When I was young, I read Tolkien like kids today read the Potter novels. I'm not sure there's much comparison except for the fact people are actually reading them. Besides that, the Potter books are not all that good.

As opposed to Tolkien? Which is, of course, pure art. I personally regard it as a scandal that Tolkien never received the Nobel Prize for literature.

Maybe Bush Handlers, Inc. should be sent some copies to keep them busy instead of creating more chaos around the world

Since I`ve not read any of the Potter stuff I have no opinion as to its quality or lack thereof

Nice cash flow they have goin though

"...It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins..." - Benjamin Franklin

Self serving and pathetic. Typical bloggers.

Potter books are formula novels, devoid of almost anything original. Even the writing I found tedious the few times I tried to read it. It is a series that allows Americans to pretend to be of a better class, the patricians of the English Private Schools. For that reason alone, the whole series mimics the posing fakes of Bush-warts. If you have been reading this rather than looking about for something of value, Kevin, I hold you in infinitely less esteem.

1. Bush has released a very scary executive order governing the criticism of his Iraq debacle.
2. A Democratic member of the House Select Committee on Homeland Security was denied access to "post arrack" continuity planning, leading many to believe a quasi-terrorist incident may be imminent and possibly sponsored in part by the administration.
3. A member of Reagan's cabinet suggest that the implementation of a police state may be a matter of time
4. The dollar has plummeted to new lows.

So, nothing like a little Anglophile fest and circus, eh? These are dangerous times, and those who should be providing us with information instead distract. Why is that?

My 15 year old daughter, who is away attending a summer academic program, wasn't able to start reading the book until yesterday evening. My wife had to make a special trip to deliver the book to her dorm yesterday afternoon.

My daughter just called to say that she finished it at 10:00 AM. Her roommate is reading it now.

My wife bought a second copy today and is now about half way through it.

I've read and enjoyed the previous books but have to say that they are not in the same class as Tolkien. I don't see myself rereading the Potter books every three or four year the way I do LOTR.

BTW, The Children of Hurin is a great read. Very dark.

I wouldn't mind except that the bookstores are losing money on the deal. What's the bloody point? The chains are supposed to make money on the big sellers, so they can afford to give me a discount on my preferred reading.

But unless you spent the weekend reading The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire or its equivalent, it's kind of unfair to pick on Kevin for occasionally enjoying an escapist read, don't you think?

There's escapism, and crass commercialism. These days, the "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" entreaties should be met with censure. I think even Rowling is slightly embarrassed by the whole thing. These books are about marketing, not story. Pretty sad. When you are an opinion leader, much is asked of you. I can't imagine Thoreau shilling for Potter while the United States succumbs to disaster. I am not predisposed to give the Potterites much leeway, either. Keith Olbermann, who is one of my favorite journalists, copped out too. I suppose they are thinking of mass-appeal and larger paychecks, but it makes me a disappointed in them. Sometimes you have to speak truth to Potter.

I personally regard it as a scandal that Tolkien never received the Nobel Prize for literature.

His books are not that good, especially for readers past the age of about 20. A better candidate would be Patrick O'Brian for the Aubrey/Maturin series.

What puzzles me is why the posturing "intellectuals" have to show up on EVERY Potter thread everywhere on the internet to sneer their lofty disdain at the Potter series, thereby (they assume) displaying their profound superiority to the masses. Geez, people, are you THAT insecure?!

JK Rowling is an elitist.

In Potter-world, one succeeds/fails according to one's belongings (spells, brooms, special knowledge.) Strengths of character are less valuable than one's stuff.

The omega student is never plays a crucial role to the pack. Compare how the Tuetels on America Chopper are affected by Mickey. The omega is the play-initiator, the tension-diffuser, the jester who speaks truth to power. In Harry Potter-land, the omega is just some fat idiot who should get the hell out of the way. Elitist.

Pottermania.. Potter-world.. POTTERSVILLE! OMG! There's a shit storm coming! I can smell it! Run for your lives!!

absent observer, if you haven't actually read the books (and it's crystal clear you haven't), your two cents is severely depreciated.

I read Deathly Hallows.
Harold Bloom vindicated.

God, I must be a real lowbrow. I loved Hairspray on Friday night and have just about finished Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. The highbrows panned both.

I loved Tolkien as a kid, but he wasn't any better writer than Rowling. In fact, stylistically they are very similar. Rowling being a little more accessible.

People always love the authors they read as kids. That is because our youthful reading overlooks technical defects while giving free reign to our imagination. That is what Tolkien did for Walt and Maynard Handley. I am glad they enjoyed him, but I am also glad my daughter enjoys Rowling.

JK Rowling is an elitist.

In Potter-world, one succeeds/fails according to one's belongings (spells, brooms, special knowledge.) Strengths of character are less valuable than one's stuff.

Well sure, except for the whole part where the entire moral message of the series, which is drummed into the readers' heads in every single book with all the subtlety of a blunt ax, is the precise opposite.

"I personally regard it as a scandal that Tolkien never received the Nobel Prize for literature.

His books are not that good, especially for readers past the age of about 20. A better candidate would be Patrick O'Brian for the Aubrey/Maturin series."

Jesus, dude. Is satire on the internet really so hard to spot?
Did you read the first post, the one I was responding to?

