Are the Harry Potter books really for children anymore?
They used to be suitable for children as well as adults, but are they really suitable for children? I think for young children they can be quite scary especially the bit with the cave in book six ,HBP the books seemed to have got more darker and scarier as the books have gone on. What do you think?

I think that they are still childrens books in a way. For example if you read the first book when you were aged 10, you would have grown with Harry (by now you would be 18 or so). Therefore JKR is growing her characters and their experiences on a par with the reader if that makes sense!!!!

I never thought they were children's books. They got labled that way, and Jo now accepts it, but she once said she had never thought of writing for children and was surprised when she got labled a children's author.

They opened with a double murder and a child being abused and just got darker. I would not let my eleven year old read HBP because I disliked it so much and thought it was inappropriate for her, but my older kids read it.

I especially get frustrated when people speculate on what's going to happen and say "___ can't happen because it's a childrens' book." I don't understand what the rational is for that.

I don't think they ever were children's books, I did wonder why people called it that when there are murders in them. I suppose it is because the books are mainly about Hogwarts aswell and that is a school for young witches and wizards. Harry Potter feels like a big part of my life, because I've kind of grown up with it, and the Harry Potter series has always been my favourite book. I don't mind the films either but I still think that the books are better!

If you want little kids to read a story about children going to a school of witchcraft, they should probably be reading something like "Those Worst Witch" series by Jill Murphy that came out in the 70's, and watching the TV shows based on it them that came out in the mid-90's.

Harry Potter is, in my opinion, not that great for anyone too much younger than the age Harry is in each of the books, but that's just my opinion based on my kids. Each parent knows their own kids best.

The books are certainly different than the films, but that's always the case. You can do things in a book that don't translate well onto film, and vice-versa. I always took my youngest daughter and to friends to see the HP films, but when GoF came out, one of the friends was told by their mother that they couldn't go. I respected her wishes.

I've never really considered the HP to be 'children's books' in the sense of 'children' or young readers. I saw them for pre-teens and young adolescence and up. I personally wouldn't encourage anyone younger than about 11 to start reading them.

However in the understanding of a 10-12 year old reading the HBP, I would think that they would probably be mature enough first of all to get up to that stage of reading (because let's face it, they aren't exactly 'light reading') and second of all to understand all of the content. I remember reading a lot of 'older' books when I was quite young and then rereading them several years later gave a whole new perspective to my naivity

The movies on the other hand, I do get concerned about. I definitely would not have been encouraging an under 12 to go and see Goblet of Fire.

I agree, I read them when I was about eight or nine and I didn't really understand them, but I tried reading them again when I was ten or eleven and I really enjoyed them. you don't really think of the book as that scary, but actually I suppose they are for young children. Does anyone have/know of any children being really scared when reading a Harry Potter book? It will be interesting to know.

well, i myself am not 16 yet and not at 'harry's age' in HBP, but i definitely don't think HP are 'children's books'.
maybe the first three but how can someone consider book 6 to be a children's book? i don't get it!
would a 10-year old understand harry in OotP?

when i saw GoF in the cinema there were so many small kids there, i couldn't belive how parents could let them see it, plus they didn't really understand and kept asking questions.
i always get so angry when someone says hp is for children! lol i dunno why... i just think especially the last 3 books are not at all for children! they are (not all the time, i know) dark. children don't think like harry when he is in puperty. i think they are written for teens and adults.

Because this debate seems to be raging on, I decided to do a bit of a quiz where I work. I work in a school of 7 to 11 year olds. I asked them who had read the books. Approx 90% had. I asked who had seen the films, that gave 100% response. When I asked them if they thought the books were written for children they all agreed. When I pointed out that Harry was more grown up in the last 3 books and that maybe they were aimed teens or adults, they siad that it didn't matter and that a lot of books in school were about growing up.I asked the kids if any of them were frightened by the content of the films or books, they said there was no need to be afraid if you understand them. So there you are, that's what the kids at a small village school in the UK think. By the way my daughter is nine and I've read all the books to her she understands them perfectly because I explain things as we go along and I took her to see the Philosophers Stone when she was 4 and she loved it!!!

