[HPforGrownups] Re: Potterverse Coherence

[Penny Linsenmayer]

No: HPFGUIDX 38860

Hi --

James said:

<<<There are two simple points I would like to raise with the issue of 
coherence in the Potterverse.

Firstly the books are meant for children.  <large snip>  

Secondly, the main characters ARE children.>>>>>>

[sounds of everyone groaning, "Oh no!  We were hoping Penny wouldn't notice this one.  Here she goes again....<g>]

[sounds of soapbox being dragged out from underneath the desk ...]

The books are not, IMO, "meant" for children.  They have a protagonist who is a child when the series begins.  Harry and his friends will be adults (or late-term adolescents if you're unable to stomach the notion that 17/18 yr olds are adults) at the end of the series (if they survive).  The books have so far been marketed to children, but I think even the publishers have now realized that this series has unprecedented cross-generational appeal.  I also think that the publishers are going to have a very, very hard time marketing OOP to the "9-12" yr old set.  I know JKR has said that the books will still be "appropriate" for children in that age group ..... but there's a difference between "appropriate for" and "intended for."  She has been quite clear that she has no intention of "toning it down" or otherwise deviating from her master plan for the sake of younger readers.  So, the NY Times notwithstanding, I think the series will in the end be viewed as a hybrid (with the earliest 2 volumes remaining classed as "9-12" and PoA and GoF maybe as "young adult" -- the last 3 more just general fantasy perhaps).  One does wonder how the publishers believe it's going to be possible to continue slotting the books as "9-12" when JKR has promised realistically aging characters who will be adults at the end of the series.   :::shakes head::::

As you note, James, JKR's style is not patronizing to the child readers.  That's why I think it would be wrong to explain away the inconsistencies or problems within the series on the grounds that they are "just children's books."  I also think this approach is unnecessarily critical of childrens' literature as a whole.  As I said above, I don't really think the HP books will, in the final analysis, be classed as "childrens' books," but even if they are, they should still be able to withstand scrutiny and criticism.  I have lots of reasons why I believe the books don't fall into the childrens' literature classification (anyone who wants to check the message archives will finds lots on this topic off & on over the last couple of years) ... but it's not because I don't think childrens' literature is an inferior art form.      

I do have some thoughts on David's post about coherence within the series -- I do think she has a "master plan" David.  But I may not have time to set out my thoughts until later today.  

Penny


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]