So recently I was struck by this question: Is Harry Potter actually fantasy? And if so then what is really required for something to be fantasy? See many people call it fantasy but I never really thought it was fantasy myself because even though I love it and don't really fully consider it children's books because so many adults read them too (and there are a lot of things for adults in the books) fantasy always seemed more. . . adultish to me. Maybe more like D&D than Harry Potter? And yet I consider the Oddysey to be fantasy. So what really determines fantasy? Any thoughts, suggestions or ideas?

What's not fantisy about it?
It might be based in a modern world but it certainly is fantisy. And yes it is a children's literature because it is designed for children. Now, this does not mean adults wont enjoy reading it but it just means it was designed for children.

The only thing that makes HP "Children's Literature" is that it's much more straightforward than most "adult literature." The plot has a few twists, but not the 47 zillion re-directions that can happen in some novels. Characters are pretty much what they appear to be - few have many layers of conflicting emotions and motivations. The HP books are interesting stories about interesting characters, which appeals to people of all age groups, but they are written so that younger people can grasp the full story and not get lost. Nothing wrong with that for me!

Same here. You can't really label something 870 pages long (the latest HP incarnation) "children's literature". If she was only writing for children she obviously wouldn't produce such a huge tome to read which most young children probably won't be able to read comfortably holding it in their hands. (Even when it comes out in paperback.)

The thing I like about Rowling is that she doesn't limit herself to writing only for children. I for one enjoyed all her books thus far. Compared with some trashy "adult" fantasy out there it certainly has more literary value, even if you don't like anything else about it.

Week ago all five of the HP e-books accidentally dropped to my pocket, and already I have read the two first. What does that tell?

That if 20-year old student can get addicted, it's not a book with "Children Only" -label.

Aren't the FR books childrens literature? Or atleast teen reading? But people on this forum seem to love those books, with the average age been much over the age of a child. This does not mean they are not children's literature or what ever. It is what the writer intended them to be. If Rowling wrote the HP books for children then they are children's literature.

No, the FR books are as far away from children's literature as you can get. More or less graphic portrayal of sex and violence is pretty common in some of them. Especially Greenwood has an obession with having Elminster get laid every chance he gets in his books.

I wouldn't have my kids read FR novels until they at least hit their teens. :shake:

Drivel sums up Harry Potter. It's not even "literature".

This is a rant.

I hope that was Elminster in his younger days...

Anyhow, you would have to classify HP as fantasy, it doesn't really fit into any other genre. Childrens books are stuff like Mr Man (no offence to those here who read them ;) ) and The Very Hungry Catapiller.

Well if you go for the dictionary definition, or the definition that we debated in my university level fantasy English course for that matter, Harry Potter quite clearly falls into the definition.

Just because a book is written for a different age group or level of sophistication does not change its genre. If you have a biography written for a target audience of young school aged children it is still a biography.

As to whether or not the Harry Potter books are childrens' books - I know many children who enjoy them and I feel that they are written at a level at which most young people can read understand them. I also know many adults including myself (age 27), and my father (age 52) who enjoy them too. In fact, I was introduced to the books by a co-worker who is old that he has children my age. Personally, I find nothing wrong with plunking myself down and laughing my head off while watching a cartoon. Does this make me immature?

I don't think so, in fact I feel sorry for people who feel that there is a point where someone is "too old" to enjoy certain things. Just because I read novels that are written with a more sophisticated audience in mind does not mean that it is wrong to read and enjoy something simple.

Finally, I would have to say that the page count issue is really irrelevent in my mind. Yes some children may have trouble with the weight but that is not really a reflection of whether or not a child would be able to read and enjoy the actual content. My much younger cousin is reading the latest Harry Potter and has had to read with the book sitting on a table but that is not stopping him from reading and enjoying it.

I'd have to say that Harry Potter is fantasy. Theres hardly one aspect of it that isnt fanatsy. Other then that its meant to be in present time but a lot of novels have been in present time and are fantasy. I think she meant for the first books to be childrens novels because they were much simpler the the latest ones and they were 300 pages or less. But a little while after they came out teens and adults began to read them and you could hardly call them childrens books anymore. Now the books have become mroe complicated, the vocabulary has become harder and the length of the books have become longer. So you can hardly call them childrens novels anymore. She even made it so taht tere would be different covers for the books one for adults the other for children

No, the FR books are as far away from children's literature as you can get. The ones I've read, which i admit are very few, where so basic. They had a simple story line, very short and very very boring.

