[HPforGrownups] Re: They are children's books (Was: the heart of it all)

[Iggy McSnurd]

No: HPFGUIDX 82110

> 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.

Iggy:

An interesting point to bring up here... If you notice it, the books tend to
be suited for those readers who are approximately Harry's age in that given
book.  (Harry was 11 in PS/SS, and it's more suited for kids around that age
range.  In OotP, Harry is 15, and that is about the age range the book is
targeted for, apparently.)

This may actually be a plan of JKR's... To have the books grow in age
targetting as the readers grow as well.  If this is the case, IMHO, it's a
great and fairly innovative technique.  It makes the readers feel like their
own progression in life is more mirrored by the progression of Harry and his
friends and draws the reader more fully into the HP world.

> Golly:
>
> Rowling's recent offering certainly does not have the emotional or
> literary sophistication of Orwell or Kafka or even Atwood, which
> would probably be beyond the reading abilities of many (but not all)
> of that age group.

Iggy:

I think that it all depends on your definition of "literary sophistication."
There are a lot of writers who are praised by "students of literature" as
being some of the ultimate writers.  Hemmingway, Orwell, and Steinbeck, for
example.  Personally, I like Animal Farm as a cool analogy for the ideas
that "power corrupts," and "the victors in a revolution often become the
same as those they overthrew."  Other than that, I detested having to read
Hemmingway and Steinbeck in Lit classes.  I found them very dry and boring.
For poetry, I prefer Lewis Carrol and e.e. cummings to Browning, or Frost...
for example.  (Although Frost was a good poet, IMHO...)

'Nuff said about that.


> Golly:
> Many children's writers write stories that are just as challanging
> and just as dark, if not more so. (Though one is certainly free to
> think Rowling does it better.)
>
> If you don't think so, then you aren't reading the same children's
> books I do.  If all that you see are those books you haven't read
> since you were 11 and Mary Kate and Ashley books or Goosebumps, then
> you don't see the range of children's literature out there.

Iggy:

I haven't read them, but I hear the Eoin Collier (sp?) books about Artemis
Fowl are along the same lines... then there's the series (I can't remember
the name of the set that's still being written...) about two orphaned
children who's lives are VERY dark and gloomy as they are beset by a
multitude of maladies.  (In fact, I think A Multitude of Maladies is either
the series' name, or that of one of the books...)


> Golly:
> But to paraphrase Neil Gaiman - Rowling isn't revolutionizing the
> genre. Perhaps she is changing the way people look at the genre.  But
> apparently not, since many adults still refuse to admit they are
> reading children's novel.

Iggy:

Then, you also get into the fact that a lot of hard-core (read:
"close-minded and semi-rabid") Christians still oppose the Harry Potter
books and you also have another advantage of the new covers:  Those
Christians who are in a more hard-core area / congregation, but are able to
keep in touch with reality enough to accept that they're just books, and
good reading at that, can read them with the less recognizable cover and it
helps them avoid the frustrating (and almost inevitable) confrontations with
their fellow congregation members.

(One of my aunts was this kind of close-minded Christian and refused to let
her kids read the books.  It took another one of my aunts, a devout Catholic
actually, to convince her that it was ok for them to read, and that they
were actually good books.)

>
> 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.
>

*grin* I have no problem reading the HP books in public.  I've also been
known to read comic books, graphic novels, RPG resource books, and "the
Phatom Tollbooth" (IMHO, one of the gratest kids books of all time) in
public as an adult.


> 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.
> Different groups like different images.  It is all about marketing.
> The books have not changed.  The only English textual differences are
> between the American and British versions.  The adult covers are for
> image conscious adults who were too embarrassed to read a children's
> book in public. (Or those who just think they are nicer - which I
> won't disagree with.  Had I been sure the adult cover was the British
> version I would probably have bought that.)

Iggy:

Then there's the fact that different publishing houses may buy out the
rights to a book and decide to update the covers.  You also have it as a
basic tool for making the covers more modern when compared to earlier
editions.  (I still have my dad's old boxed set of LOTR... which I will
never read because they're so fragile... that he was given as a gift in the
early 1960's... The covers look a LOT different than the ones from the set I
bought about 3 years ago.)  Publishers usually also make a "movie edition"
cover for a book when it's made into a movie in order to get people to be
more attracted to reading the book since they can associate the photographic
picture on the cover with the images of the movies.  (Again, LOTR is a
perfect example of this...)

Tacking on to this the fact that what may not be considered offensive in one
country may be so in another, and you have a lot of variables as to why book
covers may change.  (As an example of this, the regulations on images of
violence are more strict in Europe when compared to the American
regulations.  In the US, the regulations are a lot stricter with regard to
sexual images.  Even looking at television commercials is a great example of
this.  The only times we see the nude commercials and game shows in England
over here in the US are on late night HBO tv shows like "Shock Video" and
such... and yes, I will freely admit to watching shows like that.  *grin*  I
used to be a psych major studying "human sexuality"...)

> But I do admit to liking the paperback adult Potter covers better.
> The photographs are nice. That may only be because I think Grand Pere
> is such a terrible illustrator.

That's interesting.  I think Grand Pre' does some decent artwork... well,
she's been getting better at it.  I like the cover of OotP a LOT better than
PoA, for example.  I think she may be growing as an artist.

The funniest thing I see about her covers is that, before I moved here to
Alabama, the female housemate I had could have been the model for Harry,
they looked so much alike.

> 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.

