Harry Potter

[goldenbee]

Are the Harry Potter books encourageing children to read ?
or are these books and films reprehensible for
popularizing witchcraft and the occult to very young
children.

[Zee.]

or are these books and films reprehensible for
popularizing witchcraft and the occult to very young
children.

What's so bad about that? "witchcraft" due to silly kids these days, dressing up and having freaky blood drinking, voodoo ritual parties has painted a completely incorrect image of "witchcraft" and what it truly is about

No matter what you read or what you watch or what you do, you will be exposed to some kind of thought or idea that will influence you and impact you in different ways. That's just how our minds work.

Ugh, i'm sorry but questions like that just.. bother me. It's so typical of human nature to take something and study the negatives of it and draw some odd conclusion from it. Only nutters would think that Harry Potter is a demonic series intent on unleashing the inner "witch" inside children. Ridiculous.
Did Lord of the Rings ever receive such critique? has any fantasy, for that matter?

Books free the mind.

[Mathor]

like the person above said, it's for kids, why do we have to find something wrong with everything? I remember a newsletter going home when i was like 13 or 14. It listed all the reasons Pokemon, Dragon Ball Z, and Harry Potter were evil and therefore my mom shouldn't let that influence me. My mom read it and laughed. Harry Potter is a harmless book/movie, there is nothing wrong with it. Some people don't like Fantasy or don't like stories about magic, and that is your opinion, but to say others who do like Fantasy shouldn't be able to enjoy it is just asinine.

[Drkshadow03]

Are the Harry Potter books encourageing children to read ?
or are these books and films reprehensible for
popularizing witchcraft and the occult to very young
children.

Harry Potter turned me into a vampire.

[mayneverhave]

Please no more of these Harry Potter threads. Didn't we put the last one to rest?

[Adagio]

Any books that hold thousands of children captivated and have them so excited about reading aren't evil - it doesn't take a genius to work that one out. In fact, books like Harry Potter should be applauded. In today's society, a society of video games and the internet, books like Harry Potter are needed because it's their 'magic' which introduces the beauty of reading to a young and influential audience.

[Helga]

I agree with Adagio it is great that kids are reading, and these books are very long considering how young the kids are that are reading them. but in my opinion I don't like them. I had to read the first book for an English class when I was 16 and have an introduction of a few chapters, I read as much as I had to and than gave up. the only book I haven't finished.

[Zee.]

HELGA YOU'RE NUTS!

Harry Potter sets my world on fire ;)

[islandclimber]

Please no more of these Harry Potter threads. Didn't we put the last one to rest?

AGREED!!! :brickwall

honestly if you want to see a discussion on Harry Potter go back in this section of the forum a while and you will find a couple long threads... be forewarned though, there is not a very high opinion of Harry Potter on this forum... :p

[Paulclem]

Yes they are encouraging children to read, which is the factual aspect of your question. You only need to look at the launches of the books to see the excitement they induced.

The second part of your question is a matter of opinion, though what a work has fiction has to do with some supposed occult beats me. What witchcraft/ occult are you referring to? The romantic notion of witchcraft, the dancing acolytes and dubious ceremonies which are certainly a modern construction, or the ignorent fear-driven witchcraft that preys upon the vulnerable in less well off societies? Or are you perhaps referring to the historical trials where vulnerable women - usually - fell victim to local prejudice and fear?

[JBI]

This is why one shouldn't continue an already discussed topic - I already proved, on the old thread, that reading rates were down in the Harry Potter age bracket since its publication, so in truth, though the Potter encourages perhaps a couple kids to read Harry Potter, the general population has been steadily reading less and less since even before its publication, and the effects seen on the industry in terms of kids reading are negligible.

The act of actually reading doesn't justify reading - the justification for reading is that there is something worth getting from what you are reading - that is what one aught to discuss - quite simply, I have issues with Harry Potter, mainly because of its content, but also because of its popularity, which, as expected, has ebbed quite significantly already, without even the new film getting as much exposure here as Twilight got.

Seriously, when can the market accept a young-adult series that features female characters in the forefront again? They had some in the 80s and early 90s, but since then, it seems there are 100 bored-youth-becomes-hero movies and books every year.

Though I don't think they are responsible for promotting the occult in children (and would that be any worse than, for instance, the Jonas Brothers promoting Evangelical Christianity in their music? The fact that the corruption question turns to witchcraft, but isn't turned on "Christian values" with the same pitchfork and torch wielding is beyond me) but I do think it is a) too traditionally English, and reinforces the British class system (How in Hell, in the wizarding world, are there families who are poor (to the point where they can't buy their children new clothes). You would think, with all these powers, there wouldn't be poor wizards!) and also creates harmful models in terms of characters.

I think my biggest problem has to do with the construction of Gender in the texts - women are clearly, if we examine all the characters, in the sidelines - the idealized woman, the nervy housewife Mrs. Bennet style Mrs. Weasley - smarter and more sensible than her husband, yet, stays at home in the kitchen worrying about what is happening to everyone. The next most central female character, Hermione - a girl who is a) made fun of for her studiousness and ability (by even her friends), her parvenu claims to fame, and ultimately, despite all that, is forced into the sidelines so that Harry can save the day. Harry, when he does something smart, is praised nonstop - Hermione is made fun of, which, ultimately, is a cultural gender problem which is quite thoroughly rooted in attitudes before the 70s, which still appear even today.

The next female characters all seem minor - we have the Ron kids sister whose name I cannot quite remember right now, who supposedly functions as the love interest of the Harry kid in the later books, before comfortably settling into her mother's role at the stories climax, despite her professed talent at magic (come on, he's Harry potter?).

In truth, I cannot come up with one fantastic, forefronted female character, whose shown to have a strong will, and yet be independent from reliance on males. The Malfoy kid even has his female admirer beside him (can't remember her name either) to cheer him on, and supposedly there is an evil female girl (played by in the movie by Helena Bonham Carter) who is a villainized Medusa type character, whose laughs are perhaps silenced by the noble forces of good, (restoring women to the kitchens where they belong!). Certainly not the most interesting of books.


Lets be honest - the male depressed teenager loser character is so freaking dated, why can't we have a strong female character in young adult literature that doesn't always yield to her male friends, or isn't completely ignored by the public, and dismissed as too girly for males to read about? The Bridge to Teribithia perhaps attempted that - though, alas, we all know how that one ended.

But who knows - for a text at least in part modeled on the New Testament, it makes sense - The Virgin can have the kid, the Magdalene can serve the son, and cry over him, but when it comes down to it, you get the all sacrificing hero type guy, and his gang of apostles all sitting around taking a stab at the action, fighting off evils and sins and whatnot while the women sit back and watch from the sidelines.

[Mathor]

The act of actually reading doesn't justify reading - the justification for reading is that there is something worth getting from what you are reading - that is what one aught to discuss - quite simply, I have issues with Harry Potter, mainly because of its content, but also because of its popularity, which, as expected, has ebbed quite significantly already, without even the new film getting as much exposure here as Twilight got.


I completely disagree. The act of reading is certainly good for anybody, regardless of the book. Growing up, I read a whole slew of good, okay, and terrible books. Regardless of if they were good, or if they were mentally challenging reads, they increased my vocabulary, and made me a better reader. If any book causes more people to go out and read (even Twilight, which I refuse to read and hate to hear about), than that is certainly a great thing.

[JBI]

I completely disagree. The act of reading is certainly good for anybody, regardless of the book. Growing up, I read a whole slew of good, okay, and terrible books. Regardless of if they were good, or if they were mentally challenging reads, they increased my vocabulary, and made me a better reader. If any book causes more people to go out and read (even Twilight, which I refuse to read and hate to hear about), than that is certainly a great thing.

Watching movies, television, playing video games - those all have the potential to increase one's vocabulary. Staying on Facebook, reading forums - those all can increase vocabulary - I often frequent Italian and French chatrooms, for instance, to increase my vocabulary, and profficiency with the language - people have been speaking well enough with minimal literacy.

The only advantage text gives, is it teaches how to control text - it teaches one how to better read texts, and how to write them better (spelling included). But if there is nothing to worth writing about, or reading about, why bother. Reading for the sake that it is productive in teaching people how to read is a self defeating argument. The only possible argument could be that reading trash inspires people to read good books, and in that case, I'd have to say that I disagree that Potter does that - I think those who start with trash and move on to good books happen to be those who would move on to reading good books regardless of what trash they started with, whereas the bulk of Potterites will probably not end up moving on to great works, as shown by the rapidly dropping reading rates (which can be found on the other thread).

[Mathor]

I've never read that thread, could you send me a link to this research? I've always assumed that Harry Potter books have gone UP in popularity?

[JuniperWoolf]

At least if kids are reading Harry Potter they're not watching Spongebob and turning gay. :brickwall Parents take things too seriously.

[JBI]

I've never read that thread, could you send me a link to this research? I've always assumed that Harry Potter books have gone UP in popularity?

The things I posted on the other one show declining rates in reading in general - as for popularity in the Potter - that is my mere speculation, but I did do some test cases before - as far as I can see though, the books remain abandoned in libraries, and the fans grown older, and grown bored - lets be honest, the first one came out in what, 98? That means the original audience, if they were 8, is now 19 or so, and the new generation has just taken to a new text.

[Zee.]

Well i'm part of the generation that grew up with them. I'll be 18 in a month. And i can tell you that no, feelings for the series have not changed. I mean.. we grew up with them. They were exciting and just.. fun to read, and they are partly responsible for my love of reading. They have, excuse the pun, a kind of magic about them. I suppose you could compare it to watching and rewatching your favourite old movie again, and again. It may not be the most well directed movie, the script may not be groundbreaking, but something about it is just... magical to you. I think that is J.K Rowling's gift. Ask anyone who grew up with the series like i did, and you will find that on occasion, like I do, we all go back and re read them, just to feel like we did when we were younger reading them. That feeling has never changed.

[JCamilo]

Also, the biggest numbers of libraries closed in englad happened in the last 10 years.
Reading is not special. Reading anything, even **** means litte. It does not develop the reader.
But Harry Potter does not represent just reading but marketing, and marketing often clouds other options, possible the worst problem. Harry should lead to Alice in the Wonderlands. If not, it is causing damage.

[Zee.]

It's not just about marketing. Harry Potter is entertaining. I can see why it appeals to kids because it had the same appeal to me back when I read it, before the movies came out.

[Zee.]

If people are so confused about why it appeals to people why don't they ask those who do enjoy it? instead of speculating.

[islandclimber]

but it is quite obvious why it appeals to people, as the books are entertaining to many young people... but the argument was and is that the act of reading is not beneficial in and of itself.. there has to be something worth getting from reading a book that goes beyond what we get from such mindless entertainment...

If we look at adults the romance genre is the bestselling in the world.. is reading Danielle Steele any more beneficial than watching TV? I would say no.. in fact, depending on what you are watching on TV, or the movie, I would say it is far less beneficial.. same with other uber-popular writers like Tom Clancy, Dan Brown, Paulo Coelho, and so on...

what I'm trying to say here is that there is Literature out there that justifies reading... for children as well... there are many great children and youth writers, so why not read a Mark Twain instead, as it provides something inherently valuable to a young person... like JCamilo says you run into the problem that for the "Potter" generation the craze clouded over other options, as Harry Potterwas the only book worth reading, the only one people wanted.. and how is that beneficial, if instead of picking up Alice In WOnderland, Huckleberry Finn, Oliver Twist, etc, kids instead pick up Harry Potter...

the argument that Harry Potter is good because it gets people reading, and starts them into better works is silly, for as JBI said, those who progress into better Literature, most likely would have done so anyways, and for the rest it is just the popular book of the time.. just an anomaly as after Harry Potter the vast majority slip back into reading nothing at all, as shown by the fact that reading rates (even with JK Rowling around) are still dropping..

[Mathor]

If people are so confused about why it appeals to people why don't they ask those who do enjoy it? instead of speculating.

or just actually read it before they judge. The majority of the people who do not like harry in this forum admittedly have not read the books but see it as "beneath them"

[Zee.]

but it is quite obvious why it appeals to people, as the books are entertaining to many young people... but the argument was and is that the act of reading is not beneficial in and of itself.. there has to be something worth getting from reading a book that goes beyond what we get from such mindless entertainment...



Okay see, I have a problem with this. I could say the exact same thing about a favourite book of yours. I could say that about any book that isn't a book I personally like. I could pick up any book and say that it isn't beneficial to your, to me, to anyone. It's a matter of opinion, and at, I dunno.. 12, a kid is going to find reading Harry Potter a lot more beneficial than what you or I are probably reading now.

What constitutes "beneficial" reading anyway? remember that we're talking about CHILDREN who read Harry Potter, the young ones at least, at their age what else can you expect them to get out of a book? If they find it entertaining, if it stimulates their imagination and if it makes them hungry for other books, then it is a job well done. I often read simply for entertainment, and I find it extremely beneficial because it eases my mind, helps me when I can't sleep and calms me down when I need to be calm.

"Beneficial reading" is up for interpretation. I find a lot of books that people read for language, structure, themes, whatever it may be, are extremely tedious, long, boring and great at giving people headaches.

[Adagio]

Lets be honest - the male depressed teenager loser character is so freaking dated, why can't we have a strong female character in young adult literature that doesn't always yield to her male friends, or isn't completely ignored by the public, and dismissed as too girly for males to read about? The Bridge to Teribithia perhaps attempted that - though, alas, we all know how that one ended.
What about His Dark Materials?

As for "beneficial" reading I'd say Harry Potter is very beneficial to a ten-year old child. It preaches good morals but without the silly religious allegory. Correct me if I'm mistaken but doesn't it cover prejudice too - you know with the muggles, pure bloods and what not? It is also very exciting for a young child. There need to be no more benefits than excitement really.

[Joreads]

It's not just about marketing. Harry Potter is entertaining. I can see why it appeals to kids because it had the same appeal to me back when I read it, before the movies came out.

Not only kids Lim parents love reading these books with their kids I would have thought that was no mean feat. For the record to those that thought the Harry Potter train was not moving Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince isn killing it at the box office (here in Australia at least I am not sure about the rest of the world). I haven't seen the movie yet but I will be seeing it(after school holidays:lol:). I love the whole series and I think I always will.

[Joreads]

Also, the biggest numbers of libraries closed in englad happened in the last 10 years.
Reading is not special. Reading anything, even **** means litte. It does not develop the reader.
But Harry Potter does not represent just reading but marketing, and marketing often clouds other options, possible the worst problem. Harry should lead to Alice in the Wonderlands. If not, it is causing damage.

Sorry for the double post but can you explain what damage Harry Potter is causing?

[a_little_wisp]

In truth, I cannot come up with one fantastic, forefronted female character, whose shown to have a strong will, and yet be independent from reliance on males.



And speaking the all-sacrificing hero guy -
Lily Potter, though not always in the forefront, is - especially in later books - a character who always seems to be there, in the shadows, and who has a particularly strong will, and she is the first to be all-sacrificing, before her son. She fought alongside her husband, James, rather than behind him. Behind the whole story of Harry is Lily's story, and so I'd say she carries a pretty huge role. As for Hermione Granger, as a young girl I related to her. Not all girls can be strong and fiery - some of us can turn out to be a little socially inept when we're burying ourselves within the pages of a good book. Hermione overcame that, and hey, I took the journey with her.

[THERE ARE HUGE SPOILERS HERESCROLLSCROLL]

Hermione, unlike the boys, does go back to Hogwarts and finish her seventh year. "Hermione began her post-Hogwarts career at the Department for the Regulation and Control of Magical Creatures where she was instrumental in greatly improving life for house-elves and their ilk. She then moved (despite her jibe to Scrimgeour) to the Dept. of Magical Law Enforcement where she was a progressive voice who ensured the eradication of oppressive, pro-pureblood laws." - J.K. Rowling http://www.bloomsbury.com/harrypotter/default.aspx?sec=3
[SPOILERS END]

And since you seem interested in the subject, JBI, look into Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials - Lyra Belacqua is a wonderfully strong-willed young heroine. In Dragon's Milk, a book meant for even younger audiences, Kaeldra. Madeleine L'Engle's Time Quartet series? Or how about Neil Gaiman's Coraline? Jill and Aravis from The Chronicles of Narnia? Moving away from fantasy, Catherine, Called Birdy, by Karen Cushman. Island of the Blue Dolphin? Anne from the Anne of Green Gables series of books gets married and has children, but never loses her spirit or wit. As for 'too girly for guys to read about' I know plenty men who have read some of these books, and enjoyed them. I think girls are guilty of not reading 'boyish' books too - I know I look at books in the young adult section like the Maximum Ride series by James Patterson - and pretty much ignore them completely.

I could also relate with Harry in the books. Sure, I don't have to worry about boy things - whatever those are - but in The Order of the Phoenix when he was angry and hurt, "depressed" some called it (and rightfully so, for time he was going through), what teenager, boy or girl, hasn't been through that?

JBI
The things I posted on the other one show declining rates in reading in general - as for popularity in the Potter - that is my mere speculation, but I did do some test cases before - as far as I can see though, the books remain abandoned in libraries, and the fans grown older, and grown bored - lets be honest, the first one came out in what, 98? That means the original audience, if they were 8, is now 19 or so, and the new generation has just taken to a new text.

Grown older, but not bored. I went to the opening showing, and I'll you this much, the same friends I had when those book came out were just as wild for them. It's like seeing an old friend again - sure, you've both changed, but the love that was there remains there, with the memories. Since I've read Harry Potter, I certainly have read more classics (not as a result of, no), but it doesn't make me bored of Harry Potter. I can switch between Dostoevsky and Rowling in a breath and find meaningful things for myself in both. I'm just out for a nice, fulfilling read. Maybe Rowling isn't someones cup of tea (you never know 'til you try it)- that's alright. We all have different tastes.

Now, to the main point. Sorry it took so long to get here:


Like limajean, I believe "beneficial reading" is up to interpretation too.... Well, maybe not so much. For some people - children, I speak of, mainly - this is not mindless reading. The wheels in their brains are turning, and they're staring wide-eyed down at the pages or up at the reader in absolute awe (I've seen it, I used to work at a bookstore). They get excited, they bounce a little. They don't know what's beyond the next page! It's an adventure- an adventure beyond the concrete and iron world we live in now, and who are we to say that isn't beneficial to them? We could certainly argue that video games do the same thing. But in video games the world is laid out before us - a landscape the character being played must go through, stage by stage, game over after game over. With books, such as Harry Potter, our minds must do more of the work - the worlds become our own - the authors provide the words, the details, and we must translate and paint the picture ourselves. Limajean may picture Hogwarts entirely different than I did. There may be a certain part in the story that is THAT much more vivid to her because she attached with it an emotion of her own, found something she could relate it to. We're creating memories in our mind, that much more real and vivid because we didn't pull them out of a TV screen.

"But there are also other and more profound 'escapisms' that have always appeared in fairytale and legend. There are other things more grim and terrible to fly from than the noise, stench, ruthlessness, and extravagance of the internal-combustion engine. There are hunger, thirst, poverty, pain, sorrow, injustice, death. And even when men are not facing hard things
such as these, there are ancient limitations from which fairy-stories offer a sort of escape, and old ambitions and desires (touching the very roots of fantasy) to which they offer a kind of satisfaction and consolation. Some are pardonable weaknesses or curiosities: such as the desire to visit, free as a fish, the deep sea; or the longing for the noiseless, gracious, economical flight of a bird, that longing which the aeroplane cheats, except in rare moments, seen high and by wind and distance noiseless, turning in the sun: that is, precisely when imagined and not used."

-Tolkien, Essay On Fairy-Stories

In stories like Harry Potter, we are able to, in a sense, give words new meaning - our own meaning. How is this not to be treasured? We're all readers here. Isn't there a reason you return to the same book again and again, something that came to you before you knew what 'prose' even meant, or 'metaphor' or 'imagery'?

To the original poster:

The wizards and witches of Harry Potter are very different from the crowd you're thinking of. And even then, they're imitating Neo-Pagans, who are also commonly misjudged, thanks to that crowd. The characters of the Harry Potter-verse fight are some of the most wonderful characters you'll meet in a young adult fantasy novel - the good guys (your main characters) stand stoutly against the bad guys (your villains), and there's even a bit of gray (That One Guy). If you're asking because of your children - don't be afraid. They may run around waving sticks and pretending their wands, but they'll also learn some valuable lessons about friendship and never giving up.

[Drkshadow03]

Hell yeah! A Harry Potter throw down!


but it is quite obvious why it appeals to people, as the books are entertaining to many young people...

Yes, in the most literal sense the appeal of Harry Potter is entertainment, but so is the appeal of ALL literature and art. (see this post (http://beyondassumptions.wordpress.com/2008/08/26/why-do-i-read/) and this post (http://beyondassumptions.wordpress.com/2009/04/05/he-knew-everything-about-literature-except-how-to-enjoy-it/)). If you're not enjoying the literature you're reading then you're probably reading it for the wrong reasons (i.e. someone told you that you should).

Looking at the work more specifically than just the ubiquitous quality of entertainment, the appeal of Harry Potter is the the world-building. You get an idealized British culture reimagined with magic that contrasts perfect a sense of strangeness and wonderment with familiar features. We follow them through school, commerce, banks, transportation, sporting events, dances, bathrooms, cafeterias, etc. These ordinary settings and experiences are transformed through the magic and mythology to be strange, unsettling, and unique so that we witness what we normally take for granted with fresh eyes. It is both familiar and strange at the same time.

The same could be said for its themes of race, love, family, and friendship. The obvious theme that embodies the qualities I described above is the racial one (the conflict between mudbloods and pure bloods). From the reader's viewpoint there is nothing different about them as they both can perform magic so the conflict seems arbitrary. The binary of Muggles who cannot perform magic and those who can, which is a real difference, only further emphasizes the arbitrariness of this form of racism within the Wizarding Community. It allows children and readers to see how little difference there really is between people with so-called imagined differences. It uses it world-building to force us to confront old themes and conflicts in new ways and see them with fresh eyes.

Basically the books explore the deeper issues that affect teens and function much like any other literary book. This isn't to say it lacks elements to complain about: no gay characters, a whitewashing and flattening of the characters of color (although in Rowling's defense she at least attempts to include characters of color), sometimes not featuring the women as prominently as they should in roles outside of domesticity (except for Hermione whose detractions critics greatly exaggerate). Still, I can think of lots of celebrated books that have these same problems so those certainly aren't grounds to dismiss the Harry Potter books.


but the argument was and is that the act of reading is not beneficial in and of itself.. there has to be something worth getting from reading a book that goes beyond what we get from such mindless entertainment...

This is an extremely privileged position. Tell that to someone who is illiterate and cannot even read a newspaper to find a job or a basic memo at work or an invitation to a family gathering or a bill or notice of eviction, that reading has no beneficial value in and of itself. You take the skills of reading for granted since you possess them and its probably second-hand to you.


If we look at adults the romance genre is the bestselling in the world.. is reading Danielle Steele any more beneficial than watching TV? I would say no.. in fact, depending on what you are watching on TV, or the movie, I would say it is far less beneficial.. same with other uber-popular writers like Tom Clancy, Dan Brown, Paulo Coelho, and so on...

It's not "adults" who read heavily into the romance genre; it's generally women. Also, you give no reasons to support your claim that reading Danielle Steele isn't as beneficial as watching TV. Take a writer like Paulo Coelho who you mention. He is extremely comforting and shares a basic theme of "You can live your dreams if you only try." Now you might not agree with the theme, but he is imparting something to his no doubt angsty bourgeoisie audience that is meaningful to them. It's a kind of fiction as self-help.


what I'm trying to say here is that there is Literature out there that justifies reading... for children as well... there are many great children and youth writers, so why not read a Mark Twain instead, as it provides something inherently valuable to a young person... like JCamilo says you run into the problem that for the "Potter" generation the craze clouded over other options, as Harry Potterwas the only book worth reading, the only one people wanted.. and how is that beneficial, if instead of picking up Alice In WOnderland, Huckleberry Finn, Oliver Twist, etc, kids instead pick up Harry Potter...

Having actually worked in a library with young adults and children during the Twilight craze instead of just speculating with opinion like everyone else, it might blow your mind to learn that many of the Twilight people read other YA books and sometimes even "Great" literature. I know crazy!

It's not an either/or proposition. There is nothing stopping someone from reading Alice in Wonderland and Harry Potter.


the argument that Harry Potter is good because it gets people reading, and starts them into better works is silly, for as JBI said, those who progress into better Literature, most likely would have done so anyways, and for the rest it is just the popular book of the time..

JBI has no evidence to back up this assertion, unless he has magically gained the power to view all of the possible alternative futures of every single individual on the planet. As for a counter argument, I'll use anecdotal. I didn't start reading "Great" literature until college; at least, not of my own volition. Before that I read Goosebumps, Fear Street, Star Wars, Wheel of Time, and some other fantasies. I eventually went on to read "Great" literature. Nevertheless, I am not entirely sure I would've had I not read those other books.

[JCamilo]

Sorry for the double post but can you explain what damage Harry Potter is causing?

The "damage" is not caused by Harry Potter per si, but for the industry that explores HP. There will be always a popular book, a fashionable book in every generation. But there wont be always books (Potter, Dan Brown, Paulo Coelho, etc) who are central for the industry, however the marketing aspect is dominating the first option.
I do not deny that someone who reads HP can read anything else. My twin sisters do read HP. They also Guimaraes Rosa, Homero, Poe, Stevenson, Lewis Carroll, Lord Byron, Emily Dickinson, etc. Meaning basically they are free and like to assault my own library. But they have the privilegie of having me close by. They did not became a reader because of HP.
To claim that Harry Potter helps to build up new readers we must show evidences that readers of Harry Potter are turning into readers of other books. I do not see such evidence. As JBI said there is really evidences that the number of readers, specially after the university, decreases. Not really in the USA, but a few months Guardian posted a research showing that the number of libraries closed in the last ten years was the greatest number of the history. A research showed in Brazil that the generation born under conforting Paulo Coelho (I am being sarcastic, he just lies) stop reading after 25 years, the average number of books read by a brazilian is 2/year, only 6% of the population read the same book twice, and only 45% can locate a public bibliotheca (and according to the governament, only about 600 brazilians cities have not a single bibliotheca). Obviously, Paulo Coelho did not helped to create a nation of readers.
Ok, I give J.K.Rowling some credit. Paulo Coelho is a unethical individual, hoping to live with his own ego. I have no evidence that Rowling do such things and she writes better than Paulo Coelho. Maybe now that she is rich, she can be free and put some extra effort on writing and create something anew (Harry Potter is not new, even his design is too similar to Neil Gaiman Tim Hunter) and effort while writing is not writting more words but better words. Because here lies the difference: there is levels of readers. Basic readers that can deal with the vocabulary. Readers who can manipulated not just the words but their combinations. Readers who can think with the analogy and the references from other works. All of them enjoy reading, of course. But the third level of reader wont be "thrilled" with the first level. And of course, nobody needs to be a super-reader or something. But obviously this means there is this level of text and writing. I would say that when the focus is on books which enterteimeint is the great excuse, the text is simple, the formation of other levels of reading is damaged and those writers who deal with those upper levels abandoned. And those writers sometimes can appeal to a first level reader. Obviously, I am a snobby elitist.
A final note, I would never say that Harry Potter would create new writers. What create new writers is education (family and school). There is enough books in the marketing to appeal to anyone. If wasnt Potter, it would be some other book. It is giving freedom and showing the different options, paths, etc. It is creating a familiarity with the book and its surroundings (I hate when I enter in a library and I had to bypass the walls of best-sellers who are placed in the first place to the unaware can fall for the first and most famous new books), it is telling that putting a book back is not a dire crime, it is showing other forms have also some vallue, etc.

[JBI]

What about His Dark Materials?

As for "beneficial" reading I'd say Harry Potter is very beneficial to a ten-year old child. It preaches good morals but without the silly religious allegory. Correct me if I'm mistaken but doesn't it cover prejudice too - you know with the muggles, pure bloods and what not? It is also very exciting for a young child. There need to be no more benefits than excitement really.

In a sense it does, but look at the nature of the so called magical world - people are born magical - what could be more racist than a culture built on a system of "I'm special and you are not." There may be "muggle loving" wizards, like the red headed guy's dad, but ultimately, from my understanding, the relationship seems little better than master to his dog - the inferior muggles who have all sorts of quirks just don't cut it - they are made to be ridiculous. Lets be honest - the bulk of the Potter books are about schooling - achieving grades, becoming the best Wizard/Witch (though it should be Warlock/Witch, but someone cannot read properly) possible. Where is there room for a muggle there - achievement is gained through competence with magical abilities - whether it be flying brooms, casting spells, growing magical plants, or using magical charms - there is no room for an unmagical person within that diegesis - even the "less gifted" wizards are ridiculed within the book - so perhaps there are those who take an interest in the muggle, but the muggle is always seen as something to take an interest in, the same way a bourgeois English gent takes interests in horses.

I've read the first from His Dark Materials, and though it is interesting, it fits more with the first two Potter books, as being for around 9 year olds (whereas book 3 I would place around 12 year olds in terms of marketing, and book 4 and up around 14-15 in terms of marketing), and also, I found it a bit lacking in terms of character development, but perhaps I didn't read far enough, as, truth be told, children's literature is a little bit too young for me - I'm far too cynical.

[Drkshadow03]

In a sense it does, but look at the nature of the so called magical world - people are born magical - what could be more racist than a culture built on a system of "I'm special and you are not." There may be "muggle loving" wizards, like the red headed guy's dad, but ultimately, from my understanding, the relationship seems little better than master to his dog - the inferior muggles who have all sorts of quirks just don't cut it - they are made to be ridiculous. Lets be honest - the bulk of the Potter books are about schooling - achieving grades, becoming the best Wizard/Witch (though it should be Warlock/Witch, but someone cannot read properly) possible. Where is there room for a muggle there - achievement is gained through competence with magical abilities - whether it be flying brooms, casting spells, growing magical plants, or using magical charms - there is no room for an unmagical person within that diegesis - even the "less gifted" wizards are ridiculed within the book - so perhaps there are those who take an interest in the muggle, but the muggle is always seen as something to take an interest in, the same way a bourgeois English gent takes interests in horses.


. . . Except a Muggle would never be invited to go to Hogwarts because in the story the Muggles exist separately from the Wizarding World for the most part.

For the most part the two societies are separate entities (with their own elite hierarchies and governments) and leave each other alone. It has more the qualities of two separate countries who rarely interact than a relation of master to dog. I find your analogy completely inaccurate.

It's true in the books that occasionally the magic world interacts with the Muggle world (such as erasing memories and the Minister of Magic discussing the situation with the Prime Minister of Britain), but the former is less about controlling the Muggle population and more about protecting the secret existence of the Wizarding Community, while the latter was only during an act of war that affected the Muggle world. For the most part the two societies seem to ignore each other. The interest of Mr. Weasley in Muggles seems more the fascination of someone looking at a different and exotic culture than a horse breeder (it is true that one could see a racial component in this given European imperial history); nevertheless, it never really comes off that way in tone and his interest always seems more comical than elitist or domineering or mocking.

[JBI]

Hermione, unlike the boys, does go back to Hogwarts and finish her seventh year. "Hermione began her post-Hogwarts career at the Department for the Regulation and Control of Magical Creatures where she was instrumental in greatly improving life for house-elves and their ilk. She then moved (despite her jibe to Scrimgeour) to the Dept. of Magical Law Enforcement where she was a progressive voice who ensured the eradication of oppressive, pro-pureblood laws." - J.K. Rowling http://www.bloomsbury.com/harrypotte...ult.aspx?sec=3


just flipping by the website, some of the fans of the book even came to similar conclusions as I did:



Ryan Love: From your fans at http://www.thesnitch.co.uk/. Weren’t we supposed to see Ginny display powerful magical abilities in Deathly Hallows and find out why it’s significant that she’s the seventh child? Was her main role in the books only to be Harry’s love interest?


but who knows, her words do, in a sort of idealized way, paint the same picture I was trying to uncover:



J.K. Rowling: Thank you! I’ve already answered about Hermione. Kingsley became permanent Minister for Magic, and naturally he wanted Harry to head up his new Auror department. Harry did so (just because Voldemort was gone, it didn’t mean that there would not be other Dark witches and wizards in the coming years). Ron joined George at Weasleys’ Wizarding Wheezes, which became an enormous money-spinner... After a few years as a celebrated player for the Holyhead Harpies, Ginny retired to have her family and to become the Senior Quidditch correspondent at the Daily Prophet!


As promised, Ginny, despite as Ms. Rowling professes, despite all her talent, ends up first the love interest, than becomes her mother, while Harry is off fighting the evil doers, she stays at home and, like her mother, tends the house and worries, and discusses trivial things like sports, when quite clearly, she is perhaps just as talented, or more talented than her male counterparts - what is Rowling suggesting then? That this is the ideal form of family - the woman tries the career for a few years, before ultimately settling back into domesticity.

This is the wizarding world keep in mind, she could have done whatever she wanted to the characters' futures - yet there are still poor people, and people whose job it is to stay at home and cook dinner, and people bound to pointless jobs - it seems that everything the magic can do, which is everything, amounts to nothing, as they never seem to have the ability to break free from the shackles of British Class-based society - though, they do have those little elf guys for the rich people.

[wessexgirl]

In a sense it does, but look at the nature of the so called magical world - people are born magical - what could be more racist than a culture built on a system of "I'm special and you are not." There may be "muggle loving" wizards, like the red headed guy's dad, but ultimately, from my understanding, the relationship seems little better than master to his dog - the inferior muggles who have all sorts of quirks just don't cut it - they are made to be ridiculous. Lets be honest - the bulk of the Potter books are about schooling - achieving grades, becoming the best Wizard/Witch (though it should be Warlock/Witch, but someone cannot read properly) possible. Where is there room for a muggle there - achievement is gained through competence with magical abilities - whether it be flying brooms, casting spells, growing magical plants, or using magical charms - there is no room for an unmagical person within that diegesis - even the "less gifted" wizards are ridiculed within the book - so perhaps there are those who take an interest in the muggle, but the muggle is always seen as something to take an interest in, the same way a bourgeois English gent takes interests in horses.

I've read the first from His Dark Materials, and though it is interesting, it fits more with the first two Potter books, as being for around 9 year olds (whereas book 3 I would place around 12 year olds in terms of marketing, and book 4 and up around 14-15 in terms of marketing), and also, I found it a bit lacking in terms of character development, but perhaps I didn't read far enough, as, truth be told, children's literature is a little bit too young for me - I'm far too cynical.

I think you are far too critical JBI. Why can't you keep in mind that Harry Potter wasn't written for you? You are over-analysing far too much. If a child reads HP and enjoys it, who are you to undermine that? It may not be my chosen reading material, but I'm an adult, as I think you are. I'm not going to sneer at someone's choice. You are fond of quoting suppositions about the decline of reading and claiming they are facts. I am speaking as a School Librarian, and if a book grabs the attention of my students, I will not knock it, and them, by declaiming what rubbish it is. For a child who doesn't read, the fact that they want to come in and get the books is brilliant. Okay, there's hype surrounding the books, but no-one is forcing them with their arm up their backs to read it. It's engaging their interest. Lighten up.

As for your input on His Dark Materials, there is no equation with the Potter books, other than that they are written for Children/Young Adults. Pullman is a better writer than Rowling, but that's not the point. Pullman is dealing with all sorts of metaphysical/philosophical/religious questions, which a 9 year old probably wouldn't get. He writes a great story though, which engages. As for lacking character development, well, you may think so, but the first of the trilogy won the Carnegie of Carnegie's not long ago, basically voted the best book in the last 70 years of the award, but what do Children's Librarians know about children's books? No wonder you are so hard on Potter if you think HDM is for 9 year olds. You obviously don't read much children's literature as you state in your last sentence, so give the kids a break, and stop belittling any attempts to get them reading.

[JCamilo]

But why he can not over-analyse it. To me it seems like he deals with all books this way, why he can not be free to do as he please? Just because the results he produces are negative?

[JBI]

I think you are far too critical JBI. Why can't you keep in mind that Harry Potter wasn't written for you? You are over-analysing far too much. If a child reads HP and enjoys it, who are you to undermine that? It may not be my chosen reading material, but I'm an adult, as I think you are. I'm not going to sneer at someone's choice. You are fond of quoting suppositions about the decline of reading and claiming they are facts. I am speaking as a School Librarian, and if a book grabs the attention of my students, I will not knock it, and them, by declaiming what rubbish it is. For a child who doesn't read, the fact that they want to come in and get the books is brilliant. Okay, there's hype surrounding the books, but no-one is forcing them with their arm up their backs to read it. It's engaging their interest. Lighten up.

As for your input on His Dark Materials, there is no equation with the Potter books, other than that they are written for Children/Young Adults. Pullman is a better writer than Rowling, but that's not the point. Pullman is dealing with all sorts of metaphysical/philosophical/religious questions, which a 9 year old probably wouldn't get. He writes a great story though, which engages. As for lacking character development, well, you may think so, but the first of the trilogy won the Carnegie of Carnegie's not long ago, basically voted the best book in the last 70 years of the award, but what do Children's Librarians know about children's books? No wonder you are so hard on Potter if you think HDM is for 9 year olds. You obviously don't read much children's literature as you state in your last sentence, so give the kids a break, and stop belittling any attempts to get them reading.

I am actually in the demographic of the original audience - I was not even functionally literate in English when these books started coming out - in 98 I was right in the targeted market - Schoolastic, the Publisher that handles the North American English sales, even came to my school one day with books to sell, and had nice fresh copies of Harry Potter that they were promoting - if anything, I'd say the books were written for me, even more so than for many of the fans on these forums, who were born a couple years after me - hell, my elementary school teacher even read one of the books out loud to the class.

[wessexgirl]

But why he can not over-analyse it. To me it seems like he deals with all books this way, why he can not be free to do as he please? Just because the results he produces are negative?

