See? I’m not the only one who thinks he’s a tad homely.
DrDeth writes:
> Whether or not HP is “great literature” or not is a matter of personal taste and
> opinion. But certainly Rowling has to be applauded as the greatest boon to
> children’s literacy since the printing press. Kids are now reading big mucking
> thick books- and it’s cool to do so. My hat is off to her, and those of us that
> prefer other fantasy authors should also thank her as now bookstores are
> stocking those authors too- and kids are picking them up and reading them!
> Hell, I saw my local bookstore stocking E. Nesbit books- and kids and parents
> buying them. So, Rowling is great just for that alone, even if her books are
> perhaps not the best.
I’ve heard this argument before, and I’m not quite convinced by it. At the very least, we need to let a little time pass before we can be sure about this. Classic children’s books, like those of E. Nesbit, are always going into and out of print, so it’s hard to tell if any particular new edition was because of the Harry Potter books. I’d like to see some scientific studies of the effect of reading the Harry Potter books on children. What percentage of children are now reading more than they would have if the Harry Potter books had never been published? More specifically, what percentage are reading more of something other than the Harry Potter books? I want statistics here, not anecdotes. Really. Please don’t tell me more anecdotes, because I’ve heard plenty of them. I’ve also heard of children who read nothing outside of class except the Harry Potter books.
A lot of writers complain about “the disappearance of the mid-list.” A mid-list writer is one whose books sell reasonable amounts each time but who never writes bestsellers. The claim is that for a decade or two now the mid-list has been disappearing so that only a few bestselling writers can make a living. Is the popularity of the Harry Potter books anything other than another example of this phenomenon?
If you’re going to just ignore all available current anectdotal evidence from people who have first-hand testimonials and experience dealing with readers (booksellers, teachers, librarirans, parents and the like) , you’re probably in for a wait. Most sociological (not scientific) studies like this take a while to compile statistical evidence of the kind you’re demanding. And they’re going to use the same sources you don’t want to hear from now.
I’m not sure I buy it either - or perhaps rather - it really isn’t a new arguement at all. Before Harry Potter the same arguement was made about Goosebumps books. Before that, it was made about comic books. And it both cases there was an element of truth there - but not necessarily the heavy crossover into “serious” children’s fiction.
I also think that Rowling’s books have reached the point where they aren’t appealling to the same kids who ate them up at first. I know SOME kids who are huge Harry Potter fans - I know MOST kids who read the first two or three, then dropped them. The books didn’t come fast enough, got too long, and while they continue to sell like hotcakes, they are being read by a wider (adult as well as children’s) audience. Her idea of aging them is clever, but she is losing kids with it - kids don’t want a serial to stretch out years, the kids reading the first Harry Potter around third grade are getting stopped by the longer, heavier books.
I think the availability of the movies means that kids can find out the Harry Potter story simply by watching a two-hour movie instead of slogging through the books over many hours, days or weeks.
Askia writes:
> . . . sociological (not scientific) . . .
Sociology is a science, and it frequently uses statistical methods. Anecdotes are, at best, a spur to testing that uses actual statistics. You want an anecdote? I’ll give you one. I’ve looked at the size of the children’s sections in bookstores, and I haven’t noticed any increase in them. If the Harry Potter books are doing anything other than hogging a disproportionate share of the total number of books that are read by children, you’d expect them to be increasing in size.
> I think the availability of the movies means that kids can find out the Harry
> Potter story simply by watching a two-hour movie instead of slogging through
> the books over many hours, days or weeks.
If this is true, it means that the main claimed benefit of the Harry Potter books, that it has greatly increased the number of long books read by children, is no longer applicable. Incidentally, is there any evidence (and in this case I’ll take anecdotal evidence) that the Harry Potter books are being read in large numbers by children in families with less than average incomes? A lot of the stories I’ve heard seem to be soccer moms talking about how wonderful these books are because their children (who were probably going to turn out to be good readers anyway and go to college) are reading the Harry Potter books over and over. Are children from less well-off families reading these books as well? I’m not asking for children from less well-off families to suddenly become as big into reading as children from well-off families, just that children from less well-off families increase their average amount of reading because of the Harry Potter books to the same proportion as children from well-off families do.
Getting pretty deep for the Cafe but:
http://www.ed.gov/news/opeds/edit/2005/07242005.html
This does not point to a direct link, but it would seem the US government is recognizing a link to the largest imporvement in reading in the last 30 years and the Harry Potter books.
