Harry Potter

[JBI]

Uhm, except Harry Potter isn't an allegory by any stretch of the imagination. I think the books have more in common with Tolkien than they do with Lewis.

Symbolic allusions to the Bible or to be more blunt scenes practically stolen right out of the Bible do NOT necessarily an allegory make. There are so many other ways to read Harry Potter than from a "religious perspective."

Such as what? She herself has stated it is a very religious book, and even as far as to spoil the ending after the publication of the 5th book by revealing it as a religious work. Now you are contradicting the author.

And on the note of let it go because it is a children's book, children's literature has as established a canon as non-children's literature. I can't see giving Potter to a kid as better than giving Kipling, or giving Roald Dahl, or giving Burnett, or even Shel Silverstein, or Dr. Seuss, or any of the children's greats.

[Drkshadow03]

Such as what? She herself has stated it is a very religious book, and even as far as to spoil the ending after the publication of the 5th book by revealing it as a religious work. Now you are contradicting the author.


First, there is nothing wrong with contradicting the author.

That's why there is a long history of literary theory that has challenged the author's authority as final interpretation or even important for interpretation at all, the two seminal essays in this area being William Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley's intentional fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_fallacy) and Roland Barthes' The Death of the Author (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_the_author), but there are many others besides who have dealt with this issue on different theoritical grounds.

I agree with the problems that these theorists raise as far author intentionality, but also disagree that the author should be entirely excluded from the picture.

Basically my position is that the author should be a guide-post, not chains and fetters. However, the real point being there is nothing actually wrong with contradicting or disagreeing with an author; they may not be aware of elements within their story for a number of reasons.

Second, I don't disagree that Harry Potter can be read in a religious light and has spiritual/religious elements. So I am not sure I am actually disagreeing with anything Rowling ever said. If you can find where Rowling explicitly states that she meant her novels to be a Christian allegory than by all means share it with us.

Allusions to the Bible do not automatically equal allegory. Certainly the scene in the last book where Potter dies and comes back to life is allegorical and Christ-like, but that doesn't make the entire set of novels a Christian allegory. Potter is more than just a stand-in for Jesus. Not to mention the other characters aren't personifications of some political message or religious symbolism either.

They are "real" characters that are more than just symbolic mouth-pieces. Harry goes through a variety of teenager type transitions as major parts of the story that have nothing to do with Christian allegory; he has real concerns about his life, about his fame, about his friendship, about his love life, about his past that often have nothing to do directly with him saving the world or preaching or doing something Jesus-like.

Allegory is the wrong genre.

[JBI]

Perhaps it is only part allegory, as you say, though the World War allegorical elements are present again. I personally think the book is world war 2, with a Christ like savior coming to liberate the people. The series being spun around a certain prophesy of the "chosen one" seems to push it more towards religious allegory as well, but that is not all, to dig around other sources;

http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/culture/thinking/561a/

To quote,

John Granger, author of The Hidden Key to Harry Potter, believes Rowling has been misunderstood and misrepresented. He describes first book, Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone as “a tale of the soul’s purification, illumination, and perfection in Christ (written in the medieval language of spiritual alchemy).”



“That the blood of the unicorn will curse those who drink it unworthily, and that it has life-giving power, echoes St Paul’s discourse on the unworthy reception of Communion, which is the blood of Christ.”





At the centre of the morality play was an allegorical spiritual journey undertaken by ‘Everyman’. John Bunyan’s The Pilgrim’s Progress is written in this style.

John Granger sees the climax of Book II, where Harry descends to the chamber of secrets to rescue Ginny Weasley as “the clearest Christian allegory of salvation history since Lewis’s The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. ... Using only traditional symbols, from the ‘Ancient of Days’ figure as God the Father to the satanic serpent and Christ-like phoenix (‘the Resurrection Bird’), the drama takes us from the fall to eternal life without a hitch.”

Granger provides a compelling argument for seeing the divine in the ‘demonic’ Harry Potter books. Describing the scene in detail, he explains what happens in terms of allegory. The following is Granger’s key to unlocking the climactic scene.

• Harry is ‘Every Man’
• Ginny is ‘Innocence, Purity’
• Riddle/Voldemort is ‘Satan, the Deceiver’
• The Basilisk is ‘Sin’
• Dumbledore is ‘God the Father’
• Fawkes the Phoenix is ‘Christ’
• Phoenix Song is ‘Holy Spirit’
• Gryffyndor’s Sword is ‘the Sword of Faith/Spirit’ (Eph 6:17)
• The Chamber is ‘the World’ and
• Hogwarts is ‘Heaven’

I am unable to find the article I read about her talking after the release of the 5th book, but I'll dig around later (I had read it upon its publication, so it is a little difficult to find).

[Drkshadow03]

The series being spun around a certain prophesy of the "chosen one" seems to push it more towards religious allegory as well, but that is not all, to dig around other sources;

Most fantasies use the "chosen one" of prophesy trope to save them from the Dark evil Lord. Certainly this is inspired by Christian ideas (really it is the influence of Tolkien), but that doesn't mean these stories are necessarily allegorical.

