• Are the Harry Potter Books Targeted at Children?
• The New York Times Bestseller List Controversy
• Will the Later Books in the Series be Appropriate for Younger Children?

The Harry Potter series may have greater cross-appeal to both children and adults than perhaps any other literature yet published. But, the question of how to classify these record-setting bestsellers has sparked a fair bit of discussion and controversy. The first three books in the series were originally marketed as juvenile fiction, with a "9-12" age appropriateness label. Yet, word-of-mouth testimonials propelled the books, one after another, on to bestseller lists (including the New York Times Bestseller List). The first three Harry Potter books, in unprecedented fashion, occupied the top 3 slots on the NY Times Bestseller List for over a year.[1] Unfortunately, the over-the-top success of the Harry Potter books was not viewed as favorably by competitive publishers. Perennial bestselling authors such as Danielle Steele, John Grisham and Tom Clancy were unable to knock the Potter books out of the top slots on their own merits, and the publishers of these works began to pressure the NY Times to create a separate "Children's Bestsellers List." Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire never appeared on the main NY Times Bestseller List as the NY Times commenced its separate "Children's Bestseller List" during the week when Goblet of Fire sales figures were first available.[2]

Author J.K. Rowling has said in numerous interviews that she did not write the books specifically for children or with any target group in mind. Rather, she says she initially envisioned and wrote the books as something she would enjoy reading.[3] In his article criticizing the decision of the NY Times to "relegate" the Potter books to a newly-created Children's List, Richard Corliss declares that the Potter series "is one of those cultural events that spills out of narrow categories and into the Zeitgeist. Reading the books, kids feel more mature, adults feel younger. And all become part of a community where age doesn't matter."[4] Author Stephen King, ironically in his very favorable review of Goblet of Fire for the NY Times Book Review, clearly stated that the books are not just for children.[5]

So, how did the books come to be marketed for children? It seems likely that Bloomsbury (publishers of the original UK versions of the books), not anticipating the success of this series or its broad cross-appeal to all ages, simply marketed the first book as a juvenile fiction title based on the 11 year-old protagonist. One does wonder, however, why Scholastic (U.S. publishers) continued to perpetuate this narrow categorization since they should have been reasonably aware of the demographics of the cross-appeal at the time they won a "bidding war" for the U.S. publication rights to the Potter series.

Are or should the Harry Potter books be subject to less-stringent review standards because they are, after all, just "childrens' books"?[6]

Proponents of the creation of the separate "Children's List" argue that it wasn't representational to have one author occupying multiple spots on the main Bestseller List. They also pointed out that this "monopoly" by Rowling on the top spots of this list precluded new authors from gaining popular acclaim and recognition. Others are primarily thrilled that there is at last a bestseller list for childrens' literature. NY Times Book Review Editor Charles McGrath believes this new list will give many previously overlooked children's titles some much well-deserved recognition.[7]

McGrath does admit that the decision to create the Children's List "was not solely motivated by philanthropic concerns about the state of children's literature. 'We are also making room on the adult list for adult titles -- not that what has replaced the Potter books is exactly illustrious.'"[8] Opponents point out that the best solution is simply for authors to write books that can, through their sales figures, knock Rowling's books out of the top slots. If they cannot, on their merits, topple Rowling's works, then isn't it a bit interventionist to "fix" the Bestseller List by removing the main competititon for the top slots? "For many in the publishing business, the new bestseller list is the publishing equivalent of moving from a penthouse into a basement apartment."[9] Many publishers are siding with Scholastic on this issue. Craig Virden, President of Random House Children's Books, said "3.8 million copies: That's an adult number! And even though I think that anything that draws attention to children's books is great for business, I have to say that this is really unfair to Scholastic."[10]

Opponents also argue that the decision to place a book on the "Children's List" rather than the main Bestseller List appears to be enormously subjective and prone to abuse. The NY Times made public statements that it will be up to the publishers to categorize books for purposes of the various bestseller lists. NY Times Book Review Editor Charles McGrath told Salon.com that it would be difficult for the NY Times to make the subjective decision of where a book should be listed. He then said that because of this difficulty, the NY Times was leaving it to the publishers to tell them "if it's a children's book or a grown-up book. That's how we'll track them on the list."[11] Yet, barely a week later, McGrath was quoted in the Wall Street Journal as saying that the NY Times will always make the final call on whether a cross-appeal book should be listed in the children's list or the main list.[12] Presumably based on McGrath's earlier statements about the publisher making the categorization determination, Scholastic had attempted to recategorize the new release of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets in paperback as a mass-market title (not just for children).[13] The NY Times, however, has thus far refused to categorize the paperback as anything other than a children's book, which means that its sales figures are not being reflected on any of the NY Times Bestseller Lists (as they have no list for paperback children's titles). Once Scholastic attempted to use the original guidelines, McGrath changed course to indicate that in the case of books with cross-appeal, the NY Times will simply "lean toward direction from the publisher." He also point-blank said that he was unsure how to handle the Harry Potter case in particular.[14]

