Now I don't want to sound like an old prude, but for this post I know I'm going to end up doing so. I enjoy, like the rest of you, the Harry Potter series, and like many Potter fans I am of an age that exceeds what I deem to be its original target audience. But we (the teenage audience) were not the books prime market ten years ago and for that reason, I have a point to make...
Due to the series phenomenon and the amount of adults fans, I believe J K Rowling had forgot her morals when selecting the choice of language for her later books. Over the series, as her books evolved, she changed her choice of words to become mature. For example, in Philosophers Stone she used metaphors to describe things like -'hands the size of dust bin lids' and by the seventh encounter she used more intellectual descriptions such as 'robust' and 'colossal'.
And now to my point, because I am a young adult, the improved tone in language in the later books did make the series a more enjoyable read. But could I say hand on heart that a child the age of six would understand fully what was going on in book seven (and let’s not forget that this was the lower age that the books were originally targeted at). My answer could only be no.
Now I know that you could argue that as her books progressed, so did its original audience and hence the improved text to accommodate their needs. But look at the children who came to the book stores at midnight on the 21st July. Many were exceptionally young. Surely the Potter books are still categorised as children books? Other authors such as Roald Dahl and Jacqueline Wilson manage to keep their choice of text throughout their careers the same too and they never seemed to be effected by their original audience growing up. Plus they never resorted to using words like 'Bitch' no matter what their characters were encountering at the time neither (which we all should agree is not the best choice of language we should be promoting to very young children).
All this a side, I can forgive J K Rowling. I think next time she writes a book series she would be better writing for teenagers instead. Her style of writing is perfect for that genre. In fact the only thing that annoyed me in her writing at all was that she always spelt learned rather than Learnt in her books sold in England (maybe the Harry Potter type setter is American? ... who knows), but being someone whose neither an author nor brilliant at grammar, how could I ever criticise such a trivial thing?
I'm sure I'm going to get bashed on here (probably by eagle eyed English teachers finding faults with my post), but I do like to hear what others opinions are.
In real life, you cannot protect your children from adult content. Therefore, you might as well just introduce it to them yourself. That way you can explain how you feel about these issues when they first arise. _________________
i believe that the harry potter books did an excellent job returning our children to reading. with all of the video games and television shows not many parents are sitting down and reading a novel with their kids. this in itself is whats important. i do agree that the language progressed as harry and his friends got older but the language never exceeded what a child could hear on tv. and the story itself needed to grow with the characters.
i remember reading the 3rd book and gasping because she said damn lol
but i say much worse on my day to day basis. i believe it was a necessary evil to help the characters progress and if a parent is responsible enough to read a 700+ page book with their child, they would explain the words. _________________
not like kids dont hear it on tv... i wouldn't be surprised if a majority of parents reading to 6-8 yr olds just read the word bitch without thought... i have a cousin and im well aware that he knows several swear words. i said bitch when i was 3.... _________________ forever the greatest wizard of all time
Thanks for your responses zengrenouille, ravvy and BurtenJayRuncay. You bring forward some strong, valid points. Even though my main argument was more on the point about J K Rowling’s choice of content in English word complexity, two of you have centred your arguments on the word 'bitch'. Now as I said before, I know I'm going to sound like and old prude, but I was brought up, like everyone else I'm sure, in the word 'bitch' being naughty when not describing a female dog. And like most children, when very young, I'm sure I would have used such words from time to time. Nevertheless, how can parents justify the word to be wrong when idols such as children author J K Rowling is using it in her books? It sends out the wrong message. If she was a teen author like Phillip Pullman, she could get away with such a word because teenagers tend to know when to use such a word in appropriate dialog. A child that swears all the time at a young age like six, tends to grow up using such words in every sense they say. As for the comment about swear words being said on television, I agree this is true. However the programmes that do use such language are aimed at an adult market and are shown after the watershed (giving parents the chance to monitor what their children watch). You never hear the word 'bitch' said on Tellytubbies or Balamory do you?
Now onto my next point...
Quote:
i believe that the harry potter books did an excellent job returning our children to reading.
