Star Wars Books Thread

[JD]

I've been debating between reading Lost Stars, or a couple of other books next, but this conversation has made me decide to pick Lost Stars.
Just out of curiosity, how much do we see the movie characters in Lost Stars?

 

[The Wormhole]

Just out of curiosity, how much do we see the movie characters in Lost Stars?

Mostly cameos spread throughout the novel. I can think of at least five from the movies who show up at some point in the novel, two of them being central characters from the OT.

 

[kirk55555]

So sure are you (esp. when YA and general audience books have the same canonical weight?)?

I'm as sure about YA books having no important canon moments as as I am that, say, a "learn to read" book for 5 year olds won't be revealing Rey's parentage.

When the "Journey to the Force Awakens" program was published, reviews for Aftermath were very mixed, and it was generally concluded that the book was overhyped as being the crown jewel of the "Journey" line. From all the reviews of Lost Stars I saw, it was pretty consistently cited as a something that fell between the cracks and the book that LucasFilm should've pushed to the forefront of the "Journey" line.

Aftermath had a lot of problems. But, i'd even put my most hated Star Wars book (New Jedi Order: Traitor) above any YA book. Also, the people in charge of Star Wars books obviously want the GA books to be the main books (for obvious reasons), so they'd never push a YA book over the GA ones. They're not going to alienate the non-YA SW fans who are probably the biggest SW book demographic by pushing their teen book over the books which are building their new canon.

And I have to say that I find it laughable, at best, that you're insisting that you know all about a book that you've never read.

I don't need to know about individual books. A YA book is a YA book, especially in this post Twilight/Hunger Games environment.

They're different genres and styles, but the comprehension level doesn't seem that different.

The style is what its about. Anyone with a 12-13 year old reading comprehension level shouldn't find normal SW books that hard to read. Its how the stories are told and how deep the stories and characters are that make GA books for general audiences. YA books are written for younger people and have specific tropes and cliches that make them YA books. A Star Wars fan age 12-13 and up can easily enjoy the GA books (I did). General audeince books are generally telling stories with about thew same content level as the movies, which are PG-13. YA books are specifically aimed only at a certain age group.

All books need to be measured on a case-by-case basis. Also, the Star Wars GA books have had far less consistency in regards to reception than the "YA" market has. At the end of the day, good writing trumps the target audience (esp. since most GA Star Wars novels have precious few differences from the actual YA Star Wars stuff -- e.g. the junior novelizations, Before the Awakening, and their counterparts, so, yeah, they can be fairly compared).

I completely disagree. YA books have a style that doesn't crossover with GA. The style and writing is automatically inferior because that's the point, to write something YA like, not general audiences. The worst GA Star wars book will always be superior in writing, story, etc to the "best" YA book when it comes to comparing YA to general audience stuff.

In other words, you basing your opinions on what you think, not what you know, and what you've only heard second-hand. There's no credibility in your argument here.

I can pretty definitively judge YA books. The YA stories are everywhere, and I did read books of that age range when I was that age range, I just don't have many examples because I was a teen before the Twilight and Hunger Games came out, and I went straight to general audience stuff like the main SW books and stuff like Lord of the Rings from a young age.

You've already admitted that you don't even know anything about the topic here, so why should I believe you on this?

I know more then enough about the topic to form an opinion. You obviously don't have to share the opinion, but I definitely have enough info to form the opinion I have.

 

[Mr Light]

I went into Lost Stars with low expectations but it was very good. The first third or so isn't that great, but after that it really picks up.

 

[Reverend]

I went into Lost Stars with low expectations but it was very good. The first third or so isn't that great, but after that it really picks up.

I was surprised by it too, though mostly because 'Aftermath' left so little an impression on me I didn't expect any better from this one. It hooked me in pretty fast though and by the end you really got to know these characters and their story felt like a grand tour of the Star Wars saga.
Unlike other Star Wars books that tried to weave a new story into the events of the films (I'm looking at you 'Darth Plagues') this actually felt very authentic and plausible.

 

[JD]

The style is what its about. Anyone with a 12-13 year old reading comprehension level shouldn't find normal SW books that hard to read.

Except YA books aren't geared towards 12-13 year olds, I'd say they're more geared toward the 14-16, or 15-18 range. The age range you're talking about might be more towards the top range for Middle Grade books.
I started Lost Stars during my break at work, I only had about 5 minutes or so to read by the time I started it, so only a few pages into it. It's to early to make an overall judgement, but it's at least not totally unreadable.

