Literary value and fan interaction - please help with my research!

[thinmanjones1983]

No: HPFGUIDX 162705

Great to see so many answers to the post, I can't seem to get a
discussion going on the other communities I've tried.

>
> zgirnius:
> I am presently 37. I read my first HP book, Sorceror's Stone, maybe 4
> years ago? I'm not the right person to ask about whether kids get
> less out of the books than I do as an adult. At the age the series is
> targeted at (older kids, say 11+), I am pretty confident I would have
> gotten most everything, as I was reading anything from YA books
> to 'classics' to fantasy/SF from the adult section of the library, to
> spy novels.  (Perhaps I would have found Molly Weasley annoying and
> overprotective instead of sensible, but that's about it!)
>

klotjohan:
OK, of course it depends on what kind of child we're talking about. Most
of them seem to be doing very well indeed with the books. I'd say that
at least the earlier books were easy to pick up without any prior
knowledge of the genre, but they've gotten slightly more esoteric along
the way, or rather referential.


> zgirnius:
> Its classification as a children's series definitely delayed my
> trying it, both because it was not on the shelf where I normally shop
> for books, and because I assumed I would not like it. (I still
> occasionally walk through the fantasy/SF section of the bookstore and
> note with shock when I reach the R's that not a single book by
> Rowling is there! until I remember that she's in the children's
> section.)
>
> I eventually talked myself into trying HP with the reasoning that
> some of the stuff I did love as a kid (like Tolkien, including the
> Hobbit, his 'kiddiest' book) I still love as an adult.
>

klotjohan:
My experience is similar to yours, I was well aware of the series but
hesitant to read it as it seemed like a fad. Eventually I got
recommendations from a few friends and so I gave it a go, fortunately.


> zgirnius:
> I would agree the books are well-suited for children. I will be
> pitching them to mine, when they are old enough (the elder is
> persently 4), and I support my nephew's interest in the series, which
> I believe he started reading when he was 7. (He is now 10).
>
> Personally, if an adult reader recommended a children's book, and I
> generally respected his/her opinions, I would try it. I don't agree
> they are necessarily less 'good'.
>

klotjohan:
Sounds like a reasonable attitude. I've always tried not to be hindered
by genre categorisations, whether it's literature, film, music or any
other form of culture/art/entertainment.


> zgirnius:
> I find genre to be a high/low culture issue as well. HP, in addition
> to being for children, is a fantasy, (in the sense that it contains
> in it magical creatures, wizards, etc.) and in the minds of people
> who care greatly about high/low culture, this makes them
> automatically suspect it is 'less'. (This annoys me most when it is
> Tolkien they look down on.)
>

klotjohan:
It's interesting that fantasy has become intertwined with childhood in
such a negative way. Further back in history fairy tales and myth formed
the basis of oral - and later on written -  storytelling. Take the
Illiad for example: most likely it was carried on orally until it was
written down, and today it's a fundamental piece of literature. At its
core it's fantasy in epic form. Tolkien makes a very strong case for the
value of fantasy in his essay "On Fairy-Stories", where he argues its
importance to the process of "sub-creation" of a "secondary world". It's
well worth a read if you haven't checked it out already.


>
> zgirnius:
> I wonder if she looks at the results of the Wombat and that other
> test. (She had these two mutliple choice quizzes about her world on
> her website, which fans could fill out, and they were graded
> according to her instructions.)
>

klotjohan:
Hadn't heard about this before, just checked out a thread on it on
another forum. Seems complicated. The mixing of the fictional and the
real at play here is of course noteworthy.

> klotjohan:
> > Good point about Cedric, though I guess Zipes feel that everything
> > returns to normal at the end, and that the pattern from the earlier
> > books is repeated. I agree with you in drawing some form of line
> between
> > PoA and GoF since the latter results in a distinct difference in the
> > status quo of the Potterverse. After the death of Cedric, all
> characters
> > seemed much more mortal than before, at least to me. I guess this
> can be
> > considered a good thing since it heightens the tension and
> excitement of
> > the books.
>
> zgirnius:
> It also is the book in which Voldemort returns fully, in a physical
> body. When I read it, I saw it as an important turning point, and was
> actually shocked to find school going on as usual in OotP afterwards.
> I expected a 'war' atmosphere. (Silly me, I never considered that
> Fudge would continue to insist on his version of events).
>

klotjohan:
Yes, seems like Rowling isn't too keen on simple polarity and prefers to
keep the moral alignment of some characters difficult to establish. When
Dumbledoore died I felt that the firmament of "good" in the fiction came
down, who knows if it's definite or if Rowling decides to twists some
more. If he can die, anything can happen I guess.

/Klotjohan, who'd rather have MrJones as a nickname but screwed up :)