Harry Potter

[islandclimber]

yes that is too true... and quite pathetic..

what I also find interesting here, on this thread, and other Harry Potter threads, is that those us of posting on why we think the work is mediocre are the ones doing all the explaining. elucidating our points, giving reasons, providing examples, discussing the issue in much more depth..

whereas, those arguing that Harry Potter is good or great or even just decent, only provide general blanket statements such as the works have great imagination, a really good storyline, moral lessons, etc. etc... I can't think of the other claimed reasons for Potter being good at the moment, but the point is, I have not seen a single person (besides DarkShadow, who just wrote out the beginning to two of the books and said it was good writing in one, and not as good in the other) arguing for Harry Potter provide any real argument for why it is a well written book, or good literature, or valuable in some way..

and yet the con side is the one criticized for making opinions fact, we are the ones told we are generalizing.... we are the ones told we have narrowminded views of what literature is.. we're called elitists, snobs... we're told that we are purposefully making inflammatory and derogatory comments, that we are insulting people and even their relations by calling what they read "fluff", "schlock", "mediocre".. that we are discouraging children from reading by calling it mediocre... and yet we are the only ones supplying real arguments and providing examples of why it is mediocre, whereas the pro side, is just saying it is good because I think so, or because it has imagination and a good storyline...

could anyone please provide some kind of argument as to why Harry Potter is good.. give examples please, show us why it is not mediocre writing...

[kilted exile]

i have seen a number of posts suggesting the 8 or 9 year old child should be reading something like Oliver Twist instead. Why? at that age all they are going to get from Twist is Fagin bad, Oliver good (unless anyone seriously thinks they are likely to pick up on dickens references to the poor law?) This is a vast oversimplification and they'd be as well not reading it at all. They will be just reading it for the story (and likely an abridged version at that), getting frustrated by language they are not familiar with & for a lot of them being put off from reading because of the complexity and boring nature of it to them at that age. Seeing as at that age they will just be getting the story where is the harm in letting them just read the story of HP instead? They may not progress to "higher" literature (whatever this may be) but they wont be put off from it either.

[Drkshadow03]

yes that is too true... and quite pathetic..

what I also find interesting here, on this thread, and other Harry Potter threads, is that those us of posting on why we think the work is mediocre are the ones doing all the explaining. elucidating our points, giving reasons, providing examples, discussing the issue in much more depth..

whereas, those arguing that Harry Potter is good or great or even just decent, only provide general blanket statements such as the works have great imagination, a really good storyline, moral lessons, etc. etc... I can't think of the other claimed reasons for Potter being good at the moment, but the point is, I have not seen a single person (besides DarkShadow, who just wrote out the beginning to two of the books and said it was good writing in one, and not as good in the other) arguing for Harry Potter provide any real argument for why it is a well written book, or good literature, or valuable in some way..

and yet the con side is the one criticized for making opinions fact, we are the ones told we are generalizing.... we are the ones told we have narrowminded views of what literature is.. we're called elitists, snobs... we're told that we are purposefully making inflammatory and derogatory comments, that we are insulting people and even their relations by calling what they read "fluff", "schlock", "mediocre".. that we are discouraging children from reading by calling it mediocre... and yet we are the only ones supplying real arguments and providing examples of why it is mediocre, whereas the pro side, is just saying it is good because I think so, or because it has imagination and a good storyline...

could anyone please provide some kind of argument as to why Harry Potter is good.. give examples please, show us why it is not mediocre writing...

You are kidding right . . .

Other than JBI and I nobody has elucidated their points on why Harry Potter = bad or good. Can you provide some examples of where you offered evidence to back up your declarations? I can point to a number of your posts where you made some declarations, but offered no evidence to support those declarations. Okay, wait you finally did so in post #164. I also explained in that post how it functions as a fantasy, though, I could have explained that better I suppose, and various themes to be found in the book, and how the fantastical elements make these themes new (presents them more objectively in a way).

I also have some thoughts about the deus ex machina trope that Rowling uses. Yes, I agree with you that it's there, but I am not sure I agree its a deficiency when one thinks about what thematic purpose it satisfies.

