[HPforGrownups] On the Classification of Age Ranges in Literature

[Jennifer Boggess Ramon]

No: HPFGUIDX 32607

At 6:10 PM +0000 1/2/02, caliburncy wrote:
>
>NOTE: Throughout this entire post, especially the essay at the
>bottom, I will use "children's book/literature" to also include
>(without distinction) those books that are considered YA (Young
>Adult), simply because this is most efficacious and seems to be in
>keeping with the way previous discussion here has treated these terms.

Hmm.  I'm not sure I agree with this, partly beacuse my solution to 
the whole thing would be to wave my magic wand and put the whole 
series firmly in the Young Adult category, with the caveat that the 
first two books are certainly readable and enjoyable by older 
children as well.

Please note that a book's being in the YA category does not mean that 
adults won't enjoy it.  Indeed, YA is a "fudge" category for things 
that are Too Long, Intense, and Wordy For Small Children But Don't 
Have Explicit Sex In Them, in large part.  There's a lovely little 
book, _Tangerine_, by Bloor, with a middle-school protagonist. 
Different bookstores have incredible trouble deciding whether the 
book is children's lit or YA; it's often double-shelved.  I have a 
B.A. in English from a reasonable university and I enjoyed it very 
much, thank you.  Ditto for quite a lot of YA books.  A number of 
bookstores around here solve the problem of where to shelve the HP 
books by either double-shelving them or giving them an island display 
of their own.

>In order for something to be a *reason*, it must be more than simply
>statistically supported: it must show INHERENCY.

I don't think you'll find _any_ standards that consistently meet that 
criterion.  In particular, I think I can find exceptions to your 
criterion 5 below, which reduces it also to merely statistical 
significance.

>First off, I would like to make the point that all classification
>regarding creative works is ultimately an act of folly.

I think this is the important point, here.

>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, to an extent, these serve as a constellation of "standards," 
any one of which can override the others in a given situation.  For 
example: a book which meets standards 1, 3, 4, and 5 but has an 
explicit sex scene, even one seen through a child's innocent eyes, 
isn't going to be categorized as a children's book because of 
standard 2.

If we take standard 5 as the "real" one, then _Ender's Game_ and 
_Huckleberry Finn_, which are also both Bildungsromans, are also 
children's books.  I don't think either one is; in particular, I 
think Huck Finn fails standards 1, 2, and 3 hard enough to not be 
children's lit no metter what the theme is.

I also think claiming that "growing up" isn't a relevant theme for an 
adult book is silly, to be blunt.  How many of us really feel we're 
"grown up"?  I've never finished growing, at least mentally and 
emotionally, and I hope I never do.

Personally, I'm willing to take the author's word for it when it's 
available.  I'm also not sure why standard 1's only being bounded on 
one side is a problem, although it does make the "intended age" for 
Faulkner a little problematic.

Note also that criterion 5 fails utterly for nonfiction . . .


>Notice she says in the Houston Chronicle:

Speaking as a Houstonian, I'd be wary of trying to make a lit crit 
point by quoting anything at all they say.  ;)

-- 
  - Boggles, aka J. C. B. Ramon			boggles at earthlink.net
=== Personal Growth Geek Code v0.4 ===
GG++ !T A-- M++s--- g+ B- C- P++++ a- b- h+ her++ E+ N n++ i f+
c++ S%++++&&># D R++ xc++ xm+ xi+ yd++ ys++(-) rt+ ro+ rp++++ rjk<+
ow+++ ofn+ oft++ op++ esk-- ey+ ek+++ pl++ pf++ pe++ U!