To think Harry Potter is not suitable reading for under 10s?

[lljkk]

I often read on MN that some child (age 5, 6, 7 etc.) has read HP.
Grand they have the technical skill - but how many have the maturity to grasp complicated plot?
And most of all, maturity to handle scarey bits and evil characters, esp. in the later books?
I know JKR intended the books for children the same age as HP in each book -- so first book for age 10, 2nd book for age 11, etc.

Am I only one thinks it's an inappropriate series for almost all little kids to read?

Discuss...

its mainly inappropriate cos its such flippin rubbish, IMO... films are great but the books are like ploughing through treacle...

What scarey bits??? I think they're great books for kids if they're capable of reading them.

One of the book clubs lists them as appropriate for age 9, and thats nearer the mark than 5. And they do get 'darker' as the
series progresses. As always, depends on the kid but I'd have said starting at about 8 and reading no more than one or two a year thereafter might be more apt pace than (apparently) getting through them in infants!

YABU (if it was me as a child)

Read 'Flowers in the attic' by 10 (and all that grim incest stuff was riveting!) and also with you on that one Malory...Loved Lisa &co as well.

Its no worse than any Judy Blume stuff or Hobbit etc.

But...if you are not keen YANBU

i was told off by teacher at 11 cos was reading a william burroughs book... my mother forced my dad to consign his marquis de sade to an out of reach shelf but other than that any book in the house was fair game

I think plenty of 5, 6, 7 yo are capable of following the plots. If they aren't following they will lose interest and stop reading so no harm done. Past age 10 the rubbish formulaic plots damage the books' appeal anyway.

Scarey? To some kids and not others. Personaility not age being the key.

oooh flowers in the attic, is that the one where the evil grandmother pours tar on the little girl's hair? had nightmares about that...

No, you're not being unreasonable. It's not suitable for anybody.

Complicated plot???? And as for dark bits have you read any fairytales lately? Children abandoned in the woods to starve, one ends up in a cage being fattened up to be eaten, and they escape by pushing an old lady into an oven? When there are clear divides between Good and Bad children tend to grasp the ideas very quickly.

Well, I read and enjoyed The Painted Bird when I was 7 because I liked the cover, but that didn't make it appropriate (especially the bits on bestiality and the husband spooning the eyeball out of his wife's lovers' head).

I'm not implying HP is in same league with all that! Just that what I read as a child is not necessarily a good guide for my own DC, either.

Think that is the one ladysanders. As said before, was 10 when I read it so cant quite remember as it was 15 years ago.

OK OK it was 25 years ago.
Sheesh.

..oh, and the boy being chased into a communal cesspool by a pack of village kids, where he is left to drown, that's another good bit from The Painted Bird.

Thing is, if HP is rated as suitable for age 9, why are some children reading it at age 5-6yo?

it was 25 years ago for me too... there was another appalling virginia andrews book called, hmmmm, sweet audrina or something similar? god they were shockingly bad. maybe i shall revise my earlier opinion of HP...

DD1 read all the HP's between the ages of 8-10 (I think she had just turned 10 when the last one came out). She was more than capable of understanding and enjoying them all - in fact she has read them all 4 or 5 times now and has an encyclopaedic knowledge of the most obscure details of all things Hogwarts.
Not inappropriate at all, IMO.

If children are reading it at 5 or 6 they are probably only reading the first couple of books anyway. But if they want to read it and are capable of reading it, why not?

YABU DS 7, is reading the HP books with DH, DH reads some and DS carries on in bed.I think they're on the 4th book now. We've been talking to him about it to check he's actually reading it and he is discussing the story with us so no problems with complicated plots I think. As far as scary we felt that the films could be quite scary and the book would be limited to his imagination and what he could cope with himself IFYSWIM. Also then he can enjoy the books first - i like to read books before seeing the film as they tend to be better than the films.

I read HP at 23/24 years old and it scared me. Gave me nightmares too.

I saw a clip of the first film and it made me throw up. It was absolutely hideous.

It absolutely astounds me that young kids are able to read this stuff... (younger than 11 I mean - and even then it's shocking!)

YABU

the later books require a higher reading level.

I could have read the first two or three at 6, no problems at all.

And would have laughed you out of the building at 10 as I was reading Agatha Christie by then!

Books are not rated! Publishers/bookshops may make suggestions.

LewisFan you are a wimp

LewisFan
Colditz, I was reading the Agatha Christies then too. They're brilliant at that age. By 11 I was on Patricia Cornwell- a good thing too, because the writing stands up better at that age!

I would far rather my Dd (now nearly 9) read the books, she is on the second one atm, than saw the films.

At 7 she went for a sleepover and had really bad nightmare for weeks after, inc wetting the bed etc. I discovered they had been allowed to watch HP 2 and part of 3 (at which point my DD siad she wanted to stop watching).

So I have made her wait, technically she has been up to reading them for years.

Now she has read the first book, we have watched the first film but I may make her wait for a while for the others.

I was reading most of the books listed on this thread by a very young age and had startedthings like The Howling (I can stuill see the cover when I close my eyes ) The Exorcist and Rosemary's baby.