These books were aimed for kids not for adults but i guess adults got addicted aswell! HBP won't be read by children under 7 probably because they don't understand how to read or it's to big for them OR they do not understand but i think they'd understand that it's not real!

well, i reckon small kids can read the books, but i don't think jk wrote book 5 or 6 for children...
i think for teens and adults it is much more fun reading...
in my opinion there are much teens and also children just reading the books and seeing the movies because everyone does and there are so many films that young kids rather shouldn't see, so i think they also get used to it lol
jk writes about a teenage boy in puberty and i think i wouldn't understand his feelings if i was a little kid... but maybe i'm just underestimating children...

I agree, most kids do the things that their friends do. Which is the reason I took my daughter to see the first film when she was 4. It was a case of can we go mum pleeeeease!! And I gave in, but not before I'd made sure that I thought it was suitable. The same goes will the later books. I read them first and told her that some sad and bad things happen and then explained as I read the books. She was more upset about good people dying than Voldemort and anything evil, because to her that is more real.

Even some adults didn't understand. I overheard this one.
CHILD: Why is Harry acting like that?
MAN: Because he is a coward.

Just this weekend an young girl walked by the HP display in the bookstore.
WOMAN: Do you like HP?
CHILD: (very firmly) No. I hate HP.
Child with eyes downward creeps away as far as the aisle allows.

In the United States it is printed by Scholastic which is a children’s press. The thing I wonder about is how much influence the editors have upon JKR. It’s possible they could firmly direct the book towards a more suitable children’s tale.

i never thought of them as childrens books i grew up with them...but what does get under my skin is that the computer games and so on are targeted at a younger audiance then the book it is based on is. to movies are sort of like that as well. but not as bad i guess i just love and am loyal to the books and dont think that anything can be better!

Stephen King talked about this when he reviewed OOTP when it first came out. I remember headlines from the time proclaiming that he said Harry Potter *was* Harry Potter for grownups. Here are some of his comments, excerpted from an interview published in Entertainment Weekly:

4. There's been a lot of discussion –– some of it pretty warm –– about
whether or not kids, especially those under the age of 10, should be
reading these novels, which contain vivid scenes of grief, terror,
death, and even torture. What's your take on this?

My take on it is my mother's, actually. She used to say, "If they're
old enough to understand what they're reading and to enjoy what
they're understanding, leave 'em alone –– it keeps 'em out from
underfoot." I also subscribe to her corollary: "If it gives 'em
nightmares, take it away."

The first couple of Potters were PGs. Azkaban and Goblet of Fire were
PG-13s, and Phoenix makes it under the PG-13 by the skin of its
teeth...or its fangs. Would I give these books to my own kids, were
they still 9, 7, and 5? Yes, and without hesitation. The suspense here
is never prurient; the scares are more than balanced off by the simple
decency of Harry, Ron, and Hermione. If teaching life lessons is one
of the jobs books do, then the Potter novels teach some fine ones
about how to behave under pressure. And Rowling never preaches. Harry
and his friends strike me as real children, not proto-Christian tin
gods out of a Sunday-school comic book. Hogwarts School is a long way
from Bob Jones University, which is one of the reasons right-wingers
decry the books.

A more interesting question is when did Ms. Rowling stop writing the
stories for chidren and start writing them for everyone, as Mark Twain
did when he moved from Tom Sawyer to Huckleberry Finn and Lewis Carroll
did when he moved from Alice in Wonderland to Through the
Looking-Glass? I'm guessing it was a process –– most subconscioius ––
that began with volume 3 (Azkaban) and hit warp speed in volume 4
(Goblet of Fire). By the time we finish The Order of the Phoenix, with
its extraordinary passages of fear and despair, the distinction
between "children's literature" and plain old "literature" has ceased
to exist. The latest Potter adventure could be The Cacther in the Rye,
minus the dirty words and the drinking...or maybe just the dirty
words: Just what the hell is butterbeer, anyway?

