Harry Potter

[wessexgirl]

I couldn't agree more with the last few posters. How can grown adults take so much perverse pleasure in belittling and sneering at a childrens/teen book? It wasn't written for you, and while I have nothing against any age group reading any book, (within reason of course), I do find it ridiculous that people are debating over the truth of the physics of a fiction book!!!!!! All I can say is you must have too much time on your hands, to take exception to a piece of work which brings enjoyment to many. Okay, you see it as flawed. What piece of work isn't? It's not great literature, but as far as I can see, no-one's claiming it is, but the detractors just sound like a load of soulless whingers. All I hope is that none of you have any input into encouraging kids to read, because if you were teachers, or like me, librarians, who were tearing your hair out trying to encourage the reluctant readers, or trying to teach the big percentage of kids who can barely read when they reach secondary school, you would so obviously be in the wrong job. Are you expecting them to read War and Peace, or Proust perhaps, when the actual act of getting them to pick up a book as opposed to playing on a computer is a big achievement? And I expect the rebuttal to that will be but there are better children's books. Everyone knows that, but I think that even if they picked up the so-called "better" books, certain people would find fault with that, and would be expecting more. Well, if they can read x why aren't they reading y......it's infinitely better? I agree with Lima, it's a circular argument, and the detractors will never let it lie. If you don't like HP, as it's your right to do, fine, but to keep an argument going about petty, nit-picking flaws in a work of juvenile fiction, (I'll say it again in case certain people didn't get it), A WORK OF JUVENILE FICTION, NOT A NON-FICTION SCIENCE BOOK ABOUT PHYSICS, then that's just very sad.

[Paulclem]

Them paul (allow me to call you shortly) , would you think that if they read something else but HP they would still be reading thanks to your incentive? Would you think that instead of HP, it was x(being X any other book) would they not became a active reader?

In truth I think thre are lots of influences upon what children read. The first influences are parents when they are very young, but after a certain age, they read what they want according to their peer group and whatever interests they develop. They read widely.

Their development was by no means solely due to HP, and I hope I didn't give that impression. No series can solely be responsible for a childs reading development, and Iwould never suggest it. What HP did was to encourage some children to read above their level. I remember my son getting the Goblet of Fire, which is not a short book- and reading it in a very brief time - impelled by the story. We were all able to share it too by reading it in succession. The film added another dimension too.

If as you asked, the HP series had not come out, then my children would still be good readers. I am of the opinion though, that there is a lot of implicit support to read the HP series - the films, the peer interests of children, and, in truth the marketing machine - which in this case I don't mind because reading is such an important skill and benefits from the profile. The Goosebumps series had a similar effect, and I remember reading that this series did raise reading levels here in England briefly. I suspect that HP has donethe same, though it may not be sustained over tie. It may need another series by a different author. Vampires seem to be popular at the minute.

[Paulclem]

... okay i don't know where you get this comment from but there is no evidence to back this claim up.

My kids. It is anecdotal admittedly, but my kids friends are all on facbook,MSN etc. They also use computers far more at school. It all cuts into reading time, though I don't intend to condemn. Things are changing quickly, and it is difficult to see where this rate of development will be in 5 or 10 years time.

PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT TASTES. PERIOD. BOOKS DO CERTAIN THINGS FOR CERTAIN PEOPLE.

I agree.

And another thing - i'm pretty sure most of the people who have posted in this thread are of an "older" age and have never read Harry Potter in their life.

I have. I'm 45. I'm happy to admit to reading a mixture of classics, sci-fi, fantasy, crime, and children's books. I also read the odd modern literary novel.

[Paulclem]

All I hope is that none of you have any input into encouraging kids to read, because if you were teachers, or like me, librarians, who were tearing your hair out trying to encourage the reluctant readers, or trying to teach the big percentage of kids who can barely read when they reach secondary school,

I agree with you Wessexgirl. I'm an ex-primary school teacher who now teaches adults basic English. My students last year ranged from 17 to 83. I find it very sad that the people we have in our classes are on the whole intelligent people who have not realised their life's potental. A big part of this is a lack of reading skills - and writing/ spelling etc I am absolutely certain that anything that encourages reading should be given credit the credit it deserves. That's why I have been banging on as a pro-HP.

