Harry Potter

[bascule]

Last friday night I was at a bar that happened to be in front of a bookstore. This girl came up and asked my friend to borrow a cigarette. We were talking about Harry Potter.

 

As someone who reads what I would consider to be literature, I was arguing that an adult is wasting their time by reading Harry Potter. There are so many good books that I want to read that children's books like Harry Potter certainly don't make it on my list. I've never read any of the Harry Potter books, so I'm judging them from ignorance. For some odd reason I've never felt the urge to read the books, nor do I feel like my time would be well spent doing so.

 

Anyway, this girl and her two nearby friends, while apparently out at the bars as well and not there for the launch of the last Harry Potter book, began arguing with me about the worth of reading Harry Potter. After asserting several works I consider literature, the argument hinged upon that point: was Harry Potter literature?

 

I argued no, but received a positively asserted "Yes!" from three girls who have never read:

 

Ulysses

A Remembrance of Things Past

The Seven Pillars of Wisdom

Love in the Time of Cholera

The Sound and the Fury

Gravity's Rainbow

Naked Lunch

Tropic of Cancer

 

Question is: are the above books more worthy of the title of literature than Harry Potter?

 

My assertion is a resounding yes.

[Dak]

being books, the HP seriez would unavoidably be literature

 

what is it about the books on you're list that makes them 'literature'?

[ParanoiA]

Well, I'm not sure if you mean to or not, but you're coming off rather smug . While I understand the greater intellectual depth of the works you mention, that doesn't, in itself, justify striking Harry Potter as literature. It's just a different style.

 

For instance, while the books you list might be more "realistic", or with a more creative narrative, Harry Potter might be more imaginative, thicker plots, not so much emphasis on "writing" as "story telling".

 

I agree, in that I doubt you'd get much out of them. Your style of literature compliments your intelligence, so, at the risk of sounding smug and elitist myself, perhaps that's why you don't care much for Harry Potter as it's just not a highly intelligent driven type of work? And maybe those girls are just not intellectually strong enough to appreciate what you're reading? I don't know.

 

My parents, avid readers, are reading Harry Potter and they love them. I have no drive to read even the inside cover - just doesn't interest me. But given my parent's clout in my life, I have to believe there's something to be appreciated in them.

 

Edit: I will say, from forced HP movie watching, that the depth of Harry Potter in terms of storytelling and character development is quite genuine. I might be wrong, but I think Harry Potter just might be the Lord of The Rings for the magical genre. I don't read much in that genre so I could be way off...

[Phi for All]

Step back and ask yourself what literature is supposed to accomplish. If you are looking for enlightenment (aka education that results in understanding and the spread of knowledge) then it's possible for a well-written cereal box to be literature. It all depends on what works to turn on the lights for you.

[ecoli]

If it gets kids reading again, then it doesn't really matter does it?

 

I, honestly, find James Joyce a bit dull, but JK Rowling's books (while far from perfect) are well-written, imaginative, and all that other good stuff.

 

And, whether you like it or not, those books are one of the things that defines our generation (my generation and perhaps the slightly younger one as well). The book transcends cultural and national barriers... plus it pisses off the fundamental evangelists, so you know that it HAS to be good.

 

Sure, you could break it down to hype, but see for yourself the effect the book has had:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter

 

read the sections on "Awards and Honors" "Commercial Success" and "Cultural impact" especially.

[Sayonara]

I concur with the other threaders. I think you are confusing "literature" with "great works of literature", unfortunately.

[ecoli]

I concur with the other threaders. I think you are confusing "literature" with "great works of literature", unfortunately.

 

who knows what the future will bring, though. Perhaps Harry Potter will be considered one of the classics of our time. I mean, what else is there?

[bascule]

Step back and ask yourself what literature is supposed to accomplish.

 

The transmission of the ineffable through the medium of the written word, typically involving deep use of symbolism and allegory. Ulysses is perhaps one of the foremost examples of this.

 

If it gets kids reading again, then it doesn't really matter does it?

 

The problem is:kids who read Harry Potter read nothing but Harry Potter then stop reading altogether

 

I concur with the other threaders. I think you are confusing "literature" with "great works of literature", unfortunately.

