Harry Potter and the Death of Reading

[skygazer]

I thought this was an interesting article and put into words a lot of what I've been thinking about the whole Harry Potter phenomenon. I'm sure those who absolutely love the books will think I'm a "hater" or that there's something wrong with me because I don't enjoy them and think they're literary crap but to anyone who doesn't like that, all I can say is, my opinion is as valid as the next person's.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/13/AR2007071301730.html?nav=rss_opinions/outlook?nav=slate

- snip -

Along with changing diapers and supervising geometry homework, reading "Harry Potter" was one of those chores of parenthood that I was happy to do -- and then happy to stop. But all around me, I see adults reading J.K. Rowling's books to themselves: perfectly intelligent, mature people, poring over "Harry Potter" with nary a child in sight. Waterstone's, a British book chain, predicts that the seventh and (supposedly) final volume, "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows," may be read by more adults than children. Rowling's U.K. publisher has even been releasing "adult editions." That has an alarmingly illicit sound to it, but don't worry. They're the same books dressed up with more sophisticated dust jackets -- Cap'n Crunch in a Gucci bag.

I'd like to think that this is a romantic return to youth, but it looks like a bad case of cultural infantilism. And when we're not horning in on our kids' favorite books, most of us aren't reading anything at all. More than half the adults in this country won't pick up a novel this year, according to the National Endowment for the Arts. Not one. And the rate of decline has almost tripled in the past decade.

- snip -

Of course, it's not really a question anymore, is it? 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.

- snip -

The vast majority of adults who tell me they love "Harry Potter" never move on to Susanna Clarke's enchanting "Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell," with its haunting exploration of history and sexual longing, or Philip Pullman's "His Dark Materials," a dazzling fantasy series that explores philosophical themes (including a scathing assault on organized religion) that make Rowling's little world of good vs. evil look, well, childish. And what about the dozens of other brilliant fantasy authors who could take them places that little Harry never dreamed of? Or the wider world of Muggle literary fiction beyond?

[datasuspect]

1. i read this too

i think aldaily.com linked to it earlier this week.

all i can say is, this guy is right on target.

what i can't understand is the comments section. i'm amazed at how strongly people strongly integrate entertainment products into their very identity.

[derby378]

2. If that was true, how do you explain the film version of THE DA VINCI CODE?

I'll admit it's not as complicated as, say, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Robert Heinlein, but I think adults do have a hunger to read. Our society, unfortunately, tends to discourage setting up a little quiet time for you to curl up with a good book - which is a pity.

[skygazer]

5. How do I explain what about it?

It's another mediocre book that got hyped up into the bestseller lists and someone made a movie out of it. Happens all the time. The point is, the books that become best-sellers often don't become so through any merit of their own but because they're written by a name people recognize - John Grisham anybody? Every plot exactly the same ad nauseum but they all fly onto the bestseller list because people are too lazy to find something original. It's the same reason people go to McDonald's instead of the family-owned diner down the street - they recognize the name. Hell, it explains the Governor of my state.

Add to that the fact that chains like Borders and Barnes and Noble take in big bucks from publishers to display certain books. One of the stats in that article is that something like 94% of book sales go to some 5 different authors. Doesn't say much for that hunger to read. At least not read anything new or original.

[derby378]

8. Point taken, but it's still a start...

I mean, someone has to be reading all those Phillip K. Dick novels in order for Arnold Schwarzenegger to turn them into shoot-em-ups or for Steven Spielberg to butcher the endings. It's still a start - it's gonna take a while to work people back up to Carl Sagan, Charles MacKay, and Vincent Bugliosi.

[skygazer]

10. You, my friend, are an optimist

:hi:

[LibraLiz1973]

11. Exactly. Unless your reading something the snobs deem "High Brow"

your reading nothing worthwhile.

In a society where reading in general is fast becoming a chore instead of a necessity, I think the HP series is a delight.

[skygazer]

14. Interesting perspective

I would prefer reading to be neither a chore or a necessity. I would prefer it to be a pleasure. And I'm no book snob. I don't care what people read - I'm happy to see someone read a comic book. I've read plenty of things that could not possibly be considered highbrow.


The point is not the Potter books specifically but the phenomenon they are and what that actually says about people and reading. I've heard the argument over and over that "at least people are reading" and while that's good, there's no real indication that those who are getting excited over these books are ever picking up anything else. It's not reading that has them excited - it's Harry Potter and Harry Potter alone.

Now that's fine as far as it goes. But I do think it says something interesting. And unfortunate. I think what it says is that this craze is just that - a craze. And when it's done, we'll be right back to where we were - a nation of non-readers. And that's too bad.

[LibraLiz1973]

18. My cousins have devoured every Potter book.

And because of that, have developed a love for reading.
All three are now avid readers and I can directly attribute that to J.K. Rowling's books.

I find it highly unlikely that the millions of people who voraciously read books
that were sometimes 700+ pages, will now never pick up a book again.

[skygazer]

20. It will be interesting to see the statistics on book sales

And if that's the case, cool. I don't really see it, myself but that would be great.

[Gormy Cuss]

72. Recent SF Chronicle story on fed study says that Potter isn't making a difference

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/07/15/POTTER.TMP

Despite what has been dubbed the "Harry Potter Effect" -- which credits J.K. Rowling's blockbuster book series with turning Game Boy addicts into lifelong readers -- reading is in serious decline among teens nationwide, according to a forthcoming federal study.

A decade of Potter-mania peaks at 12:01 a.m. Saturday, when 12 million copies of the seventh and last book, "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows," go on sale in the United States. Thus far, the books have sold 325 million copies in 64 languages worldwide.

But as educators assess the phenomenon that lured millions of young readers to tackle longer books, they find that Harry Potter alone could not stem the decline in reading rates.

"What we need is a Harry Potter every week," said Dana Gioia, chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts, who oversaw the study.

[skygazer]

75. Thanks for posting that

Yes, it doesn't surprise me a bit. And I find this quote very sad - "What we need is a Harry Potter every week,"

It essentially says that if people aren't lured by incredible hype, they aren't going to read. :(

[badgerpup]

101. Anybody remember the XANTH series? Piers Anthony?

He got lots of fanmail telling him how his books not only encouraged people to read, but were a great escape for a lot of people who had problems with chronic pain.
Now, THERE'S a legacy for ya!
He's still writing them too...:applause:

[Maine-ah]

3. people need to stop over analyzing this shit.

it's a book and a movie. It entertains people. Does the rest really matter?

[datasuspect]

4. it matters when people go beyond enjoyment

to internalizing and integrating their fandom as aspects of their identity to the extent that they have severe emotional reactions to spoilers.

[skygazer]

6. It matters when people practically turn it into a religion

And it matters in the sense that it says something really cockeyed about people's attitudes about reading. It's been argued that the books cause people to read and that's a good thing. I would agree if there was any indication that people were reading anything besides those books. But there's not.

Beyond that, I thought it was an interesting article. For those of us who have no understanding of why these books are this huge cultural phenomenon (beyond the obvious marketing blitz/bandwagon jumping explanation), I thought it might be informative. No one says anyone has to agree with it.

[Pithlet]

7. I've read both the Harry Potter books and Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell

And I liked them both. Taste in literature is a subjective thing as it is with any other medium. I know plenty of intelligent, well read adults, one of them with an English major, who love the Harry Potter books. I also know a few well read, intelligent adults who didn't like Jonathan Strange. So what if a lot of adults reading it haven't read much of anything else? They're reading. That's supposed to be a good thing. I don't care if they don't move on to the books that I happen to like. Who cares? I don't get this need to turn personal dislike of the Harry Potter series, or anything else for that matter, into this handwringing about the death of our culture. It's just a literary version of "Kids today and their music..."

[skygazer]

9. I don't get this business of not allowing anyone else to have an opinion on it

You don't have to agree. But I don't have to agree that the books are the greatest thing since sliced bread either.

You know, you can turn that argument around. How come every negative comment about the books turns into a pig-pile on the person who doesn't like them?

Do you deny that people read less? Or that they have no real interst in literature? Sure, you've read Jonathan Strange - but the point is that the majority of adults don't read. At all. And the only thing they are reading is this children's book series. Do you really think that says nothing at all about our skewed way of looking at things?

If you don't, that's fine. Move along. I simply thought some people might find the article interesting.

[Pithlet]

12. I don't see how you weren't allowed to have an opinion on it.

I was commenting on the article giving my own opinion on it. I wasn't piling on the opinion that Harry Potter was crap. I was giving my own opinion on the article. By all means, post articles like this. I don't have a problem with that. But, when I feel inclined, I'm going to give my own opinion on it, as will others. I've never been the sort to simply trash a person because of their like or dislike of something. In fact, that's how I read the article you posted. It certainly didn't paint Harry Potter fans in a flattering light.