John Granger sounds like he has some interesting points, but I still think it is a mistake to read Potter as a Christian allegory. For me allegory has specific connotations as a literary type, one that utilizes symbolic personification, that pretty much has a one-to-one metaphoric correlation. The characters shouldn't feel like people with their own human concerns, but rather should be "types." Nor should it require us to read a John Granger to figure out a story is allegory; it should pretty much be that obvious the moment we read the book.

I think Granger is partially right as far as the symols go because there is no denying that Rowling turns to Christian symbols throughout her story, but there are many works of literature with allusions to Christian themes, symbols, and motifs that are NOT allegories.

This is what separates Tolkien from Lewis. Tolkien wanted to write a Christian story, a fantasy mythology for England with a Christian theological perspective, but unlike Lewis he didn't want to write allegory. He talks about how his story is applicable. Gandalf and Aragorn are certainly Christ-like at certain points embodying Christian morals of bravery, faith in providence in the face of despair, sacrifice for the good of others, etc., but that doesn't mean any of them are literally supposed to be read as a stand-in for Christ. Not to mention making it applicable allows for the story to be read in many non-Christian ways: neo-fascists in Italy for example have a fascist reading for the story, there are elements libertarians like about the story (particularly the hobbit community), there is an environmental theme, etc.

I see the Potter novels following more in the footsteps of Tolkien. The themes are applicable, not allegorical.

Another critic who has some thoughts:

"In fact, although there is loaded language and imagery attached to Harry within the narrative just as there is to Voldemort, the links between character and symbolism are always relatively distant and tenuous--a device which both discourages simple allegorical reading, and allows Harry to remain a character rather than a symbolic figure and thus function as a point of reader identification, allowing readers to engage fully with the narrative" (emphasis mine; from Wizard and Wainscots: generic structures and genre themes in the Harry Potter series (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0OON/is_1_24/ai_107896944/pg_1))

P.S. I also would point out that I don't mean to be antagonistic as I know I tend to disagree with you a lot. I apologize in advance if my tone comes off that way. I argue mostly in the spirit of worthwhile intellectual discussion.

[PeterL]

The idea of a "chosen one" predates Christianity and is common to most ancient mythologies. Gilgamesh was a chosen one, and the idea existed in other cultures from Sohrab and Rustam to Aeneas. I see Harry Potter as being more closely related to non-Christian mythology than to Christian mythology.

[JBI]

The idea of a "chosen one" predates Christianity and is common to most ancient mythologies. Gilgamesh was a chosen one, and the idea existed in other cultures from Sohrab and Rustam to Aeneas. I see Harry Potter as being more closely related to non-Christian mythology than to Christian mythology.

I don't know, the whole ending of the book seems quite Christian, and less Gilgameshian to me. I also have my doubts that Rowling has read many of the works you have mentioned, much less read anything beyond a basic level.

Of course this cannot be as allegorical, as lets say Bunyan's work, but there is no doubt that many portions of the story are designed to be allegories. Loads of stuff in the books act as filler, of course, and for that reason it cannot fall into the genre of allegory, however it is fair to say that the major plot arc is allegorical in nature.

There is also the political allegory, with the simple equation of sticking Dumbledore as Churchill, Fudge as Chamberlain, and Voldemort as Hitler. Such representations are admitted by the author to some degree, and would fit in with the author's mindset. Of course, Dumbledore is all good, so the Dresden bombings didn't quite make the novels, but the rest is there in one form or another.

It appears that this work can represent a biased English history as well as a religious study to some degree or another. I find also the tempting by Voldemort of Harry in the first few books to be similar to the temptation of Christ, to say the least.

I personally think the books resemble Lewis' Narnia far more than Tolkien's world. The plot too feels far more Lewisian than Tolkinian, but I guess we are all entitled to our opinions, however wrong and childish.

Either way this is rather irrelevant, the true question is whether or not the Christian morality being pushed in this book is a virtue or a fungus, and whether or not these works, given their themes, style, content, and politics a) should be read, and b) if so then by who.


And on another note, I am not deliberately attacking who I disagree with, I just like to argue with an ice pick tone (a trait developed in childhood). I mean nothing against the individual, I only wish to discredit some arguments. I am sure you are all lovely people.

[PeterL]

The same themes and tropes have appeared in literature from every age and every part of the Earth; that is way Harry Potter and similar stories have been successful, and that is why religions have used that same kinds of stories. You may be more familiar with such stories from Christianity, but people from other places see parallels to their culture heroes.


I am sure you are all lovely people
That is an unwarranted assumption.

[Scheherazade]

I am sure you are all lovely people.
That is an unwarranted assumption.Yeah, JBI! Please stop spreading unfounded rumours about us! :D

[Drkshadow03]

I don't know, the whole ending of the book seems quite Christian, and less Gilgameshian to me. I also have my doubts that Rowling has read many of the works you have mentioned, much less read anything beyond a basic level.