I'm in total agreement with Mr King. He hit the nail well and truly on the head. The books have moved from being childrens literature to literature for all.

In the beginning though, if you had walked into a bookstore, picked up a copy of PS and read the blurb as ' Harry Potter is an eleven year old boy, who discovers that he is a wizard, and this is the story of his adventures at Hogwarts school'. Would you have thought of buying ther book for yourself or a child?

I think that as the characters are getting older different challanges and different emotions face them. And as they grow up the books are growing up to. I beleive they went from a childrens book to being a book for older people as well. There are some things that younger children will not understand at all in the recent books. I think that it shows growth in the series and that it is a good, nescary thing

Children under 11 mostly wont understand, mainly because its about relationships now and its more ''growing'', need bigger words.

Wow. That a good question. I think younger kids wouldhave a difficult time understanding the overall plot. They can understand the story line...of what is happening and everything, but I don't think they would UNDERSTAND the meaning of the books. The books are deffinetly appropriate for teanages, but I don't know as much for kids like 10 and under. Because as the books progress, I think JK is making the books more difficult and grusome.

I think, firstly, people tend to underestimate children. Kids tend to go from reading books for very young children, straight into completely adult fare, and this has long been accepted as a Good Thing. There are screeds written about the role of violence and death in stories for very young children: it's supposedly all about helping the children come to terms with certain realities, under parent-directed circumstances. The subject matter of the average fairly tale is pretty grim stuff. I've noticed that kids love scary stories and sad stories - a book that makes you sob with grief is one that has been thoroughly enjoyed. The scene between Voldemort and Harry in the graveyard would need parental guidence, I think, for a younger child. Ralph Fiennes hit the nail on the head in his comments about that scene: a young boy tied up, while older men taunt, humiliate and torture him. There're a few scenes between Lucius Malfoy and Harry where one can't help thinking, "Lucius, you are one seriously sick puppy". For an older man to bully a young boy so nastily seems a bit over the top, until one thinks of the atrocities committed against children by adults every day. In fact, Lucius is mild compared to a teacher I had at the age, who deliberately set out to destroy a boy in our class: I hope there is a special corner of hell reserved especially for her. I think the key is parental guidence: moms and dads must be involved.
Secondly, why should kids have all the fun? I'm 44 and I thoroughly enjoy Harry Potter. I work as a book designer and specialise in childrens' books, which is how I first became interested, but as I understand it, a fairly large chunk of HP fans are older, and good for us, I say.

I think that as we grow up our perception on what children can comprehend diminishes. My 5 year old niece, understands the childrens tales like Pocahontas and whilst we look back at Pocahontas you think, 'yeah whatever' but you read it to her and you realise that it centres on racial vilification and communication between two so alarmingly different cultures.

Those two points are directly parallel to the theme of pure and muggle born, as well as the division between the Muggle and Magical worlds. Ella understands perfectly, she can comprehend what the differences are and who's right and wrong. I doubt that she could have the finer points worked out but we'd get there in the end.

It would just be laborious to read to her. Go Stephen Fry and the Audiobooks!

Right on teresa. Children understand far more than most people give them credit. They also learn things faster than expected. This is why parents should be involved in their child's reading. If they are not, it is easy for a child to learn the wrong lesson from the book. As in all things, parents should be aware of their child's activities.

this is from a teens perspective, the first, second and third books were meant for children (I was a child when they came out), then the last 3 have been aimed moe towards teens and adults because harry is a teen/adult in those books. JK has just been making the books more mature as harry becomes more mature. (i hope that made sense)

JK never intended the Potter books to be labeled as children's books. She said she was shocked when that label was attached. I think the books do mature as Harry matures. The reason for this is not because the books are changing, but because the lives of the characters are changing. The first three books concerned a distant evil that threatened to come back. The fourth book brought that evil straight to Harry's footsteps. The evil was not trying to come back, it had done it. It was already plotting to kill Harry even before it returned to full power.