I think the fact that people who otherwise might not have read a book at all read Harry Potter is a good sign. I think we should be encouraging that, regardless of our own personal taste. I think the notion that books need to be highbrow to have any worth are one of the reasons people don't read. They think reading is for those stuffy intellectuals. If a huge phenomenon like Harry Potter comes along and gets millions of people reading, the appropriate response is not to make them feel like dumb, culture less buffoons. And the simple fact is people have different tastes and attitudes towards books. While I liked Jonathan Strange, my husband thought it was pretentious crap. I don't think either of our opinions say anything about how literate or well read we are any more than whether or not we like Harry Potter.

[LibraLiz1973]

16. You nailed why I thought that article was lame Pithlet.

As I read it I could only think, "Why would you want to make people feel dumb for READING books?"

The article in it's entirety is actually pretty sad. Clearly the writer enjoys being a curmudgeon.
Must be a real treat at parties!

And to assume that those of us who have read a Potter book (or seven) must be immature unread buffoons is laughable.

[skygazer]

19. I'm not sure where this idea that books need to be highbrow comes from

I suppose the article could be interpreted that way but I didn't really see it in that light. The thing is, there is a difference between what used to be called "dime novels" and stuff that actually has some meat to it. Does that make them better? Well, in a sense, yes - if they cause one to think about deeper issues and complexities, I would say they are better.

But I'm happy to see people read anything and I don't see the central question as whether people read "good stuff" or "bad stuff" but whether they're reading at all. And they're not. The one thing they are reading is Harry Potter so it's interesting to look at why that is. And what it means.

What I don't think it means is that reading Harry Potter is going to turn us into a nation of readers. I think what it says is that it's a craze like so many others and when it's all over and done with, we will go back to being a nation of non-readers. I think that's too bad.

What I do find interesting is how vehement and shrill people get in defending these books. I could post an article about the relative merits of Jane Austen and it probably wouldn't get a response, let alone a defense. People act like they have some sort of personal stake in all this. That to me is one of the oddest things.

I'm sure you won't believe this but I didn't post this with the intention of starting an argument. I posted it to possibly stimulate thought.

[Pithlet]

23. Who was vehement and shrill?

I don't agree with the premise of the article, that's all. Sure, there may be people who get shrill in defending Harry Potter, but that's nothing new on the internet, and certainly not limited to Harry Potter. A lot of people are going to react negatively to that article, and it has nothing to do with how lame Harry Potter fans are in their shrill defense of the book. I believe you when you say you didn't intend to start an argument. I hope you believe me when I say that my reaction to the article had nothing to do with whether or not I liked the book. The sort of elitism displayed by that article always irritates me no matter the subject. It particularly grates whenever the subject is books, because we're fighting a tough enough battle as it is in getting people to read. These sort of articles do not help. We don't have that same battle with TV, or movies, or music, so I usually just roll my eyes and move along, but when people start trashing readers because their choice in reading material doesn't live up to their standards, I feel the need to defend. I had the same reaction to the people trashing Oprah's book club. There were articles trashing her and her readers as well, and lamenting that it was a sign our culture was in decline.

[skygazer]

32. Interesting that you took that remark so personally then

Look, the fact is that as soon as someone says they don't care for the books, people come leaping out of the woodwork to defend them. And they do get quite shrill. It's a response with almost a cultish feel to it.

I see posts here all the time talking about books - there was a "what was the worst book you ever read" thread recently in which several books I enjoy greatly were labeled the worst. Neither I nor anyone else got uptight about the fact that people were "trashing readers because their choice in reading material doesn't live up to their standards."

I really enjoy the Lord of the Rings - not everyone does. I don't see a lot of people frothing at the mouth when someone says they hate it. Or Gone With the Wind. Or just about any other book you can think of.

But Harry Potter? It's like telling a fundie the bible's not the literal truth.

[LibraLiz1973]

37. I also enjoyed the LOTR series

and was annoyed when elitist snobs declared them unworthy of reading as well.

[iamjoy]

63. Small World, skygazer

JK Rowling says her favorite author is Jane Austen. I don't know why she didn't try to write in the style of Austen, unless it is because Austen did it so well anything else would pale by comparison.

But - and not having studied Austen, just having read a handful of her novels - I must wonder if there weren't literary critics of the early nineteenth century who thought Austen's writing was crap.

It is hard to say what "magic" makes a novel popular. Certainly the language of some classics can be very cumbersome. Something like 40% of our population reads at a middle school level (or lower). For these Americans, reading something written at a higher level is taxing if not impossible. Even for those of us who do read at a higher level, we sometimes like a little mind candy.

[Zomby Woof]

64. I didn't appreciate Austen until...

"Northanger Abbey", where she parodies gothic romances so brilliantly, she pre-emptively flattens any negative criticism of her work, in a she-has-the-last-laugh kind of way.

[tigereye]

90. I think that people are passionate about Austen

and PK Dick, and Shakespeare, and Pullman, and Tolkien, and Heinlein and Conrad, Tolstoy, Stein, Woolf, Doestoevsky and Puzo.


:shrug:


But you could say the opposite, what's wrong with people saying they are passionate about any book?


I agree that the Potter phenomenon has a marketing gleam all over it at this point. But it wouldn't have happened at all if kids didn't love the series.


OTOH, there should be Pullman parties! :rofl: And somewhere, there probably are! :hi:

[LibraLiz1973]

13. Sky, have you read the books?

Or are you just against them in general?


I'm an avid reader and until last week I'd never read even one Harry Potter book. I was surprised that I enjoyed it as much as I did. It was beautifully written and descriptive, along with being well paced and emotional. As a teacher, I was delighted to see for myself that the books my children are reading are actually quite "wordy". If for no other reason, the fact that children are devouring these books and taking the time to read them thrills me to no end.

I find it amusing that most of the people who poo poo the entire Harry Potter experience are people who have never read the books.
They come across as wanna-be literary elitists. Reading a children’s book series isn't going to dumb any of them down. In fact, it might even make them happier people overall. Clearly they need to distraction of some lighter faire.

[skygazer]

17. I'm not "against them in general"

This is not about being "for" or "against" a series of books. That's absurd. Nor am I a "wanna-be literary elitist" - in fact, there are plenty of children's books that I still read over and over because they're just wonderful.

I read the first two Harry Potter books and about half of the third. I went into them expecting to like them. I thought the basic premise of a world where magic existed and a school for wizards was charming and imaginative. As I said, I love good children's books and it sounded like a great idea.

However, by the time I got through as far as I did, I was thoroughly bored with them. I thought the writing was fairly pedestrian, the characters lacking any real depth and the storyline bland. That's not to say that my opinion is any more valid than anyone else's. Tastes are subjective. I'm no more right as to their quality than you are.

But as I said in another post, this isn't about the Potter books themselves but what that phenomenon says about reading in general. And I thought this article put into words a lot of what I've been thinking. That's all. You do not have to agree.

[fishwax]

15. who is not allowing anyone else to have an opinion on it?

:shrug:

[yellowdogintexas]

24. Key Word: Subjective. says it all

lifelong avid voracious reader here. English/History major.

Never go anywhere without a book, and I read all kinds of things, a lot of which doesn't pass muster in "literary" circles. I do not care. I read for pleasure; I read to immerse myself in a world that is different from my own (one reason I adore a big long series with continuing characters), I read to learn new things, I read to laugh, I read to cry, I read to imagine, I read to escape, I read to FIND OUT WHAT HAPPENS!!! I do not overanalyze my books, trying to interpret what political or social agenda the author may or may not be espousing. If I like it, and like the characters or the story then I am ready for the next one. Yeah, sometimes it's obvious that it is a social or polictical commentary (Cry The Beloved Country comes to mind); otherwise that is quite too much work for me. I am busy keeping up with the plot lines, characters, relationships and descriptions.

I am also acquainted with many adults and children who never read for pleasure until the first Harry Potter book hit the stands, but from HP they went on to other things. I know others who discovered a new genre to enjoy because of these books.


Last night @ my local Borders, the parking lot was packed, no other stores in the shopping center were still open, and everyone was buying other books in addition to the HP books. People were standing around reading in line, reading the book they brought with them (me, for example), or a book they had picked up and decided to buy while there (my husband, and tons of people around me) It made me feel GOOD.

My friend who is an elementary school librarian in an economically deprived area raves about the impact HP has had on getting kids to read. Because of HP she can direct them to other things, which leads to other things and so on.

I sincerely hope another great set of characters surface from an as yet unwritten book that ignites the public's fancy as these books have. Meanwhile, I am going to go read now. I am doing double time: HP7 and Hiassen's "Basket Case". Almost through with Basket Case. We picked up two new Hiassens last night.