A counter point from the same long article:
More good news:
Personal anecdote, I was a terrible reader through 5th grade. I was 2 grade levels behind. I discovered the Hobbit early in the 6th grade and by the testing in 7th grade I was reading at a 12th grade level. Harry Potter inspires kids to find other books to read. It does not matter if they are rich or poor. In my case the Hobbit lead me to devour the collections of Heinlein, Christopher, Alexander and Lewis.
Try this search for more, I find all the negative stuff on line from the Fundies to be a large vote in Harry Potter’s favor.
Jim
I’m annoyed when people quote me out of context, Wendell. Sociological studies take longer to compile the kind anecdotal data you’re asking for than more typical scientific studies. I’m well aware that sociology is widely regarded as a soft science. That said, it it’s only scientific insofar as it uses actual hard science in its underpinnings, like biology, psychiatry, statistics. Whenever it drifts away from that into the realm of anthropology, pyschology and archeology it’s just a discipline. Nature can be measured scientifically. Nurture is much harder to quantify.
There is a somewhat significant difference in the number of different books read by youngsters and which ones they actually own. Thanks to public, school and church libraries, and not to mention the private libraries of my parents and grandparents, the vast majority of books I read in my childhood I did not actually own myself. I suspect this is especially true of most people who were voracious readers as schoolchildren. Harry Potter certainly hogs a disporpotionate number of books sold for children. You would do well to poll book vendors and librarians find out if they have increased the volume of overall book orders, or increased display space and available titles in their children’s books departments since 1997, when the Potter books first debuted. Your own observations might be flawed.
I’m trying to reconcile two conflicting observations: mine is that there are legions of children who are fans of Harry Potter who are devotees of the books, and your observation that many such children do not finish all the novels in the series. I think there is some truth in both statements and some of this might be explained by the movies. Also, just because a child loses interest in finishing the series does not mean the child has given up all leisurely reading, or did not benefit from their initial independent reading of the first few novels. If a classroom of students goes from reading no chapter books to reading even one novel, that’s 100% increase. That they don’t finish a whole series is irrelevent.
I’d argue that poor and working class kids have fewer material distractions and play dates than middle class and rich kids, and more time to read from libraries.
Askia writes:
> If a classroom of students goes from reading no chapter books to reading even
> one novel, that’s 100% increase.
Mathematical nitpick: If they go from reading one book to reading two books, that’s a 100% increase, while if they go from reading no books to reading one book, that’s an infinite increase.
I have to disagree. Girls, women–look “longingly” at guys and men who are not attainable–rock stars, movie stars, teachers etc–star football players in high school (think of Jake Ryan and Sam in the film, 16 Candles ). Those males are out of the female’s “sphere” and so a crush can be indulged in. (anecdote–I know a girl who fainted when the star basketball center passed her in the hall and said “excuse me” to her).
I would lose all respect for Hermione if she looked longingly at Ron or Harry or anyone in her peer group at all–she is too smart for that. Notice that none of the girls in Harry’s year do so to him–but some second years look and giggle etc , when he is older.
Ron and Hermione are equals–Rowling has done a nice job of NOT having the boy be better, stronger, faster, wiser etc. Hermione is an excellent role model for girls (I can’t stand fiction that wants to send a message, and I do not think that Rowling created Hermione with that message in mind–but inadvertent or no, Hermy is still an extremely savvy, smart and vulnerable female character.) I enjoy her complexities. Ron is perfect for her-there is no need for her to look up to him, but to look next to her, and there he is. I love it–it is almost edgy in its rejection of standard archetypes and characterizations. Ron softens Hermione’s sharper edges, and she makes him stay up to the mark.
As an archetype she may be more “deserving” than Ginny to “get” Harry, but (I am rereading the books now) I dont’ see that. Rowling has not beaten us over the head with the Ginny/Harry connection, but upon rereading, it is there. Harry is clueless for the most part (and admittedly more distracted with near death experiences etc), but they certainly share moments of humor and emotional connection-glances and smiles and odd bits of dialogue.
All this talk of literature etc–I can see the point, but find it irrelevant. Sure, Rowling is probably more of a midlist writer. Her writing at times is almost painful to read,with its awkward phrasings, poor sentence structure, and, frankly, she lacks the deft touch for imagery and metaphor. She can be pedesterian in her relating of backstory and painfully repetitive in her alluding to previous events.
But.
IMO, that is more a fault of her editor than her. The HP phenomenon took everyone by surprise–she needs a heartless surgeon with a fresh scalpel to aid her.
And.
She does have narrative drive. She has created characters that many, many people care about. We want HP et al to succeed and triumph. I cried the first time I read who died in books 5 and 6. I worry about Neville and McGonagall and a host of other characters. I have a world in my head, thanks to Rowling–one that in some ways resembles the movie version and some ways doesn’t in the least. I am sure this is not unusual.