My daughter is 18 and graduating from high school, i.e. the exact age of Harry Potter and his classmates. These books have been her comfort reading -- someplace to go to avoid, for instance, waiting for college acceptances. They've been a wonderful part of her life for the past eight years. That's good enough for me; she can read fine literature in college.

"I suppose they are thinking of mass-appeal and larger paychecks, but it makes me a disappointed in them."

Or maybe they just like the books?

Why does everything always have to be so freaking sinister with you people?

Absent Observer: The omega student is never plays a crucial role to the pack

The characters Neville Longbottom and Luna Lovegood are most certainly "omegas". Hermione Granger and the Weasley family come from humble families (Granger is was born to non-magic users, and the Weasley's were simply financially insecure). All of those characters play key roles, and illustrate how it's the wizard, and not the wand. ^_^

"You place too much importance, and you always have done, on the so-called purity of blood! You fail to recognize that it matters not what someone is born, but what they grow to be!"

-- from Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

I probably have read LOTR 10 times, front to back. When my children were 6 and 9, I read the whole thing out loud to them - what a mistake. Tolkien is not meant to be read out loud.

Each of my three children bought their own copy. I started Sat on Book 2, and am now in Book 3. I will finish the series by next Saturday.

Alan de Bristol: absent observer, if you haven't actually read the books (and it's crystal clear you haven't), your two cents is severely depreciated.

fuck you. I read books 3 & 4 this summer. How else would I have an opinion about a minor character like Neville Longbottom? The dude has been in their class this long, and he's only good for cheap laughs. 'Oh, he's such a dufus.' In real life, omegas play a meaningful role in the survival of the pack -- not as punching bags.

or whatever broom Harry got from Sirous Black that allowed him to win the Quiddich match? In Potter-land, you win Quiddich matches because you have Broom X (TM), not because you put in the hours practicing. Yeay, Harry won with his Broom X(TM)!! Only in an elitist world is technology a predictor for success, rather than effort/talent.

(I don't critique a reader who enjoys a fun book. But there's no holding back due criticism for an author with an elitist mindset.)

Kevin --- what do you think? What do you think?

(wet blankets can f-ck off and go to hell while you're at it)

I heart Luna! I would've been very, very unhappy if she'd died.

Finished early this morning and still digesting. Good stuff. Some of it pretty scary. Some sad. Some of a little confusing, no? But, not the ending. That was wrapped right up, I'd say.

Now I miss wondering on what'll happen in the next book.

JoyceH >"...Geez, people, are you THAT insecure?!"

Apparently the answer is YES (displayed, of course, in many other ways as well...)

maybe I should read the series just to tweak some noses that are already out of shape

"Proof depends on who you are. We're looking for a preponderance of evidence, and some people need more of a preponderance than other people." - John Kantner

"In real life, omegas play a meaningful role in the survival of the pack -- not as punching bags."

In REAL LIFE? I think perhaps you don't know the meaning of that word. In real life omegas play no role whatsoever; that's why they are omega's and that's why it's real life. In real life omegas are high school pothead dropouts who repeatedly get fired from their job at McDonalds, get pregant, married and divorced way too young and never achieve anything. Also, FWIW, there are few "packs" especially those concerned much with survival, in real life.

I think you meant to say "in my preferred fantasy literature, omegas..."

At times like these, I really miss ol' TBrosz.

Maynard, you're right. Except that you're wrong. I've never met anyone who is a pothead dropout, who repeated gets fired from McDonalds, gets pregnant, married and divorced young and doesn't produce. But i have known some omegas and actively play that role in certain company.

JK Rowling has the same mindset as your hyperbole, by the way.

Go fish.

Sparko @ 1:30 PM -- You can add this to the list:

DeFazio asks, but he's denied access
Classified info - The congressman wanted to see government plans for after a terror attack

Oregonians called Peter DeFazio's office, worried there was a conspiracy buried in the classified portion of a White House plan for operating the government after a terrorist attack.

As a member of the U.S. House on the Homeland Security Committee, DeFazio, D-Ore., is permitted to enter a secure "bubbleroom" in the Capitol and examine classified material. So he asked the White House to see the secret documents.

On Wednesday, DeFazio got his answer: DENIED.

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/118489654058910.xml&coll=7

Sparko @ 1:30 PM -- You can add this to the list:

DeFazio asks, but he's denied access
Classified info - The congressman wanted to see government plans for after a terror attack

Oregonians called Peter DeFazio's office, worried there was a conspiracy buried in the classified portion of a White House plan for operating the government after a terrorist attack.

As a member of the U.S. House on the Homeland Security Committee, DeFazio, D-Ore., is permitted to enter a secure "bubbleroom" in the Capitol and examine classified material. So he asked the White House to see the secret documents.

On Wednesday, DeFazio got his answer: DENIED.

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/118489654058910.xml&coll=7

So Kevin, what did YOU think?

I did enjoy it, see some literary limitations, still enjoyed it. Will reread to clear up some confusing plot points. At the end, it is children's lit.

- middle-aged in Virginia

So Kevin, what did YOU think?

I did enjoy it, see some literary limitations, still enjoyed it. Will reread to clear up some confusing plot points. At the end, it is children's lit.

- middle-aged in Virginia

Sorry for the double post -- I gotta get some sleep.

Oh, now I get it! Absent Observer considers Neville a 'punching bag' and believes that the guy with the best broom wins the Quidditch match.

{psst - Observer is Draco Malfoy!}

absent observer so eloquently says:

fuck you. I read books 3 & 4 this summer. How else would I have an opinion about a minor character like Neville Longbottom?