 

[WebLurker]

I'm as sure about YA books having no important canon moments as as I am that, say, a "learn to read" book for 5 year olds won't be revealing Rey's parentage.

Okay, then.

Aftermath had a lot of problems.

Agreed.

But, i'd even put my most hated Star Wars book (New Jedi Order: Traitor) above any YA book.

Interesting, I've always been told that Traitor was the greatest Star Wars novel not called "Thawn Trilogy." What about it didn't work for you?

Why would a badly-written GA novel be better than a well-written YA novel? Good writing and storytelling can be done in any medium, and are always better than bad writing and storytelling, regardless of the mediums in question.

Also, the people in charge of Star Wars books obviously want the GA books to be the main books (for obvious reasons), so they'd never push a YA book over the GA ones.

How you figuring that? (P.S. Different companies publish Star Wars books now, with most GAs being handled by Del Rey.)

They're not going to alienate the non-YA SW fans who are probably the biggest SW book demographic by pushing their teen book over the books which are building their new canon.

Problem is, both GA and YA books are building the new canon. The YA stuff is pulling its weight, and in some cases, more than the GA is.

For example, the "Journey to the Force Awakens" project made a big deal of bridging the gap between ROTJ and TFA, but in practice did squat. Aftermath, the main GA book in the project did nothing to deserve its inclusion. Where was the real bridge-building going on? In the YA books and other stuff ostensibly written for the tween crowds. Lost Stars did a better job of showing the origins of the stuff that would come back in TFA than just about anything else in the "Journey" project. The Smuggler's Run, Moving Target, and Weapon of a Jedi novellas gave clues about where the Big Three were in life when TFA began. Before the Awakening (which was not a "Journey" installment, despite being the only book that truly deserved the title) introduced the TFA leads and showed how they got to where they did when the movie began (and even made several scenes of the film have more resonance and meaning). Rey's Survival Guide provided a lot of insight into Rey's world and where she saw herself in it. As mentioned before, the TFA junior novelization fleshed out the characters more than the adult novelization did, despite the latter having more pages and words.

So, the GA books building the new canon? If anything, they need to step up their game and start telling more stuff beyond one-off adventures.

I don't need to know about individual books. A YA book is a YA book, especially in this post Twilight/Hunger Games environment.

I get the feeling that you're not interested in discussion, but validation. You don't need to know about individual books? Seriously? Do you even realize how inane that sounds?

individual booksThe style is what its about. Anyone with a 12-13 year old reading comprehension level shouldn't find normal SW books that hard to read. Its how the stories are told and how deep the stories and characters are that make GA books for general audiences. YA books are written for younger people and have specific tropes and cliches that make them YA books. A Star Wars fan age 12-13 and up can easily enjoy the GA books (I did). General audeince books are generally telling stories with about thew same content level as the movies, which are PG-13. YA books are specifically aimed only at a certain age group.[/quote]

In other words, YA books are aimed at a younger audience than GA Star Wars novels, since GA Star Wars novels can and are enjoyed by YA-age-range kids?

I completely disagree. YA books have a style that doesn't crossover with GA.

The style and writing is automatically inferior because that's the point, to write something YA like, not general audiences.

As someone who studied writing in college, I know that's not the case. Some authors will cash in on trends (paranormal romance and dystopias with young female protagonists who find themselves being the catalyst of change -- and a love triangle -- may be the big things now, but that's not the entire publishing output. For example, the YA novel The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time is its own thing.

the curious incident of the dog in the night-timeThe worst GA Star wars book will always be superior in writing, story, etc to the "best" YA book when it comes to comparing YA to general audience stuff.[/quote]

That makes no sense.

I can pretty definitively judge YA books. The YA stories are everywhere, and I did read books of that age range when I was that age range, I just don't have many examples because I was a teen before the Twilight and Hunger Games came out, and I went straight to general audience stuff like the main SW books and stuff like Lord of the Rings from a young age.

They say don't judge a book by its cover. (Look, frankly, most YA stuff today doesn't interest me. But, I wouldn't refuse to read one just because of that label if it looked interesting. And, to be honest, a lot of GA books look like variations of the YA trends you dislike. There's not as much difference as you think.

I know more then enough about the topic to form an opinion. You obviously don't have to share the opinion, but I definitely have enough info to form the opinion I have.

