Harry Potter

[Drkshadow03]

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.

I would gladly do a deeper text analysis to explain why I like Harry Potter, think it is worth studying, reading, etc. Unfortunately various arguments got conflated as this thread progressed: Does Harry Potter encourage kids to read?, Is Harry Potter good literature in its own right?, Should Harry Potter be taught in school?, What is appropriate for what kids at what age?

As far as the anecdotes, they do have ground because well I am pretty sure I know myself as a reader at that age and what makes you think I didn't give some of those texts a try. I didn't like Mark Twain in 11th grade, what makes you think I would've liked it in 4th? Now certainly I didn't try every possible text available as that would be impossible, but I have a good sense of what appealed to me and what didn't at that age. I've accepted multiple times in this thread that other kids were more high brow and other kids less so. My attitude as a librarian is you adjust the book to the kid's interest and ability, especially when we are talking about private reading, not force Mark Twain down their throat if they can't handle it and clearly aren't interested. With that said, if a kid could handle Mark Twain, of course you give that particular kid Twain over Rowling.

I am not claiming causation, but rather correlation. If I had stopped reading Goosebumps, Fear Street, Wheel of Time, Cam Jansen, Star Wars, Choose Your Own Adventures, and such, I certainly wouldn't have decided to pick up Mark Twain and Lewis Carrol instead. I would've just spent more time playing video games. It was by reading Goosebumps, Fear Street, etc. that I stayed interested in reading in general, and eventually branched out into those other works. Even your own story of how you eventually came to pick up Eugene Onegin doesn't contradict anything I've said. Again, it's common sense that getting kids to read whatever, especially something they find interesting and entertaining, has a better chance of eventually leading them to read "better" stuff. I am NOT saying it absolutely will. Just that it has a better chance. Why is this basic principle so hard to understand? I am not saying it CAUSED them to start reading, I said there is correlation as it led them to keep exploring more books where they just as easily could've stopped reading altogether.

[JCamilo]

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!

You do act like Trekies and Warsies, you even think you are "winning". You waste your time arguing about the elitism stuff (which we are attacked, not exactly by you) and misses the key points of anything, such the absurd lack of evidence to claim that HP produce more writers, and think you ate doing well.

Your Kazar point does not contradict what I actually said:

I had no intention to contradict it. Albeit true, I was using irony, because you defended yourself with "comparing Potter to pornography (altough Sade, Bataile are pornographic and are superior writers than Rowling)" instead of going to the main point raised by Stukles, that your experience does not prove that HP (or any book) can be seriously taken as anything that improve reading. I mocked it with a comic book because I am not jumping to illogical conclusions: the reasons I am a reader are not explained by one experience. Neither yours.

It doesn't matter if it is Kazar, Spiderman, Harry Potter, or Goosebumps.

Yeah, therefore, like I said, it was very easy. It does not matter. Thus it is irrelevant. Any reading will do. If any reading will do, HP is just a fashion of the momment. Will be replaced just like replaced other books. So Stukles have his point: if it is any, why not the better option possible? I am aware the Elit is happy to hear it.

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?

Then why you wrote this?
"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?"
You know, 0 means nothing? No doing so before, does not mean they are"of course doing" Are you reading what you are writing?

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.

Meh, so you are a trekie or a warsie?

[islandclimber]

I think you're spreading it. The discussion is hardly nurturing is it? Have you heard yourself?

I'm spreading negativity about the quality of JK Rowling's writing? well, the problem is there is very little positive to be found when one actually holds the actual texts of Rowling's work up to critical analyses... it is poor writing.. sorry but this is just true... why should I tell people that it is great they are reading when they read trash and then come around to proclaim it to be good, if not great literature... but as to my comments and the few other Harry Potter critics around...

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. Do you really think that isn't replicated elsewhere? And just look back to post 5 on this thread:



The thread hadn't even got going before someone came in championing thread censorship. What a wonderful, positive, all inclusive world we live in. Surely, if you don't want to discuss it it's easy enough to stay out of the threads?

