Children's Lit

[Penny & Bryce]

No: HPFGUIDX 29437

Hi --

tenpinkpiggies at hotmail.com wrote:

> 
> I think that JK. (like most Great Britainers) is painfully aware of
> class, and I, for one, think it is very impressive she doesn't gloss
> over class issues because the book is first and foremost for
> children.

Why do you believe the book (did you mean just SS or the entire series) 
is "first & foremost for children"?  Since JKR has said in numerous 
interviews that she didn't write the books for children & has no target 
audience, I'm curious why you would believe this.  Because the 
publishers market it to the 9-12 set?  Because the main characters were 
11 when the series began?  What about the fact that they'll be adults 
when it ends?  As you might guess, I don't believe HP is childrens' lit 
per se.  The author's intent was, in her own words, not to write 
childrens' lit.

Someone asked me off-list just yesterday to explain my position on the 
"is it or is it not childrens' lit" issue, and I thought of yet another 
reason why I don't believe that these books are truly childrens' lit.  I 
hope Ebony & some other folks more expert in childrens' lit than I am 
are reading this as I'd love their opinion on what I'm about to say.  It 
strikes me that adults read children's books for several reasons. 
First, many adults read childrens' books to or with their children. 
Second, educators, parents & literature students read children's 
literature as part of their professional lives or to scope out what they 
might introduce their children or students to.  Third, people pick up & 
re-read time-worn favorites from their own childhood ... nostalgia in 
other words.  But, do large numbers of adults read children's lit "just 
because"?  Am I missing any reasons why adults might pick up new (not 
books they read as a child) childrens' books?

Some adults likely did read HP because their kids wanted to read it ... 
so they read it to them or bought it to scope it out in advance of their 
kids.  But, that doesn't explain everyone.  Nostalgia doesn't work per 
se (except to the extent the HP books can be said to invoke nostalgia 
for books that bear some resemblance to HP).  After GoF was released in 
the US & the NY Times made its wretched decision (yes, that's a value 
judgment!) to relegate HP to a separate childrens' bestseller list, one 
publishing industry expert said that the sales figures for GoF were not 
those of a childrens' book.  He was obviously arguing against the 
decision of the NY Times.  But, I think he was right.

My own experience was that I had noticed the books long-standing record 
on the NY Times Bestseller List. I had no idea that they were regarded 
as "childrens' books" by some people (and incidentally, I had no idea 
they were considered fantasy). I just wanted to see "what the fuss was 
about" so to speak.

Long rambling way of saying I still don't think these are "childrens' 
books."  I also think that classification is going to have a hard time 
standing up once the next book is published (or at least by Book 6). 
The characters are aging (and JKR promises they'll age believably) and 
the tone is getting much darker.

Thoughts?

Penny