Because sometimes people just want to read and enjoy a book, without having every comma, full-stop and sentence ripped to shreds, particularly when the book which is getting said treatment is supposed to be an enjoyable adventure entertainment for children. We don't have to have a lecture on literary criticism for every book ever mentioned. I know this is a literature forum, but to take apart a book aimed at children, and try to demolish it, and those who enjoy it, is tedious in the extreme, not to mention patronising.

[Mathor]

I don't really understand why there is such a great attempt to prove that Harry Potter is a trite piece of trash. A lot of people hate Jane Austen. I hate Twilight. Most people hate Charles Dickens. For all of those there is a group of people that consider it some sort of high art. Art is completely subjective, and there is no way to prove that Harry Potter is not a good book, so why the discussion?

Let the people who like it continue their obsession, and others can continue their own obsession with their own tastes. Just because one likes something, does not make it good.

[JCamilo]

Wait, so people want to enjoy reading in a way and because that other person is not free to read in her own way?
And I may be wrong, this is not a place where people read books, but discuss about books. I do not imagine anyone not reading a book because of JBI (well, maybe, since he is telling about his dark past, he did killed some boys and girls who dared to read Harry potter) even because he does not advocate it, rather a change in the way of reading?
Being a book aimed to kids must increase the responsability of the criticism, after all the kids are the future readers. Alice survives the most crytical analyses, why not harry potter ?
Sorry, but if someone do not want to live with JBI criticism they just need to move on. But telling he should not do as he likes, it is as wrong as if he was telling people to not post or write about the books he dislikes.

[Mathor]

Wait, so people want to enjoy reading in a way and because that other person is not free to read in her own way?
And I may be wrong, this is not a place where people read books, but discuss about books. I do not imagine anyone not reading a book because of JBI (well, maybe, since he is telling about his dark past, he did killed some boys and girls who dared to read Harry potter) even because he does not advocate it, rather a change in the way of reading?
Being a book aimed to kids must increase the responsability of the criticism, after all the kids are the future readers. Alice survives the most crytical analyses, why not harry potter ?
Sorry, but if someone do not want to live with JBI criticism they just need to move on. But telling he should not do as he likes, it is as wrong as if he was telling people to not post or write about the books he dislikes.

He doesn't like Harry Potter because he has never read Harry Potter. ;)

[JBI]

Because sometimes people just want to read and enjoy a book, without having every comma, full-stop and sentence ripped to shreds, particularly when the book which is getting said treatment is supposed to be an enjoyable adventure entertainment for children. We don't have to have a lecture on literary criticism for every book ever mentioned. I know this is a literature forum, but to take apart a book aimed at children, and try to demolish it, and those who enjoy it, is tedious in the extreme, not to mention patronising.

Actually, the marketing by the last one was intended for adults and children - they even printed with more "mature" covers on the first run specifically targeted for older readers. The last three books, are written, if such "levels exist", at a 13-14 year old level, but are geared toward 16-17 year olds and up, and marketed as such - the big hype on the release of the last one was "who will die" keep in mind.

Even so though, I even quoted a child reader (supposedly, though he very well could be 40 years old in his parent's basement or whatever) who came to the same conclusions I did - it's just that when I do it, I don't assume the text to be scripture before I start cutting.

Of course, perhaps I have drifted off topic, in the sense that my opinions moved away from discussing how these books may or may not promote reading and or witchcraft and the occult, to examining what other things they seem to promote, which was perhaps a personal digression - but I don't think that warrants a comment that "if you can't say anything nice you shouldn't say anything at all". Perhaps someone might get something out of the dialectics between me and DrkShadow or whomever.

And I don't think I tried to destroy Pullman, but ultimately his texts are children's literature, that is why I tried to say that they weren't exactly what I was talking about, when I said I was looking for a good forefronted popular strong female heroine to stand in culturally and be accepted by both males and females in the young adult bracket - His Dark Materials are in a different age bracket - the closest thing I can come up with, from searching my mind constantly, for one that was generally well absorbed into the popular culture, was Sailor Moon, who lately I have been doing a lot of thinking about, strangely enough, but who, to me, seems to have been the last one that absorbed a generation (though I am told her appeal didn't really take in the US as it did in Canada).


My real questions were geared at this concept - we are able to begin asking whether these books promote witchcraft in children, and that is able to form itself into a sort of debate over "Christian values" and whatnot, but no one seems to be discussing the opposite, whether these "Christian", or "conservative" values that I argue are in the book have a negative affect on children - it seems somewhat ridiculous actually, all things considered, that people are able to, for instance, criticize Judy Bloom for her "moral conscience", but won't turn the knife on conservative children's literature, which I argue this text clearly falls into - the same vein from Lewis downward.

[Niamh]

I cant believe you are all discussing this these topics again! Didnt you all kill it half a year ago? :p

And for the record, there isnt really a low opinion of Harry Potter on this forum... Its just that all Harry Potter threads get eventually taken over by Anti- Potterites...
And JBI, Sales of Harry Potter have not dropped. We still cant keep them on the selves. :)

[JBI]

He doesn't like Harry Potter because he has never read Harry Potter. ;)

You are making an assumption - I have read quite a bit of Potter - as I said earlier, and mentioned on the other thread, if you would care to look, my elementary school teachers even decided to read them outloud to the class - I can pick out little episodic anecdotes off the top of my head still - I haven't been using a reference for all this stuff, I simply am pulling it out as I remember it.

Though, I will confess I did not read the last one, and I don't think I read the 6th one either - for that I merely read a wikipedia on it, so as to be able to follow the conversation better.

[Paulclem]

I think it's odd that JBI criticises the Harry Potter books for having a version of British Class based society in the book. Part of the book's theme is criticising this by the caracterisation, elitism and racism of the Malfoy family. Class in Britain is no longer the simple situation it used to be in the postwar era, but remnants of the Old Boys system still persist. Suely it's positive for JK to include the inequlities in the book?

[islandclimber]

Hell yeah! A Harry Potter throw down!



Yes, in the most literal sense the appeal of Harry Potter is entertainment, but so is the appeal of ALL literature and art. (see this post (http://beyondassumptions.wordpress.com/2008/08/26/why-do-i-read/) and this post (http://beyondassumptions.wordpress.com/2009/04/05/he-knew-everything-about-literature-except-how-to-enjoy-it/)). If you're not enjoying the literature you're reading then you're probably reading it for the wrong reasons (i.e. someone told you that you should).

but you're just posting links to your own blog again... secondly, if we decide that everything entertaining is beneficial, well, just for the reason it is entertaining, do we call watching pornography beneficial? do we call murder beneficial for those who enjoy it? I know these are extreme examples but arguing that something is beneficial just because it provides entertainment is silly.. then watch the Harry Potter movies, for reading the books is about the same thing... mindless entertainment... I mean just because something is entertaining does not mean it provides anything beneficial to the reader, even if that reader is 10-12... I find the books I read entertaining, but also thought-provoking and challenging.. can you honestly say Harry Potter is challenging or thought-provoking? furthermore can you seriously argue that these books are well-written? as I said before and this has been neglected in replies, the Potter "Craze" has pushed aside many other much better children and youth books... just to name a few writers we can mention Carrol, Twain, some Dickens, etc. etc.


Looking at the work more specifically than just the ubiquitous quality of entertainment, the appeal of Harry Potter is the the world-building. You get an idealized British culture reimagined with magic that contrasts perfect a sense of strangeness and wonderment with familiar features. We follow them through school, commerce, banks, transportation, sporting events, dances, bathrooms, cafeterias, etc. These ordinary settings and experiences are transformed through the magic and mythology to be strange, unsettling, and unique so that we witness what we normally take for granted with fresh eyes. It is both familiar and strange at the same time.

The same could be said for its themes of race, love, family, and friendship. The obvious theme that embodies the qualities I described above is the racial one (the conflict between mudbloods and pure bloods). From the reader's viewpoint there is nothing different about them as they both can perform magic so the conflict seems arbitrary. The binary of Muggles who cannot perform magic and those who can, which is a real difference, only further emphasizes the arbitrariness of this form of racism within the Wizarding Community. It allows children and readers to see how little difference there really is between people with so-called imagined differences. It uses it world-building to force us to confront old themes and conflicts in new ways and see them with fresh eyes.

Basically the books explore the deeper issues that affect teens and function much like any other literary book. This isn't to say it lacks elements to complain about: no gay characters, a whitewashing and flattening of the characters of color (although in Rowling's defense she at least attempts to include characters of color), sometimes not featuring the women as prominently as they should in roles outside of domesticity (except for Hermione whose detractions critics greatly exaggerate). Still, I can think of lots of celebrated books that have these same problems so those certainly aren't grounds to dismiss the Harry Potter books.

But you give the Potter books far too much credit here.. I mean there are thousands of books that do these same things but also go much further in terms of challenging our beliefs, our biases, our ideas... there are so many other books that provoke us, antagonize us, and make us really have to think.. again, why would one read Potter, when one could read Huckleberry Finn or Oliver Twist or David Copperfield or if we want to stick to fantasy Alice In Wonderland instead? this has been argued enough in other threads that I am just going to say it is pretty common knowledge that whether you find Harry Potter enjoyable or not the books are quite poorly written... and again that leads to the argument of these books being only entertainment and nothing more... and I will say I have no problem with people reading mediocre books for entertainment alone, but what I do find ridiculous is trying to argue that these books are challenging, and thought-provoking, and provide some sort of educational benefit... maybe if they were used as a learn to read type thing for the really young, then they would have a use... but give me a break when it comes to challenging and provoking teenagers? someone in the 14-18 range can find countless works that will make them really think... Rowling stays safe in her little allegorical world of the WASP British Class system... how is this challenging?




This is an extremely privileged position. Tell that to someone who is illiterate and cannot even read a newspaper to find a job or a basic memo at work or an invitation to a family gathering or a bill or notice of eviction, that reading has no beneficial value in and of itself. You take the skills of reading for granted since you possess them and its probably second-hand to you.


this really has no place in this discussion, as we are on a literature forum, discussing whether reading Harry Potter has any benefit at all... Harry Potter is not increasing rates of functional literacy and that would be an absurd argument to make... The lack of literacy if anything is indicative of failings in the education system that allow such e to fall through the cracks and remain illiterate. it has nothing to do with reading Harry Potter and whether the books provide any benefit besides entertainment..




It's not "adults" who read heavily into the romance genre; it's generally women. Also, you give no reasons to support your claim that reading Danielle Steele isn't as beneficial as watching TV. Take a writer like Paulo Coelho who you mention. He is extremely comforting and shares a basic theme of "You can live your dreams if you only try." Now you might not agree with the theme, but he is imparting something to his no doubt angsty bourgeoisie audience that is meaningful to them. It's a kind of fiction as self-help.



Having actually worked in a library with young adults and children during the Twilight craze instead of just speculating with opinion like everyone else, it might blow your mind to learn that many of the Twilight people read other YA books and sometimes even "Great" literature. I know crazy!

It's not an either/or proposition. There is nothing stopping someone from reading Alice in Wonderland and Harry Potter.



JBI has no evidence to back up this assertion, unless he has magically gained the power to view all of the possible alternative futures of every single individual on the planet. As for a counter argument, I'll use anecdotal. I didn't start reading "Great" literature until college; at least, not of my own volition. Before that I read Goosebumps, Fear Street, Star Wars, Wheel of Time, and some other fantasies. I eventually went on to read "Great" literature. Nevertheless, I am not entirely sure I would've had I not read those other books.

Yes women read heavily in the Romance Genre, and men read heavily in the thriller genre, the other writers I mentioned, those New York Times #1 Bestselling authors, Tom Clancy, Dan Brown, Paulo Coelho, etc, etc.. the whole point is that these books are extremely poorly written, do not provoke us to really think, do not challenge our opinions, our biases, our ideas.. they provide no benefit besides entertainment.. how is that of more benefit than watching trash tv or popular film? it isn't... and again we get back to the argument that reading is beneficial in and of itself.. besides being functionally literate, which is beneficial, but which also has nothing to do with reading trash mass market fiction, as that is not how people learn to read, well reading is of no benefit in and of itself.. reading poorly written, overly cliched, "safe" works is just mindless entertainment..

to say many people who read Twilight and Potter go on to read great literature is silly. My guess would be that this would be the overwhelmingly small minority, as all you have to do is take a glimpse at falling reading levels and you will realize that most who read these books, read nothing (or at least nothing worthwhile) afterwards.. if these books were inspiring so many to begin a lifetime of reading, as you suggest, how do we explain falling reading rates?

The whole thing is that, although there is nothing stopping one from reading Harry Potter and Alice in Wonderland, well those who read Alice in Wonderland, and other lit, probably would have gone on to do so anyways regardless of whether they begin with Harry Potter or not... and though you say you don't think you would have gone on to read what you read now, without starting in with mediocre works, well, the whole point is you are one of the people who would've gone on to read better literature regardless of what mediocre works you read.. the vast majority of Potter readers won't... the point is that Rowling is being acclaimed as one who has gotten a whole generation to read, and she really hasn't, those who are actually going to read, would've done so regardless of whether they began with Harry Potter, Goosebumps, Dark Materials, etc..

anyways I'm done here, seriously go look up the other thread, as these arguments have been hashed and rehashed countless times already...

and here is the reason why those who read Potter are unlikely to go on to read better literature as they believe they have already read the best.. as stated Ms. Rowling received 3 times the votes of any other author in the vote for best living British writer... hahahahahaha

http://www.hpana.com/news.19447.html


and just to clarify I have read all the Potter books just to see what the craze was about...

[Paulclem]

As for consevative literature, I think the setting of the Potter world is conservative, but this is being constantly undermined by the actions and attitudes of the students - the constant rule breaking, the issue of the house elves, and the racist themes.

[Mathor]

Regardless of the debates presented thus far, I still conclude that Harry Potter DOES in fact encourage children to read. Whether or not that reading is worthwhile, or whether they'll develop a true appreciation for classic literature, it shows them a love for reading. I am a musician and the majority of my musicians friends do NOT like to read. If you polled any of the like 20 bands I've been apart of in the past couple years, most would say they've "never enjoyed one book they've ever read". Scoff if you will, but if they find Harry Potter enjoyable, that is making much progress. Enjoying one book means enjoying another book. The fact that I know so many people who find no enjoyment from reading at all means that something needs to change. I'd like these people to get into reading, if it has to be from a book like Harry Potter, at least it's an enjoyment of SOME literature.

EDIT: and JBI, my apologies for my assumption, I saw you referencing wikipedia often, so I assumed you had never read it.

[JBI]

I think it's odd that JBI criticises the Harry Potter books for having a version of British Class based society in the book. Part of the book's theme is criticising this by the caracterisation, elitism and racism of the Malfoy family. Class in Britain is no longer the simple situation it used to be in the postwar era, but remnants of the Old Boys system still persist. Suely it's positive for JK to include the inequlities in the book?

Finally, a comment really worth responding to, and a tough one to respond to at that - it is an interesting point - but I think that's only one level of it - The Malfoys and their friends are clearly some sort of Aristocracy, but there are still other power dynamics -

For instance, you have the 4 houses people are sorted into:

You've got your Slytherin (sp?) guys, all from old families, with big incomes, nice stuff, and the odd special magical talent handed down (the ability to talk with snakes and stuff are hereditary, which is a bit disgusting, in a sense, as that gives genetic superpowers to aristocrats, but is really irrelevant for where I am going now), and make nice connections, but nobody likes them, and perhaps their influence is ebbing - they are all so intermarried because pure blood has become so hard to find, etc.

But what of the Griffindor (sp?) kids - to me they read like the nouveau riche, the parvenus of the wizarding world, all out to make their stamp on the economy, and rise to power and prominence - their only rivals, it would seem, besides the old money, are the Ravenclaws

The Ravenclaws, from my reading, seem like a model academic, sort of people - the sort of people who tend to be socialist and discuss Nietzsche and Woody Allen - the type that are rather well read, and academically inclined - essentially everyone inhabiting a Woody Allen movie around the time he wrote Annie Hall, minus Woody himself. They are an intellectual class without the monetary prospects perhaps of the Griffindor people, who are a Bourgeois class.

The Hufflepuffs are though, the toss - the ugly kids, the fat kids, the low income earners, the working class of the Wizarding world. All the rest end up there - they just didn't make the cut for any of the other houses.

So in a sense, by deglorifying the aristocracy to an extent, she is bringing change - but she is merely illustrating the power shift that ocurred before the Great War, but really took shape after - the binary is still there though - there are still Hufflepuffs and whatnot, and the Slytherin people still are rich, and still are using their connections to their own benefit - I don't want to link it to contemporary British politics, as that isn't allowed, but the class binary is still reinforced - she may degrade the Slytherins slightly, but ultimately, she doesn't undercut the binary, merely shifts it to a more accurate cultural structure than before, but without the public disgust in it that inhabits the real world it based on.

That being said though, there are still other matters to deal with, the most pressing being that all the Wizards celebrate Christmas. I guess Jews are unmagical, or perhaps they are merely Goblins living in disguise amongst the normal British folk. The English Magical School doesn't reflect at all the demographics of either Europe or the UK - the one Irish kid supposedly is the one to betray Harry in the fifth? one, and there don't seem to be many real minorities amongst the people, unless you count the odd placed ones - like the Chinese? girl, with a very non Chinese sounding name who everyone has a crush on, or those two Indian girls who stand in as temporaries for the two lame protagonists before they can get the "real women". Perhaps the odd Black Englishman means something though - I hear they were all killed off in the 7th one though, and they never had a really big part anyway.

[Mathor]

That being said though, there are still other matters to deal with, the most pressing being that all the Wizards celebrate Christmas. I guess Jews are unmagical, or perhaps they are merely Goblins living in disguise amongst the normal British folk. The English Magical School doesn't reflect at all the demographics of either Europe or the UK - the one Irish kid supposedly is the one to betray Harry in the fifth? one, and there don't seem to be many real minorities amongst the people, unless you count the odd placed ones - like the Chinese? girl, with a very non Chinese sounding name who everyone has a crush on, or those two Indian girls who stand in as temporaries for the two lame protagonists before they can get the "real women". Perhaps the odd Black Englishman means something though - I hear they were all killed off in the 7th one though, and they never had a really big part anyway.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the book make reference to many other wizarding schools around the world, and Hogwarts is simply the one for the UK?

[Paulclem]

I think I generally agree with your analysis of the Houses JBI, though I would disagree about the issue of aristocracy being settled. The aristos are still there, some with their blue-blood prejudices - I have witnessed this, but only from some.

I think in the West, Christmas is celebrated in the sense of taking part in a cultural celebration by many different people. I know Sikhs and Muslims in multicultural Coventry that do celebrate it in this way.

Yes, there are political themes in the later books, but at the end of the day, I think the books are more about adventure, and so perhaps these themes are not as developed as they might be. I'm still impressed for a children's book though.

[JBI]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the book make reference to many other wizarding schools around the world, and Hogwarts is simply the one for the UK?

Oh, of course, but to be sure, the wizarding population in the UK doesn't reflect the demographics of the UK - more English than anything else, more white and Christian than anything else, and more traditionally English than multicultural - I mean, lets be honest, where are all the Highlanders, and beyond that, where are all the minorities?

The French school, from my memory, seems to reflect that as well, whereas the Russian school seems to be a salad bowl of all things Slavic (I believe the guy the Hermione girl dates is Bulgarian, from a typically Russian seeming school), but both of those are highly stereotyped forms as well.


And still, where are all the ex-centrics? We are all such non magical people, right? Only Christians can be Wizards, and only Bourgeois Muggles seem to be capable of spawning Wizards too - with the exception of Voldemort, perhaps, though that's genetic.

IF there are wizards with special powers, why don't they use them to stop starvation in the world? or is that too unethical a use of magic?

I think the only defense I can see is, yes, these are children's books, and ultimately magic, despite its fancy tricks, is limited to what can be shown to be a "clever" trick in her book, and not things practical.

[islandclimber]

I think I generally agree with your analysis of the Houses JBI, though I would disagree about the issue of aristocracy being settled. The aristos are still there, some with their blue-blood prejudices - I have witnessed this, but only from some.

I think in the West, Christmas is celebrated in the sense of taking part in a cultural celebration by many different people. I know Sikhs and Muslims in multicultural Coventry that do celebrate it in this way.

Yes, there are political themes in the later books, but at the end of the day, I think the books are more about adventure, and so perhaps these themes are not as developed as they might be. I'm still impressed for a children's book though.

but one of the whole points is that the later books are not aimed towards the children's lit market.. and the first few books that are, well, they are incredibly simplistic and absent of any challenging issues.. the later few books are aimed towards the young adult market, and I hope by that point people are beyond being challenged by such a "safe" work...

can Potter compare to the racist undercurrents in books such as "Huckleberry Finn"?? can it's allegory compare to "Through the Looking Glass" or "Alice in Wonderland"?? or the way Carrol's works challenge by playing with logic.. or maybe Ursula K le Guin's works if we want to go more contemporary.. she had non white heros, challenged gender roles, discussed balance in the good vs evil argument? or Salinger's "Catcher in the Rye" on seuality and growing up? Harry Potter is essentially a "safe" book written to sell, not to challenge...

and by the time you get to the later books, well at 13-18, there are much more challenging works that could be read, even in contemporary literature...

[Paulclem]

I think the books took off in an unexpected way. So JK Rowling's problem was - how to keep a winning formula, with an older audience? Perhaps this may answer some of the points about minorities too. Why alter the characters radically? The aim is to write a good adventure that sells well.

I think what she does well is to take strands of recogniseable settings and themes - public school system - magic- parallel worlds - and combine them with characters that are easily recogniseable to a modern audience.

[Drkshadow03]

but you're just posting links to your own blog again...
Yes, I was posting links to my own blog. So I was clarifying positions I already stated so I didn't have to rehash my argument. I've yet to see anyone effectively challenge anything I wrote in those posts, but you’re more than welcome to come on the blog and try if you like.


secondly, if we decide that everything entertaining is beneficial, well, just for the reason it is entertaining, do we call watching pornography beneficial? do we call murder beneficial for those who enjoy it? I know these are extreme examples but arguing that something is beneficial just because it provides entertainment is silly..

No Strawmans are silly. Those are not only extreme examples you provide, but attacks on a position that isn’t mine. I said entertainment is beneficial in and of itself, and that art’s first purpose is as entertainment (aesthetic adornments to make pottery more interesting, stories as a reflection of life where we have a vested interest in the characters and twist-and-turns). I never said everything one might find entertaining is beneficial. Of course one needs to weigh other factors. In the case of murder, you’re sacrificing a human life for perverse entertainment. Of course a human life is worth more than one individual’s entertainment. Still, this doesn’t disprove that entertainment has no value in and of itself. All it proves is that one shouldn’t get their entertainment at the expense of another human being. I fail to see how enjoying Harry Potter is analogous in the slightest, except in some warped logic.


then watch the Harry Potter movies, for reading the books is about the same thing... mindless entertainment...
This is probably your best point in the entire post. I am not really sure what grounds I can find to recommend reading over watching the films. Of course my argument wasn’t solely that Harry Potter ONLY offers entertainment, but still the films also delve into many of the same themes. Nevertheless, the books feel more complete than the films.


I mean just because something is entertaining does not mean it provides anything beneficial to the reader, even if that reader is 10-12... I find the books I read entertaining, but also thought-provoking and challenging.
Repeating the same claim that entertainment is not beneficial doesn’t disprove my earlier claim that it is, and your lack of GOOD evidence to show that it isn’t. Furthermore, the books I read are thought-provoking, and sometimes challenging, depending on the book.


can you honestly say Harry Potter is challenging or thought-provoking?
It might have been my imagination, but didn’t I just do that in the last post when expounded on the themes of Harry Potter and how the fantasy milieu of the Wainscott sub-genre of Urban Fantasy allows us to see this issues and our own world with fresh-eyes?


furthermore can you seriously argue that these books are well-written?

Funny, I don’t remember arguing this at all. Nevertheless:

“Mr. and Mrs. Dursley, of number four, Privert Drive, were proud to say that they were perfectly normal, thank you very much. They were the last people you’d expect to be involved in anything strange or mysterious, because they just didn’t hold with such nonsense.” – Opening of HP and the Sorcerer’s Stone (Book 1)

The opening has a lot of character, a touch of the comical, a well-defined voice, works well with the tone of the world and upcoming story. The opening is even kind of memorable.

“The two men appeared out of nowhere, a few yards apart in the narrow, moonlit lane. For a second they stood quite still, wands directed at each other’s chest; then, recognizing each other, they stowed their wands beneath their cloaks and started walking briskly in the same direction.” – Opening of HP and the Deathly Hallows (Book 7)

This opening is a bit more typical, you could find variations of this in a lot of detective novels/mystery novels. Still, the words paint a clear picture of scene, the language for what it lacks in poetic grade and aesthetic originality it also doesn’t waste words, and draws you immediately into the story, a solid voice.
I would agree that Rowling doesn’t write mind-blowing original and innovative prose, but I think people who think she is a bad writer (i.e. the writing is actually BAD) exaggerate or just haven’t read enough truly horrendous writing. On a prose level, Rowling is a serviceable writer; I can think of hundreds better, but I also can think of hundreds worse.


the Potter "Craze" has pushed aside many other much better children and youth books... just to name a few writers we can mention Carrol, Twain, some Dickens, etc. etc.
Really? People stopped reading Carrol, Twain, and Dickens because of Harry Potter? So before Harry Potter all the younglings were reading Carrol, Twain, and Dickens? And it was only when Harry Potter came out that they suddenly stopped because it got pushed aside? In what way has Harry Potter actually pushed aside these other authors? Not to mention I would not recommend any of those authors to most young kids. Twain might play around with themes of racism, but are kids really going to understand his use of the N-word the way an adult would or take it on a more superficial level and use it at the wrong times? Having learned a great deal of nasty racial slurs in Fifth grade for the very first time as part of a lesson to teach us that these words are bad, I can soundly say the majority of the class didn’t REALLY understand the hurtfulness of the words and took them more as cool edgy transgressive words, until we got older and started realizing that, “Oh, actually those words aren’t cool or transgressive, but just offensive.”
More importantly have read Huck Finn as 11th grade, you’re grossly overestimating how entertaining or meaningful that book would be to most teenagers or children. I suspect from experience most would find the dialect off-putting. I personally think Twain is one of the worst authors someone could give to a little kid; it did more to bolster my negative opinion of literature than any other work we were forced to read.

No comment on the other two, other than to say I just don’t think many readers are read to engage Dickens and Carrol or Twain at such a young age. Some readers are certainly, but they are the minority.


But you give the Potter books far too much credit here.. I mean there are thousands of books that do these same things but also go much further in terms of challenging our beliefs, our biases, our ideas... there are so many other books that provoke us, antagonize us, and make us really have to think..

I do? I think my interpretation is pretty solid, as well as my theoretical understanding of how fantasy works, which is not only supported by my arguments in the previous thread that simply can’t be dismissed with a quick rhetoric throwaway line of “you give Potter too much credit”, but is also buttressed by the plethora of scholarship that supports my views.

Also, since when was the purpose of books solely to challenge our beliefs, our biases, and our ideas? Literature (especially in the form of myth) is quite good at formulating, supporting, and reifying our beliefs, biases, and ideas about the world. In fact, if all literature ever did was challenge our beliefs, biases, and ideas about the world I can’t imagine there would be such intense fighting over who should or shouldn’t be included in the Canon.


again, why would one read Potter, when one could read Huckleberry Finn or Oliver Twist or David Copperfield or if we want to stick to fantasy Alice In Wonderland instead?

I didn’t realize it was an either/or. I always thought I could read both Harry Potter and Oliver Twist. Imagine that!


this has been argued enough in other threads that I am just going to say it is pretty common knowledge that whether you find Harry Potter enjoyable or not the books are quite poorly written...
Appealing to the majority now? Besides, Harry Potter taught me to be challenge the so-called “common knowledge” of others.


and again that leads to the argument of these books being only entertainment and nothing more...
Uhm, no it doesn’t. You just magically hand-waved the argument of the deeper issues Harry Potter addresses by saying I gave Potter to much credit and then never actually dealt with the arguments I actually raised.


and I will say I have no problem with people reading mediocre books for entertainment alone, but what I do find ridiculous is trying to argue that these books are challenging, and thought-provoking, and provide some sort of educational benefit... maybe if they were used as a learn to read type thing for the really young, then they would have a use... but give me a break when it comes to challenging and provoking teenagers?

If you don’t care then why do you keep ranting nonsensically?


someone in the 14-18 range can find countless works that will make them really think... Rowling stays safe in her little allegorical world of the WASP British Class system...
Well, then those 14-18 year olds don’t need you arguing for them on an online literature forum if they can find all these countless works brimming off library shelves and in bookstores. Funny, I can think of a lot of writers who stay safe in their WASP British Class System (Jane Austen?) that doesn’t make their themes or characters or stories any less interesting.


this really has no place in this discussion, as we are on a literature forum, discussing whether reading Harry Potter has any benefit at all...

You’re the one who raised the issue in the discussion when you said:
“but the argument was and is that the act of reading is not beneficial in and of itself.. there has to be something worth getting from reading a book that goes beyond what we get from such mindless entertainment...”

Not I. I only responded.


Harry Potter is not increasing rates of functional literacy and that would be an absurd argument to make... The lack of literacy if anything is indicative of failings in the education system that allow such e to fall through the cracks and remain illiterate. it has nothing to do with reading Harry Potter and whether the books provide any benefit besides entertainment..
I didn’t make the argument that Harry Potter alone is increasing the rates of functional literacy. However, it’s always a good thing to get kids reading, even for the sake of keeping them literate. Harry Potter has words on a page and a varied enough vocabulary and an elaborate enough story produced by those words. Kids reading any book whether it is some level 1 Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle or Harry Potter or Mark Twain makes them more literate, depending on their level of reading ability.


Yes women read heavily in the Romance Genre, and men read heavily in the thriller genre, the other writers I mentioned, those New York Times #1 Bestselling authors, Tom Clancy, Dan Brown, Paulo Coelho, etc, etc.. the whole point is that these books are extremely poorly written, do not provoke us to really think, do not challenge our opinions, our biases, our ideas.. they provide no benefit besides entertainment..
Because entertainment has value, it stokes the imagination, it helps us escape the tedium of our boring everyday lives, it gives us experiences into different worlds, different possibilities, and different perspectives. We learn through entertainment; the youngest of children (3-5) learn by playing. Our very first process of learning is through the imagination.



how is that of more benefit than watching trash tv or popular film? it isn't... and again we get back to the argument that reading is beneficial in and of itself.. besides being functionally literate, which is beneficial, but which also has nothing to do with reading trash mass market fiction, as that is not how people learn to read, well reading is of no benefit in and of itself.. reading poorly written, overly cliched, "safe" works is just mindless entertainment.. to say many people who read Twilight and Potter go on to read great literature is silly.
They do. I have demonstrated it through anecdotal experience of my own reading habits and anecdotal experience as a librarian.


My guess would be that this would be the overwhelmingly small minority, as all you have to do is take a glimpse at falling reading levels and you will realize that most who read these books, read nothing (or at least nothing worthwhile) afterwards..
Maybe, but it depends which statistics you mean and which books. People who read Tom Clancy or James Patterson I find do keep reading; they read more of that genre. I know my whole family (mom, dad, both sets of grandparents, aunts, uncles) enjoy that genre and they read a lot. It will be silly to argue that Patterson readers only read one Patterson book, then stop reading forever, but somehow James Patterson remains a bestseller. He remains a bestseller because more than likely the same readers come back for more.
Also, I would be interested in seeing some sort of chart year by year to ascertain where Potter fits into all this. It could just be that there are declining reading levels overall that have nothing to do with Potter one way or the other, not readers who read Harry Potter and then stopped reading. In order to prove that kind of correlation you’d have to first show A) that reading rates jumped during years Harry Potter books were printed B) and fell immediately in the years after. And it would still be drawing a lot of conclusions from the numbers. It would be interesting if someone did an actual study specifically following Harry Potter readers over the next ten years of their life to see their reading habits.


if these books were inspiring so many to begin a lifetime of reading, as you suggest, how do we explain falling reading rates?
Video games. I never said the Harry Potter books in and of themselves will inspire people to become lifelong readers. I see them more as a possible stepping stone, pretty much like any other book people might enjoy. I am not in fact privileging Potter over other YA fiction.


The whole thing is that, although there is nothing stopping one from reading Harry Potter and Alice in Wonderland, well those who read Alice in Wonderland, and other lit, probably would have gone on to do so anyways regardless of whether they begin with Harry Potter or not... and though you say you don't think you would have gone on to read what you read now, without starting in with mediocre works, well, the whole point is you are one of the people who would've gone on to read better literature regardless of what mediocre works you read.. the vast majority of Potter readers won't... the point is that Rowling is being acclaimed as one who has gotten a whole generation to read, and she really hasn't, those who are actually going to read, would've done so regardless of whether they began with Harry Potter, Goosebumps, Dark Materials, etc..

And your proof that I would’ve gone on to read better literature besides JBI’s psychic powers?

[mystery_spell]

There's nothing wrong with Harry Potter. Parents and others who think that they teach children witchcraft or Devil worship or any of that sort of stuff are complete boneheads. Harry Potter encourages kids to read and enjoy their imaginations, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

[mortalterror]

“Mr. and Mrs. Dursley, of number four, Privert Drive, were proud to say that they were perfectly normal, thank you very much. They were the last people you’d expect to be involved in anything strange or mysterious, because they just didn’t hold with such nonsense.” – Opening of HP and the Sorcerer’s Stone (Book 1)

The opening has a lot of character, a touch of the comical, a well-defined voice, works well with the tone of the world and upcoming story. The opening is even kind of memorable.

“The two men appeared out of nowhere, a few yards apart in the narrow, moonlit lane. For a second they stood quite still, wands directed at each other’s chest; then, recognizing each other, they stowed their wands beneath their cloaks and started walking briskly in the same direction.” – Opening of HP and the Deathly Hallows (Book 7)

This opening is a bit more typical, you could find variations of this in a lot of detective novels/mystery novels. Still, the words paint a clear picture of scene, the language for what it lacks in poetic grade and aesthetic originality it also doesn’t waste words, and draws you immediately into the story, a solid voice.
I would agree that Rowling doesn’t write mind-blowing original and innovative prose, but I think people who think she is a bad writer (i.e. the writing is actually BAD) exaggerate or just haven’t read enough truly horrendous writing. On a prose level, Rowling is a serviceable writer; I can think of hundreds better, but I also can think of hundreds worse.
Arms, and the man I sing, who, forc'd by fate,
And haughty Juno's unrelenting hate,
Expell'd and exil'd, left the Trojan shore.
Long labors, both by sea and land, he bore,
And in the doubtful war, before he won
The Latian realm, and built the destin'd town;

Now is the winter of our discontent
Made glorious summer by this sun of York;
And all the clouds that lour'd upon our house
In the deep bosom of the ocean buried.
Now are our brows bound with victorious wreaths;
Our bruised arms hung up for monuments;
Our stern alarums chang'd to merry meetings,
Our dreadful marches to delightful measures.

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way—in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.

Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.


Really? People stopped reading Carrol, Twain, and Dickens because of Harry Potter? So before Harry Potter all the younglings were reading Carrol, Twain, and Dickens?
Well I did. Huckleberry Finn and Alice in Wonderland are still two of my favorite books.


I personally think Twain is one of the worst authors someone could give to a little kid; it did more to bolster my negative opinion of literature than any other work we were forced to read.

No comment on the other two, other than to say I just don’t think many readers are read to engage Dickens and Carrol or Twain at such a young age. Some readers are certainly, but they are the minority.
I read The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn four times when I was a child. I enjoyed it thoroughly each time. However, it wasn't until I read it again as an adult that I realized it was supposed to be funny. I got a couple of pages in and I was laughing so hard I fell down pounding the ground with my fists, holding my sides, and crying. Those parts where Huck Finn says he'd rather go to hell than heaven, or where Jim embellishes on his lie, or the parodies of women's romance are beautiful examples of comedy.


Also, since when was the purpose of books solely to challenge our beliefs, our biases, and our ideas? Literature (especially in the form of myth) is quite good at formulating, supporting, and reifying our beliefs, biases, and ideas about the world. In fact, if all literature ever did was challenge our beliefs, biases, and ideas about the world I can’t imagine there would be such intense fighting over who should or shouldn’t be included in the Canon.
I know you think the books are worthwhile entertainment, and as entertainment I have nothing against them. What bothers me is when teachers use them in the classroom. Quintilian was of the opinion that children should read morally instructive books when learning their grammar and practicing their reading skills. In that way they learn two valuable things at once. If our youths are not to read The Wind in the Willows, Little Women, Aesop's Fables, Tarzan of the Apes, The Jungle Book, Grimm's Fairy Tales, Treasure Island, etc, I'd rather they read History books, The Bible, or something useful to their minds in the formative years of their lives.

I think that every book is a children's book if the child knows how to read. Children crave structure, mythologies, and a coherent world philosophy in order to form a cultural identity. If we do not give it to them, they will construct one for themselves out of whatever pop culture symbols are around them. They crave art and we pawn them off with comic books and cartoons. They want music and we give them Britney Spears. We get the society we deserve.


I didn’t realize it was an either/or. I always thought I could read both Harry Potter and Oliver Twist. Imagine that!
I read both sci fi/fantasy and classics, but The Song of Ice and Fire, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, and World War Z have really cut into my Cicero, Horace, Virgil, Ovid, and Tacitus this year. There's only so many hours in the day.


Maybe, but it depends which statistics you mean and which books. People who read Tom Clancy or James Patterson I find do keep reading; they read more of that genre. I know my whole family (mom, dad, both sets of grandparents, aunts, uncles) enjoy that genre and they read a lot. It will be silly to argue that Patterson readers only read one Patterson book, then stop reading forever, but somehow James Patterson remains a bestseller. He remains a bestseller because more than likely the same readers come back for more.
My mother reads between 1 and 3 books a day. She's read every crummy harlequin romance and vampire mystery novel in the world. I'm always telling her, "If I could read as fast as you, I'd put it to some use." But I read so slow that every single one has to count, or I'll die without knowing anything.


