ext_3168 ([identity profile] leora.livejournal.com) wrote in [personal profile] conuly 2005-07-24 04:48 am (UTC)

Probably "slut".

I agree with part of the review - if the book was marketed for 8 year olds then that was stupid. I'd always heard that the intended age for the audience was the same as Harry's. So, this book is intended for 16 year olds. It's not surprising some people wouldn't consider it suitable for 9 year olds.

However, book 4 had crueler and more blatant racism and book 5 had outright torture, bloody torture. I don't think book 6 is darker than books 4 or 5. Yes, the deaths are necessary. Harry has to lose his support system to stand on his own - basic hero story.

And Hansel and Gretel and The Gingerbread Man are pretty disturbing too and they market them to much younger children. For that matter, rock-a-bye baby is pretty nasty. So is that one with four and twenty blackbirds baked in a pie.

Kids aren't that sheltered and don't need to be. Protect them from real violence and give them love, they'll survive a few nasty fairy tales. I loved the Grimm's fairy tales as soon as I could read them for myself. There you have people cutting off pieces of their feet and birds pecking out people's eyes. Good stuff.

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
(will be screened if not validated)
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

If you are unable to use this captcha for any reason, please contact us by email at support@dreamwidth.org