game" on the basis of violence, but not "The Hunger Games" seems a tad bit arbitrary to me.
It's in the definitonal link. They thought it skewed too young, which is a shame because "When You Reach Me" isn't here either.
The blatant lack of diversity is sad. I would at least have considered The Coldest Winter Ever as an entry. And on a lighter note - where is Sweet Valley High? The Babysitters Club?
A lot of books that I really like are on that list - though I'm surprised that The Giver skews that much older than A Wrinkle in Time. I know Wrinkle can be read by younger (and has less intensity than a certain plot point in The Giver) but I certainly thought it would cover age 12. Ah well, there's another L'Engle on the list (which is definitely more teen).
The definitional problems here are many and varied. But despite the fact that they defined out many books for reasons I find inexplicable, this is still a damned fine list of "Some Books I Need to Read If I Haven't Already, (and I've Read a Lot of Them Already)."
The decision that even if Pride and Prejudice fits their Catcher in the Rye definition (book made for and enjoyed by adults, but usually experienced for the first time by teens) they're not going to include it is pretty funny. People have to tie themselves in knots to keep JA out of a genre they find mildly embarrassing rather than accepting that inclusion in the genre is not a qualitative statement at all. The list reads less like a list of YA and more like a list of "books we enjoyed but would be embarrassed to be seen reading in public by a professional acquaintance." The Jane Austen exclusion smacks of Jane Austen fans defending their superiority over sci-fi and fantasy fans.
I loved, loved, loved Hatchet, but I definitely read it in elementary school.