[mollie]

Wessexgirl, your point is an excellent one - if the anti-Harry Potter brigade do not approve of Harry Potter, what do they want children to read? What children's literature is sufficiently edifying for use as reading material?

[Drkshadow03]

Wessexgirl, your point is an excellent one - if the anti-Harry Potter brigade do not approve of Harry Potter, what do they want children to read? What children's literature is sufficiently edifying for use as reading material?

Classics such as See Spot Run, of course. They then should go immediately to Chaucer and James Joyce. Doesn't everyone do that?

[Three Sparrows]

"My kids. It is anecdotal admittedly, but my kids friends are all on facbook,MSN etc. They also use computers far more at school. It all cuts into reading time, though I don't intend to condemn. Things are changing quickly, and it is difficult to see where this rate of development will be in 5 or 10 years time."

The environment that kids are raised in does have a large impact, I believe. If you are around people who chat online and go out instead of read, they will probably pick up a book with reluctance; I have been home schooled and exposed to classics all my life, and for me, reading is my passion. So, it might depend on the surroundings and definitely on the individual person.
I remember reading my first great classic, Anna Karenina, when I was eleven, but I also know people who would rather read computer manuals instead.

Harry Potter might be a good step for some, but for me, the witchcraft sorcery really turned me off.

All the best in getting kids to read Chaucer!

[JCamilo]

Them paul (allow me to call you shortly) , would you think that if they read something else but HP they would still be reading thanks to your incentive? Would you think that instead of HP, it was x(being X any other book) would they not became a active reader?

In truth I think thre are lots of influences upon what children read. The first influences are parents when they are very young, but after a certain age, they read what they want according to their peer group and whatever interests they develop. They read widely.

Their development was by no means solely due to HP, and I hope I didn't give that impression. No series can solely be responsible for a childs reading development, and Iwould never suggest it. What HP did was to encourage some children to read above their level. I remember my son getting the Goblet of Fire, which is not a short book- and reading it in a very brief time - impelled by the story. We were all able to share it too by reading it in succession. The film added another dimension too.

If as you asked, the HP series had not come out, then my children would still be good readers. I am of the opinion though, that there is a lot of implicit support to read the HP series - the films, the peer interests of children, and, in truth the marketing machine - which in this case I don't mind because reading is such an important skill and benefits from the profile. The Goosebumps series had a similar effect, and I remember reading that this series did raise reading levels here in England briefly. I suspect that HP has donethe same, though it may not be sustained over tie. It may need another series by a different author. Vampires seem to be popular at the minute.

I think that is where I want to move this. HP is responsable for some individual devleopments, no doubt. Altough the reader must exist already to arrive to HP. But what really caused your kids to read is not HP - as you said - or any book, be it The Comedy, Don Quixote or Alice in the Wonderlands. No book have such effect - to create readers - they modify readers, that is all. What create readers is your incentive, society incentive (you may classify the HP fever with movies and other supports as such), school. In other words, Education.
Even if we see books strongly related to some inclusive momments, such as Don Quixote (I have seen once a study showing that the multiplication of the translations of Quixote was similar to the increase of book selling in europe), or the books responsable for the end of latim and the national idioms, they are all part of a socio-economic movement. I would say that saying that Don Quixote make people read is as wrong as saying HP do (and generally, it is just a defensive vague argument against more demanding criticism in the forum). Even because the books are often written in answer to the public demand. Harry Potter is, as you pointed, similar to other books that explored the same "public", he did not created then. But of course, it is necessary to explore this market. But as you said, it could have been other books, kids would be "transformed" in readers by any books used by the responsables for the education, even an Ecyclopedia (which is a book that many members of youth read), HP, Comic books, etc.
Claims that one specific work did have no vallue and no evidence at all. And it is a misunderstanding of anything that the so called old people who had only free time in life is saying. We are talking about the kind of the reader transfomed by HP, not that they do not exist.

[JCamilo]

Wessexgirl, your point is an excellent one - if the anti-Harry Potter brigade do not approve of Harry Potter, what do they want children to read? What children's literature is sufficiently edifying for use as reading material?