Lol.

Funny things about series, they PROGRESS.
I grew up with HP.

SS- I was 11.
CoS- I was 12.
PoA- I was 13.
GoF- I was 14.
OotP- I was 15.
HBP- I was 16.

I'm turning 17 in December and 7 is due to come out not too long after the start of the new year.

You can't have the most evil wizard of all time possessing your body and having his minions kill your godfather right infront of you, killing your parents, and threatening the lives of you and everything that matters to you and still try and maintain that it's a children's story. It's not a question.

I think that Harry Potter is for people that are 12 years old or older. So maybe young adult-adult. Definately too scary for anyone younger.

i think the books are for pre-teens and teens because of the lessons to be learned from them. i do think that the first two harry potter books are fitted more for ages 8-12 because of the fact that everything goes back to being normal in the end and no one dies although there is some mild language in both of them. i think book three is where it would start getting harder for 10 and younger to understand fully and book four is when it really got to being more of a 11+ kind of story. the last two would definately belong in the young adult section.

I actually do not think that they are anymore. Just because the readers were younger just like the characters and then the more book, the older the readers and characters got. So yes I think the later books are not childrens books.

I think as the books progressed is when they started to get more difficult to read. I was in third grade when I read the first, second, and third book with no trouble at all. It wasn't till I got to the fourth book that it gave me some difficulty.

My point is that I think they aren't child books anymore. Yes, most of the origianl readers and growing up and grasping mpre complex stuff, but many new readers(children) that are being introduced to these books will have a harder time. So I think the first couple of books could be classified as childrens books, but now I think that some of them should be classified as teen books instead.

I totally disagree with you. My younger sister is in fifth grade, and she is on the sixth one. She had been reading them since the summer after her second grade year. I think Harry is for anyone who is willing to read and uncover this wondeful world. And you have to admit, werent you a little scared the first time you read the sixth book? Casue I aint even gonna lie, Im 18 and I was a little scared about some parts of the book.

I'm not sure if I could personally label an age for Harry Potter. I started reading the first two when I was in 2nd grade. I'm 14 and I enjoy the books and I know others who read Harry Potter and are younger than me, and I know adults that read Harry Potter as well. They don't seem as "childish" to me anymore. My mom, who has never read the books, was a little surprised to see (when she saw the GoF movie) that the story was "darker" than what she had expected of a children's book.
I don't see a problem with the younger ones reading them as long as they are mature enough to understand the deaths, etc in the books.

I think that the books contain elements that children can relate, but elements that adults can relate to too...

I also think that the humour is aimed at a higher age group.....

But if you think about it logically, as the character age, their issues, emotions, thoughts and actions become more mature.... Surely it is safe to conclude that the target market should age too??

I think they began as children books for kids aged about 8-12 years. Then they aged from the third/fourth book to a 10-14 kinda group but now it's more 13-16 i'd say. But anywhere from 12 and up likes them, with some younger ones reading them.

I agree with **pigwidgeon** that the humour, emotions, and relationships are for older readers and the as charcaters age so should the target market.

I do agree that the books now seem to be targeted at an older audience, but they can be read by all ages. It's like the simpsons. Its widely watched by children, but a lot of the themes, one liners etc are aimed at adults. If they were any less subtle -and i can't believe that i am calling the simpsons subtle- it would not be accepted.
Harry Potter, however harmless some parts of it may seem, has always had an underlying theme of death, good verses evil etc. The people that are viewed to be too young -though i believe you can never be too young to read a book- will not understand, or even pick up, on these underlying messages, so it is not a problem.
As the trio - and other characters grow up, and become deeper, they become more real. Maybe that is what people find hard to accept, that these people are so real, it is easy to forget that they are fictional.
As the trio approach puberty, the story is going to change. They will become more- and less- responsible, start feeling emotions that they have never encountered before, and they will change. The target audience don't need to change with the characters, becase the Hp books have always had such a wide audience. People from the ages of five to ninety-five read the books. And that's how it should be.

