HP/children's literature

[bbennett at joymail.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 25052

- In HPforGrownups at y..., Bente13 at p... wrote:

> I thought "Lord of the Flies" was a children's book...? (And yes, 
I've read it. At school, at 11 or so.)>

Although some consider Lord of the Flies a young adult book, I think 
most consider it an adult novel. I asked a children's librarian 
what she thought, and she said maybe she could buy that it's YA, but 
that it's definitely not a children's novel. 11 is quite young to 
have been assigned such a book; I didn't get it until high school.

< The problem seems to lie in our perception of what a children's 
book is.

Definitely. 

>If it has to have a simple storyline, card-board one dimensional 
characters, easy language, etc., then, no, the Potter books are not 
children's books. They're certainly better crafted, in language, 
plotting and characterization, than most children's books are, but 
that doesn't mean they're not children's books; it's just means 
they're *better* children's books.>

You're not reading the right children's books! There's some 
brilliant children's lit out there  - Holes (one of the best books 
I've ever picked up), all of Sharon Creech's work, 'Getting Near to 
Baby', just about every Newbery award winner ever... I think it takes 
more to turn out a well written children's book than a well written 
adult book, because a children's novel not only has to have wonderful 
characters and a good plot (all the things an adult novel needs), it 
has to be clear and concise enough to be understood by the target 
audience. Actually, the 'concise' thing is one part of part of why I 
don't think the Potter books can be classified as "children's books" -
at 700 pages, GoF is longer than a lot of "adult" novels.

I'm not arguing that HP shouldn't be read by children - far from it!  
I think the first book is excellent for readers starting around age 
9 - but range that through adult, and consider increasing 'starting' 
the age some with each progressive book. This has nothing to do with 
the age of the characters, the amount of violence in the books, or if 
children's literature is "good enough" to be enjoyed by adults, but 
everything to do with the complexity of the series. The above books I 
mentioned are excellent, and are written to be fully comprehended by 
most of the people in their target audience (again, 8 or 9 - 12, 
although some may consider Holes YA). While Harry Potter can be read 
and enjoyed by people of all ages, the increasingly complicated 
subplots are not going to be *fully comprehended* by most people 
between the ages 9-12. And as the characters age, the situations are 
growing increasingly complex. A lot of the children who are now 
reading the HP series will read them in 10 years and interpret them 
differently. This is great, but I also think it's telling that these 
aren't expressly children's novels. The average 9-12 
year old can read Sharon Creech's 'Walk Two Moons' and fully 
understand the writer's intentions. My age may allow me to appreciate 
this book a little differently that a younger reader, but I'm not 
interpreting it on a different level or understanding 
something the younger reader isn't. This isn't the case with Harry 
Potter - or with Philip Pullman's series, or I'd even argue with The 
Chronicles of Narnia. Just because a book features young characters 
or can teach something to/be read by /be enjoyed by/ a young reader 
doesn't make it a children's book. 

This isn't meant as ageism - to say that children are incapable or 
that children's literature isn't worthy reading. There are brilliant 
works of children's literature out there that adults could be getting 
a lot of and aren't because they somehow think they couldn't possibly 
learn anything from something written for a young reader to 
comprehend. Their loss, IMO. And there are of course many young 
readers who fully understand literature written above their age 
group. But again, this doesn't make these works children's novels. 

Penny added several points to this discussion in message 22500. 

> They're what all children's books should be, but unfortunately 
aren't. But this is one of those issues we'll just have to agree to 
disagree on, I expect...>

Again, check out the children's section of your library. You're 
missing out on some great stuff.

Best,
B