I'm also hesitant to elaborate any further because I figure if I am spending all this time writing long posts and elucidating on Harry Potter I should either be doing it for my blog or as an article in a journal so I can at least make some cash from it.

[JBI]

i have seen a number of posts suggesting the 8 or 9 year old child should be reading something like Oliver Twist instead. Why? at that age all they are going to get from Twist is Fagin bad, Oliver good (unless anyone seriously thinks they are likely to pick up on dickens references to the poor law?) This is a vast oversimplification and they'd be as well not reading it at all. They will be just reading it for the story (and likely an abridged version at that), getting frustrated by language they are not familiar with & for a lot of them being put off from reading because of the complexity and boring nature of it to them at that age. Seeing as at that age they will just be getting the story where is the harm in letting them just read the story of HP instead? They may not progress to "higher" literature (whatever this may be) but they wont be put off from it either.

8-9 year olds shouldn't be able to read all of Potter - they are not in the target age group for the series: from my understanding, 1-2 8-11 year olds, 3-4 13-15 year olds, and the rest 16+, from how I understand the marketing. Keep in mind, the last one came out almost a decade after the first one.

So in a sense, though the 8-9 year olds may not wish to read Dickens, they could very well read Le Guin, for instance, and the 11+ year olds could start reading something like Tamora Pierce, or Caitlin Sweet, or something entirely different - there is actually quite a bit of Young Adult Fiction available. Of course, I think 15 or so is the right age to start reading very challenging books - I personally broke late, and started at 16 (and did much of my classical reading in those years directly following that), but I see no problem, for instance, handing a 14 year old Jane Austen or Charlotte Brontë.

Those texts, and in truth, almost all texts, aren't all that difficult - the difference is though, they use real written English, as apposed to the colloquial English of the school yard, and as such, they are somehow seen as old fashion, or difficult - I know someone in university, for instance, who has difficulty reading A Tale of Two Cities, and is used to reading thrillers whereas I know enough people who are new to the language, who make the effort to familiarize themselves with more difficult texts, and as a result, their written English, as well as their conversational skills, and their vocabularies improve significantly.

A. E. Housman, William Blake, Doctor Sues, Christina Rossetti, amongst many, many others, both contemporary and classical, for instance, all wrote many accessible works that an 8-9 year old could get. You don't, for instance, want a child growing up with texts that offer no challenge, so generally, if one wants to be building reading comprehension, they should up the standard a little bit. A 12 year old who can't read Ulysses is fine, but a 15 year old who struggles through most novels, I'm afraid, is functionally illiterate. By the age of 16 or so, I think, one reaches the point where reading levels shouldn't be an issue - there are odd works, for instance, Poetry generally is hard for people to read, or James Joyce, or perhaps much of Faulkner (especially his Absalom Absalom) that people may have trouble with, but for the most part, they should be able to grasp almost anything in prose they read, and much of what is in verse, and, if they are any good, have something to say about it.

Harry Potter, in my honest opinion, looks like children's prose dressed up as mature literature - the themes attempt to be mature, yet at the same time lack a mature tone, so that the term snogging, for instance, is used instead of making out, or kissing everywhere - but lets be honest, what 17 year old makes a big deal about kissing girls - by about 12 or thirteen kissing shouldn't really be a big deal. By using the term snogging, it becomes a sort of joke, the tone is reduced, so if anything, I think, these books don't give enough credit to the ability of readers at that age to handle mature things.

But alas, she deliberately sticks in deaths and "dark moments" as a way to sort of make the books seem mature - there are so many pointless killings in the texts as to make it that I am unable to justify them, in terms of structure, without thinking that was her motive - she originally, for instance, said herself that she was trying to make them darker, and more mature on the original release, so perhaps there is credibility to that hypothesis.

Perhaps the biggest problem though, I find, is that she tries to turn Dickens style characters into Shakespeare style characters, and fails at both.