Video games. I never said the Harry Potter books in and of themselves will inspire people to become lifelong readers. I see them more as a possible stepping stone, pretty much like any other book people might enjoy. I am not in fact privileging Potter over other YA fiction.
I held it truth, with him who sings
To one clear harp in divers tones,
That men may rise on stepping-stones
Of their dead selves to higher things.

Books: the other gateway drug. Like yourself, I began reading with genre fiction. I seem to recall JBI having a similar story with a revelation about Eugene Onegin when he was 16 or so.

[Paulclem]

If one of the features of a classic book is controversy, then the Harry Potter series certainly qualifies.

[stlukesguild]

I think that every book is a children's book if the child knows how to read. Children crave structure, mythologies, and a coherent world philosophy in order to form a cultural identity. If we do not give it to them, they will construct one for themselves out of whatever pop culture symbols are around them. They crave art and we pawn them off with comic books and cartoons. We get the society we deserve.

Mortal! I don't think you've posted anything here that I've agreed with more. Have you been reading Roger Shattuck and E.D. Hisch? Sorry... just a little "educationese".

[JCamilo]

With Mortal and Stlukes, all the snobish elite of this forum have posted here. The marble tower is just complete.

[islandclimber]

I think that every book is a children's book if the child knows how to read. Children crave structure, mythologies, and a coherent world philosophy in order to form a cultural identity. If we do not give it to them, they will construct one for themselves out of whatever pop culture symbols are around them. They crave art and we pawn them off with comic books and cartoons. We get the society we deserve.


I agree with this completely as well.. I remember my mother reading me David Copperfield and Oliver Twist when I was 6 or 7... I was reading Twain and Carrol and Dickens when I was 8 or 9, and I read Crime and Punishment for the first time when i was 12, and I thoroughly enjoyed it, though I will admit of course there were many things I did not understand, but that just challenged to read more, to learn more, to try to understand... in contemporary literature I read Salman Rushdie's Midnight's Children around the same time, and again though there were many things I missed and did not understand, it challenged me, made me think, made me want to read it again to understand it.. why shouldn't children be challenged with books that they cannot completely understand? doesn't this help them grow, learn, expand their horizons.. if we only give them what is "safe" how do they grow? what Mortal said is entirely correct...

[islandclimber]

With Mortal and Stlukes, all the snobish elite of this forum have posted here. The marble tower is just complete.

:lol: :thumbs_up

[Drkshadow03]

Arms, and the man I sing, who, forc'd by fate,
And haughty Juno's unrelenting hate,
Expell'd and exil'd, left the Trojan shore.
Long labors, both by sea and land, he bore,
And in the doubtful war, before he won
The Latian realm, and built the destin'd town;

Now is the winter of our discontent
Made glorious summer by this sun of York;
And all the clouds that lour'd upon our house
In the deep bosom of the ocean buried.
Now are our brows bound with victorious wreaths;
Our bruised arms hung up for monuments;
Our stern alarums chang'd to merry meetings,
Our dreadful marches to delightful measures.

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way—in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.

Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.


Well I did. Huckleberry Finn and Alice in Wonderland are still two of my favorite books.


I read The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn four times when I was a child. I enjoyed it thoroughly each time. However, it wasn't until I read it again as an adult that I realized it was supposed to be funny. I got a couple of pages in and I was laughing so hard I fell down pounding the ground with my fists, holding my sides, and crying. Those parts where Huck Finn says he'd rather go to hell than heaven, or where Jim embellishes on his lie, or the parodies of women's romance are beautiful examples of comedy.


I know you think the books are worthwhile entertainment, and as entertainment I have nothing against them. What bothers me is when teachers use them in the classroom. Quintilian was of the opinion that children should read morally instructive books when learning their grammar and practicing their reading skills. In that way they learn two valuable things at once. If our youths are not to read The Wind in the Willows, Little Women, Aesop's Fables, Tarzan of the Apes, The Jungle Book, Grimm's Fairy Tales, Treasure Island, etc, I'd rather they read History books, The Bible, or something useful to their minds in the formative years of their lives.

I think that every book is a children's book if the child knows how to read. Children crave structure, mythologies, and a coherent world philosophy in order to form a cultural identity. If we do not give it to them, they will construct one for themselves out of whatever pop culture symbols are around them. They crave art and we pawn them off with comic books and cartoons. They want music and we give them Britney Spears. We get the society we deserve.


I read both sci fi/fantasy and classics, but The Song of Ice and Fire, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, and World War Z have really cut into my Cicero, Horace, Virgil, Ovid, and Tacitus this year. There's only so many hours in the day.


My mother reads between 1 and 3 books a day. She's read every crummy harlequin romance and vampire mystery novel in the world. I'm always telling her, "If I could read as fast as you, I'd put it to some use." But I read so slow that every single one has to count, or I'll die without knowing anything.


I held it truth, with him who sings
To one clear harp in divers tones,
That men may rise on stepping-stones
Of their dead selves to higher things.

Books: the other gateway drug. Like yourself, I began reading with genre fiction. I seem to recall JBI having a similar story with a revelation about Eugene Onegin when he was 16 or so.

Points well taken. I am not saying Harry Potter is up there with those fine works of literature; I am saying it is pretty good in its own right, though. I have no problem with teacher's using Harry Potter because it can be a jumping off point to talking about those deeper issues in more capable hands. One tactic that has spread through school libraries is to pair up YA novels and "great" literature novels with similar themes and topics as a way of getting children into those works and being able to make comparisons between literature.

I mean don't get me wrong. I would love for more children and young adults to be interested in classical literature. Since StLukes brought him up I am a big fan of E.D. Hirsch who I discovered through Camille Paglia. Unfortunately teachers are usually incompetent, students resistant, and abilities and interests all over the place between individuals.

I know what you mean about only so much time. We are all going to die without knowing much about anything. One thing working in an academic library taught me was how little everyone really knows when one considers the vast breadth of human knowledge in all fields, you see walls upon walls of books, whole areas of knowledge I would never understand beyond the basics (engineering and a lot of the sciences). It's daunting.

[wessexgirl]

I agree with this completely as well.. I remember my mother reading me David Copperfield and Oliver Twist when I was 6 or 7... I was reading Twain and Carrol and Dickens when I was 8 or 9, and I read Crime and Punishment for the first time when i was 12, and I thoroughly enjoyed it, though I will admit of course there were many things I did not understand, but that just challenged to read more, to learn more, to try to understand... in contemporary literature I read Salman Rushdie's Midnight's Children around the same time, and again though there were many things I missed and did not understand, it challenged me, made me think, made me want to read it again to understand it.. why shouldn't children be challenged with books that they cannot completely understand? doesn't this help them grow, learn, expand their horizons.. if we only give them what is "safe" how do they grow? what Mortal said is entirely correct...

You are all talking from the perspective of being willing and able readers. I know from experience as a librarian that not all children want to read. If you can engage their interest in a book, you;re halfway there. I have nothing against what you're saying with regards to good and challenging literature, but there are loads of kids out there who can barely read. If HP grabs their interest, and draws them in, then all the better. I see kids every day who struggle to read and write, and your condecension towards what should be a pleasure, the reading of a book, is staggering. Try giving Twain, Carroll or Dickens to someone who can barely read, and watch them be turned off literature forever.

[Zee.]

Hmm, there has been a bit of talk about His Dark Materials in this thread..

Anyone who knows anything about His Dark Materials, that is.. anyone who has read all 3, will know that on the surface, they appear to be books for "children", when in actual fact, their content, the issue of "dust" is aimed at adults.

[islandclimber]

You are all talking from the perspective of being willing and able readers. I know from experience as a librarian that not all children want to read. If you can engage their interest in a book, you;re halfway there. I have nothing against what you're saying with regards to good and challenging literature, but there are loads of kids out there who can barely read. If HP grabs their interest, and draws them in, then all the better. I see kids every day who struggle to read and write, and your condecension towards what should be a pleasure, the reading of a book, is staggering. Try giving Twain, Carroll or Dickens to someone who can barely read, and watch them be turned off literature forever.

I have no problem with Harry Potter being the starting point for a love of literature, I'm sure it has been for some... but the point is that Rowling is singled out for acclaim for getting a generation reading (Meyer too) when to be honest I don't think she has.. Kids read when I was a kid in the early 90s too, there just wasn't one overwhelmingly popular book, there were a bunch of cheap, poorly written books, and some of those kids went from there into more substantial works.. it is no different now, the advent of Harry Potter hasn't increased the number of kids reading, nor has it increased the number who go on to read good literature it has jsut consolidated readership into one novel.. and is that a good thing? the lack of diversity in what young people read (whether it is mediocre or not)? I would say no...

also the last few Harry Potter books are aimed at the 14-18 audience, and that audience, at least in the developed world will not be struggling to read, not if they have gone to school for the last 10 years... they'll have read more difficult and better than Harry Potter by that point.. so again it comes down to, that Harry Potter is just mindless entertainment, and I have no problem with people reading it, in fact I'm happy for them, whatever anyone wants to do for entertainment is perfectly fine in my books.. just don't try to say there is something inherently beneficial in the act of reading regardless of what one is reading... maybe when we are 6-8 and learning to read simple, mediocre writing has a benefit of teaching us vocabulary, etc. but at 14-18 reading Harry Potter provides no benefit besides escape and entertainment..

[mortalterror]

I think that every book is a children's book if the child knows how to read. Children crave structure, mythologies, and a coherent world philosophy in order to form a cultural identity. If we do not give it to them, they will construct one for themselves out of whatever pop culture symbols are around them. They crave art and we pawn them off with comic books and cartoons. We get the society we deserve.

Mortal! I don't think you've posted anything here that I've agreed with more. Have you been reading Roger Shattuck and E.D. Hisch? Sorry... just a little "educationese".

No, I've just read StLukesGuild's old posts in the education forum and was paraphrasing from memory.

[islandclimber]

Bloom on Harry Potter:

So I went round to the Yale bookstore and purchased an inexpensive paperback copy of the first volume. I could not believe what was in front of me. What I particularly could not bear was that it was just one cliché after another. In fact, I kept a little checklist on an envelope next to me, and every time any individuals were going, as you or I might say, to take a walk, they were going to "stretch their legs." At the fiftieth or sixtieth stretching of the legs, that was too much for me.

I wrote the piece, and it was published. It is not an exaggeration to say that all hell indeed broke loose. The editor called me ten days later and said, "Harold, we've never seen anything like this before. We have received over four hundred letters denouncing your piece on Harry Potter. We've received one favorable letter, but we think you must have written it." I said, "No, I assure you."

It never stopped. The damn piece was reprinted all over the world, in all languages. I will never hear the end of it. But of course, the Harry Potter series is rubbish. Like all rubbish, it will eventually be rubbed down. Time will obliterate it. What can one say?

and a link to the Wall Street Journal Article

http://wrt-brooke.syr.edu/courses/205.03/bloom.html

[Zee.]

Say what you want about Harry Potter, kids do enjoy it and kids are reaching out for other books because of it. The proof is in the pudding, I was one of them.

From the age of 12/13 I went from Rowling to Faulkner. I'm pretty sure that i'm not the only one.

You can't' adequately critique the series without putting your own personal prejudice about it, aside.

[islandclimber]

According to a study by Alan Sorensen at Stanford University, "In 1994, over 70 percent of total fiction sales were accounted for by a mere five authors." There's not much reason to think that things have changed. As Albert Greco of the Institute for Publishing Research puts it: "People who read fiction want to read hits written by known authors who are there year after year."

this is for those who say starting on Potter often leads to better literature... if 5 or so authors account for 70% of total fiction sales each year, and these are authors like Stephen King, Danielle Steele, JK Rowling... well where are these people that are supposedly being inspired by Harry potter to read better things?


I'd like to think that this is a romantic return to youth, but it looks like a bad case of cultural infantilism. And when we're not horning in on our kids' favorite books, most of us aren't reading anything at all. More than half the adults in this country won't pick up a novel this year, according to the National Endowment for the Arts. Not one. And the rate of decline has almost tripled in the past decade.

all from this article

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/13/AR2007071301730_pf.html

all I'm saying is Ms Rowling and her Harry Potter have not changed anything at all...

[Drkshadow03]

this is for those who say starting on Potter often leads to better literature... if 5 or so authors account for total fiction sales each year, and these are authors like Stephen King, Danielle Steele, JK Rowling... well where are these people that are supposedly being inspired by Harry potter to read better things?

all from this article

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/13/AR2007071301730_pf.html

all I'm saying is Ms Rowling and her Harry Potter have not changed anything at all...

The article didn't say that. It said 5 writers made up 70% of total fiction sales. Naturally, the Harry Potter readers went on to read the other 30% of the profits that was spread among the hundreds of other writers released in 1994. ;)

[islandclimber]

haha oops ,my mistake.. I forgot to put in the 70%... and yes I know the date, but I doubt things have changed. in fact with less people reading now, and the massive readership of Harry Potter, it may be even worse...

[Drkshadow03]

haha oops ,my mistake.. I forgot to put in the 70%... and yes I know the date, but I doubt things have changed. in fact with less people reading now, and the massive readership of Harry Potter, it may be even worse...

My point is actually that the publishing industry has been like this for awhile now. A few authors make all the money for the publishers, so they can publish the rest of their catalogue of Mid-list writers. Ironically, it is the heavy sales of those other writers that let publishers experiment by publishing newer writers.

[islandclimber]

My point is actually that the publishing industry has been like this for awhile now. A few authors make all the money for the publishers, so they can publish the rest of their catalogue of Mid-list writers. Ironically, it is the heavy sales of those other writers that let publishers experiment by publishing newer writers.

yes, it is a sad state of affairs is it not? that no one reads good contemporary literature... I mean reading of the classics is slowly decreasing and that is bad enough, but reading of quality contemporary literature is virtually non-existent...

[JCamilo]

Points well taken. I am not saying Harry Potter is up there with those fine works of literature; I am saying it is pretty good in its own right, though. I have no problem with teacher's using Harry Potter because it can be a jumping off point to talking about those deeper issues in more capable hands. One tactic that has spread through school libraries is to pair up YA novels and "great" literature novels with similar themes and topics as a way of getting children into those works and being able to make comparisons between literature.


oh, I am really sorry. For a second I thought you are talking about a work which opening sentece could even show distintic and original voice (altough the obvious Tim Hunter copy that Harry Potter is, but anyways) and you even showed a few lines that proved beyond doubt all this. But now that you made clear that Jeannie the Geenie and Harry Potter fill the same spot, I can sleep in a more confortable bed.

[Paulclem]

also the last few Harry Potter books are aimed at the 14-18 audience, and that audience, at least in the developed world will not be struggling to read, not if they have gone to school for the last 10 years..

This is a massive assumption about the developed world. Governments struggle to improve literacy rates all the time.

the advent of Harry Potter hasn't increased the number of kids reading, nor has it increased the number who go on to read good literature it has jsut consolidated readership into one nove

I'm not sure how you could know this. It's a pity that the HP series hasn't come out now because a lot of the kids just read the internet.

As for cliche ridden - it's only a cliche if you have read the other stuff.

[JuniperWoolf]

Say what you want about Harry Potter, kids do enjoy it and kids are reaching out for other books because of it. The proof is in the pudding, I was one of them.

From the age of 12/13 I went from Rowling to Faulkner. I'm pretty sure that i'm not the only one.

You can't' adequately critique the series without putting your own personal prejudice about it, aside.

Your not the only one, I was the same. I agree with you 100%. Read my post at the top of the second page of the Dumbing Down thread.

[Joreads]

Bloom on Harry Potter:

So I went round to the Yale bookstore and purchased an inexpensive paperback copy of the first volume. I could not believe what was in front of me. What I particularly could not bear was that it was just one cliché after another. In fact, I kept a little checklist on an envelope next to me, and every time any individuals were going, as you or I might say, to take a walk, they were going to "stretch their legs." At the fiftieth or sixtieth stretching of the legs, that was too much for me.

I wrote the piece, and it was published. It is not an exaggeration to say that all hell indeed broke loose. The editor called me ten days later and said, "Harold, we've never seen anything like this before. We have received over four hundred letters denouncing your piece on Harry Potter. We've received one favorable letter, but we think you must have written it." I said, "No, I assure you."

It never stopped. The damn piece was reprinted all over the world, in all languages. I will never hear the end of it. But of course, the Harry Potter series is rubbish. Like all rubbish, it will eventually be rubbed down. Time will obliterate it. What can one say?

and a link to the Wall Street Journal Article

http://wrt-brooke.syr.edu/courses/205.03/bloom.html

I wrote this in another thread but it stands here as well. We wonder why as kids grow they stop reading. Everytime they pick up a book and enjoy it there those around them that cannot wait to tell them that it is rubbish I think I would have stopped reading as well if every time I did someone made fun of my choices.

[TheFifthElement]

... but the point is that Rowling is singled out for acclaim for getting a generation reading (Meyer too) when to be honest I don't think she has..
No, possibly not. But she has had people queuing in their droves at midnight to buy a book. Organised parties have been arranged around the release of the book. When else has that ever happened? Regardless of the merits or demerits of the Potter series, it has shown that reading is not a geeky underground activity but something that you can celebrate and get excited about, and that in itself raises the profile of reading as an activity. If that prompts a few more kids into reading, and if it prompts a few of those kids into reading a bit more then what's the problem?

Of course if you want to improve literacy rates then your route has to be via the parents. But I doubt you'll get more kids reading by sneering at the books they read and enjoy.

[stlukesguild]

Since StLukes brought him up I am a big fan of E.D. Hirsch who I discovered through Camille Paglia.

Hirsch makes some strong arguments about the nature of "progressive" or "liberal" education. His book, The Schools We Need (And Why We Don't Have Them) builds off the thinking of Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Communist philosopher imprisoned by Mussolini:

"The new concept of schooling is in its romantic phase, in which the replacement of “mechanical” by “natural” methods has become unhealthily exaggerated. Previously pupils at least acquired a certain baggage of concrete facts. Now there will no longer be any baggage to put in order. The most paradoxical aspect of it all is that the new type of school is advocated as being democratic, while in fact it is destined not merely to perpetuate social differences but crystallize them in Chinese complexity."

Hirsch argues persuasively that it is not the elitists or conservatives or those who demand a high level of standards of education, but rather the very liberal/progressive educational strategies that are aimed at bringing democracy and egalitarianism to the masses that are the fault of education's failings. Hirsch argues this in spite of being quite the liberal himself. He recognizes that the liberal/progressive attempts at multiculturalism and the refusal to recognize that certain people, certain historical figures, certain artists/writers/musicians, certain ideas, etc... are far more important to the larger culture than others. As a result, there are no set national standards (and I am speaking of American schools, here) and teachers are often left guessing as to just what should be taught and when. Without such standards it is the students who are most at risk... the poor and the minorities and those having yet to have mastered English... who are most penalized.

[stlukesguild]

With Mortal and Stlukes, all the snobish elite of this forum have posted here. The marble tower is just complete.

Ah... and yet where is the real snobbishness to be found. Among those who demand a certain standard... or in those who exhibit a degree of anti-intellectualism and sneer at anything which makes demands upon or challenges the intellect, or achieves a high standard? Hmmm... By the way, JCamilo... I've never really known you to be anti-elitist yourself considering the books you generally discuss.:confused:

[Paulclem]

In the UK we have a national qualification - GCSE - which demands a study of Shakespeare by kids at 14-16. This is a clear attempt to keep Shakespeare in the forefront of the literary consciousness of kids. I think this is a laudable attempt, but puts many off Shakespeare. It works both ways.

[Paulclem]

Baz Luhrmann tried to bring the modern audience to Romeo and Juliet by employing modern cinematic techniques alongside the text. I think this example typifies the difficulty faced by youngsters when encountering Shakespeare. It takes time to absorb the language and meaning. It takes time to be trained in reading the text.

The Luhrmann film was difficult to watch with the cinematic pyrotechnics combined, with speech that needs to be savoured and reflected on. The kids are leaning at the speed of knots today - using the internet etc, yet skills for reading Shakespeare and other classics require development that takes time.

[stlukesguild]

You are all talking from the perspective of being willing and able readers. I know from experience as a librarian that not all children want to read. If you can engage their interest in a book, you;re halfway there. I have nothing against what you're saying with regards to good and challenging literature, but there are loads of kids out there who can barely read. If HP grabs their interest, and draws them in, then all the better. I see kids every day who struggle to read and write, and your condecension towards what should be a pleasure, the reading of a book, is staggering. Try giving Twain, Carroll or Dickens to someone who can barely read, and watch them be turned off literature forever.

The question, however, is will Harry Potter... or any mediocre bit of childrens' literature really lead to a desire in the child to read more and more challenging works? If the child (and later the adult) ends up never reading anything more than Dan Brown, Rowling, pulp fiction and romance novels is this really better than not reading at all? As an educator I have a problem with the notion that we need to "entertain" the students (the terminology used is "we must engage the child" but it means the same thing. When we are dealing with students who never read at home... whose parents never read... who spend all of their time being bombarded with the instant gratification and sensory input that is afforded by i-pods, the internet, video games, television, DVDs, etc... reading... thinking... learning can all seem a bit boring.

[stlukesguild]

Say what you want about Harry Potter, kids do enjoy it and kids are reaching out for other books because of it. The proof is in the pudding, I was one of them.

From the age of 12/13 I went from Rowling to Faulkner. I'm pretty sure that i'm not the only one.

You can't' adequately critique the series without putting your own personal prejudice about it, aside.

Certainly, it does happen. I read my own share of lite-lit: science fiction and fantasy and ghost stories... but I was also led to Tom Sawyer, Huckleberry Finn, Edgar Allen Poe, Dickens, Emily Dickinson, Homer, Faulkner, Hemingway, Steinbeck, etc... at home and at school. Part of the role of education is to provide continuity, and the structure of standards. Every student will rebel against this to a degree. That is only natural. With time, the motivated students will discover many more possibilities than were first offered in their education... and again, that is fine. One begins, however, with a firm foundation. Without it, one is at a serious disadvantage and there is a lot of catching up to do.

[stlukesguild]

yes, it is a sad state of affairs is it not? that no one reads good contemporary literature... I mean reading of the classics is slowly decreasing and that is bad enough, but reading of quality contemporary literature is virtually non-existent...

But I question just whether the audience for the classics really has shrunk. What percentage of the population of Victorian England or Renaissance France or Italy could even read... let alone read classic literature. The great works of literature are quite often admittedly challenging. For some those challenges are stimulating and the pleasure gained more than worth the effort. For others... well a video game or TV sit-com is far less taxing. I do feel, however, that education and the media have largely abandoned their support of great art. The old cartoons and TV shows frequently featured the music of Beethoven, Liszt, Mozart, and Rossini... even opera... as well as the popular music (jazz) of the day. Contemporary writers such a Hemingway, Steinbeck, Frost, even Faulkner were at one time far more recognized or known to the public before the public were bombarded by the seduction of the mass media. So do the media have no responsibility except to the ledger books?

[Drkshadow03]

oh, I am really sorry. For a second I thought you are talking about a work which opening sentece could even show distintic and original voice (altough the obvious Tim Hunter copy that Harry Potter is, but anyways) and you even showed a few lines that proved beyond doubt all this. But now that you made clear that Jeannie the Geenie and Harry Potter fill the same spot, I can sleep in a more confortable bed.

I know somewhere in there you actually had a point. Still searching for it. I'll let you know if I find something besides the obvious red herring fallacy (the fact that Harry bears similarities to Gaiman's Tim Hunter has any bearing on the distinctness and originality of the prose style how exactly?)




The question, however, is will Harry Potter... or any mediocre bit of childrens' literature really lead to a desire in the child to read more and more challenging works? If the child (and later the adult) ends up never reading anything more than Dan Brown, Rowling, pulp fiction and romance novels is this really better than not reading at all? As an educator I have a problem with the notion that we need to "entertain" the students (the terminology used is "we must engage the child" but it means the same thing. When we are dealing with students who never read at home... whose parents never read... who spend all of their time being bombarded with the instant gratification and sensory input that is afforded by i-pods, the internet, video games, television, DVDs, etc... reading... thinking... learning can all seem a bit boring.

I think we answered that with anecdotal evidence from multiple members. Harry Potter and other works can lead to people picking up more challenging works. I think it best to think of it like this: if it encourages even one person to continue reading, just one, who might not have otherwise then that's a good thing. I also know a person who went the opposite path now that I think of it. The blogger at OF blog of the Fallen (http://ofblog.blogspot.com/) read through most of the major "realist" classics in college, and now reads exclusively speculative fiction (with a few exceptions).

As far as your comments about people continuing to read Rowling or Dan Brown or such instead of reading High Brow Lit, this borders on the condescending. Mostly, who cares? After all, you're talking about my parents and friends and people I know online (I know people who ONLY read genre fiction). They aren't better or worse people for it. They live meaningful lives. They aren't moping around complaining that there is a major void missing because of the lack of literature and high art. They have strong vocabularies. They are a success in their careers, and live a good life. They simply have different reasons for reading or have different interests. It is no coincidence that a lot of higher ED people with science degrees (a Ph. D. in physics, biology, etc.) are often interested in Sci-fi.

Also, we need to remember, and this isn't directed specifically at you, that these best-sellers aren't being created by a population of mindless zombies who merely buy what the advertising tells them to rather than also considering their own tastes. After all, the best-sellers don't appeal to the same audiences. I suspect most people who buy and are interested in the kind of fiction Stephen King writes are not necessarily interested in the kind of fiction Danielle Steel writes. So Danielle Steel fans aren't the same as Stephen King fans, though like in everything I'm sure there are some people out there who like both writers. These genres appeal to very different audiences. My dad and mom who love James Patterson and Tom Clancy would never touch Stephen King (because horror doesn't interest them, but high-tech international thrillers and crime fiction does). So there is no one mainstream American audience all buying the SAME popular books; these often come from different segments of the population.

[qimissung]

I think Fifth put the argument concerning the merits of reading Harry Pottervery succinctly.

I read recently that reading encourages the development of the brain because it is only in that activity that one pauses to think, to reflect, which does not happen when one watches a movie or television. So it would seem that the very act of reading is beneficial. Of course kids are not going to receive these benefits unless they are actually reading, and this is where reading for enjoyment comes in.

I personally like Harry Potter; I think they are highly imaginative, and probably not very literary. I don't care. I read them all, and was on the proverbial edge of my seat the entire time.

I do find it a little ironic that kids found something they enjoyed reading and adults immediately began to make movies about these books, ensuring they would never again have to bother with reading them.

[JCamilo]

I know somewhere in there you actually had a point. Still searching for it. I'll let you know if I find something besides the obvious red herring fallacy (the fact that Harry bears similarities to Gaiman's Tim Hunter has any bearing on the distinctness and originality of the prose style how exactly?)

There is no point, really. I just find ironic that you managed to combine the argument that HP is a harmless enterteiment and that in a few lines you posted you could find "The opening has a lot of character, a touch of the comical, a well-defined voice, works well with the tone of the world and upcoming story. The opening is even kind of memorable." ...
Well, maybe it is me. When I think with a opening with a lot of chracters, Tales of Two Cities came to my mind, a touch of comical I will think about Voltaire, a well-defined voice, I will consider Dostoievisky, and a memorable opening scene well, maybe I will get Lusiadas.
But really, you maybe playing the devil advocate, but either Harry is so qualificated or just harmless enterteiment...

[JCamilo]

With Mortal and Stlukes, all the snobish elite of this forum have posted here. The marble tower is just complete.

Ah... and yet where is the real snobbishness to be found. Among those who demand a certain standard... or in those who exhibit a degree of anti-intellectualism and sneer at anything which makes demands upon or challenges the intellect, or achieves a high standard? Hmmm... By the way, JCamilo... I've never really known you to be anti-elitist yourself considering the books you generally discuss.:confused:

:D I was being ironic, after all I am snobbish, elitist, arrogant, etc,etc,etc... It came with the package.

I think the problem in this argument is that posters who are readers are saying that HP is leading to extra reading. My question is if they would not read anything else despite HP? I am sure Little Prince, Narnia, Star War Novels, etc have kept some people active. But there is any evidence that the absence of any of those books would cause damage? Wouldn't the readers of Stephen King live with Anne Rice or Clive Baker anyways?
(Of course that is just dimissing the real factors that lead people to read, education, family influence, access to books, social incentive).
They just assume: People read HP now, so they will read something after this. Of course, in most countries the reading ratio diminish after the "student years", so even if we do not consider HP, we would be lying to say that our cultures are able to keep the reading interest... But no, HP have magic...

[islandclimber]

I wrote this in another thread but it stands here as well. We wonder why as kids grow they stop reading. Everytime they pick up a book and enjoy it there those around them that cannot wait to tell them that it is rubbish I think I would have stopped reading as well if every time I did someone made fun of my choices.


No, possibly not. But she has had people queuing in their droves at midnight to buy a book. Organised parties have been arranged around the release of the book. When else has that ever happened? Regardless of the merits or demerits of the Potter series, it has shown that reading is not a geeky underground activity but something that you can celebrate and get excited about, and that in itself raises the profile of reading as an activity. If that prompts a few more kids into reading, and if it prompts a few of those kids into reading a bit more then what's the problem?

Of course if you want to improve literacy rates then your route has to be via the parents. But I doubt you'll get more kids reading by sneering at the books they read and enjoy.

But this is just absurd.. where is all this negativity to be found about what kids read? a few random post on an Internet forum with 60,000 members, a literature critic that most Potter readers have never heard of, and probably never will? Most Harry Potter readers, or readers of other such junk, will rarely, maybe even never, hear a negative comment about their beloved series, for even their parents apparently read these books as the latest books sold more copies to adults than to children... where are these kids finding people sneering at their book choices, criticizing the obviously stylistically poor writing they read.. no instead we reinforce them with the belief that writers like Rowling are good, if not great writers, as evidenced by the fact JK Rowling was voted the best living British writer and received more than 3 times the votes of her nearest competitor... and the rare dissenter to the crowning of these mediocre writers is castrated, and sent packing by the vast majority... so tell me, where are all these kids who will quit reading because a few people tell the truth about what is good or bad writing?

maybe though, we should empower a generation to proclaim mediocrity superior...

[JCamilo]

Yeah, because the youth will always do as some elders tell them to do, after all, they are mindless drones.
And of course, Never before a book or author was sucessful among a certain group and bashed by the critics; so ,it is new. We are destroying culture.

[Drkshadow03]

But this is just absurd.. where is all this negativity to be found about what kids read? a few random post on an Internet forum with 60,000 members, a literature critic that most Potter readers have never heard of, and probably never will? Most Harry Potter readers, or readers of other such junk, will rarely, maybe even never, hear a negative comment about their beloved series, for even their parents apparently read these books as the latest books sold more copies to adults than to children... where are these kids finding people sneering at their book choices, criticizing the obviously stylistically poor writing they read.. no instead we reinforce them with the belief that writers like Rowling are good, if not great writers, as evidenced by the fact JK Rowling was voted the best living British writer and received more than 3 times the votes of her nearest competitor... and the rare dissenter to the crowning of these mediocre writers is castrated, and sent packing by the vast majority... so tell me, where are all these kids who will quit reading because a few people tell the truth about what is good or bad writing?

maybe though, we should empower a generation to proclaim mediocrity superior...

Wait, so most Potter fans will never hear about dissenting critical opinions, but somehow will castrate these dissenting critics they've never heard of . . .

@JCamillo: Not all critics bashed Potter. Only some. Others have had favorable opinions of Potter. There is no such thing as critical consensus, and well, shouldn't be. For example take your whining about the LOTR movie in the other thread. Most critics gave favorable reviews to LOTR. People shouldn't be bound by critical opinion one way or the other.

[islandclimber]

Wait, so most Potter fans will never hear about dissenting critical opinions, but somehow will castrate these dissenting critics they've never heard of . . .

@JCamillo: Not all critics bashed Potter. Only some. Others have had favorable opinions of Potter. There is no such thing as critical consensus, and well, shouldn't be. For example take your whining about the LOTR movie in the other thread. Most critics gave favorable reviews to LOTR. People shouldn't be bound by critical opinion one way or the other.

well actually I said rarely, but you seem to not have noticed...and regardless on the rare occasions Potter fans hear the truth about the books, that however entertaining the storyline may be they are very poorly written, they act outraged as though no one should criticize their modern bible, and proclaim Rowling a very skilful writer, a prose master.. hahahahahah..

and actually almost all critics bashed the latest Potter books... only the first couple (aimed at younger children and not at the young adult audience of the last ones) received generally favorable criticism...

[Drkshadow03]

well actually I said rarely, but you seem to not have noticed...and regardless on the rare occasions Potter fans hear the truth about the books, that however entertaining the storyline may be they are very poorly written, they act outraged as though no one should criticize their modern bible, and proclaim Rowling a very skilful writer, a prose master.. hahahahahah..

and actually almost all critics bashed the latest Potter books... only the first couple (aimed at younger children and not at the young adult audience of the last ones) received generally favorable criticism...

That's true you did. My mistake. I would point out that there is a difference between critics who write for popular magazines (newspapers, New Yorker, The Atlantic Monthly, etc.), and academic critics who write for scholarly journals. Though there is some overlap like in the case of Harold Bloom.

There have been many academic critics who have had favorable reviews of Potter and written genuine literary criticism analyzing the deeper issues to be found in Harry Potter. Of course, one needs to take this with a grain of salt as Popular Culture criticism is big these days and a legit form of academic inquiry. Is is also necessary to write about the next big thing simply for the sake of treading on unplowed ground instead of trying to find something new to say about a well-established classic that has been written about hundreds of thousands of times. So we shouldn't forget that as well. Nevertheless, I have read some of this criticism and some of the arguments are convincing and treat Harry Potter in a serious critical light as they would Shakespeare. This doesn't mean they are arguing that it is as good or equal to Shakespeare; it merely means they are treating it as a serious work and analyzing themes, motifs, genre, settings, characters, etc.

I could see Harry Potter lingering as a Children's Lit classic. But we'll see.

[Mathor]

Well all I know for sure, is that the Harry Potter movies have had generally outstanding reviews, and if you would like me to back this up i can show you where my research comes from. I tend to follow film critics, and have never really known of many places that compiles the criticism of recent books (other than obviously going to one or two critics you like, the most biased way)

I do not think J.K Rowling is an amazing author, and I do not think that the Harry Potter books are great works of literature, but they are certainly entertaining, they are certainly charming, and they are certainly not 'trash'. Just as many people consider Dickens' novels to be trash, I think it is certainly just a matter of opinion. I enjoy Austen, the majority of the males on this forum can't really get into Austen. I enjoy Steinbeck, I have heard many on this forum who enjoy good literature but hate Steinbeck. I think it is certainly a matter of taste. I do not think that there is a way to define what is good and what is not good, except on the matter of taste. I know everyone agrees with me, but their bias intercepts their judgement.

[islandclimber]

and to be honest, whatever Bloom says or any other more academic critic, I see Harry Potter lasting as a children's lit classic, although I don't agree with this...

But this is a two edged sword, for if we decide to treat Harry Potter in a serious critical work then we have to discuss it's obvious poverty of style, the fact it's extremely cliche-ridden, and many other negative features of Rowling's writing, regardless of how entertaining the stories may be at first appearance.. if we were to actually hold Harry Potter up to the same magnifying glass that we have held great works of literature up to, it would not stand up, it would be torn apart as vastly inferior and mediocre work.. sorry, but this really can't be argued, for even in the category of young adult literature it fails to even come close to the greats of that category... maybe the first book or two, written for 6-9 year olds still learning to read better, and more critically in that age group Rowling's writing is suitable to receive somewhat favourable criticism, to maybe last.. but the later books written for a much older audience are vastly inferior to so many works already there, and so many contemporary works that go no light shed upon them...

[Mathor]

and to be honest, whatever Bloom says or any other more academic critic, I see Harry Potter lasting as a children's lit classic, although I don't agree with this...

But this is a two edged sword, for if we decide to treat Harry Potter in a serious critical work then we have to discuss it's obvious poverty of style, the fact it's extremely cliche-ridden, and many other negative features of Rowling's writing, regardless of how entertaining the stories may be at first appearance.. if we were to actually hold Harry Potter up to the same magnifying glass that we have held great works of literature up to, it would not stand up, it would be torn apart as vastly inferior and mediocre work.. sorry, but this really can't be argued, for even in the category of young adult literature it fails to even come close to the greats of that category... maybe the first book or two, written for 6-9 year olds still learning to read better, and more critically in that age group Rowling's writing is suitable to receive somewhat favourable criticism, to maybe last.. but the later books written for a much older audience are vastly inferior to so many works already there, and so many contemporary works that go no light shed upon them...

I'd like you to present me with one serious journalist who has described Harry Potter as a 'serious literary work' or a 'classic' or one that should be taught in classrooms.

[Drkshadow03]

Well all I know for sure, is that the Harry Potter movies have had generally outstanding reviews, and if you would like me to back this up i can show you where my research comes from. I tend to follow film critics, and have never really known of many places that compiles the criticism of recent books (other than obviously going to one or two critics you like, the most biased way)

Rotten Tomato? :lol:

Here is the thing though. At the end of the day the viewpoints of critics are just an educated opinion, but opinion is still the keyword. They've been trained to look for certain elements (techniques, innovation, cinematography in the case of movies or prose style in the case of literature), have seen a lot of the particular medium to help make comparisons with other films, books, etc. and judge how the particular work in question stacks up, and have read other critical views of older works giving them a sense of history of the medium. Nevertheless, no one is bound by the critical opinion of any individual critic. I think people sometimes forget that critics are not speaking from on high delivering the verdict of G-d. Not to mention many times critics don't agree with each other's assessments.

People should judge the arguments themselves, not the authority of the individual speaking. They also shouldn't be afraid to stand by their own critical judgements and tastes, even when it goes against certain mainstream critics' views.

