Children's Lit

[David]

No: HPFGUIDX 29446

Penny, accompanied as ever by the ghost Bryce, wrote:

> 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.  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.

I have not previously entered this debate for two reasons.  First, I 
think that much of it is about definitions.  Is childrens' literature 
something which *only* children will enjoy? something written 
*mainly* for children? Something which, whoever it is written for, is 
*accessible* to children?  By definition, members of this list will 
exclude HP on the first, and I know of no member who would say HP is 
adult-only.  This reduces the argument to the middle definition.  
This in turn splits in two, depending on whether we see JKR's 
intentions as paramount (in which case the evidence is ambiguous, see 
below), or we look at the outcome and assess it.

In other words, before all jumping in and saying 'tis and 'tisn't, we 
need to decide what it is we are talking about.
> 
> But, do large numbers of adults read children's lit "just 
> because"?  

I certainly do.  I intend to read a number of childrens' (by the 
second definition!) books such as the Magician's House series and a 
pile of stuff by Diana Wynne Jones.  I am in the middle of Pullman's 
Lockhart and Garland series, another that rather defies definition 
but edges towards the teenage end.  I love books for younger 
children, like The Oxford Book of World Stories, or Martin Waddell's 
Can't You Sleep, Little Bear.  I have no evidence for this, but I'd 
say many do.  The general impression I get from OT-Chatter is that 
when people cite favourite childrens' books, it is not only memory or 
even nostalgia.
> 
> 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.

The second reason is that I have some trouble organising my thoughts 
about what is and is not to be found in HP.  I think there are some 
major things missing, and some things in them, which bear on the 
debate.

a) The alleged darkness.  They just aren't that dark. Are we going to 
see unhappy, draining marriages? Will we see Winky gradually go to 
pieces under the influence of Butterbeer?  How will Neville's parents 
be handled?  Will McGonagall commit suicide at a random point, 
because of her as-yet-concealed depression?  Will Ron drift away from 
Harry, unable to handle his fame and gifts?  I find it hard to 
summarise, but I think the darkness is all 'within' the framework JKR 
has set up - it is not 'part' of the framework.

b) related to this "they are about good and evil" (JKR, can't 
remember where or when).  I'd say that a defining characteristic in 
literature - not necessarily between children and adult, but perhaps 
between mature and immature adult - is the role of good and evil.  HP 
is hailed as a return to these themes.  There is a possibility held 
out in the books that evil might conquer good - what is not there is 
the possibility that meaninglessness, or perhaps some other system, 
will supersede good-and-evil (OT chatter question: can you have 
meaning without concepts of good and evil?).

I have no problem with adults preferring this type of literature - 
after all, I do myself - but these things taken together, to my mind, 
do put HP in a corner of the room which is pretty near the children's 
section.

Finally, JKR's intentions.

Yes, she has said those things, and doubtless she is telling the 
truth, if possibly not the whole truth.  Despite her reclusive image, 
she is a brilliant publicist.  Look how she had the entire western 
world wondering who would die in GOF.  There is no doubt her books do 
sell well with children, so naturally she will select for self-
expression those feelings and thoughts which will broaden their 
appeal outside that market.  Like Ollivander with his 'The wand 
chooses the wizard' (Molly: funny how it's always the expensive wands 
that are best at choosing; Lucius: cut the cackle and bring me the 
11" dragon heartstring in yew I ordered) she knows how to say the 
thing that draws us on and in.  AFAIK, she reserves most of her 
public appearances for children and appears to take most interest in 
that.

David