Harry Potter, fantasy or children's literature?

Remove all ads!

So recently I was struck by this question: Is Harry Potter actually fantasy? And if so then what is really required for something to be fantasy? See many people call it fantasy but I never really thought it was fantasy myself because even though I love it and don't really fully consider it children's books because so many adults read them too (and there are a lot of things for adults in the books) fantasy always seemed more. . . adultish to me. Maybe more like D&D than Harry Potter? And yet I consider the Oddysey to be fantasy. So what really determines fantasy? Any thoughts, suggestions or ideas?

 

What's not fantisy about it?
It might be based in a modern world but it certainly is fantisy. And yes it is a children's literature because it is designed for children. Now, this does not mean adults wont enjoy reading it but it just means it was designed for children.

 

The only thing that makes HP "Children's Literature" is that it's much more straightforward than most "adult literature." The plot has a few twists, but not the 47 zillion re-directions that can happen in some novels. Characters are pretty much what they appear to be - few have many layers of conflicting emotions and motivations. The HP books are interesting stories about interesting characters, which appeals to people of all age groups, but they are written so that younger people can grasp the full story and not get lost. Nothing wrong with that for me!

 

Week ago all five of the HP e-books accidentally dropped to my pocket, and already I have read the two first. What does that tell?

That if 20-year old student can get addicted, it's not a book with "Children Only" -label.

 

Aren't the FR books childrens literature? Or atleast teen reading? But people on this forum seem to love those books, with the average age been much over the age of a child. This does not mean they are not children's literature or what ever. It is what the writer intended them to be. If Rowling wrote the HP books for children then they are children's literature.

 

Drivel sums up Harry Potter. It's not even "literature".

This is a rant.

 

I hope that was Elminster in his younger days...

Anyhow, you would have to classify HP as fantasy, it doesn't really fit into any other genre. Childrens books are stuff like Mr Man (no offence to those here who read them ) and The Very Hungry Catapiller.

 

Well if you go for the dictionary definition, or the definition that we debated in my university level fantasy English course for that matter, Harry Potter quite clearly falls into the definition.

Just because a book is written for a different age group or level of sophistication does not change its genre. If you have a biography written for a target audience of young school aged children it is still a biography.

As to whether or not the Harry Potter books are childrens' books - I know many children who enjoy them and I feel that they are written at a level at which most young people can read understand them. I also know many adults including myself (age 27), and my father (age 52) who enjoy them too. In fact, I was introduced to the books by a co-worker who is old that he has children my age. Personally, I find nothing wrong with plunking myself down and laughing my head off while watching a cartoon. Does this make me immature?

I don't think so, in fact I feel sorry for people who feel that there is a point where someone is "too old" to enjoy certain things. Just because I read novels that are written with a more sophisticated audience in mind does not mean that it is wrong to read and enjoy something simple.

Finally, I would have to say that the page count issue is really irrelevent in my mind. Yes some children may have trouble with the weight but that is not really a reflection of whether or not a child would be able to read and enjoy the actual content. My much younger cousin is reading the latest Harry Potter and has had to read with the book sitting on a table but that is not stopping him from reading and enjoying it.

 

I'd have to say that Harry Potter is fantasy. Theres hardly one aspect of it that isnt fanatsy. Other then that its meant to be in present time but a lot of novels have been in present time and are fantasy. I think she meant for the first books to be childrens novels because they were much simpler the the latest ones and they were 300 pages or less. But a little while after they came out teens and adults began to read them and you could hardly call them childrens books anymore. Now the books have become mroe complicated, the vocabulary has become harder and the length of the books have become longer. So you can hardly call them childrens novels anymore. She even made it so taht tere would be different covers for the books one for adults the other for children

 

The ones I've read, which i admit are very few, where so basic. They had a simple story line, very short and very very boring.

Harry Potter are books designed for children. But they do make great reading for all ages. My 80 year old grandmother enjoyes reading them. But then so do some of my cousins who are under five years. They of course don't read them but they enjoy them no the less.