Many critics do believe, in fact, that the Potter series is being unfairly targeted by the NY Times. McGrath himself seems to be missing the point of the cross-appeal to all ages: "Harry Potter 'was published as a children's book. Then it got crossover attention, which is terrific and we all applaud it. But that doesn't automatically make it a book for grown-ups."[15] He seems quite willing to ignore not only the books' publisher but also their author on this point. McGrath was asked if the NY Times would consider creating a "Horror Fiction Bestseller List" if a writer of adult horror fiction occupied more than one slot on the main Bestseller List for a prolonged period of time. When he answered the question, he spoke "with the weary voice of an indulgent parent who has let his kids stay up late all summer: 'Surely Scholastic and Harry Potter have had their moment in the sun.'"[16]

Many critics would also argue that the problem with the decision to list the Potter books on this Children's List is that they are only listed on the Children's List (despite statistics and evidence that at least 43% of the books are being purchased by and for adults).[17] McGrath does not subscribe to the notion that a cross-appeal book should be listed on more than one list. "'I think the books have got to be on one list or the other. . . . It's somewhat arbitrary but nonetheless necessary that we have to decide.'"[18] Corliss questions "whether value judgments should be applied to the raw data of popular preference -- and whether the compilers of lists can evict a work of popular art because it's just too darn popular."[19] Some of our members have wondered whether the NY Times would be forced to list the books on both lists if Scholastic issued "adult covers" for the books (similar to those issued by Bloomsbury in the UK).[20]

Many people also point to the perhaps simplistic notion that a Bestsellers List ought to be just what it purports to be: a listing of the bestselling books for the period covered.[21] The first printing of Goblet of Fire, 3.8 million copies, was the largest in publishing history. This printing was almost immediately exhausted, and Scholastic was forced to rush another record 2nd printing, raising "the number of 'Goblet' books in print in the U.S. to nearly 7 million."[22] One member noted that she might never have purchased the Harry Potter books but for their long-standing run on the NY Times Bestseller List, a list she previously used in making book choices.[23]

This decision has been roundly criticized.[24] The NY Times is said to now be facing stiffer competition from other bestseller lists (primarily those lists that track bestsellers based strictly on sales figures). Bookstore chains are frequently reverting to their own internal bestseller lists, and the USA Today List is gaining prominence and respect at the expense of the Times List.[25] Publishing Trends (an industry newsletter) noted that its decision to create this Children's List in the face of such criticism is "hastening the decline in its [the NY Times] importance to the book industry."[26] One commentator has noted that once "book purchases are reported electronically like recorded music sales, there'll be no disputing who's king of the hill."[27] This inevitable move in tracking book sales may be the only hope for Potter fans who long to see their favorite series at the top of NY Times Bestseller List.

In addition to being criticized, the NY Times demotion of the Potter books to the Children's List has also been ridiculed. As Richard Corliss of Time wrote: "Now a truly mature author is number one: Danielle Steele."[28] Noting that the average readers of Danielle Steele's romance novels are teenage and college-age females, one member wondered whether Scholastic ought to consider doing a survey to discern whether Steele or Rowling has an "older" average reader.[29] Another member wrote a compelling comparison of Rowling's works with those of "popular" authors John Grisham and Patricia Cornwall: "I've skimmed through several volumes of Grisham and Cornwall in search of a semi-colon. I've yet to find one. Grisham and Cornwall write a tedious series of short, declarative sentences that might (ignoring content) fit right into The Weekly Reader or The Berenstein Bears. Rowling, on the other hand, rejoices in the beauty of the English language, and fully exploits its dramatic potential in her dialogue -- take any page at random in any of her books, and we find an array of hyphens, ellipses and semi-colons."[30]

The Children's List itself has been subjected to some criticism already as well. The list only tracks hardcover titles, and it attempts to cover literature intended for infants to young adults in their high school years.[31] The Children's Book Insert also only appears in the NY Times Book Review twice a year. As President of Scholastic Children's Books Group Barbara Marcus noted, "'I find it interesting that they have chosen to say, 'Oh, children's books are so important that we're going to devote more time to them,' but they're certainly not sacrificing any column space.'"[32]

One cannot help but wonder if the 11 year-old protagonist in the first Potter book doomed the entire series to being narrowly categorized as a "childrens' series," no matter how many adults buy the books and no matter how dark and complex and adult the books become? The protagonist will be 17 in the final book of the series, and Rowling has vocally maintained that she does not intend to keep her adolescent characters rooted in pre-pubescence forever. Accordingly, how will the last volumes in the series be categorized? Is the 15 year-old Harry in the 5th book adult enough to "promote" the books to the main Bestseller List or will Harry need to reach his 16th, 17th or 18th birthday before the books are no longer labeled as "childrens' books"? As one member noted, "as the characters mature, the style, tone, characterization, plot, structure of scenes, etc. MUST grow up along with them . . . . otherwise, you'll have the British equivalent of the Sweet Valley High series."[33]

