While there has been much ado recently with the long awaited release of glorious high res new photos from Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince and the HBPvideo game news, we do have updates regarding the Harry Potter books series today.
First a reminder that the UK paperback of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows will be released on Thursday, with pre-orders available from several retailers(including via our Cauldron Shop) who will ship here to the US. As the paperback release is this week, the UK publishers Bloomsbury have now ‘unlocked’ the seventh compartment on the Hogwarts Express train via their Swot Up on Potter mini-site. Please note: There is still no word as to when the US publishers plan to release their paperback version of Deathly Hallows, and we will of course update once that does become available.
J.K. Rowling is one of many authors now, who publicly oppose plans by UK publishers to include ‘age bands’ on children’s books. Adding to an online petition, JKR included her name alongside authors such as Terry Pratchett, Jacqueline Wilson, Anthony Horowitz, and Alan Garner in a stance against publishing age guidelines on the front of these books. The Guardian reports that publishers this fall will release books that “will bear a logo indicating they are suitable for readers aged 5+, 7+, 9+, 11+ and 13+/teen.” The paper notes this scheme has attracted the interest of “Random House, Penguin and Scholastic,” but states that “Rowling’s publisher Bloomsbury currently has no plans to introduce the label for any of its authors, although it has not ruled out the idea.” We do not know if this plan will go into effect here in the US, and will update with more on this when we can.
Finally, the Japanese edition of “Deathly Hallows” will be released later this month. To celebrate this, several days ago, Amazon held a special showing of “The Tales of Beedle the Bard,” the handwritten book by J.K. Rowling, which the online retailer purchased last year. Amazon also reports that there have been “more than 70,000 advance orders” for the Japanese edition of the seventh Harry Potter book.
I agree with Jo (and Pullman who’s also against the band), it’s basically saying ‘you’re too young’ to read a certain novel. I mean, I can see that there’s a fine line between say, Harry Potter and a harlequin but otherwise it’s unfair to children who might be on a higher reading level than their peers. Just imagine sorcerer’s stone might be rated 7+ and then what is a 7 year old going to do when their parents see that order of the phoenix is 11+ when the kid gets to it?
I agree that age bands shouldn’t be on books. I know a few people who will tease others if they read ‘children’s books’ (I am talking about 15 year olds) and having it printed on the cover will make the whole issue even worse. I for one enjoy reading both adult novels and young adult novels such as His Dark Materials or Harry Potter and I think these age bands could get people down about the books they want to read.
Unlike video games or movies, books tend to have their own age limitations built in, which I think people outside of education wouldn’t recognize. Vocabulary is the biggest limitation – just because a child can decode a word doesn’t mean they understand it. Not until they have seen the word in context a few times would they understand the meaning. And with such limited life experiences, a 6 year old is just not going to be able to fully understand the deeper context in Pullman’s or even Rowling’s books. You can only take from a book an understanding at the level you can handle. A lot of kids that read Harry Potter, especially the books later in the series, at age 8 or 9 will go back and re-read them at 18 and find that there’s a whole different level to the books that they missed the first time. It’s one of the reasons why those books appeal to such a wide audience.
I also agree with Jo regarding the age bands. I think it discourages kids from reading more difficult books because they may be intimidated by an age band that is marked for an age older than their own and could lead some parents to think that the material may be inappropriate for their child’s age when it really isn’t. I think it also discourages kids in that a child who doesn’t have “average” reading skills for their age group may decide to just not read at all rather than to risk being made fun of for reading a book marked for a younger age.
I can see why Jo is against it; her books were written for children but have a massive adult following.
I also think that, whatever its original intentions, it is a step towards censorship and may prevent more children from branching out beyond their age range or experimenting, as well as discouraging people from reading perfectly good books because of a low age rating. This shows the modern tendency to stick everyone into the same narrow little pigeonholes, or even ‘nanny state’ syndrome. I know it’s not meant as more than a guide to parents but what happens when shopkeepers start to become afraid of selling higher age rated books to younger children in case their parents sue them? And how can a teenager progress onto adult books that are perfectly suitable for them? I for one was reading (or having books read to me) adult books from the age of 11-15, some of them at school even; ‘1984’ at age 14 for example.
” a 6 year old is just not going to be able to fully understand the deeper context in Pullman’s or even Rowling’s books.”
i agree with kim on this point, in fact i know a few adults who don’t understand the deeper context of these books. which is why we should choose books based on the individual persons level of understanding, not there age.
Age bands can only hold people back. It is up to the maturity and personal skill of the reader what they choose to read. In the case of Harry Potter, there has been much discrimination of age as it is called a children’s series, when the later books especially have material that will present itself in different ways once a person reaches adulthood. It is simple enough for a child or an older reader to decide whether they are of proper age to read a book. It is too individual a process to be held back by labels.
As a parent, I completely agree with Jo and others on this. I think putting age bands on books would cause kids on levels to not read as much. Those kids who read on a lower level than their peers might stop reading. Parents of children who read on a higher level might not think the book is appropriate for their child if they were just going on that alone.
I think it’s a parent’s responsibility to choose their child’s book based on what is needed for that child. Age bands would only be a hindrance.
The whole age banding thing just sounds like an incredible waste of time and resources to me. I mean honestly, you’re going to create an entire beauracracy just to say that a book is suitable for a 9-year-old but not a 7-year-old? Give me a break.
I say having them divided up between children’s/young adult/adult is good enough. And even that much is deceptive. Take movies for example. Some G-rated movies are great movies regardless of your age. Of course you wouldn’t want a 7-year-old reading an extremely adult novel, but a parent can stop that from happening, not an age band.
Age bands wouldn’t do a thing except confuse everyone and waste resources.
Good for Jo! I can’t believe there are places that STILL don’t have the 7th book. I’d die if that were me.