Dickens characters are ironized cartoon cuttings of society, which serve as comical, often darkly comical representations of our society. Shakespeare characters are infinitely complex ones, which are seemingly "more real" than ones in reality, and therefore help us rethink reality in our own terms by overhearing. What Rowling tries to do, is make a Dickens style character, such as Harry's friend Ron (though Harry in a sense is one too) out to be someone deep and profound, but he ultimately lacks the depth, and falls right in between them - not ironic or funny, and not deep or "more real". The melodrama of, for instance, him always fighting with the other two in the trio seems to highlight this problem - rather than the fighting being comical, as it would be in a Dickens type character, or series and show some insight of deepness of character, as in Shakespeare style characters, it seems melodramatic, pointless, and rather silly.

Perhaps the most realized Dickens characters come from her greatest rip offs of society - take her Rita Skeeter (I think that is the name) reporter character, who is perhaps the most realized one - that character functions well enough as a Dickens character, but her reappearance in the fifth book, I would argue, attempts to make a more rounded character out of her, and ultimately fails, her reemergence in later texts perhaps is a little bit cute, if such sentimentality is your thing, but doesn't really add much, and loses what was gained before.

Another Dickens character had similar treatment - the evil schoolteacher, Mrs. Umbridge (did I get the name wrong?) seems to be styled as a comical sort of Dickens character, but ultimately she gets the same treatment - an attempt at rounding out and fleshing which fails, and then a later resurgence, which is sentimental, and boring.


There is about 1000x more character development and depth in the first 50 lines of Rossetti's Goblin Market than in all of Harry Potter. I see no reason why a child cannot be given something with more to it.

Is Jane Austen's Mr. Collins, for instance not a better comical character than Rowling's Gilderoy Lockhart (sp?) is Dickens' Pip not a better character than Rowling's Harry? Is Cather's Antonia not a more mature and realized character than Hermione, and in turn, is not the romance (though not so happy ending) between the two characters in Cather's book more real and gut wrenching? Why then, do we feel it necessary to reduce things so much. I don't think anyone, for instance, whether male or female, can help falling in love with an Antonia, or with a Mr. Darcy, or any other in a long slew of fantastic characters. Even a Sparowhawk/Ged is a fantastically drawn out character to warrant much attention, and he too lingers in memory - but alas, we supposedly think kids to immature to read real books, and instead give them highly chaste children's junk that is written for people older than its content.


But I guess it makes sense - the same way we have kids music, young adults music, adolescent music, and just reaching maturity music, we have the equivalents in literature now. Harry Potter is just the equivalent to the Jonas Brothers, or Hannah Montana - it sees an audience, and its promoters exploit that by making it the only thing supposedly available for that age group. Then, the age group widens, so being functionally literate and reading books is deemed too precocious or something, and dismissed by educators and the like.

My school library in high school, for instance, divided the fiction by age group. The same Monica Hughes books I read as an 11 year old somehow fit better with a suggested audience of grade 10 (14 year olds), whereas Jane Austen is a 12th grade book. Needless to say, with a branch of the Toronto Public Library just outside the school nobody ended up borrowing books from there for casual reading, but the limitation of such things is ridiculous - it sets people up for mediocrity.

At least they are reading is not an excuse - it's called dumbing down for a reason, because one cuts the norm as a way of justifying making up for loss ground - if we simplify things to such a degree that anyone can read, then technically, everyone becomes literate - it's like moving down the difficulty on standardized testing and claiming the education system is doing better.

Luckily, they haven't gotten rid of Shakespeare from the grade 9 curriculum, otherwise I think the most challenging text any of those kids would read in their life here would be The Great Gatsby which, though a great text, should easily be accessible to anyone 13 or up, and not be taught in Grade 12, where something like Margaret Atwood's Surfacing, or Robertson Davies' Fifth Business, or Joyce's Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man could be taught instead.

I think the people getting the least credit here are children with this - you need to show people things in order to get them to take - if people don't know about good literature, then they obviously aren't going to read it. But when you make Harry Potter the most advertised text in the world (complete with vibrating Broomsticks and every sort of type of toy imaginable, from food products to stickers) and praise it nonstop, of course they aren't going to think differently. Even here, daring to accuse the texts of mediocrity is seen as rude, and is met with a backlash - what better form of advertising.


