Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

" And while John Green is certainly a talented writer, I think he writes the kinds of teenagers that adults wish teenagers were. Andrew Smith, on the other hand, writes teenagers as they actually are. And in that lies his magic.".... totally agree about Green... sold on this book. thanks for your review.

I have to disagree with your comment about John Green. Smith and Green are two of my favorite writers, period. And I agree that they write different types of teenagers at times, but to say that teenagers can't actually be intellectual, over-achieving, curious thinkers like they are in Green's books is an insult to teenagers. Of course, teenagers also can be stupid, short-sighted and flawed (not to say that Smith's characters are), but they're human. Neither interpretation is better than the other, and often Smith's characters come off as pretentious, and Green's can be realistic. It's not mutually exclusive.

abra wrote: "I have to disagree with your comment about John Green. Smith and Green are two of my favorite writers, period. And I agree that they write different types of teenagers at times, but to say that tee..."

I'm glad you disagree! The world would be a much dimmer place if everyone agreed with me...especially since I'm so often wrong :)

But preferring the types of teens Andrew Smith writes to the teens John Green writes isn't an indictment of Green, of his characters, or of intelligent teens themselves. It's simply an opinion. Preferring one over the other doesn't mean it's better, only that I prefer it more. Others will (and should!) disagree.

And I don't think that preferring Andrew Smith's characters is saying that teens can't be intellectual, over-achieving, curious thinkers at all. Many of Smith's characters are intellectual over-achievers. Ryan Dean West is one such example. Two years ahead of his classmates in school with good grades. I love characters that rely on their intelligence to solve problems. I love characters that are deeply philosophical and think about the world around them. I was an intellectual as a teenager, so I certainly don't believe that such teens can't exist.

For me, I feel that (especially in YA) characters in contemporary stories fall into one of two categories: realistic and idealized. Now, realistic doesn't mean that the writer is creating the only realistic version of a teenager that can and will ever be written, only that they're creating the most realistic version of that particular teen character. And idealized doesn't mean that no real people exist with those characteristics, only that the writer is creating characters that are the best versions of themselves. I think Andrew Smith writes the former and John Green the latter.

And, again, that's not a judgement. I like that John Green is writing the best versions of his characters. I like that he's writing characters that people strive to be more like. It just so happens that my personal preference is for characters that are a little grittier. Maybe that's because I connect more to them. Maybe that's because the people I know are more like Andrew Smith's characters than John Green's. I don't know...it's just a personal preference. But it's certainly not a judgement of one or the other, and I'm sorry if that's how I made it sound.

I agree that Andrew Smith did a great job on portraying teens as they really. It is kind of unrealistic to expect very teenager to follow the rules all the time and think about girls all the time. But I don't agree that John Green is writing books of what adults want to think teenagers are. Even though I have only read two of Green's books (Looking for Alaska and The Fault in Our Stars) sex and alcohol were in both books. In looking for Alaska the teenagers were no way I think anyone would want teens o be. These books could be exceptions, seeing as I have only read two of his books.