Hmmmm..... All I can really say to this is that if you are of the opinion that one of the most critical players of the series is a "minor character", then the observation as to the depreciation of your opinion stands. I'd say your two cents are now worth about as much as a promise from George Bush. Those who have actually read the books, and therefore actually know the role that Neville plays, understand what I mean.

Thanks for playing, run along now. The grownups are chatting about a book.

ps- Go Neville. Grandma is justifiably proud. And I'm sure you're one hell of a professor. I'm also not so sure that things would have turned out so terribly different in the end had Riddle chosen you instead of Harry to anoint as the boy who lived.

I've read all the HP books, and enjoyed them all. (I also read Tolkien every couple of years, and am a sufficient fanatic that I read thhe twelve volumes of Christopher Tolkien's collection of his dad's notes--but then I used to write for Marvel Comics.)

I have just one bitch: Quidditch is a stupid game. Rowling transparently engineered it so tht one person's--Harry's--heroism could win the game no matter what, under nearly any conditions. Everybody else is running around, doing picturesque things, all rendered pointless by the Hero's act. In a real quidditch gamem each team would double up on the other's Seeker, ands the game would be won on the lesser points.
Designing a new game is very hard, and I don't fault Rowling for trying.
I liked the idea of quidditch, but the actual game set my teeth on edge.
[/geek]

And I'm happy to sit on the waiting list at the library.

Oh, I think Quidditch is cool. I'd want to be on the Hogwarts staff just so I could go to the Quidditch games. (Well, the food also looks quite good.) And catching the snitch, while key, isn't everything. Remember that Ireland won the World Cup even though Krum on Bulgaria's team caught the snitch - so even having 'the best Seeker in the world' doesn't mean you're always going to win.

pbg is right about quidditch, a dreadfully stupid game, although I always assumed Rowling simply didn't know anything about sports when she laid out the first book and got stuck with a bad design.

Joyce, I don't remember what happened in the the 4th book, but Krum would only catch the snitch to lose the game if he didn't know what the score was.

"I probably have read LOTR 10 times, front to back. When my children were 6 and 9, I read the whole thing out loud to them - what a mistake. Tolkien is not meant to be read out loud."

When I was a teenager (Washington DC, I think in 1966), I spent a summer finding places with an FM radio so I could listen every day to a reading of LOTR that was broadcast on public radio. It was a wonderful, "straight reading" i.e. no effects or music. I have yet to find any reference to it since.

I've been reluctant to read the Harry Potter books. They sound like a watered-down version of Ursula LeGuin's Earthsea trilogy (although I'd like someone to try to convince me otherwise).

Joyce, I don't remember what happened in the the 4th book, but Krum would only catch the snitch to lose the game if he didn't know what the score was.

Book 4 is the last one I read - I lost interest about three chapters into "The Half-Blood Prince" but I remember that Krum caught the Snitch in spite of the score, because they were going to lose the match, but he was going to do so on his terms.

Well, call me lowbrow, but I enjoyed the series and read the entire book yesterday. I started to lose interest in the series about half way through "Order of the Phoenix" and never did read Book 6, but I thought this last one was great. (Although no one seems to mention a rather blatant rip off of the Chronicles of Narnia at the end.)All in all, this last book was more like the first couple and a great summer read.

Hate to say it, but I never could get into LOTR. Must be a guy thing. The movies were great, but the books...

That just goes to show that Rowling doesn't know sports. Nobody would ever try to lose the World Cup "on his terms", he'd try to win till the bitter end.

There is one part of Tolkien that works very well out loud, even to people who know nothing of the rest of the story: The Mines of Moria from when they first approach the door, to the bridge and the battle with the Balrog.

I didn't see much of my 15 year old son over the weekend, either. He waited up until after midnight on Friday to get the book and holed up in his room thereafter. I will withhold comment on Rowling's literary skills, but I also am a great Tolkien fan and find the Potter series weak and derivative in comparison.

However, each generation needs their own literature to share and savor.

Its not like there isn`t plenty of horrible news:
BAGHDAD, 19 July 2007 (IRIN) - "My age is the same as the olive tree," reads the blue tattoo on Qaisar Tariq al-Essawi's left shoulder.

Al-Eassawi, 36, got the tattoo so his family and close friends could recognise his remains if he ended up in a morgue.

"I selected this wording because only my family and close friends know about our olive tree which was planted by my father when I was born," al-Essawi, a father of two boys, told IRIN in Baghdad.

One response to sudden and violent death which has become commonplace in Iraq's turmoil, is the emergence of a new subculture - the etching of tattoo identities on people who fear becoming an unclaimed body in a packed morgue.

It is more than just another grim footnote in a nation brimming with sad stories. It points to how deeply war and sectarian bloodshed have transformed the way Iraqis live today and confront the constant possibility of death.[Figures follow]

Just some stray thoughts on Monday morning while my coffee brews. I fail to understand that others can think lower of Kevin because one among the hundreds of books he reads each year is Harry Potter. On my reading shelf right now is Harry Potter a Harry Flashman, Wiliam Faulkner and something with the ominous title, "Visual Cultures of Science." To judge me on any one of those books alone would be superficial and incomplete.

It is possible to read and enjoy Tolkien, Faulkner, Obrien, Star Trek, and Shakespeare and enjoy them for different reasons. It isn't a contest for my attention or brain cells. Much of what we consider "high-brow" culture was once considered low and vice versa.