[fudge stripe cookays]

82. And this is why I adore you!

We think the same. :hug:

[yellowdogintexas]

93. Yes, we do! and thankyou! nt

[fishwax]

21. the death of reading is nothing new, nor is it new for critics to disparage the public for liking

books that the critics don't. Q.D. Leavis's Fiction and the Reading Public, published in 1932, provides but one example. Leavis bashed popular fiction, more or less implying that the lower class's interest in the books of Edgar Wallace demonstrated the legitimacy of the class system. The century before, the works of Jane Austen and the Bronte sisters were considered less than literature, and America's foremost man of letters--Nathaniel Hawthorne--bemoaned that the public had been wholly "given over to a damned mob of scribbling women."

It could be, as Ron Charles suggests, that "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." Of course, it could also be true that critics shitting on the public taste doesn't encourage much respect for their perspectives on "real engagement with books," as well. And, beyond that, I don't accept the implication that real engagement with something like the Harry Potter series isn't possible.

On the whole, I can agree with some of the points that he makes, particularly in lamenting stand-alone book sections in major newspapers as well as the effects of consolidation in the publishing and bookselling industries.

I don't, on the other hand, agree with his assessment of the Harry Potter series or its fans.

[skygazer]

22. Which is a very sensible analysis

Personal taste is just that - personal. While I do happen to agree with his assessment of the Potter books, I didn't see the article as being so much about them but about what they say about reading in general.

I would say, though, that the greater point is not so much about what people are reading but the fact that they're not reading at all.

[fishwax]

30. fair enough

I agree with you on the greater point ... I guess I think the point might have been more effective had the article approached Pottermania as a context for the discussion, rather than as a catalyst or a primary symptom. I think, too, that the attitude that those who read Potter are culturally infantile (an assertion certainly not original to the author of the article) might be part of the reason that fans react strongly to criticism of the series. After all, though the average person might chuckle at someone who goes to a Star Trek convention or who dresses up as Darth Vader for opening night of episode three, we don't hear a chorus of people calling them low-class and pedestrian for lining up around the block to see Star Wars instead of something more "sophisticated."

But it's certainly true that taste is personal, and I harbor no grudge for your dislike of the boy wizard ;) And I'm also worried about the state of the novel and the fact that Americans don't have as much interest in them as they used to.

At the same time, and not to undercut the worthwhile goal of promoting reading novels, etc., it's worth pointing out that just because Americans aren't reading novels doesn't mean they aren't reading at all--there are other forms of literature that are emerging and evolving in its wake, and no literary form remains dominant for long.

[WindRavenX]

25. Harry Potter is a great way for kids to start reading, but I think there is a larger issue at hand

I don't automatically think reading Harry Potter as an adult is a bad thing (I'm 22 and my fiance is 20 and we both LOVE HP), but the article is correct that many people do not read enough and that Harry Potter is all they read. I see this first hand in my fiance's family and even my own.

And yes, "His Dark Materials" >>>>>>>>> Harry Potter in terms of complexity and literacy (it is an allegory of Milton's Paradise Lost, after all), but very few people I've suggested this to seem to want to pick it up.

Lack of reading for pleasure is a huge problem in this country, and while I am happy HP seems to get young adults interested in reading for the joy of reading, there still remains the problem of making it a life-long habit.

I don't see this as a snobbery issue, but as an indicator that we as a culture do not vale reading anymore. Hopefully, this can change.

[skygazer]

33. Very thoughtful analysis

And I agree - the issue is not whether I or anyone else thinks the Potter books are good or not - it's whether people are reading at all. I've stated more than once that I'm happy to see someone reading a comic book - I'm no literary snob (hell, I read the entire Wagons West series in the 80's - basically a soap opera in book form! :rofl: ) but the thing is people just aren't reading and that's too bad. :hi:

[WindRavenX]

34. btw, have you read "His Dark Materials"?

The first movie adaptation comes out this December. I recommend the trilogy more than any other non-fiction book usually. It's approachable for young adults but has quite a lot of interesting topics Pullman deals with.

[skygazer]

35. I have not

I'm not familiar with it but it sounds interesting. I'll check it out. :hi:

[WindRavenX]

36. Seriously, I can't recommend it enough

http://www.amazon.com/Materials-Trilogy-Golden-Compass-Spyglass/dp/0440238609/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-1762755-3841728?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1185044870&sr=8-1

I'll even ship my own copies out. I can't stop recommending this enough LOL

[skygazer]

39. Sounds wonderful

Just checked my library and they have them all. Thanks for the recommendation.

[blondeatlast]

26. Read or see "Order of the Phoenix" with an eye to the Bush cabal

and I think you might see it very differently.

I'm not a fan either, but after reading and watching with my son I see there's more than meets the eye (and like Will Pitt, I used to teach English--in middle school in my case).

[WindRavenX]

27. again, this isn't about "inferior/superior" and personal tastes

It's about people not reading at all. Or just reading Harry Potter or the DaVinci Code. Both are great for entertainment, but it is a problem if that's all adults are reading.

(And trust me, I know people who do just that. I suggest new things to them, and they refuse to read it.)

Harry Potter is not well-written (Rowling is god awful in the last 3 books in particular), it's not difficult, but that doesn't matter--it gets children to read for pleasure. That's all I care about.

[blondeatlast]

28. Sorry--I edited that out and got a phone call in the meantime.

I agree, it isn't great literature, but my kid loves it and as an ex-librarian as well, I just love seeing kids love books.

I also see nothing wrong with adults having a little fun with it, although I'd neve get caught up as many do.

[WindRavenX]

29. totally. And that's why HP is a positive for kids.

Although I don't get why the hate on adults who read it for fun...

[datasuspect]

47. and there is nothing wrong with children reading.

but if someone is 18 or older and they camp out for the next harry potter book or get emotionally upset at spoilers, there is something wrong with that.

we have gifts of discernment and reason. there's a reason for that: to evaluate and judge.

and people call it elitist, but it doesn't change the truth that there is higher and lower culture.

harry potter is not high culture. call it what is: mass produced, vapid, and banal writing that lends itself well to screen adaptation. the strategy inherent in it is to provide the basis for a movie, the sole motivation is spectacular profits. it is an industry.

insofar as it entertaining, i think the need to be entertained is actually a problem. why call someone an elitist (not saying you do) when they choose to engage their mind in something more challenging?

is there ever a problem with choosing a dissipation that lends itself to edification rather than slack jawed distraction?

[liberalpragmatist]

66. Why shouldn't people be emotionally upset at spoilers?

I don't see how wanting to maintain suspense, especially when the outcome of a book is a big mystery, is somehow immature.

I don't know too many people, adult or child, who like to know the plot of a book, movie, or play in advance.

[Oeditpus Rex]

31. Is reading a means to an end or an end in and of itself?

In my mind it's always been a means whose end is learning, but "At least they're reading" seems to be in the same neighborhood as "At least they didn't drop out of school."

I used to be part of a book group at AOL, and one thing that struck me about those in the group whose reading was confined to best-sellers (who were the majority) was that most couldn't discuss them in any depth; it was all "I liked the part where..." and such. Reading is supposed to be enriching, but I didn't see much enrichment in those people.

I'm all for anything that gets kids (and adults) to read, but if those caught up in Pottermania are indeed reading HP and nothing else, what have they gained besides the ability to say "I've read all seven Harry Potter books"? While there's nothing at all wrong with that, what good does it do the reader?

(In the interests of full disclosure, I've read none of the HP books, nor have I seen any of the movies. I'm simply not interested in fantasy.)

[skygazer]

38. You put that better than I could

It's always touchy territory when you get into the relative merits of literature. That's when people accuse you of being a "book snob" or "literary elitist."

But the truth is, there's always been a difference between stuff written purely for entertainment (fluff, or the dime novels of the old days or however one wants to think of them) and stuff that makes you think about larger issues, about the human condition, about complexities.

I don't really see John Grisham novels as really exploring anything more than the adventure at hand. Any complexity is more of device to move the plot along, rather than a means to stimulate deeper thought. And that's okay as far as it goes. But as you say, what good does it do the reader in the end?

And that's not to say you have to read War and Peace to get any grasp of depth in literature. There are some great graphic novels out there that have tons of depth. There are children's books that I read over and over that always make me think. There are fun, bouncy novels that still contain complexity and stimulate the mind. It's a mistake to think that "good" or "relevant" necessarily means long and boring.

[Oeditpus Rex]

41. I haven't read a lot of fiction

But what I have read — Vonnegut, Crichton, LeGuin — are the sort of books that induce the reader to look at things differently. I honestly don't believe I'd be as liberal as I am had I not read "Slaughterhouse Five" and others, and "The Andromeda Strain" (which I'm reading again) did much to enhance my understanding of science.

