Do Harry Potter books really deserve the success they have enjoyed?

She did bring something new.

I guess so. Never read one, but those who have seem to like them. If that's not deserving of success I don't know what is.

I absolutely think they do. Are they the best examples of literature out there? No. But did they capture the minds and hearts of children who, TRUST ME, will only read something they want to read? Yes. Which means she did something very right.

Also, she lead lots of kids to books in general and gave adults and kids something to share and talk about. For that, I'd give J.K. Rowling a medal.

I don't think they deserve the crazed levels of success but I don't begrudge them the success either. To me they seem fairly ordinary when contrasted with other children's fantasy like those by Diana Wynne Jones, but at the same time, I'm sure more people read Diana Wynne Jones as a result of Harry Potter, so I can't complain if it gets more people reading some great books, although I do wonder what other people see in the Harry Potter books specifically. I have read them all and enjoyed them, but not particularly more than any other children's fantasy. The one thing they have going for them is that you can discuss them with so many people, since the same can't be said of all great children's fantasy, but I think that's more a product of the success than the reason for it...

Edited to unsuccessfully try to fix touchstones...

The story behind the Harry Potter series has lots of hooks that the media could grab onto. At some point, the media fires up the public, the public reaction becomes a media story (even though the media caused it), and everything starts feeding on itself to create its own firestorm. But if there wasn't some inherent appeal in the first place, the storm would never have happened.

What is it with me and double posting lately? Sorry.

yes

They were entertaining. different. And they did indeed draw kids to books again, imo. Anything that dragged them away from their joysticks deserves plenty of raise.

I enjoyed each book more than the one before. They are what they are. Not great literature, never claimed to be, but they were kids books and darned good ones that many adults enjoyed as well..

I have to agree with mckait. Anything that gets kids and some adults reading is a wonderful thing. I work with a lot of readers and we discuss the Harry Potter books more than any other books.

Diverting children away from video games was definitely a feat

Something I read in our local paper always stayed in my mind: "When 12 year old boys stand in line for hours to buy a 700 page book, that's a good thing."

minhajalishahid says that Rowling brought something new.

Did she?

If so, what?

It sounds to me like she (perhaps very skillfully) recycled a lot of very old tropes.

I haven't read the books, so I may be entirely wrong about that. Please let me know if I am.

Given that there are only 16 or so basic plots (unless the bookworld upgrade to a 32plot operating system has happened yet) it's hard for any current author to achieve total newness. But JKR certainly managed a well concieved magical world behind the ordinary one, pig boy coming to realise unexpected birthright with older mentor figure, quest for items, childish bullying, growing up, and overcoming powers of evil - basic fantasy story in a convincing manner. Personally i thought they peaked at book4 and needed a much heavier editor's hand after that.

They are escapist fluff, but enjoyable all the more so for that.

Deserve multimillion £/$ accolades? Can you point to anything that actually dserves that level of wealth? JKR did write it, didn't overly artifically milk the publicity (at leats to begin with) and so it is in some respects honest public support. That the public sometimes has bad taste is not debatable.

What i was trying to say was her achiavement in diverting children.
Otherwise I think Mr Fox, below is pretty correct.

I agree with Kira #5. They didn't really deserve it of themselves, but the interest in reading that they generated was a good thing, and I'm happy that it was Harry Potter that created the big wave rather than something less original or engaging.

Yes.

Getting that many people reading is worth all the success they have gained.

reading_fox writes, "Given that there are only 16 or so basic plots (unless the bookworld upgrade to a 32plot operating system has happened yet) it's hard for any current author to achieve total newness."

Certainly it's difficult, but it can be done, usually by playing with components of the novel other than its storyline. In Ulysses, for example, James Joyce used a plot that had been around at least since Homer and managed to create a novel that is still seen as one of the most innovative ever written.

From what I gather, Rowling has done nothing of the kind. Rather she has written books that employ familiar story lines and conform to forms fantasy novels for young folks have often taken.

Again, I haven't read the books, so correct me if I've got it wrong.