Like I said, I have no problem with literature in that age group - I have been championing Caitlin Sweet for a while now, because I think her prose is some of the best I've seen in a long time, and is quite poetic and beautiful, as is her imagination - her book feels painted with watercolors, beautifully, rather than written - or Tamora Pierce, who has penned several very good book series for the same sort of age group as the third and fourth Harry Potter books, but deals a lot more with real issues, and has far stronger characters.

Those two are by no means "classical authors" and I am doubtful of their existence in the future as "canonical works", but in all honesty, I think they are far more culturally relevant, and powerful works than any Harry Potter, and would recommend them to a child probably over something like Tom Sawyer or Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

[JBI]

You are kidding right . . .

Other than JBI and I nobody has elucidated their points on why Harry Potter = bad or good. Can you provide some examples of where you offered evidence to back up your declarations? I can point to a number of your posts where you made some declarations, but offered no evidence to support those declarations. Okay, wait you finally did so in post #164. I also explained in that post how it functions as a fantasy, though, I could have explained that better I suppose, and various themes to be found in the book, and how the fantastical elements make these themes new (presents them more objectively in a way).

I also have some thoughts about the deus ex machina trope that Rowling uses. Yes, I agree with you that it's there, but I am not sure I agree its a deficiency when one thinks about what thematic purpose it satisfies.

I'm also hesitant to elaborate any further because I figure if I am spending all this time writing long posts and elucidating on Harry Potter I should either be doing it for my blog or as an article in a journal so I can at least make some cash from it.

I don't know - I certainly won't boast to be the only one - but you yourself claimed to be interested in a deeper textual analysis, and then, all of a sudden, merely forgot the text part, and continued on talking about the cultural phenomenon of Harry Potter, rather than the text of Harry Potter itself.

In that sense, there has been very little real talk of Harry Potter, outside of the "Harry Potter the culture" zone.

I think the argument from outside the text has all but exhausted itself already - three Harry Potter threads over.

Perhaps now we can move on and actually talk about the qualities and faults of the text itself, rather than try to justify the quality of a book by the amount of illiterates, children, or philistines who read it.

[islandclimber]

You are kidding right . . .

Other than JBI and I nobody has elucidated their points on why Harry Potter = bad or good. Can you provide some examples of where you offered evidence to back up your declarations? I can point to a number of your posts where you made some declarations, but offered no evidence to support those declarations. Okay, wait you finally did so in post #164. I also explained in that post how it functions as a fantasy, though, I could have explained that better I suppose, and various themes to be found in the book, and how the fantastical elements make these themes new (presents them more objectively in a way).

I also have some thoughts about the deus ex machina trope that Rowling uses. Yes, I agree with you that it's there, but I am not sure I agree its a deficiency when one thinks about what thematic purpose it satisfies.

I'm also hesitant to elaborate any further because I figure if I am spending all this time writing long posts and elucidating on Harry Potter I should either be doing it for my blog or as an article in a journal so I can at least make some cash from it.

and you also provided quite a number of posts with declarations for which you provided no evidence, and many others with anecdotal evidence, or your own personal experience as a librarian.. I volunteered in a library for a few years when the Harry Potter books were first coming out, but I don't need to fall back on claiming my own personal experience of seeing a few people in one random library behave a certain way reflects upon society as a greater truth...

anyways.. whatever I managed to say in my last post there, you have several times provided your arguments, explained them, given your own version of evidence for them (which, let's be honest is mostly just your own personal opinion of how Harry Potter shows world-building and works as a fantasy) and that's great... but on the whole I have seen JBI, JCamilo, MortalTerror, StLukes, myself (and yes I do admit I have several times made declarations without providing evidence, but to say I have not elucidated upon my claims before post 164 is a little silly and completely false) all do the same thing...

