biggest SPOILER _ Children's Books?

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 109904

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "caspenzoe" <cruthw at e...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jcb54me" <ejblack at r...> wrote:
> > Steve/asian_lovr2:
> > > JKRowling did not write these as children's books. She wrote the 
> > >story for herself, and wrote it the way it came to her. She never 
> > >took her original vision and in any way adapted it for children. 


> > Jeanette:
> > 
> > Absolutely!  Consider Lord of the Rings.  It begins with what 
> > might be considered a children's tale (The Hobbit) and then 
> > develops into a major mythic saga.  But, because Hobbit came 
> > first, LOTR was at first considered a children's or at most a 
> > teenage set of books y the publishers.
> > 
> > Jeanette


> Caspen: 
>
> I really have to take issue with the whole debate about whether the 
> HP books are written for children/are children's literature or not. 
> I think it's a false issue for the following reasons:
> 
> ...edited list...
> 
> Therefore, with all due respect to Steve, I think his interpretation 
> of JKR's comments is far too literal. I worry that Steve and some 
> others here - Hans comes to mind (...) -  perhaps all of us at some 
> point - are in real danger of becoming  addled HP fundamentalists. 
>
> In other words, yes there is genuine artistry behind the books and 
> yes there is liberal symbolism of various kinds - but the notion 
> that these somehow confine JKR to any sort of rigid formula (such 
> as Hermione and Ron must be beheaded) or level is simply absurd, 
> and flies in the face of everything that makes great literature 
> great. 
> 
> My two knuts - just don't think it works that way! 
> 
> Caspen

Asian_lovr2:

JKR has spoken many times in interviews and chats, and on her own
website about edits and changes that she and the publishers made to
the books, but she never allowed any edit that compromised the story.
She flat out said she would never alter her vision to appeal to any
else's sensibilities, expectations, or desires. Example, if the
original vision calls for Harry to die, then Harry dies, she said she
wouldn't change it to spare anyone's feelings.

So, there is no doubt that a great deal of editing, proofreading, and
in some cases re-writing went into each and every book. But it was
done for the same reason all books are proofread and edited, for
continuity, consistency, error correction, grammar, punctuation, and
cultural idioms. However, none of that was to appeal to or appease a
specific audience, other than cultural phrases unfamiliar to American
audiences.

It's obvious from the lack of swearing and adult romantic situations
that JKR did not intend to exclude children, but I take acception to
the idea that the books were written /for/ children. They were written
for a general audience which /includes/ children. 

It is obvious from the development of the more emotional and
non-romantic adult themes like death of beloved characters and
emotional trama that this series never was a /childrens/ series. It
was geared toward general audineces which includes children.

I went back and looked and the original poster's statements on this
issue said/implied JKR was 'softening' the book because they were
/read/ by children. I may have taken that statement a little farther
than was intended. That implied to me that the books were written
/for/ children. 

So, she does soften what she writes, but does so with the intent of
not excluding children as readers. In that sense, there is a limit to
what she will write, but I don't see her avoiding any hard issues or
simplifying or dumbing down the plot or it's complexities for anyone
including for children. JKR has said that kids are much smarter than
adults give them credit for; they don't need plots simplified or
dumbed down. Give them a chance and they will quick rise to the level
of the books.

So, upon rereading the original post, it didn't quite literally say
what I thought it said. Having admitted that point, I stand firm in my
position. I will however further ammend my position by saying that
much of the speculation seen here is above and beyond what is LIKELY,
and /likely/ is my primary test of a theory. Not is it possible or
imaginable, but is it likely. I find it very unlikely that Snape is a
vampire, or that Dumbledore is either Ron or Hedwig, or that someone
will time travel agiain in some extremely pivotal way. However, many
people have had a great deal of fun with those theories; so more power
to them. 

Just one man's opinion.

Steve/asian_lovr2