Rowling has a background in Classics I believe. The Persia Epic that PeterL alludes to might be far-fetched, but I don't think inspiration from Gilgamesh, Beowulf, and Aeneid is far-fetched considering her background.


Of course this cannot be as allegorical, as lets say Bunyan's work, but there is no doubt that many portions of the story are designed to be allegories. Loads of stuff in the books act as filler, of course, and for that reason it cannot fall into the genre of allegory, however it is fair to say that the major plot arc is allegorical in nature.


There is also the political allegory, with the simple equation of sticking Dumbledore as Churchill, Fudge as Chamberlain, and Voldemort as Hitler. Such representations are admitted by the author to some degree, and would fit in with the author's mindset. Of course, Dumbledore is all good, so the Dresden bombings didn't quite make the novels, but the rest is there in one form or another.

Rowling overturns that reading when Dumbledore absolutely refuses to become Prime Minister multiple times. Not to mention Rufus Scrimgeour who replaces Fudge as Minister of Magic has a lot of Churchill qualities to him. However, I do agree that Fudge equals Chamberlain or better to say is similar to Chamberlain. Voldemort and his government certainly is fascist and has similarity to the Nazis, but I think we are supposed to read them as Neo-fascists.

Mostly because of the time period of the story: Grindelwald, the famous dark Wizard with very similar views to Voldemart whose story is important in the final book, was defeated in 1945, when the Nazis were defeated.

The dates and the fact that we have a dark wizard before Voldemort during the Fascist period overturns the allegorical political reading and disrupts the one-for-one symbolic correlation needed for allegory. Voldemort comes later as a kind of Neo-Fascist defeated not once, but twice (which has overtones of Napoleon). It seems that Rowling is mixing and matching history as she chooses to construct her story.

All of this feeds into one of the major themes of Harry Potter: history is linked together. The events of the past affect the events of the present, while the events of the present shed light on the events of the past. The Wizarding world history reflects human world history.

Dumbledore is certainly NOT depicted as all good; this becomes more apparent in the last two novels when a darker more remorseful and secretive side of Dumbledore is revealed.


It appears that this work can represent a biased English history as well as a religious study to some degree or another. I find also the tempting by Voldemort of Harry in the first few books to be similar to the temptation of Christ, to say the least.

Similarity does not equal allegory, though. I think one of the most important parallels in the entire novel is Voldemort and Harry's backgrounds as orphans. They have very similar background histories, but they both end up as very different people. The narrative, however, repeats again and again that Harry could've gone the way of Tom Riddle. Vice-versa it hints that Voldemart could've gone the direction Harry went.


Either way this is rather irrelevant, the true question is whether or not the Christian morality being pushed in this book is a virtue or a fungus, and whether or not these works, given their themes, style, content, and politics a) should be read, and b) if so then by who.

The stories in a general sense are anti-Racist, anti-Fascist, Pro-Open Society Democracy, Pro-Friendship, Pro-Love, Pro-Het Marriage. They might be said to be Pro-Faith (in a general way), but this always seems to be subordinate to Friendship or Love (faith in your friends, faith in the power of love).

The Christian morality isn't any stronger in these books than more typical Greek virtues. The Christian elements are more in how they are incorporated into the symbolism rather than the explicit themes themselves.

[JBI]

A bunch of Potterites assembled this list, using quotes from the author; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_influences_and_analogues#British_folk lore_and_mythology
Gilgamesh is not on it, the only thing pre-bible is The Iliad, at its influence is only supposed on one or two scenes, and in a very basic and trivial manner.

You really don't study Gilgamesh with classics. That is more of a specialized thing than lets say, reading the Iliad, and very few people actually can read it in the original.

[Drkshadow03]

A bunch of Potterites assembled this list, using quotes from the author; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_influences_and_analogues#British_folk lore_and_mythology
Gilgamesh is not on it, the only thing pre-bible is The Iliad, at its influence is only supposed on one or two scenes, and in a very basic and trivial manner.

You really don't study Gilgamesh with classics. That is more of a specialized thing than lets say, reading the Iliad, and very few people actually can read it in the original.

Psssh, are you trying to say that everyone doesn't know how to read Akkadian and Sumerian?

Anyway, that's probably true enough. Thanks for the Wiki link by the way. That's really very useful.

[jikan myshkin]

They say it is because of a line from Exodus;

Exodus 22, King James Version

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

n a justification on her way of life verses another.

"...and harry potter and all his wizzarding friends went straight to hell for praticing witchcraft!"
"yay!"

(from the simpsons)

[PeterL]

OK, I think that taken as a whole we have demonstrated that Potter is an open work.

[JBI]

"...and harry potter and all his wizzarding friends went straight to hell for praticing witchcraft!"
"yay!"