TL Crawford, echoing a couple of other participants in this discussion, writes of Rowling's books, "Getting that many people reading is worth all the success they have gained."

The assumption seems to be that reading is, by definition, and regardless of what one is reading, a good thing.

I, like most LibraryThingers, am a passionate reader. It' s how I spend most of my discretionary time, and it has probably brought me more pleasure than just about anything else in a pleasure filled life. It has also, of course, brought me a great deal of knowledge, and expanded my universe in ways that I don't think could have happened without books.

However . . .

I'm not sure that I'm willing to jump from my love of reading to the notion that reading is an absolute good to which everyone should devote as much of their limited time as possible. Life is a zero-sum game. Time spent reading is time spent not doing something else.

Is reading necessarily better than other activities young people (also older people) might enjoy such as: playing the flute, writing poetry, collecting and studying insects, cooking, painting, hiking, conversing with friends, learning a foreign language, learning calculus, and so on and on and on?

If so, why?

Personally, I'd rather read than do any of the things I have listed. But that's just me. I'm not sure I should generalize from my own preferences.

What do you think?

I think the assumption is that the time spent reading, in this case, is time NOT spent playing video games, watching "reality" tv, surfing the internet, waving at each other on Facebook or Myspace, texting inane comments to each other, etc., etc.

Video games: participatory, often social
Surfing the internet: participatory (after a fashion), even occasionally educational.
Waving at each other on Facebook or Myspace: social interaction
Texting inane comments to each other: social interaction

i don't know that i would necessarily class any of those things as less fulfilling than reading, per se. I personally tend to read escapist stuff. Other than giving me a decent vocabulary and improving my (written) expression, i doubt that reading improves me particularly as a person. I just happen to enjoy it more than the activities listed above.

I agree on reality TV, though. It's the devil.

I didn't get that assumption at all. I don't think it was about reading vs not reading and that reading was better. But rather that it was about anything that adds reading to a person's list of activites. Many of those I work with feel reading takes to much time, is to much trouble and, unfortunatly, to many feel it's boring. If the Harry Potter books shows them otherwise then that's a good thing and maybe they'll try other books. I don't think that statement meant all or nothing. Only a few readers I know read every spare minute. Most of my friends, myself included, have many interest in addition to reading.

# 18

No one said that

"reading is an absolute good to which everyone should devote as much of their limited time as possible. Life is a zero-sum game. Time spent reading is time spent not doing something else."

Reading, and indeed playing and amusing themselves are skills that children are losing these days. For goddess sake there are books that read themselves to kids so parents don't have to. The toys leave nothing to the imagination anymore.

So many kids have never even been introduced to the pleasures of reading. How sitting down with a book filled only with words can let your imagination soar.. can take you places that you have never thought to dream of. Reading is a skill, as well as a pleasure. Once you have the skill, you learn the pleasure. And you learn that once you are a skilled reader, the entire world of knowledge is open to you. Like any skill, it is honed by doing. It is a part of so many things!

Not just pleasure reading, not just learning.. but everyday tasks can depend on being able to not only read but to comprehend.

edited to clarify

>22 mckait:, seconded.

But, in my experience (ya librarian) just because a kid reads Harry Potter doesn't mean he'll ever read anything else. I'd like to think that Potter opened the eyes of millions of children who suddenly begin to seek out books, similar or otherwise. But I tend to see "Is Harry Potter in? No? Oh... no, that's the only book I read." And they leave.

Of course, nothing works on everyone.

Absolutely, if for no other reason than encouraging kids to read. We were on vacation when the last one was published and we took my then 13 yr old son to Borders to pick it up at midnight the night it came out. The next evening at the airport, there were so many people either reading it or asking about it, it was like a very successful community read.

I was in my 50s when the first book of the series came out. Altough I never enjoyed fantasy, I bought "Sorcerer's Stone" out of curiosity because it had gotten such rave reviews. I fell in love with Harry Potter on the first page. To this day, I don't know which surprised me more: the charm of the story or my reaction to it. I also remember feeling saddened when the book ended and I had to leave that world.

