They are children's books (Was: the heart of it all)

[feetmadeofclay]

No: HPFGUIDX 81857

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Amanda Geist" <editor at t...> 
wrote:
> > Golly: They are children's books.  And children's books have 
beloved
> > characters that die all the time.
> 
> Amanda: They were and are not written for children. They were 
written to express
> someone's vision, to tell a story.


Golly: I'm sorry but I don't believe that one bit.  Every decent 
children's writer aims to tell a good story and express a vision.  
That is what being creative is about. Are children's authors less 
creative or inferior storytellers?   I read a lot of children's 
literature.  I've been around the industry for a long while and HP 
though very good is not highly unusual.  There are many books that 
are very similar and just as good.  It doesn't make them any less 
aimed at children.  

The first book was perfectly suited for children 8-11 (depending on 
reading skill).  I read books for that age group all the time and 
enjoy many of them. HP is hardly unsual in any respect.  It is 
delightful and skillfully achieved. OOTP was probably written for 13-
15 year olds. 

Rowling's recent offering certainly does not have the emotional or 
literary sophistication of Orwell or Kafka or even Atwood, which 
would probably be beyond the reading abilities of many (but not all) 
of that age group.

Plus OOTP combines serious political dystopia themes with the 
everyday lives of children.  A common tac for children's novelists 
with a political bent. Rowling is not the first to bring in issues 
like prejudice and bad adult administration.

Many children's writers write stories that are just as challanging 
and just as dark, if not more so. (Though one is certainly free to 
think Rowling does it better.)

If you don't think so, then you aren't reading the same children's 
books I do.  If all that you see are those books you haven't read 
since you were 11 and Mary Kate and Ashley books or Goosebumps, then 
you don't see the range of children's literature out there.

It is a thriving and vibrant genre. It is a real talent to write for 
children and teenagers specifically.  Sometimes a good story will 
enthrall all.  

But to paraphrase Neil Gaiman - Rowling isn't revolutionizing the 
genre. Perhaps she is changing the way people look at the genre.  But 
apparently not, since many adults still refuse to admit they are 
reading children's novel.  

Too bad you're embarrassed to like a children's/Young Adult book, but 
I'm not.  Nor am I embarrassed to like the others that I do.  

> 
> It was the marketing department of the publisher that chose to 
market to
> children, and who made the (to me, ridiculous) decision to 
have "adult" and
> "child" versions of the *exact same story* with different covers.

Golly: They aren't different versions.  There are different covers.  
The reason they have adult and child covers is no different from the 
reason the covers vary from country to country or decade to decade.  
Different groups like different images.  It is all about marketing.  
The books have not changed.  The only English textual differences are 
between the American and British versions.  The adult covers are for 
image conscious adults who were too embarrassed to read a children's 
book in public. (Or those who just think they are nicer - which I 
won't disagree with.  Had I been sure the adult cover was the British 
version I would probably have bought that.) 

  You're only a reading child for about 15 years.  There are lots of 
books that I never read in that time and lots that were not published 
when I was young.  I would miss out on so many great stories if I was 
too embarrassed to read children's literature.  

But I do admit to liking the paperback adult Potter covers better. 
The photographs are nice. That may only be because I think Grand Pere 
is such a terrible illustrator.  

> In fact, I will be interested to see how the releases of Books 6 
and 7 are
> handled; to me, at least, the frantic child-focused activity seemed 
on the
> edge of inappropriate for Book 5. I think subsequent books will 
take the
> story out of the realm where stuffed owls, paper wizard hats, 
getting
> "sorted," and making wands are appropriate marketing tools. 

Golly: Why do you denegrate that which so many fell in love with the 
first time around.  Rowling put in what you call "marketing tools".  
They were a part of this creation.  They were what readers of all 
ages enjoyed. I enjoyed the jolly sorting and the little details.  I 
enjoyed watching Harry struggle at his lessons and learning what was 
in a wand.   

I feel no need to denegrate what has come before. If you like the 
more serious stuff better, then so be it.  The series is more 
interesting to you as it goes on.  But it isn't any more serious than 
many of Garner, Zindel, or LeGuin's books. 

It is only natural that as Harry grows to know his world that it will 
seem less fantastical to the reader and Harry and that Harry's 
understanding of his surroundings would deepen.  


>I think that the
> ads with the biker and the businesswoman are far more appropos, at 
this
> point.
> 
> It is a fact that the earlier books appealed to children. But to 
classify
> the entire sequence--with two unread, even--as "children's books" 
is to
> place artificial measures on a continuum.


Golly: Now that the publishing company understands adults like HP, of 
course it will be marketed to them.  Adults also love Toy Story, 
Little Nemo.  They are still meant for children.  

Harry is now meant to mirror the supposed angry teen years.  And so 
he is angry.  The book is meant for 15 year olds.  It parallels many 
themes and conventions of the typical Young Adult novel. It is 
darker.  It is more politically involved.  It deals with issues of 
self-doubt and personal success. These are common Young Adult 
themes.  

> 
> I have chosen to be guided by the author, who has said no; she 
didn't write
> them for children (although she is delighted at their response). 
She wrote
> them to tell a story.

GOLLY: Sorry but, BULL!  By saying this you denegrate all the 
wonderful writers who say the exact same thing and are proud to admit 
they are children's authors.  Rowling admits that HP are children's 
books. She simply said she doesn't write from a frame of mind where 
she writes what she thinks kids would like.  She is writing a story 
that excited her.  As do all authors.  

Children's novels are not like the stories found in school 
textbooks. "Jane and spot went for a walk" and such stuff. Many are 
vibrant wonderful stories. If you ask how most children's novelists 
write, most will say they don't aim to write stuff that kids will 
enjoy.  They want to write their own stories, but they add an 
attention to the understanding and abilities of their targeted age 
group. HP has a range of age groups hovering around Potter's age, 
which increases.  

Some writers always write for children while others write for both 
adults and children.  There is nothing weak or less serious or less 
interesting about writing for children. It is a real skill.  

What Rowling has said is no different than what every good children's 
author I have seen says. To write a whole novel, one has to write 
with passion for the story and its characters. Otherwise whatever 
came out wouldn't be worth much.   

The only difference is Rowling's unparalleled success. Explain that 
how you like.  It certainly isn't because she writes for adults.  It 
is simply unsual for books.  This is more common in television and 
movies. 

Her books are for children as each one comes out it is set for the 
age Harry is.  Harry is no longer a little child.  He is older.

They certainly aren't adult novels. Sometimes there are children's 
books that are popular with kids that adults won't ever really like.  
But HP is not Captain Underpants.  I don't enjoy Captain Underpants.  
But I understand why kids do.  HP was always more traditional and 
more accessable.  A good story remains a good story.  

Golly