Whether or not they're children's books

[msbeadsley]

No: HPFGUIDX 81962

> 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.  

Me: I thought JKR said that she did not write the books for children; 
she wrote a story *she* would want to read.

> 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.  

Me: They *are* different versions. They are the same story, the same 
manuscript, but the edition of the *book* is a different one, a 
different *version*. You draw the correlation between different age 
groups and different countries, and IMO you make Amanda's point for 
her. The covers are directly linked to who the *publisher* is 
targeting; I worked in publishing, and that's what covers are for. 
The Art Dept. in any profit-grubbing publishing company is at the 
mercy of the Marketing Dept.

> Amanda: 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. 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.  

Me: Where does JKR "admit that HP are children's books" please? 
Wait...no, go ahead, but I may know where that comes from and I think 
that was a joke, Golly. And the above is very confusing in that you 
say "all the wonderful writers who say the exact same thing and are 
proud to admit they are children's authors" in response to Amanda's 
assertion that the author stated that she did not write them for 
children. Are you contradicting yourself, or am I failing to read 
between the lines (and hair-splitting)? And I think asserting that 
JKR told the truth, that she didn't write the HP for children, is not 
at all *denigrating* to writers of children's books. I read 
EVERYTHING; I'm an omnilector. I especially like Daniel Pinkwater.

I have no shame about being a fan of children's fiction; my inner 
child loves a good book. And I don't really care if HP is a series of 
children's books or not. I think the debate gets silly fairly 
quickly, actually, in the sense that it seems to me to put the cart 
before the horse. Writing is a complex enough process without trying 
to have the story extrude itself through a lens fixed on some 
imaginary reader's silhouette. To some degree, even the writer with 
the tightest outline and most clairvoyance has the book "happen" and 
then has to look to see what resulted. (It's the same question as 
asking a fish about water; in the midst of anything, perspective is 
difficult if not impossible.) Go read Judy Blume's sentiments about 
the mad debate over whether or not the themes in her books are 
appropriate to children, and the agonizing she *still* does 
sometimes, *always after* the fact of having written the book. The 
Muse is ageless. The question is whether the books are *appropriate*--
not who the author wrote them for. Writing narrative is an art, not a 
science; it doesn't lend itself to sizing or exact dosages, or any 
dang fool <g> engineer could do it <splat! goes reference to most 
<shudder> technical writing>. 

Sandy, hoping, as she is behind on posts, that this isn't obsolete