To say no to the 6th Harry Potter book...

[TabbyTigger]

DD is 5. She’s just finished the first five Harry Potter books and, obviously, now wants to move onto the 6th. However from what I and other DCs remember, this one has more mature themes (romance/more detailed deaths) and is generally more complex. AIBU to ask her to wait a year or so before reading it or should I let her try and see how she does?

She must be horrendously bored at school accessing the year 1 curriculum

Why would she be? Don’t most schools differentiate activities as to the ability of their children?

At DD’s school we were asked if we wanted her moved up a year. We declined because we felt emotionally she needed to be with her peers of a similar level. As an alternative she had extension activities on the class topics and had work from higher classes.

Several Hemmingway books have a lower reading age than Harry Potter. So why don't we encourage 5 year olds to read "The Sun Also Rises" or "The Old Man and the Sea"?

Because it would be hugely inappropriate to do so - they were not written for this age group, there are far more appropriate things for them to read, the themes are beyond their comprehension and life experience, and if by some miracle they did manage to genuinely comprehend they would be disturbed.
Largely the same points apply to the latter 4 HP books. They are not childrens' books - they are written for tweens/early teens. They contain themes which are wholly inappropriate for a 5 year old (torture, sadism, murder, grief, teenage sexual awakening). Less than one in 1000 five year olds will understand what is being written about, and if they did, most would be disturbed. So you are relying on their lack of understanding to protect them from the more disturbing content. That is an utterly lousy reason to give a young child a book.
Comprehension is many-layered, emerges gradually, and is much more difficult to measure than decoding. I don't think a child should be given a book until they can comprehend > 90% of it. Otherwise they're missing too much and should wait until they can more fully enjoy it. A very, very rare 5 year old might get that level of comprehension and enjoyment from the first couple of HP books (though the same 5 year old would also probably comprehend and enjoy even more fully if the parents had the patience to wait a little longer). No 5 year old will get it from the last 4.
Show me a 5 year old reading one of the later HP books and I'll show you a parent who either is deluding themselves, has not thought about the consequences of what they are doing, is living vicariously through their child, or is telling fibs.

I read The Red Pony and Of Mice and Men far far too early-I thought they were books about animals. I really wish somebody had stopped me. My parents would have done if they had known about it-as it was, I still remember being horribly upset and being unable to articulate why.

@gfrnn

Less than one in 1000 five year olds will understand what is being written about

Where did you get those statistics from please?

I still remember being horribly upset and being unable to articulate why

That’s a shame for you and I’m sorry you had a negative experience. Surely you accept though that children have different levels of “robustness” and whilst you were affected, other children might not have been.

My DD has read nothing (adult books) that I haven’t. I know precisely what she is reading and the content.

What I do know is that children do not always tell their grown ups if they are upset, and as parents we have a responsibility to protect them. Just because you can read something does not mean they should. I do not understand why people are generally pretty careful about films, but not about books, when children usually watch films with grown ups who can monitor and explain as they happen but read books privately and unmediated.

torture, sadism, murder, grief, teenage sexual awakening

But she won’t have taken that level of darkness from them. Those themes really aren’t suitable for children under 12 - yet many children read Harry Potter before that age. The books are written in such a way that such dark themes are only inferred - they’re not that explicit. Book 4 is her favourite because she likes the introduction of the other schools (she’s generally interested in schools) and the challenges in the Triwizard Tournament. The death of Cedric helped her get her head around death as a concept. We discussed it in depth before and after, because two of her uncles and her favourite cousin died recently. She had to confront it as an issue, and the book helped her do that. She’s also always asking about my parentless childhood so I think a lot of her questions regarding that were answered there.

Anyway, the above themes are why I’ve stopped her reading the 6th book for a while and I didn’t push the book on her - it was her choice. When she asked I was going to read them with her, but she read on without me. There was no point me reading every 8th chapter with her!

She’s just finished Utterly Me, Clarice Bean very quickly (finally got the name right!) and is moving onto Because of Winn-Dixie. She’s absolutely not traumatised...

And sorry to hear about that TheKimJong but I can promise you DD is fine.

And I think she’ll come back and read them in 5 years and understand a lot more, but that doesn’t have to detract from this initial innocent reading. Many Disney films work like that!

TheKimJong if DD was upset by the books I’m sure she wouldn’t be begging to read the next one and chatting about/playing Harry Potter constantly

but read books privately and unmediated

We spend hours discussing what we’ve read, what we like, what we don’t. I’m happy that she has every opportunity to discuss themes she comes across.

Interestingly at her own admission the most sinister thing she has ever read (which received a massive thumbs up from her 😂) was a YA book.

Trouble is, by the time you come to discuss them they are already in her head.

I don’t find what the op is saying that shocking, to be honest. Some children do have advanced reading ages.

At 5 I was reading The Famous Five books, my reading/comprehension age was measured when I was 7, to be at least twice that.

Harry Potter wasn’t actually published until I was 8, I recall zero isssues with reading them.

I’d have been 6 when the first of Philip Pullman’s Dark Materials was published, which was when I was bought it. I could read it well enough but the understanding of the themes not so much, that was on a re-read a couple of years later. He’s a significantly better writer than JK Rowling though so not very surprising that his books, even for children, are bit more complex.

And yet our approach works perfectly for us and she has never (in 11.5 years) been upset by anything she has read. If I thought something would bother her I would suggest she didn’t read it. I’m yet to find something she wants to read that I believe will cause her harm

I teach primary. There is a difference between reading and understanding, and a 5-year-old does not have the ability to read and understand the Harry Potter books on their own. High level year 1 students are only just starting books without supporting images, let alone books filled with metaphors and mature themes like angst. I highly doubt any teacher would support a child reading books well beyond their level of comprehension.