Count me in as one of those people who attended a Harry Potter party when the next book in the series came out, and one who stood in line at midnight to get my own copy. I also came home and began reading it at one in the morning. My husband thought I was crazy.

Since then, all of my adult children have become fans and as soon as the grandchildren are old enough, I expect to turn them on as well.

Oh, I forgot to mention...

They may not have had terribly original plots, but as other people have said better, they don't have to. When I first read Sorcerer's Stone, at the age of 13, it had a voice that I hadn't come across before. With all the made-up words and the weird adverbs and things like that, it just made it fun to read, and her characters were quirky. I haven't read further than the fifth book yet, but the later ones seem to be much darker and much less concise than that first one, which makes them less pleasant to read for me, but that's what I found "new" in that first book. It was fun in a way other books weren't.

mckait believes I have assumed too much, and may be right. As a teacher used to tell us in high school: "when you assume you make an 'ass' out of 'u' and 'me.'"

mckait writes:

"No one said that

'reading is an absolute good to which everyone should devote as much of their limited time as possible. Life is a zero-sum game. Time spent reading is time spent not doing something else.'"

I said: "Life is a zero sum game. Time spent reading is time spent not doing something else." I thought the statement was noncontroversial, just a statement of fact.

The first part of the snippet mckait quotes, though, is perhaps where I assumed too far. That's where I say other posters in the thread seem to believe that: "reading is an absolute good to which everyone should devote as much of their limited time as possible."

I do think that it's hard not to extrapolate from statements (taken from comments above) like: "Anything that gets kids and some adults reading is a wonderful thing," and "When 12 year old boys stand in line for hours to buy a 700 page book, that's a good thing," and "the interest in reading that they generated was a good thing," the notion that reading is, by definition, good.

Notice that, for the above posters, it doesn't seem to matter what the kids are reading. What seems to be important is simply that they are reading.

So my question remains: Is reading, regardless of what one is reading, an absolute good? And if so, why?

I don't know where you got the "reading is an absolute good to which everyone should devote as much of their limited time as possible."

I do think that having a love of reading, which the Harry Potter books have given to hundreds of thousands of kids, is infinitely better than not reading at all.

If it takes trash to get them reading, then more power to trash. I think we can all agree that kids who read trash are much more likely to move up to better quality reading than kids that never read.

Well put TLCrawford.

an absolute good?

No. What is an absolute good, anyways?

I think J.K Rowling is a genius. Not only when I have read her books, am I thinking, "How could someone (a mere human, I might add or is she a witch in hiding??) come up with so much and write it so well?" Now, I am a GIANT fan of Twilight but I would only give the writing a C and the storyline an A+ but for Harry Potter, I would give the writing an A (especially as the series progressed, her writing got more and more emotional and powerful) and the storyline an A+++. It is amazing how she could write SEVEN (!!) books and every one is more captivating and better than the last. And how J.K interlaced the storyline so subtlely and without really knowing - WHAM! you realize that all those little hints, all those little secrets added up to the seventh book. I am still trying to (unsuccessfully) pick my jaw off the floor and I read the seventh book months ago. J.K Rowling is the best writer out there (male or female). She has made me cry, she has made me laugh (good, old Ronald!), she has made me hold my breath in anticipation and anyone that can do that is amazing. Also, Harry is the very unlikely hero, a small, scrawny, bespectacled boy who wears his fat cousin's castsoff, hmm, not very hero-ish but that is what makes him so brilliant. I think it is the charm of the unlikeliness that just draws people in. Also, the seventh book satisfied EVERYONE unlike Stephenie Meyer's fourth book, Breaking Dawn, the conclusion to the Twilight saga that left more than 50% of fans (not including me) in a state of, "This is it? This is what we've been waiting months for?" It was like that because Stephenie Meyer is simply not a good writer, yes, she is very creative but ONLY WITH HER STORYLINE!! Her writing is very mediocre and leaves MUCH to the imagination but when I am reading Harry, the words are running through my head like a movie. Another point is that I don't think Stephenie Meyer would have enjoyed that much success if Edward was average-looking (let's face it, who wants to read about an ugly vampire saving his equally plain human girlfriend? No one!) But who wants to read about the most beautiful man on the face of the planet who is also a vampire saving the love of his existence whom is only a normal, human girl?? EVERYONE !!Harry WAS average-looking but it was his sincerity, his modesty and his general goodness was what won everyone over. I think Harry will be read for hundreds of years to come. Well done, J.K Rowling, you are a genuis and have brought imcomprhensible joy to everyone!