 

I'd argue the two are contextually metonymous

[Martin]

...

 

The Seven Pillars of Wisdom

Love in the Time of Cholera

...

 

I see you have a T.E. Lawrence and a Gabriel Marquez there.

Have you read One Hundred Years of Solitude?

 

this is one of the funniest books I have ever read and introduced me to imaginings that I would never have come up with on my own. I have also read it aloud with my family as my wife and son were enjoying it too.

 

I don't like the last quarter or so where the Americans come in and grow bananas----the present-day scene is more dismal compared with the mythological past. I really liked how the gypsies brought Modern Science to the town of Macondo.

 

T.E. Lawrence wrote a SHORT version of Seven Pillars called Revolt in the Desert. I loved Revolt in the Desert when I was a teenager. I also loved Wind Sand and Stars by St.Exupery. These books have a pure romanticism that still seems to me to have an intrinsic value, because of its purity. I would not, however, call them CLASSICS.

 

I think it is possible some books have lasting and truly out of the ordinary literary value. There is a scale of value that has very little to do with being a "bestseller" in any particular historical moment.

 

I can imagine getting on the time-telephone and calling up someone two hundred years in the future and sharing excitement and enthusiasm for characters in the Marquez book with that future person.

 

My wife could do the same with Pride and Prejudice and some of the other Jane Austen books, if we had a time-telephone. Those books will always be loved and will always mean a lot to those who read them carefully.

 

the way I use the word "literature" I would call almost any fiction work literature, maybe I would apply the word more generally to nonfiction. I dont know. But not all literature is on the same level--value-wise.

 

If I could pull a lever that would send a robot spacecraft to plant elementary forms of earth life on a watery planet a few tens of lightyears away, and would at the same time destroy all the works of James Joyce, then I would gladly pull the lever. But I would not do it in the case of Jane Austen.

 

...interesting question, bascule, have to leave this thought unfinished...

[ecoli]

 

The problem is:kids who read Harry Potter read nothing but Harry Potter then stop reading altogether

 

contradicting study:

 

" the Kids and Family Reading Report (in conjunction with Scholastic) released a survey finding that 51% of Harry Potter readers ages 5-17 said that while they did not read books for fun before they started reading Harry Potter, they now did. The study further reported that according to 65% of children and 76% of parents, they or their children's performance in school improved since they started reading the series.[51]"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter#Cultural_impact

http://www.scholastic.com/aboutscholastic/news/press_07252006_CP.htm

 

I see you have a T.E. Lawrence and a Gabriel Marquez there.

Have you read One Hundred Years of Solitude?

100yos is a great book, but it's quite surreal, and I don't see that book having the same international appeal as Harry Potter, as not everybody can relate to it, I'm sure. I enjoyed it, but I only read once, and I didn't buy it.

[bascule]

I see you have a T.E. Lawrence and a Gabriel Marquez there.

Have you read One Hundred Years of Solitude?

 

Nope, but I'll keep the recommendation in mind.

 

If I could pull a lever that would send a robot spacecraft to plant elementary forms of earth life on a watery planet a few tens of lightyears away, and would at the same time destroy all the works of James Joyce, then I would gladly pull the lever. But I would not do it in the case of Jane Austen.

 

Haha

 

contradicting study

 

That doesn't contradict the conclusions of the referenced study. Here's another article on it:

 

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/11/arts/11potter.php

 

It does result in a temporary improvement in reading, however:

 

U.S. statistics show that the percentage of youngsters who read for fun continues to drop significantly as children get older, at almost exactly the same rate as before Harry Potter came along.

 

The real problem is the "Harry Potter effect" goes away.

 

Going back to the New York Times article, the literary critic author suggests that teachers are using Harry Potter as a panacea and not helping children figure out how to identify books they want to read on their own. So, the kids just stop reading.

[ParanoiA]

The problem is:kids who read Harry Potter read nothing but Harry Potter then stop reading altogether

 

Then they had no interest in reading in the first place. These are kids that likely had no intention of picking up a book at all, but then reconsidered and jumped into harry potter, then put it away. How is that any worse than never having picked up a book in the first place?