Opinions are fine. You, however, are presenting it as fact. By your own admission, you're labeling books you've never read as "bad" because of the YA label, and when I say: "I've read that book, it's good," the response boils down to: "No it's bad because its a YA book. A YA book cannot be good under any circumstances." That's bad reasoning and a bunch of bull.

Look, if you had read any of the stuff in question and could cite reasons why you didn't like it, fine, but making broad generalizations and just repeating them when I suggest a counter-point doesn't help me understand your position any better or offer any better evaluation.

 

[kirk55555]

Interesting, I've always been told that Traitor was the greatest Star Wars novel not called "Thawn Trilogy." What about it didn't work for you?

I have literally never heard anyone praise Traitor. I mean, I don't hear a lot of hate, but it definitely isn't considered a top tier book. For me, the New Jedi Order series, while pretty good overall, made Jacen Solo the most annoying, and eventually the worst, EU character. Traitor cemented that. It was all about Jacen Solo being a moron, and led to his Darth Caedus turn later.

Why would a badly-written GA novel be better than a well-written YA novel? Good writing and storytelling can be done in any medium, and are always better than bad writing and storytelling, regardless of the mediums in question.

I think a YA book can be good in comparison to other YA books, but never in comparison to books written for a general audience. Its just my opinion, but nothing has proven me wrong. Harry Potter might be an exception, but its so different from the average YA stuff its basically in its own league at this point.

Problem is, both GA and YA books are building the new canon. The YA stuff is pulling its weight, and in some cases, more than the GA is.

For example, the "Journey to the Force Awakens" project made a big deal of bridging the gap between ROTJ and TFA, but in practice did squat. Aftermath, the main GA book in the project did nothing to deserve its inclusion. Where was the real bridge-building going on? In the YA books and other stuff ostensibly written for the tween crowds. Lost Stars did a better job of showing the origins of the stuff that would come back in TFA than just about anything else in the "Journey" project. The Smuggler's Run, Moving Target, and Weapon of a Jedi novellas gave clues about where the Big Three were in life when TFA began. Before the Awakening (which was not a "Journey" installment, despite being the only book that truly deserved the title) introduced the TFA leads and showed how they got to where they did when the movie began (and even made several scenes of the film have more resonance and meaning). Rey's Survival Guide provided a lot of insight into Rey's world and where she saw herself in it. As mentioned before, the TFA junior novelization fleshed out the characters more than the adult novelization did, despite the latter having more pages and words.

So, the GA books building the new canon? If anything, they need to step up their game and start telling more stuff beyond one-off adventures.

I don't agree. Nothing important to the canon happens in any of the YA books (and I looked that up). Nothing you mentioned was important or something anyone paying attention didn't already know based on just watching TFA, except for little unimportant details. It doesn't matter what Poe was doing right before landing on Jakku, or how Rey lived before meeting BB-8 and Finn. Not every GA book is going to be universe changing events, and they shouldn't. Many of my favorite Star Wars books don't even have cameos by any of the SW movie characters and don't effect a single thing that happens on screen. But, if there is some big event, and its not shown in a movie? It will be in a book. In the old EU it was everything after RotJ, but with the current trilogy still ongoing its going to be hard to fit really big stuff, unless its pre-original trilogy era.

In other words, YA books are aimed at a younger audience than GA Star Wars novels, since GA Star Wars novels can and are enjoyed by YA-age-range kids?

GA books can be enjoyed by people who like the movies and are capable of a decent level of reading comprehension. YA books are made to cater to a very particular demographic, and have cliches and restricted writing/styles to fit that very specific demographic.

That makes no sense.

To me, the worst of GA is still better then YA, because I'm not a teen. Books written for a very specific teen audience are made for people a lot younger, and are no better then the elementary school kids books when it comes to what I think of them. They're also just as unimportant. Even bad general audiences books were trying to tell a story for everyone, not just trying to get teens to read a book by writing down to the group.

They say don't judge a book by its cover. (Look, frankly, most YA stuff today doesn't interest me. But, I wouldn't refuse to read one just because of that label if it looked interesting. And, to be honest, a lot of GA books look like variations of the YA trends you dislike. There's not as much difference as you think.

There has been no general audience SW book that I've read (and I've read a lot) that is even remotely like the YA books. They definitely don't follow the trends, and they're written for a broad audience, not teens that like angst and love triangles and all the other YA junk and need a more restricted style of writing.