TO the person who said something along the lines about this phenom being about Americans feeling above their station or some such claptrap. Did I miss the part where Americans are important in the Rowling/Potter phenom? This is a WORLD movement begun by a British author about a book with NO American characters. If no Americans bought or read any Harry Potter books, the GLOBAL infatuation with Harry would continue unabated. Any analysis of its popularity would need to be global in nature, not so provincial.

Harry Potter books derivative? Of course they are. Breathtakingly original? Certainly. A work of art (high or low) can be both. Star Wars doesn't contain a single plot point not covered by the rise of the Roman Empire. That doesn't mean they aren't original, or even need to be. They are ripping good fun. A good story, well told.

Harry Potter merely a product of marketing? Yes and no. They originally received little or no marketing from Scholastic and Bloomsbury. Their popularity grew only after word of mouth among British children created a movement and these publishers realized what they had. As in so many other things, it LOOKS like marketers lead this parade because they are good at their jobs. They are, however, late comers.

Harry Potter elitist? Mostly no, quite the opposite. The Quiditch and broom example is interesting. What we have in that section is a young boy who perceives himself as an outsider and unable to compete with his richer, better born classmates. He is saved by the gift of the latest piece of technology that makes him the envy of his classmates. I wonder where Rowling got hte idea that passage would be popular with her target reader? Elitist? A lot less than your average high school and a lot less than most Fantary novels most of which take place in a quasi-feudal system where it sucks to be a peasant. I don't recall Aragorn being voted king. These books work because everyone can identify with a hero who is thought to be low-born, but in reality can either rise above it or is secretly more than they seem.

Billions of people find joy in these books. Why does that bring out the hidden white-belt wearing,crotchety old man in so many people? Why do you care what I and billions of other enjoy or don't enjoy? I can think of at least a dozen cultural phenomenons I just cannot understand (Super Bowl, World Series, American Idol, Hugh Grant, British Royal Family etc) but I understand that others CAN find joy in them and do, and they are largely irrelevant to me and my joys in life.

Oops coffee's done.

"Designing a new game is very hard, and I don't fault Rowling for trying.
I liked the idea of quidditch, but the actual game set my teeth on edge."

Hey, the rest of the world thinks that about american football, baseball and basketball. And we love your "World" Series.

Snape kills Dumbledore.

absent observer: your're a charming, polite fellow, especially when your smug ignorance is clearly established. Without an abundance of natural talents or possessions, Neville (as presaged in the first book) is a real heo because he was brave enough to stand up. A real Gryffindor. (And the only real similarity between Rowling and Tolkien that I see. Longbottom even sounds like a name from the Shire.) Crawl back to your dungeon with your fellow Slytherins.

Hey absent observer, I don't expect you to read any more of the books, but if you're interested in seeing how wrong you are about Neville (and the series as a whole), why not try reading the "Neville Longbottom" entry on wikipedia?

Boronx,

I had much the same reaction as you to the game of Quiditch for awhile. but I seem to recall that in one of the books it was stated that winning a season and getting to the championships was determined by the total number of points scored. It wasn't just games won or lost. In that case even if your going to loose, you want to do so by as few points as possible. If that is the case, then the game is a good bit more sensible as is.

Everyone,

Keep in mind that the Potter series is aimed at children. As such it is really quite good. It is even, for a large number of us, pretty decent adult fiction, but for the intended audience it is excellent.

The genius in the Potter books is that they, in all likelihood, have created a generation of readers. Rowling pulled people of all ages away from reality TV, game boxes, golf games (watching paint dry, etc.) and other mindless activities for a few hours at a time to enter another "world." Parents AND their children have been able to read these books together and enjoy them. My family, as well as many others that I know, have bonded during these books -- discussions abounded. I applaud the author for her creations, her sense of impishness, and her ability to weave a story directed at children that motivated them to READ. Harold Bloom should be so lucky.

Well said Adolphus.I think an applicable statement in support of your eloquent position would be "After the birth of all art comes the inevitable afterbirth "the critic" ".

At times like these, I really miss ol' TBrosz.

Posted by: Tilli (Mojave Desert) on July 23, 2007 at 1:05 AM | PERMALINK

I miss him too. But the sad fact is that this is not the same blog it was when Tom was posting here. Today his comments would be quietly deleted by Kevin's team of humorless censors and his IP address would be blocked. Sad but very, very true.

Think I win some sort of unuttered challenge here: I stopped reading the HP series after book 4, then decided to play catch up before reading Deathly Hallows: ended up reading 1800 pages of Potter since last Thursday (two and one-half books). Now that my head is once again above water, I can say that that wasn't a bad way to go, and guess what? If a writer can carry a ripping yarn along through seven books, and end in an incredibly satisfactory way, bless her.

So what if they're formulaic (see Nancy Drew, Hardy Boys), at times too winsome (see Winnie-the-Pooh), or lead to fairly embarrassing costumed events (see Rocky Horror Picture Show, LOTR, Star Trek); they're now part of the consciousness of the next generation. And, just like LOTR for other generations, these books will help to define what is good and what is evil, what is fair and what is not, for this bunch of youngsters. I can't believe that courage, learned skills, patience, reverence for education, and empathy for/protection of those less gifted are really bad values to pass on.

