On the Classification of Age Ranges in Literature

[Penny & Bryce]

No: HPFGUIDX 32573

Hi --

Ah, a topic I always enjoy!  I'm supposed to be working (:::cough, 
Nancy, yes, I'm working on it:::) but ...

cindysphynx wrote:

> 
> But here is a question for everyone, to which Luke alluded to in his
> excellent essay.  Why do we collectively spend so much time debating
> this issue?  If the NY Times hadn't yanked HP off of the main best
> seller list, would we still care?  I always wonder about that as I
> type out my long boring posts on the subject.

I agree with Cindy: excellent essay, Luke!  And I still like you too.  <g>

As for the "why do we care" question: well, first I cared because of the 
NY Times.  Their decision to yank the books from the bestseller list 
made me really angry.  I also tend to react poorly to snidey academic 
types who take a condescending view of the books, strictly because they 
are supposedly "just childrens' books" and/or because of their mass 
popular appeal.  That sits badly with me.  <g>  I also must say that I 
tend to care about this topic because it bothers me that people 
short-sell JKR and the series as a whole by saying, "Well, they *are* 
after all *just* childrens' books; therefore, you won't see [xxxxx]."

That's, I'm afraid, one reason I disagree with Pippin's assessment that 
WB and/or Bloomsbury would have asked questions about the grand finale: 
to be assured that the child audience(s) wouldn't be disappointed.  I 
will note as a sidenote that insofar as I know WB only has the rights to 
the first 2 films (that's the last official pronouncement I've seen).  I 
believe JKR wanted to see what they did with the first film before 
negotiating the rights to the further books, esp. the as-yet published 
ones.  However, since Kloves is reportedly hard at work on a screenplay 
for PoA, it is possible that this has changed.  In any case, I don't 
think that WB (and certainly not Bloomsbury) conditioned their rights in 
the wildly-popular HP franchise on knowing that the ending would be 
happy.  Bloomsbury for sure wouldn't have done this because they simply 
agreed to publish the first book, not knowing really how well it might 
or might not do (so there'd have been no reason to see where JKR was 
headed...right?).  WB more possibly might have had some questions, but 
then again, they might have just been happy to secure the rights to the 
wildly popular franchise since there were other studios in negotiations. 
  If the books end in a way that disappoints the children the world over 
& they think this will cause the final film(s) to be box office failures 
(yeah, right), they don't have to make the final films after all.  JMHO 
though.

Back to literature:


> I am having a bit of trouble with the framework for this analysis.  I
> think a children's book (age up to 12) is very different from a YA
> book (teens).  It doesn't have to be, but it often is.  I'll admit
> that the whole age debate really is a continuum, so the line between
> children's books and YA books can get blurry.

I think one of my problems with classing the books as YA is that I think 
the YA classification is just silly.  By the time a kid reaches age 13, 
he is probably not going to be caught dead anywhere near the childrens' 
section if he is a reader, and the YA section is always part of the 
childrens' sections.  Maybe part of my problem too is that I skipped 
into adult fiction at a very early age.  I was probably reading adult 
stuff pretty exclusively well before age 13.

I wasn't entirely sure what gets classed as YA these days so I did a 
quick perusal of Amazon's offerings.  Here's the deal: back when I was a 
teen, a good bit of what is now called YA was shelved in the adult 
sections of bookstores (Forever by Blume, Flowers for Algernon, A 
Separate Peace, Catcher in the Rye, etc.).  I know.  I worked at 
Waldenbooks all through high school.  YA must not have really existed 
per se when I was a teen.

So ... I'm a bit prejudiced against the entire YA concept.

> Luke again:
> 
>  > The possible standards that I thought of are:
>  >
>  > 1) Readability and complexity of syntax
>  > 2) Appropriateness of content
>  > 3) Author's intention
>  > 4) Worldview and thematic complexity
>  > 5) Thematic relevancy
>  >
> 

> I think I would apply these standards a bit differently, though.  For
> instance, I think that Luke is correct that using readability alone
> makes a poor determinant of what is children's literature.  Same
> thing for author's intent and content.
> 
> Where I differ, I think, is in the application of the standard.  I
> wouldn't automatically allow Thematic Relevance to outweigh the other
> four.  Instead, I would probably use certain combinations of
> standards as determinative and then, in close cases, I would resort
> to reliance on Thematic Relevance as the tiebreaker.

Agreed.  Author's intention can be more important I think than Luke 
gives it credit for; however, I take his point that it's not crystal 
clear what JKR's intent was or is.  I think it's possible too that she 
would view her earlier books differently than the series as a whole or 
the later books individually.  She seems to have the idea that she's 
writing for an aging audience.  But, I've pointed out before what I 
think the flaw with that philosophy is: at some point in say 2010, my 
then 9 yr old daughter will be able to pick up all 7 HP books and read 
them one after another if she wants (and if I okay it).  It's safe to 
say it probably won't take her 8 yrs to accomplish this task.  <g>  So, 
you no longer have the cushion of burgeoning maturity as the books 
progress.  See?

> 
> As I've said before (but clearly said very badly in my post about a
> tragic ending for HP), I think the series will probably be viewed as
> an adult series overall:
> 
> PS/SS = children's book
> CoS = children's book
> PoA = YA (I think PoA is YA because kids can read and enjoy it, but I
> think they'll understand it in only the most superficial way)
> GoF = adult
> Books 5, 6, 7 = probably adult based on the trend so far and on what
> JKR has said she intends to do

I agree with this as a likely outcome.


> Assuming that the last three books are written like GoF, I think it
> is a tough sell to say that the series overall is a children's
> series.  I think that four of the seven books will be adult books, so
> if we have to pull the trigger and make a decision, I would classify
> the entire series as adult because most of it is.  If we look only at
> the books to date, then I'd say they are predominately children's
> books (with a nasty shock in GoF for those expecting a children's
> book).  So my verdict is that we've all been enjoying children's
> books, but the adults on this list will all be vindicated when the
> final three books are released.

Ah, bravo!  Yes, my point exactly.  It's not so much that I'd argue for 
PS/SS being regarded as adult fiction.  I just think the series is 
definitely trending toward adult (I might concede YA if I believed in YA 
but since I don't recognize it as a legitimate classification, I'll say 
adult).  It's also hard to say precisely where JKR is going ... but I 
think it's reasonably clear from her interviews that it would be hard 
for her to back-pedal & suddenly go back to a PS/SS innocence.  I think 
Harry et al are on a slope toward adulthood, and the books are as well. 
  I also think it's just going to be plain silly for the NY Times & 
people to be talking about these books as "kids' books" when Harry is 
16/17 in the 6th book and 17/18 in the final one.  Maybe it's just me 
though.  And, most importantly, I think the broad unprecedented 
cross-appeal of the series negates any attempt to throw these books into 
any particular classification really (which I think was Luke's overall 
point perhaps).

Penny