Readability (was a really long multi-subject header)

[caliburncy at yahoo.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 27345

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., jonathandupont at h... wrote:
> On the different POVs subject - can I just say that I think that the 
> first chapter of GOF was the worst in the book, and that I honestly 
> think including different POVs in future books would be a BIG 
> mistake.

Of course you can just say that.  I tend to personally disagree with 
the first comment, that Chapter One of GOF was the worst in the book, 
and I remain undecided on the second comment, whether future POV 
shifts would be a mistake, because I don't have access to the plot of 
future books in order to see what POV(s) it necessitates.  But of 
course you can just say that.

> The strength of the series is its easy readability - and an awful 
> lot of that hinges on the single viewpoint (as well as its almost 
> complete lack of decription, but thats another matter). Its also why 
> IMO HP is a childrens book - but I don't care, I like the series 
> this way.

Hmm . . . I hold the seemingly unpopular view around here that the HP 
books ARE primarily children's fantasy.  But I don't think that its 
easy readability is proof of this, and I think that's an 
overgeneralization of children's literature, though it seems at first 
quite logical.  Treasure Island is a widely-acknowledged children's 
book, but its prose style is *not* easy to read for children.  Of 
course, its target range is older than the (alleged and, IMO, a tiny 
bit too low) target age for the HP books.  But nevertheless the prose 
of Treasure Island is much more structurally complex than some other 
books designed for adult readers, such as John Grisham or Michael 
Crichton.

Understandability is not, to me, the defining factor in a book's age 
range.  If there is such a thing as a defining factor, I'd say it 
would be better considered to be target audience where the book's 
*themes* are concerned.

For example, consider a book with themes about growing up.  If the 
themes are designed to help children at that age to understand their 
own growing up, it's a children's book.  If the themes are designed to 
be a nostalgic look at what it was like to grow up, it's an adult 
book.  This does not mean an adult or child cannot find worth in the 
other kind of book, of course.  Most adults I know could still stand 
to learn some of the lessons that children's literature strives to 
teach.  And even if they have truly learned these things, they can 
still appreciate the wisdom of them.  And if an adult book is 
entertaining enough or the kid mature enough, a kid might enjoy it, 
despite not being part of the target audience.

Also, what you consider to be the "lack of description" in HP is more 
a reflection on the times than it is on the age range.  Modern day 
books are generally not as weighty on exposition or description as 
18th/19th century literature was.  Consider it a counter-reaction to 
what people now perceive as the "bloated" nature of that kind of 
writing.  You could do it then, but you can't do it now, if for no 
other reason than because the expectation of the reader is different. 
 The reader knows that he/she is getting him/herself into a more 
heavily expository read when he/she picks up an 18th/19th century 
novel.  But he/she would not be as accepting of the same style of 
writing in a modern novel.  Sometime in the next generation, we will 
probably cycle back to preferring that same kind of "bloated" writing 
in our current books.  HP is therefore not completely lacking in 
description, it is just much more selective in its detail.  And this 
is not what makes it a children's book, because most modern day adult 
literature is the same way.

I also don't personally think that THE strength of HP is its easy 
readability or that switching POVs inherently obstructs easy 
readability--but those are other discussions entirely.

-Luke, the 'suddenly being very picky' guy