Harry Potter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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).

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mathor

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mathor

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...

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

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.

See, Bloom must be right.
Take this as example. I said she may , not that she did. There is a difference you know.If the fact that hypothetical was not clear (how come) the final sentence where I said that it is pointless to consider the effects since the movie does not mention how many times she did would suffice.
But the amazing part is you talking about aging, something I do not mention. I mention getting tired just like she would if she went to sleep a little later that night. And either 1 hour or 8 hours, it would be studying. Studying is not how many hours you take, but what you do.

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.

Yes that's my impression. I read the books when my kids were reading them. As you say they are good stories. I think the criticisms here are too extreme, and I can see the value of a series that encourages reading. The books have been boosted by the films following in quick succession - a phenomenon that no doubt has inceased the readership and profile, and I think it a symptom of the inclinations of kids in that they are surrounded, and are increasingly responding to visual media via computers etc. A series that can buck this trend in itself deserves praise because where are the readers of the classics going to come from if they don't start fairly young in developing a sophisticated reading habit. I just don't think that has been appreciated. Bloom's criticism, recorded earlier in the thread, I thnk has little relevance in the Western World where kids are not being trained to read King - if only - they are being trained to read screens where there is even more competition from the multiimedia experiences available.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

[COLOR="DarkRed"]

Yes that's my impression. I read the books when my kids were reading them. As you say they are good stories. I think the criticisms here are too extreme, and I can see the value of a series that encourages reading. The books have been boosted by the films following in quick succession - a phenomenon that no doubt has inceased the readership and profile, and I think it a symptom of the inclinations of kids in that they are surrounded, and are increasingly responding to visual media via computers etc. A series that can buck this trend in itself deserves praise because where are the readers of the classics going to come from if they don't start fairly young in developing a sophisticated reading habit. I just don't think that has been appreciated. Bloom's criticism, recorded earlier in the thread, I thnk has little relevance in the Western World where kids are not being trained to read King - if only - they are being trained to read screens where there is even more competition from the multiimedia experiences available.

---

Heh. I did actually defend the merits of Harry Potter. The irony of course with King is that his novels introduced me to a variety of "good" poets that I had previously never heard of such as Wallace Stevens when I was younger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

See, Bloom must be right.
Take this as example. I said she may , not that she did. There is a difference you know.If the fact that hypothetical was not clear (how come) the final sentence where I said that it is pointless to consider the effects since the movie does not mention how many times she did would suffice.
But the amazing part is you talking about aging, something I do not mention. I mention getting tired just like she would if she went to sleep a little later that night. And either 1 hour or 8 hours, it would be studying. Studying is not how many hours you take, but what you do.

---

1.it DID say how many times she used it.
2. 1 extra hour per day might make a person slightly more tired, but it wouldn't be noticeable, as i have reiterated over and over again.

The irony of course with King is that his novels introduced me to a variety of "good" poets that I had previously never heard of such as Wallace Stevens when I was younger.
__________________

I read some King in the 80s and The Shining last year. They are good at what they do aren't they. Of course you move on if you want more from reading, but it's nice to go back for a change of pace. Horses for courses I say.

Questions: Do you kids read only Harry Potter? Do you think that reading the samebooks alongside them is a form of incentive? What else you did to help them to read before Harry Potter?

1) No - they have read many books at lots of different levels
2)Yes reading books alongside children is a incentive - it becomes a social thing, which is powerful
3) Lots of things. You have to invest time and books in children's reading. Bedtime stories, making up stories, reading together, reading school books together.

The most reading they do is on screen with a computer, though they are still reading some books. What I know is that they can read at a reasonable level. They read a lot of online manga.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

They read a lot of online manga.

---

In the original Japanese because that would be impressive! :D

Kids read the Twilight series as well....

Pffft!! Kids!! What little do they know!

In the original Japanese because that would be impressive!

Not yet. My son wants to do Japanese at University, so it may be possible in the future. My daughter has also done business Japanese at her school - she's 13, and is also keen on doing it in future. I have to admit to absolutely no input into all that as I am, unfortunately, virtually monolingual. I'm glad they are forging their own interests. Luckily my wife is good with languages when we go abroad. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joebob

Kids read the Twilight series as well....

Pffft!! Kids!! What little do they know!

---

One naturally expects kids to know little. However, when adults resort to the same level, then God help us all. Harry Potter my ***!

One naturally expects kids to know little. However, when adults resort to the same level, then God help us all. Harry Potter my ***!