Opinions are fine. You, however, are presenting it as fact. By your own admission, you're labeling books you've never read as "bad" because of the YA label, and when I say: "I've read that book, it's good," the response boils down to: "No it's bad because its a YA book. A YA book cannot be good under any circumstances." That's bad reasoning and a bunch of bull.

Look, if you had read any of the stuff in question and could cite reasons why you didn't like it, fine, but making broad generalizations and just repeating them when I suggest a counter-point doesn't help me understand your position any better or offer any better evaluation.

I'm not trying to get a counter point. I'm saying my opinion. That opinion will never change. I don't need to read Twilight to say its very creepy and complete garbage. I don't need to experience every horrible thing to identify something as bad, at least when it comes to my opinion. I think that YA books are terrible and their only use is to write bad throw away stories to try to get the readers to move on to the real books eventually. Readers who wouldn't usually read GA books (even though they're perfectly capable of it) but will read something made to directly pander to them. That's fine, I don't begrudge Disney trying to give YA fans something to read, just like the "learn to read" books with SW characters don't bother me.

But, that doesn't mean the YA books are in any way comparable to the GA books. They have a reason to exist, but in the end, in my opinion, the GA books are the Star Wars books. The story group isn't managing any of the new canon very well (outside of the movies, but that's not really a story group thing), but the GA books are still the real SW books. They're telling the good stories about good characters and interesting events, even if most aren't getting to use huge, galaxy shaking events right now.

 

[JD]

You keep talking about important stuff happening in the GA books, but from everything I seen it looks like most of the important stuff is actually happening in the comics.

 

[WebLurker]

First of all, in retrospect, the "bull" comment was not very diplomaitc. Sorry for not being polite in that instance.

I have literally never heard anyone praise Traitor. I mean, I don't hear a lot of hate, but it definitely isn't considered a top tier book. For me, the New Jedi Order series, while pretty good overall, made Jacen Solo the most annoying, and eventually the worst, EU character. Traitor cemented that. It was all about Jacen Solo being a moron, and led to his Darth Caedus turn later.

Yep, it has its its fanbase. I once hung around a thread here where this book came up. The defenders main point about Jacen was that his turning Sith betrayed what the book was about and so shouldn't be taken into account when examining it (not sure if that's true or not, but there it is). Personally, I was never a fan of Jacen and didn't think that he was that great in NJO, but your mileage may vary.

I think a YA book can be good in comparison to other YA books, but never in comparison to books written for a general audience. Its just my opinion, but nothing has proven me wrong. Harry Potter might be an exception, but its so different from the average YA stuff its basically in its own league at this point.

Besides the whole "target" audience thing, what else leads you to that conclusion? (Also, I didn't think Harry Potter was that well-written.)

I don't agree. Nothing important to the canon happens in any of the YA books (and I looked that up). Nothing you mentioned was important or something anyone paying attention didn't already know based on just watching TFA, except for little unimportant details. It doesn't matter what Poe was doing right before landing on Jakku, or how Rey lived before meeting BB-8 and Finn. Not every GA book is going to be universe changing events, and they shouldn't. Many of my favorite Star Wars books don't even have cameos by any of the SW movie characters and don't effect a single thing that happens on screen. But, if there is some big event, and its not shown in a movie? It will be in a book. In the old EU it was everything after RotJ, but with the current trilogy still ongoing its going to be hard to fit really big stuff, unless its pre-original trilogy era.

Why is it important that the books have "big" events in them? (Also, if neither the GA or YA books have had big events, why are one superior to the others?)

GA books can be enjoyed by people who like the movies and are capable of a decent level of reading comprehension. YA books are made to cater to a very particular demographic, and have cliches and restricted writing/styles to fit that very specific demographic.

I have found that this is a case-by-case basis, as I've seen YA and kids books that are better written than GA books.

To me, the worst of GA is still better then YA, because I'm not a teen. Books written for a very specific teen audience are made for people a lot younger, and are no better then the elementary school kids books when it comes to what I think of them. They're also just as unimportant. Even bad general audiences books were trying to tell a story for everyone, not just trying to get teens to read a book by writing down to the group.

Uh-huh.

There has been no general audience SW book that I've read (and I've read a lot) that is even remotely like the YA books. They definitely don't follow the trends, and they're written for a broad audience, not teens that like angst and love triangles and all the other YA junk and need a more restricted style of writing.

Okay.