You know that Alice in Wonderlands do lead to James Joyce, right? And Robert Louis Stevenson to Jorge Luis Borges? Because they are direct influence to both? Ah, of course, I forget we live in a world of absolutes, If there is no Harry Potter no other book is left in this world but the Unread volumes of snobery...
In fact, I do not mind that my sisters read Harry Potter, I bought for them one or another, but I am very happy they also read Byron, Guimares Rosa, Stevenson, Orwell, Machado de Assis, Emily Dickinson, Poe, Borges, Fernando Pessoa, Hugo, some of them before Potter and I know they have a more powerful effect than HP...

[Mathor]

But what really caused your kids to read is not HP - as you said - or any book, be it The Comedy, Don Quixote or Alice in the Wonderlands. No book have such effect - to create readers - they modify readers, that is all. What create readers is your incentive, society incentive (you may classify the HP fever with movies and other supports as such), school. In other words, Education.

Well. That's mostly true. But books do make readers. If you spend your whole life without finding a book you enjoy, you're not ever going to start reading. And a lot of books you would enjoy, but you do not have the inspiration yet to understand why. Something has to provide that initial inspiration.

[mollie]

You know that Alice in Wonderlands do lead to James Joyce, right? And Robert Louis Stevenson to Jorge Luis Borges? Because they are direct influence to both? Ah, of course, I forget we live in a world of absolutes, If there is no Harry Potter no other book is left in this world but the Unread volumes of snobery...
In fact, I do not mind that my sisters read Harry Potter, I bought for them one or another, but I am very happy they also read Byron, Guimares Rosa, Stevenson, Orwell, Machado de Assis, Emily Dickinson, Poe, Borges, Fernando Pessoa, Hugo, some of them before Potter and I know they have a more powerful effect than HP...

Yes, I am very aware of Alice in Wonderland and the influence it had on later literature. I loved it so much, and I knew a lot of it off by heart when I was a child, and its influence cropped up within a module of the final year of my degree. I am not under the impression that Harry Potter is the only book in the world, and I do not consider all other works to be the preserve of snobs.

I realise that my initial question was phrased in an unpleasantly sarcastic way, but it is frustrating to read this thread. The book is written for children to enjoy, and they enjoy it. They're children. They're learning. Of course Harry Potters are not the best books ever written. Nobody here seems to be arguing that. Later on, the children reading it now will find that out, in exactly the same way I found out that neither Little Women or Anne of Green Gables is the best book ever written. But until that happens, just let them enjoy it, and stop picking holes in a book that was never meant for adults to read. It's like going into an ice-cream parlour and complaining that the ice-cream doesn't have enough nutritional value.

I am delighted that your sisters are well read, and enjoying excellent literature. I think all children should be exposed to the best children's literature there is, Roald Dahl, E Nesbit, Louisa M Alcott, LM Montgomery, CS Lewis, and others. However, I don't think everything they read has to be an edifying work of great literary merit, unless the child's tastes naturally fall that way. I think that children should be permitted to read books that are just entertainment, Enid Blyton, Carolyn Keene and the like, in amongst the better books I talked about above. They should be allowed to read for sheer pleasure, in a relaxed way, without someone clucking over their shoulder that what they are reading is substandard.

I think they should be allowed an intermediate stage between fairy stories and and picking up really great adult literature like Orwell and Borges, an intermediate stage when they read, and it's not hard work, it's not a chore, when they're reading to just enjoy it. I believe that this is the key to keeping children reading into adulthood. If they don't need that stage, if they hop straight, aged seven, from Cinderella to One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, then good on them, they're cleverer than I ever will be. But I think most children will follow the route I have described, and I really don't see what is so harmful about that that the people saying so are being accused of reverse literary snobbery, which I have seen on various threads around this topic.

[JCamilo]

I realise that my initial question was phrased in an unpleasantly sarcastic way, but it is frustrating to read this thread.

I agree the thread is frustating. But rather because it seems like any criticism of Harry Potter is answered with "It is for children, they like it."
So what? I can go to a store right now and point a hundred books that were for children and meant to please them and tell why they may be worst than HP. But if someone points flaws on HP in a internet forum, where the public is hardly the poor children then it is a dire crime. It is like someone placing critics on Shakespeare and other answering: It is for addults, they enjoy it!
That is very frustating, because it is false argumentantion: enjoyment is not measurable at all, someone may enjoy today and hate tomorrow (or vice-versa).