And isn't it funny how these Potter threads are most heavily frequented by those who claim it's not worth talking about?

again, you suggest I am not so unique, well I make and made no claims on being unique, but I am within a rather small minority in this instance.. maybe not on this particular forum as this is a literature forum and therefore I am not surprised that many have a negative opinion of Potter (I still would argue many more even on here view it in a positive light as shown by the majority of posters being somewhat favourable)... the chances of most Harry Potter fanatics, children or adult ever seeing and taking seriously any criticism of Harry Potter is most likely quite slim, the books are far too popular for that... and far too supported by the Western Media Machine... my diatribes are not aimed at the children reading these books for entertainment, but the adults supporting this as reading for education, for good literature, for being challenged, provoked, etc... good writing does this, not garbage..

And i have stated multiple times I could care less what people read for entertainment, but when i see Harry Potter and other such fluff sneaking into the education system, well then, I do believe there is a problem, when I see the reading public being so uneducated, adult and child, as to vote Ms Rowling the greatest living British writer by 3 times the votes of her nearest competitor well then I worry... and i think it is safe to assume this thought that JK Rowling is the greatest living writer is not limited to just the UK... this makes me think why would any of the children reading Potter ever progress to greater works if they have already read the greatest, for won't everything be quite the disappointment then.. this is overstatement but in a sense it is true...

but you know what.. nevermind, I can live and some day die and enjoy my life doing whatever I want to do, I don't want to have kids, I don't want to participate in the education system in anyway currently, so I could really care less if the education system degrades itself to include such mediocrity in english class... I could really care less if reading all but dies out in young people and the next generation only has "functional" literacy and no feeling for "high" literature... in a hundred years maybe it will be JK Rowling who is glorified as the greatest writer of all time, because all that matters is how popular a novelist was, regardless of how terrible a writer... I don't really care... I'll enjoy my life all the same, and if people want their children and the next generation to be one that overwhelmingly declares the superiority of mediocrity, that crushes the last vestiges of elitism (or I would say intellectualism) well then that is fine by me.. so be it. it really won't bother me...

[Drkshadow03]

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.

Paul, you hit everything right on the head! Great post!

[Paulclem]

my diatribes are not aimed at the children reading these books for entertainment, but the adults supporting this as reading for education Islandclimber

You are too general. I could use HP to demonstrate the mechanics of the novel, narrative etc. Why not use a popular book to do this that stimulates. You could then look at more complex novels - the kind of intellectualism you want people to have needs the right steps to get there. You may have read and appreciated classic books from a young age, but I can remember reading LOTR in class with my peers - and discovering a mate who had never read a book in his life including the one we were supposed to be doing. We were in the then top stream in the comprehensive we attended. My friend wasn't a fool either. How could he be encouraged? He certainly didn't like LOTRs.

[islandclimber]

Well I will get more specific if needed.. and I will say one thing Rowling is a master of.. well two... using cliches...

and the literary technique of "deus ex machina"... Rowling is most definitely the goddess of overusing this technique.. is that a good thing? you tell me...

[TheFifthElement]

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."

Stlukes, I don't disagree with you. I’m more than happy for the text to be discussed, opinions to be raised and debate to wage based on a review of the text. What I was challenging was the intense negativity and use of immoderate language which seems to me to be inappropriate whether the debate is around Harry Potter, the Bible or Faulkner. I agree that comments like the ‘gee, great! I loved it too’ add nothing to the debate but neither do terms like ‘junk’ and ‘mediocre’ (or ‘schlock’ for that matter ) which, as well as adding no value, inflame emotional reaction. Maybe I’m way off the mark but it seems particularly unsuitable, to me, in a thread for which the target audience, one would assume, is likely to be 8-14 year olds.

If the concern here is how you get children to read beyond Harry Potter, I doubt very much that trashing Harry Potter is the answer. If children are led to believe that the books that they enjoy are not worthwhile then this does not encourage further reading but leaves them with a choice: to attempt literature which they may or may not enjoy but which is considered ‘worthwhile’, regardless of their aptitude, personal taste or interest, or not to read at all. I’m all in favour of encouraging children to read a wide range of literature, how else are they to find that which most suits them? But in order to do so a wide range of literature must be available. This includes HP. Whilst I don’t think it can be said that the success of HP has directly encouraged more children to read, this would seem impossible to measure, it is likely true that some children have learned a love of literature through HP, some of those will have gone on to read more challenging literature. Whether this is more or less than would have occurred with another book is impossible to know. However, the overwhelming success of HP has raised the profile of reading as an activity in the media, which in itself may have encouraged a few more kids to give reading a try, and may have encouraged a few more parents to take their kids to the bookshop or the library. I can’t see how these things in themselves can be considered unworthy of some recognition.

