Is it true?

What do you think? True, false, truthiness?

I think there's a lot of truth to the article.

I've always thought members of the fandom were a bit more dense than the usual reader (DarkLordPotter.net excluded, of course, for this very reason) you'd associate with real life book clubs. Even outside of the online fandom, though, I've met people both in high school and in uni that just seem to go along with the flow, fad to fad and to whatever's gauged entertaining at the time. It's a bit sad but it also leads to what I thought was one of her bigger points: that of marketing it as something it's not.

I really don't put too much stock into Harry Potter being a gateway to a higher level of reading. I don't see too many people transitioning from Harry Potter to stories like Huck Finn, Jester in Yankee's Court, Gatsby, Atlas Shrugged, Fountainhead or even something that's still Young Adult but written by a master of the language (for instance, Pullman's His Dark Materials).

Is it discouraging? Kind of.

I've never watched too much TV outside of the Jon Stewart/Colbert Report one-two punch on Comedy Central and 24 (and to follow Chelsea or the Phoenix Suns whenever they're on). So yeah, it is a bit discouraging that people waste the bulk of their life sleeping and watching the telly because it seems to really deaden a person to the obvious and common sense things. And I also believe having a higher proficiency in reading (or at least being able to read the newspaper, articles and what-not) leads to making more informed decisions concerning what should be important as a citizen of whatever respective country you're in (a political point, I suppose).

To me, reading enabled getting all the perspectives, all the angles, all the ideas out there of whatever I was interested in and to make my decision from there - not listening to Katie Couric or Wolf Blitzer bitch about it in the Situation Room. Has Harry Potter done that? I don't think so; I haven't seen too much discussion outside of the usual liberal or conservative think-tank points of "Bush sucks" or "Democrats are pussies."

Either way, yeah. I thought the article was fairly on target with what Harry Potter is and isn't. It is fun to be apart of the fandom, it is fun to read the fanfiction, it is fun to be apart of something like that. It's akin to the argument between watching it on TV and watching it in person, at the stadium when it comes to sports: it's the addictive atmosphere.

But a lot of people are making it something it's not to be. It's not a gateway, I don't think, for even a large minority. It's not enlightening and it's really nothing more than an airplane thriller and to be frank, I don't think it will go down in history as one of the greater stories that transcend time. It's a far cry from what Lord of the Rings is and was and will be.

It is entertaining, however and for some that's all that probably matters.

Thoughts?

 

He dose make a few good points. His argument about the books being a status symbol raises a good point. However the books also get kids who normally wouldn't read to read, even if it is only to keep up with their friends, it certainly can't hurt. I also agree with him that the books aren't literature but many popular books aren't.

 

Interesting aside: the comments seem MuggleNet-driven and really are humorous. I think they work to actually help prove the columnist's point rather than to offer any constructive rebuttal to what he pointed out.

 

He is quite right. There are many instances where the writing is terribly repetitive, and there are problems with the plot that go beyond people's simple disatisfaction with book 6 and, oftentimes, book 5 as well.

I have babysat for many children who have the stories on their shelves in their rooms, and have admitted to not having read many or even all of them. It is a very valid point that Harry Potter is simply another in a long line of consumer fads, much like pokemon was some 5 or 6 years ago--a few, a rather pathetically small percent, continue with these momentary fads, and more often than not they are isolated or have to maintain separation of this part of themselves from school populations. I'm still a reader of HP books, but I can tell that soon it will simply be another fad that will pass and those who still read Harry Potter will be mocked and belittled for it--such is the way of children.

Also, I think that the tendency of people to dress up like Harry Potter or other things from the 'magical world' serves to separate further those devout to HP from mainstream consumers who were simply grasping on the latest fad. Those who stick with it are simply using it as a way to distance themselves from the norm, to escape from reality and the harshness therein. It is the same as those who devote themselves to D&D, to pokemon, to anime, to magic the gathering, and to any number of once-popular phenomena that left behind a small group to continue their obsession as a means to retreat from the rigores of reality. Just like World of Warcraft, too.

 

To me his whole arguement against HP was divided into two points, marketing and literary value. Everyone hates marketing, but it works. This is the wrong community to say it in but Authors don't create for free. Ok we do but "real" authors dont, unless they're on fictionpress, or the Baen Bar, or hundreds of weblogs, or... Telling this one story is what feeds JKR and her family, she doesn't have a real job so the marketing is a necessary evil. Deal with it.