[Mathor]

Rotten Tomato? :lol:

Here is the thing though. At the end of the day the viewpoints of critics are just an educated opinion, but opinion is still the keyword. They've been trained to look for certain elements (techniques, innovation, cinematography in the case of movies or prose style in the case of literature), have seen a lot of the particular medium to help make comparisons with other films, books, etc. and judge how the particular work in question stacks up, and have read other critical views of older works giving them a sense of history of the medium. Nevertheless, no one is bound by the critical opinion of any individual critic. I think people sometimes forget that critics are not speaking from on high delivering the verdict of G-d. Not to mention many times critics don't agree with each other's assessments.

People should judge the arguments themselves, not the authority of the individual speaking. They also shouldn't be afraid to stand by their own critical judgements and tastes, even when it goes against certain mainstream critics' views.

Well exactly, I think all mainstream critics are becoming pretty terrible these days, but I was simply refuting the argument that somehow Harry Potter is frowned upon by serious critics, this is not the case. If you do not like Harry Potter, you should look not at Harry Potter or Twilight, but the people who are giving these books/movies perfect scores.

I do not follow critics to make my decision, but I know that many people on here do, which is why that has been the main structure of all the arguments on here.

I've certainly never once tried to stand up for Harry Potter. I do however stand up against bias and people shoveling their opinions as fact, to try to find some 'moral' reason why people should see their opinion.

[islandclimber]

I'd like you to present me with one serious journalist who has described Harry Potter as a 'serious literary work' or a 'classic' or one that should be taught in classrooms.

umm read drkshadow's post above mine, I was responding to it.. and the suggestion in it that Harry Potter needed to be looked at as a "serious work" and in the same "serious critical light" as we would look at Shakespeare...

[Mathor]

umm read drkshadow's post above mine, I was responding to it.. and the suggestion in it that Harry Potter needed to be looked at as a "serious work" and in the same "serious critical light" as we would look at Shakespeare...

I just feel that whether or not critics like Harry Potter, none of them see it as something that will withstand 50-100 years. It's a good read for a summer day, but it certainly wont be remembered many many many years from now. I don't think any critics think it is a work that has that kind of literary significance, and i've not heard one critic who suggested it so.

[Drkshadow03]

I just feel that whether or not critics like Harry Potter, none of them see it as something that will withstand 50-100 years. It's a good read for a summer day, but it certainly wont be remembered many many many years from now. I don't think any critics think it is a work that has that kind of literary significance, and i've not heard one critic who suggested it so.

"I side with those who believe that the Harry Potter series not only deserves the attention it is getting because of its imaginative qualities and compelling storyline, but also because of its "adult" literary merits. I will argue here that the Harry Potter series fits well into "the great tradition" of British novels that is still taught in college classrooms, beginning with Samuel Richardson, continued by Jane Austen, and culminating in the efforts of Charlotte Brontë and Charles Dickens." - Paige Byam, from "Children's Literature or Adult Classic? The Harry Potter series and the British Novel Tradition." The Washington and Jefferson Review, Issue 54 (Fall 2004).

"The aggressive marketing . . . also describes a critical problem: the novels and the hype become intertwined, resulting in analyses that fail to take into account the full complexity of either. Because Harry Potter is both a marketing phenomenon and a literary phenomenon, critical conflation of the two does not really advance the understanding of the marketing apparatus or the books themselves. . . . First of all, conflating the books with the marketing fails to produce a sufficiently sophisticated analysis of the latter. Second, such critical conflation leads some critics to overlook the novels' considerable literary achievements." - Philip Nel, "Is There a Text in this Advertising Campaign?: Literature, Marketing, and Harry Potter." The Lion and the Unicorn 29.2 (2005). (emphasis mine).

Now that's not exactly them saying it will last 100 years from now, but there are critics who will argue that Potter has literary merits. To be honest I have no idea if Potter will stand the test of time or even twenty years from now. Then again I don't believe you or anyone else on this board really knows either. Only time will tell.

[stlukesguild]

The Luhrmann film was difficult to watch with the cinematic pyrotechnics combined, with speech that needs to be savoured and reflected on...

The Baz Luhrman film was difficult to watch because it was crap.:sick:

[JCamilo]

And really, I am not saying anything about the critics. I am laughing the idea that critical attacks will affect the reading habits to the point people would stop reading because of them. If they are under such influence, the logic was not they will stop reading - they will stop reading HP and read what the critic offer.
Yes, I expect people to stop reading HP and start reading Proust, Joyce and Shakespeare because of Harold Bloom.

[islandclimber]

And really, I am not saying anything about the critics. I am laughing the idea that critical attacks will affect the reading habits to the point people would stop reading because of them. If they are under such influence, the logic was not they will stop reading - they will stop reading HP and read what the critic offer.
Yes, I expect people to stop reading HP and start reading Proust, Joyce and Shakespeare because of Harold Bloom.

this was my point too!!! ;) and the fact that children and most of the adults reading Harry potter are never going to read a little article by Harold Bloom in the Wall Street Journal..

you put it much better though... :)

[stlukesguild]

The question, however, is will Harry Potter... or any mediocre bit of childrens' literature really lead to a desire in the child to read more and more challenging works? If the child (and later the adult) ends up never reading anything more than Dan Brown, Rowling, pulp fiction and romance novels is this really better than not reading at all? As an educator I have a problem with the notion that we need to "entertain" the students (the terminology used is "we must engage the child" but it means the same thing. When we are dealing with students who never read at home... whose parents never read... who spend all of their time being bombarded with the instant gratification and sensory input that is afforded by i-pods, the internet, video games, television, DVDs, etc... reading... thinking... learning can all seem a bit boring.

I think we answered that with anecdotal evidence from multiple members.

C'mon. You know that anecdotal evidence is an oxymoron.

Harry Potter and other works can lead to people picking up more challenging works. I think it best to think of it like this: if it encourages even one person to continue reading, just one, who might not have otherwise then that's a good thing.

Undoubtedly there are more than a few who reading habits began with the dirty bits written in porno mags. So we should promote this as well? I am not questioning whether a child... or even an adult... should be encouraged to read Harry Potter if that is what he or she desires. I do question, however, the merit of promoting such in an educational setting.

I also know a person who went the opposite path now that I think of it. The blogger at OF blog of the Fallen read through most of the major "realist" classics in college, and now reads exclusively speculative fiction (with a few exceptions).

As far as your comments about people continuing to read Rowling or Dan Brown or such instead of reading High Brow Lit, this borders on the condescending. Mostly, who cares? After all, you're talking about my parents and friends and people I know online (I know people who ONLY read genre fiction). They aren't better or worse people for it. They live meaningful lives. They aren't moping around complaining that there is a major void missing because of the lack of literature and high art. They have strong vocabularies. They are a success in their careers, and live a good life. They simply have different reasons for reading or have different interests.

How is it condescending? Great literature is an elective affinity. You choose to read it or you don't. It has nothing whatsoever to do with your intellect or your likelihood of success in life. That is but a red herring typically employed as a means of undermining the opinions of those who have made the choice and the effort to explore literature. Just dismiss us as elitist snobs. Yet the same notion of elitism applies to each and every field of human endeavor. "Elitism", as I employ the word, denotes "those whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight..." Those who have engaged in a "rigorous study of, or great accomplishment within, a particular field... display a long track record of competence in a demanding field; or a high degree of accomplishment, training or wisdom within a given field." There are those who are elitists/experts (use whatever term you will) in math, science, sports, art, history, film, cars, rock and roll, bluegrass, jazz, opera, etc... etc... You, yourself, present yourself as something of an expert on science fiction. I have little doubt that you would be quick to point out cliches of a particularly mediocre or poor work of science fiction and probably would be equally quick to question the opinions of someone (like myself) who is a novice is the field (at best). At least I suspect such would be your response were I or someone else to come upon a science fiction writing discussion board and begin making statements about the imagined merits of some less than brilliant science fiction writers.

[islandclimber]

The Luhrmann film was difficult to watch with the cinematic pyrotechnics combined, with speech that needs to be savoured and reflected on...

The Baz Luhrman film was difficult to watch because it was crap.:sick:

but what is to be expected of Baz Luhrman? he is a crap director.. the terrible Romeo and Juliet, Australia and the vastly overrated Moulin Rouge, Strictly Ballroom...

it will be interesting to see if he can destroy The Great Gatsby as I have heard this is his next project?

[JBI]

but what is to be expected of Baz Luhrman? he is a crap director.. the terrible Romeo and Juliet, Australia and the vastly overrated Moulin Rouge, Strictly Ballroom...

it will be interesting to see if he can destroy The Great Gatsby as I have heard this is his next project?

Lets just hope he doesn't cast Mia Farrow.

[stlukesguild]

And really, I am not saying anything about the critics. I am laughing the idea that critical attacks will affect the reading habits to the point people would stop reading because of them. If they are under such influence, the logic was not they will stop reading - they will stop reading HP and read what the critic offer. Yes, I expect people to stop reading HP and start reading Proust, Joyce and Shakespeare because of Harold Bloom.

I can't say I put much store by what literary critics or theorists have to say. Certainly, I have read a bit... and I will even admit that a few... such as Samuel Johnson, Walter Pater, William Hazlitt, etc... are artists in their own right... and worthy of reading... but the vast majority are caught up in their own esoteric and hermetic worlds that have little to do with why I read... which is something far closer to Virginia Woolf's ideal of the not-so-common "common reader".

[islandclimber]

yes, it is a sad state of affairs is it not? that no one reads good contemporary literature... I mean reading of the classics is slowly decreasing and that is bad enough, but reading of quality contemporary literature is virtually non-existent...

But I question just whether the audience for the classics really has shrunk. What percentage of the population of Victorian England or Renaissance France or Italy could even read... let alone read classic literature. The great works of literature are quite often admittedly challenging. For some those challenges are stimulating and the pleasure gained more than worth the effort. For others... well a video game or TV sit-com is far less taxing. I do feel, however, that education and the media have largely abandoned their support of great art. The old cartoons and TV shows frequently featured the music of Beethoven, Liszt, Mozart, and Rossini... even opera... as well as the popular music (jazz) of the day. Contemporary writers such a Hemingway, Steinbeck, Frost, even Faulkner were at one time far more recognized or known to the public before the public were bombarded by the seduction of the mass media. So do the media have no responsibility except to the ledger books?

I just noticed this post... but I agree completely.. even in the last 20 years since my early childhood, the media has slowly abandoned references to "high" art.. I remember watching Merry Melodies when I was a little kid and seeing Bugs Bunny interact with Pavarotti and others... the animated movie Fantasia... but I do think the media carry a large responsibility for the dumbing down of the art they promote to the public... oh well... although the literacy rates were vastly lower in Victorian England or Renaissance France and England, I would say the percentage of those who read "good" literature out of the population that read was extremely high.. whereas now this percentage is miniscule.. plus the fact that recent studies show 50 % of American Adults won't read a single novel this year, well how high is literacy now then? or is it just functional literacy that is high?

[JCamilo]

I think most good critics are those who are also good writers. Harold Bloom would be much better if he had the talent of, lets say, Borges. So, Borges can say Shakespeare is the center of the canon writing a short story about his memmory. Instead of writing an essay (and we are talking about a great essay writer) he shows, not tell.
But I doubt there is any sheep that keep reading an author because a critic says so. Most likely the critics just point out some unknow name, forgotten work, etc and the rest the reader will do as he wishes.

[islandclimber]

Lets just hope he doesn't cast Mia Farrow.

or Mira Sorvino!

[Drkshadow03]

C'mon. You know that anecdotal evidence is an oxymoron.

In what way is anecdotal evidence an oxymoron? I am basing it, of course, on my own experiences as both a librarian in a public school and my own teenage years in which I took that very path. Experiences allow us to make generalizations about the world (read your Aristotle). It is not all that far-fetched to believe that if I went from Star Wars and Wheel of Time to Shakespeare and Faulkner, others did and will as well.


Undoubtedly there are more than a few who reading habits began with the dirty bits written in porno mags. So we should promote this as well? I am not questioning whether a child... or even an adult... should be encouraged to read Harry Potter if that is what he or she desires. I do question, however, the merit of promoting such in an educational setting.

This is a false analogy. You're comparing pornography to Harry Potter, give me a break. Harry Potter could make good educational material if done correctly; that also doesn't mean the students cannot read other books as well.


How is it condescending?

Let’s see what you wrote and what I was responding to:

“If the child (and later the adult) ends up never reading anything more than Dan Brown, Rowling, pulp fiction and romance novels is this really better than not reading at all?”

So you’re seriously suggesting that it may be better to read nothing at all than for an adult to only read Dan Brown, Rowling, pulp fiction, and romance novels, thus implying they are wasting their time, and you cannot figure out how that is condescending?

Condescending (from dictionary.com):

showing or implying a usually patronizing descent from dignity or superiority

Your words fit the definition perfectly. Moving on . . .



Great literature is an elective affinity. You choose to read it or you don't. It has nothing whatsoever to do with your intellect or your likelihood of success in life. That is but a red herring typically employed as a means of undermining the opinions of those who have made the choice and the effort to explore literature. Just dismiss us as elitist snobs.

Funny, I don’t remember calling you or anybody an elitist snob. Thanks for playing the Victomhood card ™. Nevertheless, this is not a red herring because my comments directly relate to your question about whether people who read non-Canonical literature should bother reading. I answered with factors that were relevant, especially since you put it in question form (even though slightly rhetorical); basically, I answered the question by noting that reading “great” Literature and reading only Dan Brownish works hasn’t affected the quality and success in their life, and they take pleasure in those books, so I see no reason that reading nothing is better than reading some kind of novel.


Yet the same notion of elitism applies to each and every field of human endeavor. "Elitism", as I employ the word, denotes "those whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight..." Those who have engaged in a "rigorous study of, or great accomplishment within, a particular field... display a long track record of competence in a demanding field; or a high degree of accomplishment, training or wisdom within a given field." There are those who are elitists/experts (use whatever term you will) in math, science, sports, art, history, film, cars, rock and roll, bluegrass, jazz, opera, etc... etc... You, yourself, present yourself as something of an expert on science fiction. I have little doubt that you would be quick to point out cliches of a particularly mediocre or poor work of science fiction and probably would be equally quick to question the opinions of someone (like myself) who is a novice is the field (at best). At least I suspect such would be your response were I or someone else to come upon a science fiction writing discussion board and begin making statements about the imagined merits of some less than brilliant science fiction writers.

See now a red herring would be going on a long rant about how you define elitism, which bears no relation to the original question of why you think reading nothing might be better than reading Dan Brown or Stephen King, especially when no one has called you an elitist.

[islandclimber]

In what way is anecdotal evidence an oxymoron? I am basing it, of course, on my own experiences as both a librarian in a public school and my own teenage years in which I took that very path. Experiences allow us to make generalizations about the world (read your Aristotle). It is not all that far-fetched to believe that if I went from Star Wars and Wheel of Time to Shakespeare and Faulkner, others did and will as well.

so what? that is a small minority and in my opinion would have progressed into good literature regardless of what they began with.. I started with Twain, Carrol, Dickens, London, Crane, and others... but at the same time I read Wheel of Time and Tom Clancy when I was a kid... they provided a different kind of entertainment for me at that age, but I have no illusions about these books having provided any educational benefit for me...




This is a false analogy. You're comparing pornography to Harry Potter, give me a break. Harry Potter could make good educational material if done correctly; that also doesn't mean the students cannot read other books as well.

pornography could be used as educational material as well, disregarding the offensive content, if we are to include poorly written literature in education... reading Harry Potter in school is basically telling kids that mediocre writing is good...



Let’s see what you wrote and what I was responding to:

“If the child (and later the adult) ends up never reading anything more than Dan Brown, Rowling, pulp fiction and romance novels is this really better than not reading at all?”

So you’re seriously suggesting that it may be better to read nothing at all than for an adult or whoever to only read Dan Brown, Rowling, pulp fiction, and romance novels, thus implying they are wasting their time, and you cannot figure out how that is condescending?

Condescending (from dictionary.com):

showing or implying a usually patronizing descent from dignity or superiority

Your words fit the definition perfectly. Moving on . . .




Funny, I don’t remember calling you or anybody an elitist snob. Thanks for playing the Victomhood card ™. Nevertheless, this is not a red herring because my comments directly relate to your question about whether people who read non-Canonical literature should bother reading. I answered with factors that were relevant, especially since you put it in question form (even though slightly rhetorical); basically, I answered the question by noting that reading “great” Literature and reading only Dan Brownish works hasn’t affected the quality and success in their life, and they take pleasure in those books, so I see no reason that reading nothing is better than reading some kind of novel.



See now a red herring would be going on a long rant about how you define elitism, which bears no relation to the original question of why you think reading nothing might be better than reading Dan Brown or Stephen King, especially when no one has called you an elitist.

the point isn't that these people would be better off reading nothing, or that they should read nothing, it is that there is no difference between reading junk, and reading nothing... if they want to read this, that is fine by me, and I'm sure fine to anyone, but when this "mediocrity" is put forward as good literature, pushes better books off the shelf, makes them harder to find in bookstores, well then it is becoming a problem... but I really could care less what people read for pleasure... but it provides no benefit besides entertainment and pleasure, if all adults read is junk. and therefore this is exactly the same as if they read nothing at all, and did something else for entertainment...

lots of people who read nothing at all are "successes" in life too, so I don't see what that has to do with anything...

[JBI]

I don't know - the first things I really recall reading - besides the Bible and my book of children's literature (which is still, surprisingly enough, a pretty darn good collection of Children's literature) were young adult books geared toward girls. Very little stuck of course, but I think some of it leaked onto my reading sensibilities, and definitely helped my understanding of gender in texts - but that isn't the point though, in all honesty, I'm an accidental reader, in the sense that when I just started high school, I wasn't even functionally literate in English (I still don't punctuate properly on the first go, as many of you can see) - I came to it by absolute chance, that I happened to read a copy of Onegin and think, hey, this stuff is pretty damn good.

What would have happened, for instance, if someone gave me that sort of stuff as a kid - well, I come from an immigrant family, so in all honesty I was never really brought up in this "Dickens, Carol, Rossetti, MacDonald" vein - I don't even recall actually being read to as a child, much less in English.

If someone gave me, for instance, a copy of Caitlin Sweet, or Ursula K. Leguin as a child, I probably would have been a better reader for it - the Narnia books that I got as a present when I was a child though, didn't even phase me - perhaps that's an idiosyncracy, and a weird personal taste - who knows - certainly getting exposure to some poetry before high school would have saved me quite a few hours, though, in all honesty, my grade 9 English teacher knew less about Blake's A Poison Tree than I know about Quantum Physics. Everything just sort of happened, and it most certainly would not have happened if I read that Lemony Snickett stuff, or that Dan Brown stuff, or even that Potter (stuff, I know, the Potters didn't phase me) as a kid, and surely that Leonardo di Caprio Romeo and Juliet movie from the 90s (and got is it ever 90s!) film didn't inspire much either when it was shown in class.

[Drkshadow03]

so what? that is a small minority and in my opinion would have progressed into good literature regardless of what they began with.. I started with Twain, Carrol, Dickens, London, Crane, and others... but at the same time I read Wheel of Time and Tom Clancy when I was a kid... they provided a different kind of entertainment for me at that age, but I have no illusions about these books having provided any educational benefit for me...

A small minority is still SOME people. Simple math. Better to attract 1 person or 0 people? What evidence do you have that the same people would have progressed onto good literature regardless? Although you might have started with Twain, Carrol, Dickens, and such, that doesn't mean every reader was ready for them at that age. I definitely wasn't ready for any of those authors.


pornography could be used as educational material as well, disregarding the offensive content, if we are to include poorly written literature in education... reading Harry Potter in school is basically telling kids that mediocre writing is good...

No, since you don't teach kids aesthetics at a young age, but rather focus on teaching them vocabulary, reading strategies, a love/enjoyment of reading, parts of a story (plot, setting, characters, protagonists), and maybe start getting them to think about the deeper issues found in a book. Of course, it also depends what age group you're talking about: huge difference between how you would approach a third grader compared to a ninth grader.


the point isn't that these people would be better off reading nothing, or that they should read nothing, it is that there is no difference between reading junk, and reading nothing... if they want to read this, that is fine by me, and I'm sure fine to anyone, but when this "mediocrity" is put forward as good literature, pushes better books off the shelf, makes them harder to find in bookstores, well then it is becoming a problem... but I really could care less what people read for pleasure... but it provides no benefit besides entertainment and pleasure, if all adults read is junk. and therefore this is exactly the same as if they read nothing at all, and did something else for entertainment...

I rarely see anyone put forward mediocre books as good literature since the moment they put forward a book as good literature they are making the claim that it isn't mediocre, now aren't they? By "mediocre" you really mean books YOU personally consider mediocre, which is fine. Entertainment and pleasure has value in itself. If you think they should go play a video game or watch a movie to be entertained, then you at least recognize entertainment and pleasure has some value, even if lesser value than education. Still, we could continue with your logic: why would you watch a movie rather than play a video game? Based off what we already said about entertaining books it doesn't matter which you do. Why eat pizza over Mexican food? Hell, if you're going to read "crap" books why read Science Fiction instead of Romance? Why play basketball instead of baseball, they are both sports aren't they? Answer those questions and figure out what they have in common and you have your answer why one might choose to read for entertainment than just playing a video game. Besides, I am pretty sure reading Dan Brown keeps your vocabulary sharper than most video games.

Still we can easily figure out if entertainment has any value. Which would you prefer: a) a book that is boring and deep or b) a book that is entertaining and deep. They have the same level of depth in this hypothetical.


lots of people who read nothing at all are "successes" in life too, so I don't see what that has to do with anything...

But I'm sure most of them read something at some point, even if it was Harry Potter or Stephen King, which allowed them to maintain a certain level of literacy, since most "successful" jobs requires one to be functionally literate. The point being that reading Great literature or not reading it really does nothing to support or work against the quality of someone's life, unless of course they already have a passion for that type of literature. Also, Stluke situated his argument in a rant about methods of education and the difficulty of teaching kids brainwashed on video games and the internet.

He wrote: “The question, however, is will Harry Potter... or any mediocre bit of childrens' literature really lead to a desire in the child to read more and more challenging works? If the child (and later the adult) ends up never reading anything more than Dan Brown, Rowling, pulp fiction and romance novels is this really better than not reading at all? As an educator I have a problem with the notion that we need to "entertain" the students (the terminology used is "we must engage the child" but it means the same thing. When we are dealing with students who never read at home... whose parents never read... who spend all of their time being bombarded with the instant gratification and sensory input that is afforded by i-pods, the internet, video games, television, DVDs, etc... reading... thinking... learning can all seem a bit boring.”

It’s not clear what he means to do with the last lines. Still, he does pretty much equate reading, thinking, and learning. The point is adults who spend their time reading so-called candy can still learn fine and dandy. Literature just ain’t their thang.

[TheFifthElement]

But this is just absurd.. where is all this negativity to be found about what kids read?

I think you're spreading it. The discussion is hardly nurturing is it? Have you heard yourself?


Most Harry Potter readers, or readers of other such junk,


where are these kids finding people sneering at their book choices, criticizing the obviously stylistically poor writing they read..


maybe though, we should empower a generation to proclaim mediocrity superior...

Wow. No sneering or negativity there. Why don't you try this out? Direct that diatribe in person to the next 13 year old you see reading one of the Harry Potter books and see how it encourages them to read Alice in Wonderland.

And you're nowhere near as unique as you think you are. How many other Harry Potter threads have been hijacked by the Potter haters on this forum alone. Do you really think that isn't replicated elsewhere? And just look back to post 5 on this thread:


Please no more of these Harry Potter threads. Didn't we put the last one to rest?

The thread hadn't even got going before someone came in championing thread censorship. What a wonderful, positive, all inclusive world we live in. Surely, if you don't want to discuss it it's easy enough to stay out of the threads?

And isn't it funny how these Potter threads are most heavily frequented by those who claim it's not worth talking about?

[Paulclem]

"The Baz Luhrman film was difficult to watch because it was crap."

But did it fulfil the remit of bringing Shakespeare to a more visually orientated youth market? I think it was an interesting experiment which on the whole doesn't work because of the disparity of the script and film conventions. Crap or not, you're missing the point. How are modern teens to be encouraged into a deeper reading of classics like Shakespeare? How is the dumbing down to be addressed?

[Zee.]

It is news to me that Harry Potter is being studied in schools. I find it a little bit odd if this is the case..

to my knowledge, most schools cover a pretty good standard of literature

To Kill a Mockingbird
The Great Gatsby
Animal Farm
Of Mice and Men
Hard Times
Great Expectations
Washington Square
D.H Lawrence - The Fox, The Ladybird, The Captain's Doll
Jane Eyre
Romeo and Juliet
Macbeth
Twelfth Night
Hamlet
Pride and Prejudice
Sense and Sensibility

^ plus a few more that i've forgotten, were all covered at school for me

[Zee.]

edit - .

[Zee.]

Geez, reading through some of my posts, I sounded like a dumb cracker

[Joreads]

Geez, reading through some of my posts, I sounded like a dumb cracker

Lim you sound find to me. Here is something to get everyone going. Twilight is also being studied in schools now.

[JCamilo]

A small minority is still SOME people. Simple math. Better to attract 1 person or 0 people? What evidence do you have that the same people would have progressed onto good literature regardless? Although you might have started with Twain, Carrol, Dickens, and such, that doesn't mean every reader was ready for them at that age. I definitely wasn't ready for any of those authors.

I wish to see this hypothetical 1 people and see if he reads only because of HP. I doubt so, but I would not waste my time thinking in millions and using 1 person for statistics. I know a guy who drives drunk and never hit his car, but that does not not encourage me to say that 1 drunk driver proves that alchool and wheels work together.

I see you like to use the guideline text for internet debate: red herring, strawman,etc (Found it mostly in the sci-fic forums, very usual when Trekkies are debating with Warsies. Pointless of course) but arguments are not going to be helpful, not ours, if there is not an evidence of how Harry Potter impact in literature is helping to increase the number of readers while compared to other decades. The number of HP fans only show that they are already readers, not that became or will stay reading after HP.
And yes, I do not care about schools using HP. I am aware worst books were used before. But I care little for what others tell me to read, so bleh to the lists provided by schools. Yet, the main function of schools should be presenting options and Harry Potter is already supported by a massive cultural industry. Instead of adding one option, those schools are just going by what is popular and that is very negative.

[Zee.]

Okay, i will defend Harry Potter to a point..
it's great fluff, good entertainment, good story lines etc

but the thought of it being studied in schools makes me worried...


TWILIGHT TOO? WHAT THE HELL?

[Niamh]

Lim you sound find to me. Here is something to get everyone going. Twilight is also being studied in schools now.

Artemis Fowl is on the Junior Cert Curriculum here in Ireland along side, To Kill a Mocking Bird, Lord of the Flies, Goodnight Mr Tom, The Silver Sword, The Hobbit, Under the Hawthorn Tree, The Iron Man, Huckleberry Finn, Catch 22 and that other book i always forget, and plenty others... I think its all about show a broad spectrum of genres and finding works to appeal to all students.

[Drkshadow03]

Okay, i will defend Harry Potter to a point..
it's great fluff, good entertainment, good story lines etc

but the thought of it being studied in schools makes me worried...


TWILIGHT TOO? WHAT THE HELL?

English 440: Harry Potter's Library: J. K. Rowling, Texts and Context. (http://www.k-state.edu/english/nelp/rowling/s2003.html) (Kansas State University)

English 444: Harry Potter and the Curse of International Fame (http://rai.iweb.bsu.edu/444pottersyllabus.html). (Ball State University)

English 349: Fantasy (online course at University of Washington) (http://www.onlinelearning.washington.edu/ol/intros/engl349/)


English 2991: Harry Potter and Folk Tale Patterns (http://www.gdn.edu/Faculty/rhonda_w/English%202991%20syll%2008.htm) (Gordon College)

Lit 137: Harry Potter: Literary Allusion, Children's Literature, and Popular Culture (http://www.emich.edu/public/english/childlit/litr137fall07.html) (Eastern Michigan University)

Special Topics Grad Course: LITR 592: Harry Potter and Cultural Studies (http://www.emich.edu/public/english/childlit/gradhp.html) (Eastern Michigan University)

Introduction to Children's Literature. (http://www.emich.edu/public/english/childlit/207win06.html) (Eastern Michigan University)

* Apparently Eastern Michigan has a Children's Literature program.

Symbols and Archetypes in Children's Literature (http://english.clas.asu.edu/files/anilsen-spring09_childlitculturalsyll.pdf). (Arizona State University).

ENG 2004: Exploring Fantasy Worlds (http://faculty.mville.edu/perretm/Fantasy.htm). (Manhattenville College)

There are plenty of others. I make no judgement one way or the other in this particular post about whether they should or shouldn't be taught at the university. All I am demonstrating here is that they are being studied.


-----------------------------------------------------------------

I wish to see this hypothetical 1 people and see if he reads only because of HP. I doubt so, but I would not waste my time thinking in millions and using 1 person for statistics. I know a guy who drives drunk and never hit his car, but that does not not encourage me to say that 1 drunk driver proves that alchool and wheels work together.

I see you like to use the guideline text for internet debate: red herring, strawman,etc (Found it mostly in the sci-fic forums, very usual when Trekkies are debating with Warsies. Pointless of course) but arguments are not going to be helpful, not ours, if there is not an evidence of how Harry Potter impact in literature is helping to increase the number of readers while compared to other decades. The number of HP fans only show that they are already readers, not that became or will stay reading after HP.
And yes, I do not care about schools using HP. I am aware worst books were used before. But I care little for what others tell me to read, so bleh to the lists provided by schools. Yet, the main function of schools should be presenting options and Harry Potter is already supported by a massive cultural industry. Instead of adding one option, those schools are just going by what is popular and that is very negative.

Funny I thought it was called basic logic 101. Logical Fallacies do not end an argument. People are more than welcome to restate their arguments in a non-fallacious way and continue. Why should I waste my time arguing with faulty reasoning? Your line of reasoning itself is a red herring and even has a touch of guilt by association. Oh no those unwashed unsophisticated nerds on Star Trek sites use logic not like us literary people! And how does pointing out that I am calling out fallacious reasoning of others when necessary, especially when I still am clearly rebutting their actual points, progress this conversation in any way?

Besides, this really hasn't been much of a debate, more like a one-sided massacre.

As for your first point it may be true that 1 person (although this was an exaggeration for the sake of comparing a negative to a positive) is statistically insignificant. Nevertheless, that's one more person who will be reading and eventually reading so-called "good" literature that wasn't doing so before. Again, which is better 1 or 0? A Positive or a negative? Who cares if we are talking about 100 new readers, 1,000 new reader, a 1,000,000 new readers, or 1 new reader. You're certainly not arguing Harry Potter stops people from reading, are you? So even 1 new reader is just that 1 new person who might not have been reading otherwise. For people who are so concerned about Americans not reading, you'd think you would be happy about anyone you could get. Your argument doesn't work because I was never making a statistical argument.

It is also true that Harry Potter alone doesn't make some one a reader. Again never made that specific argument. I've said books for entertainment can be a kind of "gateway drug" to reading "better" stuff. Of course, they need to enjoy the next book and then the next. There is no real reason to think otherwise.

If I had not read Star Wars, Goosebumps, etc. my vocabulary and reading speed and sense of following narrative and such would've gone to crap. I also never would've developed a love for reading (as I enjoyed those books and it encouraged me to read more). If someone had forced me to read "good" novels I clearly wasn't ready for then there is a good chance I would've found reading to be just another chore and been turned off by the whole venture. It's precisely that I got to read Star Wars, Goosebumps, and such that tickled my imagination, extended stories I was already interested in, that I continued reading and exploring newer stuff. Why anyone thinks I would magically have decided to pick up Shakespeare at the age of 21 if I hadn't been reading all along, even so-called crap, is beyond me. This is pretty much commonsense. It's also commonsense or inductive reasoning if you prefer that others must have taken a similar path as me into literature.

[JCamilo]

There is a considerable difference between being studyied at some university (or several) or being used in schools while teaching literature to young people.

[stlukesguild]

In what way is anecdotal evidence an oxymoron?

Its a bit like "military intelligence, isn't it? OK... perhaps its closer to JCamilo's anecdote of the alcoholic who frequently drives drunk but has never had an accident. Such is not PROOF of anything... certainly not PROOF that driving drunk is not dangerous or irresponsible. A personal anecdote or two about how Harry Potter turned you on to reading (or how the porno stories turned someone else on... in more ways than one) to reading is certainly not PROOF that Harry Potter (or porno) promotes reading. I doubt that any school curriculum designer would insist that we add Harry Potter to the curriculum based upon hearsay that one or two kids admit that the novels turned them on to reading... but then again... school curriculum designers have been known to do stupider stuff than that.

This is a false analogy. You're comparing pornography to Harry Potter...

No... its not a false analogy... its just taken to a logical/illogical extreme. Certainly there is someone out there who will suggest that almost any book turned him or her on to reading. We don't base decisions for what should be taught in school upon such anecdotes. Going to the opposite extreme Harold Bloom declares that he became enthralled with poetry at age 12 by continually reading Hart Crane. I doubt that would be a good basis upon which to select what is read or taught in school. Most college kids struggle with Crane.

Quote SLG-How is it condescending?

Let’s see what you wrote and what I was responding to:

“If the child (and later the adult) ends up never reading anything more than Dan Brown, Rowling, pulp fiction and romance novels is this really better than not reading at all?”

So you’re seriously suggesting that it may be better to read nothing at all than for an adult to only read Dan Brown, Rowling, pulp fiction, and romance novels, thus implying they are wasting their time, and you cannot figure out how that is condescending?

Quote SLG- Great literature is an elective affinity. You choose to read it or you don't. It has nothing whatsoever to do with your intellect or your likelihood of success in life. That is but a red herring typically employed as a means of undermining the opinions of those who have made the choice and the effort to explore literature. Just dismiss us as elitist snobs.

Funny, I don’t remember calling you or anybody an elitist snob. Thanks for playing the Victomhood card ™.

OK... let me get this straight. I ask how reading Dan Brown, Harry Potter, Twilight, or some other commercial schlock is better than not reading at all and that immediately makes me "condescending" and obviously insulting to your mother, Aunt Bea and cousin who never read classics but have successful and fulfilled lives. In other words it is OK to suggest that reading great literature may not be necessary... but it is somehow condescending to ask whether reading at all is necessary or whether reading schlock is inherently better than reading nothing at all? As for victimization and calling someone an "elitist snob" it would seem that the ploy of suggesting that by merely asking whether reading only schlock was better than not reading at all is somehow akin to insulting your mother and other friends and family who never read the classics pretty much succeeds at both of those at once... although I'll admit that it was not you who used the exact term "elitist snob".

[stlukesguild]

Wow. No sneering or negativity there. Why don't you try this out? Direct that diatribe in person to the next 13 year old you see reading one of the Harry Potter books and see how it encourages them to read Alice in Wonderland.

And you're nowhere near as unique as you think you are. How many other Harry Potter threads have been hijacked by the Potter haters on this forum alone.

What you call negativity may just be criticism based upon experience. On a sight frequented by any number of posters who do take literature seriously it is only to be expected that not every comment is going to be "Gee, great! I loved it too." This applies to the "classics" and to challenging Modern and Contemporary literature, as well. There have been arguments over the merits of the Bible, Hemingway, and James Joyce, among others. I might also point out that negativity is a two-way street. I can't tell you the number of disparaging comments made about the Bible, James Joyce, Moby Dick, William Faulkner, John Milton, etc... without the least bit of intelligent argument offered to suggest why we should consider the opinions. Just a lot of "I didn't like it," and "It sucks." Then JBI gets attacked when he offers up a well thought out analysis of what he perceives as the weaknesses of harry Potter and he is immediately an elitist snob?

[Drkshadow03]

Yes, because my anecdote shows direct evidence of an individual who continued reading because they read whatever non-Canonical literature, thus it promoted reading for a single individual. Since individuals make up any given population, it is reasonable to believe others have followed a similar path based on observation. Basic inductive reasoning. As for your Bloom comment, it is also reasonable to believe others have gone on to read good literature by reading dense poetry. This part of my argument has nothing to do with whether we should teach Potter in school or not, but rather whether Harry Potter encourages some readers to keep on reading and develop a love of books.

I've elaborated on this three posts up:

"It is also true that Harry Potter alone doesn't make some one a reader. Again never made that specific argument. I've said books for entertainment can be a kind of "gateway drug" to reading "better" stuff. Of course, they need to enjoy the next book and then the next. There is no real reason to think otherwise.

If I had not read Star Wars, Goosebumps, etc. my vocabulary and reading speed and sense of following narrative and such would've gone to crap. I also never would've developed a love for reading (as I enjoyed those books and it encouraged me to read more). If someone had forced me to read "good" novels I clearly wasn't ready for then there is a good chance I would've found reading to be just another chore and been turned off by the whole venture. It's precisely that I got to read Star Wars, Goosebumps, and such that tickled my imagination, extended stories I was already interested in, that I continued reading and exploring newer stuff. Why anyone thinks I would magically have decided to pick up Shakespeare at the age of 21 if I hadn't been reading all along, even so-called crap, is beyond me. This is pretty much commonsense"

This hits on why JCamillo's false analogy of a drunk driver showing an individual creating a false correlation in their mind that just because they haven't gotten into an accident must mean drinking and driving is safe provides only a superficial correlation. Clearly, drunk driving is dangerous because statistically if you drink you're more likely to get into an accident.

I would agree statistics would suggest that Harry Potter is not the panacea to reading for the overall population that everyone was hoping for, but neither is any book for that matter. The real question is simple: is Harry Potter more likely to stop you from reading than it is to encourage you to read more? This is a simple question with one right answer.