(from the simpsons)

It isn't Witchcraft, it is more Wicca. The term witch didn't exist in the same way back in the desert. It is a fault of translators that they fail to include Jewish scholarship in any way, and simply guess the meanings of some words, relative to our own. Jewish scholarship disputes the meaning of some uncommon words that don't even exist in spoken Hebrew anymore. about 2/3 to 3/4 of every page in most additions of student Tanakhim are dedicated to commentary, mostly Rashi, but others as well. Judaic theology and commentary is much older, and much more developed than even the best of Christian commentary, simply because Christian commentary is directed at mis-translated versions, rather than the original, and also excludes the Oral Torah, the Mishna, and the Talmudic books, in addition to a whole collection of Midrashim that have developed over the years. Anything a Christian says about the book can generally be taken to be a misquote, or only applicable on the translation used.

Either way, a woman flying on a broom would seem completely absurd to any Jewish commentator as the direct meaning of the term. Some translations even put it as sorceress, whereas its true definition is still subject to debate amongst scholars reading it in the original.

[jikan myshkin]

It isn't Witchcraft, it is more Wicca. The term witch didn't exist in the same way back in the desert. It is a fault of translators that they fail to include Jewish scholarship in any way, and simply guess the meanings of some words, relative to our own. Jewish scholarship disputes the meaning of some uncommon words that don't even exist in spoken Hebrew anymore. about 2/3 to 3/4 of every page in most additions of student Tanakhim are dedicated to commentary, mostly Rashi, but others as well. Judaic theology and commentary is much older, and much more developed than even the best of Christian commentary, simply because Christian commentary is directed at mis-translated versions, rather than the original, and also excludes the Oral Torah, the Mishna, and the Talmudic books, in addition to a whole collection of Midrashim that have developed over the years. Anything a Christian says about the book can generally be taken to be a misquote, or only applicable on the translation used.

Either way, a woman flying on a broom would seem completely absurd to any Jewish commentator as the direct meaning of the term. Some translations even put it as sorceress, whereas its true definition is still subject to debate amongst scholars reading it in the original.

haha how long does it take you to watch one episode of the simpsons? that's if you even do!

[Scheherazade]

JK Rowling has written a short prequel to her popular Harry Potter books.

But the 800-word tale will not be published - instead it will go under the hammer at a charity auction in London next month.

She is one of 13 authors - including Nick Hornby and Doris Lessing - asked to write storycards by Waterstone's for their What's Your Story? auction.

Rowling's story finishes with the handwritten words: "From the prequel I am not working on - but that was fun!"

All 13 cards will be sold without a reserve price. The other authors include Margaret Atwood, Lauren Child, Sebastian Faulks, Tom Stoppard and Irvine Welsh.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7425041.stm

[JBI]

Honestly, the whole idea of such events is silly to me. Stories should be for the public, not the high paying elite. I don't care what charity it goes to, if she merely wrote more, she would make even more millions. Let her cut a piece of her pie, and hand it to the charity, rather than selling a story to some obnoxiously rich person. She already did something similar with a set of self-illuminated story books.

Note, my disapproval is transfered to the other authors as well.

[Joreads]

I have to agree with JBI on this one. Everyone should have the chance to read what has been written by all of these authors. It is a shame that even something like reading is in this case being reduced to something that only the rich can afford. Maybe the buyer will allow it to be published - maybe that is just a vain hope on my part.

[Trystan]

No, I don't like Harry Potter. Not just because it has little literary value (and it does have very little value), but because I just don't like any of the characters, or any of the themes, which are really too simplistic (good vs evil = good wins, and we'll do it all over again next year). It's also so, so . . . pretentious, in that annoyingly upper-class British way.

[Smoogles]

You can't do this, it's all matter of opinions.

[clumsy angelle]

I like Harry Potter so much... It's what got me into reading...

[wilbur lim]

Thumbs down of Harry Potter! I feel that it is monotonous to read it.There's not enough vocabulary,which it is written in a simplified one.It is solely suitable for 11 years old and below.

[tedgemon]

i'd say HP was really written for 11-teens, which i am not.

[kasie]

I feel like writing this in Capital Letters, but I will curb my frustration and merely re-iterate: the Harry Potter books were written for young readers and should be enjoyed as such. They were not written to be Literature, they were not written to provide material for Lit Crit, they were written for the entertainment of young readers. The fact they have been enjoyed by thousands and thousands of young (and young-at-heart) readers gladdens my heart - if they encourage those same readers to go on and try reading more books, it delights me even more. If they made JKR a multi-millionaire, good for her and her publisher for spotting a gap in the market and filling it. (I only wish I had sent my apprentice-wizard story to a publisher before she did, it's not a bad story, totally different from HP, but now it's unpublishable!) If you didn't enjoy it, that's a pity and maybe your loss but I'm sure you'll find something you will like; if you did enjoy it, good - now move on to the next book, there are lots out there and now you've discovered the joy of reading, you have so many treats in store, go and get on with them.

End of rant. :)

[Dinglingzi]

my level has not yet achieved that imaginary world.....
maybe i should like it~~...