I couldn't agree more with this statement. It is true that for the first time in a long time children are picking up books and turning off the television. For this miracle you can only salute J K Rowling on her efforts. One day, soon I'm sure, she will be made a dame or giving a Nobel Prize for her efforts and it would be well deserved. However, I still maintain my argument on her choice of language in her books. Go to any six year old and ask a definition for the words 'robust' or 'colossal'. I bet the vast majority would just stare right back with blank faces. Surely more simplistic words like 'strong' and 'mighty' would suffice. I remember my seven year old cousin saying to me after watching the ‘Prisoner of Azkaban’ movie that the time turner thing at the end never happened in the book. We all know that this event did happen in the story and I did explain to her so too. But I was always sure her mistake was more due to the complexity of the actions that were taking place in the later parts of the story and her age bracket being unable to grasp such an event. Well I believe that book seven is even more advanced than three in writing style and choice of dialog. I bet there are many very young children scratching their heads at this point today, trying to figure out what happened at the end. Maybe I'm wrong. Try it out. If any of you know someone around the age of six that has read 'The Deathly Hallows,' ask them to explain the last few chapters and the events that took place. If they can reply with great clarity, then this post is invalid. If I’m right however and they can’t, then maybe the next series J K Rowing writes she should either consider changing her target audience or her writing style.
i agree, i believe the language of the harry pooter books has changed over the series, in a very obvious way. i am 22 and i get stick from some people saying i read kids books, im constantly having to defend my choice in literature. my response is always 'have you actually read any harry potter books? particularly the last three?' the answer is always no. i admit to people, yes, the first two, possibly third book were more kids books, but i defy and kids to understand alot of the language used in the later books, i know 9 year olds that were into harry potter, when i was 9 i wouldnt have understood these books (the last three) so i believe it is a mixture of JKs audience growing up with the books, but i do strongly believe she knows how large her older audience is and whats to keep those fans, she has tried very hard to please all age groups, thing is, it isnt possible, and she has stayed true to an older format for this last book especially. i think the happy ending shows it in all in her trying not to disturb the kids too much. even if they dont understand individual words they will get the idea of the plot, if they were to find harry dead or one of the three main characters kids would be crying for weeks. so she has done a bit of both really. and im glad she has!
i understand what you are saying about some words being difficult and some of the actions in the book being hard to understand.
it should be the parents responsibility to go chapter by chapter and make sure their child comprehends the storyline.
the same with the curse words the parents should explain to their kids that even if it is someone they look up to, the swear words that are being used are by young adults and not young children. teens and adults sometimes use words that can be inappropriate for children to repeat.
at least thats what i am planning on saying _________________
she has tried very hard to please all age groups, thing is, it isnt possible,
You have brought forward many valid points Luna Brightstar. The one above that I have quoted being your best statement. I think that is where the problems lay when the books changed its style in format. J K Rowling has tried to please everyone and as a result, young children have lost out. And as you rightly point out, it’s not possible to please everyone, so surely she should have pleased her original target audience, for it was they that had given her success by buying her first book?
And for the fantastic comment by ravvy
ravvy wrote:
it should be the parents responsibility to go chapter by chapter and make sure their child comprehends the storyline.
Very true. I do like the notion that parents could explain complex word/storyline to children. It certainly would enhance their vocabulary at a young age too. The only downside to this though is that if you are stopping and starting say once or twice a page to explain everything, a child will get bored and switch off. It would be simplier and better to just use dialog that they are more accustomed too in my opinion.
ravvy wrote:
the same with the curse words the parents should explain to their kids that even if it is someone they look up to, the swear words that are being used are by young adults and not young children. teens and adults sometimes use words that can be inappropriate for children to repeat.
I don't think this will work unfortunately. You tell a child that a word is okay for adults but not them, the first thing they’re going to do is say if as often as they can. I think the best course of action for parents that do read the book to their child would be to change the word bitch to witch instead.
Another rant…
Plus the more I think about it, I believe it wasn't a sensible thing for J K Rowling to do either. I bet she even had a few (not vast) letters of complain from angry parents about it.
