Not A Children's Book (was: Re: Introducing myself to the board)

[Nick Mitchell]

No: HPFGUIDX 5250

Hi Zsenya, welcome.

> I have to say initially however, that I have a decided feeling about
> the whole series and that is that they are first and foremost
> children's literature.

Oh I disagree... they are more than that.  They are family enjoyment books -
can be read by people, be they 8, or 80.

>It's not that I think that they are not "real" literature, what I mean is
that I think no matter how dark or serious books 5 - 7 get, JK Rowling is
always writing for a certain target audience, and that audience is not 28
years old like I am.

Correct... she's writing for herself, and she is older than you.
Jo writes things that she likes to read.  Thus there is comedy in the books,
it's not all serious, it's fun and games.

>Well, you may get some sharp disagreement on this one -- one of your
listmoms in particular (me!) would take issue with that.

And don't forget me Penny.  The problem is, is that there is no category for
the books.  Unlike TV, which has Childrens, Family, and Adult - books are
just Children's or Adults... there is not really a FAMILY grouping.    Maybe
the NEW YORK TIMES could do a new bestseller list, for FAMILY books.

>JKR herself has said in countless interviews that she didn't write to a
target audience of children, she didn't realize PS/SS was a "children's
book" until much later,

And it's unknown if this decision was before or after the publisher got
involved - I suspect after!

>she always felt the books were appropriate for children of certain ages but
not targeted at them and most importantly,
>she has said that she wrote the books as something she (an adult when she
wrote them) would enjoy.

She's always going to be a adult... isn't she?  Jo can't magic herself back
to being a child as far as I know.

>So, she's always maintained that she's not surprised by the large adult
following.  She's also refused to "tone
>down" the books for her younger readers -- if they were truly being
targeted at 9-12 yr olds, she would probably feel compelled to tone them
down.

And make them shorter - it must be remembered that children's books are
under 40,000 words in length.  Thus why Jo found it hard to get a
publisher... PS/SS is longer than a children's book.

>That in mind, although the books are amazingly intricate and complex, they
are also in many ways (I think) quite straightforward.

I think there are different levels to the books.  You can read the book once
and get the gist of the story... but then you read it again and you pick up
on more of the detail... the comedy, and you see how something in an early
chapter is vital to something later on.

>Well, all I can say is: we debate & theorize *alot* in this group (i.e.,
most all of us wouldn't necessarily think the books are
>"straightforward" at all really).

We do get a bit complex at times... and idea is put forward, it's taken up,
and before you know it - we have a timeline of all the events dating back to
the 18th century.   Sometimes we get carried away... but that's the way we
are.

>I guess if you've been lurking for awhile you've probably gleaned that
already.  But, we have had some
>members who really thought that we were "going overboard" -- the depth of
analysis was a bit of a shock for them.  <g>

And some don't like us picking holes in the books - but hey, that's what a
true fan does - even Terry Pratchet fans pick holes in his books.

>> Hermione
>>
>> I love Hermione.  I don't consider her to be a braggart at all. I was
>> a "smart" child myself.  More than that, I was book smart rather that
>> overly naturally smart, which is I think Hermione's situation as
>> well.
>
>Yay!  Another Hermione fan!!  :--)

Hermione is great... and strange, but true, she's based on Jo.

>Again, welcome to our group!

Yes... big welcome - expect your inbox to be full on daily basis!

Nick.