I haven't read the books, have seen a couple of the movies, and yeah, I can see it.

She has brought a lot to the kids today. I have cousins who didn't like reading, and they have most of the books and read them. Scott was reading through all of the books again before he read the final book.

These books will definitely become classics along the lines of On The Road and Mark Twain. Since they are written in a language more kids today can readily comprehend.

I only hope these are gateway books, meaning more kids start reading more after reading these books.

The extent of Rowling's success if a bit of a mystery, but she did do something special with her books. I think the main thing she did that was new was write a young-adult fairy tale for our times.

Like, say, Alice in Wonderland, it has magic, it's irreverent and when the child does something bad instead of getting punished they are rewarded with great discoveries. But, also kids can be disgusting, pursue disturbing humor, it has sports, even a shinny new millennium broom. Somehow it's anti-school without being anti-school... I mean they do magic in school instead of the three R's. Also, it's approachable by anyone of practically any age that can read, and more then anything it's charming.

TLCrawford: "I don't know where you got the "reading is an absolute good to which everyone should devote as much of their limited time as possible."

I think I did assume too much in the second part of the statement TLCrawford quoted: "to which everyone should devote as much of their limited time as possible." The first part of my statement, which is the part I tried to focus on in my most recent post, I get from, once again, quotes like these (from earlier entries in this thread):

"Anything that gets kids and some adults reading is a wonderful thing," and "When 12 year old boys stand in line for hours to buy a 700 page book, that's a good thing," and "the interest in reading that they generated was a good thing."

That's how I managed to jump, some have said wildly, to the conclusion that for some people *anything* that gets kids reading is good, regardless of what it is (see the first quotation), that when kids are excited enough about a book (particularly a long one) that they are eager to wait in line to buy it that this is necessarily a good thing (see the second quotation), and that interest in reading is, necessarily, a good thing (see the third quotation). If the authors of these quotations want to tell me that my reading of what they wrote is not at all what they meant, of course I must defer to them. As they stand, though, my reading of these posts seem to me valid.

My gut feeling, as a passionate reader, is that reading is a good thing; I was just hoping to find a way to support that gut feeling a bit more objectively. I guess this is difficult to do, because almost no one on the thread has attempted to answer my question. I'll rephrase it, removing the word "absolute" which, for some, seems problematic.

Is reading, regardless of what one is reading, a good thing?

On a peripheral note, I think the jury is still out on whether the Harry books actually do turn kids on to reading . . . anything besides Harry Potter. See FFortuna's post (#23) above.

The article at http://www.theonion.com/content/node/31389 is, of course, humor, but I think it may be humor with a valid point.

Argh, LT's eating my posts again. Trying again...

Argh!

31, I respect your opinion and I'm always glad when people don't equivocate. And I certainly agree about not wanting to read about plain-looking vampires. But I don't particularly agree with giving the writing an A, except maybe in the first few books. I think she COULD have gotten an A from me if she'd edited out about half the pages in the later books and kept me from having to use the words "slogging through" in reference to them. Also, your assertion that the seventh book satisfied everyone isn't quite true. The majority of the people I've talked to in person have had a lot of complaints about it. Although they still read and re-read it, so it may be one of those "love to complain about this" things.

dcozy, 34, I think to an extent reading is an intrinsic good. It engages the mind in a way other mediums don't. And, by sheer virtue of books being CONSIDERED to be intellectual objects, and the fact that until recently only the highly educated were literate, and the concept of the "literati," the idea of reading is still caught up with that. This can be really annoying, as in the case of kids who don't read because they consider it schoolwork, but for other kids that's a draw. Since it still tends to be the "smart" kids who read, the more one reads the more one hangs around with the smart kids. And if you're one of the lucky kids who IS turned on to other books by Harry Potter, eventually you'll make your way around to the heady books, which most of us here will probably agree are edifying.