The book is written for children to enjoy, and they enjoy it. They're children. They're learning.

Alice in wonderlands was written for younger children (If children can be applied at all with Harry Potter) and they can sustain the same level of criticism applied to HP. And the question is always what they are learning is rather important.

Of course Harry Potters are not the best books ever written. Nobody here seems to be arguing that.

And nobody ever suggested that people do not enjoy HP.

Later on, the children reading it now will find that out, in exactly the same way I found out that neither Little Women or Anne of Green Gables is the best book ever written. But until that happens, just let them enjoy it, and stop picking holes in a book that was never meant for adults to read. It's like going into an ice-cream parlour and complaining that the ice-cream doesn't have enough nutritional value.

Well, for a high perfomance athlete this is a good thing to talk isnt? But what surprise me is the notion that addults should not analyse material meant for younglings. Just le be. It is funny since children hardly produce they own material? And more, why one book should be spared from criticism just for being written for children? I could list several "children books" that sustain the same level of criticism that Joyce or Proust would, is that special that they should be spared, specially when genre classifications are rather insignificant to criticism? Rather, is that surprising that we should not do it in a internet forum where the objective is talking about literature? Should anyone else be censored because they see negative things and do not come in how original,loving, special, life changing Harry Potter is?

I am delighted that your sisters are well read, and enjoying excellent literature. I think all children should be exposed to the best children's literature there is, Roald Dahl, E Nesbit, Louisa M Alcott, LM Montgomery, CS Lewis, and others. However, I don't think everything they read has to be an edifying work of great literary merit, unless the child's tastes naturally fall that way. I think that children should be permitted to read books that are just entertainment, Enid Blyton, Carolyn Keene and the like, in amongst the better books I talked about above. They should be allowed to read for sheer pleasure, in a relaxed way, without someone clucking over their shoulder that what they are reading is substandard.

Yet, they can read what is enterteiment and what is substancial. All by themselves.

I think they should be allowed an intermediate stage between fairy stories and and picking up really great adult literature like Orwell and Borges, an intermediate stage when they read, and it's not hard work, it's not a chore, when they're reading to just enjoy it. I believe that this is the key to keeping children reading into adulthood. If they don't need that stage, if they hop straight, aged seven, from Cinderella to One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, then good on them, they're cleverer than I ever will be. But I think most children will follow the route I have described, and I really don't see what is so harmful about that that the people saying so are being accused of reverse literary snobbery, which I have seen on various threads around this topic.

I would just say that Fairy tales are rather meant to addults and that the only step is own experience. Reading is a skill developed with conflit that demands more than the previous experience. So, I really doubt that reading a work that is just enterteiment and nothing else will give anyone the skills to understand the deeper and multiple meanings behind better works. They may devleop stamina for long texts, but really that is just limited and they will have to find it somewhere else.

[Mathor]

I agree the thread is frustating. But rather because it seems like any criticism of Harry Potter is answered with "It is for children, they like it."

No it is frustrating, because there are only two arguments that are being presented here.

1. It is for children, don't criticize it.
2. I do not think this book is worth reading and therefore you should not read it.

I also think the people here are judging this work differently then they would judge other works that are similar to it, for the simple fact that it is very popular. It's not a life-changing work, but it's not any worse than the majority of teen literature out there.

[Veho]

1. It is for children, don't criticize it.
2. I do not think this book is worth reading and therefore you should not read it.

I think it strange that those who are in the number 2 bracket, find it's not worth reading but worth the effort to have a 'heated' discussion about it on a forum.

[Hank Stamper]

im trying to find the emoticon that represents me doing a giant turd over this thread

wessexgirl has articulated it best - if you don't like it, fair dos, but the constant nit-picking is just tiresome

if you are so intellectual, surely you will see the futility of such persistent arguments that the novel is flawed because (insert infuriatingly banal reason here).. ie. the author forgot to make Hermione 1/3 older after she travelled back in time

PEDANTS!

really, find something better to do with your time