Comments on: Harry Potter. The Final Word.

By: Mandi

Mandi — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 14:50:13 +0000

Amen R.

By: R

Wed, 21 Jan 2009 13:00:13 +0000

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.

By: Jessica

Jessica — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 18:57:40 +0000

You eat… BACON??? Bleargh!

By: SFP

SFP — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 15:44:16 +0000

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

By: Brent

Brent — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 03:25:42 +0000

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…