Clara}~

Harry Potter was written for children. It IS a children's book. If some adults wish to read it as well then that's their choice but it is aimed at a younger audience. The books used to be for young children: 7, 8, 9 and 10. Now I think it is getting on to be more for 13+. It is quite dark and I think that some 7 year olds would be quite frightened by the books as they are getting darker and more...*ahem* grown up in a more physical way!!!

The books are very humourus but the humour is more directed to a higher age group as **pigwidgeon** says.

It has definately progressed towards teenagers now more than children.

I agree with romilda_girl. HP was written for children not adults. Just because the characters are aging does not change the fact. There are many children’s book that are popular with adults. That does not make them written for adults.
Besides just because you’re an adult does not mean you can’t enjoy a good book.

Personaly I don't see anything wrong with the books. The only reason that I don't think that they're really "Children's books" are not because their scary or have murder in them but basicaly because young children wouldn't really understand some of the things in them.
I've said this before, when I read the books there were a few times I had to read some lines over 2 or 3 times before I got it.

The people that say HP is to scary for kids probably don't even think twice about leting their kids watch a Disney movie.
-Bambi....Mother shot "murder"?
-The Lion King....Father trampeled to death in a set up for the son "murder"?
-Snow White....Witch tried to kill her with a poisoned apple "murder'? (not to mention she's living with 7 guys ) but lets not go there.
just to name a few, theres a lot more!
So dose it make it better because it's a cartoon? or because it's "Disney"?

I know some people arn't going to agree with me and thats cool, but thats what I think.
I guess it's because my parents allowed me to see things like that when I was young so that I wouldn't be scared and I don't mean kid stuff, they took me to see "Child's Play" when I was 5.

I think the Harry Potter books were ment for the audience that would grow with Harry. They dont really have to be the exact same age but i think that anyone more than four years younger than the present Harry is wasting there time.

As the books have moved through Harry's school career the language and vocabulary used extend to a wider range.

The books fall into some very deep stuff that you need to be able to cope with ( no one dies, apart from Hary's Parents, infront of Harry until he is fourteen.

JKR has had to be very careful about the amou nt of blows Harry can take each year, if Sirius came after him in his first year and then fell into the veil two weeks later Harry would have an emotional breakdown.

Personaly, i think it is impossible to keep the age range of these books so wide without the books getting very boreing.

Well i suppose yes it can be scary in some parts but if you have read it as a series i guees you get a little braver and even if it is scary. You know Harry will get through it.
So HP-Deathly-Hallows yeah i agree the audience was ment to grow with Harry as he goes through Hogwarts. Young audience may not find it as frightening as it is Harry Potter. Obviously the books have grown darker because it is know war with Voldermort.

i think that harry potter are not kids book anymore even though the kids are the ones that read them but anyways they have a lot of violence in them but thats like what everyone likes in book these days right?lol.

butterbeer_11 i agree with you i dont think that they are childeren's books anymore. i mean the first book was okay for children who were under 11 if they could understand it but the second one and on up i dont think they are appropriate for children under the age of 11 or 12 they are just to scary for certain age groups. the second one was a so much more scarier than the first one since voldemort and the basilisk was in it and the third book with the dementors and the fourth book all the tasks were to scary for children under the age of 11 and the fifth book with the fight at the ministry and the sixth book had two scarier scenes the scene where everyone was fighting at hogwarts and the scene with dumbledore and harry with the infri. all of those scenes were to scary for children at least under the age of 11. i think they should even start rating the movies pg-13 because the books aren't for children and the movies are just making visual pictures of the book. i think these books are more for teenagers...............THATS JUST MY OPINION

PLEASE REPLY!!!!!!!!!!!


1hpfan101

Coming from another teens perspective, I think Hp is not a childrens book. I know this kid, who's not yet ten, and he thinks he's "out-grown" Harry Potter. I don't think anyone can really out-grow HP, it's a classic.