My minds still boggling on the reason why she chose to use such language in this book, when in the previous encounters she wrote things like ‘and Ron swore very loud’ Never mind.
I think that one of the things that really sets the Harry Potter series apart is that its characters and its storyline are designed to mature along with it's readers...and I believe that was JKR's intention...and I don't consider it irresponsible...because I don't think the responsibility really lies with her.
I think it's up to parents to decide what they want to let their children read. _________________
Snape = ♥
Last edited by mistress-mu on August 9, 2007 7:15 pm; edited 1 time in total
As for the word complexity... the words do get a bit up there on the reading level as you pointed out.
Quote:
'hands the size of dust bin lids' and by the seventh encounter she used more intellectual descriptions such as 'robust' and 'colossal'
I'm not sure why this has you concerned. Do you think children should only read stories that have simple words in them and therefore never have the chance to expand their vocabulary? The best way to learn new vocabulary words is through context. If a child doesn't understand a word, well, that's what dictionaries are for.
As for the "mature language"... I promise you that maybe in your house the kids aren't hearing these words, but for the kids who are less sheltered, they are hearing these words. And a lot of these kids are saying these words. And by "these words" I mean "bitch." That word is not a nice word. It should never be said by a child or an adult. It is degrading and condescending to women. Having said that, JKR never decided that her book was for children. That was up to her publisher. And where a bookstore displays the book is up to the store. And whether or not a child reads the book is up to the parent. So the blame should not be on JKR, who is merely writing a story. If a parent doesn't feel a child should read a book, then by all means, that is up to the parent. But I wouldn't discourage the child from reading the book based on the word "bitch." Because at least then you'll know where the child heard the word from and an open dialogue can be started. And that is certainly better than a child hearing that word for the first time on the school bus or on the street. _________________ Breathing is optional. Look, Bella, look.
Thanks for your responses zengrenouille, ravvy and BurtenJayRuncay. You bring forward some strong, valid points. Even though my main argument was more on the point about J K Rowling’s choice of content in English word complexity, two of you have centred your arguments on the word 'bitch'. Now as I said before, I know I'm going to sound like and old prude, but I was brought up, like everyone else I'm sure, in the word 'bitch' being naughty when not describing a female dog. And like most children, when very young, I'm sure I would have used such words from time to time. Nevertheless, how can parents justify the word to be wrong when idols such as children author J K Rowling is using it in her books? It sends out the wrong message. If she was a teen author like Phillip Pullman, she could get away with such a word because teenagers tend to know when to use such a word in appropriate dialog. A child that swears all the time at a young age like six, tends to grow up using such words in every sense they say. As for the comment about swear words being said on television, I agree this is true. However the programmes that do use such language are aimed at an adult market and are shown after the watershed (giving parents the chance to monitor what their children watch). You never hear the word 'bitch' said on Tellytubbies or Balamory do you?
Now onto my next point...
Quote:
i believe that the harry potter books did an excellent job returning our children to reading.
I couldn't agree more with this statement. It is true that for the first time in a long time children are picking up books and turning off the television. For this miracle you can only salute J K Rowling on her efforts. One day, soon I'm sure, she will be made a dame or giving a Nobel Prize for her efforts and it would be well deserved. However, I still maintain my argument on her choice of language in her books. Go to any six year old and ask a definition for the words 'robust' or 'colossal'. I bet the vast majority would just stare right back with blank faces. Surely more simplistic words like 'strong' and 'mighty' would suffice. I remember my seven year old cousin saying to me after watching the ‘Prisoner of Azkaban’ movie that the time turner thing at the end never happened in the book. We all know that this event did happen in the story and I did explain to her so too. But I was always sure her mistake was more due to the complexity of the actions that were taking place in the later parts of the story and her age bracket being unable to grasp such an event. Well I believe that book seven is even more advanced than three in writing style and choice of dialog. I bet there are many very young children scratching their heads at this point today, trying to figure out what happened at the end. Maybe I'm wrong. Try it out. If any of you know someone around the age of six that has read 'The Deathly Hallows,' ask them to explain the last few chapters and the events that took place. If they can reply with great clarity, then this post is invalid. If I’m right however and they can’t, then maybe the next series J K Rowing writes she should either consider changing her target audience or her writing style.