 

Second, the article is crying about people not interested in fiction. How is that bad in the least? Gee...people are more interested in reality than fiction and this is a bad thing?

[Elessarina]

the Harry Potter books certainly have a lot more literary worth than a lot of the absolute drivell out there.. Stuff that I wonder how it even gets published.. Mills & Boon anyone? I have read the Potter books but i also read other stuff from Dawkins to Dumas, Bryson and Austen etc. I think reading pretty much anything has value.. the Potter books are easy reading but fun and we all need a little light escapism sometimes..

[Sayonara]

I'd argue the two are contextually metonymous

Good luck with that.

[bascule]

Then they had no interest in reading in the first place. These are kids that likely had no intention of picking up a book at all, but then reconsidered and jumped into harry potter, then put it away. How is that any worse than never having picked up a book in the first place?

 

Because the books are trumpeted as a panacea to the problem of kids not reading, when really the effect is only temporary.

 

Teachers should be teaching children how to enjoy reading, and that includes how to find books they think they might be interested in. If they're only interested in Harry Potter, this skill is never developed, and then no wonder they don't read: they don't know how to figure out what to read.

 

Second, the article is crying about people not interested in fiction. How is that bad in the least? Gee...people are more interested in reality than fiction and this is a bad thing?

 

I've recently resumed reading fiction after a long period of eschewing it. While I learned a lot reading non-fiction, the act of reading fiction is a completely different experience. Reading a work that uses allegory and symbolism for its underlying theme or moral value is completely different from reading a non-fiction work which is intentionally pedantic. There are works of non-fiction such as the Seven Pillars of Wisdom (which you can surely count on as being quasi-fictionalized) which accomplish the same thing, but they simply don't compare to the majority of fiction out there.

[ParanoiA]

Teachers should be teaching children how to enjoy reading, and that includes how to find books they think they might be interested in. If they're only interested in Harry Potter, this skill is never developed, and then no wonder they don't read: they don't know how to figure out what to read.

 

You know, that's true, and I hate to sound cliche, but really, what about the parents? I don't know many parents that really push reading on their kids - and I don't mean book report pushy, rather consistent encouragement. I let my kids read anything they ask for, short of porn and heavy violence and language. Turns out they make good choices - and Harry Potter wasn't one of them...

 

I've recently resumed reading fiction after a long period of eschewing it. While I learned a lot reading non-fiction, the act of reading fiction is a completely different experience. Reading a work that uses allegory and symbolism for its underlying theme or moral value is completely different from reading a non-fiction work which is intentionally pedantic.

 

Good point. There's a lot of value - literary, artistic, intellectual - to be had from fiction that you wouldn't otherwise get from non-fiction. I really enjoy both, but I read more fiction anymore.

[Pangloss]

This thread is a left-wing version of the religious right's objections to Harry Potter on religious grounds. This is the kind of things I'm talking about when I say that the left can be just as bad as the right in pusing its ideological agendas. We're talking about opt-in entertainment, for pete's sake. You know, the stuff the left is supposed to be in favor of, remember?

 

It's actually pretty amusing, because what it shows is that these literature buffs need affirmation about their judgement from other people. They're annoyed because Rowling is more popular than Joyce or Hawthorne or Hemmingway or whomever. But if it's great literature, isn't it great literature regardless of how many people read it?

 

But the main thing that's kinda daft about this argument is the notion that children should only be reading great works of literature. Nonsense. We're discussing entertainment, not education.

 

As for the study that says that the "Harry Potter effect goes away", that's fine, we can talk about ways to improve and develop the link between entertainment and education. But picking on something like Harry Potter, which actually stimulates and challenges readers, at a time when intellectually decrepit "reality television" programs dominate the airwaves, is just silly.

[Sisyphus]

Of course Harry Potter is literature. It's children's literature, and as far as that goes, I hear it's relatively good. Is it the best children's literature? No. I probably wouldn't read it to my kids, and I would think poorly of a teacher who assigned it. But I wouldn't mind in the least if they did read it. Anything well-crafted and sophisticated enough to enrapture millions of relatively intelligent (if not necessarily super-literate) adults can't possibly be ALL bad for kids, right?