Some of the arguments have been about the possible positive effects on kids reading.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joebob

Kids read the Twilight series as well....

Pffft!! Kids!! What little do they know!

---

The fact that kids read Twilight has what bearing on the quality or lack of quality of Harry Potter exactly? Many kids also like Alice in Wonderland, Goosebumps, The Phantom Toll Booth, and some even like Jane Austen. Ever hear of the Guilt by Association fallacy?

Quote:

---

Kids like Twilight, and Twilight is a bad book series
Therefore kids must only like bad books.
Kids also enjoy reading Harry Potter,
Since kids only like bad books, Harry Potter must be a bad book series.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

1) No - they have read many books at lots of different levels
2)Yes reading books alongside children is a incentive - it becomes a social thing, which is powerful
3) Lots of things. You have to invest time and books in children's reading. Bedtime stories, making up stories, reading together, reading school books together.

---

Them paul (allow me to call you shortly) , would you think that if they read something else but HP they would still be reading thanks to your incentive? Would you think that instead of HP, it was x(being X any other book) would they not became a active reader?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

Them paul (allow me to call you shortly) , would you think that if they read something else but HP they would still be reading thanks to your incentive? Would you think that instead of HP, it was x(being X any other book) would they not became a active reader?

---

this is an overly-cycled point, and I do not believe it really holds any merit on the discussion. The point being "if a person read Harry Potter and went on to read Canonical books afterward, they probably would have gone onto read them regardless of reading Harry Potter" The truth is, anything that inspires one to read is a good thing, no matter what it is. Sure, the people who like Harry Potter and go onto read much better novels would've done so with or without Harry Potter, but the fact that it is a source of inspiration for a number of children gives it a slight bit of significance.

An anecdotal example:

I am a musician, and a lover of many types of music. I can play guitar, piano, drums, trumpet, trombone, marimba, etc etc. I like a vast array of different kinds of music, Beethoven and Mozart are two of my favorite composers. But I did not start to even take notice of music growing up, and it didn't really interest me until I was about 11 and I discovered punk rock music. A lot of it wasn't all that good, but I didn't know that then. But I thought it was the greatest thing in the world, punk rock. I blasted it in my room, and it inspired me musically. And it's because of these musicians with no musical merit that I grew to appreciate what 'real' music is, and grow up with a more artistic sense of what music is. Sure, I would've probably grown to like music eventually either way, but the fact that that music inspired me makes it important in some way. When a person is new to something, like reading, they just enjoy the first thing that connects to them, and go from there. If that is Harry Potter, so be it.

It wasn't for me, for me it was Robert Louis Stevenson's "Treasure Island". I can look back and see why that novel is VASTLY imperfect, but I didn't realize that growing up. I just knew that I liked the story. And from there I just wanted to keep reading. So whether or not I can ever bring myself down to the level to re-read it, Treasure Island will always be important to me.

That is what reading should be: emotional connection to the human condition, no matter what brings it about. I'd much rather my future kids read Jane Austen or Shakespeare to find such things, but chances are they won't listen to me. And to discourage any reading undertaking they should happen upon seems wrong to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mathor

.....That is what reading should be: emotional connection to the human condition, no matter what brings it about. I'd much rather my future kids read Jane Austen or Shakespeare to find such things, but chances are they won't listen to me. And to discourage any reading undertaking they should happen upon seems wrong to me.

---

Hear, hear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

The most reading they do is on screen with a computer, though they are still reading some books.

---

... okay i don't know where you get this comment from but there is no evidence to back this claim up.

OH MY LORD THIS CONVERSATION DRIVES ME MENTAL, IT IS A ROUND TABLE ARGUMENT.

PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT TASTES. PERIOD. BOOKS DO CERTAIN THINGS FOR CERTAIN PEOPLE.

A child's mind does not stay young forever..
let them enjoy books CRAFTED for their mind. When they are ready, and if they love reading, if they LOVE stories, they will seek out more books. As their mind grows so will their tastes in literature.

Give them a little bit of credit, maybe some of you could do with reading a bit of Harry Potter. Your imagination is clearly fried.

And another thing - i'm pretty sure most of the people who have posted in this thread are of an "older" age and have never read Harry Potter in their life.