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?

Well, that attack didn’t come from me and neither did I accuse JBI of being an ‘elitist snob’. Neither have I noted JBI being 'attacked' in the thread either though there has been some discussion between JBI and DrkShadow03 over the merits and demerits of the book. Both put forward well thought through arguments in a non-destructive manner without resorting to derogatory language. If you read back through the thread it is JCamilo who raises the 'elitist snob' point and if I'm reading correctly Camilo is one of the people arguing against the value of HP. It was also a point which was later clarified as being 'ironic'.

In general, I’d rather see a more disciplined debate, personally, without the derogatory or inflammatory language and name calling whether aimed at HP lovers or those who would criticise it.

I ask how reading Dan Brown, Harry Potter, Twilight, or some other commercial schlock is better than not reading at all

I don’t think I can agree with this suggestion that it’d be better to read nothing than books like Harry Potter or Angels and Demons or the latest Jackie Collins or whatever. To me that’s almost like saying ‘is it better to eat no food at all rather than food with low nutritional value’. And it also begs the question: if the availability of what is considered ‘worthwhile’ literature is so narrow and appeals to so few, whether due to aptitude, personal taste or interest, does literature have any ‘value’ at all? When you talk about literature as having ‘value’ or ‘no value’ what exactly is it that you mean? What can be learned from ‘worthwhile’ literature that can’t be learned through observation, experimentation and relevant non-fiction study? Does literature, whether ‘good’ literature or otherwise have any intrinsic ‘value’?

[Paulclem]

and the literary technique of "deus ex machina"... Rowling is most definitely the goddess of overusing this technique.. is that a good thing? you tell me...

The Phoenix in the Chamber of Secrets is introduced earlier on. It is less clear in the Philosopher's Stone as to why HP is able to resist Quirrell, and this is only given an explanation later. It doesn't detract from my point that this can be critically reflected upon in education. Children can be taught by good and bad examples. The critical reader can appreciate what a book does whilst recognising and learning from its shortcomings.

[JBI]

and the literary technique of "deus ex machina"... Rowling is most definitely the goddess of overusing this technique.. is that a good thing? you tell me...

The Phoenix in the Chamber of Secrets is introduced earlier on. It is less clear in the Philosopher's Stone as to why HP is able to resist Quirrell, and this is only given an explanation later. It doesn't detract from my point that this can be critically reflected upon in education. Children can be taught by good and bad examples. The critical reader can appreciate what a book does whilst recognising and learning from its shortcomings.

I don't know - to me here most favored technique seems the red herring - the first 5 books certainly use that as the main structuring - first one, the Snape guy is the villain, then boom - he is not. The second, the Malfoy kid is the villain, then snap - he is not. The third, the Black guy is the villain, then snap - he is not. The fourth, the Russian guy is a villain, and then, snap - he is not the villain. I mean, the whole plot is built around that exact structure over and over again, with melodramatic Harry having to go save the day, to find out the villain is not actually the villain.

I guess by the third one though, you know to not actually expect the villain to be who we think it is, and alas, the Deus Ex Machina ending comes and makes the red herring fit - in truth, being saved by a Phoenix, or a Dumbledore or whatever is clearly a cheap ending.

But either way, the characters aren't believable anyway, so who cares. The only really good character in the whole series is Alan Rickman, because Alan Rickman is such a good actor that his presence in the movies reshapes the character in the book to be a better character - the voice in one's head, when corresponding to that slow, evil, menacing tone of Rickman is made 100x more effective - that tone can make a Shakespeare out of the most mediocre of dialog.

[Paulclem]

I agree that Alan Rickman is brilliant as Snape - apparently he's really good in the last one - and the Snape factor is one of the things that make the books good. There is a sense of uncertainty about Snape the whole way through that really adds to the tension.

