Books People Can't Finish

[Dngrsone]

Don't be that way, Greg! A good story is a good story; regardless of intended audience.

The Hobbit is a children's book. So is The Wizard of Oz.

[Gazella]

Originally Posted by Gregg Bell

What am I, eight-years-old? What in the world in a Harry Potter book would appeal to me? Maybe if a hypnotist age-regressed me, I'd read it. Otherwise, what, are you nuts?

Seriously?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Gregg Bell

What am I, eight-years-old? What in the world in a Harry Potter book would appeal to me? Maybe if a hypnotist age-regressed me, I'd read it. Otherwise, what, are you nuts?

Don't knock it if you haven't tried it. Damn good books, regardless of age. (IMHO)

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Don't knock it if you haven't tried it. Damn good books, regardless of age. (IMHO)

Agreed, with a very large number of adult fans.

[DrNefario]

I was eight years old, once. I like to think I can still remember how I felt.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DrNefario

I was eight years old, once. I like to think I can still remember how I felt.

The Harry Potter books honestly are not written for 8-year-olds.

[Yapyap]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The Harry Potter books honestly are not written for 8-year-olds.

I would agree. The first few in particular are certainly books an eight-year-old can enjoy fully - and the others are such that a mature eight-year-old would get enough out of them to enjoy them a great deal - but from the fourth or fifth one onwards, they're very clearly also aimed primarily at readers who are quite a few years older than eight.

And they can all be very easily enjoyed at any age.

Not that they'll appeal to everyone - there's not a single book out there that would appeal to everyone. But discounting HP (and multilayered middle-grade and YA books in general) as something "not for adults" by default is just, well, not the case.

[DrNefario]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The Harry Potter books honestly are not written for 8-year-olds.

Yes, I have read them, I was just responding to original post. I'd guess they were aimed at readers about the same as HP?

It seems more acceptable for an adult to read YA and children's books now than it was before Rowling. I'm fine with that.

[NickyWithNook]

The Wind in the Willows is a children's book, and it's wonderful. I'll read books intended for any age, if they're good books. I read The Wind in the Willows out loud to one of my kids and might have enjoyed it more than she did. It's a great book for reading out loud because the language is so beautiful.

[peachiekene]

Originally Posted by DrNefario

Yes, I have read them, I was just responding to original post. I'd guess they were aimed at readers about the same as HP?

I have no proof, but I have always assumed this was the case. Especially with the material getting darker as the characters age.

[delph]

Originally Posted by DrNefario

Yes, I have read them, I was just responding to original post. I'd guess they were aimed at readers about the same as HP?

I've always assumed that was the case as well. It just fit the pattern of the material, as peachiekene said.

Drat, now I'm inclined to go throw money at the Pottermore store so I can read these again on my magic device. Not that my TBR pile isn't big enough already...

My sister is six years younger than me, and teased me about reading her library books that she brought home as a kid and tween. I still happily read children's and YA books. They're imaginative and fun in a very different way from fiction geared toward adults, and sometimes it's a nice change of pace. A good book is a good book.

[Gregg Bell]

Hey y'all. Read your comments and you make valid points. I've just never been much for fantasy, munchkins or muggles or whatever. And I've never liked sci-fi either. (Although I must admit having loved a couple of sci-fi movies (Bladerunner and Moon).) Fantasy, esp. of a spiritual nature like the Potter books seems almost like a pseudo spirituality, perhaps an avoidance of true spirituality. Like instead of looking at real angels and demons, you're obssesing about wizards and whatever. I think the same holds for the fascination with werewolves, vampires and zombies.

Hearing about the HP craze I did start one HP book but it just wasn't for me. Not wanting to be a party pooper entirely I read a book called "Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell" a lengthy 'Harry Potter for adults' and found it (except for one scene--when a big magic transformation is promised and a timely first snowfall fills the bill tidily) plodding.

So live and let live. My OP was provocative. My apologies and respect for all your appreciation of the HP books. (I now much better understand their appeal to adults.)

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The Harry Potter books honestly are not written for 8-year-olds.

Famously (and perhaps notoriously), Harold Bloom disagreed.

What's happening is part of a phenomenon I wrote about a couple of years ago when I was asked to comment on Rowling. I went to the Yale University bookstore and bought and read a copy of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. I suffered a great deal in the process. The writing was dreadful; the book was terrible. As I read, I noticed that every time a character went for a walk, the author wrote instead that the character "stretched his legs." I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Rowling's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that she has no other style of writing.

Imagine what he might have thought about repetition in Lord Dunsany (would he have considered "the fields we know" to be a cliche?)!

[Geralt]

Originally Posted by Gregg Bell

Like instead of looking at real angels and demons, you're obssesing about wizards and whatever.

Hate to rain on your parade, but for some of us angels and demons are no more real than wizards, unicorns, elves, gnomes, pixies, and so on.
Talking about true spirituality as you do, always lights up my alarm lights.
If there is one thing that is dangerous for all of us is this false idea of an universal spirituality that is same for all people on this planet of ours. No thanks.

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by Gregg Bell

Like instead of looking at real angels and demons, you're [obsessing] about wizards and whatever. I think the same holds for the fascination with werewolves, vampires and zombies.

How often do you find yourself looking at real angels and demons (photos or it didn't happen)?

By your logic, if I read about Gandabherunda Narasimha, I'm not wasting my time (since he's a Hindu god), but if my subject is gandharvas, I'm simultaneously wasting and not wasting my time (since they're mythical creatures in several cultures but heavenly beings in Hinduism).

And what about Leviathan? If I write about that particular sea monster, am I being productive, since he appears in the Old Testament? If so, then what about sea monsters that don't appear in religious texts and why are they any different?

And what do you think of Christian vampire novels? If crucifixes and sunlight destroy classic vampires, then how is the story of their fictive existence not a Christian metaphor?