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

[Penny Linsenmayer]

No: HPFGUIDX 81915

Hi -

> > > 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.

Penny:

I read a good bit of children's literature myself, Golly.  And,
absolutely, yes, any decent children's author is aiming to tell a good
story.  But, the "target audience" chosen by the publisher's marketing
squad and the age of the principal protagonist do not transform these
books into the realm of children's literature.  I daresay that books
like "Oliver Twist," and "To Kill a Mockingbird" might be marketed to
children if they were published today, but that doesn't transform
*them* into children's literature either.  

Golly:

<<<<<<<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.>>>>>>>>>>>>

There is a difference between being *accessible to* and being *written
for* ... for starters.  I might, er, at this point quote Stephen
King's review of OoP, which makes my point so much more eloquently
than I would:

King (from a review of OoP in Entertainment Weekly magazine, published
July 11, 2003):

[quote] A more interesting question is when did Ms. Rowling stop
writing for children and start writing them for everyone, as Mark
Twain did when he moved from Tom Sawyer to Huckleberry Finn and Lewis
Carroll did when he moved from Alice in Wonderland to Through the
Looking Glass?  I'm guessing it was a process -- mostly subconscious
-- that began with volume 3 (Azkaban) and hit warp speed in volume 4
(Goblet of Fire).  By the time we finish The Order of the Phoenix,
with its extraordinary passages of fear and despair, the distinction
between "children's literature" and plain old "literature" has ceased
to exist.  The latest Potter adventure could be The Catcher in the
Rye, minus the dirty words and the drinking ...... or maybe just the
dirty words: Just what the hell is butterbeer, anyway?[/quote]

> 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.

Penny: Yes, Golly, you do seem to be taking the notion that Rowling
isn't writing "children's literature" as an affront to the entire
genre, which is a leap in logic.  I love children's literature.  As I
say, I read a good bit of it.  I don't, however, believe that HP falls
into that genre neatly.  I agree with King: we're seeing a gradual
shift from juvenile (books 1-2) to young adult (books 3-4) to just
"literature" that defies a specific label.  

> 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.

Penny: I agree with Amanda.  I think the general reading public
probably has realized what so many of us adult fans have seen coming
since PoA: these books are no longer strictly classified as
"children's literature."  Note: this does not mean that I think
"children's literature" is less worthy of adult attention or scholarly
treatment or anything else ...... it just means that I don't think HP
qualifies as part of this genre any longer, if it ever did.  

At the "Are They Children's Book" panel at Nimbus - 2003, one member
of the audience noted that she was offended that Rowling hadn't
"warned" the public that the tone of this latest book would be so
"different."  Well, actually, she *did* warn the public in several
post-GoF interviews, but leaving that aside, this certainly emphasizes
the point that many people really do recognize that the series has
moved beyond the boundaries placed on it by Bloomsbury's original
marketing team.

> > 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.

Penny: I agree that Rowling is writing the story that's in her head. 
But, I disagree that she herself has or would say that her books are
"children's books."  

Part of the problem, and I don't think you would be guilty of this
Golly ...... but part of the problem is that people who make the
argument that the HP books are children's literature do so in the
context of limiting what Rowling will do in terms of plot, themes and
so on.  In other words, the argument goes something like: "Well,
Rowling won't do *that.*  Good grief, these are *just* children's
books after all."  I find this attitude to be far more dismissive of
children's lit as a genre than my own belief (that the HP series
doesn't fall into that genre at all).

Golly:  

<<<<<HP has a range of age groups hovering around Potter's age, 
which increases.>>>>>>>>

Yes, but this is a series of books that will eventually all be sitting
on the shelf, available to the reader.  Does the parent of the 8 year
old who wants to read Books 1 and 2 say, "Well, go ahead and plow on
the rest of the way?"  Or, does the parent say, "You can read the
first two, but you're not going to get as much enjoyment out of the
later ones until you're older?"  Or what, precisely?  Yes, the current
HP audience is aging right along with Harry.  But, er, this won't
*always* be the case.  It presents an interesting conundrum in my
mind.  And, as Amanda pointed out, staging the release parties and
such with activities targeted at 8-12 year olds was very inappropriate
in my mind.   


Penny