[JBI]

Nah, that people go on after Potter to read better books has, by means of data (ironically biased in her favor), been discredited. I think I posted the link here before.

The point though is, good Children's literature should be enjoyable by people of all ages, without any loss. Carrol does this, Christina Rossetti does this, the point is, it is doable and has been done.

Potter offers something else, a more maturing progression of books, which, as critics have pointed out, seems to mature with the readers. This means, 20 years down the road, a hypothetical child will not be able to have the same affect as the original readers, as the books will be put down as if in one span, instead of divided over many years. He will in fact, be under-mature, or over-mature for the books, simply by having them all available at once.

That being said, the question remains whether those are good children's literature, or have matured out of children's literature, or simply aren't literature, but as Harold Bloom put it (to his great horror, as he still claims to get angry mail on account of it) slush.

The choice is up to the person of course, but lets be honest, if it cannot be studied, if it cannot recreate its affects, if it cannot be anything but enjoyed by kids (which I think I have pointed out, cannot really enjoy them as kids) than I think we may need to listen to Bloom, or perhaps acknowledge that, though these perhaps can be entertaining, they are neither good nor bad. Fashion magazines can be loads of fun, but how much attention should we give them? This perhaps may be a little better than that, but I think, like all books, the decline will occur (it already has started) and the books will flicker into oblivion. The problem with Rowling is that she had too few critics while writing her books, and failed to gain any critical feedback to improve her writing. This is OK of course, if you are Emily Dickinson, but not if you make grammar mistakes and drop clichés constantly. If perhaps she got some feedback, instead of countless praise, she could have fixed her problems by book 7. As it is, I think they got worse, as the haste to make the money, and the hype of the books gave Rowling too much confidence.

[Drkshadow03]

The choice is up to the person of course, but lets be honest, if it cannot be studied, if it cannot recreate its affects, if it cannot be anything but enjoyed by kids (which I think I have pointed out, cannot really enjoy them as kids) than I think we may need to listen to Bloom, or perhaps acknowledge that, though these perhaps can be entertaining, they are neither good nor bad.

::sighs:: Here we go again with the overgeneralizations.

English 440: Harry Potter's Library: J. K. Rowling, Texts, and Contexts (http://www.ksu.ksu.edu/english/nelp/rowling/s2003.html)

A Popular Culture Class Syllabus (http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache:1XfEteZLBKEJ:cty.jhu.edu/summer/docs/syllabi/wr4b_1.pdf+Harry+Potter+Syllabus&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us)

Harry Potter has been added to the Syllabus of A-Levels in the UK (http://www.fantasybookreview.co.uk/blog/2008/05/01/harry-potter-added-to-school-syllabus/)

ENG 470/ENG 504 (Grad): Symbols and Archetypes in Children's Literature (http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache:hEuMMFXTne8J:www.asu.edu/clas/english/syllabi/2005/ANilsenSYLLABUS05.doc+Harry+Potter+Syllabus&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=13&gl=us)

Harry Potter and Philosophy (http://www.joelgarver.com/courses/276sylla.htm)

ENG 305: Literature for Children (http://www.athabascau.ca/html/syllabi/engl/engl305.htm)

ENG 349: Fantasy (http://www.onlinelearning.washington.edu/ol/intros/engl349/)

That is 7 syllabi from different universities, with the exception of the A-Level one, teaching Harry Potter at a college level in various different contexts and disciplines. Believe me I could have found a lot more. Granted these aren't top-tier Ivy league colleges, but still . . .

A quick search in MLA database reveals there have been at least 57 peer-reviewed essays, 9 scholarly books, and 4 dissertations written about Harry Potter to date all with genuine Ph. D.s, imagine that, and keep in mind MLA doesn't index everything. So I'm sure there are quite a few other essays in anthologies or journals that it missed. In all fairness a few of the dissertations seem more interested in the Harry Potter phenomena, but the majority of the essays are good old genuine look deep at the structures of the text and write about the meaning literary criticism.

My point here isn't Harry Potter = good, or HP = literature with a capital "L." I don't really care about that; I'm not even sure I disagree with you on that point in fact. However, time will decide that one no matter what you or I or Harold Bloom opine. I only wanted to point out that you just claimed above HP cannot be studied; well, apparently someone is studying it and writing about it. So that's fundamentally untrue.

Also, I read the Harry Potter series and enjoyed it in my 20s. I also happen to enjoy more "traditional" literature. Why I even have a Masters degree in English, imagine that! Most of the people I've talked to who I know have read and enjoyed Harry Potter were also in 20s. Ergo, your other thesis about some set readership age is pretty bogus too.

[curlyqlink]

the Harry Potter books were written for young readers and should be enjoyed as such.

This is a deliciously double-edged statement. I'll devilishly take it to mean that the Harry Potters are children's books, which should be read only by children!



