The value of children's fiction

[doversoul1]

It is a book I've felt more than half inclined to read. (Which reminds me: there's an African language which has a special tense to express: 'I had the intention of doing, but didn't'). That aside

Quickly took a look at the synopsis: that is something that I do find intriguing. One of the things which, for me, are the threads I want to follow are ideas that are developing, if you like 'ideas as narrative' rather than the usual fictional plotting and stories. I might have said, à propos this discussion, that I'm not much interested in stories about children (or Young Adults), but this seems to me not to be about a Young Adult - or it is an atypical young adult functioning (or not) in an adult world which is quite different from the adventures of a gang of pre-adults having adventures. It is, literally, 'novel'. I can understand its interest and appeal for a wide range of readers. [On the basis of having read the Wikipaedia article! ]

As you say, The Curious Incident was a ‘novel’ idea for a fiction rather than 'ideas as narrative' because the plot follows the actions (and reactions) of the character whose condition was, at the time of the publication, not well know which provided the readers with great entertainment (in the best sense). The author must have chosen the age of the character on the basis that teenage boys were usually thought to be awkward and problematic. Putting a grown man in the situations would have made the story very un-funny, and putting a child in these situations would have been out of question. It isn’t a children’s book in that the book is not about a child, young or older, who is facing the world run by adults and try to understand it and, yes, to grow up. The Curious Incident isn’t bothered about these points.

[Stanfordian]

Could someone please give me their opinion if the Harry Potter books were intended as children's fiction or designed for all people of all ages. And the Lord of the Ring books too.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Could someone please give me their opinion if the Harry Potter books were intended as children's fiction or designed for all people of all ages.

I think that HP was intended for children at around the ages of the characters in the books (so c10 - 16 years-ish). The popularity of the books with older readers I think led to JKR moving onto the "adult" world of the "Fantastic Beasts" series. She has a loyal following, and, to her credit, she seems equally loyal to them, creating a series of books that has "followed" the readers as they grow up. (And keeping the non-fantasy stuff apart from these by writing under pseudonyms.)

And the Lord of the Ring books too.

As somebody mentioned earlier - some of these originated in semi-private conversations between adult dons at Oxford; so whilst the Hobbit is a children's book, LotR isn't.

But, whatever ideas an author has about who their work is "intended" for, I'm sure that they're quite happy to see the royalty cheques rolling in when "unintended" readers get involved.

[Stanfordian]

I think that HP was intended for children at around the ages of the characters in the books (so c10 - 16 years-ish). The popularity of the books with older readers I think led to JKR moving onto the "adult" world of the "Fantastic Beasts" series. She has a loyal following, and, to her credit, she seems equally loyal to them, creating a series of books that has "followed" the readers as they grow up. (And keeping the non-fantasy stuff apart from these by writing under pseudonyms.)


As somebody mentioned earlier - some of these originated in semi-private conversations between adult dons at Oxford; so whilst the Hobbit is a children's book, LotR isn't.

But, whatever ideas an author has about who their work is "intended" for, I'm sure that they're quite happy to see the royalty cheques rolling in when "unintended" readers get involved.

Many thanks indeed for that info. As you can probably tell I haven't read them.

[french frank]

But, whatever ideas an author has about who their work is "intended" for

On which point - publishers also have their views on the subject apparently: I was interested to learn that there were two simultaneous editions of The Curious Incident, one for children and one for adults (I'm assuming it was the publishers who produced purely presentational 'differences'.)

[DracoM]

Harry Potter series and LoR's did the same.

[doversoul1]

Harry Potter series and LoR's did the same.

They* were published as children’s books and later brought out as general novels when the publishers saw the possible adult market for them. Whereas The Curious Incident was published more or less simultaneously. Nobody could say definitely whether the book was for children or for adult/general readers. And I think it became a best seller in the adult market.
*The first Harry Potter book, that is. The rest of the books are things of their own.

As for The Lord of the Rings
semi-private conversations between adult dons at Oxford (ferneyhoughgeliebte #78)

A grown-up boys club

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Well ... you say "grown up" ....

[french frank]

Well ... you say "grown up" ....

Exactement: Middle-aged academic gents (Only Men Aloud).

Harry Potter series and LoR's did the same.

What I suggested was that this was a publishers' marketing decision, though I was only assuming it was to do with the presentation. I don't think Lord of the Rings first appeared in a separate edition for younger readers and for adults.