Harry Potter are books designed for children. But they do make great reading for all ages. My 80 year old grandmother enjoyes reading them. But then so do some of my cousins who are under five years. They of course don't read them but they enjoy them no the less.

Hate HP!!! I can agree that it probably has to be fantasy because it doesn't fir anywhere else...
But i do so hate it. I won't go into why i hate it (mostly because i don't know why), but i honestly can't see how adults can read it.

The only reason I can see why people like it is:
1) It's different from most other books
2) It's well written
and 3) It's easy to follow.

Another reason people like the stories is becasue he is a real and believable character; HP is just an ordinary person dealing with extraordinary things. (Not a dual-scimitar wielding drow ranger who can run and attack at the speed of light; don't get me wrong I like drizzt but he's too good to be true.)

Harry Potter is a book writen for children. And that is that. No more, no less. LOTR is fantasy. HP is about as fantasy as Little red ridin' hood.

LOTR is a book for children too. At least it started out as a children book. Somewhere after meeting Aragorn, it accidently has evolved into something different. Maybe the same thing happened to Potter ?

@Yago: I think the "Aragorn" moment in the series was somewhere after book three... book five needs some serious editing! I mean, look at the size of the thing! Although having said that I know a lot of people who read LOTR when they were quite young (less than 15 years old).

Okay perhaps this topic needs some clarification: What defines a fantasy book/series and what enables something to be for children vs. adults. See what got me so curious was that I'm writing an AP thesis paper on C.S. Lewis and so (of course) the Narnia Chronicles came up. Now these are the kind of books written for children, meant for children but read by and enjoyed by adults. This is because C.S. Lewis puts all sorts of elements into it (*cough* copious amounts of theology) which makes it interesting to adults, even as they enjoy the fantasy aspects. (This by the way, was what my entire paper was about -- that C.S. Lewis' books are easy enough for kids but interesting enough for adults as well)

But even though adults read and love the Narnia Chronicles, many bookstores put them in the Children's Section. And most people even think of them as children's books. But the Narnia Chronicles are the kind of books I would put more under a fantasy category. And take Lord of the Rings, that is something that I would consider "hard-core fantasy" just as I would consider R.A. Salvatore books. And the Odyssey I also consider fantasy.

So what makes something truly fantasy and does Harry Potter belong in this category? -- That was the question I really wanted answered; not to open a debate whether Harry Potter is good for adults and kids, I already mentioned I thought it was good both ways. See because just as most bookstores put the Narnia Chronicles in the kid's section, they also do that with Harry Potter. LOTR is in the fantasy section though. So what is this invisible barrier?

Continuing on a slightly different note in response to other people's comments . . . I also feel that although fairy tales (like Little Red Riding Hood and Sleeping Beauty) are very much like fantasy and in general the first introduction any fantasy fan gets to the fantasy world. For instance, before I was playing D&D I was watching Disney and reading my huge book of fairy tales. So fairy tales in their own way are like fantasy, but fall just a little short. So if fairy tales are ALMOST fantasy, what makes it fully fantasy? Like if I just took a fairy tale and made it longer it wouldn't really be fantasy, it'd still be a kid's fairy tale. But if I added other elements into it, suddenly it's fantasy. So tying this back in, what is that crossing line?

I would say it's somewhat easy to define the crossing line. I'd be quite sure it is what the books contains. Tal was in on it with Elminster getting laid (or nearly, haven't read any of those so I wouldn't personally), another would be for instance in LOTR, death.
I dont find it suitable for kids to read how an army of orcs use catapults to bombard a city with severed heads of their kinsmen.

In my opinion, fantasy is the product of a child's mind. I started reading harry potter, hell I'm addicted to it and I'm 20. I'm like reading a book every second day (on the forth now). Often it's the child within that explore and break our boundaries, run into the unknown out of curiousity. The child within us that is the creator, and thus creating what I consider fantasy (being a product of something non-real).

As the difference to the terms of children's book and fantasy, I'm quite sure it's the content. My young cousin said he didn't like the fourth book as much as the others, since he said it was kinda "serious". I haven't read it, but I would assume this would be going into the treshold of the fantasy category away from a childrens book (and it's about 2-3 times longer than the previous oens).