7 syllabi from different universities, with the exception of the A-Level one, teaching Harry Potter at a college level
College students are not children, hence they should not be reading Harry Potter. And certainly not in class. I just take this as further evidence of the sad decline of standards in higher education. I'm sure many universities also offer their clients (er, students) the chance to "study" comic books (er, graphic novels) for college credit.

Rowling's books seem to have started a trend that is currently being mined by the Stephanie Myers vampire franchise. That is, big fat children's books that adults are not ashamed to read, though perhaps they ought to be.

[Drkshadow03]

College students are not children, hence they should not be reading Harry Potter. And certainly not in class. I just take this as further evidence of the sad decline of standards in higher education. I'm sure many universities also offer their clients (er, students) the chance to "study" comic books (er, graphic novels) for college credit.

Rowling's books seem to have started a trend that is currently being mined by the Stephanie Myers vampire franchise. That is, big fat children's books that adults are not ashamed to read, though perhaps they ought to be.

Oh believe me, I have extremely mixed feelings about what passes for English Lit education these days.

I do disagree with you on graphic novels. Some graphic novels are really good and of a very high quality. "Watchmen" comes to mind to name just one. It's not like they are sitting there and reading Superman or Spiderman after all.

Basically my position on this falls somewhere in the middle. I hate the fact that one doesn't generally get to read a lot of classics by the time your finished with a 4 year undergrad program, and an MA, works that I definitely should have read. On the other hand, I do think it may be valuable and worthwhile studying Children's Literature or fantasy or graphic novels or some other specialized topic, that literary studies should not be limited solely to more traditional works. Part of this is the fact that I think a lot of works that are non-canonical are actually pretty good, original, and do have something to offer the reader. I am actually more concerned with how much time is spent on theory than I am on whether we are reading Chaucer or graphic novels.

One could convincingly argue that many professors are turning to writing about Harry Potter, secondary novels by major Canonical authors, and other genre/pop culture works because it's difficult to find something new to say about the classics which have been written about to death. Some of it is money to fill up classrooms certainly; Harry Potter is no doubt popular. However, I do think a genuine interest exists among certain scholars, particularly those interested in fantasy and Children's lit as their subject area(s) of expertise.

[Jozanny]

Rowling's books seem to have started a trend that is currently being mined by the Stephanie Myers vampire franchise. That is, big fat children's books that adults are not ashamed to read, though perhaps they ought to be.

I've never opened a Potter book in my life, but I think this is unfair to Rowling and her achievement. Like me, she was on the dole, but unlike me, she did something, and that something is not so bad. Harry is a young boy who faces daunting obstacles, including the tragedy of losing mother and father, and his journey is that of the hero who grows into actually becoming one. I've read enough about the books to know that Rowling does have thematic intent, and something to say--I'm not going to trash that either through envy or elitism--and I may read the series one day.

Children's literature beloved of adults is nothing new. I still have a place in my heart for Charlotte's Web.

I think what Rowling's detractors are actually reacting to, is the modern distaste for corporate franchise, and that is a separate issue from artistic merit.

[JBI]

Who is saying that is studying Harry Potter the same way one would study Shakespeare. I go to university, you can get degrees in anything. I know a professor with a degree in Star Trek who teaches, that's not the point. the fact remains, that the question we ask ourselves when studying Harry Potter is always too look at the culture significance, and not at the text itself. With Shakespeare we look into the text, with Potter we look into the sales.

[stlukesguild]

JBI... good to see you back... and still is rare form... trashing Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings in virtually one fell swoop. At least I won't be the sole elitist snob here any more.:lol:

[Etienne]

I wish people read Aristotle as much as Harry Potter :D

[Jozanny]

Who is saying that is studying Harry Potter the same way one would study Shakespeare. I go to university, you can get degrees in anything. I know a professor with a degree in Star Trek who teaches, that's not the point. the fact remains, that the question we ask ourselves when studying Harry Potter is always too look at the culture significance, and not at the text itself. With Shakespeare we look into the text, with Potter we look into the sales.

I don't think anyone, not Drk or myself, certainly, is saying Potter is comparative to Shakespeare. Universities don't grow in a vacuum JBI. They want money too, and Potter is, for better or worse, a mega enterprise beyond its author, who must be worth a few billion or more. One looks at cultural and textual issues both.

[Drkshadow03]

Who is saying that is studying Harry Potter the same way one would study Shakespeare. I go to university, you can get degrees in anything. I know a professor with a degree in Star Trek who teaches, that's not the point. the fact remains, that the question we ask ourselves when studying Harry Potter is always too look at the culture significance, and not at the text itself. With Shakespeare we look into the text, with Potter we look into the sales.

Uhm, except you're still wrong. A lot of the scholarship on Potter does in fact look at the text; you know, literary criticism just like you would do with Shakespeare's text, looking at the structures, the characters, the symbols, with no mention of Potter's cultural popularity at all. It is, however, true, that there are also plenty of studies that look at its popularity from a cultural studies perspective, perhaps even most of it when you add up the dissertations and the books. However, at least 27 of the 57 peer-reviewed articles are genuine literary criticism. At least 10 of those were in another language so I couldn't tell one way or another, and the rest were about his popularity and sales and audience response.

