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

[Penny Linsenmayer]

No: HPFGUIDX 81954

Hi --

Golly wrote: >  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.

Oh, I don't think we need go to any extremes like that.  Clearly, most
literature can be pegged as "children's lit," "young adult lit," or
"adult literature."  Perhaps there is some accepted "checklist" of
attributes or characteristics of children's literature that could be
consulted. (??  I'm asking, I don't know).  It is simply my opinion
(not a professional or scholarly judgment) that HP is *not* children's
literature.  But, my opinion was not formed because I'm ignorant about
what is encompassed within children's literature in general (I read
children's lit for my own enjoyment quite often .... as you say, it's
easy to miss out on a good bit of children's lit when you are a kid,
not to mention what is published after you reach adulthood).  My
opinion was also not formed because I'm somehow ashamed to be seen
reading or discussing a "children's series."  No, my opinion is (a)
just my *opinion* and (b) based on my overall feel for the series and
where it's ultimately going, with a foundation of a strong interest in
children's literature.

So, I'm with Amanda: you are perfectly entitled to your opinion that
HP is children's literature and may not stand the test of time to be
judged as classics in any case.  But, please don't make the assumption
that anyone who believes otherwise is ignorant of children's
literature or somehow ashamed of reading/discussing children's
literature.  In my case at least, nothing could be further from the
truth.  

> 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. 

A matter of opinion ...........
> 
> HP is in no way comparable to the masterful treatment of humanity 
> that JD Salinger achieved with Catcher in the Rye.

Definitely a matter of opinion!  :--)

 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.

Well, as I see it, the HP novels *are* classics (and I do mean *are,*
though I do concede that the test of time will be the only thing that
seals their fate in the minds of the scholars and even the average
reading public).  Sometimes classics are made despite wide popularity
with the masses after all.  Sometimes the masses aren't completely
off-base.    
> 
> 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.

Oh, that's too bad.  I thoroughly enjoyed it.  I didn't find it an
extreme comparison at all (but then again, I obviously don't hold the
same high opinion of Salinger as you do).  

  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 curious, but how so?  The Franzer comment you made I understand,
but I fail to see how Rowling's place amongst the greats (or not) is
any concern to Stephen King.

> I said: 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.>>>>>>>>>>>>

Golly, I really and truly fail to see how my opinion that HP
transcends genre such that it cannot be properly classed as children's
literature can be taken to degrade children's literature in its
entirety!  I recognize that there are tons of great children's books
out there, and yes, some of them are technically speaking, just as
complex or dark or rich as HP.  None of those grab me in the same way
as HP does, but that's just a personal quirk I would imagine.  But
just because I, someone who has reasonably wide familiarity with
children's literature, believe that HP doesn't fall strictly within
the confines of that genre, doesn't mean that I'm condemning all
children's literature out there as being less worthy of acclaim or
attention.  I'm not saying HP is something other than children's lit,
as a means of *elevating* it.  I'm no expert that's for sure; this is
largely just a gut feeling along the lines of Justice Stewart and his
definition of obscenity ("I know it when I see it").   

> 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.

Well, you are making the *assumption* that King is not a regular
consumer of children's or YA literature and that's your prerogative,
but you should acknowledge that you're making a fairly large
assumption there.  I don't disagree that one should take reviewers
(and experts in general) with a grain of salt, considering their
background and qualifications to make the opinions they espouse.  But,
I also wouldn't make the logic leap to say that King, an author of
popular fiction with the masses, therefore lacks the credentials
necessary to write a credible review of OoP.  He did, after all, write
the NY Times review of GOF, so the the NY Times obviously felt he was
"qualified" to review Rowling.  As to why he didn't write the official
NY Times review this go around, well, I have my theories.......... 

Next, I (and noone else I've seen posting on this thread) is arguing
in any way that the series is *inappropriate* for teens or children
for that matter.  The series is definitely accessible to children and
very definitely accessible to teens.  However, if you read the
comments of the kids who were at various stages of completion of OoP
in a Newsweek article published not long after OoP was released last
summer, it is abundantly clear that a good many of them were missing
the message, mixing up the plot and otherwise not reading the book on
the same level as an adult reader would.  That's true, I realize, of
most children's literature.  When you re-read a favorite book of
childhood as an adult, more often than not you take away an
appreciation you simply lacked the sophistication to get as a child. 
So, the fact that kids are not getting all the nuances isn't alone an
indicator that the books are not children's lit.  It certainly isn't
an indicator that the series is now inappropriate for those readers. 
It's just that the books are now operating on different levels for
adult readers than for children readers (by and large).  But, I do
question whether the HP novels meet the overall criteria for
children's literature any longer is all.  I also *don't* think it's at
all appropriate for the public perception to be that OoP is as
appropriate for your 8-year old niece as it is for your 15-yr old
cousin.  I think the changing "target audience" and the increasing
sophistication and darker tone of the later novels needs to be
stressed to the public.    
> 			
> 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. [snip interview excerpts]

Well, ignoring the larger question of the worthiness of authorial
intent as a concept (<g>), I can point to just as many interview
quotes where she gives off the impression that she doesn't view HP as
a strictly children's series (she didn't even view it as *fantasy*
when she was writing PS/SS!).  In any case, she has most definitely
contradicted herself in interviews and on more than this point.  I
don't think that we need to reduce it to a simplistic question of
whether she was lying or not.  I think it's more appropriate to
acknowledge that her views about her work might change over the course
of the last 6-7 years.  And, even so, of course, her *views* about her
work (her intent in other word) hold very little weight with me.    

Penny