Porn depicts women in a misogynist light that encourages men to beat, rape, and abuse women if we are to believe the most extreme feminist arguments on the topic (this differs a bit from my own perspectives on porno). While Harry Potter might not be the perfect book gender-role wise and at times encourages domesticity, I don't see anything in it that would necessarily promote someone to abuse, dominate and humiliate women. Harry Potter also deals with themes of friendship, love, racism, and rebellion against authority. All themes I hope people can get behind as good. You're against racism right? Porno can often encourage racism (white man brutally dominates black woman in hardcore sex, etc.) World of difference between these two concepts in what they do and promote. If you're incapable of distinguishing the obvious differences between porno and Harry Potter you aren't intelligent enough to engage in a debate with me or differentiate between one work of art from another.

Also reading your comments in this post, I think you're also misunderstanding what I mean by teaching Harry Potter in school. Not to mention you're conflating teaching Potter in school with Harry Potter helps some kids keep on reading. Two different arguments are being discussed in this thread, which are starting to get mixed up.

In school, I envision it more as part of free-reading where the kid still needs to respond to it on the appropriate intellectual level to learn the fundamentals of literature (plot, characters, setting). Or as a title on a summer list of books that they have to read and need to pick multiple titles anyway, which by the way already occurs at a Middle School level.

However, it could be used in a classroom successfully to teach the basics of narrative: character, plot, setting, etc. And get them talking about deeper issues in a way that is far more accessible to the average kid than Mark Twain. Maybe for a fourth or fifth grade class. It could be part of a library book club where the focus is still discussing Potter on a deeper level.

Basically your showing a lack of imagination about the possibilities for employing the book in a school setting. I am certainly not saying we should replace every book with Harry Potter and each year the students should progress by reading the next Harry Potter book, nor does it necessarily need to be used as a part of the curriculum. Though, it could be an optional text for teachers to use from a list of other books.

I haven't tried it out yet, but I suspect I could do wonderful things with Harry Potter to increase student's learning and understanding of literature.

I'm not addressing the rest of your post because it's more victimhood whining and has nothing to do with anything really.

[prendrelemick]

With books like Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings and Twilight, I begin to suspect that Critics of Mr Bloom's ilk have missed a trick. Why are these books so popular? What do people find in them? Not rhetorical questions, I really want to know. The critics "blame" society for just about every publishing phenomenon. This really isn't good enough.

[JCamilo]

Funny I thought it was called basic logic 101. Logical Fallacies do not end an argument. People are more than welcome to restate their arguments in a non-fallacious way and continue. Why should I waste my time arguing with faulty reasoning? Your line of reasoning itself is a red herring and even has a touch of guilt by association. Oh no those unwashed unsophisticated nerds on Star Trek sites use logic not like us literary people! And how does pointing out that I am calling out fallacious reasoning of others when necessary, especially when I still am clearly rebutting their actual points, progress this conversation in any way?

No, if I was a nitpicker I would Falacy of Style over substance because in most arguments you just say it is "Red herring" to dismiss without any explanation. But that is just silly, as Logic 101 is. And I found funny (maybe you are being ironic) to dismiss trekkies and etc while defending Potters. Evidently, my line of reasoning was not even on topic, it was a matter on form.


Besides, this really hasn't been much of a debate, more like a one-sided massacre.

Yes, I agree. So far there is no Evidences of the beneficial changes caused by J.K.Rowling.


As for your first point it may be true that 1 person (although this was an exaggeration for the sake of comparing a negative to a positive) is statistically insignificant. Nevertheless, that's one more person who will be reading and eventually reading so-called "good" literature that wasn't doing so before. Again, which is better 1 or 0?

See, you are too worried with Logic 101, that you do not apply basical logical. Where is the evidence that Harry Potters fans did not read before? In fact, the audience for those books shows that they aim teenagers, meaning those kids are all exposed to book in their schools. So, in fact, you are asking 1 or 1. And God bless the teachers not Harry Potter.



A Positive or a negative? Who cares if we are talking about 100 new readers, 1,000 new reader, a 1,000,000 new readers, or 1 new reader. You're certainly not arguing Harry Potter stops people from reading, are you? So even 1 new reader is just that 1 new person who might not have been reading otherwise. For people who are so concerned about Americans not reading, you'd think you would be happy about anyone you could get. Your argument doesn't work because I was never making a statistical argument.

Them you have no argument. Logic asks for a good support, for example...
When I was 10 years, I read Dante's Comedy. What guided me to Divine Comedy was a Comic Book of this guy:

http://blogs.gamefilia.com/files/imce/u390906/kazar.gif

Obviously, I would argue that what leads People to read Dante is Kazar, the a Tarzan wannabe from Marvel comics. I would suggest, since we may agree that getting everyone reading Dante is caused by Kazar. Italian schools should change all their system of education and enforce the reading of Kazar.
But I know, while I care less for people reading Kazar, I know the reason I am a reader of Dante is not Kazar. I will not argue that. I will not pretend I have strong evidences because of this guy:

http://blogs.gamefilia.com/files/imce/u390906/kazar.gif

Harry Potter does not stop anyone from reading. (Neither critics). But the reffutal here is the almost certainly argument that it helps. We need evidence for that. And if we are talking about developing the necessary traits to deal with most complicated texts, the guy will need something else. Harry Potter is quite simple. It intends to be. As you said it is just fun. So I hope people read HP and something else.


It is also true that Harry Potter alone doesn't make some one a reader. Again never made that specific argument. I've said books for entertainment can be a kind of "gateway drug" to reading "better" stuff. Of course, they need to enjoy the next book and then the next. There is no real reason to think otherwise.

I must point out that I read Divine Comedy for fun. If we consider that a certain work is just enterteiment, then it is so basic that should not be praised. Even Don Quixote will not make someone a reader. Imagine HP.


If I had not read Star Wars, Goosebumps, etc. my vocabulary and reading speed and sense of following narrative and such would've gone to crap. I also never would've developed a love for reading (as I enjoyed those books and it encouraged me to read more). If someone had forced me to read "good" novels I clearly wasn't ready for then there is a good chance I would've found reading to be just another chore and been turned off by the whole venture. It's precisely that I got to read Star Wars, Goosebumps, and such that tickled my imagination, extended stories I was already interested in, that I continued reading and exploring newer stuff. Why anyone thinks I would magically have decided to pick up Shakespeare at the age of 21 if I hadn't been reading all along, even so-called crap, is beyond me. This is pretty much commonsense. It's also commonsense or inductive reasoning if you prefer that others must have taken a similar path as me into literature.

Actually I Would say if wasnt for Star Wars it would be something else. You had freedom, found your path, did your mistakes, developed by yourself, had access to the material, received a proper education. I am sure the fact that I was allowed to enter in my greatfather library and being him a important regional writer had more to do with my pleasure with books than Kazar. But since not everyone have a greatfather that wrote books, I will avoid saying that is the path.

[JCamilo]

With books like Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings and Twilight, I begin to suspect that Critics of Mr Bloom's ilk have missed a trick. Why are these books so popular? What do people find in them? Not rhetorical questions, I really want to know. The critics "blame" society for just about every publishing phenomenon. This really isn't good enough.

They should not answer this because a literary critic do not analyse Marketing or Mass Communication. Bloom does not argue the merits of Shakespeare lies on his sales either.

[JBI]

Wow. No sneering or negativity there. Why don't you try this out? Direct that diatribe in person to the next 13 year old you see reading one of the Harry Potter books and see how it encourages them to read Alice in Wonderland.

And you're nowhere near as unique as you think you are. How many other Harry Potter threads have been hijacked by the Potter haters on this forum alone.

What you call negativity may just be criticism based upon experience. On a sight frequented by any number of posters who do take literature seriously it is only to be expected that not every comment is going to be "Gee, great! I loved it too." This applies to the "classics" and to challenging Modern and Contemporary literature, as well. There have been arguments over the merits of the Bible, Hemingway, and James Joyce, among others. I might also point out that negativity is a two-way street. I can't tell you the number of disparaging comments made about the Bible, James Joyce, Moby Dick, William Faulkner, John Milton, etc... without the least bit of intelligent argument offered to suggest why we should consider the opinions. Just a lot of "I didn't like it," and "It sucks." Then JBI gets attacked when he offers up a well thought out analysis of what he perceives as the weaknesses of harry Potter and he is immediately an elitist snob?

No, I get yelled at because I discuss something other than the text's popularity - the actual text - every time Harry Potter comes up, the best excuse for the text's quality seem to come from outside the text itself - when I talk about the faults I find inside the text, ultimately, my judgment is taken out of context, and is used as a judgment on Harry Potter as seen outside of the text - Harry Potter the brand, if you will - I don't judge the book on its popularity - Marquez is one of the most popular living writers, and I would go as far as to say he deserves an even bigger reputation, and to be brought into the classroom more, in areas other than Latin American Studies, or Latin American literature or whatever.

I would rather people disagree with me and actually read my posts, then just agree with them, because they feel they suit the agenda of "Potter sucks" or "Popular Schlock" or whatever, or even worse just dismiss me for insulting the brand that gets kids reading. All my judgments, ultimately, come from a close reading - though, I will profess, a close reading of Dan Brown is one chapter of one book - there is no reason to go any further there.

Seriously, how much is lost because we can only discuss whether the popularity of Potter is justified, or whether its social utility at getting semi-literate lazy kids to pick up a novel is any worth - why not give some evidence of the texts value from within the text, and not within the brand - I wouldn't, for instance, say T. S. Eliot is a good poet because he got people reading, I would say T. S. Eliot is a good poet, because he wrote good poems, and then I would go into them to explain why - how then, can it be justified that Potter's quality is there, without actually looking into the text, and yes, saying they are entertaining is not really saying anything - porn is entertaining, T. V. is entertaining, that doesn't mean I should discuss the latest new video releases.

As for porn disrespecting women, that is a construct of the genre - they easily could portray men as submissive, and woman is dominant, but the argument against that would be that would make less money, and be less entertaining, and isn't what we want entertainment, not some high brow politically correct... you get the point.

Just because the Potter may have gotten some kids interested in literature does not mean it is a good text, or worthy of literary discussion, or time. In the same way, reading Eliot in highschool may detract some people from reading poetry in the future - does that mean that Eliot is a bad poet?


The popularity of the text does not justify the text. You say you learned to love reading reading things most people cannot consider loveable - does that justify those texts as great works? You cannot prove you wouldn't have learned to love reading reading something more worth loving, so really, such anecdotes hold no ground, as they do not say anything about the text, or about what the effect ways.

The truth is, less people are reading now then ever in certain countries. Whether some kids learned to love Harry Potter is irrelavent, as, quite simply, we cannot say that any more or less people would be reading classics with Harry Potter never having been published - the text did reshape children's literature, and I'd say Children's cinema to an extent, by making it a more lucrative industry, so there is that, but does that mean it helped reading? Did Power Rangers, for instance, lead to American children loving television more, or what about The Brady Bunch, or any other such toss. Should we praise and discuss Pokemon for making kids love TV and Videogames more? Those things are, supposedly, entertaining at any rate, why not praise them.

[Drkshadow03]

Quote from an earlier post: "See now a red herring would be going on a long rant about how you define elitism, which bears no relation to the original question of why you think reading nothing might be better than reading Dan Brown or Stephen King, especially when no one has called you an elitist."

I explain exactly why his comments are a red herring. I explained exactly why your comments were both a red herring and a guilt by association. I always explain why a piece of reasoning is fallacious. Try again! One of these days you'll actually make a coherent argument that sticks!

Your Kazar point does not contradict what I actually said:

Since the crux of my argument is: "It is also true that Harry Potter alone doesn't make some one a reader. Again never made that specific argument. I've said books for entertainment can be a kind of "gateway drug" to reading "better" stuff. Of course, they need to enjoy the next book and then the next. There is no real reason to think otherwise."

It doesn't matter if it is Kazar, Spiderman, Harry Potter, or Goosebumps. The point is to keep kids reading. The fact that you bizarrely believe your actually rebutting what I said by raising that point further indicates you're not even reading what I'm actually writing. Of course people need to read books before Harry Potter, how else would they have developed a strong enough vocabulary to read Harry Potter?

At this point you're merely rehashing the same old arguments that were demolished 50 posts ago. To be honest, it's hard for me to even take you or most the people in this thread seriously anymore other than JBI so unless someone has something new to say I will only be addressing him.

[Paulclem]

The problem of translating young readers from children's books to classics is not a new one. The Victorians came up with the children's genre and Charles and Mary Lamb rewrote Shakespeare for children in order to bridge the difficult language transition that Shakespeare poses for the novice. I don't think we can say that more will read the classics because they read Harry Potter - only that they are more likely to. They are given the tools of reading, but I think classics need study and guidance. It needs good teaching to show the merits of a book beyond an interesting and exciting narrative. I dislike Austin, but a teacher of mine with his enthusiasm and interpretive skills taught me to appreciate Emma, and be in a position to critically judge. First you have to get the kids reading - to understand the basics. To look beyond the text to the influences perhaps, and the tradition that have come together in the book. HP is a simple narrative with good imaginative touches. It does the job it is intended for.

[Drkshadow03]

No, I get yelled at because I discuss something other than the text's popularity - the actual text - every time Harry Potter comes up, the best excuse for the text's quality seem to come from outside the text itself - when I talk about the faults I find inside the text, ultimately, my judgment is taken out of context, and is used as a judgment on Harry Potter as seen outside of the text - Harry Potter the brand, if you will - I don't judge the book on its popularity - Marquez is one of the most popular living writers, and I would go as far as to say he deserves an even bigger reputation, and to be brought into the classroom more, in areas other than Latin American Studies, or Latin American literature or whatever.

I would rather people disagree with me and actually read my posts, then just agree with them, because they feel they suit the agenda of "Potter sucks" or "Popular Schlock" or whatever, or even worse just dismiss me for insulting the brand that gets kids reading. All my judgments, ultimately, come from a close reading - though, I will profess, a close reading of Dan Brown is one chapter of one book - there is no reason to go any further there.

Seriously, how much is lost because we can only discuss whether the popularity of Potter is justified, or whether its social utility at getting semi-literate lazy kids to pick up a novel is any worth - why not give some evidence of the texts value from within the text, and not within the brand - I wouldn't, for instance, say T. S. Eliot is a good poet because he got people reading, I would say T. S. Eliot is a good poet, because he wrote good poems, and then I would go into them to explain why - how then, can it be justified that Potter's quality is there, without actually looking into the text, and yes, saying they are entertaining is not really saying anything - porn is entertaining, T. V. is entertaining, that doesn't mean I should discuss the latest new video releases.

As for porn disrespecting women, that is a construct of the genre - they easily could portray men as submissive, and woman is dominant, but the argument against that would be that would make less money, and be less entertaining, and isn't what we want entertainment, not some high brow politically correct... you get the point.

Just because the Potter may have gotten some kids interested in literature does not mean it is a good text, or worthy of literary discussion, or time. In the same way, reading Eliot in highschool may detract some people from reading poetry in the future - does that mean that Eliot is a bad poet?


The popularity of the text does not justify the text. You say you learned to love reading reading things most people cannot consider loveable - does that justify those texts as great works? You cannot prove you wouldn't have learned to love reading reading something more worth loving, so really, such anecdotes hold no ground, as they do not say anything about the text, or about what the effect ways.

The truth is, less people are reading now then ever in certain countries. Whether some kids learned to love Harry Potter is irrelavent, as, quite simply, we cannot say that any more or less people would be reading classics with Harry Potter never having been published - the text did reshape children's literature, and I'd say Children's cinema to an extent, by making it a more lucrative industry, so there is that, but does that mean it helped reading? Did Power Rangers, for instance, lead to American children loving television more, or what about The Brady Bunch, or any other such toss. Should we praise and discuss Pokemon for making kids love TV and Videogames more? Those things are, supposedly, entertaining at any rate, why not praise them.

I would gladly do a deeper text analysis to explain why I like Harry Potter, think it is worth studying, reading, etc. Unfortunately various arguments got conflated as this thread progressed: Does Harry Potter encourage kids to read?, Is Harry Potter good literature in its own right?, Should Harry Potter be taught in school?, What is appropriate for what kids at what age?

As far as the anecdotes, they do have ground because well I am pretty sure I know myself as a reader at that age and what makes you think I didn't give some of those texts a try. I didn't like Mark Twain in 11th grade, what makes you think I would've liked it in 4th? Now certainly I didn't try every possible text available as that would be impossible, but I have a good sense of what appealed to me and what didn't at that age. I've accepted multiple times in this thread that other kids were more high brow and other kids less so. My attitude as a librarian is you adjust the book to the kid's interest and ability, especially when we are talking about private reading, not force Mark Twain down their throat if they can't handle it and clearly aren't interested. With that said, if a kid could handle Mark Twain, of course you give that particular kid Twain over Rowling.

I am not claiming causation, but rather correlation. If I had stopped reading Goosebumps, Fear Street, Wheel of Time, Cam Jansen, Star Wars, Choose Your Own Adventures, and such, I certainly wouldn't have decided to pick up Mark Twain and Lewis Carrol instead. I would've just spent more time playing video games. It was by reading Goosebumps, Fear Street, etc. that I stayed interested in reading in general, and eventually branched out into those other works. Even your own story of how you eventually came to pick up Eugene Onegin doesn't contradict anything I've said. Again, it's common sense that getting kids to read whatever, especially something they find interesting and entertaining, has a better chance of eventually leading them to read "better" stuff. I am NOT saying it absolutely will. Just that it has a better chance. Why is this basic principle so hard to understand? I am not saying it CAUSED them to start reading, I said there is correlation as it led them to keep exploring more books where they just as easily could've stopped reading altogether.

[JCamilo]

Quote from an earlier post: "See now a red herring would be going on a long rant about how you define elitism, which bears no relation to the original question of why you think reading nothing might be better than reading Dan Brown or Stephen King, especially when no one has called you an elitist."

I explain exactly why his comments are a red herring. I explained exactly why your comments were both a red herring and a guilt by association. I always explain why a piece of reasoning is fallacious. Try again! One of these days you'll actually make a coherent argument that sticks!

You do act like Trekies and Warsies, you even think you are "winning". You waste your time arguing about the elitism stuff (which we are attacked, not exactly by you) and misses the key points of anything, such the absurd lack of evidence to claim that HP produce more writers, and think you ate doing well.



Your Kazar point does not contradict what I actually said:

I had no intention to contradict it. Albeit true, I was using irony, because you defended yourself with "comparing Potter to pornography (altough Sade, Bataile are pornographic and are superior writers than Rowling)" instead of going to the main point raised by Stukles, that your experience does not prove that HP (or any book) can be seriously taken as anything that improve reading. I mocked it with a comic book because I am not jumping to illogical conclusions: the reasons I am a reader are not explained by one experience. Neither yours.


It doesn't matter if it is Kazar, Spiderman, Harry Potter, or Goosebumps.

Yeah, therefore, like I said, it was very easy. It does not matter. Thus it is irrelevant. Any reading will do. If any reading will do, HP is just a fashion of the momment. Will be replaced just like replaced other books. So Stukles have his point: if it is any, why not the better option possible? I am aware the Elit is happy to hear it.



The point is to keep kids reading. The fact that you bizarrely believe your actually rebutting what I said by raising that point further indicates you're not even reading what I'm actually writing. Of course people need to read books before Harry Potter, how else would they have developed a strong enough vocabulary to read Harry Potter?

Then why you wrote this?
"Nevertheless, that's one more person who will be reading and eventually reading so-called "good" literature that wasn't doing so before. Again, which is better 1 or 0?"
You know, 0 means nothing? No doing so before, does not mean they are"of course doing" Are you reading what you are writing?


At this point you're merely rehashing the same old arguments that were demolished 50 posts ago. To be honest, it's hard for me to even take you or most the people in this thread seriously anymore other than JBI so unless someone has something new to say I will only be addressing him.

Meh, so you are a trekie or a warsie?

[islandclimber]

I think you're spreading it. The discussion is hardly nurturing is it? Have you heard yourself?

I'm spreading negativity about the quality of JK Rowling's writing? well, the problem is there is very little positive to be found when one actually holds the actual texts of Rowling's work up to critical analyses... it is poor writing.. sorry but this is just true... why should I tell people that it is great they are reading when they read trash and then come around to proclaim it to be good, if not great literature... but as to my comments and the few other Harry Potter critics around...




Wow. No sneering or negativity there. Why don't you try this out? Direct that diatribe in person to the next 13 year old you see reading one of the Harry Potter books and see how it encourages them to read Alice in Wonderland.

And you're nowhere near as unique as you think you are. How many other Harry Potter threads have been hijacked by the Potter haters on this forum alone. Do you really think that isn't replicated elsewhere? And just look back to post 5 on this thread:



The thread hadn't even got going before someone came in championing thread censorship. What a wonderful, positive, all inclusive world we live in. Surely, if you don't want to discuss it it's easy enough to stay out of the threads?

And isn't it funny how these Potter threads are most heavily frequented by those who claim it's not worth talking about?


again, you suggest I am not so unique, well I make and made no claims on being unique, but I am within a rather small minority in this instance.. maybe not on this particular forum as this is a literature forum and therefore I am not surprised that many have a negative opinion of Potter (I still would argue many more even on here view it in a positive light as shown by the majority of posters being somewhat favourable)... the chances of most Harry Potter fanatics, children or adult ever seeing and taking seriously any criticism of Harry Potter is most likely quite slim, the books are far too popular for that... and far too supported by the Western Media Machine... my diatribes are not aimed at the children reading these books for entertainment, but the adults supporting this as reading for education, for good literature, for being challenged, provoked, etc... good writing does this, not garbage..

And i have stated multiple times I could care less what people read for entertainment, but when i see Harry Potter and other such fluff sneaking into the education system, well then, I do believe there is a problem, when I see the reading public being so uneducated, adult and child, as to vote Ms Rowling the greatest living British writer by 3 times the votes of her nearest competitor well then I worry... and i think it is safe to assume this thought that JK Rowling is the greatest living writer is not limited to just the UK... this makes me think why would any of the children reading Potter ever progress to greater works if they have already read the greatest, for won't everything be quite the disappointment then.. this is overstatement but in a sense it is true...

but you know what.. nevermind, I can live and some day die and enjoy my life doing whatever I want to do, I don't want to have kids, I don't want to participate in the education system in anyway currently, so I could really care less if the education system degrades itself to include such mediocrity in english class... I could really care less if reading all but dies out in young people and the next generation only has "functional" literacy and no feeling for "high" literature... in a hundred years maybe it will be JK Rowling who is glorified as the greatest writer of all time, because all that matters is how popular a novelist was, regardless of how terrible a writer... I don't really care... I'll enjoy my life all the same, and if people want their children and the next generation to be one that overwhelmingly declares the superiority of mediocrity, that crushes the last vestiges of elitism (or I would say intellectualism) well then that is fine by me.. so be it. it really won't bother me...

[Drkshadow03]

The problem of translating young readers from children's books to classics is not a new one. The Victorians came up with the children's genre and Charles and Mary Lamb rewrote Shakespeare for children in order to bridge the difficult language transition that Shakespeare poses for the novice. I don't think we can say that more will read the classics because they read Harry Potter - only that they are more likely to. They are given the tools of reading, but I think classics need study and guidance. It needs good teaching to show the merits of a book beyond an interesting and exciting narrative. I dislike Austin, but a teacher of mine with his enthusiasm and interpretive skills taught me to appreciate Emma, and be in a position to critically judge. First you have to get the kids reading - to understand the basics. To look beyond the text to the influences perhaps, and the tradition that have come together in the book. HP is a simple narrative with good imaginative touches. It does the job it is intended for.

Paul, you hit everything right on the head! Great post!

[Paulclem]

my diatribes are not aimed at the children reading these books for entertainment, but the adults supporting this as reading for education Islandclimber

You are too general. I could use HP to demonstrate the mechanics of the novel, narrative etc. Why not use a popular book to do this that stimulates. You could then look at more complex novels - the kind of intellectualism you want people to have needs the right steps to get there. You may have read and appreciated classic books from a young age, but I can remember reading LOTR in class with my peers - and discovering a mate who had never read a book in his life including the one we were supposed to be doing. We were in the then top stream in the comprehensive we attended. My friend wasn't a fool either. How could he be encouraged? He certainly didn't like LOTRs.

[islandclimber]

Well I will get more specific if needed.. and I will say one thing Rowling is a master of.. well two... using cliches...

and the literary technique of "deus ex machina"... Rowling is most definitely the goddess of overusing this technique.. is that a good thing? you tell me...

[TheFifthElement]

What you call negativity may just be criticism based upon experience. On a sight frequented by any number of posters who do take literature seriously it is only to be expected that not every comment is going to be "Gee, great! I loved it too." This applies to the "classics" and to challenging Modern and Contemporary literature, as well. There have been arguments over the merits of the Bible, Hemingway, and James Joyce, among others. I might also point out that negativity is a two-way street. I can't tell you the number of disparaging comments made about the Bible, James Joyce, Moby Dick, William Faulkner, John Milton, etc... without the least bit of intelligent argument offered to suggest why we should consider the opinions. Just a lot of "I didn't like it," and "It sucks."

Stlukes, I don't disagree with you. I’m more than happy for the text to be discussed, opinions to be raised and debate to wage based on a review of the text. What I was challenging was the intense negativity and use of immoderate language which seems to me to be inappropriate whether the debate is around Harry Potter, the Bible or Faulkner. I agree that comments like the ‘gee, great! I loved it too’ add nothing to the debate but neither do terms like ‘junk’ and ‘mediocre’ (or ‘schlock’ for that matter ;) ) which, as well as adding no value, inflame emotional reaction. Maybe I’m way off the mark but it seems particularly unsuitable, to me, in a thread for which the target audience, one would assume, is likely to be 8-14 year olds.

If the concern here is how you get children to read beyond Harry Potter, I doubt very much that trashing Harry Potter is the answer. If children are led to believe that the books that they enjoy are not worthwhile then this does not encourage further reading but leaves them with a choice: to attempt literature which they may or may not enjoy but which is considered ‘worthwhile’, regardless of their aptitude, personal taste or interest, or not to read at all. I’m all in favour of encouraging children to read a wide range of literature, how else are they to find that which most suits them? But in order to do so a wide range of literature must be available. This includes HP. Whilst I don’t think it can be said that the success of HP has directly encouraged more children to read, this would seem impossible to measure, it is likely true that some children have learned a love of literature through HP, some of those will have gone on to read more challenging literature. Whether this is more or less than would have occurred with another book is impossible to know. However, the overwhelming success of HP has raised the profile of reading as an activity in the media, which in itself may have encouraged a few more kids to give reading a try, and may have encouraged a few more parents to take their kids to the bookshop or the library. I can’t see how these things in themselves can be considered unworthy of some recognition.


Then JBI gets attacked when he offers up a well thought out analysis of what he perceives as the weaknesses of harry Potter and he is immediately an elitist snob?

Well, that attack didn’t come from me and neither did I accuse JBI of being an ‘elitist snob’. Neither have I noted JBI being 'attacked' in the thread either though there has been some discussion between JBI and DrkShadow03 over the merits and demerits of the book. Both put forward well thought through arguments in a non-destructive manner without resorting to derogatory language. If you read back through the thread it is JCamilo who raises the 'elitist snob' point and if I'm reading correctly Camilo is one of the people arguing against the value of HP. It was also a point which was later clarified as being 'ironic'.

In general, I’d rather see a more disciplined debate, personally, without the derogatory or inflammatory language and name calling whether aimed at HP lovers or those who would criticise it.


I ask how reading Dan Brown, Harry Potter, Twilight, or some other commercial schlock is better than not reading at all

I don’t think I can agree with this suggestion that it’d be better to read nothing than books like Harry Potter or Angels and Demons or the latest Jackie Collins or whatever. To me that’s almost like saying ‘is it better to eat no food at all rather than food with low nutritional value’. And it also begs the question: if the availability of what is considered ‘worthwhile’ literature is so narrow and appeals to so few, whether due to aptitude, personal taste or interest, does literature have any ‘value’ at all? When you talk about literature as having ‘value’ or ‘no value’ what exactly is it that you mean? What can be learned from ‘worthwhile’ literature that can’t be learned through observation, experimentation and relevant non-fiction study? Does literature, whether ‘good’ literature or otherwise have any intrinsic ‘value’?

[Paulclem]

and the literary technique of "deus ex machina"... Rowling is most definitely the goddess of overusing this technique.. is that a good thing? you tell me...

The Phoenix in the Chamber of Secrets is introduced earlier on. It is less clear in the Philosopher's Stone as to why HP is able to resist Quirrell, and this is only given an explanation later. It doesn't detract from my point that this can be critically reflected upon in education. Children can be taught by good and bad examples. The critical reader can appreciate what a book does whilst recognising and learning from its shortcomings.

[JBI]

and the literary technique of "deus ex machina"... Rowling is most definitely the goddess of overusing this technique.. is that a good thing? you tell me...

The Phoenix in the Chamber of Secrets is introduced earlier on. It is less clear in the Philosopher's Stone as to why HP is able to resist Quirrell, and this is only given an explanation later. It doesn't detract from my point that this can be critically reflected upon in education. Children can be taught by good and bad examples. The critical reader can appreciate what a book does whilst recognising and learning from its shortcomings.

I don't know - to me here most favored technique seems the red herring - the first 5 books certainly use that as the main structuring - first one, the Snape guy is the villain, then boom - he is not. The second, the Malfoy kid is the villain, then snap - he is not. The third, the Black guy is the villain, then snap - he is not. The fourth, the Russian guy is a villain, and then, snap - he is not the villain. I mean, the whole plot is built around that exact structure over and over again, with melodramatic Harry having to go save the day, to find out the villain is not actually the villain.

I guess by the third one though, you know to not actually expect the villain to be who we think it is, and alas, the Deus Ex Machina ending comes and makes the red herring fit - in truth, being saved by a Phoenix, or a Dumbledore or whatever is clearly a cheap ending.

But either way, the characters aren't believable anyway, so who cares. The only really good character in the whole series is Alan Rickman, because Alan Rickman is such a good actor that his presence in the movies reshapes the character in the book to be a better character - the voice in one's head, when corresponding to that slow, evil, menacing tone of Rickman is made 100x more effective - that tone can make a Shakespeare out of the most mediocre of dialog.

[Paulclem]

I agree that Alan Rickman is brilliant as Snape - apparently he's really good in the last one - and the Snape factor is one of the things that make the books good. There is a sense of uncertainty about Snape the whole way through that really adds to the tension.

As for the turnaround of the perceived villain - perhaps the technique is overused, but there is plenty going on in the books to absorb this.

[Lynne50]

First, I would like to say that I totally agree with what DarkShadows and Paul have said. They both seem to have a better understanding of the 'inner workings of youth today.' Children want to be part of a group, to share a commarderie (sp), and to be part of an in group. They can not be faulted because of what is the 'classic of the day'. They want to read what they think is relevant to them, not a stuffy, 'old' novel, that is yellowing with age on the library shelf. And it is entirely correct to assume that some children are not mature enough to handle some of the harder texts. Do you want them reading the Cliff Notes, because that's what would happen.?

In time, when they are ready themselves, without any pressure from other people, they will, IMO, realize that HP wasn't the greatest novel in the world. It will only be after they read alot of junk, that they discover what makes a great novel. You can't rush children to grow up too fast. What's the point?
In my own case, my father was extremely well read. He took me to the library and to used bookstores all the time. But, I grew up very sheltered and was very immature for my age. Did he force me to read any 'great' novel? No. One of my deepest regrets,however, was not being able to finish the book he loved Green Mansions. He wanted me to read it. I tried many times but could not finish it. Now that I'm old, I still have it sitting on my shelf. It calls my name from time to time, but I can't bring myself to open it. I'm not sure why.
Let me finish by saying that, even now, one of the reasons I joined Litnet was because I knew I didn't read as many classics as I should have in my youth and I'm trying to make up for lost time. I'm so envious of all the Litnetters that are younger than myself and who have such a good foundation of literature, but I'm telling everyone, that I would not have been ready for them earlier. My motto, better late than never.

[JCamilo]

Well, that attack didn’t come from me and neither did I accuse JBI of being an ‘elitist snob’. Neither have I noted JBI being 'attacked' in the thread either though there has been some discussion between JBI and DrkShadow03 over the merits and demerits of the book. Both put forward well thought through arguments in a non-destructive manner without resorting to derogatory language. If you read back through the thread it is JCamilo who raises the 'elitist snob' point and if I'm reading correctly Camilo is one of the people arguing against the value of HP. It was also a point which was later clarified as being 'ironic'.

It was ironic, since this discussion spawned other thread which was an obviously attack to JBI style of posting. But much earlier Mathor suggested the majority attacking HP are doing so because they did not read HP, since "it is beneath them".
Also, I am hardly making critical arguments against HP. I focused my opinions in countering ideas such "any reading is better tha none" (obviously false, A good reading is better, we do have the option), "harry potter is leading people to read more" (it is the educational system, access to book, family support, etc that cause it), "It is only enterteiment" (so what, everything can be enterteiment, even critical reading), to which kind of reading HP is leading the public to and the problems of marketing that damage the freedom of options.
And Frankly, I have very much doubts that anyone but JBI did any critical reading of HP in this thread. He pretty much remained unsawered. As Dkrshadow, his attemp to say that HP have great qualities (a contraditory factor, since he also argues that it is entertemeint only) was posting a part of HP, claiming it have those vallues, not explaining why at all and being answered by MortalTerror which just showed that there is considerable better options and anything he claimed was just basical in writing a romance.
And obviously, it is not the first time (and not just with HP) that the snob card was used. Lets not pretend it is not the first time that JBI reduces the magic of HP to a static, uninsteresting thing.



I don’t think I can agree with this suggestion that it’d be better to read nothing than books like Harry Potter or Angels and Demons or the latest Jackie Collins or whatever.

Well, anyone should be worried with reading texts that will develop the skills of the reader,but that argument is false. The option is not reading Harry Potter or nothing. It is reading something else or better. We have such option and of course, when Teachers offer a book in school what good they are doing? Most of time either they will train those skills (so HP is hardly a challenge) or open doors to unknow book (HP needs it? They already domain the market, instead of giving HP, teachers should be giving an option. It is not just HP, it is any book which access is already easy). Also, goes why HP? As Dkrshadow confessed, it does not matter which work, goosebumps, comics, etc. It could be anything, so lets make use of the freedom of choice and not be guided by popularity.


To me that’s almost like saying ‘is it better to eat no food at all rather than food with low nutritional value’. And it also begs the question: if the availability of what is considered ‘worthwhile’ literature is so narrow and appeals to so few, whether due to aptitude, personal taste or interest, does literature have any ‘value’ at all? When you talk about literature as having ‘value’ or ‘no value’ what exactly is it that you mean? What can be learned from ‘worthwhile’ literature that can’t be learned through observation, experimentation and relevant non-fiction study? Does literature, whether ‘good’ literature or otherwise have any intrinsic ‘value’?

Many good literature are accessible. Alice is not the most unacessible book in the world. Neither is Don Quixote. Or 1001 Nights. Obviously, I doubt anyone wants to make kids starts with James Joyce, but there is options that add complexity, demand more intelectual work, etc. I suppose is that the argument for him. For me, the argument should be "How to walk among shelves without searching anything specific", but obviously, schools can not do that with dozens of kids at sametime. But the family obviously can...

[Paulclem]

Many good literature are accessible

Yes it is, but the skillful teacher will use whatever motive force, be it peers or the full marketing machine of the publishing companies through paraphernalia, games and films, to develop the skill of reading.

I agree that HP doesn't stand up to close critical scrutiny as a classic- it is full of cliched ideas - the series was perhaps too long - some of the characters are simply drawn - but you would not get the reading response and commitment from children if you were not on the bandwagon, but trying to convince them that they shouldn't read this "garbage" but some other classic.

I don't want to come across as someone defending HP against all odds. I can see it's worth to children - and I still disagree with Islandclimber that it is a primarily children's book- despite the marketing opportunities that it spawned with adults.

What other book has been able to stimulate book talk between the generations. It wsn't a case of you should read this by parent to child, you got both parties sharing it. The series was passed around my own family, and we will be all going to see the movie.

I won't be reading the series again - I'l let you know if I do - but I can see the value.

[JCamilo]

Many good literature are accessible

Yes it is, but the skillful teacher will use whatever motive force, be it peers or the full marketing machine of the publishing companies through paraphernalia, games and films, to develop the skill of reading.

I do not think I would classify a teacher that picks the easy route (it is popular this summer, kids will love it!) as skillful. Again, they have 383834747 options, they should give the kids the options.


I agree that HP doesn't stand up to close critical scrutiny as a classic- it is full of cliched ideas - the series was perhaps too long - some of the characters are simply drawn - but you would not get the reading response and commitment from children if you were not on the bandwagon, but trying to convince them that they shouldn't read this "garbage" but some other classic.

Of course not. As I said when someone suggested that negative critics would make kids stop reading, it is not usual that teenagers will just do what an adult tell them to do. But the point is: Harry Potter is already know and accessible. It does not need to be promoted by teachers. Teachers should be giving options, opening doors and not going a door that the students can find own their own.


I don't want to come across as someone defending HP against all odds. I can see it's worth to children - and I still disagree with Islandclimber that it is a primarily children's book- despite the marketing opportunities that it spawned with adults.

What other book has been able to stimulate book talk between the generations. It wsn't a case of you should read this by parent to child, you got both parties sharing it. The series was passed around my own family, and we will be all going to see the movie.

Which other book? Alice in the Wonderlands? Treasure Island? The tales of Hans Christian Andersen? Anyways, until the XVIII century, there is not a specific production of literature for kids (hence La Fontaine or Perrault or 1001 Nights), so many books worked for several age groups.

[Paulclem]

I do not think I would classify a teacher that picks the easy route (it is popular this summer, kids will love it!) as skillful.

