Part of you pours out of me in these lines from time to time

[primroseburrows]

Reviews like this one drive me crazy. Not for the subject (Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell is on my short list of books to read), but for the whole "this is what you should read after you've outgrown Harry Potter".

The question I have is this: Why does one have to "outgrow" Harry? For that matter, why is any book considered YA if it has a child for a protagonist? Take His Dark Materials as another example. Sure, the heroes are twelve years old, but so what? Does that mean that adults can't read it? HDM is a retelling of Paradise Lost, and how many kids would get that bit? Not that kids can't read it and get something out of it without the hidden analogies, but HDM is not just a childrens' story, and neither is HP. They're good stories, yo, and not just for kids (in the case of HDM, I think a lot of it would fly over kids' heads).

I saw parents bringing their five-year-olds to see Prisoner of Azkaban. That was a scary film! Too scary for kids that age. And yeah, it's a case-by-case call, but I don't think there are many seven-year-olds that would be able to get through Order of the Phoenix, nor should a lot of them be allowed to. OoTP is as scary in some places as parts of Lovecraft or Poe.

I'm not saying kids shouldn't read these books. I just wish that people, including reviewers, would stop telling readers that they're something to outgrow. (the actual line in the text says, "It also gives Potterites who have outgrown Hogwarts a new school to attend. ").

It's insulting to me and, I would think, to the authors of the books. [/rant]

Comments

[fivil.livejournal.com]

Via daily_snitch!

I think what makes them children's books is the thing that Rowling basically decided she wanted to write essentially for children. I think it's of course best seen in the first books. Then she saw the story attracted more adult readers, which is why she was probably more comfortable adding darker elements to the stories.

(In here I should probably add that many children's stories, fairytales and such, have quite dark elements to them, so it's not a new thing.)

But they remain children's books, because the language of them (no cursing etc. but also the style of writing) and the way that children can understand them just as older readers can. We understand the books on a different level, of course, we re-read them for clues and foreshadowing, but children just understand what characters they like and the basic structures of the plot and the story (I'm not a child, so I can't say exactly how children view these books).

Someone pointed out once that Rowling writes very stereotypical characters, even though she gives them depth of some sort. This is also one characteristic of children's literature, I think.

[primroseburrows.livejournal.com]

I think what makes them children's books is the thing that Rowling basically decided she wanted to write essentially for children. I think it's of course best seen in the first books. Then she saw the story attracted more adult readers, which is why she was probably more comfortable adding darker elements to the stories.

I believe (and again I don't have the quote--if any one else does I'd love to see it) that JKR has said that it was always the plan to mature the books as Harry matures. I find it hard to believe that someone who has planned this series as thoroughly as she has would change the age-level of the story just because more adults were reading her story. Sure, authors write to the market to some extent, but she's known where this story is going the entire time she's been writing it.

But they remain children's books, because the language of them (no cursing etc. but also the style of writing) and the way that children can understand them just as older readers can.

I think there are exceptions to this rule. For instance, Neil Gaiman's Stardust. It's marketed as a "fairytale for grownups"; it has one swear and one nonexplicit (I think) sex scene (or so the reviews say--I haven't read the book beyond the first page or so, mostly because I really want the more expensive illustrated hardcover). The language, though, is fairy-tale prose, and the story has magical talking animals and trees and gnomes and the stuff of fairy-tales. Childrens' book or not? I'm beginning to more and more think that the definition is an arbitrary one on the part of the marketer.

Someone pointed out once that Rowling writes very stereotypical characters, even though she gives them depth of some sort.

I've always considered the characters archetypal rather than stereotypical. And yes, she gives most of them depth, but not all. *glares in direction of Canon!Draco*. I keep wondering when the hero is going to lose his mentor, as tends to happen in the hero's journey. But that brings up whether Harry's mentor is Dumbledore or Sirius, and that's another discussion entirely (*whispers* It's Dumbledore! *g*).

[fivil.livejournal.com]

I didn't exactly say she made the story scarier BECAUSE she found out she had adult fans - I merely pointed out she might've felt more comfortable with throwing in things that weren't all G-rated. But that's just me guessing.

Of course the world isn't black and white and one can't say that there's only adult literature and children's literature and nothing in between. There are many examples of children's books that many adults have enjoyed and vice versa (I think maybe Lord of the Rings may be an example of that, but I'm not 100% certain).

But the reason why I call Harry Potter children's books (or kiddie books, for an affectionate term), is that in my opinion they are essentially children's books as I feel Rowling essentially wrote them for children.

Why? Well, I can very well imagine HP books written differently. Adults have written adult books about children. The story of HP could've been written for adults and even though the story would essentially be the same, some things would've been different.

Archetypal is a better word for it, yes. (English not native language here, so bear with me!) I think in adult literature, the characters would most probably be more complex.

I often don't feel a need to stick HP into a box that says "for kids" or into a box that says "for adults". It seems kind of pointless, but the reason I usually stick it into the kiddie box is because when reading it, I'm reminded of my favourite childhood books than all the grownup books I've read. People who tend to categorize it under "children's literature" usually haven't even really read the books (or have on read PS, CoS & PoA and not the latest two). And it's really difficult to argue with those people, as they're just not involved with the books and its world in the way a fan is.

So yes, the line between adult and children's literature is blurry. I usually call HP children's books, but it doesn't mean I lack respect for Rowling or think the books are not good - most of my favourite books are children's books and they're considered great books even amongst the toughest critics.

[primroseburrows.livejournal.com]

Adults have written adult books about children. The story of HP could've been written for adults and even though the story would essentially be the same, some things would've been different.

I think you're right. I'm still not sure of how to exactly classify a "childrens' book", but maybe I don't need to. It's all about enjoying the books. But yeah. HP could have had more "adult" themes put in and it would've been a different book. I'm glad she's doing it the way she is.