Harry Potter not a children's book?

[caliburncy at yahoo.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 23759

This was an interesting post for me to read (quoted at the very end), 
because I have always agreed that the Harry Potter books are more 
children's books than adult's (irregardless of the fact that JKR wrote 
them with herself in mind), but I found the reasoning stated here to 
be very, very strange.

As Natalie points out with a very extensive list, purely evil 
(one-dimensional) villains are extraordinarily common in children's 
fantasy.  I might almost go so far as to say that they are a defining 
factor . . . but I won't.  Children's books are characteristically 
black and white like this probably because we underestimate our 
children's ability to comprehend those more complex shades of gray.  I 
imagine that we must be afraid that if they see a truly Shakespearean 
(three-dimensional) villain they will identify with him/her *too* 
much.  I think this is nonsense, but it seems to be the prevailing 
school of thought: just ask Disney.  So really, I'd say the existence 
of Voldemort is an argument in favor of HP being a children's book.  
The existence of those other characters who are not purely evil 
(Pettigrew, Lucius, or whoever) would be more of an argument for an 
adult book.  Although I don't think it's a very strong one as even 
these characters lie somewhere inbetween purely evil and 
Shakespearean.  For convenience of a term, I'd call them 
two-dimensional.

Seriously though, think about the books you read in high school and/or 
college for English class.  If these books even had anyone at all that 
was non-ambiguous enough to be coined 'villain' than they were surely 
a three-dimensional one.  Consider some of these books for a VERY 
short list because I'm having a terrible case of mental block: Julius 
Caesar, Heart of Darkness, Richard III, etc. (there are many more 
examples from Shakespeare besides those two, of course, as that's why 
the term "Shakespearean villain" came about).  Villains that we can 
identify with, understand their twisted motivations, and pity for 
their misguided ways: these are the stuff of adult literature more 
than children's.  It is also the realm of the anti-hero (e.g. in books 
like Lolita, Notes from the Underground, etc.), lending more kindling 
to the fire of ethical ambiguity.  When an adult book has a "perfectly 
evil" or "perfectly good" character it is disregarded by many as 
melodrama.

This is, in fact, one of the only things I don't like about fantasy, 
although I am nevertheless an avid fan.  I hate the way that the 
villains are so one-dimensional.  The main characters are usually 
three-dimensional, though that certainly doesn't make them 
anti-heroes.  But the villains are unrealisitic in a way that, even in 
fantasy, ought to not be so.

I've done such a bad job of explaining this and have more to say, but 
I feel I should stop.  Perhaps I'll revisit this later.

Before I stop though I should say that I do agree with the points 
about morality being an indicator that it might be a children's book. 
 Much of adult literature is frequently less direct in the way it 
approaches moral issues than childen's books because adults are quick 
to feel like they're getting preached to.  So instead it comes in the 
form of philosophical ponderings, the aforementioned ethical 
ambiguity, and concealed social commentary.  The HP books, like most 
children's fiction, really only strongly contains the latter of these: 
concealed social commentary.  But it also features some more direct 
platitudes than you would be able to get away with in some "adult 
literary" circles.  Not that one way is better or worse than the 
other.  I really think there's value in both.

-Luke

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Sofie " <sofie_elisabeth at y...> wrote:
> I know many of you have argued time and time again that the Harry 
> Potter books weren't originally aimed at children however I'd like 
to 
> point out some things that suggest to the contray.
> 
> My main point is the characters. Apart from Voldemort, not a single 
> character could be described as entirely evil. Even Peter Pettigrew, 
> betrayer of his friends, was once good. He can't have always been 
> what he is now, otherwise good people like Remus, Sirius, James and 
> Lily would not have been his friends. Even lucius Malfoy, who is not 
> somebody I'd like to be enemies with has one redeeming quality. I do 
> believe that he does genuinely care about his son. He may not show 
it 
> obviously but the way he kicked up a fuss about Buckbeak biting 
Draco 
> indicated his feelings to me. Yes he did get carried away with 
> getting Buckbeak executed but if someone or something hurts your 
> child your first instinct is to hurt it back. Anyway back to my 
> point, Voldemort is the only one who could be described as entirely 
> evil and he is a monster not human. All the other human characters 
> have redeeming features. I believe this was so children don't get to 
> scared by the books. Revealing that people can be evil to young 
> children is never a good idea. The result of this is world-weary 
> cynical children who don't know how to trust. The discovery of 
purely 
> evil people should not be made until well into your teenage years if 
> not as an adult. JKR is a mother who reads Harry Potter to her 
child, 
> I don't think she could bear to subject Jessica to that knowledge.
> 
> My second, not as well thought out point is the morals behind the 
> books. My main example of this will be CoS. This book brings up the 
> issue of racism; pure-bloods,half-bloods and muggle-borns replace 
> White, half-caste (I hate this term but couldn't think of a better 
> one) and black. It also looks at how appearances can be decieving, 
> Lockhart and Tom Riddle. How many of you guessed that these 
> characters were not nice people before the end of the book? I think 
> these parallels are there to teach children though they might not 
> realise it about how society works.
> 
> Anways that's my thoughts, I'm not saying that the books can't 
appeal 
> to Adults and that JKR didn't put in little references for adults 
but 
> I think that originally JKR wrote these books for children and that 
> in the end good will triumph over evil. And I think that because 
> Joanne Rowling doesn't want to disillousian (I'm sorry for my 
> appalling spelling but I have a complete block on how to spell that 
> word!)any children.
> 
> Sofie.