So I say hats off to Rowling, and may she always be richer than the Queen!

walt: "Besides that, the Potter books are not all that good."

See? I knew there was a reason why the latest book, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, only sold 8.3 million copies in the U.S. during the first 24 hours. I just knew it.

Look, I'm not a big fan of the Harry Potter series either, but I'll freely admit that's just my personal taste, which runs more toward history, non-fiction and noir-ish detective novels. I'm not going to make a value judgment as to literary quality.

But quite frankly, I'd like to think that anything that encourages kids and adolescents to experience for themselves the joy of reading -- as opposed to, say, sitting mindlessly on their otherwise increasingly lard-laden asses and playing video games and / or watching TV while consuming mass quantities of junk food -- is clearly for the better.

P.S.: I also read J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings series when I was about 10-11 years old, but only because all my friends were reading them. I also found them, like Harry Potter, to be a bit of a snooze -- but like I said, I really don't have much taste for pop culture, regardless of its era. Other people obviously do, and to the extent that they don't let their lives revolve around such mind candy to the exclusion of more important things, that's totally cool with me.

Enjoy.

The whole series is anti-american anti-christian propoganda. A liberal atheist's guide to moral relativism.

Ron, Molly, Aberforth, and Mundungus repeatedly use foul words and concepts: b**ch, effing, orifice. Poop humor is rampant. Torture and killing is considered a "dark art" and not an invaluable element of the war on terror. The true religion is some bizarre mix of pagan themes, nursery rhymes, and occultism. Christmas trees, churches, and carols provide a backdrop of familiarity without a single mention of Jesus.

The books entry into the world of finance and free market forces is similarly flawed. Most of the businesses on diagon alley are run by old and kindly businesspeople too kindly to cut a hard bargain and unwilling to innovate. Businessmen on Knockturn alley are a little better, but then they are described as deeply evil. The only positively described young entrepreneurs in the book, Fred and George, are celebrated for their brilliant success in poop humur. At least they aren't pimps I guess. Bankers are described as greedy, double-crossing goblins.

I have to agree with those above. Rowling is no Tolkien. Nor is she a Joyce, Dostoyevsky, or Caro. All these books are likely to do in the long run is trick kids into learning how to read and invade their dreams with images of flying witches and dragons.

CSM here I thought you were describing the Bush administration.

In reference to Ms. Rowling's literary merits, I think that the header for one of Dorthy Parker's reviews applies: "A good book, and a great story." Yes, they are formula fiction--and yes, each volume has its share of minor clunkers and overlong bits. But taken together they constitute an impressive work of sustained imagination and characterization that is worth re-reading. How many of us have created anything equivalent?

I fail to understand that others can think lower of Kevin because one among the hundreds of books he reads each year is Harry Potter.

Kevin doesn't read hundreds of books every year. He posted his entire year's reading list once and IIRC, it had maybe a couple dozen books on it. But the rest of your point stands.

By the way. I actually loved the book. It was fun to mess with my wife when I got ahead of her with statements like "Holy Crap!", "Not again!", "Oh man!"

I'd rather it be a bit rough than wait another year.

To DWM: I love the Earthsea books, which have advanced well beyond trilogy and up to, what?, five plus short stories.

I would never try to convince you that Harry Potter is not a watered-down version of them or that any book is a stronger version of another. They have similar themes and plot points. Young boy born into modest circumstances goes away to wizard school and saves the world. The similarities really end there. As Roger Ebert often says, it is not what a movie is about that is important, but how it is about it. If you have never read the books, and your mind is dominated by images of the Potter movies, I can understand how you might conflate the two stories closer than you should. The battle at the end of Order of the Phoenix in the movie looks exactly as I always imagined the battle at the end of Wizard of Earthsea. It's very intense with lots of earnest wizard faces and grand arm gestures summoning magic. The battle in the book is different. Not in events or characters but in tone. Even in the midst of epic battles, life and death struggles, the Harry Potter BOOKS never lose their sense of whimsy. While Potter and Dumbledore battle Voldemort in Phoenix, Ginny is turning people's boogies into bats, people are slipping and sliding on liquid spilled from a vat of brains, and there is a Death Eater with the body of a thug and the head of a crying baby. Even in the most momentous battles there are hints of slapstick and a world where jelly beans can taste like both treacle tart and snot. The Earthsea books can be dour and humorless at times, the Potter books are nothing but humor. (and "wand-as-penis" innuendo,but that is another story) Earthsea is about grand ideas and, solitary, internal struggles, the Potter books are about epic heroism, team work, and family. I suspect Earthsea will be read by generations, I am not convinced Potter will be. (Anyone read Frank L. Baum books lately? And there was a time a new OZ book was expected under every American Xmas tree)

DWM: I would encourage you to read these sets of books together. As an educator I was fascinated by the different teaching methods at Roke and Hogwarts. Roke treats magic as science. There are basic laws and rules of Earthsea that wizards must abide by and searching out those laws and working with them as the "science" of magic. In Potter, magic is more of a craft. In Earthsea teachers are hard on students because they are wise and know what is best for the students to make them skilled and prudent wizards. Teachers in Hogwarts are hard on particular students because the teachers really don't like them. Again, Rowling has captured the outlook of an 11-17 year old precisely.