I would classify a skillful teacher one that can take kids from where they are to somewhere else in their learning. I'm not sure what you mean about this easy route. I presume you mean easy to teach. A teacher of anyone has to start where the student/ pupil is and move them on. How are they supposed to make the leap from comics to classics? There is plenty of mileage in HP - from all the good bits - story, tension, imaginative development - to the bits that could be done better - which there undoubtedly are. We both appreciate that the skill of reading is crucial. I don't think you appreciate the competition it has these days with all the technology available. HP couldbe a vehicle to where you want them to be. All the stories you mentioned are fine, but will they have the same pull as a currently popular book? You know the answer is no, but it doesn't mean that they can't be further along the journey.

[Paulclem]

Which other book? Alice in the Wonderlands? Treasure Island? The tales of Hans Christian Andersen? Anyways, until the XVIII century, there is not a specific production of literature for kids (hence La Fontaine or Perrault or 1001 Nights), so many books worked for several age groups.

Yes, but when has there been a published book that has stimulated 6 year olds to adults at the same time. I think it has been a great sharing experience.

[JCamilo]

The easy route was described by you. It does not take kids to somewhere else, it takes where they already are: They already are into Harry Potter and all the good bits you mention, they do got it. They need not an addult to mediate the reading of Harry Potter, they already do it. So, it is very easy to just go with what the kid knows and not take the responsability to show the kid the options, to create the passion for all literature instead of one book, and use even HP positivelly, as "since you like already reading..."
And no story will have a pull a currently popular book. Specially if the popular book domains every aspect and is actually endangering the freedom of choice, which is a negative point of the cultural industry.

And Yes, Alice was written for a 7 years old (HP is not, I am saying kids but HP is a teen-young addult book), and Alice is doing this for more than a century.

[Paulclem]

I think you are mistaking reading the book with teaching through the book, which is what I'm describing. As I have said in earlier posts, it is an opportunity to explore a narrative and its shortcomings too. That could lead kids on to being more critically minded readers.

[JCamilo]

Not really, as I said teaching is not very useful for a critical analyse because it does not demand much and those who like to read it are just going to be upset because it will be like JBI coming to their class. Then it will be negative, not positive.
Most of the techniques in HP are simple, easy to grasp to the point that is unecessary to place an addult and meddle with the enjoyment of HP. And you could use better examples (why would you show a technique if not when it is best employed?).
The other function and main of teaching literature is incentive and HP being so popular, hardly call for incentive. So, all in all, the teacher will be more effective using the many other options, even those related to HP (after all, fans of HP may have interest to see other stories from where the characters originated. For example, why not using Dumbledore to show the archetypical wise old man or the fantasy bestiary to take them to other fantastical histories? Then, HP would be helping the teaching of the literature).

[Paulclem]

Easy for you but not children. These things have to be taught.

[TheFifthElement]

The option is not reading Harry Potter or nothing. It is reading something else or better.
I hear what you're saying, but the comment was prompted by this earlier comment by stlukesguild:

If the child (and later the adult) ends up never reading anything more than Dan Brown, Rowling, pulp fiction and romance novels is this really better than not reading at all?
so read something 'worthwhile' or don't read at all because reading 'pulp' fiction is just like not reading anyway.

But I think this is a step too far and I think that before answering whether one novel has greater value than another we need to understand whether literature in itself has value and, if so, what that value is. I'd be very interested in views on those points.

I wholeheartedly agree with your comments here:


Teachers should be giving options, opening doors and not going a door that the students can find own their own.
and

Not really, as I said teaching is not very useful for a critical analyse because it does not demand much and those who like to read it are just going to be upset because it will be like JBI coming to their class. Then it will be negative, not positive.
and


The other function and main of teaching literature is incentive and HP being so popular, hardly call for incentive.

I can see where you're coming from. I still think the curriculum needs a range of literature and that shouldn't exclude popular literature. If all kids took to reading then perhaps there is no incentive in studying HP, but at the same time I wonder if critically reading something which children may have already encountered may encourage them or elucidate how the critical reading process differs from reading for pleasure, and that critical reading skills can be applied regardless of whether the book is a 'classic' or otherwise. In so doing there's a link created between the literature they read in the classroom and the literature they encounter outside so they no longer see literature as a discipline split in two: the books they enjoy reading and those which they're forced to read in the classroom.


Many good literature are accessible. Alice is not the most unacessible book in the world. Neither is Don Quixote. Or 1001 Nights.
JCamilo, I don't know what you're copy of 1001 Nights is like but mine is 2600 pages long!! I'm not sure that equates to an 'accessible' read for an 8 year old :lol:

[countes]

I love the Harry Potter series They are like a modern day Charles Dickens tales. Magic exist in many more literary creations Should we just throw away a great story in order to satisfy the "understandings" of a bunch of fanatics that cannot see past the tips of their noses Literature=Freedom AND I am a Christian - Eastern Orthodox To believe in God means to believe in something that cannot be touched or explained Would it be so bad if magic existed A little bit? I know Harry Potter made me read and that is good enough for me.:)

[JCamilo]

I hear what you're saying, but the comment was prompted by this earlier comment by stlukesguild:

so read something 'worthwhile' or don't read at all because reading 'pulp' fiction is just like not reading anyway.

I do not think Stlukes advocate lack of reading. I think he refers what kind of effect this reading may have or not, where it is leading and the special importance of a given work. And it seems like he does not see it on Harry Potter, so the effects could means as almost not reading, or like Darkshadow ended: it did not matter the work, it must be any work... Anyways, Stlukesguild writtes better than I do...


But I think this is a step too far and I think that before answering whether one novel has greater value than another we need to understand whether literature in itself has value and, if so, what that value is. I'd be very interested in views on those points.

Well, yes. I do not know how it works in United States, but I suppose they search for specialists to define what is good or not. Anyways, last year I helped the national selection for schools (public schools) and there was several criteries that are applied. I do not agree with all of them and I think the system is flawed. There is the pedagogical parameters, then You receive the book and must judge it. Since some were for 9 olders onwards, there was illustrations, so there is a judgment from illustrations. The books cannt contain typographic mistakes. The quality of the biding must be good enough (since it is public money that will buy it and it must last). There can not be idealogical messagens. There was not a single poetry book, but I am sure they have some. You must explain why you would approve or not, from the artistic point of view as well. Then you give a note (from 1 to 10, but the person who hired me told me to give from 7 to 10, since 7, 8 is basically an elimination, and if you send something bellow than that and the book does not have blatant mistakes or racism, etc, they will ask the person to review the reasons the books are eliminated, and lets say, if JBI uses his reasons, they will not consider). So, the best graded books are offered to the schools and each made the list of which books the teachers want to use.
I analysed 8 books, gave one 10 (a surprisingly teen book, funny, that the main character used Inner Monologue all the time) and gave a few 7's. One was to for example to a minor russian author, but the text had blatant flaws of translation (the translator talks about russian revolution, altough the author is from XIX century, so it was a clear interference) and another it was to a version of Iliad, done by a famous children writer here. But the translation was awful, almost like reading a newspaper, no poetry, no resource, just the list of battles and names. I would give less, but what they did? They returned the book because the critics that I aimed to a prestigious author could not be right. They wanted me to raise the grade and eliminate a few bits of the text. So I am sure the system is flawed.



I can see where you're coming from. I still think the curriculum needs a range of literature and that shouldn't exclude popular literature. If all kids took to reading then perhaps there is no incentive in studying HP, but at the same time I wonder if critically reading something which children may have already encountered may encourage them or elucidate how the critical reading process differs from reading for pleasure, and that critical reading skills can be applied regardless of whether the book is a 'classic' or otherwise. In so doing there's a link created between the literature they read in the classroom and the literature they encounter outside so they no longer see literature as a discipline split in two: the books they enjoy reading and those which they're forced to read in the classroom.

Yes, I do not think we should eliminate modern books, or popular books. I think however it is dangerous to pick those in the best-sellers tops, because it is an easy way. I think people can use Harry Potter, or at least work with elements of Harry Potter to show the other options. Who knows, showing Dumbledore is a Merlin or shorts, may lead to a new interest on Arturian stories (without focus on the feminism, holy grail misteries, real artur) that we have today.



JCamilo, I don't know what you're copy of 1001 Nights is like but mine is 2600 pages long!! I'm not sure that equates to an 'accessible' read for an 8 year old :lol:


Well, I have more than one, but HP isnt supposed to be around 12 and not 8? Anyways, 1001 Nights is a book that does not need to be read from begining to the end, maybe read from 11 to 14 years :D (not to mention the oral storytelling of 1001 Nights fables can be used in classrooms) and I have seen people getting interessed in reading the Nights if someone tell about the translations...

[Paulclem]

I think a choice of book for a curriculum is an impotant decision, but I ont see you're reasoning JCamillo. If everyone knows it - then there is no point? You can look deeper into the text. But the fact is that not all the kids will know it. It is a much more complex situation than you decribe. I was at school in the 70s, but my peers didn't take kindly to having unfamiliar classic stuff. I'm talking Tolkien and TH White, (another post remindedm of this). Few read them. We really needed popular novels just to get some of us started.

[TheFifthElement]

Well, I have more than one, but HP isnt supposed to be around 12 and not 8?
I've heard that too, but then I reckon most reasonably competent 8-9 year old readers could manage it. Certainly the first 3 books anyway, after that the length probably becomes more off-putting.


Well, yes. I do not know how it works in United States, but I suppose they search for specialists to define what is good or not. Anyways, last year I helped the national selection for schools (public schools) and there was several criteries that are applied. I do not agree with all of them and I think the system is flawed. There is the pedagogical parameters, then You receive the book and must judge it. Since some were for 9 olders onwards, there was illustrations, so there is a judgment from illustrations. The books cannt contain typographic mistakes. The quality of the biding must be good enough (since it is public money that will buy it and it must last). There can not be idealogical messagens. There was not a single poetry book, but I am sure they have some. You must explain why you would approve or not, from the artistic point of view as well. Then you give a note (from 1 to 10, but the person who hired me told me to give from 7 to 10, since 7, 8 is basically an elimination, and if you send something bellow than that and the book does not have blatant mistakes or racism, etc, they will ask the person to review the reasons the books are eliminated, and lets say, if JBI uses his reasons, they will not consider). So, the best graded books are offered to the schools and each made the list of which books the teachers want to use.
I analysed 8 books, gave one 10 (a surprisingly teen book, funny, that the main character used Inner Monologue all the time) and gave a few 7's. One was to for example to a minor russian author, but the text had blatant flaws of translation (the translator talks about russian revolution, altough the author is from XIX century, so it was a clear interference) and another it was to a version of Iliad, done by a famous children writer here. But the translation was awful, almost like reading a newspaper, no poetry, no resource, just the list of battles and names. I would give less, but what they did? They returned the book because the critics that I aimed to a prestigious author could not be right. They wanted me to raise the grade and eliminate a few bits of the text. So I am sure the system is flawed.
It's interesting to see how books are selected. I suppose a panel approach makes sense. I'm not sure how this works in UK or the US for that matter. From what I've been able to glean from the internet HP doesn't appear in the UK curriculum, though I do know my son's class used it last year (he would have been 7-8 then) as a study comparing literature to a movie, but it was not a serious study of the text.

But what I was more curious about, and perhaps I have not expressed overly well, is the question of what is it that study of literature teaches which can't be learned by any other means? Is the study of fictional literature critical to intellectual, spiritual, or social development?

[TheFifthElement]

Heck, I'm going to start a thread :D

[Paulclem]

Go for it.

[JCamilo]

Well, Ultimatelly, it is idealistic to hope that everyone must have a great critical reading, because they will domain the aspects of the texts, and not be manipulated, the whole democratic access to the power of words, etc.
In pratice, if we are talking about teens, some critical reading is just enough, more important is to build up the familiarity with books, etc.

[islandclimber]

first off, I agree with JBI in that the books on the whole do favour a Red Herring story... and even the series looked at as a whole may seem to.. for Snape is regarded as a bad guy for the entire series by Harry, yet in his dying moment he reveals to Potter that he was actually good, and looking out for him the entire time...

now to deus ex machina... beginning with book 1.. well, the ending, somehow out of the blue Harry looks in the mirror and he now has the philosopher's stone in his pocket, apparently because only one pure of heart who didn't want the stone for selfish reasons could have it fall into their pocket.. besides that, the apparent revelation that touching Harry Potter's skin makes Quirrel's flesh burn, which is the only thing that saves Potter...

book 2... the fact that as you say Fawkes had been introduced earlier in the story, does not mean at all that this is not an example of deus ex machina... the bird appears suddenly for no apparent reason, "out of the blue", as if by "divine providence", you get the picture... drops Harry the sorting hat, blinds the Basilisk about to kill him, and then Harry somehow miraculously pulls a giant sword out of the hat and kills the snake... how is this not an example of deus ex machina?????

book 3... Harry and the others are about to be overwhelmed by dementors and all of a sudden from out of nowhere, a Patronus comes flying to the rescue and saves them... and who made this, we find out after that it was not Harry's father like he thought, but Harry himself who has apparently gone back in time with Hermione, who just happens to have a time machine, and well Harry saves himself and the others... deus ex machina? I think so...

book 4... well not so bad as the ending of the others in terms of being a use of deus ex machina.. it could be regarded as such in a sense.. for as Voldemort casts his killing curse at Harry, Harry casts a juvenile expelliarmus curse, and somehow the curses lock together, and echoes start coming out of Voldemort's wand of the most recent people he killed, and miraculously these shadows are able to protect Harry as he escapes with his life...

book 5... not so much...

book 6... again not so much...

book 7... well somehow Voldemort's killing curse against Harry cannot kill Harry but only the small part of him inside Harry as a horcrux.. so miraculously, yet again Harry survives.. when he wakes up Narcisa Malfoy, can only think of whether her son is alive, and somehow forgets that if she allows Harry Potter to fake death, someone else might check and then her whole family would be murdered surely.. she acts totally ridiculously for someone trying to protect her son in this case... so again Harry survives.. deus ex machina, I would say so...

and earlier in the book the Deer Patronus that somehow leads harry to Godric Gryffindor's sword which they had absolutely needed to find, as somehow Snape has tracked them down, explained very insatisfactorily with a guy seeing a brief glimpse of them in a tent hahahaha... and Snape has again turned into a good guy... and Ron appears out of nowhere having found his way back to them with the use of the deluminator which apparently was made just to find Harry and Hermione??? and then he saves Harry... again two more examples of deus ex machina...

I mean, honestly I only listed the ends of boook 1-4 and 7, and a couple examples from earlier in book 7.. .there are other smaller examples if we want to go into it... but to end 5 of 7 books in a series with a literary technique that is considered quite poor, well this just illustrates the extreme mediocrity of her writing technique.. and the overuse of the Red Herring as mentioned by JBI, and her overwhelming dependence on cliches... we could go into this if you would like, post a page or two of her books and analyze them...

and another serious flaw in book 7... how does Dumbledore defeat Grindelwald in their great duel and become master of the Elder Wand which has to win every duel for its master, as this is how Harry beats Voldemort in the end.. Grindelwald was master of this wand, and using it, and was unstoppable, and yet somehow Dumbledore defeats him in a duel.. this is just poor writing to forget that you just finished writing that the master of the wand could not be defeated and yet here is Grindelwald being defeated using it... silly? yes...

but everyone claims he imagination is so great, her vision so wonderful? are you serious? she can't barely think of a way to end a story outside of deus ex machina... half her bad guys end up being "red herrings"... imagination, I think she is seriously lacking if one goes deeper than the obvious.. of course she made up a world, it's a fantasy...


Many good literature are accessible

Yes it is, but the skillful teacher will use whatever motive force, be it peers or the full marketing machine of the publishing companies through paraphernalia, games and films, to develop the skill of reading.

I agree that HP doesn't stand up to close critical scrutiny as a classic- it is full of cliched ideas - the series was perhaps too long - some of the characters are simply drawn - but you would not get the reading response and commitment from children if you were not on the bandwagon, but trying to convince them that they shouldn't read this "garbage" but some other classic.

I don't want to come across as someone defending HP against all odds. I can see it's worth to children - and I still disagree with Islandclimber that it is a primarily children's book- despite the marketing opportunities that it spawned with adults.

What other book has been able to stimulate book talk between the generations. It wsn't a case of you should read this by parent to child, you got both parties sharing it. The series was passed around my own family, and we will be all going to see the movie.

I won't be reading the series again - I'l let you know if I do - but I can see the value.

wait do you mean you think it is primarily a children's book? or that you don't think it is? for I think it's value would be much increased if it were for the 6-9 year old range, which it is obvioulsy not aimed at.. even the first book was aimed at 9-13 year olds, and the last books at 13- really any age... I mean almost as many adults read it for pleasure as children.. so it is obviously not marketed as, meant as, nor seen as primarily a children's book and that is what makes it so mediocre as a work of supposedly serious literature...

bring it into the classroom with what purpose though? kids will read it regardless of whether it is taught in the school system, so why should it be in the classroom, why not take the opporunity to have them read something good, something interesting, something that's positives outweight its negatives unlike Potter??

[JBI]

Honestly, who really cares about this masterwand toss - she made her protagonist Jesus - that's cliché enough - she even had him reincarnated to save the world. I mean, that's just pathetic if you ask me.

[islandclimber]

yes that is too true... and quite pathetic..

what I also find interesting here, on this thread, and other Harry Potter threads, is that those us of posting on why we think the work is mediocre are the ones doing all the explaining. elucidating our points, giving reasons, providing examples, discussing the issue in much more depth..

whereas, those arguing that Harry Potter is good or great or even just decent, only provide general blanket statements such as the works have great imagination, a really good storyline, moral lessons, etc. etc... I can't think of the other claimed reasons for Potter being good at the moment, but the point is, I have not seen a single person (besides DarkShadow, who just wrote out the beginning to two of the books and said it was good writing in one, and not as good in the other) arguing for Harry Potter provide any real argument for why it is a well written book, or good literature, or valuable in some way..

and yet the con side is the one criticized for making opinions fact, we are the ones told we are generalizing.... we are the ones told we have narrowminded views of what literature is.. we're called elitists, snobs... we're told that we are purposefully making inflammatory and derogatory comments, that we are insulting people and even their relations by calling what they read "fluff", "schlock", "mediocre".. that we are discouraging children from reading by calling it mediocre... and yet we are the only ones supplying real arguments and providing examples of why it is mediocre, whereas the pro side, is just saying it is good because I think so, or because it has imagination and a good storyline...

could anyone please provide some kind of argument as to why Harry Potter is good.. give examples please, show us why it is not mediocre writing...

[kilted exile]

i have seen a number of posts suggesting the 8 or 9 year old child should be reading something like Oliver Twist instead. Why? at that age all they are going to get from Twist is Fagin bad, Oliver good (unless anyone seriously thinks they are likely to pick up on dickens references to the poor law?) This is a vast oversimplification and they'd be as well not reading it at all. They will be just reading it for the story (and likely an abridged version at that), getting frustrated by language they are not familiar with & for a lot of them being put off from reading because of the complexity and boring nature of it to them at that age. Seeing as at that age they will just be getting the story where is the harm in letting them just read the story of HP instead? They may not progress to "higher" literature (whatever this may be) but they wont be put off from it either.

[Drkshadow03]

yes that is too true... and quite pathetic..

what I also find interesting here, on this thread, and other Harry Potter threads, is that those us of posting on why we think the work is mediocre are the ones doing all the explaining. elucidating our points, giving reasons, providing examples, discussing the issue in much more depth..

whereas, those arguing that Harry Potter is good or great or even just decent, only provide general blanket statements such as the works have great imagination, a really good storyline, moral lessons, etc. etc... I can't think of the other claimed reasons for Potter being good at the moment, but the point is, I have not seen a single person (besides DarkShadow, who just wrote out the beginning to two of the books and said it was good writing in one, and not as good in the other) arguing for Harry Potter provide any real argument for why it is a well written book, or good literature, or valuable in some way..

and yet the con side is the one criticized for making opinions fact, we are the ones told we are generalizing.... we are the ones told we have narrowminded views of what literature is.. we're called elitists, snobs... we're told that we are purposefully making inflammatory and derogatory comments, that we are insulting people and even their relations by calling what they read "fluff", "schlock", "mediocre".. that we are discouraging children from reading by calling it mediocre... and yet we are the only ones supplying real arguments and providing examples of why it is mediocre, whereas the pro side, is just saying it is good because I think so, or because it has imagination and a good storyline...

could anyone please provide some kind of argument as to why Harry Potter is good.. give examples please, show us why it is not mediocre writing...


You are kidding right . . .

Other than JBI and I nobody has elucidated their points on why Harry Potter = bad or good. Can you provide some examples of where you offered evidence to back up your declarations? I can point to a number of your posts where you made some declarations, but offered no evidence to support those declarations. Okay, wait you finally did so in post #164. I also explained in that post how it functions as a fantasy, though, I could have explained that better I suppose, and various themes to be found in the book, and how the fantastical elements make these themes new (presents them more objectively in a way).

I also have some thoughts about the deus ex machina trope that Rowling uses. Yes, I agree with you that it's there, but I am not sure I agree its a deficiency when one thinks about what thematic purpose it satisfies.

I'm also hesitant to elaborate any further because I figure if I am spending all this time writing long posts and elucidating on Harry Potter I should either be doing it for my blog or as an article in a journal so I can at least make some cash from it.

[JBI]

i have seen a number of posts suggesting the 8 or 9 year old child should be reading something like Oliver Twist instead. Why? at that age all they are going to get from Twist is Fagin bad, Oliver good (unless anyone seriously thinks they are likely to pick up on dickens references to the poor law?) This is a vast oversimplification and they'd be as well not reading it at all. They will be just reading it for the story (and likely an abridged version at that), getting frustrated by language they are not familiar with & for a lot of them being put off from reading because of the complexity and boring nature of it to them at that age. Seeing as at that age they will just be getting the story where is the harm in letting them just read the story of HP instead? They may not progress to "higher" literature (whatever this may be) but they wont be put off from it either.

8-9 year olds shouldn't be able to read all of Potter - they are not in the target age group for the series: from my understanding, 1-2 8-11 year olds, 3-4 13-15 year olds, and the rest 16+, from how I understand the marketing. Keep in mind, the last one came out almost a decade after the first one.

So in a sense, though the 8-9 year olds may not wish to read Dickens, they could very well read Le Guin, for instance, and the 11+ year olds could start reading something like Tamora Pierce, or Caitlin Sweet, or something entirely different - there is actually quite a bit of Young Adult Fiction available. Of course, I think 15 or so is the right age to start reading very challenging books - I personally broke late, and started at 16 (and did much of my classical reading in those years directly following that), but I see no problem, for instance, handing a 14 year old Jane Austen or Charlotte Brontë.

Those texts, and in truth, almost all texts, aren't all that difficult - the difference is though, they use real written English, as apposed to the colloquial English of the school yard, and as such, they are somehow seen as old fashion, or difficult - I know someone in university, for instance, who has difficulty reading A Tale of Two Cities, and is used to reading thrillers whereas I know enough people who are new to the language, who make the effort to familiarize themselves with more difficult texts, and as a result, their written English, as well as their conversational skills, and their vocabularies improve significantly.

A. E. Housman, William Blake, Doctor Sues, Christina Rossetti, amongst many, many others, both contemporary and classical, for instance, all wrote many accessible works that an 8-9 year old could get. You don't, for instance, want a child growing up with texts that offer no challenge, so generally, if one wants to be building reading comprehension, they should up the standard a little bit. A 12 year old who can't read Ulysses is fine, but a 15 year old who struggles through most novels, I'm afraid, is functionally illiterate. By the age of 16 or so, I think, one reaches the point where reading levels shouldn't be an issue - there are odd works, for instance, Poetry generally is hard for people to read, or James Joyce, or perhaps much of Faulkner (especially his Absalom Absalom) that people may have trouble with, but for the most part, they should be able to grasp almost anything in prose they read, and much of what is in verse, and, if they are any good, have something to say about it.

Harry Potter, in my honest opinion, looks like children's prose dressed up as mature literature - the themes attempt to be mature, yet at the same time lack a mature tone, so that the term snogging, for instance, is used instead of making out, or kissing everywhere - but lets be honest, what 17 year old makes a big deal about kissing girls - by about 12 or thirteen kissing shouldn't really be a big deal. By using the term snogging, it becomes a sort of joke, the tone is reduced, so if anything, I think, these books don't give enough credit to the ability of readers at that age to handle mature things.

But alas, she deliberately sticks in deaths and "dark moments" as a way to sort of make the books seem mature - there are so many pointless killings in the texts as to make it that I am unable to justify them, in terms of structure, without thinking that was her motive - she originally, for instance, said herself that she was trying to make them darker, and more mature on the original release, so perhaps there is credibility to that hypothesis.

Perhaps the biggest problem though, I find, is that she tries to turn Dickens style characters into Shakespeare style characters, and fails at both.

Dickens characters are ironized cartoon cuttings of society, which serve as comical, often darkly comical representations of our society. Shakespeare characters are infinitely complex ones, which are seemingly "more real" than ones in reality, and therefore help us rethink reality in our own terms by overhearing. What Rowling tries to do, is make a Dickens style character, such as Harry's friend Ron (though Harry in a sense is one too) out to be someone deep and profound, but he ultimately lacks the depth, and falls right in between them - not ironic or funny, and not deep or "more real". The melodrama of, for instance, him always fighting with the other two in the trio seems to highlight this problem - rather than the fighting being comical, as it would be in a Dickens type character, or series and show some insight of deepness of character, as in Shakespeare style characters, it seems melodramatic, pointless, and rather silly.

Perhaps the most realized Dickens characters come from her greatest rip offs of society - take her Rita Skeeter (I think that is the name) reporter character, who is perhaps the most realized one - that character functions well enough as a Dickens character, but her reappearance in the fifth book, I would argue, attempts to make a more rounded character out of her, and ultimately fails, her reemergence in later texts perhaps is a little bit cute, if such sentimentality is your thing, but doesn't really add much, and loses what was gained before.

Another Dickens character had similar treatment - the evil schoolteacher, Mrs. Umbridge (did I get the name wrong?) seems to be styled as a comical sort of Dickens character, but ultimately she gets the same treatment - an attempt at rounding out and fleshing which fails, and then a later resurgence, which is sentimental, and boring.


There is about 1000x more character development and depth in the first 50 lines of Rossetti's Goblin Market than in all of Harry Potter. I see no reason why a child cannot be given something with more to it.

Is Jane Austen's Mr. Collins, for instance not a better comical character than Rowling's Gilderoy Lockhart (sp?) is Dickens' Pip not a better character than Rowling's Harry? Is Cather's Antonia not a more mature and realized character than Hermione, and in turn, is not the romance (though not so happy ending) between the two characters in Cather's book more real and gut wrenching? Why then, do we feel it necessary to reduce things so much. I don't think anyone, for instance, whether male or female, can help falling in love with an Antonia, or with a Mr. Darcy, or any other in a long slew of fantastic characters. Even a Sparowhawk/Ged is a fantastically drawn out character to warrant much attention, and he too lingers in memory - but alas, we supposedly think kids to immature to read real books, and instead give them highly chaste children's junk that is written for people older than its content.


But I guess it makes sense - the same way we have kids music, young adults music, adolescent music, and just reaching maturity music, we have the equivalents in literature now. Harry Potter is just the equivalent to the Jonas Brothers, or Hannah Montana - it sees an audience, and its promoters exploit that by making it the only thing supposedly available for that age group. Then, the age group widens, so being functionally literate and reading books is deemed too precocious or something, and dismissed by educators and the like.

My school library in high school, for instance, divided the fiction by age group. The same Monica Hughes books I read as an 11 year old somehow fit better with a suggested audience of grade 10 (14 year olds), whereas Jane Austen is a 12th grade book. Needless to say, with a branch of the Toronto Public Library just outside the school nobody ended up borrowing books from there for casual reading, but the limitation of such things is ridiculous - it sets people up for mediocrity.

At least they are reading is not an excuse - it's called dumbing down for a reason, because one cuts the norm as a way of justifying making up for loss ground - if we simplify things to such a degree that anyone can read, then technically, everyone becomes literate - it's like moving down the difficulty on standardized testing and claiming the education system is doing better.

Luckily, they haven't gotten rid of Shakespeare from the grade 9 curriculum, otherwise I think the most challenging text any of those kids would read in their life here would be The Great Gatsby which, though a great text, should easily be accessible to anyone 13 or up, and not be taught in Grade 12, where something like Margaret Atwood's Surfacing, or Robertson Davies' Fifth Business, or Joyce's Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man could be taught instead.

I think the people getting the least credit here are children with this - you need to show people things in order to get them to take - if people don't know about good literature, then they obviously aren't going to read it. But when you make Harry Potter the most advertised text in the world (complete with vibrating Broomsticks and every sort of type of toy imaginable, from food products to stickers) and praise it nonstop, of course they aren't going to think differently. Even here, daring to accuse the texts of mediocrity is seen as rude, and is met with a backlash - what better form of advertising.


Like I said, I have no problem with literature in that age group - I have been championing Caitlin Sweet for a while now, because I think her prose is some of the best I've seen in a long time, and is quite poetic and beautiful, as is her imagination - her book feels painted with watercolors, beautifully, rather than written - or Tamora Pierce, who has penned several very good book series for the same sort of age group as the third and fourth Harry Potter books, but deals a lot more with real issues, and has far stronger characters.

Those two are by no means "classical authors" and I am doubtful of their existence in the future as "canonical works", but in all honesty, I think they are far more culturally relevant, and powerful works than any Harry Potter, and would recommend them to a child probably over something like Tom Sawyer or Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

[JBI]

You are kidding right . . .

Other than JBI and I nobody has elucidated their points on why Harry Potter = bad or good. Can you provide some examples of where you offered evidence to back up your declarations? I can point to a number of your posts where you made some declarations, but offered no evidence to support those declarations. Okay, wait you finally did so in post #164. I also explained in that post how it functions as a fantasy, though, I could have explained that better I suppose, and various themes to be found in the book, and how the fantastical elements make these themes new (presents them more objectively in a way).

I also have some thoughts about the deus ex machina trope that Rowling uses. Yes, I agree with you that it's there, but I am not sure I agree its a deficiency when one thinks about what thematic purpose it satisfies.

I'm also hesitant to elaborate any further because I figure if I am spending all this time writing long posts and elucidating on Harry Potter I should either be doing it for my blog or as an article in a journal so I can at least make some cash from it.

I don't know - I certainly won't boast to be the only one - but you yourself claimed to be interested in a deeper textual analysis, and then, all of a sudden, merely forgot the text part, and continued on talking about the cultural phenomenon of Harry Potter, rather than the text of Harry Potter itself.

In that sense, there has been very little real talk of Harry Potter, outside of the "Harry Potter the culture" zone.

I think the argument from outside the text has all but exhausted itself already - three Harry Potter threads over.

Perhaps now we can move on and actually talk about the qualities and faults of the text itself, rather than try to justify the quality of a book by the amount of illiterates, children, or philistines who read it.

[islandclimber]

You are kidding right . . .

Other than JBI and I nobody has elucidated their points on why Harry Potter = bad or good. Can you provide some examples of where you offered evidence to back up your declarations? I can point to a number of your posts where you made some declarations, but offered no evidence to support those declarations. Okay, wait you finally did so in post #164. I also explained in that post how it functions as a fantasy, though, I could have explained that better I suppose, and various themes to be found in the book, and how the fantastical elements make these themes new (presents them more objectively in a way).

I also have some thoughts about the deus ex machina trope that Rowling uses. Yes, I agree with you that it's there, but I am not sure I agree its a deficiency when one thinks about what thematic purpose it satisfies.

I'm also hesitant to elaborate any further because I figure if I am spending all this time writing long posts and elucidating on Harry Potter I should either be doing it for my blog or as an article in a journal so I can at least make some cash from it.

and you also provided quite a number of posts with declarations for which you provided no evidence, and many others with anecdotal evidence, or your own personal experience as a librarian.. I volunteered in a library for a few years when the Harry Potter books were first coming out, but I don't need to fall back on claiming my own personal experience of seeing a few people in one random library behave a certain way reflects upon society as a greater truth...

anyways.. whatever I managed to say in my last post there, you have several times provided your arguments, explained them, given your own version of evidence for them (which, let's be honest is mostly just your own personal opinion of how Harry Potter shows world-building and works as a fantasy) and that's great... but on the whole I have seen JBI, JCamilo, MortalTerror, StLukes, myself (and yes I do admit I have several times made declarations without providing evidence, but to say I have not elucidated upon my claims before post 164 is a little silly and completely false) all do the same thing...

deus ex machina not a deficiency in Potter eh.. someone (I can't remember, was it you or someone else?) in this thread already said that cliches weren't bad in Rowling because children hadn't heard them before so therefore they were not cliches.. give me a break.. this is the same kind of argument.. JK Rowlings excessive dependence on Deus Ex Machina (to say nothing of cliches and her typical red herring plots) shows a writer who lacks the imagination to think of another way out of the corner she has written herself into... shows a writer that cannot keep her story's internal logic intact... maybe because it allows her to give a much more palatable ending however unlikely, however much it destroys "suspension of disbelief" which is what fantasy of course relies upon, does it not? but as long as she gives a half-assed explanation for the miracle afterwards it's okay, oh you have a pure heart so fate will always smile on you and miracles will rain down from the heavens to save you everytime you are put in peril? what thematic purposes does this satisfy? to show that the theme of Harry Potter is no hard work or skill required, miracles are a dime a dozen? don't worry, if you are a good guy, luck and fate will always be on your side?

[islandclimber]

Perhaps the biggest problem though, I find, is that she tries to turn Dickens style characters into Shakespeare style characters, and fails at both.

Dickens characters are ironized cartoon cuttings of society, which serve as comical, often darkly comical representations of our society. Shakespeare characters are infinitely complex ones, which are seemingly "more real" than ones in reality, and therefore help us rethink reality in our own terms by overhearing. What Rowling tries to do, is make a Dickens style character, such as Harry's friend Ron (though Harry in a sense is one too) out to be someone deep and profound, but he ultimately lacks the depth, and falls right in between them - not ironic or funny, and not deep or "more real". The melodrama of, for instance, him always fighting with the other two in the trio seems to highlight this problem - rather than the fighting being comical, as it would be in a Dickens type character, or series and show some insight of deepness of character, as in Shakespeare style characters, it seems melodramatic, pointless, and rather silly.

Perhaps the most realized Dickens characters come from her greatest rip offs of society - take her Rita Skeeter (I think that is the name) reporter character, who is perhaps the most realized one - that character functions well enough as a Dickens character, but her reappearance in the fifth book, I would argue, attempts to make a more rounded character out of her, and ultimately fails, her reemergence in later texts perhaps is a little bit cute, if such sentimentality is your thing, but doesn't really add much, and loses what was gained before.

Another Dickens character had similar treatment - the evil schoolteacher, Mrs. Umbridge (did I get the name wrong?) seems to be styled as a comical sort of Dickens character, but ultimately she gets the same treatment - an attempt at rounding out and fleshing which fails, and then a later resurgence, which is sentimental, and boring.
.

I would disagree with this.. I do not think Rowling has any intention of creating characters in the style of Dickens... Dickens characters as you say often serve as darkly comical representations of our society, characters that often seem so exaggerated this way, that although we may recognize bits and pieces of them in the people we interact with everyday, we see them as somewhat beyond possibility, as exaggerated stereotypes, as comical misrepresentations of the average man, etc...

Rowling in my opinion does not at all try to do this... besides on occasion with characters such as Skeeter, the Weasley parents, the Lovegoods, and other such secondary characters.. but with her main characters I think Rowling tries to create characters in a manner that we might say we know someone exactly like that, or that we may see as/in ourselves, she tries to allow young people to identify with her characters and to see that they are just as real and ordinary as any young person living in reality, just set up in a different world, in a fantasy world of wizards and witches and all that encompasses.. her characters seem to be quite content acting as normal, average teenagers placed in extraordinary circumstances... it's seems she is trying to create characters who think and act in ways that suggest to us, even compel us to believe well this character that I identify with, I would act and think in the exact same way if I was placed in this situation.. it seems to me she creates a fantasy world and tries to create characters that are all to made up of the stuff of this everyday world we live in.. I have mixed opinions on whether this is a good thing in fantasy or not, and whether or not Rowlings succeeds in this...

and this gets into your second point about the problems with the novel's mixed bag on maturity issues.. especially in the last 4 books.. they are no longer babies, people are dying around them, and Rowling misses no chance in expanding upon the themes of love and death in the later books... but it is a platonic love strictly.. and violent death only.. no one ever passes away of old age, no one dies of a disease... no one loves besides in a universal and general way.. or if they do love, it is briefly glanced at and then swept away as the novel switches back to focus on "darker" and more "mature" themes.. and this is where her characters fail miserably... for Rowling wants to make them so real, but what 15-18 year old does not have issues of sex and passionate love on his mind? a brief kiss, a few words on feeling something strange about someone else seem to be the only actions and emotions that Rowling's characters can display? and yet they can handle death being all around them, torture, intense hatred, violence, "evil", disorder... that just another example of the absurd failings in logic of Rowling's writing... and the safe nature of the works... is she afraid of the issue of sex? does she really think 16 year olds won't be able to handle it? and yet she seems to think she is writing for a mature audience as he works not only deal with death but a sadistic pleasure in some characters of not only killing but torturing? although even this seems somewhat glossed over, as she apparently is afraid of offending the sensibilities of her younger readers, torture though apparently prevalent among the death eaters for fun, is also briefly glossed over and death again takes its place...

I think Rowlings was looking for something entirely different then Dickens and Shakespeare in the creation of her characters, and that is an "intense reality"....

with regards to your other points I wholeheartedly agree, and I also hope we can pass on from discussing the cultural phenomenon of Harry Potter and maybe discuss why the text is so "good" or so "bad"

[JBI]

She isn't trying to write Dickens characters - she is trying to write Shakespeare type characters with "Real life feelings" and whatnot. The problem is, she really just doesn't have the ability, and is far more suited for Dickens style characters, though, without the umph I guess, to make one deep, profound, real seeming character - people always praise the Snape character, yet he doesn't really hold any ground as a profound Byronic hero - he is too removed, too stereotyped, and too limited in terms of what he says and does.

