The point I'm bringing up is that it seems unlikely that every book that a publisher calls "YA" fits the bill for what you call YA.
Well, in my opinion it does.
Writers are artists, not people filling out forms. There is no "one size fits all" on this kind of thing.
To me, its a restriction of the story type, not the writer. Some YA writers could probably write other stuff, but they can't write a YA book too differently from the others, because then it wouldn't be YA.
I have seen YA love stories (or at least love stories between teens) done a lot better. (I have seen worse, too.) I think it all needs to be taken in context. Good character development and dynamics work the same, regardless of the target audience.
Well, we're just going to have to disagree with that. I'd say that, by default, YA romance is always inferior, even to something as badly done as Padme/Anakin's romance.
I think it depends. Most classic books tend to have a higher level of storytelling quality, or style of writing. Some of that is subjective, of course, but a good writer does study the classics to know what works and how to use that information to improve their own craft.
I've never seen a classic, not even the ones I like, that had a higher level of "style of writing". Now, storytelling can be better on a case by case basis, but personally I find older writing styles to generally be inferior to more modern stuff.
I never read Foundation. I thought I, Robot was pretty good as a short story anthology, although I will concede that the books is more plot-driven than character-driven. IMHO, the greatest sci-fi novel of all time is Fahrenheit 451. I would put it over Star Wars tie-ins because the writing quality is of a higher caliber and the plot and themes go beyond the basic adventure story plot we often get. There's more creativity and depth involved; it's meant to make the reader think, not just entertain. (That's also one difference between many classic books and non-classics; in many cases, there's more substance to them. Not always, and there can be good books from any place. There are Star Wars tie-ins I would say are goo examples of writing. Like all forms of writing, there are degrees of quality and different books may excel in a place that another "better" one does not.)
Oh, I really disagree with this. Classics have no more or less substance then tie-ins, same with creativity. There is no less creativity in a SW tie in then there is in a "classic", and based off my experience with Asimov and Clarke there is generally more creativity and higher quality writing in SW books. Also, i've never read a book that was done to make people "think" that was worth the paper it was printed on. I usually find that description applied to really tedious old junk, to be honest. I find most of the old EU to be high caliber, well written novels. For me, the old SW EU was some of the best sci fi books around. I like a lot of ST books, and some miscellanious stuff, but the old SW EU set a high bar for quality sci fi in my opinion. That doesn't mean everything was good, but the majority was good to great, at least when it comes to novels.
Since you mentioned your favorite sci-f novel, I'll do the same. My favorite novel/series of all time (Sci-Fi or otherwise) is the Star wars: Republic Commando books. A lot of people don't like them, but I personally count them as the best books I've ever read, and I've read a decent amount. It would be a bit insulting to say that they have less "substance" or lower quality then, well, any other normal books. Even the only sci fi classic that I think is legitimately great, the original Dune Trilogy, isn't, in my opinion, as good as the RC novels in any aspect you can judge a book. I generally find classic books to be on a pedestal, with the things people like about them usually being the things I dislike or think don't matter. That's all from my perspective, of course.
Still, favorite books are subjective. I've heard of
Fahrenheit 451. Its the exact type of "classic" I loathe. But, I'm not going to claim its less important or has less "substance" then my favorite books. I wouldn't read it, or any other Bradbury book, but its not something I'd say is inherently inferior to the books I like.
I would point out that those classics you mentioned are better written than Star Wars tie-ins usually are; better vocabulary, more creative use of language, etc. Doyle's wording to describe the Moor and the hellhound in Hound of the Baskervilles creates more atmosphere and evokes more emotions than many similar descriptions in Star Wars tie-ins.
I love Sherlock Holmes, but its writing style is inferior to most SW books, especially in use of language and vocabulary (the terrible Sftermath books being an exception, because Chuck wendig's writing style is bizarre). Now, its hard to compare the quality of the stories between old mysteries and SW books, and there are Sherlock holmes stories I like better then some SW stories. But, ignoring the quality of the story and focusing strictly on the writing style and vocabulary, give me Timothy Zahn, Miller, Traviss, etc over Doyle any day of the week. Doyle's work is old, and it shows. It works well for what it is, but it doesn't set up an atmosphere better then a more modern book. Now, its not old enough that its style is off putting, but more modern books have a big advantage. Then again, I'm biased against books with flowery language. I'm reading a book for a story, not so an author can say something in 20 words that they could really just say in 10. I prefer the way modern writers tell a story to how older writers did.
To use an example in another genre, as much as I like the LOTR books, Tolkien could have been a lot more concise and the books would have been better for it (he also could have been less proud of his pointless poetry/songs that tend to clog up sections). I still consider the LOTR books to be legitimately great classics, but its not for their writing style.
Old stuff like that is considered "good" because it's timeless; it speaks to people regardless of era. It's made to last. Is the average Star Wars book? It's too early to tell, but I doubt it'll have the longevity of a well-written "classic." (You can refer above for more on my case for classics.)
Good stuff doesn't always last. The most mediocre book deserves to be remembered longer then almost any of the "classics" i've read, but instead junk like
Foundation will continue to be known in all its tedious, borderline incoherent "glory" longer then the dozens and dozens of great SW books will. But, the thing about sci fi "classics" is that they didn't seem to have much competition. Nowadays so much stuff gets published that I a lot of great stuff will never reach the level of irreconcilability that the "classics" have, especially books that book snobs/critics who really decide what is "classic" look down on like tie-in media.
That's not how writing works. There's a lot more factors than you're giving us credit for. We're also more than capable of breaking through boundaries and cliches; that's the very definition of creativity, which is were all storytelling originates from. (Now, not every author does that and there are knockoffs, but there is variety in all things.
I don't think the best writer in the history of the human race is going to be telling a good YA story, so you're not really going to convince me that the quality of the writer has any ability to make a YA book not suck.
One other thing, tropes and cliches aren't always a bad thing. Sometimes writers can take the most common tropes and cliches and still manage to do interesting things with them. Hell, Star Wars is really nothing more than a collection of some of the most common fantasy tropes and cliches, but Lucas still managed to put them together in an interesting way and used them to tell a great story, which is really not all that original either.
You're right in general, but to me the YA cliches and tropes are terrible to the point where the stuff that uses them is all just garbage.
I suppose it would seem that way...
...So long as you refuse to actually read any, and categorise any examples that you like (or differs from your criteria) as 'not really YA.'
Margaret Atwood would be proud.
I have no idea who that is. You say that like an insult, but a look at her wikipedia page doesn't really make clear what the insult is.
Also, I don't categorize books I like as "not really YA" as some kind of cheat. The books I like that are made for that age group legitimately aren't YA as I see it. Whether you agree or not doesn't really matter.
I've yet to see one that didn't.
Yeah, because having an unpopular opinion or disagreement is so rare, it must be trolling when it happens. Believe me, it isn't fun. Having a conversation with people that have different opinions can be interesting and/or informative (it would be boring if everyone thought the same way), but I can't say arguing about YA is "fun". Its mostly just confusion and irritation on both sides at this point.
