Books Features
Harry Potter Thoughts: the series in summary
By Neil Hester Jul 29, 2007, 14:57 GMT
Harry Potter is a phenomenon. Because of this, it has spawned many opinions, varied in stance. There are those extremists who either praise HP as the greatest thing ever to have graced paper or decry the books as “the death of reading”. It is neither. Before beginning, note these two things: I am a HP fan, but not a zealot. Also, I am part of Rowling’s intended audience, at the age of 16; therefore, I read the series from the intended perspective. Now, let’s look at the basics of HP before breaking it down:
~*Harry Potter is intended for children and teenagers.
~*J.K. Rowling’s writing is shallow.
~*J.K. Rowling’s writing is solid.
~*The storyline, world, and characters are well-wrought.
~*J.K. Rowling is a thief.
~*Harry Potter is great children’s fiction.
As I rather doubt anyone agrees with all of these claims, let’s hit each point:
~~~
Harry Potter is intended for children and teenagers. Not adults. That said, there is nothing wrong with adults embracing it as a light and enjoyable read. Fairly short point, but well worth making. However, there is a side note to be had here– there are some people, children and adults, that can’t seem to get past one or both of two things: light reads and the “bestseller syndrome”. Shallow and popular books certainly have their merit, but the fact that many are reluctant or unable to move past these things is quite a shame, really. This is where the misled “death of reading” notion is spawned; light reads are fine, but to limit one’s experience to them is not. The “bestseller syndrome” is similar to why kids who strive to be popular do and wear certain, widely accepted things and refuse to try anything else.
~~~~~
J.K. Rowling’s writing is shallow. It does not employ complex and difficult passages, nor does it contain intricate parallels and symbolism. The reason for the former is because, as just noted, children are the primary audience. The latter is merely fact; most of Rowling’s parallels and symbolism are quite obvious and blatant, and therefore are noticed by anyone who reads the books. There are morals and lessons, but they are easy to grasp. In short, Harry Potter is neither Moby Dick nor Alice in Wonderland; it does not try to be either of these things, and therefore does not fail in its purpose.
~~~~~
J.K. Rowling’s writing is solid, particularly her dialogue. But Neil, you just said her writing is shallow! So? Shallow and bad are not synonymous; just because her text lacks reams of hidden meaning doesn’t mean it’s shoddily wrought. That said, her writing moves along quite briskly (which is very important, as the point is to tell a story), and also contains a fair deal of humor, which is heavily lacking in literature. There are, perhaps, a few sideplots or occurrences that are unnecessary to the story (school occurrences), but they do serve a purpose (which will be discussed later).
~~~~~
The storyline, world, and characters are well-wrought. This is one of the places where the books pull away from similar works. Obviously, the mass of appealing material reused or recreated here (e.g. magic, witches and wizards, the Philosopher’s Stone, etc.) made it possible for this phenomenon to occur, but if this was all it was, such a craze would have occurred several times already. The storyline is, to be frank, very good. Sure, it is a bit too forgiving a at few points, but remember the primary audience. At least Rowling is willing to kill off some main characters when it’s necessary.
The wizarding world is also well-created, and existent within our own (which is important– more on that later). The primary characters, though archetypal and predictable in some cases, are not one-dimensional lightweights, nor are they psychological studies (with, perhaps, one exception). A few characters in particular are quite interesting (the dialogue helps alot here) and difficult to predict.
~~~~~
J.K. Rowling is a thief, bless her heart. Her writing steals from other sources, as noted in the previous section. Some consider this plagiarism. However, drawing from other people is part of writing; would you prefer for the book to be about rempus and garlos that use ribble instead of witches and wizards that use magic? Once lore is established to mean certain things, why tinker with it when you can reuse it, then expand? Like T.S. Eliot said: “Immature poets imitate; Mature poets steal.” This holds true for art in general.
~~~~~
Harry Potter is great children’s fiction. However, it is not great children’s fiction in the sense that there are complicated allusions and unplumbed depths for the grown reader. HP connects with kids and offers a reprieve from persistent reality; it is escapist fiction that occurs within our own world. The wizarding world exists on earth, hidden from the likes of non-magical people; who can say that such a world doesn’t exist? The same technique is employed in the Narnia series, the Oz series, and in the Alice books, and compels children to ponder over the question of what is real.
Harry Potter further mixes the ordinary with the extraordinary; though Hogwarts is a school of wizardry, students still must attend classes, do homework, and take tests. The characters have crushes, go through puberty, and are, save for the magic, quite like normal teenagers. Pull such a combination together with good, brisk writing, and you have something reluctant kids are willing to actually read. That children and teenagers are reading these books, enjoying themselves, and taking in the simple, but existent, lessons and symbolism, is admirable, and preferable to the alternative of them not reading anything. It’s a shame that many will never move on to enjoy other books, for there is so much grand and exciting literature to be had; really, though, how is that Rowling’s fault?