but there's nothing wrong with the word bitch. we cant start telling kids its wrong to swear when they need to vent. people that never express there feelings let it bottle up and might end up hurting someone. and by the way if you can find me a 8 year old that dosnt say bitch on a reguler basis ill be utterly amazed (and pleese, nobody respond and say "my kid dosnt swear" because they do, there just not stuped enough to say them in front of you.) and you said something about 6 year old being able to understand the book. ok i dont care what scholastic says. if i had kids, theres no way in hell that id let a 6 year old read books 4-7. i meen id be more worried about them seeing the deaths plus those books are not for 6 year olds i meen why would a 6 year old care about who's dating who.
Before I write my reply to the last batch of posts, I just like to say that I'm not attacking anyone and that we are all entitled to our opinions ... for an opinion can neither be right nor wrong, it can only be an opinion.
mistress-mu wrote:
I think that one of the things that really sets the Harry Potter series apart is that its characters and its storyline are designed to mature along with it's readers
It is true that this is what has happened. Nevertheless Harry Potter is a children’s book for a young audience and when you compare the dialog of the last encounter to the first one, it clear it hasn't been written for their (children’s) specification. This normally would be fine, but when J K Rowling is still promoting her books to a young audience (by say going on Blue Peter) then I believe she should at least write for that audience.
mistress-mu wrote:
...and I believe that was JKR's intention...and I don't consider it irresponsible...because I don't think the responsibility really lies with her.
and
Ginny X wrote:
So the blame should not be on JKR, who is merely writing a story.
Again I agree with you Mistress-Mu, the responsibility of other children’s behaviour (in theory) is not that of J K Rowling. And by putting in two swear words into her last book, I don't expect to see an increase in the child swear rate neither, for a child to swear frequently requires many other factors in their upbringing and this action (the language in the book) is only a minute factor in a huge chain reaction within it. Nevertheless, J K Rowling is an idol. Her actions will dictate what others think. By putting in swear words into her book, she has in essence (but I'm sure not attentionally) promoted swearing to young children. Because of her status, she is reasonable whether she wants to be or not.
GinnyX wrote:
I'm not sure why this has you concerned. Do you think children should only read stories that have simple words in them and therefore never have the chance to expand their vocabulary? The best way to learn new vocabulary words is through context. If a child doesn't understand a word, well, that's what dictionaries are for.
First I like to say that I'm not concerned as it does not effect me, just highlighting an issue that J K Rowling should address when deciding her next target audience for a book series...
This statement is wise, but unpractical. No child the age of six is likely to look up words in the Dictionary. As for the comment about expanding their vocabulary ... very true, but again unlikely. Give a young child a few new words a day and they will learn them. Bombard them with new dialog, they will switch off or loose focus within a story.
mistress-mu wrote:
I think it's up to parents to decide what they want to let their children read.
GinnyX wrote:
And whether or not a child reads the book is up to the parent.
You're both sort of right, and I'm sure most parents will not have a problem with the dialog or bad language. Nevertheless there's not a warning on the front cover (more about the swearing issue), so how can they ever decide that the book is acceptable or not?
GinnyX wrote:
Having said that, JKR never decided that her book was for children. That was up to her publisher.
I have mixed views with this statement. For the first part, J K Rowling must have decided that the book seires was going to be a childrens series by the writing style of the first encounter, so surely she should have continued her style of writing throughout the series.
On the next part ... 'That was up to her publisher'. This is a good point. Unless J K Rowling is utterly amazing at English (and she could be), she's likely to have sent out many drafts to the publisher of her book before publication. For this reason Bloomsbury/Scholastic would have had many times to correct this error, but they chose not to. For that, they too are to blame (In my opinion).
GinnyX wrote:
And where a bookstore displays the book is up to the store.
Never going to happen ... for two reasons. First, they're unlikely to proof read it to pick up on such an act, and secondly, because of profit. The seventh encounter could have been a graphic novel, but they would still sell it to kids, because millions of children wanted to read it. It would have taken a strong, moral company to withhold such sales and profits to make a point.
