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.Originally Posted by Mathor
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.
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.
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.
If people are so confused about why it appeals to people why don't they ask those who do enjoy it? instead of speculating.
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..
Last edited by islandclimber; 07-19-2009 at 02:24 AM.
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"
I'm losing all those stupid games
That I swore I'd never play
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.
Last edited by Zee.; 07-19-2009 at 02:54 AM.
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.
Only an idiot has no grief; only a fool would forget it. What else is there in this world sharp enough to stick to your guts? - Faulkner
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). I love the whole series and I think I always will.
I am back............................
Sorry for the double post but can you explain what damage Harry Potter is causing?
I am back............................
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/harrypotte...ult.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?
JBIGrown 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.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.
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.
Last edited by a_little_wisp; 07-19-2009 at 05:06 AM.
Then she would run until morning to ease the ache; swifter than rain, swift as loss, racing to catch up with the time when she had known nothing at all but the sweetness of being herself.
-- Peter S. Beagle, The Last Unicorn
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).
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.
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.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...
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.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...
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!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...
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.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..
"You understand well enough what slavery is, but freedom you have never experienced, so you do not know if it tastes sweet or bitter. If you ever did come to experience it, you would advise us to fight for it not with spears only, but with axes too." - Herodotus
https://consolationofreading.wordpress.com/ - my book blog!
Feed the Hungry!
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.
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.
Last edited by JBI; 07-19-2009 at 11:10 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