I'm not trying to get a counter point. I'm saying my opinion. That opinion will never change. I don't need to read Twilight to say its very creepy and complete garbage. I don't need to experience every horrible thing to identify something as bad, at least when it comes to my opinion. I think that YA books are terrible and their only use is to write bad throw away stories to try to get the readers to move on to the real books eventually. Readers who wouldn't usually read GA books (even though they're perfectly capable of it) but will read something made to directly pander to them. That's fine, I don't begrudge Disney trying to give YA fans something to read, just like the "learn to read" books with SW characters don't bother me.

I'm not a YA fan, I'm just a book fan.

But, that doesn't mean the YA books are in any way comparable to the GA books. They have a reason to exist, but in the end, in my opinion, the GA books are the Star Wars books. The story group isn't managing any of the new canon very well (outside of the movies, but that's not really a story group thing), but the GA books are still the real SW books. They're telling the good stories about good characters and interesting events, even if most aren't getting to use huge, galaxy shaking events right now.

Funny. The Star Wars YA books I've read? I liked them because they're "telling the good stories about good characters and interesting events," in some cases more so than the actual GA books.

 

[kirk55555]

Besides the whole "target" audience thing, what else leads you to that conclusion? (Also, I didn't think Harry Potter was that well-written.)

Because all the popular YA books are bad, and share a lot of the same problems. Its all opinion, but to me a GA book is just superior by being a book written for a broad audience, and not restricted to things that only interest a very specific age group.

Why is it important that the books have "big" events in them? (Also, if neither the GA or YA books have had big events, why are one superior to the others?)

Its not, I'm just saying that if any big events are going to be in the books, they will be in the GA books.

I have found that this is a case-by-case basis, as I've seen YA and kids books that are better written than GA books.

And I've never seen a YA book that matches a GA book, or gets anywhere close.

Funny. The Star Wars YA books I've read? I liked them because they're "telling the good stories about good characters and interesting events," in some cases more so than the actual GA books.

That's a totally legitimate opinion. I just personally don't believe that any YA book can ever tell a story as good as a GA book, or have anything particularly interesting to offer most people over the age group that YA books aim for. GA books are superior in writing, story, characters, etc. because they don't have to conform to the strict style and cliches of the YA books.

 

[JD]

When it comes to reading, I've decided to ignore labels and just read whatever sounds interesting. Some of the urban fantasy stuff I'm reading is often categorized as "romance", even though the romance stuff in them isn't really the main focus.

 

[Ithekro]

Because all the popular YA books are bad, and share a lot of the same problems. Its all opinion, but to me a GA book is just superior by being a book written for a broad audience, and not restricted to things that only interest a very specific age group.

That sounds unnecessarily elitist.

 

[kirk55555]

That sounds unnecessarily elitist.

I don't consider an adult not reading/liking books made for people 7-10 years younger then them "elitist". I'm not the 15-18 or lower demographic, just like I'm not in the 4-7 year old demographic (or whatever the age range is) for the little kid books. YA books are written for teens, and unlike some other media (like TV shows) books made for certain groups really are written for very specific groups. Even as a teen I didn't like the normal teen stuff, so at 25 I'm even less interested in it and find it even worse.

When it comes to reading, I've decided to ignore labels and just read whatever sounds interesting. Some of the urban fantasy stuff I'm reading is often categorized as "romance", even though the romance stuff in them isn't really the main focus.

I find age labels useful in books. For stuff like TV shows its almost useless (outside of the "adult" label you'd put on a show like Game of Thrones, and stuff for really young kids like Sesame Street and things like that), but books as a form of media are really restricted by age range and demographic, at least in my opinion.

 

[JD]

I really don't see the difference between books and movies in the situation you're talking about, both are just telling stories. I'm 28 years old and I still love Disney animated movies. Zootopia and Finding Dory have been two of my favorite movies this year, and I still don't understand why you that's fine, but in your opinion it isn't possible for someone like me to like The Hunger Games, or Maze Runner books.
So in your opinion what does it say about me that I've been enjoying YA books? Are you trying to say that makes me stupid or immature or something? Because that's definitely what it sounds like to me.

 

[WebLurker]

Because all the popular YA books are bad, and share a lot of the same problems.

Hyperbole with some possible truth, at best.

Its all opinion, but to me a GA book is just superior by being a book written for a broad audience, and not restricted to things that only interest a very specific age group.

I don't know, some YA books have a wide ranges of topics.