As for the literary value arguement, about three quarters of the way down (the article I didn't even bother looking at the comments) I caught this little gem;

That's right, it won't. Those are not our stories, those were your stories or our grandparent's stories. No seven year old is going to read Chamber of Secrets and then pick up Anne of Green Gables. But theres a good chance they'll read other books. Goosebumps? Choose Your Own Adventure? Hardy Boys? Ok I'm showing my age but I don't know what the current trash novel for kids is these days. Probably HP come to think of it, but I don't recall anyone bashing RL Stein whenever he released a new book. How many of those five dollar, hundred page, pieces of junk were there anyway?

Beyond the fact that I like the stories as they are and regularly read (or write) for fun, I've seen the effect Harry Potter has on children and I approve. Kids are reading again. They've turned off the tv, turned off the internet, and opened a book. Even if it is only for a little while It really sunk in to me just after the first movie came out.

At the time I was living next to a family with a mentally handicapped kid. He was a good kid but he knew he'd be lucky to graduate high school. When the first movie came out on DVD, he loved it. I mentioned something like "wait until you see the second one then, the story is pretty good". He got excited and asked to borrow my books. Now this kid is dumb as a box of rocks, but whatever if it will make him happy I'll loan him the book. When the second movie came out I offered to take him as a birthday gift, but he said "no thanks I want to finish the book first." He's currently working on book six, but at least he's reading.

It's not Jane Austen, but then again do we really want it to be?

 

I especially like the first person that commented.

ROFL!

What people fail to realize that it does not matter how much the kids are reading if they don't read beyond the surface of what they are reading.

Another person said

This is true. However, many of them get as much out of their rereading as they would from watching their favorite TV show over and over. So the point is moot.

Although, there is a English 102 teacher at my college that has Harry Potter as the book they focus on and I think teachers at High schools and below who are doing the same. This is a great idea because it helps connect the critical thinking aspect of literature and applying to books the kids are actually interesting in reading, which benefits them greatly in the future.

So yeah the author is right and she is wrong.

 

*taking a break from Cervantes*

What the author of this article seems to be forgetting is that when you fight the Bell Curve on a Macro level, the Bell Curve always wins. This is not Lake Woebegone where all the children are above average: it is real life, where 50% of the children are below average, 25% of the children are worth keeping alive, and 10% stand a reasonable chnce of contributing something valuable to society.

The book, while not spectacular on a literary level, is still ok. I have some problems behind the philosophical reasoning (and profound lack thereof) that JKR used when she made Voldemort into a sociopath (insanity removes the parallel, and I don't buy Snape as a replacement parallel); but that doesn't stop books 1-4 from being alright.

The problem is, the kids from below that 50% mark are making a whole shitload of comments following the article. For them, it is certainly not a gateway to higher reading -- because lets face it, none of them are capable of fully understanding Billy Budd, The Odes of Horace, or The Divine Comedy. For the children above that nice little barrier it's an entirely different story.

And yes, I am an elitist. I believe in the "Elite Mass Historiographical Paradigm". I have nothing but contempt for most people, and it is likely (if you are a casual Mugglenet person who took a wrong turn off of The Google) that you are one of them.

 

I'm sort of divided so will not vote.

To look at this in such a black and white manner is a wrong assumption in my opinion.

Yes maybe most of the kid's reading Harry Potter won't go on to read more books, but I think the series has managed to do something. Basically it's getting books in households that normally would have none.

I was unfortunate to grow up in a very old fashioned area, where it was unthinkable to bother with education of any kind. Lads were supposed to go down the pit or work, girls were supposed to look pretty, get married and have lots of babies. I know plenty of children who grow up with no encouragement to study at all.

I like to see these kids denying what they are brought up with, and actually read. Most of my cousins have gone on to read other books, and I'm sure they aren't the only ones.

I think the guy who wrote this may have been basing his assumptions off sales of books. With books slowly increasing in price, not many of these kids would find the cash to buy a full library.

I know from personal experience that the only way to read as much as you want, is to almost live in the library. My parents never had books in the house, and if I borrowed them I would never see them again. Thus my day time was spent lurking in the library.

I think the readers we gain is worth putting up with the media circus. Just look at fan fiction, most of it is chaf, but there are some decent author's out there.

So I think the good far out weigh's the bad. After all media hype may have increased LotR's exposure too.

Litha

 

I'm not going to vote for two reasons.

I *have* read several of the stories the columnist mentioned in his article. I've read at least four of the Swallows and Amazons series, I've read Alice in Wonderland. I do tend to read 800-page novels (or 800 pages of book, not always the same thing) on a regular basis.