So, in essence, I think that while, yes, there are better writers out there for kids in general–Rowling is an excellent writer for this time. How many kids today do you know that have read the original Alice in Wonderland? Even I have not read it in its entirety. Just an example.
I think I would put Rowling in with Laura Ingalls Wilder–their writing is quite similiar, really. I keep wanting to say it’s concrete writing (even though JKR writes about the supernatural). It is pleasantly plebian, while involving the reader in a world unfamiliar to them. It works. It will last, IMO–not at the level it is today, but I am sure my grandkids (of which I have none-I’m only 43) will be reading HP.
I don’t get the whole “but do underprivilege kids read HP” dissent. That baffles me. Why is it up to Rowling to create a reading culture for certain demographics? She has a story to tell, and it’s a popular one at present. What’s next-accusing her of racism, since the books involve primarily white characters? I don’t get it.
If an underpriveleged child never reads a book at all–that is not anything to do with Rowling. If HP causes same said child to read voraciously–again, not much to do with her. It has alot to do with that child, though. He or she has had to want to invest time and effort into the books, find a source for the books-and be allowed access to that source- and also be allowed time and space to read.
I would think (WAG here) that economically disadvantaged kids are more likely to not read because of undiagnosed learning disorders, forced reading programs which turn reading into a chore, lack of role modelling re reading by the adults in their lives, and lack of books at home. I can only speak for myself, but I have been in homes where there is not a book to be found. In such homes, there is usually at least one large TV, if not several, and many movies. Not trying to dump on folks who prefer film to books, just saying that most homes have a TV in them, but not all homes have books. My point is that none of this has anything to do with Rowling. Her massive success is due more to the shrinking of the world marketplace and of piqueing the fickle interests of that market. She continues to deliver the goods, so her success continues. Perhaps her true test will be whatever books she writes after these, if any.
Sorry to go so far OT.
Ron and Hermione 4ever! 
You’re not really disagreeing with me, though. You’re validating what I said, conditionally. I know I’ve gotten that look when I was younger, I know I’ve seen that look on my younger sister’s faces around my older friends, I’ve seen it on the faces of little girls I taught. I just never considered the object of the crush being unattainable as a factor before, but – yeah, you’re right. Now that you mention it, for the most part I’d only seen it in girls who couldn’t get the guy except in her wildest dreams. When the guy DID show an interest after awhile the longing look faded.
See? You went from saying, “females do not look at men they like that. Ever.” to saying, “OK, they do, but only when the guy is unattainable.” Thanks for clearing up that minor mystery.
But the larger point is that Ron (to Hermione) is not unattainable–Lockhart was. Lockhart was gorgeous and just distant enough for the girls to indulge in a bit of fantasy.
Ron, Neville, Harry etc are a different kettle of fish(for Hermione). So, I still say that females do not look at men they like like that, ever–meaning that women/girls don’t look at potential, probable dating material in that way. I happen to look at William Hurt that way, but never my husband. Make sense?
Can I nitpick this anymore?
If you did nitpick this more, I would be endlessly entertained.
Hey, I-is-- is that – is that William Hurt?
<trips and stomps over askia > “Where!?!”
(major crushing on the actor who plays Lupin over here–and I’m 43!)
:eek:
Zombies. Eights years later, it seems that JK Rowling has changed her mind.:rolleyes:
i always thought the ron/hermione, harry/ginny worked out well. harry and hermione are both are only children, and don’t have magical family back up. by marrying into the weasley family they get a good sized family behind them.
i never saw harry with hermione, luna however, i could see with harry if ginny wasn’t around. i guess there was more of a sibling feel with h and h.
What I found interesting about this is that I’d just read this Cracked article, which references two studies down in the #3 section, with them respectively saying that less attractive and less intelligent men make for happier relationships for opposite sex relationships.
Not that this wouldn’t apply to Harry as well, mind you. The problem with him is his social cachet, which inherently increases his perceived attractiveness. It depends on whether Hermione is famous enough in her own right to counter that, or whether Harry will always be the main guy.
Yeah, upon a little consideration, I can’t see Harry ending up with Hermoine.
The Weasley family thing gives them all a solid family connection, which they lacked, and is a fitting cap to the storyline of pretty much everyone else dying.
Forgot my link: The 5 Least Romantic Keys to a Happy Relationship | Cracked.com
She isn’t going to go all Lucas on the Harry Potter franchise, and make an extra special edition with some creative changes is she?