 

This, BTW, is coming from someone who hasn't read any Harry Potter books, but will fiercely defend books of comparable merit from my old childhood out of pure nostalgia. I don't think I was harmed by these books. For me and a lot of other people, that sort of thing did act as "gateway books" in a significant way. If kids don't gradually build up their literary sophistication, they lack that sophistication as adults to actually "get" literature that actually is "great," and end up thinking James Joyce is dull and Cervantes is weird and Shakespeare talks funny. This is also from someone who's almost certainly read far more "great literature" than 99% of you science nerds (how's that for smug? ).

[bascule]

This thread is a left-wing version of the religious right's objections to Harry Potter on religious grounds. This is the kind of things I'm talking about when I say that the left can be just as bad as the right in pusing its ideological agendas. We're talking about opt-in entertainment, for pete's sake.

 

The theme of this thread is really threefold:

 

Book selection: I'm confused why any adult would select Harry Potter over the mountainous volume of better books they could be reading.

 

Defense of Harry Potter for being something it's not: Harry Potter is a children's book. If you're an adult reading it, keep that in mind. Being popular does not improve its overall quality, which is great for a series targeted at children, but substantially inferior to a massive quantity of other books available.

 

Trust in books like Harry Potter to solve the reading dilemma: When I see teachers lauding Harry Potter as some sort of universal panacea for the waning national interest in adult literature, I'm annoyed. And the studies I linked show it doesn't work.

 

It's actually pretty amusing, because what it shows is that these literature buffs need affirmation about their judgement from other people. They're annoyed because Rowling is more popular than Joyce or Hawthorne or Hemmingway or whomever. But if it's great literature, isn't it great literature regardless of how many people read it?

 

This really goes back to point #1: there are books which are aimed at adults, just as readable (probably, I'm judging in ignorance here), and of a quality I'd judge to be substantially higher.

 

I recently broached this issue with a friend of mine who had been reading the Harry Potter series. I suggested that he read the cyberpunk classic Snow Crash by Neil Stephenson before he reads another Harry Potter book (Snow Crash made the Time 100 list). He's reading it right now in lieu of Harry Potter, and has thanked me a couple times now for suggesting it.

 

But the main thing that's kinda daft about this argument is the notion that children should only be reading great works of literature.

 

Here you're getting my points confused. I'm primarily arguing that there are better books for adults to be reading than Harry Potter. In regard to children my argument is that book selection skills aren't getting taught. After all, why would kids need to learn them when they're happily reading Harry Potter?

 

Then the kids grow up, and this lack of education thus spurns point #1.

[ecoli]

The theme of this thread is really threefold:

 

Book selection: I'm confused why any adult would select Harry Potter over the mountainous volume of better books they could be reading.

 

First of all, 'better' is very subjective. Your opinion that Harry Potter is of substandard quality is your opinion, that nobody else may agree with... So I think that makes for a poor argument.

 

Defense of Harry Potter for being something it's not: Harry Potter is a children's book. If you're an adult reading it, keep that in mind. Being popular does not improve its overall quality, which is great for a series targeted at children, but substantially inferior to a massive quantity of other books available.

The first books were definitely meant for children. The dark quality of the latter books, involving death and whatnot, are, I would say, geared more towards older children and young adults.

 

But, that aside, so what? Since when are adults not allowed to enjoy children's novels. The Hobbit is one of my favorite books, but it too is classified as a children's book. But it's also considered a classic by many.

 

Harry Potter is just as popular amoung children as it is for adults. That one of the great things about it... it's the universal appeal. And, having read all the Harry Potter books multiple times, I can tell you that there are certain things in there, jokes, that are geared for adults that children might not get.

 

I think that it deserves to be popular (perhaps unlike some some other pop-culture icons out there). JK Rowling achieved an enormous goal in a way unusual for the medium, and I applaud her for that.

 

Trust in books like Harry Potter to solve the reading dilemma: When I see teachers lauding Harry Potter as some sort of universal panacea for the waning national interest in adult literature, I'm annoyed. And the studies I linked show it doesn't work.

 

True, there is no silver bullet to improve literacy. But, JK Rowling, has done more to improve literacy world wide than any of us here, by way of private donations. And if Harry Potter allowed her to do that, than it's popularity is definitely worth it.