deus ex machina not a deficiency in Potter eh.. someone (I can't remember, was it you or someone else?) in this thread already said that cliches weren't bad in Rowling because children hadn't heard them before so therefore they were not cliches.. give me a break.. this is the same kind of argument.. JK Rowlings excessive dependence on Deus Ex Machina (to say nothing of cliches and her typical red herring plots) shows a writer who lacks the imagination to think of another way out of the corner she has written herself into... shows a writer that cannot keep her story's internal logic intact... maybe because it allows her to give a much more palatable ending however unlikely, however much it destroys "suspension of disbelief" which is what fantasy of course relies upon, does it not? but as long as she gives a half-assed explanation for the miracle afterwards it's okay, oh you have a pure heart so fate will always smile on you and miracles will rain down from the heavens to save you everytime you are put in peril? what thematic purposes does this satisfy? to show that the theme of Harry Potter is no hard work or skill required, miracles are a dime a dozen? don't worry, if you are a good guy, luck and fate will always be on your side?

[islandclimber]

Perhaps the biggest problem though, I find, is that she tries to turn Dickens style characters into Shakespeare style characters, and fails at both.

Dickens characters are ironized cartoon cuttings of society, which serve as comical, often darkly comical representations of our society. Shakespeare characters are infinitely complex ones, which are seemingly "more real" than ones in reality, and therefore help us rethink reality in our own terms by overhearing. What Rowling tries to do, is make a Dickens style character, such as Harry's friend Ron (though Harry in a sense is one too) out to be someone deep and profound, but he ultimately lacks the depth, and falls right in between them - not ironic or funny, and not deep or "more real". The melodrama of, for instance, him always fighting with the other two in the trio seems to highlight this problem - rather than the fighting being comical, as it would be in a Dickens type character, or series and show some insight of deepness of character, as in Shakespeare style characters, it seems melodramatic, pointless, and rather silly.

Perhaps the most realized Dickens characters come from her greatest rip offs of society - take her Rita Skeeter (I think that is the name) reporter character, who is perhaps the most realized one - that character functions well enough as a Dickens character, but her reappearance in the fifth book, I would argue, attempts to make a more rounded character out of her, and ultimately fails, her reemergence in later texts perhaps is a little bit cute, if such sentimentality is your thing, but doesn't really add much, and loses what was gained before.

Another Dickens character had similar treatment - the evil schoolteacher, Mrs. Umbridge (did I get the name wrong?) seems to be styled as a comical sort of Dickens character, but ultimately she gets the same treatment - an attempt at rounding out and fleshing which fails, and then a later resurgence, which is sentimental, and boring.
.

I would disagree with this.. I do not think Rowling has any intention of creating characters in the style of Dickens... Dickens characters as you say often serve as darkly comical representations of our society, characters that often seem so exaggerated this way, that although we may recognize bits and pieces of them in the people we interact with everyday, we see them as somewhat beyond possibility, as exaggerated stereotypes, as comical misrepresentations of the average man, etc...

Rowling in my opinion does not at all try to do this... besides on occasion with characters such as Skeeter, the Weasley parents, the Lovegoods, and other such secondary characters.. but with her main characters I think Rowling tries to create characters in a manner that we might say we know someone exactly like that, or that we may see as/in ourselves, she tries to allow young people to identify with her characters and to see that they are just as real and ordinary as any young person living in reality, just set up in a different world, in a fantasy world of wizards and witches and all that encompasses.. her characters seem to be quite content acting as normal, average teenagers placed in extraordinary circumstances... it's seems she is trying to create characters who think and act in ways that suggest to us, even compel us to believe well this character that I identify with, I would act and think in the exact same way if I was placed in this situation.. it seems to me she creates a fantasy world and tries to create characters that are all to made up of the stuff of this everyday world we live in.. I have mixed opinions on whether this is a good thing in fantasy or not, and whether or not Rowlings succeeds in this...

