Advanced search

What age for the first Harry Potter book?

(24 Posts)
ridingsixwhitehorses Sat 17-Sep-16 22:11:29

Just wondered what age your kids first read Harry Potter. My friend's 7yo is very competent reader and has just started reading them and I have no idea is this normal or advanced?

Sukitakeitoff Sat 17-Sep-16 22:14:25

Normal for an advanced reader I'd say (if that makes sense grinwink)

Ilovewillow Sat 17-Sep-16 22:16:50

My daughter is an advanced reader and since 7 has read them all and the cursed child, she is now 8 so I would say normal for a child who is a good competent reader.

PrincessHairyMclary Sat 17-Sep-16 22:18:18

DD is nearly 7 and could read it but I don't see the point in encouraging her to when she'll naturally want to read the other ones after and I don't think they are suitable.

OrionsAccessory Sat 17-Sep-16 22:18:39

My 8 yo reads them to herself now but I read them to her first so she already knows the names of the spells and other Latin-y stuff that she might not have been able to work out otherwise.

My 6 year old has had all the books read to her and loves them but she can't read yet so hasn't read them herself.

I imagine most 7 year olds would struggle with Harry Potter tbh but everyone is different!

BiscuitMillionaire Sat 17-Sep-16 22:19:34

The later books in the series are not appropriate for a 7 yr old IMO. Just because a child can read a book doesn't mean they should.

MephistoMarley Sat 17-Sep-16 22:21:23

My 8 year old has read the philosopher's stone and we read the cursed child together. He's listened to all the stories and watched the films dozens of times over the past year, I don't agree that the later books aren't suitable.

SellFridges Sat 17-Sep-16 22:22:52

DD is 5.5 and is reading them with DH. They're on Chamber of Secrets. The deal is she reads the number of pages equivalent to the chapter number and the start of each chapter. She sometimes asks to read it alone though. They're reading it on Kindle so the text is pretty big!

OSETmum Sat 17-Sep-16 22:26:56

DS (7) has read the first two when he was 6 and The Cursed Child when it came out in August at 7. The cursed child is a pretty easy read but does require previous Harry Potter knowledge.

BiscuitMillionaire Sat 17-Sep-16 22:27:24

MephistoMarley Sat 17-Sep-16 22:45:32

11-12 for the last book? Fgs. My son is never exposed to violence or inappropriate television so it's not like he's desensitised but he's quite capable of managing the emotions he feels watching Harry Potter and it has been very interesting having talks with him about good/evil, power and sacrifice. Seriously, if parents think that by 11 their kids haven't seen or read anything as upsetting as Harry Potter...well

nennyrainbow Sat 17-Sep-16 23:01:57

Are you asking what the best age is that people recommend to start reading HP or whether this child is an advanced reader for his age? If the latter, it's fairly advanced but normal. DD read the whole series in about 3 months last year when she was 8. For her it was fine, but I wouldn't have wanted her reading them much younger. They do get substantially longer and more complex: the first two I think are very much written as children's books, whereas the later books are quite dark, although nowhere near as much as the films. I think the problem with starting on HP young is that they will want to continue the series and the books will become too adult.

nennyrainbow Sat 17-Sep-16 23:07:31

That link suggests that you shouldn't touch the Deathly hallows until secondary school.hmma bit OTT?

Also it's much easier to read the books straight after each other rather than a year apart as suggested in the link. You'd be forever forgetting the plot!

7Days Sat 17-Sep-16 23:14:07

DD7 is a good reader but emotionally immature. Like pp say, the trouble with starting at 7 is that they zip through them and then are not able to handle the later ones.

sleeplessinderbyshire Sun 18-Sep-16 07:36:45

I had to sleep with the light on for several days after reading the one with the dementors in (I was 22 at the time) so I'm not encouraging my seven year old any further than the chamber of secrets

PatMullins Sun 18-Sep-16 07:41:01

I read the first two when I was 7.
DD is 4.5 and we are reading the first one.

BiscuitMillionaire Sun 18-Sep-16 21:22:12

DD is 4.5 and we are reading the first one.
grin LOL
I see your 4.5 and raise you. DD is still in the womb and we're reading them and then moving on to Lord of the Rings once she gets to 3 months.

PatMullins Mon 19-Sep-16 06:59:22

wink I appreciate the sarcasm but by 'we' I mean I read it to her.

Thanks though smile

user1474268990 Mon 19-Sep-16 08:22:36

You can read it in any age.

popmimiboo Mon 19-Sep-16 08:35:30

DD1 was 7-8 for the first 5, then I made her wait a bit because I thought she was too young to really appreciate the last 2!
She had no problem with all the spells and tricky names, but was a bit confused at one point. She came to me to "double check that a hare is a big rabbit. She looked a bit hmmbut accepted that and kept on reading. It was a day later that I realised that a pivotal part of the story was about the heir of Slytherin grin
Poor girl had been imaging a scary, dark arts rabbit!!

WhattodoSue Mon 19-Sep-16 17:49:43

My DD read them and loved them, and was able to handle the later ones without waiting until 8, 9, 10 etc. It totally depends on your child (the commonsense sight often has rediculously high ages - I prefer Scholastic's guidelines on their US site, I think they are more reality based). Based on my experience, 7 is totally fine. But it totally is down to each child (and parent). If the question is does this make your child exceptionally advanced, no. It means they are a good reader. It is what you said, your child is a competent reader. Advanced compared to some, and not compared to others. And you will know, they are probably closer to the higher end of good reading, because some children at that age are struggling more than others.

Yorkieheaven Mon 19-Sep-16 19:36:29

Our older ones grew up with them so first read the philosophers stone aged 8/9. They read the other books as they came out and then read them to their younger sisters aged 6/7.

Done agree they arnt suitable they are all fine for a 9+

WhattodoSue Mon 19-Sep-16 19:40:34

site not sight!!!!!!

GinIsIn Mon 19-Sep-16 19:46:23

I think 7 is fine for the first 3, but probably 9+ for the rest. The stage show is marketed as not suitable for under 10s.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now