Harry Potter. The Final Word.
OK, here is the breakdown.
I think there are two objections to my dismissal of Harry Potter. One, that I’m missing something that is really there or that I ought to be able to enjoy them although I don’t. And two, that my rejection of them entails a rejection of those who do read and enjoy them.
Second objection first.
I think we can all agree that not all writing is equal in aesthetic value or in net benefit to the reader. Any reading is better than none but some reading is just better. Shakespeare is not the same as the Hardy Boys and Jane Austen is not the equal of Harlequin romances. There are many reasons why good writing is good and among those are vocabulary, accomplishment of the set purpose, beauty, truth and what not. There is much debate (and should be much debate) over where the lines are and who gets to set the standards and how a book is measured against them. My favorite test is time. So if we agree that there are some standards somewhere then some books will fall beneath them. I don’t think we should burn them but I do think that they should eventually fall into disuse.
Now, Harry Potter fell beneath the bar for me. I think he ended up being a waste of time and so wouldn’t recommend him to someone who sought my advice on the subject. I have reasons for thinking this but thinking this does not mean that I automatically assume that everyone who disagrees with me is somehow deficient intellectually. I obviously think that I’m right (otherwise I’d be an absurdity) but I am open to being dissuaded and open to agreeing to disagree with someone who doesn’t want to debate the issue with me. I’m opinionated and pretty good at the whole argument thing so I can see someone just thinking it wasn’t worth their time and energy to convince me of my error in judgment about poor Harry even if they were sure of their knowledge.
And apart from that, it is perfectly normal and comprehensible for us to do things that are clearly “bad” for us if we derive sufficient enjoyment from them. I love candy. LOVE candy. Mmmm sugar. Mmmmm high-fructose corn syrup. Ditto bacon, lots and lots of yummy bacon. And while intellectually assenting to the assertion that high-fructose corn syrup is an unredeemable evil, I still eat it. So even if you acknowledge with me that the Harry Potter books are essentially worthless and still opt to read them, I’m still not going to condemn you in my mind or in public as an un-intelligent slob. Your choice, your life, your time, your pleasures. And I really, really like both Jessica and Timmee!!. Jessica is funny and smart and read a freaking 409 books last year. Nothing but respect! Timmee!!, you’re funny too and fun, you make my dear friend very happy and you’ve got just about the world’s best voice, so nothing but love and respect there either.
Now for objection number one.
Drivel may have been a bit harsh…
BUT, I think Rowling is a lazy writer. Her prose is cliche-ridden and bland. I think that while she was imaginitive, creating never-before seen creatures, she still essentially wrote about life in England with magic functioning as an advanced technology. Reading about the Ministry of Magic is just like reading 1984. And that is not a compliment for a supposedly mythological and epic series. The series feels extremely souless to me…although I am glad that it got a single mom off of welfare! My credentials for stating said objections are simply that I’ve read 4 & 1/4 of the books in the series, read pretty all the books Harry has been compared to either favorably or unfavorably and am as opinionated as hell…
Fair enough?
January 16th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
I think it is fair. But I would like to point out something you and I are probably assuming other people know. I can not find the exact quote as I am not at home, but I am sure you know where it is from:
The authors of “The Green Book” related a well-known story about Coleridge overhearing two sightseers looking at a magnificent waterfall. One of the sightseers called it “sublime”; the other called it “pretty.” Upon hearing these two descriptions, Coleridge proclaimed the first correct and the latter mistaken. The authors of the textbook chided Coleridge for such a proclamation, since there was no basis on which such a critique could be made. They argued that the sightseers were not really making statements about the waterfall; they were merely relating their subjective feelings about the waterfall. The authors added, “This confusion is continually present in language as we use it. We appear to be saying something very important about something: and actually we are only saying something about our own feelings.”
And of course it will only make sense if you read the rest…
January 17th, 2009 at 8:44 am
I’m largely indifferent as to whether any one individual reader likes or dislikes Harry Potter–swim wherever in the ocean of books you like–but my son grew up with the series so I’ll always have fond memories of it. My daughter, on the other hand, was just a bit too old for the books and. like you, regarded them as drivel.
I don’t agree that the books are a waste of time. I’m linking to Michael Berube’s article Harry Potter and the Power of Narrative, which, I said when I linked to it in my own post on Harry Potter a couple years ago, is a sensible discussion of the book’s effects on his son.
http://www.thecommonreview.org/fileadmin/template/tcr/pdf/berube61.pdf
January 20th, 2009 at 11:57 am
You eat… BACON??? Bleargh!
January 21st, 2009 at 6:00 am
I haven’t read this post to completion because I am running out of time and have to get on the treadmill and off to school work, but I KNOW this is why I have not read them myself. They are massive books most likely poorly written and a waste of my time. I would rather pick up a Wilkie Collins book or read the whole novel collection of Thomas Hardy and actually get something out of it. I don’t care about the wizards and whatnot. Good versus evil I know is plain in the story. My kids can read it, I don’t care. There are just other great books to read and I don’t want to waste it on modern popcorn-reading garbage.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:50 am
Amen R.