IMHO harry potter is for people 10 & under. I am only 14 and i had no intrest in them even though ive read them all they were so boring to me that i cant remember anything about them

You should take language into account as well. Tolkien's English is hard - especially for kids. Many of the words he used were not commonly used when he wrote LoTR, and fewer are today. To me, this just gives a book extra value (and in the case of LoTR, makes the book feel more "legendary"). Every word I need to look up in a dictionary makes a book worth more in my opinion. But for kids it would mostly be an annoyance - there's no instant gratification in Tolkien. You need patience to enjoy it.

Every word I need to look up in a dictionary makes a book worth more in my opinionThen "The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant" must be invaluable, eh Tal? ;)

Indubitably.

Yeah, Thomas Covenant was definitely great. Didn’t have to look up any words, either (but I looked up “indubitably” just to be sure I knew that one :lol: ).

But I don’t think the original question has been answered yet – ie. What defines fantasy? For me, fantasy is an alternate version of reality. It is not overly concerned with the laws of physics as they apply in our own universe, which allows for the existence of some version of magic. With that definition, HP would definitely be fantasy. This contrasts with science fiction, which to me is a view of what might be possible in our universe given the right technology but within the constraints of our laws of physics (or some extension thereof).

Oh hey! I just had a friend who summed up exactly what I more or less feel is the very subtle difference in fantasy vs. well, anything else -- in particular Harry Potter. Fantasy can't be the same story in a different setting. For instance you can't take the Hobbit's plot and put it in NYC with guns and gangs instead of magic and dragons. It doesn't work. And although Harry Potter has magic and dragons if you think about it you actually can take the Harry Potter plot and put it in NYC. Harry Potter, little kid, family died in a gang war, mafia's out to get him. Now that he's a teenager he seeks to stop the leaders and put an end to it.... See what I'm saying? The Hobbit only works in Tolkein's middle Earth. I think that may also be why R.A. Salvatore feels that Star Wars isn't so much sci-fi as fantasy. The Star Wars stories only work well in the Star Wars galaxy. (Though some sci-fi fits into that mindset and others don't) And maybe that's why some fairy tales can be considered almost fantasy but not really. Because the stories can still have the same message/theme in different circumstances.

And @ Lokken, I def. agree about the child barrier in some cases. Like the Recluce series. And even the Spine of the World (Salvatore) is a bit too adultish for kids. And I agree with your cousin. Some books I like to be serious but Harry Potter was better when it wasn't quite so serious -- which is where it started to lose it's childish aspect.

Thank you so much you guys for defining all of this for me! Continue with the messages though. I want to see if you agree with Steve's (my friend) take on it.

I very much disagree with the assessment that a fantasy novel has to center around a story that can't happen anywhere else. For a book to really resonate, the reader has to be able to relate to the characters and what they're going through. If the situations or emotions are too alien, you'll end up with a well-told series of actions that never gels into a real, engrossing tale. The overriding theme of LOTR is pretty basic stuff - good v. evil, little guy discovering inner strength, fellowship, etc. Those themes can be found anywhere in literature, whether they're implemented with magic or bullets or blasters.

For a long time, that's been my beef with most of the dreck that comes out of Hollywood in the name of fantasy. It's usually a lame story that general audiences (i.e., non-SF/F afficianados) can't relate to, so it flops.

I'd be willing to bet that someone with a better background in literature than I could come up with a non-fantasy equivalent (meaning a book with a similar theme) for just about any classic of fantasy you can name.

@Silverwolf86 - That is the silliest damned argument re. the difference between fantasy and non-fantasy that I have ever seen. I completely agree with Rallymama on this one.

You could just as easily rework the Hobbit as a modern gang story about how the Dragon gang invaded the Dwarf gang's turf as you could relocate the Harry Potter books and remove the magic elements. (Just imagine the finale with the "Rumble of Five Gangs :p ")

As far as Tolkein's works in general only working in Middle Earth, it seems to me that The Sword of Shannara sold pretty well for a story that "couldn't work". Sure, this is retelling a fantasy story in another fantasy setting but it could just as easily have been a science fiction or contempory setting.

Sword of Shannara ... is retelling a fantasy story in another fantasy setting but it could just as easily have been a science fiction or contempory setting.Another case in point, JSBB: What is Star Wars but a retelling of LOTR in space?

My take on the definition of fantasy as a genre has always been: fiction, with at least one major element depending on an assumption that the recognized laws of nature (this includes, but is not limited to, physics), do not operate in the same way in the "world" of the book as on the earth.