For the Snape Character to actually have worked, he would have needed a height of emotional strength rarely seen in characters - the best example, and perhaps most thought out one I can think of, is Wagner's Konig Marke, as heard here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJVbdeoiRSg&feature=PlayList&p=07C81139100F2F54&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=12 or for a better video but with a, in my opinion, slightly worse singer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXtJEkcMbwo.

The character loses believability, and was made even worse by the division over time in the books - is he good, is he bad, no he's good, no he's bad, no he's really a hero, no, he love's Harry's mother, no wait, he sacrifices himself to save the day.

There is nothing really there that is believable too, except for Alan Rickman, who pulls it off by being able to carry the lines in the perfect, menacing accent.

[Drkshadow03]

@JBI: Agreed. However, I mostly was responding to my interlocutors and where they took the conversation.

@Islandclimber: All literary criticism is technically one particular critic's opinion, or the word we typically use is: interpretation. That's why texts and interpretations and even opinions about the quality of texts are never a closed debate (in actual scholarship or on these boards). There's always one more interpretation of Hamlet, one more scrutinizing of minute elements, one more reassessment of a forgotten book or a non-canonical book. We technically could go on forever without getting anywhere. So in a sense I completely agree with what you wrote. Even if I offered an impassioned defense with tons of textual evidence and explain what it is I see in Harry Potter I don't imagine for a second it would cause you or anyone to have an epiphany and reevaluate Harry Potter. You might think of it this way, opinions = interpretations/evaluation, facts = the text.

@Both: I'm working on a post that will be going on the blog about Harry Potter, which will address your criticisms of the books, and explain what I and others (since I will be quoting literary criticism) see in it by providing an interpretation that is supported by evidence from the books. It will take me some time to write up this post as it requires some research (I've written up the post, originally as an informal response, but I want to do some more formal research); I have a lot of other projects under my belt right now, mostly finding a job.

[islandclimber]

I don't know though, as you yourself said and I agree Shakespearean characters were created infinitely complex, to the point of being seen as more real than reality, another version of a distorted reality as the world is not only filled with this "real" man.... Dostoevsky is another example somewhat like this with his intensely real characters who so often behave and think in ways seemingly beyond reality but at the same time exceptionally rooted in reality...

I don't know if I would agree that this is what Rowling was looking for, a reality that was almost beyond reality in the creation of her characters... I would agree though that she attempted to create deep, real seeming characters, I just don't know if I would put the word profound in there.. it seems to me that while Shakespeare did create real characters at the same time they possessed something too real... Rowling creates characters that are meant to be entirely real, and profound is not in her equation of what is real... in my opinion.. the books show an attempt to delve into the thought processes of a young mind, and do a somewhat admirable job in some cases, but fail miserably in other ways... but they steer clear of the profound, although maybe this is more of something attempted and just missing, as you suggest and I am just missing this...

but I do agree that her characters sometimes do fall into the Dickens style especially when faced with the ordinary day to day life, they seem to lack resonance and become almost farcical... only when the extraordinary arrives again do they again become alive and real and vivid... the stark contrast is one of the main problems with her characters in my opinion...

and Snape is a perfect example... for as you say he is so removed, so stereotyped, so limited that when he all of a sudden pops up as really the hero of the series, when he all of a sudden comes to life, and in such a fantastic manner, well it just seems implausible and silly...

[islandclimber]

@Islandclimber: All literary criticism is technically one particular critic's opinion, or the word we typically use is: interpretation. That's why texts and interpretations and even opinions about the quality of texts are never a closed debate (in actual scholarship or on these boards). There's always one more interpretation of Hamlet, one more scrutinizing of minute elements, one more reassessment of a forgotten book or a non-canonical book. We technically could go on forever without getting anywhere. So in a sense I completely agree with what you wrote. Even if I offered an impassioned defense with tons of textual evidence and explain what it is I see in Harry Potter I don't imagine for a second it would cause you or anyone to have an epiphany and reevaluate Harry Potter. You might think of it this way, opinions = interpretations/evaluation, facts = the text.

@Both: I'm working on a post that will be going on the blog about Harry Potter, which will address your criticisms of the books, and explain what I and others (since I will be quoting literary criticism) see in it by providing an interpretation that is supported by evidence from the books. It will take me some time to write up this post as it requires some research (I've written up the post, originally as an informal response, but I want to do some more formal research); I have a lot of other projects under my belt right now, mostly finding a job.

I do agree with you, although I do believe there is something to be said for discussing merits of certain works in changing people's opinions on them.. I don't for a second think I know everything about the Harry Potter books, all possible negatives, and all possible positives.. and maybe you will make some points that I find I can do nothing but agree with, and though it may not make me look upon Harry Potter as a good book, it may help me see it from a different perspective, or notice a few merits that I had otherwise been blinded to.. and who knows, I probably won't have a favourable opinion of the book all the same, but I may look on it a little less harshly than I currently do right ;)

well I look forward to this post, and good luck finding a job.. :)

[JCamilo]

The problem of Dickens or Shakespeare characters is that they are supported by the plot and by the main characters. Shakespeare basically adds a perspective, since in a book a character is a representation of actions and feelings, he gave us someone to filter those actions and feelings. Ofelia is Ofelia because Hamlet is around. Iago defines Othelo and Othelo defines Iago. The same with Dickens, they are not just a plot device (huh, either the teacher is just some lousy addult who lets kids solve problems or he is the problem) or something object to build the scenario. But since the plot of HP is really obvious (it is really a red ex machine herring) and the character is basically a videogame dude (I have problem, i have new magical item and a new combo attack!), all the rest is empty. Some short of museum of oddities.
As what kids should read, usually the problem with kids is discipline to focus on length and vocabulary. There is studies who show they have a great capacity of interpretation, not bound by our addult experience, who in the end, lead us to the basic and normal interpretation.

[Adderhead]

Only paranoid fools who haven't read the Harry Potter series would say that it promotes the occult and witchcraft. It actually promotes many good values that every human being should embrace, such as friendship and other themes.

[PeterL]

Only paranoid fools who haven't read the Harry Potter series would say that it promotes the occult and witchcraft. It actually promotes many good values that every human being should embrace, such as friendship and other themes.

Yes, it promotes good vallues, liking esteeming witces and studying ancient languages.

[TheFifthElement]

Honestly, who really cares about this masterwand toss - she made her protagonist Jesus - that's cliché enough - she even had him reincarnated to save the world. I mean, that's just pathetic if you ask me.

:lol: that's funny. Can you be resurrected if you didn't die?

[JBI]

:lol: that's funny. Can you be resurrected if you didn't die?

Sorry, wrong word - reincarnated, resurrected - either way, the point is she couldn't even write a story on her own terms, she bent it toward a biblical ending, which undercuts the whole thing. Perhaps not a full Jesus, as he didn't ascent to heaven, but the reference is clear enough - Aslan meets Voldemort (Lilith/The Queen) gets beaten down on the ground, and rises again, stronger, with the power Voldemort does not know of, to save the day - the narrative is the exact freaking same, the only difference is this time it isn't from the focalization of Lucy, an observer, yet Jesus himself.

[Paulclem]

So in a sense, though the 8-9 year olds may not wish to read Dickens, they could very well read Le Guin, for instance, and the 11+ year olds could start reading something like Tamora Pierce, or Caitlin Sweet, or something entirely different - there is actually quite a bit of Young Adult Fiction available. Of course, I think 15 or so is the right age to start reading very challenging books - I personally broke late, and started at 16 (and did much of my classical reading in those years directly following that), but I see no problem, for instance, handing a 14 year old Jane Austen or Charlotte Brontë.

I really wish it was like his JBI. No doubt there are kids who fit this analysis - I can only speak of my knowledge of the UK - I am ignorent of he situation in Canada an the USA - but I see HP as perhaps reaching pre-teens and getting them intersted in reading. Sadly, what I have seen of educaion in my city is plenty of poor literacy standards. I now teach adults who have the scars of a poor education system going back decades.(The oldest guy I taught is 86). A lot of them never read anything but the papers. In my GCSE group last year - with ages ranging from 17 to 55, very few had read any poems at all, and these people are the sucesses in terms of doing something about their lack of education. My own favourable opinion of HP is merely in the hope of it reaching kids - it is a kids book as far as I'm concerned. I found the stories entertaining, but I tend to agree with yours, and others textual analysis.

[TheFifthElement]

Sorry, wrong word - reincarnated, resurrected - either way, the point is she couldn't even write a story on her own terms, she bent it toward a biblical ending, which undercuts the whole thing. Perhaps not a full Jesus, as he didn't ascent to heaven, but the reference is clear enough - Aslan meets Voldemort (Lilith/The Queen) gets beaten down on the ground, and rises again, stronger, with the power Voldemort does not know of, to save the day - the narrative is the exact freaking same, the only difference is this time it isn't from the focalization of Lucy, an observer, yet Jesus himself.

I thought you didn't read the book ;)

My point was, Harry didn't die. He was knocked out. You can't be reincarnated or resurrected if you haven't been killed first. So the Jesus analogy doesn't quite stack up though I see where you're coming from.

I didn't take it that Harry either 'rose stronger' or had any special powers or, in fact, defeated the Voldemort character. Effectively Voldemort defeated himself by bringing about the conclusion of a self-fulfilling prophecy by means of his own fear, hatred and lust for power. Throughout the books Rowling goes to great pains to show that Harry is not special, has no extraordinary powers and is reliant on the goodwill, friendship, skill and protection of others. If Harry is a ‘hero’ at all he is an accidental one.

[Drkshadow03]

I thought you didn't read the book ;)

My point was, Harry didn't die. He was knocked out. You can't be reincarnated or resurrected if you haven't been killed first. So the Jesus analogy doesn't quite stack up though I see where you're coming from.

I didn't take it that Harry either 'rose stronger' or had any special powers or, in fact, defeated the Voldemort character. Effectively Voldemort defeated himself by bringing about the conclusion of a self-fulfilling prophecy by means of his own fear, hatred and lust for power. Throughout the books Rowling goes to great pains to show that Harry is not special, has no extraordinary powers and is reliant on the goodwill, friendship, skill and protection of others. If Harry is a ‘hero’ at all he is an accidental one.

Ha! You hit many of the points I raise in the essay I am working, and apparently understand Potter exactly as I do!

[JBI]

I thought you didn't read the book ;)

My point was, Harry didn't die. He was knocked out. You can't be reincarnated or resurrected if you haven't been killed first. So the Jesus analogy doesn't quite stack up though I see where you're coming from.

I didn't take it that Harry either 'rose stronger' or had any special powers or, in fact, defeated the Voldemort character. Effectively Voldemort defeated himself by bringing about the conclusion of a self-fulfilling prophecy by means of his own fear, hatred and lust for power. Throughout the books Rowling goes to great pains to show that Harry is not special, has no extraordinary powers and is reliant on the goodwill, friendship, skill and protection of others. If Harry is a ‘hero’ at all he is an accidental one.

Rowling said herself after the publication of an early volume, that if you understand her beliefs, it wouldn't be difficult to guess the ending of the series - this was before the whole Prophecy bit (and yes, I didn't read the 7th one). Whether it is a perfect match or not, the whole Chosen One bit and the rising up to defeat the evil is taken straight out of scripture, or perhaps mimics Lewis - just because of some magical technicalities doesn't mean he isn't meant to be Jesus.

As for him being an anti-hero, she does a pretty good job at making him out to be a character obsessed with himself as "Hero". No matter what moping he does about people not understanding him, and thinking him a freak or whatever, the truth is he is obsessed with it - he needs to spy on his teaches (1), spy on his classmates (2), go hunting his Godfather (3), save all the people underwater despite no having to, and then save everyone in the maze (4), go try and save the day in the fifth one, despite being no match at all (5), become the so called "Chosen One", and run off trying to save the day (6), and then go off hunting Voldemort to try and defeat him (7). Whether he is gifted or not is irrelevant, because he clearly has a desire to be a hero - I guess he likes the attention or something. Keep in mind, the only other thing he is particularly famous for, besides random bouts of hysteria in classes, is playing sports - being an athletic hero - and getting into mischief - being a sort of narcissist in that regard.

[The Comedian]

I've never read these books, are they popular?

[JBI]

I've never read these books, are they popular?

Only when new movies are released.

[wessexgirl]

Only when new movies are released.

Yeah right, that's why stores open up through the night and the queues go round the block when the books come out. Libraries open through the night too and have Harry Potter sleepovers. They order in tons of the books. But JBI thinks they're only read when the films come out.

[JBI]

Yeah right, that's why stores open up through the night and the queues go round the block when the books come out. Libraries open through the night too and have Harry Potter sleepovers. They order in tons of the books. But JBI thinks they're only read when the films come out.

I'm talking about now - if you look on Google trends, you will see spikes occur when the new movies are released - there was about a month of hype before the last 3 of the books, that is true, but those are in the past, and the general "Potter Mania" hype has since ebbed drastically, as is want with anything popular, even good works like Dickens' stuff, and Zola's works back in the 19th century. There seems to be a resurgence of the mania though every time a new film is released - the result of advertising and nostalgia by my reckoning. Check the Google trends for a general idea of the graphing if you don't believe me.

For instance, I went a few years without seeing people reading them Potters on the subway, now, all of a sudden, this month I start to see some people reading them again - mostly 20 year olds, and females, though that is probably coincidental, given my limited exposure. I reckon there are die hard fans out there, as there are die hard fans for many things, and this is merely them - the original audience, who were between the ages of 8-12 when the first text was released, merely trying to regain that sort of hype. The bombardment of Potter advertisements for the movie certainly would help such a feeling, though I think this is the dead cat bounce, in terms of popularity - the books will never again reach the heights they did, and will continue on a downward slope, no matter what happens to the books in the future, as I don't think even the most fond critical minds can possibly consider these books as replacing something like Faulkner or Shakespeare, who have constant popularity as they have ingrained themselves so thoroughly on literature. Either the books are forgotten, or they remain an obscure children's classic like George MacDonald's works (which are still incredibly readable and insightful, and essentially created the trends of the genre even before many other classic authors) and remain read by kids with parents who are want to give them older texts, or strange academics with preoccupations with children's literature, or 200- culture.

No one talks about the Celestine Prophecy anymore, keep in mind, though I have of late seen a few copies float around while browsing used book stores. I'm willing to wager that there are now far more copies of Potter in circulation than the market can support, and, as a result, publishers aren't even going to try and promote them within the literary realm anymore - they will either find a new hero, or promote secondary items, like action figures, movies, candies, and video games.


No one is running out to buy an early copy of a 50$ children's book anymore - I think everyone should acknowledge that the general popularity of the text has ebbed, and though perhaps there is still some hype, it is not even a sliver of what it used to be.

[LMK]

Oh puh-lease! How absurd...so many posts asking to let a thread and a topic die...too funny! If you truly wanted it to die you would not even have peeaked let alone posted here in this thread.

I liked the series (of books), thought the ending of the last was a cop-out with the epilogue, but for the most part I did enjoy them all. I didn't start reading them until I was 40-ish. I read them to myself and aloud to my children.

Should we stop reading Cinderella, too, because of wand-toting-fairy-godmothers?

I think you can imagine my response.

~L

[JBI]

Oh puh-lease! How absurd...so many posts asking to let a thread and a topic die...too funny! If you truly wanted it to die you would not even have peeaked let alone posted here in this thread.

I liked the series (of books), thought the ending of the last was a cop-out with the epilogue, but for the most part I did enjoy them all. I didn't start reading them until I was 40-ish. I read them to myself and aloud to my children.

Should we stop reading Cinderella, too, because of wand-toting-fairy-godmothers?

I think you can imagine my response.

~L
Perhaps it would be better to properly read the thread, before passing judgment on it in this fashion, even if we didn't like the series - just because one doesn't like a certain book doesn't mean they cannot discuss it. After all, as a cultural specimen the text is very important, if not as a literary text in its own right.

[Joreads]

Perhaps it would be better to properly read the thread, before passing judgment on it in this fashion, even if we didn't like the series - just because one doesn't like a certain book doesn't mean they cannot discuss it. After all, as a cultural specimen the text is very important, if not as a literary text in its own right.

I have to agree with this it would make for a boring discussion and a very quick one if everyone liked the same books, in fact this whole site would not be needed. There is nothing quite like a reasoned debate about a book and quite often I find things pointed out to me that I missed or over looked.

[LMK]

Perhaps it would be better to properly read the thread, before passing judgment on it in this fashion, even if we didn't like the series - just because one doesn't like a certain book doesn't mean they cannot discuss it. After all, as a cultural specimen the text is very important, if not as a literary text in its own right.

Please re-read my post. It is not to the persons who did not like the series, style, characters, message, etc. It was to the persons who specifically posted about letting the thread and the topic die. There is nothing I like better than a good debate. Well, maybe a good book.

May I repeat your words back to you then, Perhaps it would be better to properly read the material (my word to replace 'thread') before passing judgement...

Thanks,
~L

[TheFifthElement]

Rowling said herself after the publication of an early volume, that if you understand her beliefs, it wouldn't be difficult to guess the ending of the series - this was before the whole Prophecy bit (and yes, I didn't read the 7th one). Whether it is a perfect match or not, the whole Chosen One bit and the rising up to defeat the evil is taken straight out of scripture, or perhaps mimics Lewis - just because of some magical technicalities doesn't mean he isn't meant to be Jesus.

Well those technicalities may well be the difference between a theory fitting and not ;) Somehow I get the feeling you're stretching the text to fit the theory and, perhaps, taking Rowlings comments slightly out of context. There are a number of discrepancies between the Harry is Aslan, Harry is Jesus theory which just don't fit. Harry doesn't die, Harry isn't resurrected, Harry doesn't save the day, Harry isn't and doesn't purport to be the son of God, Harry doesn't perform miracles, Harry seems to have no thought to saving others, only himself in fact it is only at the point where he realises he has to die that he takes steps to prevent any other people being killed on his behalf but that point comes after an awful lot of bloodshed. If there's a connection, and to be fair I acknowledge a vague connection, it's a rather loose one.

I don't dispute your comments re Harry as 'hero' or rather Harry presented as a character with a hero complex. I'd also say he's a character with a victim complex. On the whole I wouldn't say he was a laudable character, prone to irrationality verging on totally stupidity, getting other people into danger and trouble as well as himself. But maybe this is part of the message: you're only as strong as the people around you who are prepared to stick their neck out for you. Though sometimes quite how Harry manages to keep hold of his friends is a little beyond me, he doesn't seem to do a great deal to earn people's friendship except, perhaps, the occasional act of heroism ;) But my point was more that the conclusion of the series took away that heroism from Harry, no matter how hard he tried his success was more to do with other people than it was to do with himself. Or that was my reading of it anyway.

[LMK]

I'm not sure I agree with the "chosen one" because Harry wasn't the chosen one it could have been Harry or Neville.

Perhaps, because Voldemort chose Harry, not having heard the fully prophecy, it could be considered that he was chosen, but that message didn't sink as deeply with me.

Yes it was a battle between good and evil, did Harry possess more good? I don't think so, but he was thrust into greatness to survive. In the end it is Neville who makes it possible for Harry to conquer Voldemort, so back to the either Harry or Neville and not a case of clear cut chosen one.

[TheFifthElement]

Yes it was a battle between good and evil, did Harry possess more good? I don't think so, but he was thrust into greatness to survive. In the end it is Neville who makes it possible for Harry to conquer Voldemort, so back to the either Harry or Neville and not a case of clear cut chosen one.

Yes, I noticed that as well. I wondered if Rowling was highlighting that even if Voldemort had 'chosen' Neville the outcome would have been the same.

[Emil Miller]

Please no more of these Harry Potter threads. Didn't we put the last one to rest?

Obviously not, but there is even worse to come. Thumbing through the latest copy of Time magazine I came across an item concerning a pop group called Harry and the Potters which has Ron on guitar, Hermione on bass, Hagrid on drums and Harry up front. What they play is known a wizard rock and apparently there are now dozens of wizard-rock bands in the US. They perform for people who think Harry Potter is awesome.

Oswald Spengler thou shouldst be living now.

[JBI]

Obviously not, but there is even worse to come. Thumbing through the latest copy of Time magazine I came across an item concerning a pop group called Harry and the Potters which has Ron on guitar, Hermione on bass, Hagrid on drums and Harry up front. What they play is known a wizard rock and apparently there are now dozens of wizard-rock bands in the US. They perform for people who think Harry Potter is awesome.

Oswald Spengler thou shouldst be living now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0W6G5bnurM

[Emil Miller]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0W6G5bnurM

I stopped at 0.34 where the guy says "It's given me something to smile about"

[Drkshadow03]

deus ex machina not a deficiency in Potter eh.. someone (I can't remember, was it you or someone else?) in this thread already said that cliches weren't bad in Rowling because children hadn't heard them before so therefore they were not cliches.. give me a break.. this is the same kind of argument.. JK Rowlings excessive dependence on Deus Ex Machina (to say nothing of cliches and her typical red herring plots) shows a writer who lacks the imagination to think of another way out of the corner she has written herself into... shows a writer that cannot keep her story's internal logic intact... maybe because it allows her to give a much more palatable ending however unlikely, however much it destroys "suspension of disbelief" which is what fantasy of course relies upon, does it not? but as long as she gives a half-assed explanation for the miracle afterwards it's okay, oh you have a pure heart so fate will always smile on you and miracles will rain down from the heavens to save you everytime you are put in peril? what thematic purposes does this satisfy? to show that the theme of Harry Potter is no hard work or skill required, miracles are a dime a dozen? don't worry, if you are a good guy, luck and fate will always be on your side?

This essay will seek to explicate the themes of Harry Potter, its important structural functions as a fantasy, and discuss where Harry Potter deviates from other fantasies. In order to do a proper essay and quote direct passages I would’ve had to re-read the books. In the future, I have plans to re-read Harry Potter as a series (probably far future) and will probably do a much more in depth analysis as I will be able to highlight what I want to quote as I read, but since that is impractical now I am merely going to refer to sections of story more broadly from memory.

Harry Potter functions in a fantastical sub-genre known as Wainscot, which is a subgenre of Urban fantasy. The power of fantasy is in its ability to restore objectivity by divorcing itself even further from reality than Realist fiction is capable of doing, and allowing us to see important issues of our everyday reality in a new direction, new angle, new slant. In an interview I did with up-and-coming fantasy writer, Kameron Hurley, on my blog (http://beyondassumptions.wordpress.com/2006/08/19/interview-with-kameron-hurley/), she stated these points more succinctly:

“As for the remove that takes place in epic, heroic, or just plain fantasy works, I’d argue that it’s the remove from the real world than comes closest to examining issues objectively. When you’re mired in your own world, familiar surroundings, you’re more numb to what you’d see as the everyday routines of life, the “normal,” the “expected,” the “natural.” When you remove these things from their settings you can often see the absurdities of them, the injustice. Fantasy – good fantasy – can do that without feeling didactic.”

Urban fantasy in particular allows for direct parallels between the real world and the fantastical milieu. In Epic fantasy or Sword-and-Sorcery the world is further divorced from modern reality.

The world of Harry Potter is our world, but transformed through the lens of magic. The two worlds exist alongside each other within the story, encouraging us to read into these parallels. In the hidden magical world we have shops, banks, sporting events, boarding schools, government, but twisted around into new forms through the magical milieu. The attraction at first for the reader is the whimsical charm this familiarity brings, a strange world that is both alien and familiar at the same time. Harry Potter, while possessing a serious story at times, is almost playful with its world and characters and in the actual prose itself. Even in its opening lines we get this sense of playful whimsy:

“Mr. and Mrs. Dursley, of number four, Privert Drive, were proud to say that they were perfectly normal, thank you very much. They were the last people you’d expect to be involved in anything strange or mysterious, because they just didn’t hold with such nonsense.” – Opening of HP and the Sorcerer’s Stone (Book 1).

One thing that most critics and proponents of the series can agree on is that the story on some level is about racism; disagreement, of course, exists over in what depth it deals with this issue. I also think this issue demonstrates how fantasy can let us see important problems that still infect our societies with fresh eyes. The racial theme centers on the inner-wizarding ideological conflict between mudbloods (wizards with human parents) and pure bloods (the term is self-explanatory). The ideology of wizarding “racism” for takes different forms throughout the novel: we have petty harassment, name-calling, and disdain (exemplified by Draco Malfoy and Slytherins), we have those who advocate for outright exclusion of mudbloods, along with torture and slavery of Muggles (the deatheaters), those with elitist racial attitudes who would rule over Muggles as benevolent philosopher-king/dictators for their own good (Dumbledore in his youth and the dark wizard Grindenwald), and even those who show a slight aversion towards Mudbloods if not verbalized hatred or actions of blatant discrimination (Slughorn who like the typical white person caught saying something stereotypically racist will deny that they are racist). The book doesn’t paint a simplistic portrait of racism, but shows it in its many different forms and expressions, some being more extreme than others, much like racism in real life. The story further complicates this reading through its parallels of the Muggle and Wizarding worlds; the real difference between these two worlds is that the members of one can do magic and the members of the other cannot. Nevertheless, a real difference of ability is presented through this binary based around genetics, and thus has an implicit racial component. Nevertheless, this very real difference between the inhabitants of the two worlds serves a sub-textual purpose that further exposes the arbitrariness of the mudblood/pure blood division so important to the racial politics of the Wizarding World since the real difference is between Muggles and Wizards, not mudbloods and purebloods. For the reader who knows there is no such thing as Wizards, this fictional logic and imaginary rules forces as to view racism in a new light; as far as we’re concerned all wizards are essentially the same, able to perform magic with equal ability whether they are mudblood or pure blood. The difference is between Muggles and Wizards. By divorcing it from the real world into an imaginary setting we see firsthand in an objective light just how arbitrary racism is as Rowling literally designs her own made-up form of racism in the Wizarding World. It allows children and young adults to think about this arbitrary quality to racism in a way that could never be achieved by just showing them a realistic story about it. It is precisely through the divorcing quality of fantasy, by creating an ideology that exists only in a different world, yet bearing similarities to our own ideologies, that allows us to see the extent of racism’s arbitrary nature. However, the opposite is not true in regards to the Muggle and Wizard divisions as possibly encouraging racist ideology.

It is important to remember that the Muggle and Wizarding worlds exist separately from each other much like two counties adjacent to one another, which is an inherent part of the Wainscott genre (the larger world needs to be ignorant of the magical sub-culture world living among or beside them). The Muggles live their everyday lives completely ignorant of the Wizarding World for the most part. The story never claims that Muggles are inferior to Wizards, at least not from the perspective of the heroes, only from the viewpoint of characters we are meant to despise. The Wizarding World and Muggles are merely different, not inferior or superior; this I think is the position of the story, and likewise, is present more for the sake of telling a fantasy story in the Wainscot tradition than serving as any effectual commentary on our society. After all, in real life there are no Wizards. These distinctions are merely conveniences of the genre, for the story’s sake, and most readers will recognize that instead of reading a particular theme of racial inferiority into it. After all, the readers of the books are all Muggles. It is ridiculous to think that readers will identify Muggles as inferior and bad when they themselves are Muggles. For this reason the real distinction between Muggles and Wizards doesn’t uncut the earlier anti-racial themes because readers will not identify this as any sort of real message that is applicable to their real lives, but merely as a genre trope, a convenience serving the nature of the story. The divorce between fantasy and reality is much greater in this instance. The racist belief that some races are superior to others in intelligence, physical prowess, and ability is too large of a metaphorical leap from the fantasy logic that some people can perform magic and others cannot for most people to read anything into this idea.

Even with all that said, Rowling paints the interrelations between these two dichotomous societies more complexly than just one having power over the other. Although most of the book shows the Wizarding World threatening to conquer the Muggle world, there are instances in the book when Muggles kill, torture, and harm wizards. The most obvious case being Dumbledore’s sister who is tortured by Muggles when they see her performing magic, but even Tom Riddle, the boy who would grow up to be Voldemort, lived also experienced a life being tortured by Muggles for being different in the orphanage. Harry Potter himself is verbally and psychologically abused by his adopted Muggle aunt and uncle. The Muggle world is just as much a threat to the Wizarding World as certain elements in the Wizarding World are a threat to the Muggle world. This explains why the Wizarding World needs to stay a secret. When Ministry officials tweak Muggle memories it is not out of some elitist joy of manipulating Muggles as rulers, but a general measure of preemptive self-defense.

Harry Potter is meant to be portrayed as a clever but mediocre Wizard who relies heavily on his friends for survival. Rowling continually emphasizes his average ability as a wizard. He cannot solve his problems merely by turning to his awesome powers, but needs help from outsiders, thus twisting the long tradition of fantasy archetypes and stereotypes of characters exemplified by characters such as Rand Al'Thor in The Wheel of Time of series where the Chosen One is super powerful and its through his immense power that he can save the world. Harry Potter subverts this trope numerous types by continually emphasizing Potter’s average ability as a wizard. As book 5 makes clear, I think with the prophecy (I think it was book 5), he was not Chosen because of his supreme ability in Wizarding, but Voldemort chose him because he believed the prophecy meant Potter (thus making it a self-fulfilling prophecy); the book says it could just as easily have been Neville Longbottom who the prophecy referred to, and had Voldemort read the prophecy that way he would’ve been the Chosen One and not Potter. What better way to show Harry Potter as unable to win by himself, then always forcing him to rely on something a friend provided him with in each and every book? This explains Rowling’s constant use of Deus ex Machina.

I would agree that generally Deus Ex Machina is a writing device that should be avoided. However, first rule of writing is that there are no rules of writing, only principles, and every rule can be broken if done for a purpose. Rowling’s Deus Ex Machina serve her aesthetic purposes by characterizing Potter a certain way, emphasizing her theme of Potter’s need to rely on his friends and trustworthy adults to the point where it stops being a plot device and starts functioning as a motif within the overall narrative structure. The same can be said for the so-called red herring elements in her plot. One of her themes in the book is adolescent misjudgment of people. The characters continually misjudged characters personalities and motivations. Not to mention Harry himself is naturally mistrustful of adults and friendship because of his upbringing with the Dursleys. A red herring shifting between possible villains makes perfect sense with a theme that centers on mistrusting adults, especially new ones to appear in your life, and misjudging people because of that mistrust, thus overturning expectations and assumptions of the characters. Harry doesn’t just misjudge Snape, but also Malfoy and a whole slew of characters—he even misjudges Dumbledore who it turns out has a darker side as revealed in the final book.

Larry from OF Blog at the Fallen (http://ofblog.blogspot.com/2007/07/reflections-upon-harry-potter.html) adroitly links this theme of misjudgment with Harry’s maturity through the novels, “The HP of the first book is 11 years old, with the world-view of an 11 year-old boy. He cannot readily see the goodness that lurks within the tortured frame of a Snape or within the spoiled shaping of a Draco Malfoy. They are enemies to overcome - perhaps not capital E Evil like Voldemort, but still just that, "evil." But as the series progresses and we witness things through Harry's PoV, things subtly change, until we too are forced to change our preconceptions of a Snape or a Draco to see that they are not static characters, but that they too are as dynamic as Harry or any of his friends. We end up seeing Harry's world through the eyes of one who is ready to leave his childhood shell to become an adult who will be wise enough to remember the lessons learned during that childhood apprenticeship stage.”

Still, all the themes such as friendship, the power of love, learning to trust others after abuse and having no one to love you, learning to trust adults through an adolescent’s eyes in a world where adults lie and tell half-truths are all subservient to the larger moral theme of Harry Potter, the crux of the series so to speak: Choice. In Harry Potter it is the choices we make that define us.

The story’s true center is the connected background of Voldemort and Harry Potter. The longish looks into Voldemort's "origins," which play out throughout all the novels, but especially the middle ones, reveal that Voldemort and Harry Potter are mirror reflections of each other. Both orphans, both living among Muggles who mistreat them, and despite these similar backgrounds both choose to take different paths in their lives. Voldemort is terrified of dying, seeking immortality, while Harry is willing to sacrifice his life so that his friends might live. Voldemort inspires the loyalty of his followers through fear, torture, and his unmatched talent as a wizard, while Harry inspires his friends through his courage, even though he is a mediocre wizard as far as talent and skill go. In the earlier novels, the sorting hat suggests Harry would be a good fit in Slytherin before placing him in Gryffindor. Harry asks Dumbledore why the sorting head almost placed him in Slytherin. Dumbledore explains that the sorting hat looks at the qualities within us, but also pays attention to our own choices; Harry, of course, repeatedly told the hat that he didn't want to end up in Slytherin. We see here an important point made in this moment. Harry could've ended up in Slythern like Voldemort, but likewise Voldemort could've ended up in Griffindor had his choices been different. This theme and central parallel of the novel provides the main moral point of the novel: there is no such thing as immutable essences called good and evil, but it is our choices that make us good or evil. This is a world of difference from the million Tolkien copies where there are Lucifers, Devils, and Dark Ones who are evil Dark Lords in their core essence. Not only are Harry Potter and Voldemort linked by destiny to face each other and magical scars wounds that allow Harry to gain Voldemort’s abilities (ability to speak to snakes called Parsel tongue), but they really have many of the same experiences; however, they react to those experiences differently. Harry Potter chooses love and sacrifice, while Voldemort chooses fear and selfishness. Dumbledore continually tells his protégé that what separates Harry from voldemort is his loyalty to his friends and that most precious of emotions, love.

However, like most the themes in Harry Potter, even love is not an uncomplicated emotion. Like the anti-racial themes it too is treated in a fairly sophisticated way. As critic Karin Westman writes, “[w]hile the earlier books in the series depict love as a generative and protective force, Half-Blood Prince and Deathly Hallows remind us that love can wound as well as shield. In these last two books Rowling locates love's damaging consequences not only within secondary characters like Voldemort's mother Merope and Bellatrix but also within the seemingly unassailable, all-powerful character of Dumbledore, thereby forging unlikely connections between disparate characters. Such parallels diminish easy distinctions between good and bad people and foreground the paradox of love's power. By the end of Rowling's series, love is indeed a weapon, as Dumbledore often explains to Harry, but that weapon is dangerously double-edged, placing the lover and the beloved at risk if it is improperly handled.” Even characters like Ron fall prey to this double-edged sword, temporarily abandoning Harry and Hermione in the final book because he thinks Potter is making moves on the woman he loves (Hermione) and jealousy over Harry’s fame (a personal character flaw that continually rears its ugly head from the earlier books). However, Ron does make the right moral choice and returns to his friends, winning the adoration of Hermione.

Individual moral choice is everywhere in the Potter books. Another obvious example is when Draco Malfoy cannot kill Dumbledore. He makes the wrong moral choices in the sixth book, Half-Blood Prince, by helping the Death Eaters to break into Hogwarts, while under duress over the threats to his father’s life. However, he too, must face a real moral choice. Dumbledore tells him he has a choice--he need not proceed down this path. Draco Malfoy in the final book makes the right choice, despite being inclined towards the path of pure-blooded racial politics of Slythern--we see a further complication of simplistic morality in that even racists, which the novel depicts Malfoy engaging in numerous times more than any other character--can sometimes make the right moral choices.

I advise everyone to go read Larry at OF Blog of the Fallen smart review for the final book of Harry Potter, which I already linked to, but will link to again here (http://ofblog.blogspot.com/2007/07/reflections-upon-harry-potter.html). I think very few people would argue that Harry Potter is brilliant literature on the grounds of aesthetics. However, it is fairly complicated literature for children's book, and I think it has earned its place in the history of Children's literature as both a popular phenomenon and for its own literary merits. Larry understands the appeal of Harry Potter as a child of abuse learning to negotiate a dark and sometimes cruel world that can be loveless and it can seem uncertain on whom you can trust, while not succumbing down the path of hatred, fear, and sadism, by not becoming a Voldemort. As Roni Natov puts it, “Harry embodies this state of injustice frequently experienced by children, often as inchoate fear and anger--and its other side, desire to possess extraordinary powers that will overcome such early and deep exile from the child's birthright of love and protection.” As Larry notes when he quotes G. K. Chesterton, Harry Potter teaches us that we all face dragons, but sometimes we can beat the dragons. I hope people treat this not so much as the next move in a debate, but rather a view into what I and others see when we read Harry Potter.




Work Cited

Beyond Assumptions Blog.

OF Blog of the Fallen.

Natov, Roni. “Harry Potter and the Extraordinariness of the Ordinary.” The Lion and the Unicorn. 25.1

Westman, Karen. “The Weapon we Have is Love.” Children’s Literature Association Quarterly. 33 (2).

[islandclimber]

^^ :thumbs_up

great essay drkshadow!

I'm going to try to reply to some of the points raised within, in the next few days when I have a little more free time, mostly on the racism allegory, the complex use of love as a theme, and well the literary techniques such as deus ex machina being necessary due to aesthetic purpose (which I have a mixed view on)...

[Paulclem]

Tremendous effort Drkshadow.

[JCamilo]

"Urban Fantasy" is something done by Robert Louis Stevenson and Kafka. Magic Realism is basically "urban fantasy". 1001 Nights is "urban fantasy". The problem of Harry Potter is not what it is as genre, but as literature (or the solution is). However quoted Chesterton did not understand the joke...

[mortalterror]

With the new movie coming out the other week, the old ones were on television again and I had some time to watch one while I was doing my laundry. I was sort of going in and out throughout the picture; so I didn't get to see the whole thing, but what I saw was ridiculous.

Over the course of about half an hour Harry, Hermione, and some other kid are creeping through the woods following people. Three or so times Hermione looks back. Harry says, "What is it?" and she says "Nothing. I just thought I saw/heard something." Like three freaking times! I'm watching this thinking, "Well, don't investigate! It's not like you live in a land of danger and magical fantasy. You're curious about every other freakin' thing! And it's not like you could just go back ten feet and check a bush."

Then their friend is getting attacked by a werewolf, and Hermione makes a wolf call. Harry says, "Now he's after us," to which Hermione replies "I didn't think of that." At which point I'm like "Really? 'Cause it looks like that was your whole plan!" What else could she have been thinking? I ran this past a friend of mine and he concluded, "Hermione picked a really bad time to practice her wolf impression."

