Well, I'm sure there ARE part of Harry Potter my son doesn't understand--by which I do NOT mean plot (I periodically ask him about a plot point and he always is correct--he would pass any typical surface reading comp quiz on the books), but deeper themes. DD didn't start to really get the tragedy of Snape until recently, for instance, and neither of them cry when Cedric's father comes out into the arena in the movie (I always do). They are children, and the books are designed to read on many levels. This is why I am happy DD is still re-reading them, and hope DS will as well. It WAS a slight hesitation for me in having him read them so young...just that he would miss some of the deeper meanings. But not that he would not FOLLOW, no.
If the argument is going to be, "Children shouldn't be exposed to literature until they're mature enough to FULLY UNDERSTAND it," then that argument could be expanded to the point where nobody should ever read Shakespeare, the source material of any religion, or any other documents of significant historical value. For example, most of our serving Congressmen should not be allowed to read the US Constitution, as they clearly don't understand it.
Right. As I said before, I think special attention (and special hand-wringing) comes about with HP because it is so popular and so many adults have read it and feel like "WELL, but HP is HARD and MEANINGFUL. They can't possibly GET it." Yet of course, many children's books, even those with deceptively simple writing...even picture books...have deep themes that not every child or adult will fully understand or appreciate. Of course, they can generally also be read on another level. This is one of the beauties of children's books.