Of course, there are those who'd say we don't have to get anything out of reading, that it's simply recreation, and I find that difficult to argue. It just isn't the way I think. When I open a book, I'm thinking, "Enlighten me. Inform me. Teach me." But not everyone looks at it that way.

I'm astounded, though, that 325 million copies of the HP books have been sold. It can't be that they're that much better than all the other books ever written (except for the bible, but that's a work of fiction that's had nearly 500 years of promotion), so I have to conclude that they've been marketed into the biggest "must-read" in history.

Edit to add: Once in awhile you get the great surprise of beginning to read for pleasure and discovering along the way that, b'gosh, you're learning stuff. That's why I rank "If I Never Get Back" as my favorite fiction work. Ostensibly a book about baseball, it's also full of history. (I'd never even heard of the Irish Revolution before I read it.)

[Withywindle]

98. That's a very different way of looking at things than I do.

For me, reading is very much an end in itself. Of course I've gained all sorts of positive things from it, but the reason I read is for the pleasure of reading, period.

but if those caught up in Pottermania are indeed reading HP and nothing else, what have they gained besides the ability to say "I've read all seven Harry Potter books"? While there's nothing at all wrong with that, what good does it do the reader?

They gained the experience they had while reading a series of books they enjoy! Obvious, no? Why would it need any further "gain" to be worthwhile?

I'm a HP fan (not an uncritical one, but I do enjoy the series overall), but most of the reading I do these days is actually nonfiction, specifically world history. Why? 'Cause that's what I enjoy reading most. I was a literature major -- 'cause I read for pleasure and I wanted to get a degree for what I'd mostly be doing anyway. :) I love Joyce for the same reason I love Rowling - his writing gives me pleasure. (A very, very different kind of pleasure, but that doesn't even matter, does it?)

[1monster]

40. Balderdash! I am an avid reader and always have been. Reading is not

a chore for me because I learned very young how to immerse myself into a book so that it was less like reading that it was like the words lifting off the page into my mind into mental pictures.

Having taught in classes where there were most students who found reading an onerous chore, I found that they had no idea how to form the written word into a mental movie.

The words never lifted off the pages for them in the form of thoughts. The words were just words that they struggeled to understand. (To experience reading the way they do, try reading a book while someone keeps interrupting you so that you have to go back and try to pick up the thought in the paragraph you've already read six times in between interruptions.)

Somehow, the Harry Potter books were able to speak to some of those people who found reading a chore.

For others like me, reading the Potter books was an enjoyable interlude. Some of it is really corny (check out how George reacts to an incident in the first 100 pages of THE DEATHLY HALLOWS), but that is part of the fun and it is genius because it is the silly dreadful little puns that capture the age and behavior of the age of the characters.

As I remarked to my husband about THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX, the really moody and nearly always angry Harry was a mirror to my son at the same age. The confusion of adolescence was accurately portrayed.

And while J.K. Rowling is no Sara Douglass, she doesn't need to be. She has her own style and it appeals to many. She was able to engage our attention and create an emotional bond with many of her characters so that we, the readers, care about what happened to them.

And that makes the books series great.

More than that, it makes it far better than critically acclaimed books without a soul, say like COLD MOUNTAIN which was praised up and down and all around but which was one of the worst books I've ever read. I felt no bond with the characters and was glad when it ended. (I've asked people who read it what their feeling on the COLD MOUNTAIN was, and out of fifteen people, only one liked it.)

Why dis the books series or the people who enjoy it? That particular series isn't dumbing down literature and the people who love it are not those who don't otherwise read.

[xchrom]

42. ummm -- i'm of the school of thought that reading was problem for americans before harry potter EVER

made an appearence.

television -- and then computers have done something -- not good -- to both reading and writing.

telley screwed up reading -- and computers are devolving writing.

but that's just me.

[Nikia]

43. I just finished reading The Half Blood Prince

652 pages. Although I am avid reader now and as a child and scored in the top 10% or better on all the standardized tests for English/reading, I could not imagine reading a book that until at least high school. In high school, reading a book of that length seemed like quite an endeavor. I think that it is a good sign that both children and adults are willing sitting down to books of these lengths.

[Ediacara]

44. I admit, I tend not to read a lot of novels

but I read about 4 or 5 non-fiction books each year. Does that count? :-)

[distantearlywarning]

45. Well, as an avid reader myself

and as someone who spends a tremendous amount of money on books, highbrow, popcorn and otherwise, and as a Ph.D. student who spends quite a few waking hours reading scientific journal articles and other less "fun" work, I think Harry Potter is great.

Trust me, I've read enough books in my lifetime (try at least 20 a week since the age of 4, no kidding) to know what's crap and what isn't. J.K. Rowling's no Tolstoy, but the books aren't as awful as this author portrays either.

Frankly, I'm just happy American adults are reading something for pleasure, even if it isn't exactly classic literature or something else that might meet the author's standards.

And what's wrong with reading stuff for fun anyway? I think people should read whatever they feel like reading, from War and Peace to comic books to cereal boxes or mechanics manuals or whatever else catches their fancy. It would be a sad world if people were discouraged from reading anything because some asshat with a Washington Post soapbox thought it wasn't important enough or was too "childish". I have an entire bookshelf full of children's books in my house - that's some of the best literature around - and yet my brain has not atrophied. Somehow. Maybe I'm just lucky that way.

By the way, I HAVE read the Pullman Dark Materials series, despite the author's insinuation that anyone who reads Harry Potter is a braindead moron who hasn't picked up any other book in the last 20 years. It's sitting on the bookshelf right next to Harry Potter. In my opinion, Pullman's work is neither superior nor inferior to Harry Potter, just a little darker. I would recommend both series to adults and teenagers alike. Most of the people I know who read Harry Potter have also read Pullman and a variety of other things also. Maybe the author just knows a lot more one-track people than I do. Or maybe he's stereotyping.

If he (or the OP) would like some recommendations for some other books to take the ugly taste of the terribly lowbrow Harry Potter out of their mouths this season, I could probably provide some. But then again, perhaps you would find my taste infantile.

(Yes, OP, I realize that your opinion is valid. Nobody's forcing you to read the books, least of all me. I believe in everyone's right to read what they like and ignore what they don't. But surely you can see how insulting this article is to anyone who does read them?)

[skygazer]

48. Again, this misses the point entirely

It's not about WHAT people are reading - it's about the fact that people are not reading at all. Except Harry Potter books.

I don't need book recommendations from you or from anyone else - nor do I care if you read "highbrow" or "lowbrow" books (whatever that even means - there seems to be some idea out there that anyone who doesn't care for the HP books thinks that the only things worth reading are works by dead Russians or dry, dusty things that aren't remotely interesting, a laughable concept).

The point here is not that the books suck - it's that people don't read. And just because they're reading these books does not mean they're reading anything else. They're a publishing phenomenon, the literary equivalent to a Cabbage Patch Kid or a Tickle Me Elmo doll - the must-have of the season. They are indicative of our jump-on-the-bandwagon mentality.

That doesn't mean people are not getting genuine enjoyment out of them. Of course they are. But does that make them actual readers? Not really. It makes them readers of Harry Potter books and probably little or nothing else.

That's not an indictment of JK Rowling or the books themselves either - it's an indictment of the way we look at books and literature in general. I don't necessarily agree with all the author says about adult readers being "infantile" but I do agree that the craze about the books is less about their merits as literature than it is about good marketing. And I don't really buy into the idea that they're encouraging kids to read anything else - nothing seems to indicate such a thing. Sure, some kids will but on the whole, I don't really see it.

We are a nation of non-readers. What people do read is stuff by people with a recognizable name. It doesn't have to be good. It's like McDonald's.

[distantearlywarning]

49. People aren't reading anything but Harry Potter.

So the author claims, and you believe him/her.

Do we have any evidence to support this assertion, other than "that's what I've seen"?

As for "people read stuff by people with a recognizable name" or read things just because everyone else is reading them. Well, so what? Would J.K. Rowling/Tom Clancy/Nicholas Sparks/random-lowbrow-insipid-trash-author be more palatable for you if nobody else had ever heard of them?

Like someone said up-thread: I don't read books because they make me smart, or because the unwashed masses haven't read them or because somebody stuffy thinks they're important. I read books because I want to know what happens in the end. Harry Potter makes me want to know what happens in the end. So do a lot of other books, some of which have been read by a lot of other people, some of whom undoubtably bought them because they were *gasp* POPULAR! (The horror! How can us elite readers continue to feel superior when just anyone, even people who aren't ACTUAL READERS, can walk off the street and read OUR BOOKS??!?!?).