Iggy:

IMHO, JKR didn't put those things in as marketing tools.  Only an
advertising exec (or... or RPG designer) goes into the writing arena with
intent to specifically create or utelize "marketing tools."

The people who created and designed those "marketing tools" are the ones in
the marketing department of the publishing companies, and the marketing
departments of the bookstores, since it's their job to market and sell their
product in their particular market arena.

(Am I the only one here who detects an important semantic here?  Hmmm...
marketing tools... marketing department... )

> Golly:
> It is only natural that as Harry grows to know his world that it will
> seem less fantastical to the reader and Harry and that Harry's
> understanding of his surroundings would deepen.

Iggy:

<See my earlier comments about Harry growing as his readers grow...>

> Golly: Now that the publishing company understands adults like HP, of
> course it will be marketed to them.  Adults also love Toy Story,
> Little Nemo.  They are still meant for children.

Iggy:

I'd also like to point out a few things that a lot of people either don't
know, or tend to overlook...

1 - Disney, Pixar, Dearmworks, etc.. are ALL famous for putting adult based
comments, jokes, references and (in some cases) "hidden" images into their
movies.  (There are a few that caused some widely known controversies around
the Rescuers, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, and The Little Mermaid, to name a
few... the latter of which had at lead 3 different ones, as I recall... even
requiring a recall of an entire set of videos in one case.)

2 - People assume that the Loony Tunes cartoons are kid's cartoons.  Most
people don't know that they were actually targeted at adults, with a lot of
adult references, and (in some case) commentary on modern political and
economic events.  Disney was this way quite often as well.  They were
TARGETED at adults, but done so in a way that kids could enjoy them as well.
(Do you REALLY think kids wanted to see cartoons about what life was like in
the military, or food rationing, or the importance of women working
infactories to support the war effort?  They didn't understand the events
themselves, much less understand the jokes about them.)

3 - The only types of books, tv shows, or movies I have seen targeted at
kids are ones designed either to educate (ie: Dora the Explorer, Blue's
Clues, Ruby and Max, the Wiggles, etc...) about either morality, values, or
more concrete educational facets... Or those that were specifically designed
to sell a toy or video to kids in a set age range.  (These would be exampled
by the ENTIRE Land Before Time series... I think they're up to the 37th
movie?  "Littlefoot and the Retirement Caves" or something... the Hot Wheels
videos or anything else based on toys like GI Joe, He-Man, Care Bears, or
Legos... that type of thing.)

> Golly:
> Some writers always write for children while others write for both
> adults and children.  There is nothing weak or less serious or less
> interesting about writing for children. It is a real skill.

Iggy:

In support of this statement, I would challenge each of you out there to
write an actuall "children's story", and then write a "non-targeted" story
for any age, and see which is harder.

When you write a children's story, you need to keep MUCH more restrictive
sets of rules on your writing than you otherwise would.  Language, morality,
imagery, vocabulary levels, and comprehension ALL have to be considered a
lot more.  Anyone who can write an interesting and proper story for a five
year old (to pick a random kid age..) with all the added restrictions on
them is a genius, IMHO, and should have their talents applauded.  ESPECIALLY
if it's something that doesn't bore an adult to death.  (As a stay-at-home
father who tries to make sure that my daughter watches educational kids
shows as well as the Disney movies she likes, I would personally like to
commend the writers of Dora the Explorer, Oswald, Blue's Clues, Ruby and
Max, Sesame Street, Out of the Box, and Gulla Gulla Island, Bear in the Big
Blue House, and the Wiggles for the wonderful job they do in this incredibly
difficult field.  These are all shows that I feel have some educational
benefit from my daughter, don't insult her intelligence... even as a 2 year
old... and are interesting enough to me that not only do I not want to run
screaming from the room when they come on, but I also participate with her
in the shows and enjoy myself doing it.)

> Golly:
> Her books are for children as each one comes out it is set for the
> age Harry is.  Harry is no longer a little child.  He is older.

Iggy:

Ok... I'm going to say something that may sound trite and cliche' to some,
but I feel it bears stating:

IMHO, her books are lightly oriented towards children, not specifically.
She writes from Harry's point of view... while he is a child, and while he
is a teenager.  That's the only specific "writing goal" for age that I think
she has.

Here's the slightly sappy part now...  In order to appreciate and love her
books, I think you have to still be a kid insiide... at least partly...
because her books are designed not only to appeal to the kids some of her
readers ARE, but for the kids us older readers WERE.. (and, for some of us,
still are most of the time... *grin*)

>
> They certainly aren't adult novels. Sometimes there are children's
> books that are popular with kids that adults won't ever really like.
> But HP is not Captain Underpants.  I don't enjoy Captain Underpants.
> But I understand why kids do.  HP was always more traditional and
> more accessable.  A good story remains a good story.
>
> Golly
>

Iggy:

Yeah... that, and Harry doesn't run around in his underwear with a towel
tied to his neck...  (Boy, now THAT would make for an odd image.  Harry
running through a graveyard with his home-made cape flowing out behind
him... wearing nothing else but his tighty-whiteys and brandishing his wand
at Voldemort... who's wearing nothing but a beat up pair of boxers and an
old terrycloth bathrobe.  Makes for a MUCH more bizarre set of events,
doesn't it?)


Iggy McSnurd
the Prankster


"Hi!  I'm the Dread Pirate Roberts (tm) #72377.
    <Ask about franchise opportunities in your area.>"

--- Another one of Iggy's bumper stickers