I went away, folded some laundry, came back. People are shooting wands out of each others hands. I went away, came back. The movie ends with the little boy getting a pimped out broom. Now this is hardly, "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." "This looks like the beginning of a beautiful friendship." or a three man gunfight in a cemetery. I don't think I'm going to watch any of the others.

[JBI]

With the new movie coming out the other week, the old ones were on television again and I had some time to watch one while I was doing my laundry. I was sort of going in and out throughout the picture; so I didn't get to see the whole thing, but what I saw was ridiculous.

Over the course of about half an hour Harry, Hermione, and some other kid are creeping through the woods following people. Three or so times Hermione looks back. Harry says, "What is it?" and she says "Nothing. I just thought I saw/heard something." Like three freaking times! I'm watching this thinking, "Well, don't investigate! It's not like you live in a land of danger and magical fantasy. You're curious about every other freakin' thing! And it's not like you could just go back ten feet and check a bush."

Then their friend is getting attacked by a werewolf, and Hermione makes a wolf call. Harry says, "Now he's after us," to which Hermione replies "I didn't think of that." At which point I'm like "Really? 'Cause it looks like that was your whole plan!" What else could she have been thinking? I ran this past a friend of mine and he concluded, "Hermione picked a really bad time to practice her wolf impression."

I went away, folded some laundry, came back. People are shooting wands out of each others hands. I went away, came back. The movie ends with the little boy getting a pimped out broom. Now this is hardly, "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." "This looks like the beginning of a beautiful friendship." or a three man gunfight in a cemetery. I don't think I'm going to watch any of the others.

It's strange, you commented on the better bits of the movie.

[mortalterror]

It's strange, you commented on the better bits of the movie.
It gets worse?

[JBI]

It gets worse?

I hear the new one is 10x the melodrama, minus the visual effects, and lacks any coherency, or presence of a plot. Lets be honest, sequels suck, and heptalogies are even worse.


I think the fact that movies were made before the books were finished is proof enough of the sort of banking-on-the-in-thing going on within the producer's minds - it's just a shame Alan Rickman's talent is wasted on kids movies, when he could be playing Shakespeare - but I guess he does his job well enough - certainly better than the rest of the lot, especially that freaking Rat-Kid of a hero they call Harry - I guess he looks close enough to the guy on the cover of the original dust jacket, but seriously, who cast that moron - and the Red head, don't even get me started - the girl I guess is good enough to play Hermione - I hear people find her attractive (I don't, though I am of the same age as her, so I guess it is legal, though I'm sure there are forty year old sickos in their basement with their pants down watching the movies, and fast-forwarding to all the "Juicy" bits, Humbert Humbert, giggidy giggidy etc.) But lets be honest - Harry Potter was too damn popular to have ever been considered as being the source material for good cinema - either you stick so close to the mediocre text that everyone pays for it, or you bend it so drastically as to make it presentable, and everybody hates it (though I guess they'd pay anyway).

Though, I am told they put a black kid in that Slytherin house in the new movie - so perhaps they are being progressive - though, given the densely Aryan appearance of that Malfoy kid, it is impossible I would wager to justify how everyone is related in the "Pure Blood" world. Then again, the closest things to Jews in those texts are probably the old world bankers - the Jews, fighting for their rights in the guise of big noséd Goblins, hoarding their treasures, so perhaps not so progressive after all.

[Paulclem]

Over the course of about half an hour Harry, Hermione, and some other kid are creeping through the woods following people. Three or so times Hermione looks back. Harry says, "What is it?" and she says "Nothing. I just thought I saw/heard something." Like three freaking times! I'm watching this thinking, "Well, don't investigate! It's not like you live in a land of danger and magical fantasy. You're curious about every other freakin' thing! And it's not like you could just go back ten feet and check a bush."

This is from the Prisoner of Azkaban, and Hermone suspects that it is her - she has a time turner? - might be the wrong name - which enables her to go back in time to attend lessons that clash in the school timetable. She is supposed to keep it secret from the other students, and the convention of use says tha you are not suposed to meet yourself, as this will case problems. It makes perfect sense in the context of the book/ film. I thought this was the best book - but it ddn't translate so well to the film. Still good though.

[kasie]

.....it's just a shame Alan Rickman's talent is wasted on kids movies, when he could be playing Shakespeare......

No doubt the man likes to eat.

[Paulclem]

I think the fact that movies were made before the books were finished is proof enough of the sort of banking-on-the-in-thing going on within the producer's minds - it's just a shame Alan Rickman's talent is wasted on kids movies, when he could be playing Shakespeare - but I guess he does his job well enough - certainly better than the rest of the lot, especially that freaking Rat-Kid of a hero they call Harry - I guess he looks close enough to the guy on the cover of the original dust jacket, but seriously, who cast that moron - and the Red head, don't even get me started - the girl I guess is good enough to play Hermione - I hear people find her attractive (I don't, though I am of the same age as her, so I guess it is legal, though I'm sure there are forty year old sickos in their basement with their pants down watching the movies, and fast-forwarding to all the "Juicy" bits, Humbert Humbert, giggidy giggidy etc.) But lets be honest - Harry Potter was too damn popular to have ever been considered as being the source material for good cinema - either you stick so close to the mediocre text that everyone pays for it, or you bend it so drastically as to make it presentable, and everybody hates it (though I guess they'd pay anyway).

Does the term "winding up" translate across the pond?

[Drkshadow03]

^^ :thumbs_up

great essay drkshadow!

I'm going to try to reply to some of the points raised within, in the next few days when I have a little more free time, mostly on the racism allegory, the complex use of love as a theme, and well the literary techniques such as deus ex machina being necessary due to aesthetic purpose (which I have a mixed view on)...

Look forward to your additional response.

[JCamilo]

Over the course of about half an hour Harry, Hermione, and some other kid are creeping through the woods following people. Three or so times Hermione looks back. Harry says, "What is it?" and she says "Nothing. I just thought I saw/heard something." Like three freaking times! I'm watching this thinking, "Well, don't investigate! It's not like you live in a land of danger and magical fantasy. You're curious about every other freakin' thing! And it's not like you could just go back ten feet and check a bush."

This is from the Prisoner of Azkaban, and Hermone suspects that it is her - she has a time turner? - might be the wrong name - which enables her to go back in time to attend lessons that clash in the school timetable. She is supposed to keep it secret from the other students, and the convention of use says tha you are not suposed to meet yourself, as this will case problems. It makes perfect sense in the context of the book/ film. I thought this was the best book - but it ddn't translate so well to the film. Still good though.


Doesnt Dumbledore suggest to them the use of the time traveling later when Harry is recovering ?

[JBI]

Over the course of about half an hour Harry, Hermione, and some other kid are creeping through the woods following people. Three or so times Hermione looks back. Harry says, "What is it?" and she says "Nothing. I just thought I saw/heard something." Like three freaking times! I'm watching this thinking, "Well, don't investigate! It's not like you live in a land of danger and magical fantasy. You're curious about every other freakin' thing! And it's not like you could just go back ten feet and check a bush."

This is from the Prisoner of Azkaban, and Hermone suspects that it is her - she has a time turner? - might be the wrong name - which enables her to go back in time to attend lessons that clash in the school timetable. She is supposed to keep it secret from the other students, and the convention of use says tha you are not suposed to meet yourself, as this will case problems. It makes perfect sense in the context of the book/ film. I thought this was the best book - but it ddn't translate so well to the film. Still good though.

The whole time-turner bit is ridiculous though - if they can go back in time, why don't they enlist Arnold and send him back to kill Voldemort's mother?

[Paulclem]

Doesnt Dumbledore suggest to them the use of the time traveling later when Harry is recovering ?

Yes. The implication is that Hermione suspects it s herself, and confims it whilst at Hagrid's house.

[Paulclem]

The whole time-turner bit is ridiculous though - if they can go back in time, why don't they enlist Arnold and send him back to kill Voldemort's mother?

They're British JBI! It just wouldn't be cricket!

[JCamilo]

Doesnt Dumbledore suggest to them the use of the time traveling later when Harry is recovering ?

Yes. The implication is that Hermione suspects it s herself, and confims it whilst at Hagrid's house.

Then she is a bit dumb isnt? She thinks it is her, the only explanation is the time travel, yet she needs Dumbledore to suggest the use of the device to solve their problems? It is, as JBI suggests, a "stuff ex machina", the consequences of it is existence is not well developed, just placed in the book, hence why the characters are able to act a bit odd...

[Drkshadow03]

The whole time-turner bit is ridiculous though - if they can go back in time, why don't they enlist Arnold and send him back to kill Voldemort's mother?

Not really. The device if I remember correctly takes you back in time by the hour. You want to go back three hours, you need to flip the thing 3 times. You want to go back 24 hours, you need to flip it 24 times. You want to go back 20 years: 20 x 365 x 24 = you'd have to turn the freaking thing 175,200 times!!!

If I also remember correctly there is no reversing the process, no returning to the future. To return back to "real time" you have to wait to catch-up to point in the present when you used the device to travel back. So you travel back 20 years, you have to live 20 years in the past before returning to the point in time your originally left.

Putting the inconveniences of the devices aside. As if already predicting your exact criticism of this magical object, Rowling has all of the Ministry's time-turner destroyed prior to them realizing that Voldemort has returned. So as far as they are concerned Voldemort is dead, and there would be no real reason to attempt to send Arnold back and kill him Terminator style. And when they do realize he's truly back and not dead, well, they no longer have the damn things.

[JBI]

Not really. The device if I remember correctly takes you back in time by the hour. You want to go back three hours, you need to flip the thing 3 times. You want to go back 24 hours, you need to flip it 24 times. You want to go back 20 years: 20 x 365 x 24 = you'd have to turn the freaking thing 175,200 times!!!

If I also remember correctly there is no reversing the process, no returning to the future. To return back to "real time" you have to wait to catch-up to point in the present when you used the device to travel back. So you travel back 20 years, you have to live 20 years in the past before returning to the point in time your originally left.

Putting the inconveniences of the devices aside. As if already predicting your exact criticism of this magical object, Rowling has all of the Ministry's time-turner destroyed prior to them realizing that Voldemort has returned. So as far as they are concerned Voldemort is dead, and there would be no real reason to attempt to send Arnold back and kill him Terminator style. And when they do realize he's truly back and not dead, well, they no longer have the damn things.

Cranking something that many times if you are a wizard and can crank by magic? OR better yet, why didn't they crank it years and years before? but it makes no sense - they don't even treat the paradox - think of it as mediocre imaginings - they have a time macine, but don't use it - I'm sure Arnold wouldn't object anyway.

[Drkshadow03]

Cranking something that many times if you are a wizard and can crank by magic? OR better yet, why didn't they crank it years and years before? but it makes no sense - they don't even treat the paradox - think of it as mediocre imaginings - they have a time macine, but don't use it - I'm sure Arnold wouldn't object anyway.

Sounds more like weak criticism than mediocre imaginings, for the reasons I already stated one post above yours, especially the second point which you conveniently didn't address; the fact that the spell that murders in the Magic World is illegal, so why it would be legal to murder an innocent boy prior to his committing any crime by time-traveling is beyond me (also undercutting that whole theme of moral choice that I mentioned); when only Dumbledore seems to know Voldemort's previous identity as Tom Riddle, and he doesn't seem like the murdering type; and how the time travel motif to kill Hitler or John Connor or whomever would equate to superior imaginings by copying the direction of every other single time travel story is beyond me.

[Paulclem]

Then she is a bit dumb isnt? She thinks it is her, the only explanation is the time travel, yet she needs Dumbledore to suggest the use of the device to solve their problems? It is, as JBI suggests, a "stuff ex machina", the consequences of it is existence is not well developed, just placed in the book, hence why the characters are able to act a bit odd...

No mate. She has to go through events to realise why she has to go back in time. Why are you bothering to try to criticise when you clearly don't know the story? Why am I bothering with this thread? Drkshadow is clearly answering you, Mortalterror and JBI's criticisms with reasoned answers based upon the text and films. Drkshadow's done a really good job against puerile objectons. Well done Drkshadow. More than a match.

[JCamilo]

Eh, who said I do not know the story?
Mortal Claims the behaviour of Harry and Hermonine in the movie is strange, since she dismiss something in a magical wood quite quickly while they are usually curious.
You claim he thought it was herself, so she just avoided the meeting, since it was forbidden.
Then I just asked about Dumbledore having to suggest the use the time travel device, so: either Hermonie had no idea about being herself, otherwise she would already know that she would use the time travel or or, if she knew, she would be rather dumb to not consider the use of something she just saw in pratice.
Of course,Mortal is talking about the movie, so you saying that in the book it made sense is a bit irrelevant, a movie is a work on his own, if the movie fails to fullfil his information, it is not good (altough I remember the movie actually explains the impossiblity of meeting). Which just means: the behaviour of Hermonie was badly portraied because the idea of time travel was far from being well used, as it is a plot device, just scattered in the narrative. Rather typical in Harry Potter.

I wonder how this equate not knowing the works or how answering "It happens because it is how it happens in the book" style of answer is anything to be praised.

[Paulclem]

What's the point of setting someone up with a question if you do know the book/ film? I still think your criticisms ae rubbish. The film works, the books work. It is a narrative technique that allows the story to be played out according to Rowling's plan for the story. You seem to think that a personality flaw in a charater makes it a bad piece. Aren't character flaws part and parcel of fiction?

[JCamilo]

Rambo IV works too. And it is not a character flaw, it is a narrative flaw, but hey, the movie Works!

[JBI]

Sounds more like weak criticism than mediocre imaginings, for the reasons I already stated one post above yours, especially the second point which you conveniently didn't address; the fact that the spell that murders in the Magic World is illegal, so why it would be legal to murder an innocent boy prior to his committing any crime by time-traveling is beyond me (also undercutting that whole theme of moral choice that I mentioned); when only Dumbledore seems to know Voldemort's previous identity as Tom Riddle, and he doesn't seem like the murdering type; and how the time travel motif to kill Hitler or John Connor or whomever would equate to superior imaginings by copying the direction of every other single time travel story is beyond me.

I was merely joking with that - but think of it this way - they could have gone back and given his mother a box of condoms - the possibilities are endless.

[Mathor]

I don't really understand the debate, the time-turners are all destroyed by the time Voldermort comes back. Dumbledore tells Hermione to use time travel as a way of "giving her permission to use it". Hermione had kept it a secret in order to keep a promise that she had made to her Professor not to tell anyone of it (Since they are to be used only by the ministry). Dumbledore mentions that she use it in a way of allowing her permission, as well as conveniently spoiling a secret of Hermione's.

EDIT: now to speak for Science fiction. I do not think it is possible for anyone to go back that far. This is not because the time-turner does not allow it to be done, but because as people have eluded to, a person traveling through time has to go through the events up until the present without being seen. The reason they cannot be seen is evident in that if they were to be seen it would destroy the fabric of time. Unlike Terminator or a typical time-traveling device, there is no way to go back to the present, it has to be "re-lived". It seems plausible that the reason the ministry does now allow them to be used, and keeps them tightly secured in the ministry, is because of such things. Had the professor, or dumbledore, or hermione been caught using the time time-turners, they surely would've been arrested on-spot.

[Paulclem]

Rambo IV works too. And it is not a character flaw, it is a narrative flaw, but hey, the movie Works!

You'e comparing HP with Rambo? What you are basically saying is that all the people who apprecate HP for what it is - a kid's adventure that can be enjoyed by adults too - are idiots, unlike yourseif of course. How can they not see its flaws? Probably because it has more going for it than the sum total of flaws it undoubtedly has.

either Hermonie had no idea about being herself, otherwise she would already know that she would use the time travel or or, if she knew, she would be rather dumb to not consider the use of something she just saw in pratice.

I already suggested that she suspected = charater flaw. I just can't see the problem with this. I've seen the film a few times - my kids watch it - and there is absolutely no problem with the flow of it. It is plausible and it works.

[JBI]

I don't really understand the debate, the time-turners are all destroyed by the time Voldermort comes back. Dumbledore tells Hermione to use time travel as a way of "giving her permission to use it". Hermione had kept it a secret in order to keep a promise that she had made to her Professor not to tell anyone of it (Since they are to be used only by the ministry). Dumbledore mentions that she use it in a way of allowing her permission, as well as conveniently spoiling a secret of Hermione's.

EDIT: now to speak for Science fiction. I do not think it is possible for anyone to go back that far. This is not because the time-turner does not allow it to be done, but because as people have eluded to, a person traveling through time has to go through the events up until the present without being seen. The reason they cannot be seen is evident in that if they were to be seen it would destroy the fabric of time. Unlike Terminator or a typical time-traveling device, there is no way to go back to the present, it has to be "re-lived". It seems plausible that the reason the ministry does now allow them to be used, and keeps them tightly secured in the ministry, is because of such things. Had the professor, or dumbledore, or hermione been caught using the time time-turners, they surely would've been arrested on-spot.

Hypothetically though, if we are to understand the time travel, Hermione would be aging at a much faster rate than her friends - every time she exists in the same time sphere in two bodies, she is aging twice as faster, keep in mind, so in the end, she should appear at least 1/3 of a year older - some teachers, letting her do that.

[Paulclem]

I don't really understand the debate, the time-turners are all destroyed by the time Voldermort comes back. Dumbledore tells Hermione to use time travel as a way of "giving her permission to use it". Hermione had kept it a secret in order to keep a promise that she had made to her Professor not to tell anyone of it (Since they are to be used only by the ministry). Dumbledore mentions that she use it in a way of allowing her permission, as well as conveniently spoiling a secret of Hermione's.

Thanks Mathor - that's cleared it up for me. It's quite a few years since I read the book.

[JCamilo]

So Rambo IV does. Wait, why you can not compare Harry Potter III with Rambo IV, it is sacred?
I am calling everyone idiots, after all it is written, isnt?
If you can not understand that using a character that is either smart, resourceful and curious to be nothing at all just to avoid plot detours is a flaw of narrative, not of the character.
Hehe, I am not even going to move about the quality of the movie. Kids also watch Hannah Barbera Cartoons, they should replace Shakespeare in our schools...

[Paulclem]

Hypothetically though, if we are to understand the time travel, Hermione would be aging at a much faster rate than her friends - every time she exists in the same time sphere in two bodies, she is aging twice as faster, keep in mind, so in the end, she should appear at least 1/3 of a year older - some teachers, letting her do that.

You could write a book JBI - A brief history of Harry Potter by JK Hawking

[Paulclem]

So Rambo IV does. Wait, why you can not compare Harry Potter III with Rambo IV, it is sacred?
I am calling everyone idiots, after all it is written, isnt?
If you can not understand that using a character that is either smart, resourceful and curious to be nothing at all just to avoid plot detours is a flaw of narrative, not of the character.
Hehe, I am not even going to move about the quality of the movie. Kids also watch Hannah Barbera Cartoons, they should replace Shakespeare in our schools...

I think Mathor's post clears it up. Rambo? Yes you can compare Rambo iv if you like, but I can't see the relevance. Now there is a film full of cliche and rubbish characterisaton. I presume you thought to compare it in terms of quality. How did you know it was inmy top ten films to turn off the tv for?

[JCamilo]

No, Mathor only says what happens in the book. It do not say anything about Hermonie not conecting her time-clone presence in the scene with the fact that she had to solve the problems (or help harry to solve) using the device. You are obviously mistaking: I am countering your argument to answer Mortal, not the book.

And You again misunderstand. I am using Rambo IV because it is a crap movie. Not because I am suggesting you like it, In fact I expect you dislike it a lot. But Rambo IV is full of Cliches ? Surprise, so is Harry Potter. Rubbish Characterisation? So is Harry Potter. (Granted, Rambo is worst) but basically: Rambo has flow, logic between scenes because telling a basic plot is simple. Not a great feat. Kids do it all the time. Players of Dungeons and Dragons do it all the time (and they often improvise). It works? Yeah, it is a basic thing, not something special. We would not be here criticising it (for good or bad or ugly) if I did not the basic. We all accept it. Defenses of HP in the basis that "it works" is just, what have you said? Rubbish criticism? Lets demmand a little more to receive the praise,right?

[Mathor]

No, Mathor only says what happens in the book. It do not say anything about Hermonie not conecting her time-clone presence in the scene with the fact that she had to solve the problems (or help harry to solve) using the device. You are obviously mistaking: I am countering your argument to answer Mortal, not the book.

And You again misunderstand. I am using Rambo IV because it is a crap movie. Not because I am suggesting you like it, In fact I expect you dislike it a lot. But Rambo IV is full of Cliches ? Surprise, so is Harry Potter. Rubbish Characterisation? So is Harry Potter. (Granted, Rambo is worst) but basically: Rambo has flow, logic between scenes because telling a basic plot is simple. Not a great feat. Kids do it all the time. Players of Dungeons and Dragons do it all the time (and they often improvise). It works? Yeah, it is a basic thing, not something special. We would not be here criticising it (for good or bad or ugly) if I did not the basic. We all accept it. Defenses of HP in the basis that "it works" is just, what have you said? Rubbish criticism? Lets demmand a little more to receive the praise,right?

I am not speaking of the book, I am speaking of the movie. Just because you did not understand the plot of the movie does not make what I said untrue. Hermione sees herself walking, but feels it's best not to mention it. It's not as if she didn't know what it was, she sees herself and Harry walking, but she also knows she has a time-travel device and has already deduced the probability that she'd end up using it at some point.

i KNOW the movie is good because I trust the work of Alfonso Cuaron, a master director. As contrite as the Harry Potter novels can be (and most of the movies), the third movie is a gem of cinema.

[Drkshadow03]

[COLOR="DarkRed"] Why am I bothering with this thread? Drkshadow is clearly answering you, Mortalterror and JBI's criticisms with reasoned answers based upon the text and films. Drkshadow's done a really good job against puerile objectons. Well done Drkshadow. More than a match.

Glad you're enjoying the fun. However, I want to correct you. I've only really addressed JBI's criticisms (and he was jesting). I haven't responded to Mortalterror's complaints about the movie, nor any of Jcamillo's so-called "points."

[mortalterror]

Drkshadow is clearly answering you, Mortalterror and JBI's criticisms with reasoned answers based upon the text and films. Drkshadow's done a really good job against puerile objectons. Well done Drkshadow. More than a match.
Oh, I completely agree. His analysis and familiarity with the text is far in excess of my own. I would not dare to refute his contentions on my own, and so I have not attempted to critique anything he says but merely confined my remarks to my own anecdotal experience.

[mona amon]

Hypothetically though, if we are to understand the time travel, Hermione would be aging at a much faster rate than her friends - every time she exists in the same time sphere in two bodies, she is aging twice as faster, keep in mind, so in the end, she should appear at least 1/3 of a year older - some teachers, letting her do that.

No real time elapses when she's time travelling, so she won't age any faster. For instance, when Dumbledore sends her and Harry three hours back in time to rescue Sirius, he announces that it's five minutes to midnight. And it's still five minutes to midnight when they get back, even though they've been travelling in the past for three hours. I assume that only real time counts for aging, not revisited time.

Edit: Perhaps when she turns the timeturner to go back in time three hours, she becomes three hours younger, and then ages at the normal pace until she reaches the age she started out with at the end of the three hours. Well, why not? :p

[Hank Stamper]

Hypothetically though, if we are to understand the time travel, Hermione would be aging at a much faster rate than her friends - every time she exists in the same time sphere in two bodies, she is aging twice as faster, keep in mind, so in the end, she should appear at least 1/3 of a year older - some teachers, letting her do that.

You could write a book JBI - A brief history of Harry Potter by JK Hawking

yep - how typical of jk rowling to get the physics of time travel wrong..

now lets all get really angry and pummel our keyboards :flare:

WHY? JK? WHY CAN'T YOU MAKE SOMETHING AS SIMPLE AS TIME TRAVEL REALISTIC? I MEAN SHE WOULD BE 1/3 OLDER.. 1 WHOLE 3RD I TELLS YOU! IT'S FLAWED! THE WHOLE NOVEL IS FLAWED!

[JCamilo]

I am not speaking of the book, I am speaking of the movie. Just because you did not understand the plot of the movie does not make what I said untrue. Hermione sees herself walking, but feels it's best not to mention it. It's not as if she didn't know what it was, she sees herself and Harry walking, but she also knows she has a time-travel device and has already deduced the probability that she'd end up using it at some point.

i KNOW the movie is good because I trust the work of Alfonso Cuaron, a master director. As contrite as the Harry Potter novels can be (and most of the movies), the third movie is a gem of cinema.

What is there to not understand? Let me say again, I am not saying anything different from the scenes your or anyone else is descripting (and yeah, I wrote book in a harshness, but It is not necessary to edit the posts, since it is already done, right?), just pointing the explanation that Hermonie does not investigate what she saw because she knows about her timetravel clone is far fetched. In the movie she does not say it at all. And it is Dumbledore and not Hermnonie that suggests the use of time traveling device - if she already knew about it she would not first urge Dumbledore to change things and that the trio could testify. It was necessary Dumbledore to give tips for her to consider the use (and even when and where she should go, something that should be obvious if she saw herself).
This implies that either Mortal is right about the sunden lack of curiosity of the trio (by the way, it is not Hermonie that moves them away from the pumpkin field, so it was not a decision taken by her reasoning either) or that Hermonie (if saw herself) is a bit... slow. You can pick which one.
Of course, JK Rowling had no blame here. The book is slightly different, isnt?

But hey, if you think Harry Potter is a prroduct of a master and reflects it, there is very little I can do except talk about a time when a Master director was Stanley Kubrick and a master film was Clockwork Orange... But maybe I am a dimwit like Harold Bloom.
Now I would come back to read Chesterton, someone should.

[Annamariah]

I'm not going to comment about this whole debate, but I just want to say my opinion on the aging while using the time-turner. Hermione only used the time-turner for almost a year, and she didn't use it all the time, she only re-lived a couple of hours each day. So okay, in the end she has aged a bit faster than her fellow students, but really, can you honestly say you could see the difference? "Hermione, you look two whole months older than you should be! :eek:"

:D

[susan_p]

lol @ the rambo comparison! ;) I'm kinda split on HP - it doesn't hold any huge significant appeal to me, but I appreciate it for turning younger people onto books again. I mean not just Rowling's books, but even other's outside of that scope. Found an article on Infloox that basically explains how Rowling used a scene from "The Iliad" by Homer (yeah seriously!) as the basis for Cedric's death in Goblet of Fire. Maybe once kids know about stuff like that, it would turn them onto other books and authors as well. I think I just went off on a total tangent here :)

[Mathor]

What is there to not understand? Let me say again, I am not saying anything different from the scenes your or anyone else is descripting (and yeah, I wrote book in a harshness, but It is not necessary to edit the posts, since it is already done, right?), just pointing the explanation that Hermonie does not investigate what she saw because she knows about her timetravel clone is far fetched. In the movie she does not say it at all. And it is Dumbledore and not Hermnonie that suggests the use of time traveling device - if she already knew about it she would not first urge Dumbledore to change things and that the trio could testify. It was necessary Dumbledore to give tips for her to consider the use (and even when and where she should go, something that should be obvious if she saw herself).
This implies that either Mortal is right about the sunden lack of curiosity of the trio (by the way, it is not Hermonie that moves them away from the pumpkin field, so it was not a decision taken by her reasoning either) or that Hermonie (if saw herself) is a bit... slow. You can pick which one.
Of course, JK Rowling had no blame here. The book is slightly different, isnt?

But hey, if you think Harry Potter is a prroduct of a master and reflects it, there is very little I can do except talk about a time when a Master director was Stanley Kubrick and a master film was Clockwork Orange... But maybe I am a dimwit like Harold Bloom.
Now I would come back to read Chesterton, someone should.

yes, Kubrick is my favorite director of all time. But i do not understand the point you are making. And 2001: A Space Odyssey was his best work anyway (or maybe Dr. Strangelove), though I really love A Clockwork Orange.

As JBI pointed out, it's true that she would age through the use, but her use of time travel over that year would equate about an hour per day for like let's say 250-300 days (I don't know how long the semester at Hogwarts is). So Hermione would be about 300 or so hours older (so like ten days, nothing even slightly noticeable). I do not understand how this is flawed, if this device changes the rules for time-travel altogether?

Hermione had been using this time travel device for an entire year. To come up with the conclusion that somehow she didn't know about it later when Dumbledore mentioned it seems kind of nonsensical. Of course she knew about it, but Harry did not. Dumbledore mentioned it as a way of unveiling it to Harry (so Hermione could discontinue lying about it and not mentioning it). And Dumbledore never said where she should go to or what she should do when she went back in time either. She knew exactly where to go, because she had SEEN it before. So she goes back in time and goes right for the pumpkin patch, where she initially saw herself and Harry running. When Harry asked her what she saw, she was like "oh nothing, i thought i saw something", because to tell Harry would completely make no sense to Harry.

[JCamilo]

I do not really believe you are arguing with me about the effects of time travel when I have not said a single word about this.


To come up with the conclusion that somehow she didn't know about it later when Dumbledore mentioned it seems kind of nonsensical. Of course she knew about it, but Harry did not.

No, she did not. Otherwise she would not first appeal to Dumbledore to solve everything. It is only after Dumbledore suggests the time travel that she decides to use it. Before she was appealing him to hear their testimony. It is nonsensical to believe she "had to go back in time" and would still try to convice Dumbledore.
You know why? Because she did not knew. She did not saw herself in the forests at all. She was not sure of what was and she move away without invensting, thus Mortal critic is just correct.


Dumbledore mentioned it as a way of unveiling it to Harry (so Hermione could discontinue lying about it and not mentioning it).

No, Dumbledore just like to be cryptic. It make no sense of such effort to hide from Harry and explain everything to him 2 minutes later.


And Dumbledore never said where she should go to or what she should do when she went back in time either.

Actually He did. He tell her how many turns she should do (3) and to follow his steps.


She knew exactly where to go, because she had SEEN it before. So she goes back in time and goes right for the pumpkin patch, where she initially saw herself and Harry running. When Harry asked her what she saw, she was like "oh nothing, i thought i saw something", because to tell Harry would completely make no sense to Harry.

Meh, she did not even knew that she had to threw rocks. She do not tell anything to Harry because she did not knew. That simple. Since Dumbledore do explain where and when to go back, at that time she had no notion of it. (And in the book she is even surprised by the idea).

[Paulclem]

No, she did not. Otherwise she would not first appeal to Dumbledore to solve everything. It is only after Dumbledore suggests the time travel that she decides to use it. Before she was appealing him to hear their testimony. It is nonsensical to believe she "had to go back in time" and would still try to convice Dumbledore.

I say tomato, you say tomaato. If it's a case of she did/ she didn't then the debate has no point. I'm clear that she does see and suspects it is herself. Nothing has happened at that point so she has to go through with the initial thread of time. Dumbledore does advise her to go back, but he is the mentor of the children.Is it odd that she would wait for his go-ahead?

Is the physics thing relevant? You have accept the conveniant fiction of many novels. And again - it is a teen book.

It reminds me of The Wind in the Willows by Kenneth Graeme.(Right spelling?). The whole scale thing of the toad, badger weasels, humans, cars etc bothered me when I read it as an adult. As a kid it just didn't figure. I don't think you can crticise a work of teen fiction too much for not having a consistent theory of time.

Does the person who posts las twin the thread?

[JCamilo]

It is only relevant as either Hermione is out of character or not, so Mortal critic stands. A quick review of the pages of the book shows that she see nothing at all and she is surprised by Dumbledore suggestion. So, it obviously a case that the script predicted the fact that a movie shows more than a page, but forgot to adjust the kids behaviour. Also, it is pretty clear she do not step away because she sees herself (It is not even her iniciative to move away). Albeit, I could careless, it is nitpick.
Also, she is not waiting Dumbledore at all. The kids often bypass any restriction and in fact, she was already using time travel for her own safe and the trio was hiding behind pumpkins because they could not be seen by the addults (Dumbledore included), so wating for his go-ahead is just non sense.
Another thing, being a teen-book (or movie)does not make it impervious to criticism. I find no such flaws in Alice in Wonderlands.
Finally, I really do not care about the physics thing. It is as I said a plot devide like most magical stuff, the consequence of its use is never explored. This is a negative for the book and JBI have every right to question this, but I do not care and said nothing about it. In fact in my opinion the most strange thing is that she may come back time and study extra 8 hours, but her body would be tired in the same manner, so she would eventually have a "time travel lag", with excessive use, be much more tired than the other kids, just like we do when instead of sleeping we spend the night studying. It was not that effective, but since the movie does not explain how many times she used it, it is a bit pointless to consider the effects.

[Mathor]

It is only relevant as either Hermione is out of character or not, so Mortal critic stands. A quick review of the pages of the book shows that she see nothing at all and she is surprised by Dumbledore suggestion. So, it obviously a case that the script predicted the fact that a movie shows more than a page, but forgot to adjust the kids behaviour. Also, it is pretty clear she do not step away because she sees herself (It is not even her iniciative to move away). Albeit, I could careless, it is nitpick.
Also, she is not waiting Dumbledore at all. The kids often bypass any restriction and in fact, she was already using time travel for her own safe and the trio was hiding behind pumpkins because they could not be seen by the addults (Dumbledore included), so wating for his go-ahead is just non sense.
Another thing, being a teen-book (or movie)does not make it impervious to criticism. I find no such flaws in Alice in Wonderlands.
Finally, I really do not care about the physics thing. It is as I said a plot devide like most magical stuff, the consequence of its use is never explored. This is a negative for the book and JBI have every right to question this, but I do not care and said nothing about it. In fact in my opinion the most strange thing is that she may come back time and study extra 8 hours, but her body would be tired in the same manner, so she would eventually have a "time travel lag", with excessive use, be much more tired than the other kids, just like we do when instead of sleeping we spend the night studying. It was not that effective, but since the movie does not explain how many times she used it, it is a bit pointless to consider the effects.

nothing you are saying makes any sense. You are arguing with my points but not providing any sort of evidence other than "it's obvious that that's not true"

And she didn't use the time-travel thing to study more. She used it because she had two classes consecutively. So she was only using it one hour per day. You are mistaken.

And if you "quickly reviewed the pages" then quote where this happens, because I do not believe such an occurence happens in the book.

And in response to Paulclem, being that time travel has never been discovered in reality, I do not think there is any established "right" and "wrong" as far as time machines. One particular time machine allows for you to travel back and forth between time zones, another you are stuck in that time period until you live up to the present. I do not think either of them are less than sensible.

[Paulclem]

This is a negative for the book and JBI have every right to question this,

JBI does.

Also, she is not waiting Dumbledore at all.

I thought we were discussing the film. She sees Dumbledor in the hospital where Ron is laid up. This is where he advises her.

Another thing, being a teen-book (or movie)does not make it impervious to criticism.

Absolutely not, but I think there is a crediblity scale in fiction. What a teen or child's book can get away with, an adult orientated book can't. Hence in an adult HP, you might have got an explanation even if it just sounds credible.

[Hank Stamper]

And in response to Paulclem, being that time travel has never been discovered in reality, I do not think there is any established "right" and "wrong" as far as time machines.

This is absolutely right and why arguing about JK Rowling's use of time travel in a fictional children's book about magic is completely pointless

Obviously physicists have put forward various hypotheses about the physics of time travel and there is probably some consensus, but the bottom line is it is all just theory and therefore open to interpretation - especially in fictional children's books about magic!

[JCamilo]

nothing you are saying makes any sense. You are arguing with my points but not providing any sort of evidence other than "it's obvious that that's not true"

And she didn't use the time-travel thing to study more. She used it because she had two classes consecutively. So she was only using it one hour per day. You are mistaken.

This kind or argument is why Bloom may be ripping his last hairs. Taking class is studying. Only Students take classes. They Study. Classes are taken by students. I will you are that analytic when dealing with the movie...

[Paulclem]

The only things that the pro HP on this thread have said is that JKR wrote good teen/children's books, it helped them to go onto other writers, it was an interesting story, etc. No-one has claimed them to be classics - though time will tell. Bloom stated that it trained people for Stephen King - another writer who is disliked a lot. Some of us recognise that there are stages in reading, and that HP books might be a good step along that track, as is King. The reality of reading is that most people, who even aspire to read better/ classic books, have to start somewhere when they are younger.Why not HP or Stephen King?

Reading is a process that people either choose to develop - if in fact they have the opportunity - or not. For all the flaws in HP, I think it can help to prepare for that choice. The text is not sophisticated in the sense of having lots of writer technques such as metaphors etc. I does address themes such as racism, as Darshadow has pointed out, and it does include a reasonaly sophistcated plot for the teen market. I think this makes it a satisfying read, and perhaps a good read for the aspiring teen. Plenty of people on this thread have said as much in that it was a staging post for them. For that I think it is worth pointing out the good points.

[Mathor]

This kind or argument is why Bloom may be ripping his last hairs. Taking class is studying. Only Students take classes. They Study. Classes are taken by students. I will you are that analytic when dealing with the movie...

No. Because when you said study you mentioned "8 hours" or more that would take up her time from time-traveling. The truth is she would take her class, then go back an hour in time and take a different class. Whether or not that is considered "studying" is not the argument. It is that the amount of her aging would be almost nonexistent, really.

EDIT:

Paulclem, I think what people misunderstand is that people like myself really don't even like Harry Potter all that much. It's a book I haven't read in years, that I enjoyed between the ages of like 9-12(among many other books). When I was younger I read anything I could get my hands on. A lot of Dostoevsky, a lot all sorts of literature passed by me. I read Harry Potter, I read all sorts of things, and most of them I grew old of. Harry Potter I surely grew old of, but none of that stuff was trash. It's just one of many books I read when I was little. I don't like it or hate it. And I didn't start out reading Harry Potter, and I didn't become obsessed with Harry Potter.

It's no classic, but it's no piece of trash either. It's just a simple little series. People in this forum tend to hate on the well-recieved teen fiction and praise the less popular teen fiction. But it's all the same, really.