 

And it's not Harry Potter has done anything to decrease the number of people reading, in any age category. So, I still don't understand your negativity.

 

This really goes back to point #1: there are books which are aimed at adults, just as readable (probably, I'm judging in ignorance here), and of a quality I'd judge to be substantially higher.

 

This doesn't mean anything. Yes, there are shitty adult books, and there are shitty children's books. But how does that have any bearing on Harry Potter. It's not like people are reading Harry Potter instead of adult books. You call Harry Potter substandard quality, but that's just your opinion. I've read books aimed for adults, that are not even on the same plane as Harry, in terms of quality, that's how bad they were.

 

But, how can you judge Harry Potter to be of substandard quality (I'm assuming here you haven't actually read the books), especially compared to supposedly adult classic literature. When I think about some of utter shit that I've had to read for school, Jane Erye, by Charlotte Bronte, for example, I want to hold a public book burning. Don't assume a book is better quality just because it's intended for adults, or because it's popular!

 

 

I recently broached this issue with a friend of mine who had been reading the Harry Potter series. I suggested that he read the cyberpunk classic Snow Crash by Neil Stephenson before he reads another Harry Potter book (Snow Crash made the Time 100 list). He's reading it right now in lieu of Harry Potter, and has thanked me a couple times now for suggesting it.

 

Why read in lieu of Harry, What's wrong with reading more than one book?

 

Here you're getting my points confused. I'm primarily arguing that there are better books for adults to be reading than Harry Potter.

Your assuming, of course, that there are better books than Harry Potter. I agree with you that there are, but why can't an adult read Harry Potter an another, more adult book?

 

I think you grand, erroneous assumption, (correct me if I'm wrong) is that an adult who reads Harry Potter, is doing so instead of reading an 'adult' books that may increase his/her intellect, and by reading Harry Potter, you are essentially denying yourself more 'brain power' that comes from reading 'adult' books.

 

However, I don't believe your studies showed that an adult who reads Harry Potter becomes stupider, or neglects to read other harder books as well. In fact, anecdotally, the only adults I know who read the books are already life long avid readers who read lots of adult books (and several children's books for enjoyment every now and then).

 

In regard to children my argument is that book selection skills aren't getting taught. After all, why would kids need to learn them when they're happily reading Harry Potter?

Well, the series is over, isn't it? And unless they want to read Harry Potter over and over again, they're going to have to learn how to pick out new books.

 

And why do you make it sound as if selecting books is a difficult or important skill. My sister likes romance novels... my brother and I like sci-fi, my other brother likes books about sports.

 

It all comes down to personal tastes in the end... everybody is going to have different likes and dislikes when it comes to their books. No matter how times they have read Harry Potter.

 

What are you so afraid of, bascule?

 

Then the kids grow up, and this lack of education thus spurns point #1.

 

So you're saying that kids read Harry Potter lose out in other ways, because reading Harry Potter renders them unable to pick out good books, which causes then to become less intellegent readers?

 

You could also make the argument, (using what I understand to be your logic), that a child is too busy reading Harry potter to learn about drug resistance, and therefore will grow up to be a doper... all thanks to Harry Potter. This is illogical to me.

[bascule]

To address the point of children's literature, I'd suggest the following:

 

Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH

Flowers for Algernon

Watership Down

To Kill a Mockingbird

[ecoli]

 

Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH

Flowers for Algernon

Watership Down

To Kill a Mockingbird

 

Except for watership down (which I haven't read) the other books are all pretty good, and classics in their own right. What does it have to do with Harry Potter (which I would say shares many of the same themes as the listed books)?

[bascule]

First of all, 'better' is very subjective. Your opinion that Harry Potter is of substandard quality is your opinion, that nobody else may agree with... So I think that makes for a poor argument.

 

I have but the New York Times on my side, who decided to factor out children's books from their bestseller list when 3 Harry Potter books were on it. And the WP critic cited above who feels the same way. Consider it the opinion of an elitist snob.

 

Since when are adults not allowed to enjoy children's novels.

 

Just adding it up, the series weighs in at 3,571 pages. That represents a considerable time investment.

 

Harry Potter is just as popular amoung children as it is for adults.

