I was ten or eleven when the books came out. I loved them. They were perfect for me at the time, which is to say they were literary junk food. Why would I want to be taken "seriously as a reader" at that age when I didn't even take myself seriously? I loved the shallow characterization because it meant it was easy to insert myself into the book. I loved the so-called "tepid" romance because it meant that the book wasn't delving into particularly deep or serious issues that would be less fun. (I would also argue that at ten or eleven, it was far, far from tepid.)

None of this is a bad thing, nor does it make the books "shit" given that they never pretended to be anything else. Nobody who picked up the book and read the summary was surprised by the content or quality. There are plenty of other authors - YA or otherwise - that don't cater to fans of cheesy romances, and there are others yet who write more critically acclaimed romances if you want to keep to the genre. Want to exchange Edward for Heathcliff? Be my guest, but I'll take both, thank you kindly.

Side note, it's incredibly patronizing to say that the books are shit and that the millions of fans (many young despite your anecdotal experience) have low standards just because you wanted something different. I read Twilight alongside a variety of other literary works. I can have both deep-fried Oreos and beef Wellington without thinking the former should be cooked differently.

In the hands of Meyer, it was perfect for tween and teenage girls. I don't know why people keep thinking the prose had to be phenomenal or that it's bad for not having a more adult or male audience. People don't shit on Sweet Valley High, and the quality is about the same. I'd argue that Twilight is significantly better than those books, and I very much enjoyed both series.