This can be translated as simply as Harry Potter (i.e., set in relatively present day society, no laws of physics have been necessarily changed, but there is an element of magic that cannot be explained by science as we know it) or as completely as LOTR (different world, physics abrogated -- sailing of the end of the world and not able to reach the west unless you're an elf -- magic works, etc.).

This may be compared to science fiction, which I have always defined as: fiction, with at least one major element depending on an assumption that scientific progress has allowed for processes that cannot readily be conceived as probable in the present day, but which generally will fit within scientific parameters as being possible (this rules out straight magic). May be set in our own "universe" with earth as a centerpiece, but is not necessarily so, as long as it is consistent with a potential past/future.

In this case, Star Wars fits (although it somewhat pushes the envelope with the "Force" concept) based on the theory that humanity on earth derived from humans in the Star Wars series based on some lost colony theory or similar notion.

p.s. Whether something is children's literature has nothing to do with whether it is fantasy or sci-fi. There are plenty of children's books that would also qualify as sci-fi or fantasy. Lloyd Alexander's Black Cauldron series - kids' fantasy, any of Chistopher's books (I forget his first name) - kids' sci fi, Susan Cooper's Dark is Rising Series - kids' fantasy, Patricia McKillip's Riddlemaster books - kids' fantasy, Alan Garner's books - Elidor, Moon of Gomrath, etc. - kids' fantasy, etc. In my opinion, children's literature is a label given to books that are written with a vocabulary accessible to children of the target age, with fewer plot twists, and with no or limited adult themes (sex, violence at a graphic level, etc.).

As is obvious from this post, I have been reading sci fi and fantasy since I was a kid and I am a geek. Oh well, know thyself. . . .

Ofcourse its fantasy. The Lord Voldermot charecter itself ensures that. Storing your soul in anothers' body is definately an absolutly fantasy world idea. Aaisac Asimov did try that with some alien robot technology fluff, but he dared not stretch it to over a short story.
Yes, it is a childrens book with 1 Dimentional charecters and a plot as straight as all the people in that book. But that does not mean that it be consecrated as a fairy tale type work.
Why should LOTR being one of the most widely acclaimed fantasy works be a reason to banish HP from the realm of fantasy?

Shrikanth, I'm rather sure everyone agrees that harry potter is fantasy of some extent. I mean, hello, magic? ;)

The thing is the various definitions people have of fantasy. I consider it fantasy, but I also think it is a childrens book, however, the longer you get into the book(s) the more mature I feel the content of the story is getting.

While on harry potter, I have to praise teh books :D
I've finally started the fifth book today which I'm halfway through already, and I'm absolutely spellbound and I'm 20 years old! I doubtfully think that I've previously read any other books that has been able to hold my attention till I was passing in exhaustion from reading into the night.

I know this post has been left alone for a while now but I was just checking it and it motivated me to register and respond.
I think perhaps the question asked by the thread starter is what is causing the problem. "Fantasy, or children's literature" how about both? (well at least it started that way). To me the question is like saying "sports car or Chevrolet" it can be both or neither. HP has many fantastical and mythical aspects so , yes it is a fantasy. The target market for HP books was an age somewhere around ten. I say was because IMO the books have "grown" with her readers. I've read them all and the first one seemed much more childish than the last one. (that and the last one had some serious weight to it :D )

I will say this. I personaly had written anything HP off until a year ago when after enough people prodding me to I watched the first movie. This of course caused me to pick up the book for comparrison, and from that point on I became a 26yr old, big fan.

For the people who have made the LoTR comparisons. The Hobbit was to an extent marketed as "childrens literature". Also if you dig a bit you'll find that while tolkien did write the LoTR as a follow up to the Hobbit, he also wrote them as a way to express his anti-industrial views, So is LoTR a political piece or a fantasy? For the record the first time I read the Hobbit I was in 4th grade, 5th grade for LoTR. I had no trouble following or understanding the book.


My last thought should go without saying, but here goes. A more complex book does not a better book make, no matter how good you are at describing poop it still stinks.

Oh by the way, I'm Shane, pleased to meet all of you.

My comment on this is, are fantasy and childerens book as genre mutually exclusive. My opinion is that they are not and as such HP is a childs fantasy book.

Neither, Harry Potter is children's fantasy.