I normally don't use the word "elitist" as an insult, especially not on DU where anything promoting intellectualism gets labeled with that term almost instantly by the 35 year olds who are still mad about not being put in the high reading group in 2nd grade. I think in general we need a little more elitism in this country, and that's an unpopular viewpoint here. But this argument that your author has made (and you by default for supporting him) is the bad kind of elitist and yes, snobby, and not in the spirit of what it means to be a Democrat. In a country where it's hard to pry the average adult away from American Idol long enough to read the instructions for his toaster, it's inappropriate and arrogant to insult people and essentially call them stupid for reading something, ANYTHING. Especially a series in which every book is 700 pages long. It's also snobby and pretentious to automatically discount books just because they're read by a wide cross-section of America.

If you don't want to read J.K. Rowling, fine. Don't read her books. Nobody will tie you up and force you to read about insipid Harry Potter and his childish friends.

But it's inaccurate to blame J.K. Rowling, or Anne Rice, or Nicholas Sparks, or any other popular author for a lack of literacy in America. Even if they aren't making people into avid consumers of great literaure, they're still encouraging people to read. And that goes at least a little way towards making "actual readers" out of people who don't read at all. In a nation of starving people, McDonalds is better than nothing at all, even if it's not the 5-star French restaurant on the corner.

And it's offensive to suggest that anyone who reads popular literature isn't a real reader, or is childish, or is some kind of barely literate moron. That claim is offensive to me personally, and it's offensive to everyone I know who has a copy of the Order of the Phoenix on their bookshelf next to Phillip Pullman (the fabulous anti-J.K. Rowling himself) and some of those dry Russian authors.

By the way, lest you mistake my rant for defensive Harry Potter obsession, I'm not a fan in the fanatic way. The books are an interesting story for me, and that's all. I don't go to conventions, I don't wear wizard robes on Halloween or any other day of the year, and my identity isn't tied up with a Hogwarts house. I just hate this kind of B.S. about "real readers" don't read things that are popular, new, mass-marketed or whatever. Reading should be fun. If fun for me and 50% of America is Harry Potter, great. If it's some dry Russian author for you, great. If it's a comic book for my neighbor down the street, well, good for him. Let's let people be happy reading what they want to and keep the snobbery to ourselves.

[skygazer]

51. I'm not making up numbers

Book sales are abyssmal and the stats indicate that the vast majority of those sales are for a handful of books by popular authors. You can look at that as "encouraging people to read" but the numbers state something different - it's only a small percentage of people who are reading and they're not reading much in the way of variety.

Nowhere did I say anything about blaming JK Rowling for anything nor did I say I think the books are to blame. In fact, I specifically stated that was not my meaning. Nowhere did I say that people should be reading something "better" - in fact, I stated more than once that I'm delighted to see people read anything, be it a comic book or a Shakespeare play.

"If you don't want to read J.K. Rowling, fine. Don't read her books. Nobody will tie you up and force you to read about insipid Harry Potter and his childish friends."

Talk about childish - that's just a silly statement all around when I've said over and over in this thread that it's not the books, it's what the obsession with them says about our attitude in regards to literature. You're just deliberately twisting what I said and turning it into yet another attack on the poor Harry Potter fans. Christ, it's like the cries of the so-called "persecuted" christians. Sorry I rained on your obsession.

I could say the same to you - if you don't want to read the thread or the article, fine. Nobody's tying you up either and forcing you to read them.

[distantearlywarning]

56. It's not personal.

You must have missed it (where are those good critical reading skills? Reading too much popular literature these days?), but I already stated that I'm not an obsessed J.K. Rowling fan. My criticism of your article is not a reflection of a hurt ego tied up in identification with Harry Potter. But anyway, I really don't feel persecuted about anything related to Harry Potter, and frankly, your post is the first time I've ever heard of any other "poor Harry Potter fans" feeling persecuted or attacked. My posts were just a criticism of the article and your stated viewpoint regarding popular literature. Attributing my statements to an obsessed-fan motivation is certainly an easy way to discount them, but it's not an accurate attribution. But it was a nice try at armchair psychologizing.

If you want, we can start this entire discussion over using some other popular author I don't actually read. If we do that, perhaps you can get past the "poor persecuted Harry Potter fans" thing (which is obviously a personal issue for you) and start thinking about what I actually said in this thread. So...let's take Tom Clancy just as an example. Personally, I think his books are boring. I got about halfway through one once and gave up. Not my thing, but certainly an author the unwashed masses support financially, and not highbrow literature by any means.

Let's just pretend that your author claimed that Tom Clancy was childish and our obsession with his books was an indication that this culture is illiterate.

Washington Post Journalist: Tom Clancy is ruining America, forcing all other authors into bankruptcy, and nobody who reads Tom Clancy reads anything else! Ever! Tom Clancy readers aren't ACTUAL readers. They're fake, obsessive readers. Tom Clancy is the McDonald's of literature.

My response: People should read what they want to read. Further, calling people dumb for reading books that are popular, such as Tom Clancy books, is not a way to encourage literacy in America. And your argument sounds snobby and elitist. Even though I don't personally like Tom Clancy books myself, I support the right of others to read them, and I'm happy my fellow Americans are reading something, even if it isn't Tolstoy. In a nation of starving people, McDonald's (Tom Clancy) is better than nothing, even if it's not the 5-star French restaurant on the corner (insert-real-literature-here). I'm not going to sneer and look down upon my neighbors for reading Tom Clancy, and you shouldn't either.

By the way, knock it off with the thinly veiled snide remarks downthread. If you have something to say to me or anyone else who disagrees with you, respond to the relevant post and say what you need to say. Responding to other posters by talking shit about all the other "obsessed Harry Potter" fans in this thread who are attacking you is cowardly. I haven't gotten the impression that anyone who disagreed with you is "deflecting" their Harry Potter obsession by criticising the inherent elitism and offensiveness of your viewpoint. Attributing that motivation to them is clearly only a way for you to avoid addressing the real issues in their criticism and at the same time imply that there is something mentally deficient about them(and that's another thing that's offensive about your posts in this thread, by the way). Come on now...you had to know you would take some flack for posting such an offensive piece and stating that you supported the author's viewpoint. If you can't argue your viewpoint about that article effectively without having to resort to mischaracterizing your opponents' motivations to later posters, maybe you need to rethink what you believe.

[skygazer]

58. It gets tiresome saying the same thing over and over

"You must have missed it (where are those good critical reading skills? Reading too much popular literature these days?), but I already stated that I'm not an obsessed J.K. Rowling fan"

I didn't miss that but felt that your fevered responses belie it. I can say that I'm a candy-coated jelly bean but that doesn't make me one.

"Let's just pretend that your author claimed that Tom Clancy was childish and our obsession with his books was an indication that this culture is illiterate."

I think Tom Clancy is yet another excellent example of our culture's illiteracy. Again, I'm not saying anything in particular against the books per se but wondering what this obsession does say about our attitudes. And I think they say a lot. You are welcome to disagree. I don't understand why that disagreement has to take the form of cyber-foaming-at-the-mouth.

"By the way, knock it off with the thinly veiled snide remarks downthread. If you have something to say to me or anyone else who disagrees with you, respond to the relevant post and say what you need to say"

I can say whatever I want to whomever I want. As can you. If you feel I was talking about you, that says more about your own projections than it does about me. I've been responding to you all along and saying exactly what I want. And your continued misreading of my posts makes that a losing battle.

I truly find it amazing that a post that isn't even a criticism of the books per se gets people so hot around the collar. Really, that makes the point better than anything I could say.

[distantearlywarning]

61. Speaking of projection...

There's no fever here, no foaming at the mouth, no hot collars. It's all been simply a criticism of the article you posted and your support of it. It is unfortunate that I happen to read the Harry Potter books myself, because I think that makes it easy for you to dismiss what I've said, at least in your own mind if not your argumentation.

In any case, I still maintain that using the accusation of bias in this context is the coward's way out of a flame war. You still haven't effectively addressed the actual points I've made thus far, other than to attempt to paint them as the fevered, angry rantings of an obsessive. For instance, among other things, I'm still waiting for you to provide an explanation about why books that aren't popular are somehow better than books that many people read. I would also like you to explain exactly why you think reading popular fiction = excellent example of cultural illiteracy (note: this is a direct quote - I wouldn't want you to think I was misreading anything you said). That's an interesting assertion.

[skygazer]

69. I never said books that aren't popular are somehow better

Yes, once again you ARE twisting what I've said and it is getting exceedingly tiresome. Your only argument seems to be that I'm arguing unfairly. What makes it easy to dismiss what you say is the way you keep deliberately twisting the argument back to this whole, "why do you think books that aren't popular are somehow better?" Which is something I've not said in any post in this thread.

Once again, v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y, it's not about whether the Potter books - or any other popular books - are any good or not. It's about the fact that the reading public almost does not exist anymore. There is a narrow percentage of people who read at all and what they do read (for the most part) is the stuff by popular authors and little else.

