HP as children's book & how are they marketed?

[Amy Z]

No: HPFGUIDX 22337

B wrote:

>I do want to clarify something, though. My original post was 
> in no way meant to insinuate I think kids shouldn't read Harry 
> Potter, that they can't get anything out of it, or that they 
> shouldn't be challenged by reading. 

I think you were crystal clear, as always.
 
> I wonder how many people read HP because it was recommended to them 
> by an adult

::raises hand::  I do read books on children's recommendations, but 
that wasn't the way this one worked out.

>  her point was that by rushing into Potter, 
> they may be skipping more developmentally appropriate books, 
> especially when you consider how long it may take a younger reader 
to 
> get through a Potter book 

I'm sure she's right.  I'm just not going to lose sleep over it, as 
long as they're reading something that is worthwhile.  I missed 
thousands of terrific books because I didn't discover them until I was 
too old for them:  I never liked Beverly Cleary, e.g., even though I 
look at them now and say "what *terrific* children's books!," because 
by the time I tried them they seemed babyish to me.  Oh well--I'll 
enjoy reading them to my child instead.  There are only so many hours 
in a life, and the most voracious of readers isn't going to get to 
1/50th of the terrific books before he/she outgrows them.  

So if kids are occupied with books that are a stretch for them, 
whether it be HP or fiction classified as "adult," so be it.  If 
they're not getting anything out of those books, they'll ask for 
something else.  And if they're lucky, they'll have a thoughtful 
children's librarian like your friend to guide them to the right spot 
on the shelves.

> A friend has been reading all 
> the books to his 7 year old. When I finished GoF, I hit they phone, 
> and called to tell him it gets quite serious, and that he might want 
> to read ahead before reading aloud to Daniel.

That's probably always a good idea, but who has the time?  I have 
given the same advice to friends who are reading them to their kids.

> Because the lead characters are children, he assumed it was a 
> childrens' book.

This is what I dislike most about the whole book-marketing philosophy. 
 Why should anyone think that adults wouldn't be interested in a book 
that's from a child's point of view?  I don't know whether this idea 
is more insulting to adults or to children, but it seems as ridiculous 
as the idea that a white person wouldn't want to read _Native Son_ or 
a woman wouldn't want to read _The Brothers Karamazov_.  What are 
books for if not to enter worlds unknown?

All that said, I think PS/SS is quite definitely a children's book in 
terms of theme and presentation thereof.  CS and GF are a lot more 
emotionally complex, and PA the most so, IMO.

One more thing about the quality of children's books, since I quote 
Ursula LeGuin at every opportunity.  This is from her essay "Dreams 
Must Explain Themselves" in _The Language of the Night._  I highly 
recommend this terrific book to anyone who's interested in fantasy and 
scifi.


   "You're a juvenile writer, aren't you?"
   Yeth, Mummy.
   "I love your books--the real ones, I mean, I haven't read the ones 
for children, of course!"
   Of courthe not, Daddy.
   "It must be relaxing to write *simple* things for a change."
   Sure it's simple, writing for kids.  Just as simple as bringing 
them up.
   All you do is take all the sex out, and use little short words, and 
little dumb ideas, and don't be too scary, and make sure there's a 
happy ending.  Right?  Nothing to it.


She goes on to say that adults are more prone to read "plastic" (her 
example is Jonathan Livingston Seagull, which I agree consists of 
"little dumb ideas") and that kids see through it.  I don't share her 
confidence in children's perceptiveness, but she makes a good point 
about the kind of plastic crap adults will devour.  Most of all, I 
really appreciate that here is an adult novelist who's received all 
the adult stamps of approval (Hugo and Nebula Awards, etc.) who is 
insisting on the quality of her children's fiction and insisting that 
it be taken seriously.  As it should--it's fantastic.

>And have 
> you read Holes? 

No!  I'll add it to my must-read list.  I wonder if it's on tape, she 
muses, thinking of her 70-minute commute . . .

> The Young Adult category ranges from 13-16/17, but there aren't a 
lot 
> of YA books sold, outside of the series-type stuff. This is because 
> by the time most kids hit middle/high school, they've moved on to 
> reading adult fiction.

Now that is a shame.  There is a lot of terrific fiction that is just 
right for that age--including a lot of stuff that gets classified as 
adult fiction (e.g. I liked _The Great Gatsby_ but have never thought 
it has the kind of complexity I think of with the phrase "adult 
fiction," but that's just me).  I would put HP in YA, myself.  Sorry, 
no tomatoes, please!  I absolutely love these books, as should be 
obvious, but they don't challenge and change me the way, again, I 
expect adult fiction to do.

>  Are we (adults) actually the 
> target market?

It doesn't sound to me as if JKR had a target market at all.  Maybe 
I'm seeing her through rose-colored glasses, but from the way she 
talks about it, it sounds as if she had a story to tell and began to 
tell it, and then tried to get it published.  She has explicitly said 
that she didn't write them as children's books and that they are 
getting darker and less suitable for young children as the series 
goes.  I hope the marketing reflects this fact, but I wouldn't count 
on it.

Amy Z

-----------------------------------------------------
 Ron, who had been gazing at Harry, said, "You don't
 know how bizarre it is to see Goyle =thinking=."
                    -HP and the Chamber of Secrets
-----------------------------------------------------