~~~~~~~
In short, Harry Potter is a well-written children’s fiction series that manages to pull kids in despite the current reign of visceral and lazy media, something that so many books fail in doing. It’s not the greatest or deepest writing ever, nor is it bad or “the death of reading”; it’s a light, enjoyable, and appealing story. Oh, and by the way– I do rather wish I was a wizard.
~Neil Hester will be entering his third year of high school. He is a poet who blogs at http://laevanesce.blogspot.com/
COMMENT
blog comments powered by DisqusLatest Headlines in Books
- 1. 'Sex, drugs and relationships' Dr. Reef to Book Expo signing in NYC
- 2. Book Review: Song of the Serpent
- 3. Book Review: Bloodman
- 4. Book Review: The Last Myth
- 5. Book Review: Skeleton Picnic
Older Talkback
page: 1
Neil,
As a 16 year old trying to sound much older and wiser you fail. Rowling's prose was written for children and adults. you are wrong. Secondly, there is not much written today, that hasn't 'borrowed' from other writings. Please get off the soapbox, and admit your wrong.
I seldom comment on anything in the fields of entertainment and arts because so little of it is worth bothering about. Rowling's work is an exception. It stands head and shoulders above the bulk of writing aimed at ANY audience today. The Harry Potter series IS a coming of age story from beginning to end. This is true and it DOES tend to attract the attention of younger audiences. These facts take nothing away from the genius of Rowling's masterpiece.
Read through the eyes of a young person there seems to be but one story mainly about one person and his closest friends and his mentors, but an adult reader sees more than one story in this series of books and it about much more than just the brave Harry Potter and his younger cohorts. Many younger readers will put these books aside thinking of them as being little different than their toys. At age forty, or perhaps even as young as age thirty, if they ever have the good sense to have another go at reading the Harry Potter series, they will be shocked to discover that they are reading and entirely different, and much larger story.
I think this quality is precisely what a great many adult critics dislike about the Harry Potter series. It is about heroism and doing what is right in the face of sore temptation, but it is NOT done simply and it does raise questions that many attempting to lead the world of our day do not want raised. They same sort of people who dislike these books today will not like them when its youngest readers reach age forty. They want individuals to feel hapless and inert. They will always want us all to fell that way.
This series is a highly valuable work. It will be just as valuable twenty years from now as it has been today. Harry Potter is not fad, but a classic. Anyone who says otherwise is pulling your leg and his or her own as well.
For me, the most impressive product of this series has been the sheer number of well thought out summaries and reviews on the internet posted by people aged 14-20. I had always thought of this age group as a virtual literary dead zone, locked into indifferently reading 'The Great Gatsby' in school. Ranting or raving, the sheer volume of well thought out insights and commentaries on the series is impressive. This leads me to the initial conclusion that these books will have a lasting positive effect that will mature as it's readers do. Prove me right...
Jon-
Neil isn't claiming that writing isn't or shouldn't be borrowed from others. Read the paragraph where he quotes Eliot. Also, HP is written for children. Like it or not, you can read it as an adult if you wish and even enjoy it, but ultimately the HP series are children's books.
I am responding to the following (in the inverted commas below). It was a comment made by KV:
'kvJul 30th, 2007 - 05:46:08'
'Niel, You are an idiot!!!'
How is Neil an idiot? I could take this further with the following proposition: only an idiot would state a conclusion/proposition without giving a reason. Kv, you have not given a reason. Therefore, sir, you are an idiot! Notice how my statement/propositions have some sort of force behind it. People can refer to my reasoning and agree/disagree accordingly.
KV, you are an idiot!
Man, you have been getting a lot of flack here, haven't you. Well, I don't have too much to add because I agree with all of your points. I am a traditional college student (meaning I am of the normal age group not that I have strong traditions) so I am almost, although not quite, in the intended age group.
I have read all the Harry Potter books. For the most part I enjoyed them; I had a hard time putting them down and while I didn't wait in front of a bookstore all night for number seven, I did read the entire thing in one sitting. That said, Harry Potter is way over-hyped. It is a great story for people in its intended audience. However, adults that rave that it is the best thing since sliced bread need to expand their literary horizons. I recommend Orson Scott Card, whose writing has always seemed similarly escapist but far more compelling.
Harry Potter is a simple character. He is 100% good. He makes mistakes occasionally, he gets angsty, but as a protagonist he is simple. Rowling's greatest strength is her engaging world. Her characters, on the other hand, are only slightly more complicated than by-the-book archetypes. They are likable, but they are personifications of the traits they possess. Perhaps the only truly human character in the entire series is Snape, which is why there is so much attention paid to him by the fan community despite the fact he is fairly unlikable. People like Snape because he is the only morally ambiguous character. He is the only one who really struggles, consistently to do the right thing.