 

Hate HP!!! I can agree that it probably has to be fantasy because it doesn't fir anywhere else...
But i do so hate it. I won't go into why i hate it (mostly because i don't know why), but i honestly can't see how adults can read it.

 

The only reason I can see why people like it is:
1) It's different from most other books
2) It's well written
and 3) It's easy to follow.

 

Another reason people like the stories is becasue he is a real and believable character; HP is just an ordinary person dealing with extraordinary things. (Not a dual-scimitar wielding drow ranger who can run and attack at the speed of light; don't get me wrong I like drizzt but he's too good to be true.)

 

Harry Potter is a book writen for children. And that is that. No more, no less. LOTR is fantasy. HP is about as fantasy as Little red ridin' hood.

 

LOTR is a book for children too. At least it started out as a children book. Somewhere after meeting Aragorn, it accidently has evolved into something different. Maybe the same thing happened to Potter ?

 

@Yago: I think the "Aragorn" moment in the series was somewhere after book three... book five needs some serious editing! I mean, look at the size of the thing! Although having said that I know a lot of people who read LOTR when they were quite young (less than 15 years old).

 

Okay perhaps this topic needs some clarification: What defines a fantasy book/series and what enables something to be for children vs. adults. See what got me so curious was that I'm writing an AP thesis paper on C.S. Lewis and so (of course) the Narnia Chronicles came up. Now these are the kind of books written for children, meant for children but read by and enjoyed by adults. This is because C.S. Lewis puts all sorts of elements into it (*cough* copious amounts of theology) which makes it interesting to adults, even as they enjoy the fantasy aspects. (This by the way, was what my entire paper was about -- that C.S. Lewis' books are easy enough for kids but interesting enough for adults as well)

But even though adults read and love the Narnia Chronicles, many bookstores put them in the Children's Section. And most people even think of them as children's books. But the Narnia Chronicles are the kind of books I would put more under a fantasy category. And take Lord of the Rings, that is something that I would consider "hard-core fantasy" just as I would consider R.A. Salvatore books. And the Odyssey I also consider fantasy.

So what makes something truly fantasy and does Harry Potter belong in this category? -- That was the question I really wanted answered; not to open a debate whether Harry Potter is good for adults and kids, I already mentioned I thought it was good both ways. See because just as most bookstores put the Narnia Chronicles in the kid's section, they also do that with Harry Potter. LOTR is in the fantasy section though. So what is this invisible barrier?

Continuing on a slightly different note in response to other people's comments . . . I also feel that although fairy tales (like Little Red Riding Hood and Sleeping Beauty) are very much like fantasy and in general the first introduction any fantasy fan gets to the fantasy world. For instance, before I was playing D&D I was watching Disney and reading my huge book of fairy tales. So fairy tales in their own way are like fantasy, but fall just a little short. So if fairy tales are ALMOST fantasy, what makes it fully fantasy? Like if I just took a fairy tale and made it longer it wouldn't really be fantasy, it'd still be a kid's fairy tale. But if I added other elements into it, suddenly it's fantasy. So tying this back in, what is that crossing line?

 

I would say it's somewhat easy to define the crossing line. I'd be quite sure it is what the books contains. Tal was in on it with Elminster getting laid (or nearly, haven't read any of those so I wouldn't personally), another would be for instance in LOTR, death.
I dont find it suitable for kids to read how an army of orcs use catapults to bombard a city with severed heads of their kinsmen.

In my opinion, fantasy is the product of a child's mind. I started reading harry potter, hell I'm addicted to it and I'm 20. I'm like reading a book every second day (on the forth now). Often it's the child within that explore and break our boundaries, run into the unknown out of curiousity. The child within us that is the creator, and thus creating what I consider fantasy (being a product of something non-real).

As the difference to the terms of children's book and fantasy, I'm quite sure it's the content. My young cousin said he didn't like the fourth book as much as the others, since he said it was kinda "serious". I haven't read it, but I would assume this would be going into the treshold of the fantasy category away from a childrens book (and it's about 2-3 times longer than the previous oens).