I cannot tell you that one is better than the other, because to do so I would need to define the standards by which to rank them, something all the people claiming one book is better than another continually (tend) to fail to do. I will say that I enjoyed them both for completely different reasons. I have returned to Earthsea about every five years or so and will probably do so the rest of my life. I am not sure how often I will return to Hogwarts. Probably. Some, but not so much. Part of the joy of these books is the discovery of something new around every page, and it is hard to discover something new twice.

So, DMW, if you enjoyed Earthsea, I would heartily encourage you to give at least the first three Potter books a go. You will be surprised by the similarities, but enchanted by the differences.

Happy reading!

"I read books 3 & 4 this summer. How else would I have an opinion about a minor character like Neville Longbottom? The dude has been in their class this long, and he's only good for cheap laughs."

This view of Longbottom is shown to be clearly false in Book 5, and I don't think it's too much of a Book 7 spoiler to say that he turns out to be a very non-peripheral character indeed.

My point, since validated by more than 60 posters, is that this is silly distracton. I think it sad that Americans need to be validated as individuals by being complete conformists. Yet we are conditioned thusly by continuous marketing from birth. Are we so numbed that we defend pop literature as a police state rambles towards us?
Your liking Harry Potter does not make those who hate it enemies of the state. "Do we have to see something sinister in everything?" No. But what is the Homeric metaphor when adults grasp for security and escape from unseen paternal figures by embracing the latest teen novel fom Scholastic Books? It is this kind of self indulgent protracted adolescence we are trying to overcome in Washington. Seriously, I am sure there are Potter fan sites out there for those who need to feel the magic of group acceptance. But come on. I am glad your kids read between video games, but let us get on with the important topics.

Boronx,

Did not Rowling write an essay about the beloved Chicago Black Sox?

Personally, I could never stand Tolkien and the Lord of the Rings stuff, having never even finished reading The Hobbit. Having watched the LOTR movies, my intial impressions still stand, just the run of the mill swords and sorcery stuff with better cinematography.

The Harry Potter series is much better written than LOTR and is an entetaining magical mystery, rather than the typical slicing and dicing of the the long-winded Bored of the Rings trilogy.

This view of Longbottom is shown to be clearly false in Book 5, and I don't think it's too much of a Book 7 spoiler to say that he turns out to be a very non-peripheral character indeed.

Why wouldn't you think so? Do you actually think that less than 72 hours after its release, everyone who's now reading the book has a) finished it and b) been unable to avoid spoilers in the media, so you might as well pile on?

Anyway, you have considerably more self-restraint than daniel upthread.

Harry Potter? You mean the children's book?

*ducks*

If I ever end up so much a geek that I show up waaaay early for something that is put on sale and wear a costume while doing it, everyone on this thread is welcome - no obligated - to mock me.

Read the book this weekend, too. I was afraid that it wasn't going to live up to my expectations because of the hype, but no. It was quite good.

Now, reading this thread, I find myself wondering why people who don't like the books are so motivated to come on here and trash them. I've come up with two reasons.

First, it is clear that pretty much all college creative writing teachers could take any chapter of a Potter book and rewrite it so that it is more graceful, economical and subtle. Same concepts, same themes, fewer words. The plot could be rearranged to bring out all the ideas and characters in 350 pages instead of 700. If you are trained to see the flaws, you'll see them.

But none of those people can write a book that connects with so many people the way Rowling has. And connecting with the reader is the first job of literature. I remember reading Pride and Prejudice in 10th grade. I got through it, it made sense, and Mr. Bennett was moderately amusing.

I read it again 20 years later and THEN it popped. I had the life experience to connect to the book. But all those college composition teachers are mad because in some sense, they could do better. But they can't connect with the audience.

Second, I think some people find it scary to have hordes of people really caught up in something that they personally don't like. For me, it's just business as usual. I don't like football or NASCAR all that much, but lots of people I know and like, do. I'm not trashing them; I'm just sayin'.

But if you're the sort of person that likes football and NASCAR and American Idol, it must be pretty scary to see so many folks caught up in something that makes no sense to you. The people who like HP are all good readers. After 4000 pages, you'd hope so. So that can kind of feed the whole "Harry Potter is elitist" thing.

ET,

Does that mean, we will not see your photo in the Oregonian of standing in line for the Grand Opening of our new IKEA in Portland?

Just one thing to say in LOTR's defense:
Please remember that before Tolkien, none of this stuff existed. Epic fantasy, dark, serious, self-consistent--and a book without an Earth-child falling down a rabbit hole and saying "My, how curious? When is tea?" simply was not there.
Some of Tolkien's snooziness can be ascribed to the fact that he was working in unknown territory--and many later books can be written more tautly because they just take the Tolkien mythic set as given. (Majestic elves are a commonplace--but before tolkien they wore cirly shoes and jingly bells.)
I don't have a problem with people who don't like the genre at all--or who never get past the first hundred pages.
But to say it's just 'ordinary sword-and-sorcery' is kind of like finslly seeing Citizen Kane and being unimpressed because you've seen all those cinematic tricks before.

shortstop tells us:

Anyway, you have considerably more self-restraint than daniel upthread.

:-P.

My comment is effectively meaningless to anyone who *hasn't* finished Deathly Hallows yet. I was careful to make sure of that. And the fact that the prophecy could have applied to Neville as well as to Harry was established in Book 5 or 6, which I do think it's safe to talk about at this point. Anyone who hasn't read Half-Blood Prince or Order of the Phoenix can't really expect me to not spoil it for them at this point.