and this gets into your second point about the problems with the novel's mixed bag on maturity issues.. especially in the last 4 books.. they are no longer babies, people are dying around them, and Rowling misses no chance in expanding upon the themes of love and death in the later books... but it is a platonic love strictly.. and violent death only.. no one ever passes away of old age, no one dies of a disease... no one loves besides in a universal and general way.. or if they do love, it is briefly glanced at and then swept away as the novel switches back to focus on "darker" and more "mature" themes.. and this is where her characters fail miserably... for Rowling wants to make them so real, but what 15-18 year old does not have issues of sex and passionate love on his mind? a brief kiss, a few words on feeling something strange about someone else seem to be the only actions and emotions that Rowling's characters can display? and yet they can handle death being all around them, torture, intense hatred, violence, "evil", disorder... that just another example of the absurd failings in logic of Rowling's writing... and the safe nature of the works... is she afraid of the issue of sex? does she really think 16 year olds won't be able to handle it? and yet she seems to think she is writing for a mature audience as he works not only deal with death but a sadistic pleasure in some characters of not only killing but torturing? although even this seems somewhat glossed over, as she apparently is afraid of offending the sensibilities of her younger readers, torture though apparently prevalent among the death eaters for fun, is also briefly glossed over and death again takes its place...

I think Rowlings was looking for something entirely different then Dickens and Shakespeare in the creation of her characters, and that is an "intense reality"....

with regards to your other points I wholeheartedly agree, and I also hope we can pass on from discussing the cultural phenomenon of Harry Potter and maybe discuss why the text is so "good" or so "bad"

[JBI]

She isn't trying to write Dickens characters - she is trying to write Shakespeare type characters with "Real life feelings" and whatnot. The problem is, she really just doesn't have the ability, and is far more suited for Dickens style characters, though, without the umph I guess, to make one deep, profound, real seeming character - people always praise the Snape character, yet he doesn't really hold any ground as a profound Byronic hero - he is too removed, too stereotyped, and too limited in terms of what he says and does.

For the Snape Character to actually have worked, he would have needed a height of emotional strength rarely seen in characters - the best example, and perhaps most thought out one I can think of, is Wagner's Konig Marke, as heard here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJVbd...om=PL&index=12 or for a better video but with a, in my opinion, slightly worse singer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXtJEkcMbwo.

The character loses believability, and was made even worse by the division over time in the books - is he good, is he bad, no he's good, no he's bad, no he's really a hero, no, he love's Harry's mother, no wait, he sacrifices himself to save the day.

There is nothing really there that is believable too, except for Alan Rickman, who pulls it off by being able to carry the lines in the perfect, menacing accent.

[Drkshadow03]

@JBI: Agreed. However, I mostly was responding to my interlocutors and where they took the conversation.

@Islandclimber: All literary criticism is technically one particular critic's opinion, or the word we typically use is: interpretation. That's why texts and interpretations and even opinions about the quality of texts are never a closed debate (in actual scholarship or on these boards). There's always one more interpretation of Hamlet, one more scrutinizing of minute elements, one more reassessment of a forgotten book or a non-canonical book. We technically could go on forever without getting anywhere. So in a sense I completely agree with what you wrote. Even if I offered an impassioned defense with tons of textual evidence and explain what it is I see in Harry Potter I don't imagine for a second it would cause you or anyone to have an epiphany and reevaluate Harry Potter. You might think of it this way, opinions = interpretations/evaluation, facts = the text.

@Both: I'm working on a post that will be going on the blog about Harry Potter, which will address your criticisms of the books, and explain what I and others (since I will be quoting literary criticism) see in it by providing an interpretation that is supported by evidence from the books. It will take me some time to write up this post as it requires some research (I've written up the post, originally as an informal response, but I want to do some more formal research); I have a lot of other projects under my belt right now, mostly finding a job.

[islandclimber]

I don't know though, as you yourself said and I agree Shakespearean characters were created infinitely complex, to the point of being seen as more real than reality, another version of a distorted reality as the world is not only filled with this "real" man.... Dostoevsky is another example somewhat like this with his intensely real characters who so often behave and think in ways seemingly beyond reality but at the same time exceptionally rooted in reality...