So when you write "when studying Harry Potter is always too [sic] look at the culture significance, and not at the text itself" (emphasis mine) you're factually wrong and still making overgeneralizations.

Like I said I have mixed feelings about the place of other literatures in relation to the more traditional canon. I think there is room to study both and there are reasons to study both. I am NOT saying Rowling is better than Shakespeare or even the equivalent of.

On the other hand, having read a little bit of the textual scholarship on Potter I do think there are some interesting things going on in Potter that are worth noting and documenting and thinking about.

[Jozanny]

On the other hand, having read a little bit of the textual scholarship on Potter I do think there are some interesting things going on in Potter that are worth noting and documenting and thinking about.

I am pleased you and I finally seem to agree about something.;) I actually admire Rowling a great deal, and keep asking myself "if she could do it, why can't I?"

Although I haven't examined that answer too closely. She did get very lucky to have her work promoted just so to catch fire.

[Ovid Reader]

I cannot put in words how much I despise Harry Potter as a work of literature and plain reading material but I also have an irrational hate of Shakespeare and Dickens so I am probably not the greatest judge of a good book or author.

[Jozanny]

I cannot put in words how much I despise Harry Potter as a work of literature and plain reading material but I also have an irrational hate of Shakespeare and Dickens so I am probably not the greatest judge of a good book or author.

Is this an intrinsic dislike of reading for entertainment? I ask out of curiosity, since I enjoy more authors than others, just as anyone, but "irrational hate" is fairly strong language, something I would reserve for only the most vile polemics--but then again I do not read much that is in the vein of the Klu Klux Klan.

[Hayley Zero]

I have liked the Harry Potter books very much when I was young, but now I'm seventeen and don't really care about them anymore. I didn't even read the last book, actually.
Now I only cherish the memory of how I once read Harry Potter all night long, dressed up like Hermione Granger and made my Hogwarts housework using a feather and ink. It's part of my childhood - like many other books.

[Jueno]

I have liked the Harry Potter books very much when I was young, but now I'm seventeen and don't really care about them anymore. I didn't even read the last book, actually.
Now I only cherish the memory of how I once read Harry Potter all night long, dressed up like Hermione Granger and made my Hogwarts housework using a feather and ink. It's part of my childhood - like many other books.

Ha :lol: Very well put.

[curlyqlink]

I think what Rowling's detractors are actually reacting to, is the modern distaste for corporate franchise, and that is a separate issue from artistic merit.

It seems to me this is precisely the issue: artistic merit is being confused with commercial success. Harry Potter sold by the ton; therefore, it is part of our culture, and therefore it is significant. That kind of reasoning should set off alarm bells.

Lots of kids liked reading Rowling's series of books. That's great, I'm all in favor of kids having a good time. I have nothing against a writer making lots of money writing potboilers, either. Problem is when all this gets inflated into claims of literary merit, or sociological claims that Potter is ushering in a generation of readers. I wonder: why this need for justification?

The Potter books are (were) popular. Why? Who knows. Hannah Montana is wildly popular too... is it because whatshername is a great singer? Is the franchise expected to usher in a generation of musicians? No, the phenomenon is treated for what it is: a commercial entertainment venture that hit paydirt. Nothin' wrong with that. It's time we saw the Potter phenomenon in the same light. And removed it from the college curriculum.

Call me a snob, but there is a difference between art and commerce.

[JBI]

I cannot put in words how much I despise Harry Potter as a work of literature and plain reading material but I also have an irrational hate of Shakespeare and Dickens so I am probably not the greatest judge of a good book or author.

Try Leopardi, he seems up your alley.

O natura, o natura,
perché non rendi poi
quel che prometti allor? perché di tanto
inganni i figli tuoi?

[Drkshadow03]

I am pleased you and I finally seem to agree about something.;) I actually admire Rowling a great deal, and keep asking myself "if she could do it, why can't I?"

Although I haven't examined that answer too closely. She did get very lucky to have her work promoted just so to catch fire.

I wish you luck with that. Personally I would never turn to writing fantasy, sci-fi, horror, or children's lit in order to make my millions. Most writers are mid-list: they make $30,000 - $50,000 per a book at best. I write it because I can't seem to write realist fiction; the fantastical elements allow me to say what I want to say the way realism wouldn't.

Despite the fact that people seem to delude themselves that genre fiction is where all the money and sales happen to be. Maybe Romance, but other than that "mainstream" fiction sells a lot better. Of course there is always the Stephen Kings and J. K. Rowling success stories.

You should do a Harry Potter satire! I bet you that would make a lot of money if pulled off right.

[kasie]

This is a deliciously double-edged statement. I'll devilishly take it to mean that the Harry Potters are children's books, which should be read only by children!......