Its not, I'm just saying that if any big events are going to be in the books, they will be in the GA books.

It's possible.

And I've never seen a YA book that matches a GA book, or gets anywhere close.

Except Harry Potter. I did recall posting a list of possible examples before. A lot of classic literature (which is better than most modern GA stuff) is treated as YA books today.

That's a totally legitimate opinion. I just personally don't believe that any YA book can ever tell a story as good as a GA book, or have anything particularly interesting to offer most people over the age group that YA books aim for. GA books are superior in writing, story, characters, etc. because they don't have to conform to the strict style and cliches of the YA books.

YA books don't have to conform to anything. It's up to the writers what they put in it, if they want to follow the crowd or be original. And as far as superiority, at the end of the day, it's the quality of the piece itself, not the medium, that determines that.

I don't consider an adult not reading/liking books made for people 7-10 years younger then them "elitist". I'm not the 15-18 or lower demographic, just like I'm not in the 4-7 year old demographic (or whatever the age range is) for the little kid books. YA books are written for teens, and unlike some other media (like TV shows) books made for certain groups really are written for very specific groups. Even as a teen I didn't like the normal teen stuff, so at 25 I'm even less interested in it and find it even worse.

Well, if you don't like specific genres or stories, that's one thing. But those are a subset of story types that are found across the board, not the definitive style of one category.

I find age labels useful in books. For stuff like TV shows its almost useless (outside of the "adult" label you'd put on a show like Game of Thrones, and stuff for really young kids like Sesame Street and things like that), but books as a form of media are really restricted by age range and demographic, at least in my opinion.

I don't see a difference. Some kids shows have wider appeal. Others don't. Same as books.

 

[kirk55555]

I really don't see the difference between books and movies in the situation you're talking about, both are just telling stories. I'm 28 years old and I still love Disney animated movies. Zootopia and Finding Dory have been two of my favorite movies this year, and I still don't understand why you that's fine, but in your opinion it isn't possible for someone like me to like The Hunger Games, or Maze Runner books.
So in your opinion what does it say about me that I've been enjoying YA books? Are you trying to say that makes me stupid or immature or something? Because that's definitely what it sounds like to me.

It doesn't say anything. I don't care what people like, we all like different things. I'm just stating my opinion on YA books, I'm not trying to pass judgement on the people who like the books, just what I personally think about the quality of the books (and the relevance of the SW ones). I don't look down on people outside the demographic who like YA books or anything. I like enough stuff made for people younger then me that it would be ridiculous to pass any judgement on the people who enjoy stuff made for younger people. I'm just giving my personal thoughts on the subject of YA books and especially YA Star Wars books.

I don't know, some YA books have a wide ranges of topics.

A range of topics, but all made similarly and with a certain style and certain cliches (especially nowadays). A YA book can be about sparkly vampires, a ridiculous dystopia, or even set in the Star Wars universe. While certain topics are definitely YA focused (like how half the YA stories seem to be either rip offs of Twilight or Hunger Games), its not specifically the topic that makes a book YA. Its the writing style and cliches of the story.

Except Harry Potter. I did recall posting a list of possible examples before. A lot of classic literature (which is better than most modern GA stuff) is treated as YA books today.

I definitely don't agree that a lot of classic literature is better then modern stuff. On a case by case basi some might be, but definitely not as a general rule.

YA books don't have to conform to anything. It's up to the writers what they put in it, if they want to follow the crowd or be original. And as far as superiority, at the end of the day, it's the quality of the piece itself, not the medium, that determines that.

They have to be written to appeal to its very specific demographic, and with YA books that means using at least some of the standard cliches of the style, along with the restricted writing. The quality of a YA book, to me, can never be as good as a GA book. For me they can never even be a "good" book (outside of very rare examples like Harry Potter), but even ignoring that they just don't match up to general audience books in any way, not even bad GA books.

I don't see a difference. Some kids shows have wider appeal. Others don't. Same as books.

I don't agree with that at all, but I think I've made that clear.

 

[WebLurker]

It doesn't say anything. I don't care what people like, we all like different things. I'm just stating my opinion on YA books, I'm not trying to pass judgement on the people who like the books, just what I personally think about the quality of the books (and the relevance of the SW ones). I don't look down on people outside the demographic who like YA books or anything. I like enough stuff made for people younger then me that it would be ridiculous to pass any judgement on the people who enjoy stuff made for younger people. I'm just giving my personal thoughts on the subject of YA books and especially YA Star Wars books.