As for the turnaround of the perceived villain - perhaps the technique is overused, but there is plenty going on in the books to absorb this.

[Lynne50]

First, I would like to say that I totally agree with what DarkShadows and Paul have said. They both seem to have a better understanding of the 'inner workings of youth today.' Children want to be part of a group, to share a commarderie (sp), and to be part of an in group. They can not be faulted because of what is the 'classic of the day'. They want to read what they think is relevant to them, not a stuffy, 'old' novel, that is yellowing with age on the library shelf. And it is entirely correct to assume that some children are not mature enough to handle some of the harder texts. Do you want them reading the Cliff Notes, because that's what would happen.?

In time, when they are ready themselves, without any pressure from other people, they will, IMO, realize that HP wasn't the greatest novel in the world. It will only be after they read alot of junk, that they discover what makes a great novel. You can't rush children to grow up too fast. What's the point?
In my own case, my father was extremely well read. He took me to the library and to used bookstores all the time. But, I grew up very sheltered and was very immature for my age. Did he force me to read any 'great' novel? No. One of my deepest regrets,however, was not being able to finish the book he loved Green Mansions. He wanted me to read it. I tried many times but could not finish it. Now that I'm old, I still have it sitting on my shelf. It calls my name from time to time, but I can't bring myself to open it. I'm not sure why.
Let me finish by saying that, even now, one of the reasons I joined Litnet was because I knew I didn't read as many classics as I should have in my youth and I'm trying to make up for lost time. I'm so envious of all the Litnetters that are younger than myself and who have such a good foundation of literature, but I'm telling everyone, that I would not have been ready for them earlier. My motto, better late than never.

[JCamilo]

Well, that attack didn’t come from me and neither did I accuse JBI of being an ‘elitist snob’. Neither have I noted JBI being 'attacked' in the thread either though there has been some discussion between JBI and DrkShadow03 over the merits and demerits of the book. Both put forward well thought through arguments in a non-destructive manner without resorting to derogatory language. If you read back through the thread it is JCamilo who raises the 'elitist snob' point and if I'm reading correctly Camilo is one of the people arguing against the value of HP. It was also a point which was later clarified as being 'ironic'.

It was ironic, since this discussion spawned other thread which was an obviously attack to JBI style of posting. But much earlier Mathor suggested the majority attacking HP are doing so because they did not read HP, since "it is beneath them".
Also, I am hardly making critical arguments against HP. I focused my opinions in countering ideas such "any reading is better tha none" (obviously false, A good reading is better, we do have the option), "harry potter is leading people to read more" (it is the educational system, access to book, family support, etc that cause it), "It is only enterteiment" (so what, everything can be enterteiment, even critical reading), to which kind of reading HP is leading the public to and the problems of marketing that damage the freedom of options.
And Frankly, I have very much doubts that anyone but JBI did any critical reading of HP in this thread. He pretty much remained unsawered. As Dkrshadow, his attemp to say that HP have great qualities (a contraditory factor, since he also argues that it is entertemeint only) was posting a part of HP, claiming it have those vallues, not explaining why at all and being answered by MortalTerror which just showed that there is considerable better options and anything he claimed was just basical in writing a romance.
And obviously, it is not the first time (and not just with HP) that the snob card was used. Lets not pretend it is not the first time that JBI reduces the magic of HP to a static, uninsteresting thing.

I don’t think I can agree with this suggestion that it’d be better to read nothing than books like Harry Potter or Angels and Demons or the latest Jackie Collins or whatever.

Well, anyone should be worried with reading texts that will develop the skills of the reader,but that argument is false. The option is not reading Harry Potter or nothing. It is reading something else or better. We have such option and of course, when Teachers offer a book in school what good they are doing? Most of time either they will train those skills (so HP is hardly a challenge) or open doors to unknow book (HP needs it? They already domain the market, instead of giving HP, teachers should be giving an option. It is not just HP, it is any book which access is already easy). Also, goes why HP? As Dkrshadow confessed, it does not matter which work, goosebumps, comics, etc. It could be anything, so lets make use of the freedom of choice and not be guided by popularity.