Thats all I can think of at the moment....

Darkwort

I think that they are still children's books in a way. But they have seemed to get darker and more complex as they go on. I think that the 7th book though, might not be suitable for the younger readers. It might scare them. It seems like it is going to be a much darker book. Its kinda like the movies.



and i like the way you said that... the audience are meant to grow with the books.
~snitch

I think the reason people view the HP series as a "childrens series" is because it ties into the fantasy genre and some people view fantasy as being a "childrens genre"which is completely obsurd (hope I spelt that right)because when you look at fantastic books like The Lord Of The Rings by J.R.R Tolkien you realise that the genre of fantasy is not childish at all .

The HP series has become more complex and darker than ever but that is because it is how Harry views the world and he is growing up which basicly means that life is going to be complicated any way with out good old Voldy making things worse.

So just to conclude I dont think the HP series has ever been a childrens series but based for all ages.(sorry this is so long but I had a lot to say)

I agree with those that say that most readers grew up with the books. If you started the series in late elementary school and worked your way up as each came out, you would find that the content matured as you did. But all along parents had to watch their children closely because children are so easily fooled into taking fiction for reality. When I have kids and they want to read HP, I won't let them until I know that they can handle it mentally and won't be deceived into thinking the books real. In my opinion, though, the sixth book was to much for a child to handle; they might even get bored because they don't yet understand what's going through the characters heads and what drives them.

Dunno if any of that made a lick of sense or if anyone agrees

I agree with those who say that they are reading for all. I think that these books have always been all ages appropriate. Children are introduced to death and dark material at very young ages and i think it is actually a good thing that they are. These books speak about life (even if most of us can't do magic) and even though the mood has been growing darker in the books it doesn't mean that children won't be able to comprehend these things.

Well if you compare it with Lord of the Rings then HP is certainly a children's book. I tried to read LOTR when I was 11 but it was so hard to remember all the names of the places and characters and we didn't have any record of the history of that time.

Whereas short and easy names are used in Harry Potter. Even the font size tells us whether the book is for children or adult. Like the font size in LOTR is very small compared to HP's font size. And compare it with some TV show book like Lizzie McGuire or Full House

I think the book is for both, adults and children.

I think the first books when Harry was young were a good reading for all the ages,but the latest ones (specially the half-blood prince,when Harry and dumbledore are in the cave or the end) are not for young people,because there are some things ,for instance when an important character dies or when they are in a dangerous moment (inferis... ) not very adapted for children.

I also think that the books mustn't be forbidden for childs,because there are some kids enough mature to read all the book and these ones might be allowed to read them.

I think that the first two books wouldnt appeal to adults as much as children, but now the plot and stuff are becoming more scary ect.. For instance, my parents didnt like the first two, but they've liked the 5/6th. I think this could be because Harry ron ect. were chidren in 1/2, but now they are growing up and becoming more mature.

I think this is a very good topic BTW

woe. definately not childrens books anymore. i think the libraries have made that quite clear, and the bookstores. all the books after the PoA are in the young adult section. i think for the swearing (definately! although didn't Hagrid curse in the Sorcer's Stone??) and all the boy/girl stuff. children cannot understand and are not ready to read all the drama between the girls and boys, regarding the Yule Ball. And definately not the stuff between Cho and Hary in the 5th book. And the whole "Ron's Insecurity" part in the HBP is not kids material. Plus the violence gets pretty intense. I was kinda cringing when I read the part about Harry being cut in the graveyard and especially the part in the ministry, where that weird thing happens to Harry. It freaked me out.

Yeah, I agree with all of you who say,'if they grew up on the books'. Because I don't exactly think they are childrens books, persay. It depends on the childs maturity level...for the forth and fifth books at least. I don't think any kids under like 11 should read the HBP at all, they should just wait.

and i agree with gryffindorgirlie, this is a very good topic! : )

and did Hagrid sware in the SS?? im curious...