Harry Potter

Kieran… give yourself more credit: 50,000 people probably read your stuff already (at least, CT posts–can’t remember the last academic book that sold so well), right?

As for Potter, I’d like to ask: what do all the adults see in these books? A strange phenomenon…

The last idea isn’t so much fantasy- one of the professors at U.T. Austin who works on ancient philosophy wrote hard-core porn novels under a pseudonym. I have no idea if it sold well or not, though.

I’d agree — I read the Oz books as a child in the 70’s, and expect that my kids probably will. They’re still in print in mass-market editions, aren’t they?

Potter doesn’t do much for me, on the other hand. I can’t imagine why they’re so popular.

Kieran: “But bugger posterity, to be honest: at some point you can’t argue with the huge queues of people waiting to buy the books. I’d happily settle for the gift of being able to write something that would be read by a hundreth as many people.”

Kieran, more sex and violence. Put a hot babe, a hunk and a gun on the cover.

“But bugger posterity, to be honest: at some point you can’t argue with the huge queues of people waiting to buy the books.”

Possibly this is the point where we all sign our souls over to Mammon, yes?

Dave: that LeGuin’s work has stayed in print over the years is proof, to me at least, that there is some small measure of justice in the world. Not having read the Harry Potter books I can’t compare either them to either LeGuin or Garner, but I would be extremely surprised if they were anything like as good. My family have read them, and seem to think that at least they’re readable, but not worth much in the grand scheme of things.

rilkefan: WordPress doesn’t allow previewing, although there are plugins that allow for javascript-assisted live previews. My hope is that they rectify this omission at some point in the future, but don’t hold your breath. Anyway, don’t you enjoy the excitement of not knowing how your comment is going to come out? It might, perhaps, be an idea to give some indication of the formatting that WP will be applying to the post (whether it’s limited HTML, or Textile, or indeed anything at all).

I picked our copy up at 12:30am, Satureday morning, and finished by that afternoon; my wife started reading it immediately after me, and finished at 1:00am last night. Yes, we’re hopeless. And we agree–the best Potter since Prisoner of Azkaban, and the one where Rowling finally, and yet at the same time (to most readers at least) shockingly, kicks the story up to the next level. I’ll be writing something about it very soon.

That should be “all 14 Oz books by Baum”. I was going to say there were about fifty Oz books, but most of those were just “official”.

The above got my wife and me wondering about how long the Narnia books will be read. It turns out we have vivid memories of even the minor adventures, so “a long time” seems likely. On the other hand, Pinocchio is a great book which I managed not to read as a child or hear much about since.

oh, it’s just the usual: sympathetic, interesting characters. Engaging plot. Humor. A lot of “literary fiction” books come up short in one or more of these categories, in favor of self-consciously poetic description, more ambiguous characters, etc.

And a lot of it is because “everyone else is doing it” too of course–I do think there are better books out there.

As for why adults and children both get involved, there’s two generations of sympathetic, interesting characters. I read the first two because they were fun and you could read them in one sitting and to see what the fuss was about. It wasn’t until Azkaban that I was really drawn.

Unfortunately, she’s developed two bad habits in plotting with the last two:
–long, frustrating slow middle sections where no one talks to anyone else & we just sort of meander around
–followed by a stirring conclusion in which All Is Revealed.

I think it’s a combination of lack of editing on account of overwhelming success, having the beginning and end of the series better plotted than the middle, and the sorts of crutches many authors have which are noticeable when you read so many books by them about the same characters.

And, series are nice because you already know the characters. She’s really done a pretty good job overall having them age.

Haven’t read the sixth one yet.

My comments are up. Don’t read them unless you’ve finished the book already (which means, given that it’s still Sunday where I am, that’s I’m talking only to the truly obsessed).

Wax: great response to Joel, and I concur fully with your assessment of Michiko Kakutani’s judgement. In particular, the final, terrible revelation in this volume makes it absolutely clear that Rowling has been carefully and consistently laying in front of us evidence of someone’s perfidy since at least Book 3, maybe earlier, and most of us (like most of her characters!) didn’t see it.

Profwombat: a great assessment of Rowling, and you’re right about her skill with names; what a tremendous ear the woman has.

Katherine: your complaint about Rowling’s slow middle sections seems, I think, truer than it actually is, because it was so grossly true of Book 5. You’ll think it’s true of this book as well, but…wait, I’ve said too much already.

Read the spoilers at Wikipedia – will read the book at some point. Rowling isn’t overrated – most commentary on her work takes pains to mention that she isn’t the most technically gifted writer out there.

It is a shame (as others have mentioned) that other writers didn’t get the same degree of recognition. Garner and Le Guin are great examples, but Diana Wynne Jones is a little closer to Rowling in genre (she’s also done “witch school” novels) and generally quite a bit better.

The Harry Potter novels have a lot of good points to them, chief amongst which is their general good humour and easy-going approach to plot and character (something which has probably been lost a bit with the last couple). One also find a lot of frustrating aspects though – they are so hideously formulaic in structure, and the overall arc of the seven-book series is so deadening, that maintaining interest is becoming a chore lightened only by repeated “pseudo-twists” where events unfold in just a slightly different way than one might have expected.

I disagree that Rowling is anti-authority. Rowling is for authority in the hands of a particular class of people – the “special” people whose “extra talents” are really just class markers. Dumbledore is head of Hogwarts, and Hogwarts is the centre of all events in Rowling’s fantasy universe. Yes, Dumbledore and Harry ignore the authority of the Ministry of Magic, but only because they themselves are the true authority. Dumbledore’s reliable but distant benevolence reminds me of Richard the Lionheart in the Robin Hood tales.

I think the Potter books have a stream of inventiveness – of funny and weird things – that Alan Garner and Ursula Le Guin don’t have. E.g. the howlers, the owl post, the sweets, the pictures that move, etc. (Although I adored the little dragon in the first Earthsea book and still want one of my own.) Rowling’s closer to Margaret Mahy or Roald Dahl than the first two authors Dave mentions. Maybe that’s what’s driving her sales.

I think the difference between Rowling and Garner, for example, is that Rowling creates a stream of different things, while Garner creates a different world. There’s nothing alien or fantastic about Potter magic, nothing strange or wonderful. Okay for kids, but nothing to get excited about.

Bertie Bott’s Beans are a commercial product in Rowling’s world; perhaps she’s willing to have her characters find the incessant repitition of trademarks as annoying as we do.

And I must respectfully disagree with agm. Giving characters names that resound with their attributes is a noble literary tradition. I can still laugh out loud at the antics of Fighting Bob Acres, Sir Peter Teazle and Mrs. Malaprop, or hear someone introduced as Uriah Heep and know who’s coming even before I’ve seen WC Fields do what needs to be done.

Also, I’m frequently torn about whether the books are (1) sexist, (2) feminist (3) progressive for their time, but regressive now, (4) par for their time, but regressive now.

I think Jinjur’s Army is a fairly obvious lampoon of the suffragette movement. Don’t forget that Baum’s mother-in-law was Matilda Joslyn Gage. Adult men in the Oz books tend to be rather ineffectual (if I recall correctly, Baum’s wife Maud handled his business affairs) or antagonistic, and I believe Baum was a personal supporter of women’s suffrage. So I’d say “feminist, but good-naturedly condescending”, Richard.

In particular, the final, terrible revelation in this volume makes it absolutely clear that Rowling has been carefully and consistently laying in front of us evidence of someone’s perfidy since at least Book 3, maybe earlier, and most of us (like most of her characters!) didn’t see it.