Kiddiefic reprise

[bbennett at joymail.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 25274

Of course this discussion both hits full swing and winds down on the 
day my computer misbehaves :*). 

Penny: 

> My argument is that GoF crosses the line for sure into adult 
literature, and the latter 3 books promise to go even further. So ... 
how to categorize the *series*. Is it a "childrens' series" just 
because Harry was 11 when it all started? Seems short-sighted to me. >

<Cheers Penny> You can pretty much add a "ditto" for me on this. 

Tabouli:

<I will bravely come out and say that I *do* see HP as children's 
books, and that this is NOT by any means a slur on them. They are 
well-written, sophisticated children's books, so much so that they 
appeal to adults as well, even those who refuse to identify the books 
as such because they have patronising assumptions about the genre.>

I don't refuse to identify the HP books as solely for children 
because I have patronizing ideas about children's literature. My 
point remains this - I believe a well-written children's book should 
be fully *comprehensible* at the average young reader's level. If 
this criteria is not met, I don't think the book can be classified as 
strictly children's lit, and I don't believe Harry Potter meets this 
criteria. This is in no way a criticism of children's literature or a 
criticism of the Harry Potter books - nor am I saying children 
shouldn't read Potter OR any other literature they might not fully 
understand until they're a bit older (believe me, I'm an equal 
opportunity book pusher :*). Many people on this list have agreed 
that they believe some of the more complicated plot aspects of Harry 
Potter will not be fully understood until the reader is older, and I 
think we can expect the complexity of the series will increase as the 
books progress. There are other points that can be debated (does the 
age of characters have anything to do with classification, length of 
text, what audience does the book appeal to, etc.), but I see them as
secondary to the "yes or no - is this book completely understandable 
by a young reader?" question. 

And while I understand and may agree to a certain extent with the 
argument that books are categorized by how they are marketed, this 
doesn't change how well a book will or won't be understood by the 
general reader in the audience to which it is marketed. Mark Twain 
believed Tom Sawyer should be marketed to adults, but was convinced 
it would sell well to children, which it did. But the fact it was 
marketed to children or that it features a child doesn't make it 
solely children's literature. I'll use Sharon Creech as an example 
again - she is a brilliant author, and her books are written to be 
fully comprehended by the average young reader. I also consider JK 
Rowling a brilliant writer, but if there are aspects of her 
books that aren't (and won't be, as the series progresses) fully 
understood by the average young reader, then how can those books 
strictly fit in the same category as Creech's books (i.e. to say that 
they are fully understood by the average reader under 12)? If 
Creech's books are "children's books", then Rowling's at the very 
least should be "children through adult books". 

This is also why I don't think the HP books should be left off the 
general NY Times Best Seller List. 

OK, I'll shut up now! But come on, you have to admit this has been an 
interesting topic :*).

Best,
B