That said, there are movies that are conceivably just as edifying. There's also music, and significant social interaction. (I'm of the opinion that "hi" "hi" "oh g2g bbl" "k ttyl" does NOT constitute a conversation.) I think if you invest the thought into a movie that you invest into a book, you can get just as much out of it. But the fact is most people don't invest thought into a movie, whereas to read a book you HAVE to be participating in the event at least a little bit.

And I stand by my previous post... I have been able to convince one or two kids to take home another book to read "until Harry Potter comes back," but they're usually content to play videogames until then.

It has been said that the enormous popularity of books like Harry Potter, Eragon, and Twilight have helped remove the stigma kids attach to reading. They've definitely removed any stigma attached to reading those SPECIFIC books, one can only hope that open reading of other books will follow.

In the case of children and tweeners, there are, of course, obvious extreme examples of things kids this age should not read. That said, I would still come down on the side of the "let's-get-em-to-read-something" group.

There are so many activities, not all of them strictly healthy, that bid for a kid's time. If said child has a good experience reading an engaging exciting book, he/she will at least be open to the idea of reading again. Let's also remember that themes and ideas we see as trite and obvious, are usually brand new to the kids. They might be seeing these ideas for the very first time. I see this as a good thing.

When I first began running school libraries, I welcomed Nancy Drew and Louis L'Amour. Eventually, the student ran out of their prefered titles (sometimes that took a LONG time!), and I was there to gently nudge them on to a similar book in the genre, sometimes one slightly more challenging.

Kids reading Harry Potter simply because it's the popular thing to do, may or may not become habitual readers. But they have at least been exposed to the fun, the classic references, the idea of another world closely related to ours, but so different. I see that as a good thing - nearly absolute!

mckait believes I have assumed too much, and may be right. As a teacher used to tell us in high school: "when you assume you make an 'ass' out of 'u' and 'me.'"

That phrase is one of my pet peeves. Assumptions are a necessary part of everyday life. I assume my alarm clock will wake me up in the morning and that my workplace hasn't burned down overnight. I assume that the sun will rise in the morning and I won't be attacked by zombies during breakfast. If we didn't make assumptions we'd have to think everything we do from first principles and we would spend all our time thinking and not doing. Not all of our assumptions can be right all of the time but if they are wrong we just make the necessary adjustments and move on. People who get annoyed and smarmy because you have made an incorrect assumption make my blood boil.

You may now resume your previous thread.

I'm not sure I really want to chime in here, but keeping my mouth shut was never a strong suit for me, so here goes. I'm not a teacher or lit major or anything like that. I am reasonably well-educated and have a life-long love of reading (among other things). I also have 4 kids of my own, and this is what I think about Harry Potter.

I am a big fan of HP because they are fun books to read. I think that is why the kids like them. They are classic children's fantasy fiction - real life is where bad things happen, but the fantasy world is where the adults are slow and the kids are able to save the day. Rowling may not be a great writer in a literary sense (how would I know?) and she may not have come up with anything truly original. But she did do something special. She is a talented writer, able to draw readers into the world she created and make something fantastic seem ordinary. Maybe she was just in the right place at the right time, but the fact that she was able to produce a series of books that make kids WANT to stand in line at the bookstore on Friday nights to buy a 500-page book is pretty impressive to me. That she was able to produce a series that appeal to all ages is also impressive. As a family, we have read all 7 books. We used to get them on tape and listen to them in the car on long trips. The characters and plots are sufficiently well-developed and complex that they prompted endless hours of actual conversation as we discussed why a certain character acted as they did or speculated on what might happen next and why.

