Harry Potter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

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.

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wessexgirl

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wessexgirl

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.

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. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mathor

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

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 and this post). 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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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..

Quote:

---

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...

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.