Who cares? If people enjoy it, let them enjoy it. I've read a few YA novels as an adult that I enjoyed, even though I regularly read more complex stuff.
Most people, for most of history, have only ever enjoyed what might be considered "low quality" entertainment - pulp fiction, shitty plays, etc.
> real novel that isn't so bounded by tropes or genre limits.
Interestingly, even discounting YA and other stuff like that, you are only describing a very small subset of novels.
That cherry picks the best of the best without comparing them with the other 99.9% of their contemporaries who were pulp authors. They and their literary output are forgotten for good reasons.
Are you suggesting Jane Austen, Charles Dickens, or Conan Doyle were considered slop during their own lifetimes? If not, my point stands.
>Who cares?
I do? Why would I want my kids to be consuming crap when they could be engaging with great works and high art?
What if that's not the choice? What if the choice is "engage with art they enjoy and appreciate, or not at all"?
They're great works to you, and a slog to them.
They can read Minecraft strategy guides and Yahoo auction fan fics for all I care, since that's a lot better than nothing. I remember not wanting to read what school assigned me and how that killed my desire to read most fiction writing, and would prefer that not happen to more kids.
Art is a matter of taste, and if you go counter to your audience's taste, don't be surprised if they disengage.
Jane Austen was considered pulp. So was Charles Dickens. And Conan Doyle.
Nobody considered those high literature back in the day!