Harry Potter

[Joreads]

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

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

[JCamilo]

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

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

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

[Zee.]

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

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


TWILIGHT TOO? WHAT THE HELL?

[Niamh]

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

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

[Drkshadow03]

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

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


TWILIGHT TOO? WHAT THE HELL?

English 440: Harry Potter's Library: J. K. Rowling, Texts and Context. (Kansas State University)

English 444: Harry Potter and the Curse of International Fame. (Ball State University)

English 349: Fantasy (online course at University of Washington)


English 2991: Harry Potter and Folk Tale Patterns (Gordon College)

Lit 137: Harry Potter: Literary Allusion, Children's Literature, and Popular Culture (Eastern Michigan University)

Special Topics Grad Course: LITR 592: Harry Potter and Cultural Studies (Eastern Michigan University)

Introduction to Children's Literature. (Eastern Michigan University)

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

Symbols and Archetypes in Children's Literature. (Arizona State University).

ENG 2004: Exploring Fantasy Worlds. (Manhattenville College)

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[JCamilo]

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

[stlukesguild]

In what way is anecdotal evidence an oxymoron?

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

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

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

Quote SLG-How is it condescending?

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

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

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

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

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

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

[stlukesguild]

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

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

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

[Drkshadow03]

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

I've elaborated on this three posts up:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[prendrelemick]

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

[JCamilo]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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



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

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

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

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

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

[JCamilo]

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

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

[JBI]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

[Drkshadow03]

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

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

Your Kazar point does not contradict what I actually said:

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

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

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

[Paulclem]

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