I couldn't agree more with the last few posters. How can grown adults take so much perverse pleasure in belittling and sneering at a childrens/teen book? It wasn't written for you, and while I have nothing against any age group reading any book, (within reason of course), I do find it ridiculous that people are debating over the truth of the physics of a fiction book!!!!!! All I can say is you must have too much time on your hands, to take exception to a piece of work which brings enjoyment to many. Okay, you see it as flawed. What piece of work isn't? It's not great literature, but as far as I can see, no-one's claiming it is, but the detractors just sound like a load of soulless whingers. All I hope is that none of you have any input into encouraging kids to read, because if you were teachers, or like me, librarians, who were tearing your hair out trying to encourage the reluctant readers, or trying to teach the big percentage of kids who can barely read when they reach secondary school, you would so obviously be in the wrong job. Are you expecting them to read War and Peace, or Proust perhaps, when the actual act of getting them to pick up a book as opposed to playing on a computer is a big achievement? And I expect the rebuttal to that will be but there are better children's books. Everyone knows that, but I think that even if they picked up the so-called "better" books, certain people would find fault with that, and would be expecting more. Well, if they can read x why aren't they reading y......it's infinitely better? I agree with Lima, it's a circular argument, and the detractors will never let it lie. If you don't like HP, as it's your right to do, fine, but to keep an argument going about petty, nit-picking flaws in a work of juvenile fiction, (I'll say it again in case certain people didn't get it), A WORK OF JUVENILE FICTION, NOT A NON-FICTION SCIENCE BOOK ABOUT PHYSICS, then that's just very sad.

Them paul (allow me to call you shortly) , would you think that if they read something else but HP they would still be reading thanks to your incentive? Would you think that instead of HP, it was x(being X any other book) would they not became a active reader?

In truth I think thre are lots of influences upon what children read. The first influences are parents when they are very young, but after a certain age, they read what they want according to their peer group and whatever interests they develop. They read widely.

Their development was by no means solely due to HP, and I hope I didn't give that impression. No series can solely be responsible for a childs reading development, and Iwould never suggest it. What HP did was to encourage some children to read above their level. I remember my son getting the Goblet of Fire, which is not a short book- and reading it in a very brief time - impelled by the story. We were all able to share it too by reading it in succession. The film added another dimension too.

If as you asked, the HP series had not come out, then my children would still be good readers. I am of the opinion though, that there is a lot of implicit support to read the HP series - the films, the peer interests of children, and, in truth the marketing machine - which in this case I don't mind because reading is such an important skill and benefits from the profile. The Goosebumps series had a similar effect, and I remember reading that this series did raise reading levels here in England briefly. I suspect that HP has donethe same, though it may not be sustained over tie. It may need another series by a different author. Vampires seem to be popular at the minute.

... okay i don't know where you get this comment from but there is no evidence to back this claim up.

My kids. It is anecdotal admittedly, but my kids friends are all on facbook,MSN etc. They also use computers far more at school. It all cuts into reading time, though I don't intend to condemn. Things are changing quickly, and it is difficult to see where this rate of development will be in 5 or 10 years time.

PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT TASTES. PERIOD. BOOKS DO CERTAIN THINGS FOR CERTAIN PEOPLE.

I agree.

And another thing - i'm pretty sure most of the people who have posted in this thread are of an "older" age and have never read Harry Potter in their life.

I have. I'm 45. I'm happy to admit to reading a mixture of classics, sci-fi, fantasy, crime, and children's books. I also read the odd modern literary novel.

All I hope is that none of you have any input into encouraging kids to read, because if you were teachers, or like me, librarians, who were tearing your hair out trying to encourage the reluctant readers, or trying to teach the big percentage of kids who can barely read when they reach secondary school,

I agree with you Wessexgirl. I'm an ex-primary school teacher who now teaches adults basic English. My students last year ranged from 17 to 83. I find it very sad that the people we have in our classes are on the whole intelligent people who have not realised their life's potental. A big part of this is a lack of reading skills - and writing/ spelling etc I am absolutely certain that anything that encourages reading should be given credit the credit it deserves. That's why I have been banging on as a pro-HP.

Wessexgirl, your point is an excellent one - if the anti-Harry Potter brigade do not approve of Harry Potter, what do they want children to read? What children's literature is sufficiently edifying for use as reading material?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mollie

Wessexgirl, your point is an excellent one - if the anti-Harry Potter brigade do not approve of Harry Potter, what do they want children to read? What children's literature is sufficiently edifying for use as reading material?

---

Classics such as See Spot Run, of course. They then should go immediately to Chaucer and James Joyce. Doesn't everyone do that?

"My kids. It is anecdotal admittedly, but my kids friends are all on facbook,MSN etc. They also use computers far more at school. It all cuts into reading time, though I don't intend to condemn. Things are changing quickly, and it is difficult to see where this rate of development will be in 5 or 10 years time."