As a life-long reader, these books had little impact on my reading habits. But my husband, a lukewarm reader before, is now much more enthusiastic and willing to try lots of new genres and authors that he would not have considered before. We now read other books together and discuss them, which is a whole new level of pleasure in reading I never experienced before. As for the kids - of the four, 2 are readers and 2 are not. They've all been exposed to HP, in the car if nowhere else. One of the readers, and one of the non-readers were cool on the books. The other non-reader made a point of reading each new HP book as it came out, but never read anything else. The other reader, the youngest of the bunch, grew up with HP and, when he first began reading, wanted only to read HP or similar books. Now in high school, he reads very widely and will try anything once. His sister, the non-reader who didn't like HP, is discovering that not all books are like Harry Potter and is slowly beginning to read for pleasure for the first time.

I guess reading is like any number of other wholesome activities, music and athletics to name two. Some people are naturals beginning in childhood and need no encouragement. Others will never enjoy it. Still others need convincing. With these people, we can only plant the seed - expose them to something easily accessible and see if they respond. I think the Harry Potter books provided an excellent "seed" to be planted in the minds of this generation of young readers. However, as evidenced by my daughter, it is not universally effective. But then, nothing is, is it?

There are the Harry Potter books, and there's the Harry Potter "phenomenon". Are the books good? I'ld say yes, pretty darned good. They are witty, imaginative, charming, inventive, moral, civilized humane and jolly good fun all at once.

Are they great ? Is there high language and deep wisdom, quotable quotes and thought provoking moments or situations which resonate across time and space? Maybe not so much.

Is or was the "phenomenon" a "good thing" (tm)? Well,
it made Rowling quite a bundle, and considering who usually gets rich and for what reasons...I'm thinking importers of uh, agricultural products (Cough cough) and female um "entertainers", I'ld say that's a "good thing" all around. Motivating otherwise illiterate or at least un bookish kids to read cant be all a bad thing, though the reading habit may not have generalized as widely as one might have hoped. I understand certain right wing evangelistic/fundamentalist/pentecostal religious wingnuts were discomfited, and how can that be bad?

Bottom line I'ld say: The world is "richer" with the HP books and would be poorer without them, but not by quite so much as the wilder enthousiasts would have it.

I think what a lot of people are forgetting is that the Harry Potter books first succeeded by word of mouth.

I introduced my nephews and nieces to them, reading them aloud, when only the first two books were available and I started because I overheard two little girls in a bookshop rhapsodising.

Yes, the media helped but not until the books were established - at least in the UK.

I also think that a lot of people have forgotten that they also ushered in a new era of children's literature acceptable to boys. I very much doubt that Darren Shan, Lemony Snickett, Philip Pullman or the chap I can't spell who writes Artemis Fowl would have had the mass market success they have had. I have two nephews who were reluctant readers and both are now quite content to read a book as entertainment if nothing else.

Also JKR is, to judge by her charitable contributions, good people.

I guess the Harry Potter books left minhajalishahid speechless?

They weren't THAT good!

I've been reading fantasy all my life so it's difficult to impress me, but these books did. So much fantasy is self-important and black-and-white. "We must use our powers for good, not evil!" and so on. Rowling's witches and wizards think it's a good use of magic to make teacups bite people's noses, or to make candies that hop in the stomach like frogs, or to hex your enemies every now and then for amusement. And it doesn't throw off the balance of the universe to just have a bit of fun.

I love the underlying zaniness of the wizarding world. It doesn't measure up to Wonderland, of course, but it comes pretty close and that's an achievement.

47, Tigercrane: That's a very good point that I hadn't thought about, thank you!

I love Harry Potter. I like the way Rowling wrote them, they are easy to read, it is a great story with great characters, and I will continue to defend them and read them until the day I die, I'm sure.

There are lots of other books that are deserving of more attention than they receive, but they don't (or didn't) have the media frenzy backing them up like Harry Potter did...still, the frenzy didn't occur right when the first book was released, right? That didn't happen until several years later, after more were released and word got around?

At any rate, I think they are very good books...and I like the movies, as well, I own them all, books and movies...

47 Tigercrane

I agree with FFortuna, that is an excellent point that I had never thought of before. In general I am not a fan of HP, but that is one aspect of the series that is unusual and fun.