 

Not to be a snob, but I agree with the WT literary critic who called it a case of "cultural infantalism"

 

Yes, there are shitty adult books, and there are shitty children's books. But how does that have any bearing on Harry Potter. It's not like people are reading Harry Potter instead of adult books.

 

Actually, that's the case among a number of my friend.

 

You call Harry Potter substandard quality, but that's just your opinion.

 

And the opinion of the literary critics who run the NYT bestseller list... and the WP critic I posted above... and countless other critics.

 

I've read books aimed for adults, that are not even on the same plane as Harry, in terms of quality, that's how bad they were.

 

My contention is there's a mountainous volume of adult-oriented fiction which is substantially better than Harry Potter.

 

But, how can you judge Harry Potter to be of substandard quality (I'm assuming here you haven't actually read the books), especially compared to supposedly adult classic literature.

 

Having not read the Harry Potter books myself, I admit I'm relying on literary criticism.

 

When I think about some of utter shit that I've had to read for school, Jane Erye, by Charlotte Bronte, for example, I want to hold a public book burning. Don't assume a book is better quality just because it's intended for adults, or because it's popular!

 

I don't read many "popular books". I could care less about the latest Danielle Steele, Tom Clancy, Clive Cussler, or Dean Koontz novels. These novels are probably just as deserving of criticism as Harry Potter. I'm singling Harry Potter out due to the recent publicity.

 

Why read in lieu of Harry, What's wrong with reading more than one book?

 

As someone who's reading queue is constantly backlogged with 20 books or more, I'd say 3,571 pages of crap would set me back considerably.

 

Your assuming, of course, that there are better books than Harry Potter.

 

I will happily assert that there are better books than Harry Potter, per the collective opinion of people who devote their lives to studying this sort of thing.

 

I agree with you that there are, but why can't an adult read Harry Potter an another, more adult book?

 

I think you grand, erroneous assumption, (correct me if I'm wrong) is that an adult who reads Harry Potter, is doing so instead of reading an 'adult' books that may increase his/her intellect, and by reading Harry Potter, you are essentially denying yourself more 'brain power' that comes from reading 'adult' books.

 

My contention is that you're wasting time better spent reading better books.

 

However, I don't believe your studies showed that an adult who reads Harry Potter becomes stupider, or neglects to read other harder books as well. In fact, anecdotally, the only adults I know who read the books are already life long avid readers who read lots of adult books (and several children's books for enjoyment every now and then).

 

I get the "popcorn argument". Right now I'm reading a sci-fi novel. It's good, but not great. I'm doing so after just finishing a mound of extremely heavy nonfiction. I felt like some light, fast reading.

 

That works to a point. 3,571 pages is past that point.

 

And why do you make it sound as if selecting books is a difficult or important skill.

 

Because people who can't select books don't read

 

So you're saying that kids read Harry Potter lose out in other ways, because reading Harry Potter renders them unable to pick out good books, which causes then to become less intellegent readers?

 

No, I'm saying teachers who depend on Harry Potter to turn kids into lifelong readers rather than teach kids how to become lifelong readers are causing children to lose out. This isn't a problem with Harry Potter per say, more with Harry Potter hype.

 

Let me quote some relevant excerpts from the Washington Post's literary critic, Ron Charles:

 

In the current state of Potter mania, it's an invitation to recite the loyalty oath. And you'd better answer correctly. Start carrying on like Moaning Myrtle about the repetitive plots, the static characters, the pedestrian prose, the wit-free tone, the derivative themes, and you'll wish you had your invisibility cloak handy. Besides, from anyone who hasn't sold the 325 million copies that Rowling has, such complaints smack of Bertie Bott's beans, sour-grapes flavor.

 

Perhaps submerging the world in an orgy of marketing hysteria doesn't encourage the kind of contemplation, independence and solitude that real engagement with books demands -- and rewards. Consider that, with the release of each new volume, Rowling's readers have been driven not only into greater fits of enthusiasm but into more precise synchronization with one another. Through a marvel of modern publishing, advertising and distribution, millions of people will receive or buy "The Deathly Hallows" on a single day. There's something thrilling about that sort of unity, except that it has almost nothing to do with the unique pleasures of reading a novel: that increasingly rare opportunity to step out of sync with the world, to experience something intimate and private, the sense that you and an author are conspiring for a few hours to experience a place by yourselves -- without a movie version or a set of action figures. Through no fault of Rowling's, Potter mania nonetheless trains children and adults to expect the roar of the coliseum, a mass-media experience that no other novel can possibly provide.

