Harry Potter

**Mathor** · 07-19-2009, 12:47 PM

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

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

**JBI** · 07-19-2009, 01:22 PM

Originally Posted by Paulclem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**Mathor** · 07-19-2009, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by JBI

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

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

**Paulclem** · 07-19-2009, 01:48 PM

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

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

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

**JBI** · 07-19-2009, 01:57 PM

Originally Posted by Mathor

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

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

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

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

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

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

**islandclimber** · 07-19-2009, 02:05 PM

Originally Posted by Paulclem

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

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

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

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

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

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

**Paulclem** · 07-19-2009, 02:25 PM

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

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

**Drkshadow03** · 07-19-2009, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by islandclimber

but you're just posting links to your own blog again...

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

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

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

then watch the Harry Potter movies, for reading the books is about the same thing... mindless entertainment...

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

I mean just because something is entertaining does not mean it provides anything beneficial to the reader, even if that reader is 10-12... I find the books I read entertaining, but also thought-provoking and challenging.

Repeating the same claim that entertainment is not beneficial doesn’t disprove my earlier claim that it is, and your lack of GOOD evidence to show that it isn’t. Furthermore, the books I read are thought-provoking, and sometimes challenging, depending on the book.

can you honestly say Harry Potter is challenging or thought-provoking?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the Potter "Craze" has pushed aside many other much better children and youth books... just to name a few writers we can mention Carrol, Twain, some Dickens, etc. etc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

this has been argued enough in other threads that I am just going to say it is pretty common knowledge that whether you find Harry Potter enjoyable or not the books are quite poorly written...

Appealing to the majority now? Besides, Harry Potter taught me to be challenge the so-called “common knowledge” of others.

and again that leads to the argument of these books being only entertainment and nothing more...

Uhm, no it doesn’t. You just magically hand-waved the argument of the deeper issues Harry Potter addresses by saying I gave Potter to much credit and then never actually dealt with the arguments I actually raised.

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

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

someone in the 14-18 range can find countless works that will make them really think... Rowling stays safe in her little allegorical world of the WASP British Class system...

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

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

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

Not I. I only responded.

Harry Potter is not increasing rates of functional literacy and that would be an absurd argument to make... The lack of literacy if anything is indicative of failings in the education system that allow such e to fall through the cracks and remain illiterate. it has nothing to do with reading Harry Potter and whether the books provide any benefit besides entertainment..

I didn’t make the argument that Harry Potter alone is increasing the rates of functional literacy. However, it’s always a good thing to get kids reading, even for the sake of keeping them literate. Harry Potter has words on a page and a varied enough vocabulary and an elaborate enough story produced by those words. Kids reading any book whether it is some level 1 Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle or Harry Potter or Mark Twain makes them more literate, depending on their level of reading ability.

Yes women read heavily in the Romance Genre, and men read heavily in the thriller genre, the other writers I mentioned, those New York Times #1 Bestselling authors, Tom Clancy, Dan Brown, Paulo Coelho, etc, etc.. the whole point is that these books are extremely poorly written, do not provoke us to really think, do not challenge our opinions, our biases, our ideas.. they provide no benefit besides entertainment..

Because entertainment has value, it stokes the imagination, it helps us escape the tedium of our boring everyday lives, it gives us experiences into different worlds, different possibilities, and different perspectives. We learn through entertainment; the youngest of children (3-5) learn by playing. Our very first process of learning is through the imagination.

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

They do. I have demonstrated it through anecdotal experience of my own reading habits and anecdotal experience as a librarian.

My guess would be that this would be the overwhelmingly small minority, as all you have to do is take a glimpse at falling reading levels and you will realize that most who read these books, read nothing (or at least nothing worthwhile) afterwards..

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

if these books were inspiring so many to begin a lifetime of reading, as you suggest, how do we explain falling reading rates?

Video games. I never said the Harry Potter books in and of themselves will inspire people to become lifelong readers. I see them more as a possible stepping stone, pretty much like any other book people might enjoy. I am not in fact privileging Potter over other YA fiction.

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

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

**mystery_spell** · 07-19-2009, 04:37 PM

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

**mortalterror** · 07-19-2009, 05:24 PM