Now, for those who can't grasp what that means, it does not necessarily mean that all those popular books are crap - it suggests that people are not particularly discriminating in their reading, that they do not take the time to discover obscure or new authors, or books that may be extremely good but are not by those big-name authors. Are those books better? Better to who? Not the point.

The point is that, like so many other things, readers are too lazy to branch out and discover anything beyond what mass marketing shoves in front of their faces. This in turn gives us an even narrower choice of things to choose from.

Oh, and that was not a direct quote - I said that Tom Clancy, not "reading popular fiction" was an excellent example of cultural illiteracy. Not because the books are somehow "bad" but because they represent exactly what I said above.

In conclusion, I was not aware that this was a flame war - I thought it was a dialog in which we were discussing alternate viewpoints. And that's the second time you've called me a coward which is amusing considering that you know absolutely nothing about me and I've responded directly to everything you've posted. You just can't seem to understand it.

[Alexander]

46. Most people read what are essentially children's books now anyway.

The vast preponderance of Americans cannot read past an 8th grade level.

Harry Potter is a symptom of this problem. It is not the problem.

[otherlander]

50. Since you seem to like criticizing things, here's a question:

What horrible thing does it say about society that I memorized Yertle the Turtle but can't remember my own social security number?

[skygazer]

52. What makes you say that I seem to like criticizing things?

I think this thread is proving the point of the article - people don't have enough critical reading skills to tell the difference between criticism and a discussion of what a worldwide obsession with one series of books says about our attitudes in regard to reading and literature in general.

The author of the article doesn't think the Harry Potter books are all that great. But that's not what the article is about. It's astonishing to me that so few people are able to grasp that.

As for Yertle the Turtle, I love Dr. Seuss. I'm partial to the Sneetches myself.

[otherlander]

53. Some people don't like to read much. Other people do.

People who like to read a lot aren't going to just read Harry Potter. They're going to read all sorts of things. Some of the people who don't like to read a lot are going to read Harry Potter anyway, just becase it's a trend. I don't think that's worse than them reading nothing. And I don't think that people who already like to read are going to start reading only Harry Potter.

[Kajsa]

54. Hi Skygazer, OK-there are a number of people

who don't care for the Harry Potter series and I've heard
most of them.

Criticism ranges from the prose to the overuse of certain phrases
and expressions. All have valid points.

But, for the first time in my life, I'm casting all that aside and saying
'to hell with it!".

This series got kids to open books and READ them.
They held their interest- another amazing feat in our world of nano second
attention spans.

They may not be literary perfection, but they accomplished a feat I have
not seen with any other series of books in quite a few years.

As an English and ELD teacher, the reading comes first,
fine tuning it comes later.

:hi:

[skygazer]

55. Thanks for not yelling at me

I've been getting a lot of that. :)

I'm always happy to see people read. Anything. As I've stated several times here, this isn't so much about the books themselves but about what the obsession with them says about our attitudes towards reading.

The thing is, are these kids reading anything else?

I'm sure some are. And if lots of them are, that's a good thing. Of course. But the question presented in the article and the one I wondered about is - is there any indication at all that people are reading more since those books came out? From what I've read and understand of things like the sale of books, library visits, etc. there really has not been any overall perceptable increase in reading.

I find that thought-provoking. People kind of assume that if people are reading a 700 page book, they must now be "readers." But are they? Or are they just readers of Harry Potter books?

I also find it interesting (and a little disturbing, frankly) how intensely personal some people get at even a hint of criticism of the books. A number of them try to deflect it by saying they're upset that anyone could criticize people for reading - that doesn't hold a lot of water for me since I don't see that reaction when any other book is criticized.

Anyway, thanks for weighing in. :hi:

[Kajsa]

57. You're welcome!

I'm hoping these books are the catalyst for a life
long love of reading.

:hi:

[fishwax]

59. due respect, skygazer, but I think your position has shifted over the course of this thread

The first paragraph of your OP makes your stance on the books clear: "I don't enjoy them and think they're literary crap." You don't say anything in that post about concern that the American public isn't reading. Nor do the quotes that you include from the article stress that as a main idea. Instead, they all focus heavily on the Harry Potter books--comparing them to changing diapers and cap'n crunch and referring to the phenomenon as "a bad case of cultural infantilism." Then after a brief mention of the alleged main point, the third paragraph casts aspersions at Harry Potter fans and then winds up by comparing the books they read to books the critic likes and finds them childish.

I'm certainly willing to believe, as you said upthread, that you didn't start this thread to tick anybody off, but were genuinely interested in discussion. But you have suggested that many of this thread's respondents took the OP personally (indicative of a cultish obsession or an overidentification with Harry Potter) by simply defending the books instead of focusing on the real issue you had in mind. I think you should consider that perhaps those posters were responding to pretty unambiguous (if unintentional) clues in the OP that Harry Potter fans lack taste, intelligence, etc.

I think it's disingenuous to post an OP/article saying that Harry Potter is literary crap, that the phenomenon is cultural infantalism, and that HP fans are oversensitive and intolerant, and then suggest that those who respond by defending the books and identifying a distinct snobbery in the linked article are not only missing the point, but proving it.

I do think that elsewhere in the thread you've made good points about the habits of the reading public and the possibility that the HP phenomenon, rather than sparking a reading renaissance, has simply camoflauged the lack thereof, but that elaboration came later on in the thread.

[skygazer]

71. I do think the books are literary crap

Nowhere in this thread have I said anything to contradict that. However, I have said in this thread that I don't care what people read and that's true. My choice is not to read them but the overall point I saw in the article was the idea that people aren't reading, not that they're reading lousy stuff.

The article doesn't necessarily mirror my opinion exactly. I think it would be rare to find any article about anything that did. I didn't post anything long about my opinion in regards to it because I wanted a response to the article, not me. Maybe I shouldn't have put that in about the books being crap in my opinion. On the other hand, I did.

When you can only choose 4 paragraphs to catch attention, you choose paragraphs that are going to do that. If you look at the article as a whole, the paragraphs I chose to highlight the article are the ones that do grab some interest for whatever reason. The ones in which he talks about percentages of the reading public have good info in them but probably wouldn't make anyone click on the link and read the whole thing.

The only way my position has changed has been to elaborate on it. I didn't write the article and the only comment I made in the OP has not changed in the course of the thread. I still think they're crap. :P

[fishwax]

73. I didn't mean that your position on the books themselves had changed

just your position on the point of the thread. The OP is all about the books and the various faults of the people who read them. Then when people defended the books (and the people who read them) you suggested the thread was all about the fact that people don't seem to read much of anything else. But it's no surprise that many posters didn't necessarily get that from the OP, since all the clues in the OP point elsewhere.

[skygazer]

74. Like this one?

"The vast majority of adults who tell me they love "Harry Potter" never move on to Susanna Clarke's enchanting "Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell," with its haunting exploration of history and sexual longing, or Philip Pullman's "His Dark Materials," a dazzling fantasy series that explores philosophical themes (including a scathing assault on organized religion) that make Rowling's little world of good vs. evil look, well, childish. And what about the dozens of other brilliant fantasy authors who could take them places that little Harry never dreamed of? Or the wider world of Muggle literary fiction beyond?"

That's the whole point of posting a link to an article - so people can read the whole thing. And the last paragraph posted which was sort of the climax to the excerpt, stated as clearly as possible what the issue was - that the majority of people who "love" HP never move on etc.

Of course, people are welcome to see the issue as whatever they want and so every time that came up, I pointed out what the larger point of the article was. Which people may have seen had they clicked on the link and read the article. Which is why I posted the link.

I can't do it all for them. And I'm really trying hard not to point out that being too intellectually lazy to read the entire article doesn't say a lot for the argument that these books are getting anyone to read more. :banghead:

[fishwax]

78. yeah, that one, which suggests thier tastes are childish

Like every other paragraph in the OP, that paragraph takes shots at the books and the people who read them, and laments the fact that HP readers don't choose to read something the critic prefers. And in most of the other paragraphs, the critiques of the book and the people who read them are sharper in nature. No surprise, then, that people might respond to the OP as though it were a discussion about the books and the people who read them, rather then whether or not anyone reads anything else. The fact that the sentence you quoted may have "stated as clearly as possible what the issue was" doesn't mean that it's clearly the point of the OP/thread. Indeed, all the clues in the OP point elsewhere.

I can't do it all for them. And I'm really trying hard not to point out that being too intellectually lazy to read the entire article doesn't say a lot for the argument that these books are getting anyone to read more. :banghead:
Nobody asked you to. And how do you know that people haven't read the article? Linking to the complete article is fine, but the paragraphs in an OP contextualize the discussion of the article. And while the article does struggle to make the point that people are reading fewer novels these days, it does so, in large part, by criticizing the Potter books and the people who read them. So, again, little wonder that people would respond to that in the rest of the thread.