 

And here's the issue that really hit home for me. I work in Long Tail markets, and so far we have seen the nicheification of the movie market, television market, and music market, but no so with books:

 

In "The Long Tail," Wired editor Chris Anderson suggested that new methods of distribution would shatter the grip of blockbusters. Niche markets would evolve and thrive as never before, creating a long, vital line of products from small producers who never could have profited in the past. It's a cheering notion, but alas, the big head still pretty much overrules the long tail. Like the basilisk that terrorized students at Hogwarts in Book II, "Harry Potter" and a few other much-hyped books devour everyone's attention, leaving most readers paralyzed in praise, apparently incapable of reading much else.

 

According to a study by Alan Sorensen at Stanford University, "In 1994, over 70 percent of total fiction sales were accounted for by a mere five authors." There's not much reason to think that things have changed. As Albert Greco of the Institute for Publishing Research puts it: "People who read fiction want to read hits written by known authors who are there year after year."

 

So we're experiencing the literary equivalent of a loss of biodiversity. All those people carrying around an 800-page novel looks like a great thing for American literacy, but it's as ominous as a Forbidden Forest with only one species of tree. Since Harry Potter first Apparated into our lives a decade ago, the number of stand-alone book sections in major metropolitan newspapers has decreased by half -- silencing critical voices that once helped a wide variety of authors around the country get noticed.

[ecoli]

You throw around the number of pages a lot, but keep in mind, the first book was released in 1997... so that's actually 3,571 pages in ten years. Not a difficult task, or very time consuming (relatively).

 

I, personally, have had time to read plenty of other books so, personally, what you say does not apply to me.

 

And the opinion of the literary critics who run the NYT bestseller list... and the WP critic I posted above... and countless other critics.

 

No doubt, the NYT never anticipated that a children's book could bring in so much money. I attribute that as to the reason they didn't split the list a long time ago.

 

At any rate, critic's get paid to piss on their subjects. I find that most critics judge far more harshly than I, and therefore, find many things they say meaningless drivel.

 

Not to be a snob, but I agree with the WT literary critic who called it a case of "cultural infantalism"

 

Harry Potter is hardly the cause of this affect. Interestingly, the people I know who read Harry Potter tend to be intellectually inferior to most of the people I know who don't.

 

No, I'm saying teachers who depend on Harry Potter to turn kids into lifelong readers rather than teach kids how to become lifelong readers are causing children to lose out. This isn't a problem with Harry Potter per say, more with Harry Potter hype.

 

Well, I don't know anybody who's personally doing this, so I can't judge as to the accuracy of this statement.

 

However, none of my teacher's expected any of the books I read in school to turn me into a librophile. These days educators just try to cram as much information and books down our throats, hoping to pick out some nuggets of knowledge (and dare I say, wisdom). The books we were required to read tended to be dull, not much in the way of enjoyment. As I understand it, it's much the same across the country. IF a teacher can let their students read Harry Potter, and show them that at least some books are at least somewhat exciting, then what's wrong with letting students enjoy school for once?

 

Note, that I wouldn't advocate this for older students... but why not the younger ones? You can't seriously tell me that "Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH" is any more intellectually challenging than Harry Potter, which also contains themes of overcoming adversity from people that are more powerful then yourselves, friendship and standing together. And to compare it to "To Kill a Mockingbird," the parallels are obviously not as real-life, but Harry Potter also shows people who resist racism and bigotry, similar to what was experiences under the Jim Crow south or even perhaps Nazi Germany.

[bascule]

Interestingly, the people I know who read Harry Potter tend to be intellectually inferior to most of the people I know who don't.

 

I've had the same experience with people who read Harry Potter versus those who purposely eschew it. You might class the latter as "literature snobs", but they are certainly much smarter than my friends who read Harry Potter.