How else can one manage to complain both about the likes of Meyer and about overly realistic and bleak YA writers in the same article? Sure, both groups of books have violence and certain "dark" elements in them, but that's about where the similarity ends. I haven't really read any of Meyer's imitators and rivals, but I would imagine that most of them aren't too far removed from her syrupy, fairy-tale approach to romance and human relationships.

The other group, by whom I'm not sure I've read anything at all (so my comments may have to be taken with a few grains of salt), seems like they write books of rather more merit, books that aim to be realistic and a long way from fairy tales - albeit realistic with an exaggerated focus on the darker side of society.

One can criticize both genres, but it'd have to be for entirely different reasons. Tom made some interesting points in his reply about adolescents these days, who certainly are a bit nihilistic and cynical in some ways, and about how that shouldn't really be encouraged further by this kind of literature. And one can also argue that Meyer and her ilk encourage another trend that shouldn't be encouraged: the tendency to expect success and happiness to come falling into one's lap without any effort, the lack of ambition or even laziness. I suppose these two things aren't contradictory as such, but they're certainly entirely different problems.

And I get the impression that the reason for Gurdon's amalgam is simply ignorance of what she's writing about, the kind of ignorant prejudice that, say, makes some people reject all heavy metal (or rock music, back in the day) - or, perhaps more relevant on this site, genre literature. It's not quite on a level with that ridiculous review of Game of Thrones that somehow made it into the New York Times a few months ago, but it kind of seems to go in that direction.

As for whether adults should restrict what children read... parents should take an interest in what their children read, of course, and if the parents aren't really doing that, it's great if some teachers or others try to fill the void a bit. And in some cases, trying to keep a child from reading a book can be entirely justified, even if it brings that risk of making the forbidden fruit more attractive. I just wish people would be more intelligent and discerning in their censorship, and not try to ban books for such idiotic reasons, profane language top on the list, and sexual content not far behind. There are books with little to no profanity or explicit sexuality that are far worse to read for children or adolescents than other books that have loads of profanity and sex. For instance, Kundera's Unbearable Lightness of Being has quite a bit of sex, but I'd have no problem with young adolescents reading it - if they want to read it, and like what they read, then clearly they're ready for it, even if there will no doubt be many things that elude them on that first read. (I just realized that's essentially the same argument beetnemesis made in a post higher up - but I want to clarify that I only think the statement valid for certain books, and definitely not for others).

And then of course the next question is how a parent with limited time can make such a judgement about some recent book that he/she hasn't read. Warning labels can tell you "this book contains sex/violence/profanity", but they can't tell you if the book is an Unbearable Lightness or a Sexual Life of Catherine M (and damn, that book was awful), or whether it condemns violence or glorifies it. They're clearly far inferior to reading reviews or asking librarians/teachers' advice, but perhaps they serve some purpose for those parents who don't have time for or ready access to such advice, even if they inevitably throw out some good things along with the bad.