[HPforGrownups] Re: They are children's books (Was: the heart of it all)

[Amanda Geist]

No: HPFGUIDX 81889

> > 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?

Amanda:
Well, the answer to that would be "No," and I'm really sorry you don't
believe it, but I wasn't stating my opinion. I was stating what the author
herself has said. Doubt her if you will, but I choose to believe the woman
simply wanted to write a story and it was seized by the marketers. I mean,
if they made her invent a middle name so she'd have initials, they could
decide who the "target audience" was. But Jo Rowling herself has said she
did not aim it at any particular age group.

Golly: > 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.

Amanda: I must say I take offense at this. I'm not embarrassed at all to
like a "young adult" book. I have Lloyd Alexander, Susan Cooper, and C.S.
Lewis on my personal bookshelf as we type.

I fail to see why my crediting what an author believes about her work, makes
me embarrassed about an entire genre.

Amanda:> > 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.)

Amanda:  ?? Were you *reading* what I said? Didn't I just say they were the
*exact same story* and only the covers were different?

Golly:>   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.

Amanda: I repeat. This offends me mightily, that you have made this
judgement call about me.

Golly:> 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.

Amanda: GrandPre. Grand Pere is a French grandfather.

Amanda: > > 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.

Amanda: I do not denigrate the elements of fantasy in Rowling's world. What
I said was that their use to promote further books to the original age group
they were marketed for is likely to become more and more inappropriate as
the themes in the books mature. I consider it to be a bit misleading.

Golly: > 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.

Amanda: This has nothing to do with my reading taste. I have been expressing
my belief in what Jo Rowling has said about her work; and I have been
expressing my belief that the marketing strategy has failed to "grow" with
the themes and complexity of the books.

> 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.

Amanda: Explain how this differs from what I said. You just said what I did:
she doesn't write for children; she's writing her vision, the story she
wants to write.

If it's not written *for* children, with children's responses in mind, and
it is enjoyed by fully as many adults, I fail to see why they should be
classified as "children's books" when they were not written as such, but
simply as *books,* and when it was only their marketing that labeled them as
such.

That you can dissect and classify them so handily, great. Have a grand time.
But I put authorial intent above your defining.

~Amanda