GinnyX wrote:
But I wouldn't discourage the child from reading the book based on the word "bitch." Because at least then you'll know where the child heard the word from and an open dialogue can be started.
I know what I have written might sound like I’m contradicting myself, But I, like yourself wouldn't discourage a child from reading a book by its contents having the word bitch in it neither. Nevertheless, it wasn't necessary to be in there … and the way it’s written (via dialog) is more aimed at teenagers too (which is really my point).
GinnyX wrote:
And that is certainly better than a child hearing that word for the first time on the school bus or on the street.
In theory you're right. But let me ask you a question. If your child, say emulated what Mrs Weasley said, and said - for example 'Stay away from my toys, you bitch', would that be acceptable? Or would you just say that fine as only if you don't call women bi**hes?
xxbloodythoughts wrote:
but there's nothing wrong with the word bitch. we cant start telling kids its wrong to swear when they need to vent.
Surely you're not serious? I tell you what, try it out. Next time your mother makes you angry by telling you to do your homework, call her a bitch. If she embraces you and says that okay, do it tomorrow, then I'm wrong and you're right ... if she gives you her wrath, then maybe there could be something wrong with that word after all.
xxbloodythoughts wrote:
people that never express there feelings let it bottle up and might end up hurting someone.
You don't need to swear to vent anger ... especially in a children’s book. For example - my Gran uses words like sugar and fiddle sticks when she’s angry and the nearest she’s come to violence is when she cut her neighbours roses when they grew through her fence and into her garden. In fact I believe swearing, if anything, encourages violence. Try it (but I don’t advice it). Call a complete stranger (someone your own age, and someone stronger) a swear word. I bet they reply with a warning of violence.
xxbloodythoughts wrote:
and by the way if you can find me a 8 year old that dosnt say bitch on a reguler basis ill be utterly amazed (and pleese, nobody respond and say "my kid dosnt swear" because they do, there just not stuped enough to say them in front of you.)
True. Most children probably do swear, but the key point you said was 'They're not stupid enough to say it in front of you'. This means that they know its wrong, and as a result, will not likely use it in every sentence they say when they grow up. But promotion of this (In a vast scale, not just in one novel) will deter this notion. Hence the roll of Idols and their impact in society.
xxbloodythoughts wrote:
and you said something about 6 year old being able to understand the book.
No I didn't, I said the opposite.
xxbloodythoughts wrote:
ok i dont care what scholastic says. if i had kids, theres no way in hell that id let a 6 year old read books 4-7. i meen id be more worried about them seeing the deaths plus those books are not for 6 year olds i meen why would a 6 year old care about who's dating who.
I Agree (but not about death issue as other children media such as Bambi, The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe, etc. have death in them too). So surely the books should have been promoted to a teenage audience and not to young children. And don't say they weren't, because they were (from the illustration of the front cover, to the media coverage and parties on the 21st July).
It has been nice debating with you guys and you have some interesting points and opinions.
It is true that this is what has happened. Nevertheless Harry Potter is a children’s book for a young audience and when you compare the dialog of the last encounter to the first one, it clear it hasn't been written for their (children’s) specification. This normally would be fine, but when J K Rowling is still promoting her books to a young audience (by say going on Blue Peter) then I believe she should at least write for that audience.
I would also like to point out that she appeared on NBC's The Today Show and Jonathan Ross. Neither of those shows are geared towards children.
Quote:
Nevertheless, J K Rowling is an idol. Her actions will dictate what others think. By putting in swear words into her book, she has in essence (but I'm sure not attentionally) promoted swearing to young children. Because of her status, she is reasonable whether she wants to be or not.
As you pointed out, she never asked to be an idol. However, she is a very good one. Even with all the obstacles in her life she hs still managed to come out smiling. To put her on the same level as, say, Britney Spears, would be wrong. but that seems to be what you're hinting at.
Quote:
This statement is wise, but unpractical. No child the age of six is likely to look up words in the Dictionary. As for the comment about expanding their vocabulary ... very true, but again unlikely. Give a young child a few new words a day and they will learn them. Bombard them with new dialog, they will switch off or loose focus within a story.