[skygazer]

79. Well, I'm not sure where you get the idea I was surprised

I fully expected people to disagree with his criticisms of the books and the people who read them. I also thought they might see the larger issue within all that, both by my including the last paragraph, which you prefer to see as taking potshots and I prefer to see as a way of pointing out that people don't read anything else and by reading the entire article.

As you so rightly point out, I don't know if they read the entire article or not. I have no control over that and simply posted the link so they could.

I'm not even sure at this point what your point is or what we're debating. The way the post was framed? I'm sorry you don't think it was properly done, I tried to explain why I chose the paragraphs I did - I felt they would catch the eye and grab some interest.

And that's all. It certainly did generate some interesting discussion but I don't think I've violated any rules of fair play by the way it was posted. People are free to interpret anything any way they like. If you disagree, you are of course welcome to.

[fishwax]

84. I didn't say you were surprised

I said it's no surprise--as in, those are perfectly natural responses to how the OP was framed. But you have suggested that the responses to the OP demonstrate poor reading comprehension, intellectual laziness, and an unhealthy overidentification/oversensitivity on the part of Harry Potter fans. I think those are faulty conclusions, given the actual OP for the thread.

You've suggested people are missing the point, when in fact the OP buries the apparent point under criticism of the books and their fans. (As does, in my opinion, the article you link to.)

[Skittles]

60. I hear you, skygazer

it's just a f***ing BOOK for f*cks sake people - PLEASE stop acting like it's the second coming. By the way skygrazer - I am one of those rare people who read without the need for some wretched "cultural phenomenon".

[BreweryYardRat]

62. What simpering idiot with pretensions of literacy wrote this?

Sure, J.K. Rowling may not be up there on a literary level with George R.R. Martin, Alan Dean Foster, Harry Turtledove, or China Mieville, but she's a hell of a lot better than Robert Jordan, Terry Goodkind, R.A. Salvatore, or 90% of Mercedes Lackey's stuff.

Honestly.

At least Rowling's willing to kill major characters, and let her characters grow, mature, make mistakes, and change. That alone vaults her above a lot of fantasy authors, who don't seem to realize that the good guys don't always all survive, nor are they all perfect little demi-gods.

[MrSlayer]

65. Fantasy is my favorite genre.

Quite frankly I don't care if some snobby asshole looks down on my enjoyment of whatever I like because it's not sufficiently longheaded or whatever. Like what you like and fuck what other people think.

[ellisonz]

67. A Modest Proposal.

I agree with the article in principle, however the author clearly is a bit of a literary snob. I mean jesus christ, he see's value in a fiction about the potato famine as an example, when really he should just pimp Jonathan Swift. The vast majority of fiction is horribly overrated.

History rules you, so why not read it? Be utilitarian.

[FloridaJudy]

68. I love Potter - and Strange, and the Dark Materials

And I suspect that most of the folks who lined up with me at midnight Friday at my local independent book store have wide-ranging taste as well. I not only walked out with the latest installment of Harry, but with Jared Diamond's Collapse and Ann Lamott's Operating Instructions. A majority of the other clients left with at least one other book tucked under their arms as well. I made some comment in line about my being compelled to spend over an hour in a bookstore was like an alcoholic being forced to wait in a bar, and got more than a few nods and laughs.

It's like food. It would be boring to have a diet that consisted entirely of one single kind of food. Sometimes you want salade nicoise, and sometimes you want moussaka. And sometimes a bowl of oatmeal with lots of cinnamon and raisins hits the spot.

I started out on Nancy Drew mysteries - which truly are dreadfully written in comparison to Harry Potter - but eventually came to appreciate James Joyce. Anyone who condemns adults for enjoying a well-crafted children's series and thinks we should be forced to consume only grown-up novels is probably a terrible snob, and absolutely no fun whatsoever to hang around.

(edited for grammar)

[mondo joe]

70. The perfect is the enemy of the good.

Yes, it's a shame adults read so little.

Yes, many adults who read Harry Potter won't move on to other books.

But, IMO, the few who do - or the fact that they read at all, is a GOOD thing.

I don't know why the good can't be more celebrated.

[cobalt1999]

76. I blame television for the death of reading.

We rarely turn on our TV. On a typical night, our family will be in the living room everyone with their own book.

As for HP and it's literary value, IMHO there has overall decline of creative and unique plots in movies, TV shows, so it's not just a book phenomenon. Most movies are the same shit repackaged different ways, with the same big name directors. TV shows are nothing but cliche's of previous TV show plots. Most people seem to want their entertainment quick and mindless.

The good thing with books though, you can still find great books out there. Unique, well written, and entertaining. They are out there, but rarely in the best seller rack.

[skygazer]

77. I think television absolutely has a lot to do with it

It's such a passive form of entertainment - you sit and stare at a box and expect it to entertain you. There's no real engagement of any kind and no work put into it. And then people kind of expect a book to be the same way - sort of instant gratification.

I haven't turned on a television for anything but a video or DVD in several years. I never was a big tv watcher and maybe that's why I'm a reader.

Good point.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

85. Although there are a handful of TV shows as engaging as a great novel.

In fact, good writing seems to occur more in the TV industry nowadays than in the film industry.

[KiraBS]

80. No snobbery here then...

Kids that have read the Harry Potter books are certainly more likely to read more.
Many of them have discovered that reading big books is not a slog and they go on to read much more.
Kids that found reading hard as many kids do, have read these 500 plus page books and now read Lord Of The Rings, The Narnia Chronicles, Little Women, Jacqueline Wilson (British writer)and His Dark Materials. It is snobbishness and people forcing books on them that they don't relate to that may have put them off, just as it puts adults off. If people in the "book world" stopped telling children what they should read and let them read what they are drawn to, less children would see books as something that is only for "brainy" kids.
I grew up on Enid Blyton books, Carrie's War, Roald Dahl and Judy Blume, yet people that have not been children for a very long time look down on Enid Blyton and Judy Blume, the way they look down on J K Rowling because they think that children should be reading Swallows and Amazons, Ballet Shoes, Black Beauty or Robinson Cruso and are intellectually lacking if they don't. They are not looking at what children like to read, what interests them and wonder working class children don't willingly read.

There are people that judge the adult readers in the same way, because they are buying The Da Vinci Code, they are somehow stupid compared to those that are buying the Booker Prize Winner. It is the kind of intellectual snobbery that turns my stomach. I suspect that many adults have been discouraged from reading by snobbery, ignored learning difficulties, lack of parently enocuragment and lack of hours in the day. They are not the adults reading Harry Potter either. They read tabloid newspapers and maybe magazines.

As for adults reading, I loved Harry Potter from the first page of the first book, it appeals to my imagination, I also love Jasper Fforde, Margaret Atwood, Joanne Harris, Garrison Keiller, Jane Austin, Al Franken, Alison Weir and Jodi Poult. My taste is varied but not dictated too by what the critics like or dislike, I really don't care.

The Harry Potter books are more than good verses evil, they cover many, many issues and have become a commentary on the world of today.

[SoxFan]

83. What Kira said!

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[KiraBS]

87. Thank you

If you look at peoples lives, it helps to understand why they don't all read much. The working class (It is the working class that the article is refering to, the tabloid reading, Walmart/Asda shopping,that may read Tom Clancy or Danielle Steel sometimes,whose kids love Harry Potter.) busy, mother understandably prefers to unwind in front of the soaps, maybe she would be better enlightened by reading, but she has spent the last three hours stopping her kids from fighting, trying to get them to eat their dinner, helping with homework, battling to get them into bed, she has also been to work after getting the same kids up in the morning and to school. She is exhausted, has a headache and does not need to mentally simulated, she needs to switch off and relax before going to bed at doing the same thing the next morning. If she has a husband or partner he is also often exhausted, he may have read the sports pages and news at work, also doesn't have much time to read. Watching television, maybe talking to his wife, watching Match Of The Day, helping to put the kids to bed is what he is likely to do with the precious few hours between leaving work and going to bed.
Reading takes time, that many people don't have or would rather spend doing something else which to them maybe enriching or help them to live their lives. The books that are best sellers in the UK are either thrillers, stories about someone's terrible childhood, chick lit or bonk busters "Jilly Cooper or Jackie Collins", because the majority of people don't read to improve themselves or to think, they do so to escape, to be entertained, to identify with other people and not much else.
That doesn't make people less intelligent but the people that look down on people that don't read or have just read Harry Potter are not so enlightened about the realities of peoples lives.


I have dyslexia I always found reading a chore, I had to learn to love it, but I had to enjoy what I
was reading or else like many people I lost interest. I recently re-read Jane Eyre after 14 years because until recently I always associated it with exams and coursework, I am sure many are put of the classics for years, because they had to study them in such detail that the enjoyment of just reading classic literature got lost for a few years.