Rowling's books seem to have started a trend .... big fat children's books that adults are not ashamed to read, though perhaps they ought to be.

No, I did not intend an unspoken 'should only be read by children.' :D I did mean that whoever reads it should not treat it as anything other than a book for children. You live, I presume, in a free country and can read whatever you like - do so, and let other people do so. If you wish to indulge in elitism, do so; but please do not deride people who do not feel the need to prove their good taste and maturity by trashing books that were not meant to be raised up on the pinnacle of Literature. I used to feel the need to guide (young) readers towards what I considered to be 'good' books - the debate was about Enid Blyton in those days - but with hindsight I realise that readers, like water, find their own level. By all means, show people the great and the good but the choice ultimately is theirs and should be respected. I've been reading and enjoying children's books all my life ( the excuse used to be professional necessity!) but I know they are children's books and I think I can recognise a good product when I see one, good of its kind, not puffed up to be something it was never intended to be.

Regarding going on to read other books, I can offer only anecdotal evidence: I did find that children who read a book that they perceive to be a challenge (long, difficult to understand, something that ultimately inspires them) then have the confidence to go on and read another book, then another, and think better of themselves for their achievement. There are many authors that young (and I stress young) readers enjoy that make me grit my teeth (back to Enid Blyton again!) but I hope if I were in a position to guide those readers today I'd be able to smile at their enthusiasm, commend them for their achievement and be ready with suggestions for their next foray into the library. No, they are not necessarily going to make a bee-line for Dickens or Shakespeare, but I hope they would be sufficiently encouraged to try another book and come to regard reading as one of the pleasures in their life.

With reference to studying HP at University level - I have to admit that makes me smile: the word 'bandwagon' comes to mind! But - presumably some of the students who take those courses are going to go on and become teachers of the children of an age to enjoy HP. I studied children's books as part of my training for teaching - yes, Alice was there, as was Beatrix Potter, Grahame, Tolkein, Lewis and the other classics - but there were also new writers on the list because children's literature was, and still is, a body of work growing at a phenomenal rate.We were taught to apply the methods of criticism we were applying in English Main studies - for some this was a new and surprising study because not all the people on the course were English Main students - English is a subject taught by all teachers in UK primary schools, not necessarily English specialists - but with the rider that these were books for children and that should be our prime consideration, not the stringent and inappropriate application of Literary Criteria.

[Manuel Cruz]

Harry Potter were the first books I read, what drove me into the world of reading. By the time I was 6 my mother used to read me one or two chapters of Harry Potter before I went to bed. She read me all the Filosopher Stone and I wanted all the other stories so bad that I learnt how to read as fast as possible so I would be able to read the other books by myself. I still remember shouting out loud because I managed to read a whole page by myself and then, with some effort I would be able to go on without having to rely on my mother.

[TheChilly]

Harry Potter goes from solid to "EPIC WIN" by the time you get to "Order of the Phoenix".

I'm torn by whether "Order" or "Deathly Hallows" was more epic for me... My vote's on "Deathly Hallows", just because of the intense cinematic flair Rowling put into that stunning conclusion...

"Order of the Phoenix" still had Professor Umbridge taking the cake as the Best Villain in the franchise.

[Valaquen]

Call me a snob, but there is a difference between art and commerce.

The mistake is in thinking that both are mutually exclusive, (and there is such a thing as bad art.)

[Big Dante]

i know i have never liked harry potter till i started reading the philosiphers stone and now im hooked yeah ive always liked whitch craft but HP never actually tickled my fancy lol ok im bored

So you hated the series until you read the first book? :ack2:

[prendrelemick]

Harry Potter were the first books I read, what drove me into the world of reading. By the time I was 6 my mother used to read me one or two chapters of Harry Potter before I went to bed. She read me all the Filosopher Stone and I wanted all the other stories so bad that I learnt how to read as fast as possible so I would be able to read the other books by myself. I still remember shouting out loud because I managed to read a whole page by myself and then, with some effort I would be able to go on without having to rely on my mother.


That's fantastic. It's a story you hear again and again - kids wanting to read Harry Potter. It's easy to forget how good that first book was. It was not a case of a cynical publisher's heavy promotion manipulating children's taste, it was a slow burner that grew from the bottom up.

I remember when it beat the heavily promoted Tracy Beaker in the Blue Peter best book competition. Not an award of great international standing, but voted on by kids, it was a suprise winner - I think most grown ups had never heard of it.

[paulanderson114]

They give light to another world, If that offends you then oh well. A lot of people get offended by the thought of God You are not going to get anywhere by posting hateful things on the internet about something you don't understand. They show a fantisy world about good triumphing over evil. They let kids dream and be free for a moment. Growing up I didn't have the best child hood, but my dreams always made me feel better.

[Can]

Are you kidding me with this, I read those books and found them dreafuly boring and hoplessly... "Fluffy."

I dont think so maybe it is about your mentality. Everyone can't imagine this beautiful world.:out::banghead: