On Jul 26, 2005, at 2:12 AM, Martin Lewis wrote:
On 7/25/05, Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
They are fun books and encouraging children to read is always a good
thing but in what possible sense have they raised any bar?
Have you read them?
Yep.
:D
OK. I figured you had, but it doesn't hurt to establish that right out.
Some people don't like HP but haven't read the books. Some base the
judgment only on the first movie, which is a little like dissing ST:TOS
based on a viewing of ST:TMP.
The arc of storytelling isn't the only thing that
develops; the depth of writing and of issues tackled by Rowling has
also increased from novel to novel. I don't know of any other
children's series that matures along with its readers.
It's true the books have matured; whilst still not exactly subtle
Rowling has toned down the broader, most childish elements.
Yeah, and there are times when I wonder if she always planned it to be
that way, or if she's been developing as a writer too, or if there are
editors avidly encouraging her, or if marketing punch alone is letting
her take a more mature tone, or what.
However
there's no way the books have matured with their readers, rather they
have moved from the 9-10 level to the 11-12 year old level.
Hmm, I'll have to disagree there. Starting with book 4 much heavier
issues are covered, things that tend to be deeper than are recognized
as "acceptable" lit for the barely preteen crowd.
Any one
who has kept pace with Harry in years as they have read the books will
have far out matured the book.
Definitely, but that's partly because the books aren't released one per
year. ;)
There's a huge
crossover into adult readership at least partly because of that.
Why would that explain the crossover? Why would adults start reading
a book for ten years olds on the off chance the series will become for
seventeen years olds?
Oh, they wouldn't, you're right about that. I was thinking more of
adult readers who came to the series later, say with book 3 or 4
(maybe picking one up one day to see why son/daughter is so enamored),
and realized they didn't suck at all, so decided to start from the
beginning and read the whole series. Certainly no one reading in 1998
or '99 or so would have thought things could have developed they way
they have over time.
And, of course, the books are simply, strictly *better* than most of
what passes for kids' titles out there.
They really aren't. You could walk into the children's department of a
bookshop and quite easily pick up a better book. You could pick up a
worse book too but that's not the point.
Um, I'm not sure which bookstores you're familiar with, but in the
States, that's not so readily true. The vast bulk of children's writing
marketed in the US is crap. Most of it seems to be thinly-plotted
obviously formulaic franchise drivel, roughly the text equivalent of
any "Law and Order" or "CSI" series. And some of it is so devastatingly
unreadable that I can't imagine it would *promote* literacy in youth.
It's the textual equivalent of shit-flavored ice cream: Sure to leave
an unforgettably bad taste in the mouth, guaranteed to affect opinions
for a lifetime.
I'd ask, rather, in what way you believe the books to be like every
other children's title out there.
I don't believe they are like every other children's title out there.
They are a mix of familiar elements from two strands of children's
literature - boarding school and fantasy - that in terms of quality
sit somewhere in the middle of the field.
I'll wager you're more immersed in better books for kids. For that
reason I'm guessing you don't live in the States. ;)
--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