Anyway, that's my two cents.
Mr. College Student,
Put the series away for about five years and read it again. You'll see something very different from what you saw the first time out.
I would have to agree with most of your points, except for the part about HP being shallow. There are allusions and layers here that even such an erudite and obviously well-read 16-year-old as yourself would simply not have had the time or literary experience to catch unless someone has had you locked up somewhere with no access to any sort of interchange except literature. I'm a college graduate, and I have been an avid reader all my life. And I have to say, that although I never waited for midnight in a bookstore or attended a Harry Potter book party of any kind, that I think this is a classic children's literature series. Which means that old women such as myself can read it over again and again and see new meanings. Which begs the question: what is good children's literature?
You are right, in that there are other works of equal and possibly greater value. And I wish I could have expressed myself half so well back in the olden days 'when I was your age'.
I disagree with the following points below:
Firstly harry potter is written not only for children and teenagers but for adults aswell .If you think that its only written for children you most likely should think again because as I know most older people/adults love to read magical books that have a sense of adventure. Most adults find that they can just sit there and read the book all night and day without letting the book go.
Secondly J.K Rowlings writing is not shallow. I think that she does involve serious thought to this series of books, this series is like making another world and honestly serious thoughts do go into all this because making another world in ones mind is brilliant and hard working to do. You need to have a sense of adventure and throughout these books there is alot of adventure.
Lastly J.K Rowling is not a thief many books around have not been made with this type of magical mind. I have read the whole series and I doubt that J.K Rowling is a thief.
Therefore J.K Rowling is a great writer.
I will say this for JK Rowling. The universe that she created was absolutely brilliant. It's a pity that the human interaction and the development that her characters: Harry Potter, Ronald Weasley, and Hermione Granger didn't develop emotionally from the first book. As a series, as a developing character Ronald was constantly bickering with Hermione Granger. Somehow, the writer translated this into love? Now don't get me wrong, I playfully banter with my wife as much as the next husband, and sometimes we get into heated arguments, but with that comes compromise; at times, and resolution, ultimately.
Their interaction was lacking in having a basis for friendship and the only times that was presented differently was during times of written crisis.
The same could be said for 'Keep your head down' Harry Potter. Not much of a change outside of a little angst that expanded due to additional stimuli contributing to his NORMAL life.
A complete lack of subplots, ultimately and alot of unanswered questions.
Finally, Ginny Weasley? She was a relatively non-character in the story, although I'm sure it will be different with the blockbuster Half-Blood Prince comes out on the big screen. Ginevra Molly Weasley has hardly any character interaction within the whole series and somehow it's believable that she gets her knight in shining armor, Harry Potter? She says at the conclusion of Half-Blood Prince, 'I knew you'd never be happy unless you were chasing after Voldemort,' as if it's dogma or fact, when clearly the whole series indicates he just wants to be normal.
The final book I read in a day and it was a terribly disappointing day, much like the one I spent reading Half-Blood Prince. Too much time galavanting about the country-side in a tent. Ron being the normal jealous type, Hermione crying, and subplots with Albus Dumbledore which really didn't make the story any better.
The introduction of the death hallows and the revelation that Harry's LUCK was the power the dark lord knows not was a great disappointment.
I would say do not dismiss this as simply a children's book series meant for children as we were all children once upon a time.
There are plenty of other things out there to read, as some of the other critic's, here, have said. Recommendations for an adult? I'm going to have to say a little Stephen King's The Stand, Robert R. McCammon's Baal, Swan Song, Usher's Passing, or Clive Barker's Weaveworld, Imajica, The Great and Secret Show and Everville. Clive Barker is my favorite as he does paint very interesting worlds and presents his characters well.
Geovanni Luciano
The Harry Potter series is many things. Romantic, adventerous, and kid friendly are a few words that exlain it.
So right but so wrong. I have to say many of J.K Rowling's ideas are from other series like Chronicles of Narnia and especially from Lord of the Rings, but one can't just say that Harry Potter is JUST for kids and teens because of the type of writing is a lower level and slow. The topic, plot, and theme are what engage a reader, not how the writing is made for children to understand.
page: 1
Dianna StuckeyJul 30th, 2007 - 02:26:29
I am a senior citizen and could not wait for the last book. This book is not just for children, I have some adult friends who enjoy these books. I started reading HP books to my grandson, who now is turning 16 and was not interested in reading the last book but I was so hooked by this time I had a lost week-end and read it. Very well done, no loose ends, crisp and refreshing. Then, of course, I am still quite a child at heart and love Merlin, Lord of the Rings, Arthur & Knights of the Round Table and all the magical tales. I can't think of a better way to escape the turbulent real life we hear on the news everyday, even if it just for a short time. Maybe to many people have lost their child within and that is why they are so cranky and critize these kinds of stories.
Report this comment