Perhaps a six year old shouldn't be reading this book. It's not in the Children's section of my bookstore, it's in the Young Adults section. And if the parent is at the Midnight Premiere of this book, then chances are they know how dark and serious the series has been becoming. A six year old would not be able to read the Half-Blood Prince. So you would think that the parent wouldn't get this child the seventh book. That is up to the parent.
Quote:
You're both sort of right, and I'm sure most parents will not have a problem with the dialog or bad language. Nevertheless there's not a warning on the front cover (more about the swearing issue), so how can they ever decide that the book is acceptable or not?
Why should there be a warning? You have to be living in a cave not to know that these books have been getting more mature. And paretns shouldn't rely on warnings... they could ead the book themselves and judge. No warning system is going to be perfect enough for every parent to agree on. So they should review it themselves.
Quote:
I have mixed views with this statement. For the first part, J K Rowling must have decided that the book seires was going to be a childrens series by the writing style of the first encounter, so surely she should have continued her style of writing throughout the series.
No, she stated in several interviews that she set out to write a book. The publisher decided to market it for children.
Quote:
On the next part ... 'That was up to her publisher'. This is a good point. Unless J K Rowling is utterly amazing at English (and she could be), she's likely to have sent out many drafts to the publisher of her book before publication. For this reason Bloomsbury/Scholastic would have had many times to correct this error, but they chose not to. For that, they too are to blame (In my opinion).
Again, you would have to be living in a cave not to know these stories were getting darker and more mature. I don't think the use of language was a mistake, I think every word was carefully chosen. Even the cuss word, because that is what, in reality, J.K. Rowling and her publishers felt the mother would have said.
Quote:
Never going to happen ... for two reasons. First, they're unlikely to proof read it to pick up on such an act, and secondly, because of profit. The seventh encounter could have been a graphic novel, but they would still sell it to kids, because millions of children wanted to read it. It would have taken a strong, moral company to withhold such sales and profits to make a point.
Of course the bookstore should be allowed to sell the book. Books do not come with a rating system. It's not like at the movies where they aren't allowed. It is not up to the bookstore to decide who to sell it to, it is up to the parent. The parent is the one forking over the money, they should be more aware of what they are buying for their child.
Quote:
I know what I have written might sound like I’m contradicting myself, But I, like yourself wouldn't discourage a child from reading a book by its contents having the word bitch in it neither. Nevertheless, it wasn't necessary to be in there … and the way it’s written (via dialog) is more aimed at teenagers too (which is really my point).
Again, many bookstores have the book displayed in the Young Adults section... which are books aimed for teens. And the word was necassary, Molly Weasley took down Voldemort's most loyal follower and she tried to kill her daughter... what would you rather her have said? "Well done, Bellatrix, we'll go and exchange baking recipes after we are through with this intellectual debate on good versus evil."
Quote:
In theory you're right. But let me ask you a question. If your child, say emulated what Mrs Weasley said, and said - for example 'Stay away from my toys, you bitch', would that be acceptable? Or would you just say that fine as only if you don't call women bi**hes?
You missed my point. Because I know where she got the word from, I can have an honest discussion with her about the use of that word. If my kid doesn't hear it there, she'll hear it two days later on the playground. So what does it really matter where she hears it from? I can't just put earmuffs on her forever. _________________ Breathing is optional. Look, Bella, look.
ok i would just like to point out that jk didnt realize she was writing for kids until the publishers called them childrens books so in her mind there not kids books. plus she always said that her targeted audiance (not the publishers) was always people that were close to the age of Harry. so she intendid the 7th book for (and this is a rough gess) 15-20 and there are examples of this. Example: when she is talking about those muggles that attacked dumbledore's sister, it sounds like there might have been a gang rape. but no kid that was reading would have picked up on this, they would just asume that she was beet up. and i beleave jk wanted the older readers to catch this but she knew that some readers were very young so she didnt directly say "rape".
You make some nice points GiinyX and xxbloodythoughts, but I do disagree on the following...
