MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1717656599 · doi:10.1353/jeu.2015.0005

YA Narratives: Reading One’s Age

2015· article· en· W1717656599 sur OpenAlexaffvenue
Mavis Reimer, Heather Snell

Notice bibliographique

RevueJeunesse Young People Texts Cultures · 2015
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueThemes in Literature Analysis
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Winnipeg
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésNarrativeReading (process)LiteraturePerspective (graphical)Character (mathematics)HistorySociologyMedia studiesAestheticsArtVisual artsLawPolitical science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

YA Narratives: Reading One’s Age Mavis Reimer and Heather Snell In an article published in the online magazine Slate in June 2014, just prior to the release of the film adaptation of John Green’s popular and highly acclaimed young adult novel The Fault in Our Stars, Ruth Graham berated adult readers for reading “realistic” young adult fiction. Citing the statistic that the “largest group of buyers” for YA “are between ages 30 and 44,” she explains that she fears that books such as Green’s “that are about real teens doing real things”—as distinct from popular franchises such as Divergent and Twilight, which she dismisses as “transparently trashy”—are “replacing literary fiction in the lives of . . . adult readers.” The perspective that social realist young adult fiction invites its readers to inhabit in relation to the world, Graham argues, is essentially immature and uncritical: “It’s not simply that YA readers are asked to immerse themselves in a character’s emotional life—that’s the trick of so much great fiction—but that they are asked to abandon the mature insights into that perspective that they (supposedly) have acquired as adults.” Graham holds up The Fault in Our Stars along with a handful of other best-selling contemporary YA novels—Gayle Forman’s If I Stay, Rainbow Rowell’s Eleanor and Park, Stephen Chbosky’s The Perks of Being a Wallflower, and Ned Vizzini’s It’s Kind of a Funny Story—as containing examples of narrative features that adult (that is, mature) readers should reject: “simple” and “uniformly satisfying” endings, a lack of “emotional and moral ambiguity,” and a preponderance of “likable protagonists.” Truly adult pleasures, Graham avows, lie in “messy, unresolved stories” and “in reading about people with whom [readers] can’t empathize at all.” Graham’s remarks provoked a flurry of commentary, both in the comments section appended to her piece and in blogs and articles that responded to her column. One of these commentators, young adult novelist Caroline Bock, takes offence at Graham’s narrow view of the genre, a view that, in her opinion, ignores the plethora of young adult novels that challenge readers with “compelling, thought-provoking, controversial, gripping characters.” Riffing on the title of Green’s The [End Page 1] Fault in Our Stars, Bock claims that the fault lies in “us”—that is, in adults who gravitate toward simple, reductive young adult books and ignore all those that are challenging and complex. Bock’s remarks stand out among the comments on Graham’s article, most of which repeat in various ways the conviction that people have the right to read books of whatever sort that give them pleasure. This insistence was pervasive in the debate that ensued, despite the fact that Graham pointed out explicitly that she had no intention of trying to “disrupt the ‘everyone should just read/watch/listen to whatever they like’ ethos of our era” and that she was seeking, rather, to prompt adult readers to look again at “the complexity of great adult literature,” a point also underlined by her editor, who pulled out the statement “Read whatever you want” for the précis at the head of Graham’s column. In a Huffington Post article entitled “This Is Why Young Adult Books Are Not Only Acceptable, but Beneficial for Adults,” Maddie Crum observes that the “feet-stamping defensiveness” that permeates the responses to Graham sidesteps a critique “of what was originally a nuanced (if problematic) argument.” Graham’s critics, Crum declares, prove Graham’s point while undermining their own claim that “genre books” are “nothing to be ashamed of” and “in many ways beneficial . . . to individuals and society.” Even as she suggests that there might be problems with Graham’s argument, Crum concurs with her conclusion that young adult novels “don’t typically show or tell us anything we don’t already know,” but, she contends, they do allow adults to remember their former selves and to give them a context for who and what they are at present. In this sense, the nostalgia adult readers might experience while reading YA fiction can help make them better people. Another commentator who took Graham’s...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,017
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,048

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,006
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0170,015
Communication savante0,0120,017
Science ouverte0,0010,007
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,007
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0090,002

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,031
Tête enseignante GPT0,268
Écart entre enseignants0,236 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations3
Publié2015
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJeunesse Young People Texts CulturesMême sujetThemes in Literature AnalysisTravaux en français237 207