The environment that kids are raised in does have a large impact, I believe. If you are around people who chat online and go out instead of read, they will probably pick up a book with reluctance; I have been home schooled and exposed to classics all my life, and for me, reading is my passion. So, it might depend on the surroundings and definitely on the individual person.
I remember reading my first great classic, Anna Karenina, when I was eleven, but I also know people who would rather read computer manuals instead.

Harry Potter might be a good step for some, but for me, the witchcraft sorcery really turned me off.

All the best in getting kids to read Chaucer!;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

Them paul (allow me to call you shortly) , would you think that if they read something else but HP they would still be reading thanks to your incentive? Would you think that instead of HP, it was x(being X any other book) would they not became a active reader?

In truth I think thre are lots of influences upon what children read. The first influences are parents when they are very young, but after a certain age, they read what they want according to their peer group and whatever interests they develop. They read widely.

Their development was by no means solely due to HP, and I hope I didn't give that impression. No series can solely be responsible for a childs reading development, and Iwould never suggest it. What HP did was to encourage some children to read above their level. I remember my son getting the Goblet of Fire, which is not a short book- and reading it in a very brief time - impelled by the story. We were all able to share it too by reading it in succession. The film added another dimension too.

If as you asked, the HP series had not come out, then my children would still be good readers. I am of the opinion though, that there is a lot of implicit support to read the HP series - the films, the peer interests of children, and, in truth the marketing machine - which in this case I don't mind because reading is such an important skill and benefits from the profile. The Goosebumps series had a similar effect, and I remember reading that this series did raise reading levels here in England briefly. I suspect that HP has donethe same, though it may not be sustained over tie. It may need another series by a different author. Vampires seem to be popular at the minute.

---

I think that is where I want to move this. HP is responsable for some individual devleopments, no doubt. Altough the reader must exist already to arrive to HP. But what really caused your kids to read is not HP - as you said - or any book, be it The Comedy, Don Quixote or Alice in the Wonderlands. No book have such effect - to create readers - they modify readers, that is all. What create readers is your incentive, society incentive (you may classify the HP fever with movies and other supports as such), school. In other words, Education.
Even if we see books strongly related to some inclusive momments, such as Don Quixote (I have seen once a study showing that the multiplication of the translations of Quixote was similar to the increase of book selling in europe), or the books responsable for the end of latim and the national idioms, they are all part of a socio-economic movement. I would say that saying that Don Quixote make people read is as wrong as saying HP do (and generally, it is just a defensive vague argument against more demanding criticism in the forum). Even because the books are often written in answer to the public demand. Harry Potter is, as you pointed, similar to other books that explored the same "public", he did not created then. But of course, it is necessary to explore this market. But as you said, it could have been other books, kids would be "transformed" in readers by any books used by the responsables for the education, even an Ecyclopedia (which is a book that many members of youth read), HP, Comic books, etc.
Claims that one specific work did have no vallue and no evidence at all. And it is a misunderstanding of anything that the so called old people who had only free time in life is saying. We are talking about the kind of the reader transfomed by HP, not that they do not exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mollie

Wessexgirl, your point is an excellent one - if the anti-Harry Potter brigade do not approve of Harry Potter, what do they want children to read? What children's literature is sufficiently edifying for use as reading material?

---

You know that Alice in Wonderlands do lead to James Joyce, right? And Robert Louis Stevenson to Jorge Luis Borges? Because they are direct influence to both? Ah, of course, I forget we live in a world of absolutes, If there is no Harry Potter no other book is left in this world but the Unread volumes of snobery...
In fact, I do not mind that my sisters read Harry Potter, I bought for them one or another, but I am very happy they also read Byron, Guimares Rosa, Stevenson, Orwell, Machado de Assis, Emily Dickinson, Poe, Borges, Fernando Pessoa, Hugo, some of them before Potter and I know they have a more powerful effect than HP...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

But what really caused your kids to read is not HP - as you said - or any book, be it The Comedy, Don Quixote or Alice in the Wonderlands. No book have such effect - to create readers - they modify readers, that is all. What create readers is your incentive, society incentive (you may classify the HP fever with movies and other supports as such), school. In other words, Education.

---

Well. That's mostly true. But books do make readers. If you spend your whole life without finding a book you enjoy, you're not ever going to start reading. And a lot of books you would enjoy, but you do not have the inspiration yet to understand why. Something has to provide that initial inspiration.