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...

Oh god Ladysanders. My sweet audrina...think I was mentally scarred for life by that one. I think I have blanked it. They just got worse and worse didnt they!

LewisFan, if you are serious, please don't watch any Stephen King films.

The Flowers in the Attic books did the rounds of my class when I was 11, as did all the Judy Bloom books (Forever always fell open at the same page, hmm, wonder why). I used to read and watch deeply inappropriate things, my mum got Flashdance and Dirty Dancing confused when I was about 10, she wouldn't let me watch DD but Flashdance was fine because it was about a girl auditioning for ballet school. Oh dear mum, how wrong you can be. Was most illuminating though.

I agree MarmadukeScarlet, films can have a much greater impact. I was given pretty much free access to the books in my parents' house as a child, but my tv viewing was strictly controlled.

Every child is different, and some, like my dear SIL, will still be shrieking at the Harry Potter films at age 40+! If you feel your child is not ready, then censor appropriately. That doesn't mean all children won't be ready.

I thought Judy Blume was pretty much aimed at 11 year olds? I tried reading HP to my ds a couple of years ago and we both got bored and went on to something better. I think he has now read the first one at school (he is nine). Nothing particularly scary or worrying in them IMO, but I would recommend better books. IMO HP would have benefitted from a lot more editing, which is why unlike pretty much every other dramatisation I've seen I think the films are better than the books.

I was a very able reader and loved reading books way above the recommended age, and then saying disparagingly when such books were recommended to me, oh I read that years ago... I read all my big sisters books (she is nine years older than me) and then moved on to my parents. I'm not sure reading the classics before puberty is a particularly good idea though - I suspect I had no idea what I was reading about. Made me feel superior though

Was that the bit Georgimama in Forever where 'Ralph' made her come?

We all went...but she's already there. I don't quite understand. Good old Guide camp!

May I take this opportunity to thank whoever left a copy of 'Fear of Flying' in the holiday villa when I was 13.

Roald Dahl's The Witches, is far more terrifying as an adult. As a kid I thought it was great. As an adult, I nearly died of fright and had to huddle on the bed without moving until I'd finished it.

I was trying to get dd (8) to read HP1 the other day. She was not keen ("the films miss out the boring descriptions") but got the book out to have a go and left it lying around.

Guess what I am re-reading right now?

My 10 year old ds2 would no way be challenged by HP1, or by any of the series tbh, so I am not sure that each book should be read by children the same age as Harry is in that book.

DD started on Harry Potter aged 8

It helped her develop an insatiable desire to read, re-read, discuss the book and characters ... only problem is that it then became quite difficult to get her to read anything else. The first books are tame, though I admit the last 2 are really more for older kids.

I can't imagine getting to 10yrs old without having read a Harry Potter.

My almost 2yr old DS's fave book at the moment is Not Now, Bernard, where a monster eats a small boy. He thinks that bit is funny...

I read that about that age too, CL. It was an education... Along with The Diceman.

Dahl seriously 'got' children. Books like 'The Twits' and 'George's Marvellous Medicine' are great reading for young children, who tend to see the world in black and white, good and bad.

But don't ever leave his adult short stories within reach. They are really unsettling and scary. I read them far too young - actually I think some of them are creepy for an adult too.

Colditz you have cheered me up. Ds has insisted on reading Murder on the Orient Express for his current reading book. He is nine. I am wondering what his teacher will say...
Ds was eight when he read the lot lljkk. I agree that aspects of the later books are not suitable for younger children but I think the posts you mention have to refer to the first few, shorter books.

He was completely weird. But strangely, as combust said, kids have no issue with that. I didn't at the time.

I can't barely read his stuff now, adult or children's fiction. Just too terrifying. DP will have to read dahl to children. I did love BFG and Danny The Champion of the World.

My DD has read them all and she's ten. They're crap IMO. I hate her style of writing.

I would read HP to ds(4) if he wanted me to. There are far scarier things in some of the fairytales we read, and far FAR scarier things in RL.

Her writing is a bit Enid Blighton. Without the lashings and lashings of tomatoes obviously.

MamaG has firm views on how a thread should be started. Discuss.

Blyton

DS is 7. Dh read the first one to him. DS read 2 and 3 over the summer. The other night he had a nightmare. It was about hurricanes but he never sees the news. Turns out he had read about them in "101 Facts about weather". A totally innocuous book out of a set bought from the book people by my SIL and totally aimed at his age group.

Although I am not sure that just because people read Virginia Andrews at 10 that that was necessarily a good thing.

DS had read all the HPs by age 11. He once commented that the later books were "rather teenager-y and depressing", but was never remotely bothered by the Dark Themes.

The "Weeping Angels" episode of Dr Who was another story however. I had to cover the mirror in his room for months in case the angls came through itin the night.

I totally agree that visual media has far more impact. When I was a child in the '60s, we had far far less exposure to TV and film, so had to satisfy our curiouslty and alleviate our boredom by reading. Which is how I came to read "The Encyclopaedia of Sex Practice" (published 1924) when I was 9 , not to be recommended and probably a more appropriate subject for a new thread!

CombustibleMelon - oh do get a grip, it was lashings of ginger beer!

I was caught reading Fanny Hill at eleven. V snotty teacher said "Does your mother know you are reading this?" I said "Yes, she does. It's her book."

Oh I also read Fear of Flying when I was about 13. My mother, despite being a real prude, was remarkably relaxed about my reading matter. I used to read her "dirty book" which was hidden at the back of the bookcase when she went out. It was called "Sexual Responsibility in Marriage" and was as dull as it sounds. I didn't understand why she had no problem with Fanny Hill and something about wanking called The Hand Reared Boy, but hid away something like this. Perhaps it was because it had diagrams?

Mrs Flittersnoop, perhaps we should compare our parents' sex books? Did yours have diagrams as well? The Sexual Responsibility one had a chapter on "The Virgin Bride" followed by a MUCH shorter one on "The Non-Virgin Bride!"