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

[feetmadeofclay]

No: HPFGUIDX 81944

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Penny Linsenmayer" 
<pennylin at s...> wrote:

> 
> > > > Amanda: They were and are not written for children. They were
> > > written to express
>But, I disagree that she herself has or would say that her books are
> "children's books."  
> 
> PENNY: 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: Well people who want to see a limit the range of Rowling's 
themes or treatments due to its being children's literature haven't 
read Doing It by Melvin Burgess.  That book is obviously a young 
adult novel and it is not pap.  Rowling can set whatever themes she 
thinks are relevant to the story.  I have yet to see one that I felt 
was inappropriate for children.  

OOTP made that clearer than ever by continuing a focus in on Harry 
and allowing us to see very little of what the Order and other adults 
were doing. Instead she gave us details about OWLS, Quidditch, teen 
romance and teen angst.  All perfectly reasonable for a target 
audience of youngish teenagers.  I personally would have preferred to 
know what the Order did in more detail. That BTW is not a criticism 
of OOTP, just personal interest. I find the lives of HP's adults
more 
intriguing this time around than who will be named prefect and 
Quidditch captain. I realize that school life with its troubles or 
triumphs are more interesting to children than the adventures or 
daily life of Molly and Arthur. As an adult reader, I accept that 
difference in perspective is part of reading a child's series.  

 I've read excellent children's novels which discussed politics and 
prejudice.  No reason Rowling cannot do the same. We either abolish 
all categories and say no one is writing children's lit vs. adult 
literature or we accept that Rowling is writing in a well established 
genre.  

The divide in Harry Potter as a shifting series is not between 
children's lit and adult lit, but between a younger child's series 
and a young adult series. 

HP is in no way comparable to the masterful treatment of humanity 
that JD Salinger achieved with Catcher in the Rye.  If in 50 years we 
are still talking about OOTP, then I may concede I am wrong about HP 
and Rowling. Or I may simply think we have all lost our minds. That 
isn't a slam on Rowling, it is just the truth as I see it.  

I didn't like King's review.  I found it inflated.  HP is not Catcher 
in the Rye.  As soon as anyone says something so extreme and without 
very impressive support, he'll immediately loose my interest.  It 
doesn't surprise me that King is supporting Rowling.  It is in
his 
best interest to convince everyone Rowling is of Salinger's
caliber.  
Just as it is in Franzer's best interest to reject the praise of 
Oprah viewers in order to retain the impression his work is of a 
literary ilk beyond majority of America who should stick to Stephen 
King.  I take both sides of the argument with a grain of salt.


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

> Penny

GOLLY: This was pointed out in a review by Hensher after POA or GOF 
(can't remember).  But it is an experimental way to write.  A very 
impressive experiment which seems to be working for her.  Rowling 
herself said she wants the books to grow with Harry. 

But it is clear that Rowling pays attention to the abilities of her 
targeted reader.  PS is not Angelas Ashes whose prose is nowhere near 
as accessible to children.  The problem with writing for teenagers is 
that most have the ability to read more than just books that are 
targeted at them.  I think as a teenager I enjoyed Amy Tan more than 
books that were classed as YA novels. Perhaps I wasn't reading
the 
right YA novels. I may have loved OOTP at the time.  

The last book may be problematically hard for later readers blazing 
through the whole series all at once.  Even now Rowling is already 
losing some of the younger readers she picked up on the 3 year 
hiatus.  I'm sure that doesn't bother her or the publishers.
(Nor 
does it bother me so long as she writes with passion.) Now that she 
is famous and the series is famous she has more room to experiment 
without much financial risk for her publisher or herself.  Maybe 
those readers who loose interest halfway through will come back to 
the series and finish it when they are ready.  Maybe most readers 
will just find what they can to enjoy in it.  

To me, the books seem more adult because 15 year olds are more adult.
	They are transforming into the adult they are going to be.  

Penny: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. 

GOLLY: The reason I think it degrades children's literature is that 
it hides all the great children's books out there.  Books everybit as 
sophisticated as Order of the Phoenix. I still have no idea why 
people think OOTP is not a YA novel. 

Actually I would class POA as a children's book - it is darker
but it 
still is very much a children's story in tone and the way it
handles 
situations. Plus Harry's psychology is still very childish in
POA. 
GOF perhaps a YA novel for its mentioning of romance and the fact 
that many found it gory.  (I personally didn't.)  The rift
between 
Ron is more of a YA rift than the one he had with Hermione.  Perhaps 
if Rowling had written POA about Hermione, it would have seemed more 
like a YA novel.  But I think OOTP is still firmly a YA novel.  It 
may be a very good one in your opinion.  But it is too soon to tell 
whether it will be shelved with Huck and Anne.  It hasn't the 
sophistication of such treatments in my opinion.  It doesn't seem
to 
break the boundaries that Angela's Ashes does.  I have a little 
trouble expressing why I think that.  

Only time can sift the classics from everything else.  There is no 
such thing as an "instant classic", regardless of what reviewers 
say.  This is why I take reviews with a grain of salt.  Call me 
cynical but I don't believe the press is any more to be believed when 
it tells me something I want to hear.  It is always more pleasant to 
be told I am part of a revolution that I have excellent taste because 
I delight in HP.  I don't trust reviewers who feel the need flatter 
me. 

If I am to trust reviewers King, I want to know how many children's 
books he reads in a year.  Children's/Young Adult reviewers I respect 
have not said the series is now inappropriate for teens.

Amanda: GrandPre. Grand Pere is a French grandfather.

My apologies for getting it wrong.
	
			
As to Rowling's view of her own work - She hasn't said
anything that 
I haven't heard from dozens of other children's writers.
Rowling 
speaks about writing children's books much the way most
children's 
novelists speak about it.  She clearly knew her book would be of more 
interest to children's publishers.  To me that says something. I
did 
some digging and barely scraped the surface but here is what I found. 


"Article on Jo Rowling"
"[Rowling] went to the library and looked up a list of children's 
book agents"
								
	
"Jo Rowling" in her own words - 

1997
"It was extraordinary because I had never planned to write for 
children."

Golly: it is clear she means that a children's story found her.

"It's a particularly wonderful award to win from my point of
view, 
because the final judging is done by children, and they are obviously 
the people whose opinion matters to me most."

"It was planned as a seven-book series and I am half way through 
number three. I also have another children's book half-finished."

1998 " People have said the humour is very adult, but I do think
they 
underestimate children. Certainly, some of the kids I've met have got 
every joke and even if they haven't, it doesn't actually matter. It 
annoys me that people think you have to dumb down for children."
"I think it's wrong to think of adult books as 'real literature'. 
Real literature can be for people of nine and that's what I'm trying 
to write." 

I don't believe she was lying.

Golly