I'm not writing a Young Adult or New Adult novel, but I'm critiquing one for someone who is. The plot line has potential, now that I've figured out what it is, but the execution lacks a great deal. Shallow, insufficiently motivated main characters; secondary and minor characters that are mostly shadow puppets; vague, sketchy settings; mid-paragraph point of view shifts; an overload of filter words and telling-not-showing (or worse, showing and then telling); the whole kit. I'm constantly being pulled out of the story, exclaiming, "Why, why, why???" That said, it's nothing that the author couldn't correct if she put her mind to it. Trouble is, the author keeps informing me that her teenaged-girl beta readers all love it. According to her, they're reporting in saying the book is wonderful, they couldn't put it down, they identified with the MC so much, she was so deep and complex, etc., etc. My suspicion is that they're filling in the gaps with their own life experiences. And that their experience of good literature is limited and they don't know what they're missing. Whatever the explanation, the message I'm getting from the author is, "My target audience likes it the way it is." If that's so, is there any point in the author's rewriting it to make it better? Or in my giving feedback to help her do so? I mean, if all the audience wants is the literary equivalent of Doritos, why bother? In YA and NA, is formula and trope all that matters, and who cares if the writing's any good?