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

[feetmadeofclay]

No: HPFGUIDX 81983

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

Penny:  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). 

There are no such things as "instant classics" in my opinion.  Time 
and distance are necessary watch fate sift out titles that have 
enduring appeal.  I do like Salinger a great deal, but there are 
other classics I don't enjoy or didn't understand. I try to respect 
the application of the title based on the fact that decades or 
centuries of criticism and study have not dampened an enthusiasm 
these books. Whenever a new book is said to be a classic or said to 
be better than an established classic, that makes me wary.  

I think that it is too soon to call the HP series anything  

I'm not sure how future generations will react to HP.  I'm waiting to 
see. 
 
PENNY:
> 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.

King and Rowling have each had criticism from the same corner.  The 
so called Ivory Tower.  The difference is that from the start, being 
popular has earned Rowling much praise.  Kids are obviously better 
judges of literature than the average adult.  

I think that this is all part of a general trend to make populist 
tastes seem more respectable.  There is a growing trend towards 
accepting that popularity equals quality. Not a crazy theory since 
King just won National Book Foundation's annual award for 
distinguished contribution to literature. 

I personally don't think Bloom is entirely off when he says that a 
good chunk (ok he says all - but I take that as blustering extremism) 
of Rowling's readers may grow up to read Stephen King over Hardy. A 
good chunk of all readers grow up and never read classics after they 
leave high school.

Though perhaps reasonable, I don't fully trust Bloom's taste either.  
I think some of his recommended adult picks are horrendous. 

I think when HP is talked about as a classic before Rowling's even 
finished with the series and before we can even judge whether her 
experiment is a success or whether she stands the test of time, that 
is the kind of talk that defends populist reading as a whole. It is 
in King's best interest to praise it.  Which makes me skeptical of 
his reviews in general.  Especially when the prose of the latest is 
so weak he feels the need to excuse it.  

I'm waiting until Rowling is done and her series has 25-50 years 
behind it.  

I want to see what future generations make of it.  


> 
> PENNY: 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.  


GOLLY: Granted he could, but he doesn't often review children's 
literature. His review didn't feel like it was written by a person 
who is passionate about children's literature.  

I'd rather stick those that read 200 new childrens books a year. That 
is what they do.  I generally find their comments more insightful.  

>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.......... 

And they are....  

His review of GOF was ok...  

The NY times felt that Byatt was qualified to review Rowling and many 
amongst this fanbase disagreed.  The Wallstreet Journal thought Bloom 
was qualified to review Rowling.  I felt his discussion was a bit off 
point.  He had a few good points, but some of it is too strident for 
children's books. (Remember he reviewed PS) Many children, especially 
younger or reluctant readers need books that are thrilling yet 
simple. These books may not have beautiful prose, but they are easy 
to read and encourage enthusiasm.  Wind in the Willows, though great, 
is a particular type of children's book. Breezy, well written and 
witty but literary.  Bloom's collection of children's stories is a 
little difficult for many of the readers that Rowling attracted to 
her early books. 

Rowling is definitely to be praised for challanging certain reluctant 
readers. Bloom never acknowledges this.  That bugs me.    

Bloom is, like King, a bit of a media ham.  He likes to be 
sensational and extreme.  He's not a children's literature 
professor.  It isn't his field.  

Though even within fields there is never consensus.  I once met a 
children's literature professor who practically spat when he talked 
about Winnie the Pooh.  He hated it with a passion.  I could see his 
points but I can also see the other side.  Winnie is charming, 
lovable and whimsical.  


> PENNY: 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.

GOLLY: You may be right about fair marketing.

But I really don't think OOTP operates on a level beyond many YA 
novels.  In fact I was dissapointed that OOTP's depiction on politics 
and racial prejudice was not more sophisticated and more 
challanging.  I wanted to see more evidence of the general prejudice 
against muggle bornes and the painful effect that has on muggle borne 
characters.  Not much seem to have the painful import of a war - 
except Mrs. Weasley's Woes.  That was very well done.

The rest seemed like ramped up teen angst played against a setting of 
charicature and sensationalism.     

Even the death did not really scare me or horrify me. It didn't 
change the way I feel about the story.  It doesn't worry or chill 
me.  It I figure Sirius was expendible plotwise. It wasn't like he 
was Dumbledore or Hermione. Just more yanking on my heartstrings.

The tone is definitely different from POA but I think it isn't more 
sophisticated than the average edgy YA novel.  Many of which are very 
angry and dark.  Stay tuned to watch our hero triumph and die - same 
bat-time, same bat-channel.    

But I guess if you see it, I should think about this some more...
		

PENNY: And, even so, of course, her *views* about her
> work (her intent in other word) hold very little weight with me.

Well yes I would agree with that.  Authors aren't always the best 
judges of their own work. 

I really meant the comment in response to another poster...

Realistically if HP 7 is meant for a 17 year old, it will be an adult 
novel. That is perhaps the weirdest thing about the series.   I will 
be interested to see how that plays out. I figure I have at least a 
decade to wait.   
    
Golly