Incidentally, how terms change: if I had to say what I think 'Young Adult' refers to, logically, I would say roughly 18-25, with the emphasis still on the 'young' rather than the 'adult'. That term, if anything, seems like a marketing invention. Like 'middle youth': group them together and then decide on the sales pitch (different dust jackets &c - just looking, the children's edition of Harry Potter has more cartoonish/comic strip illustrations, the adults' less colourful and less 'busy').

[doversoul1]

Exactement: Middle-aged academic gents (Only Men Aloud).

What I suggested was that this was a publishers' marketing decision, though I was only assuming it was to do with the presentation. I don't think Lord of the Rings first appeared in a separate edition for younger readers and for adults.

The Lord of the Rings was published in 1954 when a book about elves and magic rings was automatically seen as a book for children. It was in the 1960s in the hippy era when the book began to be read by adults who saw it as a sort of the Guide to an Alternative World. As it has been mentioned, Tolkien wrote what he wanted to write without children in mind as the intended readers, the book was ‘natural’ to adult readers. In recent years, some scholars and publishers tried to convince the reading world that Narnia books were really for adults but had no success. Reading public isn’t always that gullible.

Incidentally, how terms change: if I had to say what I think 'Young Adult' refers to, logically, I would say roughly 18-25, with the emphasis still on the 'young' rather than the 'adult'. That term, if anything, seems like a marketing invention. Like 'middle youth': group them together and then decide on the sales pitch (different dust jackets &c - just looking, the children's edition of Harry Potter has more cartoonish/comic strip illustrations, the adults' less colourful and less 'busy').

https://www.theguardian.com/society/shortcuts/2018/jan/22/life-begins-at-24-why-being-a-teenager-now-lasts-15-years

Harry Potter was just right for this audience.

[agingjb]

Clearly we have different recollections of around 1955. Yes, LOTR was a sequel to a book for children, but it was not published as a book for children, nor reviewed as such.

Sadly my battered copies of the first editions (even more sadly, not first impressions) have lost their dust jackets, but if anyone can find them, I think there are mentions of Ariosto and Malory.

The Wiki article has links to contemporary reviews by Auden, which may be worth a look.

I suppose the most effective dismissal, if one is needed, would be to regard LOTR as an extended donnish joke.

[doversoul1]

Clearly we have different recollections of around 1955. Yes, LOTR was a sequel to a book for children, but it was not published as a book for children, nor reviewed as such.

Sadly my battered copies of the first editions (even more sadly, not first impressions) have lost their dust jackets, but if anyone can find them, I think there are mentions of Ariosto and Malory.

The Wiki article has links to contemporary reviews by Auden, which may be worth a look.

I suppose the most effective dismissal, if one is needed, would be to regard LOTR as an extended donnish joke.

I have no personal recollections. My comment was based on published reference like this one.

It became well known as J. R. R. Tolkien's publisher, some time after publishing the popular children's fantasy novel The Hobbit in 1937, and its high fantasy sequel The Lord of the Rings novel in 1954–1955.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_%26_Unwin

And if your recollection is correct, which I have no reasons to doubt, then it proves that #81 isn’t correct (that the book was published simultaneously in separate editions for children and general readers).

[LezLee]

When I worked in Liverpool libraries (1956 - 72), Young Adults were over 14s, i.e. teenagers. Children under 14 had to have written permission from their parents before they could use the adult library, though this rule was largely disregarded in the '60s and staff used their discretion.

[doversoul1]

All I can say to both FF and Dovers is read Patrick Ness's 'Chaos Walking' trilogy and you may want to re-consider.

I made an attempt to read the first book but didn’t get beyond the first few pages. Firstly, the language was too much like the kind that meant to make you ‘feel the part’, and secondly, the main character has a talking dog as a companion. OK, the dog doesn’t actually speak but communicates in human language, albeit basic, by something akin to what was used to be called telepathy. I’m sorry but talking dogs to me belong to comics or Disney’s animation films.

If you enjoyed the book, that’s fine. We all have different tastes and opinions about books as well as about music. It just that I wouldn’t go out of my way to recommend it to anyone.

[DracoM]

I'm not going to bother you with narrative or plot details from the Ness three, but that so curt ridicule and dismissal of the trilogy having read 'a few pages' seems to smack of lack of wish to participate usefully in the issues.

'I only got as far as the 'clock striking thirteen', laughed out loud and thought blow that for a lark, I'm out of this book right now! Thirteen o'clock....I mean.........'