biggest SPOILER _ Children's Books?

[caspenzoe]

No: HPFGUIDX 109959

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <asian_lovr2 at y...> 
wrote:
> --- 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. 
> > 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.
...but I take acception to
> the idea that the books were written /for/ children. They were 
written
> for a general audience 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....
> Steve/asian_lovr2

Well, maybe our positions are not so far apart then Steve. Perhaps I 
was thrown off by your use of words like "never" as in "...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."

If, in fact the books were written for a "general" audience as you 
go on to say - I guess including JKR herself (otherwise you'd have 
contradicted yourself here, no?), and children, then don't you agree 
that they'll "likely" continue to be written for the same "general" -
 including JKR and children - audience?

I should note however, that your description of JKR's writing as it 
came to her, doesn't do justice to the years of work, thousand of 
pages of notes, ect. that she spent/produced in developing the 
story, plot etc., also well documented in her interviews. That 
process simply doesn't take place in a vacuum sealed off from 
concerns for audience. Once again though, we are both right, in that 
she both wrote it as it came to her and worked it out while 
conciously aware of many complex factors, including audience.

Again, the greater the scope - levels, audience, etc. - it speaks 
to, the greater (and less formulaic and predictable) the work of 
art .

Caspen