The books are written in such a way that such dark themes are only inferred - they’re not that explicit

Thank you OP. So you understand now that your 5yo doesn't comprehend what she's reading.

Sorry-cannot restrain myself even thought I think pedants are arseholes but it's the second time. Implied, not inferred.

My 6 yo (7 in july) likes the Rainbow Fairy series, The Worst Witch, some Roald Dahl and the David Walliams books. Much more age appropriate than HP. I agree with others that comprehension is important. Dd can decode words and read them, but at times needs to talk through the chapters she reads alone to check she understands it. Particularly with some of the David Walliams books. I found HP wordy and, at times, difficult to follow as an adult (but, admittedly, I'm not a fan of JK's writing style).

"But she won’t have taken that level of darkness from them". ( you hope! - and doesn't that mean you agree that lack of comprehension will shield her from the more disturbing content).

"Those themes really aren’t suitable for children under 12 - yet many children read Harry Potter before that age." (Yes they do, but you asked for opinions, and in my opinion a precocious 8 or 9 year old generally has the emotional equipment to deal with those themes as they are presented there, whereas a 5 year old won't).

@ICantCopeAnymore @lavendargreen I've seen several sources that support this figure, for example:

1. the series of articles by Kathy Kearney on the highly gifted - in which it is stated that reading books for ages 5-6 years older is a common but not universal characteristic of the highly gifted. Highly gifted being defined as IQ 145+ / 99.9th percentile (1 in 1000).

2. The book by Miraca Gross, in particular chapter 6 and table 6.1 from which it is clear that several of the exceptionally gifted kids studied ( exceptionally gifted defined as IQ 160 / 99.99th percentile / 1 in 10,000), while advanced, would not be sufficiently precocious in their reading to read a book so far in advance of their chronological age.

3. This data which shows that reading ages are roughly normally distributed with a standard deviation of around 2.2 years. A five year old with a "tweens" reading age of 11.6 would then be 3 standard deviations above the mean, or 99.9th percentile (1 in 1000). And this refers primarily to decoding, which is a necessary but not sufficient condition for comprehension.

If you frequented the G&T board you might have seen I'm a strong advocate of radical acceleration for the highly gifted, and I do provide links to research / peer-reviewed articles wherever possible (I'm about the only one that does).
There is, however, a difference between giving kids advanced level maths/science/factual material versus giving them injudiciously chosen older fiction. HP wasn't around when I was 5, but I remember reading "Goodnight Mr Tom", and "The Owl Service" far too young and being disturbed by them. They were (notionally) children's books but had a lot of harrowing content on child abuse and sexual jealousy. And the problem, you see, was that I did understand - all too well. As a result, two cracking, well-written books were ruined for me for because I read them too young to deal with them.

[ departs this rather silly thread laughing loudly at lavendargreen's childish suggestion that I am motivated by jealousy of her child because my "children are not academically advanced and are just average student (sic)"...]

There is a difference between reading and understanding, and a 5-year-old does not have the ability to read and understand the Harry Potter books on their own

So you’re a teacher but you’re not prepared to accept that there are - on occasion - children who do just that?

As I’ve said before I don’t believe you need to understand every theme in a book to gain value and enjoyment from it. And I would be disappointed if teachers were passing that message onto my daughter. Fortunately she’s been a free reader since her reception equivalent year and all her teachers have fostered her love of reading - and her love of choosing and selecting her own reading material

Thank you OP. So you understand now that your 5yo doesn't comprehend what she's reading.

I’m not sure what’s so complicated here. Of course she doesn’t understand every element of the story. Of course she understands some elements of the story, enough for her to be hooked on the series.

I don’t understand everything that’s going on in Rilke’s poetry, and I certainly don’t/didn’t on my first reading of much of his work. I still read and enjoy. I don’t lose out by not understanding every concept. That’s such a strange attitude to reading.

Ahhh I’ve been mixing up implied/inferred for 20 years my tutor at university used to really lay into me about it every week but I can never get them the right way round!!

Surely the bottom line, whether she’s read them too early or not and regardless of what she understands, she’s enjoyed reading the first 5 immensely, and hopefully waiting a few months will allow her to enjoy reading 6 and 7 just as much. In the meantime she can enjoy reading lots of other books.

DammitOedipus she’s been reading “chapter books” without regular pictures since the Christmas of reception - as soon as she learnt to read independently she lost interest in picture books and was desperate to move on. That may not be standard, but it has been the standard in this house!

I disagree that themes are only inferred. Have you read the books for yourself recently? I don't think a murder that is explicitly portrayed as being utterly in cold blood is a good way to help children process death.

I don't understand how reading about kissing is worse than reading about murder- but each to their own, I guess.

For the record, I read the hobbit at a similar age, which is arguably a harder read, and has some adult themes which I didn't really process, but I think it's less generally shocking than HP.

You've completely ruined the Harry Potter series for you DD by letting her read them too young.

Yes she can read the words, but she won't understand the books.

Instead, look for more challenging books in her age range so she can fully understand and enjoy.

You've completely ruined the Harry Potter series for you DD by letting her read them too young

Why? I read countless classics very young. They weren’t ruined - I got different things out of them at different ages.

Suffice to say if OP’s DD is enjoying her reading isn’t that all that matters? I think it’s far more important to encourage and allow children to develop their relationships with books how they want.

gfrnn I’m not sure what exactly your stats are responding too but DD is not “exceptionally gifted” and I am sure doesn’t have an IQ of 145+. She’s just a good, enthusiastic, speedy reader.

Implied implied implied implied.