Had I been willing to spoil the book for people who've not finished it, I would've discoursed on the role played in the series as a whole by Dobby and Kreacher, and how Harry's treatment of both directly undermines the point that the Abesnt Observer (now truly absent, it appears, once his complete cluelessness has been publicly demonstrated) tries to make as he comments on books he's not read.

That said, there are useful things that can be said without delving into the specifics of book 7. One of them is the notion that Harry is an "alpha" in the wizarding world. This is simply laughable. By the rules of wizarding society he's an outsider, like Ron and Hermione. He grew up raised by Muggles, he entered Hogwart's totally lacking in any knowledge of wizarding or of the context in which the wizarding world exists. He had fame, but no way to process that or to deal wtih it. He is the quintessential outsider--the misfit, the geek, the kid who just never quite belonged. And rather than try to overcome this, he befriends other misfits (Ron, Hermione, Neville, Luna, Dobby, Sirius, the list goes on), thereby guaranteeing that he cannot simply ascend to the level of alpha-wizard. That he ends up doing so anyway is Rowling's way of showing that heart, kindness, compassion, and love trump all and will win the day in the end.

I read Deathly Hallows. Harold Bloom vindicated. Posted by: RS

Horseshit. Bloom wasn't addressing his critique, which is overstated any way, to 10-year olds. If he was, then he was an even bigger grump than I thought.

The Harry Potter series is ten times more interesting than The Chronicles of Narnia, though certainly not as accomplished as Tolkien work.

P.S.: I also read J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings series when I was about 10-11 years old, but only because all my friends were reading them. I also found them, like Harry Potter, to be a bit of a snooze -- but like I said, I really don't have much taste for pop culture, regardless of its era.
Enjoy. Posted by: Donald from Hawaii

I have no idea how old you are, but assume you are in your 40s or 50s. Tolkien sat mostly unread for nearly 20 years before being "rediscovered." He enjoyed a relatively brief period of popularity in the early to mid-1970s, and then was pretty much ignored until Peter Jackson's movie version on LOTR. Only they could it be said that something so intricate at Tolkien's alternate world had become "pop culture." Until then it remained rather cultish.

ET: that was the definitive post. LOL!

Dr. j: Wow. I am so glad you rose to defend these teen classics by patronizing everyone, even scholars, who see in them something unappealing. These books are Nascar reads. I am not sure what society has taken away from the intoxicants of this series, but surely a little better grasp of 4000 pages of human history or news would have been better. The "elitism" comes not from the very simple and interesting Rowling herself, but in the American consumer who wishes not so much to read, but being seen to read "smart" books on his way to that BMW and second home.

Back to civil disobedience 101.

I have no idea what daniel's latest comment says, having learned my lesson about reading them. If he vindicates himself, so be it.

Aw, Sparko, some of us read Harry Potter and human history and news. By the boatload. Honest.

daniel,

Had planned to have holds placed on "Stalin's Ghost" by Martin Cruz Smith and "Bad Monkeys" by Matt Ruff at the Portland library. Could you save me time by merely explaining the endings?

Yes, Sparko, we should all emulate the VC and the NVA by living the war 24/7. The USO shows, Carling beer breaks and the one year limit on duty in country, and perhaps reading books caused our loss. 24/7, Sparko, yes indeed.

Shortstop: you are the gold standard of both this blog and literature. I can't see you using words like Dwezlbobbin or dressing as a 4th degree elf. But I think you are not motivated by being seen reading, but by growing as a person through reading.
I read every type of history and literature. Just not Potter.
And Kevin is back from his pop culture fixation . . .

3Paul esq.: WTF? Dude. Potter don't surf, man. Yow.

You know, thinking back on the series and the completely uninformed criticism of some on this thread, it occurs to me that what I like about this series is that it is the very opposite of 'elitism', and in that regard it is unusual for the fantasy genre.

Harry doesn't turn out to be some great prince with a pedigree going back to the mists of time - he's a very ordinary young wizard from a very ordinary mixed-blood wizarding family, and he's not the villain's great nemesis because he's all stuffed with magical powers (miticlorians! Feh!) or possesses any great item of magical power, but because the villain MADE him the nemesis out of his own fear.

It's the bad guys who are the elitists in this series. It's Voldemort who thinks he needs the super-dooper wand to win the contest. It's the bad guys who have the massive emphasis on who your family is. The most family-obsessed character in the entire series is - Marvolo Gaunt, an almost-insane old crank living in total squalor in a shack with his two cretin children, ranting about the purity of his blood.

And Harry doesn't win at Quidditch because he has the best broom, but because he's lucky enough to have an athletic skill that he's very proud of - but he wants and is delighted to receive a top-of-the-line broom, because, come ON!, he's a teenage boy!

Shortstop: you are the gold standard of both this blog and literature.

Chuh. No, I don't dress like an elf or insist that people call me Cho, but let's not get carried away. Thanks for the kind words, though!

Joyce: I always thought the anti-elitism message in the Potter books was about as subtle as a Mack truck. Not that I mind, mind you.

Please remember that before Tolkien, none of this stuff existed. Posted by: pbg

What the fuck is Beowulf if not a source for epic fantasy? Does the Iliad ring a bell? Do you know the first thing about what Tolkien did for his "day job"?

I like football (go Saints). I don't like NASCAR or American Idol. I like Bill Moyers and Frontline.

