What's an adult - censorship of children's reading.

[Herald Talia]

No: HPFGUIDX 25162

Penney wrote
 > The stronger part of my
> argument, though, was that Cedric and Fleur, both of whom were over
> 17, 'of age' according to Dumbledore, were referred to in GoF
> as 'boy' and 'girl'. This doesn't argue that JKR thinks of them as
> full fledged adults; at least it doesn't seem so to me.

>Might be that she used the terms "boy" and "girl" more because they are 
>still students rather than a reflection that she still considers them to
0
>be "children."  There's also Harry's POV to consider.  He sees them as 
>students and therefore as a boy and girl rather than a man & woman.

>Jennifer K raised some points about adult supervision of childrens' 
>reading materials.  I was actually a voracious reader as a child, and I 
>read at far beyond my age level.  Like Bente, I read Gone with the Wind 
>in the 3rd grade in fact. But, I was the child of nonreaders.  My 
>parents eventually just let me read whatever I wanted, with little or no

>input from them.  Despite the fact that I am a huge reader, I'd like to 
>think that I won't censor my children's reading materials.  My arguments

>about the later volumes of HP maybe not being appropriate for younger 
>children is more to point out that I don't agree with the 
>characterization of the series as a childrens' series -- not that I am 
>in favor of censoring the material from children who are ready to read 
>it.  I just don't think that very many children will fully appreciate 
>the complexities of the later volumes ... or at least what I expect will

>be the complexities of the later volumes given GoF.  <g>  I will 
>absolutely allow my kids to read HP at whatever age they can read the 
>words, but I don't imagine that they will fully appreciate it until they

>are older.  I too read books as a child that I appreciate more *now* 
>when I re-read them.

>I think I rambled a bit above.  But, I did want to clarify that I'm 
>absolutely against censorship of reading materials.  I think it's a good

>idea for parents to be actively involved in discussing books with kids 
>(but not prohibiting them outright).

>Not sure I made any sense at all....

>Pennye

You made a lot of sense, and I agree with most of what you said.  : - )
I was a voracious reader as a child and there's no way I would have
stopped reading Harry Potter just because the series got more advanced.
But I object to this whole idea of arbitrary classification into
categories of children's literature, etc. After all,  there's a strong
history of "children's literature" containing multifaceted aspects that
make it appropriate for adults. Mother Goose is a wonderful case in
point. So are Madeline L'Engle's books. I first read them in fifth grade
and enjoyed them. I reread them in high school and then in college, and
they kept on taking on philosophical overtones that I never picked up on.
	
	As far as children's literature being about children, and adult
literature being about adults - I hope I misunderstood that part of this
conversation. Excuse me? I can think of a lot of adult literature about
children. Think "The Little Prince." Also, think Toni Morrisson's "The
Bluest Eye." The stark realism of that book is made so much more
effective BECAUSE it is portrayed, and so vividly, through the eyes of a
child. And that is NOT a book I would recommend to your average sixth
grader, though that 's the age of the characters. 
	In GoF, Fleur and Cedric are "girl" and "boy" respectively, because they
are still in school. Like the recent NY Little League scandal, they would
not be eligible to compete if they were legally adult. But so what, even
if they are?  Older, more capable students, even students who seem on the
cusp of adulthood, seems to be something many children can relate to. I
remember a scene from some movie, nothing important, where the
protagonist was going to fight the prototypical school yard bully, a
fourteen year old, and he said "Of course I'm scared of him. He has pubic
hair."
	As far as censorship goes - I will monitor my daughter's reading
carefully. However, if she is a serious reader, she'll get around that,
and it will be fine. I'm speaking from the vantage point of a serious
reader. I read Great Expectations in sixth grade and did a book report on
it. My teacher was convinced it was plagiarism (although there was no
Internet around yet to assume I downloaded the paper) I told her to test
me on any aspect of the book, at which point she confessed she hadn't
read it..........................
	A serious reader will grow, or reach up, and follow the book. A less
serious reader will read for the action only, and still get the main
points, the excitement and all the frills. Hopefully, the intelligent
less capable reader will reread the books again in adulthood. (I
certainly reread Anna Karenina, which I read in seventh grade. I was
kinda innocent, and I missed some of the, shall we say, finer points...)
A really serious reader knows when she is out of her depth, and forges on
anyway - that's how you create depth. I'm glad the books are going to get
more challenging. The incentive of "the magic of Harry Potter" may serve
to get some average readers to stretch their mental muscles a bit. That
can only be a good thing. 
Robyn