After the release of Goblet of Fire, Rowling was asked if the remaining books would continue to "darken" or if she felt inclined to "tone down" the plots to suit her younger readers. She emphatically stated that she will not change the course of the stories (which she's spent 10 years mapping out and writing so far). She believes that a realistic depiction of evil is necessary to the core theme of her work, and she steadfastly refuses so far to compromise her artistic integrity by changing course to suit her youngest readers.[34] She has said in several interviews that she has never been in favor of parents introducing 6 and 7 year-old children to the books. She said that she thought "Well, that's great that he loved Sorcerer's Stone but I know what's coming and I'm not sure he'll be ready for it."[35]Goblet of Fire in fact convinced many readers and fans that the series was in fact more than just a "children's series."[36]

While it seems clear to many people that the Potter series is destined to join the ranks of classic literature,[37] does the series, with its darkening tone and Rowling's plan to "age" the characters believably, present a unique challenge to parents of later years? When all 7 books are published and available, how will parents feel if their 9 year-old child wants to begin the series? None of our members can point to any other "bildungsroman" or "coming of age" series where the earlier books are appropriate for younger readers but the later books are less appropriate for those same younger readers.[38] We have debated whether Harry Potter "chapter" books ("picture books" for very young readers) will be created or if the later books might even be re-written in an age-appropriate manner for the 9-12 year old readers.[39] Some members have also noted that just because a child is technically "able" to read a book doesn't mean that that the child is "ready" to absorb the plot and themes of a book. One member also noted that there should definitely be a distinction drawn between books that are "written for" children and books that are "suitable" for children. It is the belief of most of this group's members that the Harry Potter books fall into the latter category.[40]

Footnotes

1. Bolonik, Kera. "A List of Their Own." Salon.com (16 August 2000) (hereinafter cited, "Salon.com, 16 August 2000").

2. Salon.com, 16 August 2000.

3. See FAQ on J.K. Rowling. See also Yahoogroups Messages #2032, 2079 and 2463.

4. Corliss Article.

5. Yahoo Clubs Message #4981.

6. Yahoogroups Messages #15129, 15130, 15132, 15165, 15190, 15201

7. Salon.com, 16 August 2000.

8. Salon.com, 16 August 2000.

9. Salon.com, 16 August 2000.

10. Salon.com, 16 August 2000.

11. Salon.com, 16 August 2000.

12. Rose, Matthew. "A Disappearing Act From Bestsellers List Isn't Seen as Magical." The Wall Street Journal (21 August 2000) (hereinafter cited "Wall Street Journal, 21 August 2000").

13. Wall Street Journal, 21 August 2000.

14. Wall Street Journal, 21 August 2000.

15. Salon.com, 16 August 2000.

16. Corliss Article.

17. Yahoo Clubs Messages #563, 3235, 6625, 6912; Yahoogroups Messages #13646, 15132, 15201

18. Corliss, Richard. "Why 'Harry Potter' Did a Harry Houdini." Time, 22 July 2000 (hereinafter cited, "Corliss Article").

19. Corliss Article.

20. Yahoogroups Messages #730, 732.

21. Yahoo Clubs Messages #1924, 1927, 1928, 3242, 3280, 4921; Yahoogroups Messages #3231. But see Yahoo Clubs Message #3554 (there are many specialized bestseller list and the children's list may create more interest in the Harry Potter books).

22. Corliss Article.

23. Yahoo Clubs Messages #3228, 3289.

24. Bing, Jonathan. "Times a Changin' for Bestseller List." Variety (28 August 2000) (hereinafter cited, "Variety, 28 August 2000"). "With 3.2 million copies in print, it's one of the fastest-selling books in America; but the Times has no place for it. There's no paperback kid's list in the paper, and despite lobbying from Scholastic, and statistics showing that 43% of Harry Potter readers are older than 14, the Times won't track it as an adult paperback."

25. Variety, 28 August 2000; Corliss Article.

26. Corliss Article.

27. Variety, 28 August 2000.

28. Corliss Article.

29. Yahoo Clubs Message #4917.

30. Yahoogroups Message #1940.

31. Salon.com, 16 August 2000.

32. Salon.com, 16 August 2000.

33. Yahoogroups Harrypotteranonymous Message #3064. (Ebony Thomas). See also Yahoogroups Message #15132, 15201

34. See FAQ on J.K. Rowling. See also Yahoo Clubs Messages #6637, 6639, 6660; Yahoogroups Messages #732, 15132, 15201, 15609.

35. See FAQ on J.K. Rowling.

36. Yahoo Clubs Messages #4483, 4484, 6873; Yahoogroups Messages #15609.

37. Yahoo Clubs Messages #4539, 6661.

38. Yahoo Clubs Messages #4539, 6625, 6909; Yahoogroups Messages #727, 732.

39. Yahoogroups Messages #718, 721, 727, 728, 732.

40. Yahoo Clubs Messages #6455, 6504.