To me that’s almost like saying ‘is it better to eat no food at all rather than food with low nutritional value’. And it also begs the question: if the availability of what is considered ‘worthwhile’ literature is so narrow and appeals to so few, whether due to aptitude, personal taste or interest, does literature have any ‘value’ at all? When you talk about literature as having ‘value’ or ‘no value’ what exactly is it that you mean? What can be learned from ‘worthwhile’ literature that can’t be learned through observation, experimentation and relevant non-fiction study? Does literature, whether ‘good’ literature or otherwise have any intrinsic ‘value’?

Many good literature are accessible. Alice is not the most unacessible book in the world. Neither is Don Quixote. Or 1001 Nights. Obviously, I doubt anyone wants to make kids starts with James Joyce, but there is options that add complexity, demand more intelectual work, etc. I suppose is that the argument for him. For me, the argument should be "How to walk among shelves without searching anything specific", but obviously, schools can not do that with dozens of kids at sametime. But the family obviously can...

[Paulclem]

Many good literature are accessible

Yes it is, but the skillful teacher will use whatever motive force, be it peers or the full marketing machine of the publishing companies through paraphernalia, games and films, to develop the skill of reading.

I agree that HP doesn't stand up to close critical scrutiny as a classic- it is full of cliched ideas - the series was perhaps too long - some of the characters are simply drawn - but you would not get the reading response and commitment from children if you were not on the bandwagon, but trying to convince them that they shouldn't read this "garbage" but some other classic.

I don't want to come across as someone defending HP against all odds. I can see it's worth to children - and I still disagree with Islandclimber that it is a primarily children's book- despite the marketing opportunities that it spawned with adults.

What other book has been able to stimulate book talk between the generations. It wsn't a case of you should read this by parent to child, you got both parties sharing it. The series was passed around my own family, and we will be all going to see the movie.

I won't be reading the series again - I'l let you know if I do - but I can see the value.

[JCamilo]

Many good literature are accessible

Yes it is, but the skillful teacher will use whatever motive force, be it peers or the full marketing machine of the publishing companies through paraphernalia, games and films, to develop the skill of reading.

I do not think I would classify a teacher that picks the easy route (it is popular this summer, kids will love it!) as skillful. Again, they have 383834747 options, they should give the kids the options.

I agree that HP doesn't stand up to close critical scrutiny as a classic- it is full of cliched ideas - the series was perhaps too long - some of the characters are simply drawn - but you would not get the reading response and commitment from children if you were not on the bandwagon, but trying to convince them that they shouldn't read this "garbage" but some other classic.

Of course not. As I said when someone suggested that negative critics would make kids stop reading, it is not usual that teenagers will just do what an adult tell them to do. But the point is: Harry Potter is already know and accessible. It does not need to be promoted by teachers. Teachers should be giving options, opening doors and not going a door that the students can find own their own.

I don't want to come across as someone defending HP against all odds. I can see it's worth to children - and I still disagree with Islandclimber that it is a primarily children's book- despite the marketing opportunities that it spawned with adults.

What other book has been able to stimulate book talk between the generations. It wsn't a case of you should read this by parent to child, you got both parties sharing it. The series was passed around my own family, and we will be all going to see the movie.

Which other book? Alice in the Wonderlands? Treasure Island? The tales of Hans Christian Andersen? Anyways, until the XVIII century, there is not a specific production of literature for kids (hence La Fontaine or Perrault or 1001 Nights), so many books worked for several age groups.

[Paulclem]

I do not think I would classify a teacher that picks the easy route (it is popular this summer, kids will love it!) as skillful.

I would classify a skillful teacher one that can take kids from where they are to somewhere else in their learning. I'm not sure what you mean about this easy route. I presume you mean easy to teach. A teacher of anyone has to start where the student/ pupil is and move them on. How are they supposed to make the leap from comics to classics? There is plenty of mileage in HP - from all the good bits - story, tension, imaginative development - to the bits that could be done better - which there undoubtedly are. We both appreciate that the skill of reading is crucial. I don't think you appreciate the competition it has these days with all the technology available. HP couldbe a vehicle to where you want them to be. All the stories you mentioned are fine, but will they have the same pull as a currently popular book? You know the answer is no, but it doesn't mean that they can't be further along the journey.