Last night I indulged myself and bought my first Young Adult novel in what seemed like years, for the sake of a quick, easy, and amusing read (note: I love trashy trailer park movies, cheap reality shows, and cliché chick lit novels so this one was right up my alley). I picked up Andrea Portes’ 328-page novel, Anatomy of a Misfit, without reading any reviews, over a bestselling Rainbow Rowell work because I felt I could relate to a high school misfit more than a Fangirl. You must know that before reading this, I had just finished reading Pulitzer Prize-winning novel The Goldfinch. After having finished the two, I was compelled to compare though both works are worlds apart, coming from entirely different genres.

I’m a slow reader so it took me an estimated month and a half to finish The Goldfinch (somewhere around 900 pages long with the same page size, but of smaller text size) because I was drowning in adjectives and heavily descriptive scenes of the “art underworld”. Admittedly, digesting a Donna Tartt book takes patience and constant consultation of a dictionary. I’ve read two of her three published novels and I’m a fan of her erudite writing style (though I prefer The Secret History way more than The Goldfinch).

After spending so much time with The Goldfinch, even spilling soy sauce on some pages, wearing out its paperback cover, and taking it along with me on train rides and dinners alone, I was astonished at how easy it was to finish Anatomy of A Misfit. A few hours easy. Money down the drain for something so dense with a narration that was almost condescending. I may not be in high school anymore, but I sure as hell don’t remember anybody talking like that. Okay, maybe I laughed a handful of times and I teared up when [spoiler] Logan died but the amount of time reading it probably has some correlation to the amount of time it took the author to write it. And doesn’t time give a thing its value, more than its material or monetary worth?

What makes a YA novel? Why are they so popular besides the shabby writing, faulty loopholes, and cheesy plots? From what I experienced from reading Anatomy of A Misfit was that it appeals to emotions. Sure, it might teach teens a lesson, but these are more of reiterations of values we already know and situations we’ve already experienced. The only time we have is now, you say? I’ve never heard that one before! But we end up purchasing it because of its ease to get into, its cheap thrills, and relatable experiences. Might I throw out that the younger crowd, myself included, is more easily swayed by a heart MacGuffins? The puppy love, the love triangle, the bullying, and the slang. It’s all so predictable and “sincere” but it’s just that. There’s nothing below the surface, unless it’s a John Green novel that tries so hard to be philosophical.

In the Philippines, there’s a common formula for majority of Filipino films. First, they have to be titled after love songs from the eighties or nineties. Second, there’s always a clash of social classes, poor vs. rich, and the portrayal of both are never accurate. Third, in rom-coms, there’s almost always a love triangle or an affair going on somewhere. All this accompanied by poor theatrics, hasty set designs, and a finished product that I find capricious (I recently found out that it only took two weeks to film a certain unnamed Filipino film, which provides some evidence to my claim). BUT HOW COME THEY NEVER CHANGE? Because audiences fall for the lazy ploy over and over again by its appeal to emotion and its melodramatics, just like YA novels. Sure, they give you momentary entertainment, but after a week or two, your life resumes as if you’ve never read the book or watched the film.

Do yourself a favor and know what you’re spending your money on. Stop and think before making that purchase. Reviews help. Don’t go wandering aimlessly into a bookstore (like I did) and buying the first book you get your hands on. Once in a while, it might be fine to splurge on these, but it would be wise to opt for something with a little more depth, not just in the plot, but in the writing style as well. If there’s one thing I learned from a Yale writing conference, it’s to read as a writer, because what you intake will affect your output.

Where is the Love?: Why Romeo and Juliet is NOT a Love Story

The “star-crossed lovers” that were Juliet and her Romeo in William Shakespeare’s most celebrated work never encapsulated true love. Upon all themes, tragedy prevails but in my opinion, there is an abundance of idiocy. Time and time again, the messenger, Friar John, takes blame for his incompetence in failing to deliver the crucial message to its recipient, which led to Romeo’s unnecessarily slaying the innocent Count Paris and poisoning himself to death. The untimely events should not impose blame on anyone except the rash decisions brought about by young love fostered in such a short period.

Having recently re-watched the 2013 remake of the literary classic opened my eyes to the shallowness of the plot. Veraciously I cannot tell all the facts, having not read the book (our high school reading list no longer included Romeo and Juliet, but has long been replaced with Merchant of Venice). Although, from what I’ve seen and the several synopses I have read, the love was not as pure as declared.

The ingrate, Juliet, so willingly left her parents after they wished for her to marry the count as soon as possible. Fleeing was one thing, but faking her death to escape the perilous match seemed a bit much. Eloping with her banished husband would have made a better statement of love than by deceptively pretending to die, causing her parents grief. Disownment is far more forgiving than death. She clearly had parent issues.

After his arrival at the Capulet tomb and the death of Count Paris, Romeo proceeds to kill himself through poison, seeing his love has passed away. If Romeo knew what love really was, he would have kept his life knowing that Juliet would have wanted him to live. But no, he felt a life without Juliet physically by his side was not worth living. True love transcends the human body so that the love stays with you even if your lover is no longer around. Romeo, daft as he was, did not take time to reflect on that during his exile. After dying, Juliet awakens and follows suit in her departed husband’s reckless and foolish decision to take his own life. Even Romeo’s mother kills herself after learning of his banishment. Did their own lives mean nothing else to them? They had no right taking a human life, even if it is their own.

The only consolation is the peace between the two families that good Friar Laurence aimed to achieve in the first place. I highly imagine, though, that they could have accomplished this goal without the six major casualties caused by one unthought-of and irrational “forbidden love”. One thing for sure is that youngsters should not take love cues from this Shakespeare tragedy.