I don't know if I would agree that this is what Rowling was looking for, a reality that was almost beyond reality in the creation of her characters... I would agree though that she attempted to create deep, real seeming characters, I just don't know if I would put the word profound in there.. it seems to me that while Shakespeare did create real characters at the same time they possessed something too real... Rowling creates characters that are meant to be entirely real, and profound is not in her equation of what is real... in my opinion.. the books show an attempt to delve into the thought processes of a young mind, and do a somewhat admirable job in some cases, but fail miserably in other ways... but they steer clear of the profound, although maybe this is more of something attempted and just missing, as you suggest and I am just missing this...

but I do agree that her characters sometimes do fall into the Dickens style especially when faced with the ordinary day to day life, they seem to lack resonance and become almost farcical... only when the extraordinary arrives again do they again become alive and real and vivid... the stark contrast is one of the main problems with her characters in my opinion...

and Snape is a perfect example... for as you say he is so removed, so stereotyped, so limited that when he all of a sudden pops up as really the hero of the series, when he all of a sudden comes to life, and in such a fantastic manner, well it just seems implausible and silly...

[islandclimber]

@Islandclimber: All literary criticism is technically one particular critic's opinion, or the word we typically use is: interpretation. That's why texts and interpretations and even opinions about the quality of texts are never a closed debate (in actual scholarship or on these boards). There's always one more interpretation of Hamlet, one more scrutinizing of minute elements, one more reassessment of a forgotten book or a non-canonical book. We technically could go on forever without getting anywhere. So in a sense I completely agree with what you wrote. Even if I offered an impassioned defense with tons of textual evidence and explain what it is I see in Harry Potter I don't imagine for a second it would cause you or anyone to have an epiphany and reevaluate Harry Potter. You might think of it this way, opinions = interpretations/evaluation, facts = the text.

@Both: I'm working on a post that will be going on the blog about Harry Potter, which will address your criticisms of the books, and explain what I and others (since I will be quoting literary criticism) see in it by providing an interpretation that is supported by evidence from the books. It will take me some time to write up this post as it requires some research (I've written up the post, originally as an informal response, but I want to do some more formal research); I have a lot of other projects under my belt right now, mostly finding a job.

I do agree with you, although I do believe there is something to be said for discussing merits of certain works in changing people's opinions on them.. I don't for a second think I know everything about the Harry Potter books, all possible negatives, and all possible positives.. and maybe you will make some points that I find I can do nothing but agree with, and though it may not make me look upon Harry Potter as a good book, it may help me see it from a different perspective, or notice a few merits that I had otherwise been blinded to.. and who knows, I probably won't have a favourable opinion of the book all the same, but I may look on it a little less harshly than I currently do right

well I look forward to this post, and good luck finding a job..

[JCamilo]

The problem of Dickens or Shakespeare characters is that they are supported by the plot and by the main characters. Shakespeare basically adds a perspective, since in a book a character is a representation of actions and feelings, he gave us someone to filter those actions and feelings. Ofelia is Ofelia because Hamlet is around. Iago defines Othelo and Othelo defines Iago. The same with Dickens, they are not just a plot device (huh, either the teacher is just some lousy addult who lets kids solve problems or he is the problem) or something object to build the scenario. But since the plot of HP is really obvious (it is really a red ex machine herring) and the character is basically a videogame dude (I have problem, i have new magical item and a new combo attack!), all the rest is empty. Some short of museum of oddities.
As what kids should read, usually the problem with kids is discipline to focus on length and vocabulary. There is studies who show they have a great capacity of interpretation, not bound by our addult experience, who in the end, lead us to the basic and normal interpretation.

[Adderhead]

Only paranoid fools who haven't read the Harry Potter series would say that it promotes the occult and witchcraft. It actually promotes many good values that every human being should embrace, such as friendship and other themes.

[PeterL]

Only paranoid fools who haven't read the Harry Potter series would say that it promotes the occult and witchcraft. It actually promotes many good values that every human being should embrace, such as friendship and other themes.

Yes, it promotes good vallues, liking esteeming witces and studying ancient languages.

[TheFifthElement]

Honestly, who really cares about this masterwand toss - she made her protagonist Jesus - that's cliché enough - she even had him reincarnated to save the world. I mean, that's just pathetic if you ask me.

that's funny. Can you be resurrected if you didn't die?