[SoxFan]

103. Your analysis is a good one

I think your analysis is accurate. Reading can and should be a means of mental escape.

Hey, I've got a postgraduate degree, and I make my living slogging through statutes, appelate court decisions, and legal treatises. I also read a lot of non-fiction (history, international affairs, and religion). But I also like to read something that has no bearing on the daily grind. I just picked up a copy of Whitley Streiber's "The Greys", a potboiler about alien abductions. It won't pass the high-concept test, but I love oddball stuff like this.

[Der Blaue Engel]

81. I think some people simply can't stand others enjoying something they don't get

Nothing derogatory against you or anyone else who feels this way about HP, as I think it's entirely unconscious for most and certainly not true for all. But I know many, many highly intelligent people who have read and enjoyed the books, and they continue to read all of the philosphy, politics, and plain ol' adult genre fiction that they have always read. Funny thing about reading: it makes you want to read more.

No, JK Rowling is not a literary genius. They're just fun stories. (And wit-free tone? Please. This man apparently wouldn't recognize wit if it bit him in the ass.)

Ultimately, I think it's sad that some people feel the need to ridicule the enjoyment of others just because it is something they personally don't enjoy. (Unless it's American Idol. Then they're just dolts. :D )

On edit: Edited pronoun as humorless ass who wrote article is male

[Danger Mouse]

86. I really don't see how Harry Potter is causing the death of reading.

As for me, I loved the Harry Potter books, but am also a fan of Poe, King, Vonnegut, Bradbury, Al Franken, Eugene O'Neill, and poets such as Byron and Baudelaire.
I've been a constant reader all of my life, and always will enjoy reading.
I don't find them to be literary crap, but that's just my perspective. I think they get a lot of kids interested in reading, they entertain a lot of people. Is that so evil?
I think television and intellectual elitism are stifling reading more than anything else.

[skygazer]

95. I don't think anyone is saying the Potter books are the cause

I think he's saying that they are a symptom of the problem.

It's difficult to start a discussion on the subject without invoking the Potter books because they are such a phenomenon and people use them to demonstrate that people actually are reading. But in fact, all evidence points to the opposite - that people are reading less and that what they are reading is stuff written by a handful of authors. Gormy Cuss posted a link to an article that said after however many years the Potter books have been out there supposedly encouraging reading, there is in fact no increase and is even a decrease.

Now it's been misinterpreted throughout this thread that I mean people should be reading "better" stuff. Good and bad are subjective and what I like is not going to be what the next person likes. So it's not a matter of WHAT people are reading but whether they are reading at all. And though the literate crew here at DU read a variety of things, sales data and other indicators say that most people don't.

Part of that may be due to levels of literacy but I think we all know intelligent, well-educated people who have not picked up a book to read for pleasure since they graduated college. So what does cause the death of reading?

I think television is definitely part of the issue. It makes people expect to sit back and be entertained without expending any effort or real thought. But I think also the way books are sold and marketed has a lot to do with it as well.

I don't blame JK Rowling for doing what any rational person would do and capitalizing on the popularity of her books. But the reality is, people are approaching reading the same way they approach the latest fad - grab something by a handful of very popular authors and never look beyond that. This is why Stephen King could publish his laundry list and it would be a best seller. Is that Stephen King's fault? No.

The problem with using the Potter books to illustrate this is their very popularity makes people defensive of any criticism of them. But are they really so much better than anything else out there that they merit standing in line for them or staying up all night to read them? I find that hard to believe and think that sort of obsession illustrates something of what I'm trying to say - they are a fad and when they are done, the majority of people who took up the fad will turn to something else. Something that's not a book.

[UncleSepp]

88. Maybe it's something very different

Books are an expensive luxury these days, which may contribute to the decline in book sales. It would seem that used bookstore sales and library usage statistics (alternatives to buying new books) would have to be figured in to get a realistic look at book consumption.

Also, it does not seem that Internet usage is being considered as an alternative to reading books. Instead of buying or borrowing books about a subject, people now can read about what they like to read about online. This is more true for nonfiction and current events than for fiction, but not wholly so.

[Withywindle]

92. I think that's a really big factor too!

I'm a voracious reader, always have been, of all kinds of things (yup, including Harry Potter). Books are a priority for me. And yet I don't buy nearly as many new ones as I used to, not as many as I would like. Sure, I bought the new HP, sometimes I splurge on things like that--but mostly I haunt used bookstores, we have so many great ones in Chicago.

[UncleSepp]

97. Most of the books I read, I borrow from friends

One of us will buy a book, and everybody we know ends up reading the same one - we just pass it around. It's kind of like a serial book club. I mostly read books other people have, or books I find in junk stores and Goodwill. Right now, I am teh broke. Even when I am not broke, I don't buy many books, and if I do, I give them to someone after I'm finished with them so that I am not hoarding ten tons of books in my apartment.

[Withywindle]

99. That too!

Although I do hoard tons of books in my apartment. It always makes moving...interesting. :)

Many of my friends and I have kind of an informal library system going on.

[tigereye]

89. yeah, Pullman does kind of leave her in the dust in some ways..

The Dark Materials trilogy was powerful and totally challenging. It was the most cynical children's book I think I have ever read....

however, at my house, we read Jonathan Strange, Booker prize winners, the Silmarrilion and we read Rowling. No harm done. I think she has a pretty sharp wit at times, and is a clever plotter who often manages to surprise....



on edit, I had read that folks buy more books that ever. I am wondering if my info is out of date....

[jobycom]

91. Much the same thing was said about Shakespeare, Edgar Poe, and Mark Twain.

The death of literature, the death of literature!!!

With Shakespeare, it was that no adult should waste time in romantic fantasies. With Poe, it was that no adult should waste time reading literature that was meant only for entertainment, and that wasn't Shakespeare. With Mark Twain, it was that no adult should read anything that wasn't edifying, and that wasn't Poe or Shakespeare.

Hemingway, James Baldwin, Richard Wright, JRR Tolkein, Hunter S Thompson... Critics are always judging contemporary literature by the last generations ideals. Same thing with music. Every generation rants about how their kids listen to crap, and no one is doing what whomever they liked as kids were doing.

Rowling wrote a series of books for the ages. Her writing is culturally significant, and is enjoyed by more people than any other writer in recent history, probably ever at one time. The handful of critics that don't like her need to stop at saying "I don't like her," rather than trying to insult the vast numbers of people who do. In short, it's time for critics to catch up with society or find other jobs.

[skygazer]

96. Actually something very different was said about all of them

They said that people shouldn't be reading them but should be reading something else and that the death of literature meant that taste was no longer any good. But people were at least reading something.

What is now being said is that people are not reading. At all. And they are not. The issue, once again, is not so much about the quality of the reading but about the quantity. Has Harry Potter actually turned us into a nation of readers? Whether readers of "good" literature or readers of "bad?" No. We are not readers of anything.

The Potter phenomenon is symptomatic of the issue as a whole - people don't read. They join a crazed frenzy of like-minded obsessives to leap on a bandwagon of popularity and read one thing. Harry Potter. Then they go back to not reading. So while millions of people can say, "I read all the Harry Potter books," what does that mean? In terms of anything besides a number?

[Withywindle]

102. Yeah, but it's a little strange to say that

the problem is people not reading, and attempt to "prove" that point with a lot of cheap, smug attacks on people who ARE, in fact, reading.

I don't really have children in my life, so I don't know about the effect on kids, but every adult HP fan I know was an avid reader anyway. Hell, a lot of 'em are English professors. :) Which proves nothing except that, as a book geek, my social circle is naturally skewed towards folks who'll read anything that'll stand still long enough. But no matter what your social circumstances, it almost always sounds elitist and snotty to make pronouncements about The Great Unwashed Masses (whoever they are) and what they should be doing.

Sure, the HP series is a fad--but it's fad that's been going on for ten years. And when the first book was published, it was with a fairly small print run and no hype at all. I heard about 'em first from an online friend of mine who's a YA librarian - the word of mouth was quite real. No fad can last this long if the enjoyment isn't genuine, and it doesn't have some lasting rewards.

[The Straight Story]

94. People read to be entertained, and it looks like it worked with the Potter books

I have not read them myself but millions have and enjoyed them.

Are they well written? Well I don't know, but I know some of the classics people swear by are freakin bore fest - even if they were written well and had good development, they still sucked to me :)

If one writes to simply show how well they can please a critic, then they will never have an audience...

[alarimer]

100. I read nearly everything but I have not read Harry Potter

I guess I thought it was a "kid's book". Well I suppose it is and I am too embarrassed to buy them. LOL. I could say I was buying them for my niece and nephew, who are maybe still a little young for Harry Potter at almost 9 and 8.