The other reason is that while I can see some of the points made in the article, I don't agree with them unconditionally. I think there are going to be exceptions.

 

Too me, and I may be wrong, this seems like a criticism of something that has been successful simply because it has been successful. It is like the guy who intentionally dislikes music, not because it is rubbish, but because it has become main stream and popular. Whilst the points are valid that it will not necessarily encourage kids to read more complex and certainly better literature, the argument seems somewhat futile since it is not the aim of Rowling to write a book that does that. Its like saying a pop up book about Spot the Dog will not encourage a kid to read works by Shakespeare

The author of this article would not give two shits if Harry Potter was not a global brand. For me, the fact that it is is irrelevant.

Being nearly 21, I am not in the best position to comment on this, but it seems a farcical idea. In fact it is ridiculous. If I asked my 14 year old adopted sister who Harry Potter was, she would think "What fucking idiot have I landed for a brother, he has all the books, so do I and so does my 25 year old sister".

The first comment to this article. Whilst it is fair the Rowling is not a literary genius, the series should not be criticized because it has become popular. If the crux of the argument is that HP does not encourage people to read more complex literature, encourage creativity and the desire to enjoy pleasures of reading then, should Harry Potter not have been created, what would?

And a rather pointless quote from wikipedia, that I found intersting

 

All I can say on this is that the Harry Potter books got kids, who would have never voluntarily picked up a book, interested in reading. The article on the other hand, smelled strongly of someone who hasn't even picked up the books.

Swim's smart writing tip #1: If you're going to write on something, make sure you know what the hell you are writing about first.

 

The author of the article raises several good points. Harry Potter has become a commercialized brand, almost as much as Pokemon or whatever the second most popular fad was at the time of Pokemon. That won't stop me from liking the series, but it has raised my ire at the sheer amount of fanpoodles (won't shut up, can't actually hurt you) let loose into the community.

Though I don't like the way the writer lambastes Rowling as a hack.

 

I can't comment on the 'fad' that is Harry Potter, because I haven't seen any of it over here. I can only think of one or two people outside of my immediate family that I know of that they read the books (of course, I can assume that many others did too, but I only know for sure for these two).

HP is not Shakespeare, but hey, it was never meant to be. I find it commendable that, even as a fad, got people to read. If someone never read for enjoyment before, chances are, they are not going to continue after Harry Potter. But, without HP, chances are they never would have done so in the first place.

Heck, without HP (and the fanfiction) I wouldn't have gotten top marks in English, be here conversing with you anglophone people, much less use the word anglophone or write a story in English.

So HP is one of the better fads about. Much better than watching crazy Anime about animal abuse (*sweat-drop*, *face-plant*) at least...

 

For the record, the second fad was Digimon and yes, before you ask, it WAS retarded.

Anyways, I really don't see the point of this. Sure, Potter is popular, and sure, the fandom is huge, but it's not as huge as he's making it out to be. Besides, we all know that 90% of it's fangirls, who (unfortunately) know exactly who the characters are in the books.

Forgive me for being frank, but that's retarded. He's making it sound like marijuana or alchohol.

"C'mon man, just take a peek. Just take a little one...you Do want to be cool, don't you?"
"B-But I dunno if I want to..."
"Don't be a pussy. Just take a hit of Harry Potter and you can hang out with us."

Srsly. I mean it may just be me, but if I said down at my high-school or local elementary school that you had to read harry potter to be cool and follow the crowd, I'd get laughed off the freaking grounds. And probably stuffed in a trash can for being a nerd. By the elementary school students.

And like INBN said, lambasting Rowling as a hack is pretty stupid. After all, it her fandom that stinks. Though the guy may make a few good points, he sounds almost like one of those people who claim that HP is the way of the devil, with ho he seems to be attacking it like a rottweiler on a hotdog.

 

I got this sudden image of kids reading Harry Potter much in the manner of "puff-puff-pass".

 

A winner who owns on the court and doesn't have to rape anyone off it. 100% skill.

 

They're kicking a dead horse. Yes, Harry Potter is overhyped. Yes, the writing leaves a lot to be desired. As if we didn't know that already. As for Harry Potter not leading the majority of kids on to more "serious" literature - well, who said it should? Certainly not Rowling, who admitted she writes for her own pleasure, not anyone's education. The author's issue, it would seem, is not really with Harry Potter, but with the ongoing commercialization of art in general.