Okay.

A range of topics, but all made similarly and with a certain style and certain cliches (especially nowadays). A YA book can be about sparkly vampires, a ridiculous dystopia, or even set in the Star Wars universe. While certain topics are definitely YA focused (like how half the YA stories seem to be either rip offs of Twilight or Hunger Games), its not specifically the topic that makes a book YA. Its the writing style and cliches of the story.

Well, which cliches and writing styles are we talking about here?

I definitely don't agree that a lot of classic literature is better then modern stuff. On a case by case basi some might be, but definitely not as a general rule.

Can't say I agree with that. While there are some classics that are overrated, they usually display better writing, in word choice, and construction. For example, compare J.R.R. Tolkien with a modern novel off the bestsellers list. Or, take the original Jurassic Park novel. Now, I like that book (albeit mostly because I love the film series), but the ideas in it are greater than the actual prose.

It doesn't have much personality. The characters' voices are not that distinct (some more so than others). Character development is very flat. The descriptions of the dinosaurs are very matter of fact and convey little emotion. Compare the introduction of any of the dinosaurs to the introduction of the Mechanical Hound in Fahrenheit 451. The latter expertly conveys the eery horror that the Hound is and represents. We feel that it's a dangerous creature, rather than being just told it is.

FahrenheitThey have to be written to appeal to its very specific demographic, and with YA books that means using at least some of the standard cliches of the style, along with the restricted writing. The quality of a YA book, to me, can never be as good as a GA book. For me they can never even be a "good" book (outside of very rare examples like Harry Potter), but even ignoring that they just don't match up to general audience books in any way, not even bad GA books.[/quote]

I'm not so sure that specific books of a specific target audience need to follow certain conventions. Case in point, Alice in Wonderland is a book for kids that adults can examine for for additional themes and meanings.

I don't agree with that at all, but I think I've made that clear.

Yeah.

 

[kirk55555]

Can't say I agree with that. While there are some classics that are overrated, they usually display better writing, in word choice, and construction. For example, compare J.R.R. Tolkien with a modern novel off the bestsellers list. Or, take the original Jurassic Park novel. Now, I like that book (albeit mostly because I love the film series), but the ideas in it are greater than the actual prose.

It doesn't have much personality. The characters' voices are not that distinct (some more so than others). Character development is very flat. The descriptions of the dinosaurs are very matter of fact and convey little emotion. Compare the introduction of any of the dinosaurs to the introduction of the Mechanical Hound in Fahrenheit 451. The latter expertly conveys the eery horror that the Hound is and represents. We feel that it's a dangerous creature, rather than being just told it is.

I'm definitely not a classic sci fi book fan. Frank Herbert's Dune is pretty much the oldest I'll go for Sci Fi, and Tolkien is really good but its also by far the oldest book I've read and enjoyed. I've actually read Jurassic Park, and while its not great (its decent and readable, but not much more then that) give me that book over an Asimov or Bradbury book any day of the week (especially Asimov, that guy is a universal cure for insomnia). I generally find "classic literature", at least in the genres I read (I'm almost exclusively a Fantasy and sci-fi reader when it comes to fiction, with my enjoyment of Sherlock Holmes stories being the exception) to be pretty boring. The older stuff, in my opinion, tends to be either too long winded or too slowly paced or with too simple characterization or too overly complicated. I'll put Michael Crichton over someone like Asimov any day of the week because he can at least write enjoyable stories that aren't painful to try to get through (in the few of his books I've read, at least). I still count Foundation as the most overrated book I've ever attempted to read.

So, yeah, I'm generally not impressed with classic literature. I won't say most of it is objectively bad, but on a personal level I think modern writers beat classic ones most of the time, with a few exceptions.

 

[JD]

I finished up the prologue of Lost Stars yesterday, and there were a couple things I already wanted to comment.
First of all, I'm already enjoying it. One thing I thought was kind of interesting was seeing how the average citizens of the galaxy feel about the Empire. I'm used to stories coming from the perspective of people who either in the Rebellion or are at least working against the empire, so it was interesting to see characters who happy the Empire has shown up, and to see how the Empire presents itself to people like that.
I also already know from the bits I've read online that either Thane or Ciena end up joining the Rebellion, so after seeing how pro-Empire they as kids, I'm very curious what ends up turning one of them against the Empire.