GinnyX wrote:
Quote:
It is true that this is what has happened. Nevertheless Harry Potter is a children’s book for a young audience and when you compare the dialog of the last encounter to the first one, it clear it hasn't been written for their (children’s) specification. This normally would be fine, but when J K Rowling is still promoting her books to a young audience (by say going on Blue Peter) then I believe she should at least write for that audience.
I would also like to point out that she appeared on NBC's The Today Show and Jonathan Ross. Neither of those shows are geared towards children.
I don't know what your point here is trying to promote? If anything this statement enhances my argument. As you rightly pointed out, these shows are not aimed at children, but so what ... the book is. However its dialog is for a teenage audience and not that of a child audience. So I stand by my point. J K Rowling should have considered her original target audience when writing because it was they that first bought the book series.
GinnyX wrote:
Quote:
Nevertheless, J K Rowling is an idol. Her actions will dictate what others think. By putting in swear words into her book, she has in essence (but I'm sure not attentionally) promoted swearing to young children. Because of her status, she is reasonable whether she wants to be or not.
As you pointed out, she never asked to be an idol. However, she is a very good one. Even with all the obstacles in her life she hs still managed to come out smiling. To put her on the same level as, say, Britney Spears, would be wrong. but that seems to be what you're hinting at.
I just like to say, before anyone else gets confused, I WOULD NEVER, EVER tarnish J K Rowling with the same brush as Britney Spears/Paris Hilton. On one side you have clueless, rich celebrities that have nothing to give society other than bad music and manners, on the other we have someone who has come from a poverty background that has for the first time in a long time made children return to book reading. Nevertheless, again I stand by my statement. By putting bad language in that book, she has promoted swearing to young children (but I'm sure it was unintentional)
GinnyX wrote:
Quote:
This statement is wise, but unpractical. No child the age of six is likely to look up words in the Dictionary. As for the comment about expanding their vocabulary ... very true, but again unlikely. Give a young child a few new words a day and they will learn them. Bombard them with new dialog, they will switch off or loose focus within a story.
Perhaps a six year old shouldn't be reading this book. It's not in the Children's section of my bookstore, it's in the Young Adults section. And if the parent is at the Midnight Premiere of this book, then chances are they know how dark and serious the series has been becoming. A six year old would not be able to read the Half-Blood Prince. So you would think that the parent wouldn't get this child the seventh book. That is up to the parent.
WOW. You have a young adult section in your local book store. If Deathly Hallows was put there, then I agree that’s where it should be kept.
It seems my local book store is not as organised as yours. They do have a teenage section, however it’s kept in the same area as children books, plus the Harry Potter series is kept in the children section anyway.
I also agree that six year olds should not read this book, and like you I think that it's up to the parent whether or not they let their young children read it too. However I do disagree with one of your points. I don't think that many parents would know how advanced and dark the series has become, so I don't think they would be in the position to make an accurate decision whether or not they should allow their child to read this particular book.
GinnyX wrote:
Quote:
You're both sort of right, and I'm sure most parents will not have a problem with the dialog or bad language. Nevertheless there's not a warning on the front cover (more about the swearing issue), so how can they ever decide that the book is acceptable or not?
Why should there be a warning? You have to be living in a cave not to know that these books have been getting more mature. And paretns shouldn't rely on warnings... they could ead the book themselves and judge. No warning system is going to be perfect enough for every parent to agree on. So they should review it themselves.
Okay, I agree that many hardcore Potter fans will know that the series are becoming more mature ... However, not every parent is a potter fan, so I believe it is they who will not know how dark the series has become.
As for your point about the warning, maybe you’re right. I think it would be harsh to place a warning onto this book just for a couple of bad words. Nevertheless at one point there were no warnings on music for explicit lyrics and now there are. If a children’s book series turns into an adult book series due to bad language (in a vaster scale than this one) I would argue the need for a warning on that particular book series.
On the point about parents reviewing the books first, I agree this should happen. Unfortunately however, I bet most adults wouldn't even consider doing this action because throughout the media, Harry Potter had been promoted as a children book and as a result, most parents wouldn't even batter their eyelids to check the book first before handing i
Rules
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in