I don't like Tolkein: women get to sit around & be beautiful/enchanting, &/or look after the kids & old people, but they don't get to fight. Or think. The bad guys are mostly mindless, boring monsters. Endless battle scenes.

I like Rowling: strong, equal female characters; the bad guys--if they really ARE bad guys??--are complex and interesting.

I like Ursula K. LeGuin, and Shakespeare, and George RR Martin, and Kant, and William Gibson, and Borges, and Kafka.

I have a magna cum laude BA (Phi Beta Kappa) from a well-reputed university's liberal arts honors program, minored in English, and I've been in Mensa since high school.

Started HPDH Saturday 5pm, finished Monday 2am. Was pretty happy with the outcome(s) apart from the epilogue, which I found a bit gratuitous.

So sue me. But don't think you know me, or have any basis whatsoever on which to judge me.

And quite frankly, I don't see much difference between the pretentious, judgmental a-holes who condemn the books without having read them and the ignorant, fundamentalist ultra-religious evangelicals who condemn the books without having read them. Separated at birth?

Objectivity and the ability to put things in perspective are as rare as a phoenix's tears.

Your loss. Not ours.

Actually, far from the "Potterverse" being elitist, AbsentO, you sound more like Bush than anybody in the Potterverse... "If *I* don't like it (or believe it, or think it), nobody else should either."

Of course, you could be Lucius Malfoy or Delores Umbridge using a muggle alias. I suspect a number of people in the wizarding world have muggle-personas. I'm pretty sure Voldemort's muggle alias is Dick Cheney.

Shortstop and thethirdPaul:

If the two of you consider disclosing in passing that Neville does not die to be "explaining the end" or to be a major spoiler of some sort, then I'd suggest not reading this book; it is clearly beyond your comprehension level. :-)

(Yes, that's a joke.)

Yes, in all fairness, I do suppose it is a very minor spoiler, right up there with the disclosure that Harry kisses Ginny (oops, I did it again, and with another meaningless bit of trivia that will affect your enjoyment of the story not a bit). No, I do not believe that it can possibly make any difference to your enjoyment of the book or to your understanding of the outcome or ability to guess what is coming. As someone who has read DH twice now I can say definitively that knowing that Neville does not die could not possibly have allowed me to guess any part of the outcome or to have accurately constructed events from the final 200 pages of the book.

The information about Riddle choosing Harry instead of Neville is from books 5 and 6, not from book 7. The idea that the outcome would not have changed had he picked Neville instead of Harry in no way indicates what said outcome was for Harry or for Riddle, but *does* speak to the now-truly-absent-observer's contention that Neville-the-omega only existed to be mocked and to serve as the butt end of jokes. Truly addressing the now-truly-absent-observer's points *would* require me to dive into details of book 7, which I've steadfastly refused to do, both here and in other fora. Those who want such details without reading the book can go to wikipedia, where there is a full plot synopsis with a fair amount of detail. Reading the book is better, though.

JeffII: What the fuck is Beowulf if not a source for epic fantasy? Does the Iliad ring a bell? Do you know the first thing about what Tolkien did for his "day job"?

I do, and thus found this comment hilarious.

KarenJG: I'm pretty sure Voldemort's muggle alias is Dick Cheney.

Thus his nick, "The Dark Lord." Remember when he "debated" Edwards and everyone was referring to them as Voldemort and Harry? It all fell apart when Harry pointed his wand at He Who Must Not Be Named's daughter's and shouted, "Observus Facto Lesbianus!"

shortstop: It all fell apart when Harry pointed his wand at He Who Must Not Be Named's daughter's and shouted, "Observus Facto Lesbianus!"

Yeah, that was one of "Harry's" less impressive moments.

But it was page 208 of ...Deathly Hallows that *really* convinced me that Cheney was Voldemort. Now I'm trying to figure out if Bush is Lucius or Thicknesse...

Oh, and Daniel, I agree that knowing that Neville did not die isn't particularly spoilerish, either. Still, it was widely bandied about that some "major-minor" characters (Not main, but fairly important characters) did die, so I can see somebody who was wondering which characters die would not want to know who *didn't* die.

I'm personally not worried about being spoiled (I don't mean just because I've already read it, I mean in general). Knowing the bare outlines of "what happens" has never been a bar to my reading enjoyment. I'm the kind of person who reads the end of a mystery as soon as I *think* I've figured out "whodunit" so that I can slow down and savor how the detective figures it out. So I have a hard time figuring out what other people might consider "spoilers." It's always a guess, on my end. Nothing "spoils" a good book, for me.

"My point, since validated by more than 60 posters, is that this is silly distracton. I think it sad that Americans need to be validated as individuals by being complete conformists. Yet we are conditioned thusly by continuous marketing from birth. Are we so numbed that we defend pop literature as a police state rambles towards us?"

Exactly. We should all resign ourselves to stoic lives devoid of pleasure until the world is made perfect. From now until then, no sex, no food beyond unspiced rice and tofu, no talk that is not instrumental, no playing with pets or smiling at babies, absolutely no video games, TV, movies, music or telling jokes.
It didn't work in Pauline times but, heck, screw that nonsense about learning from history.
[For the twits who didn't get my earlier points, this post is an examle of sarcasm.]

I guess I shouldn't be surprised by a book that uses a naive fool as comic relief. Maybe I'm the only one who got annoyed to see Neville included in the plot (of books 3 & 4) only to miscast some spell or blunder something awfully. So, the author redeemed (recycled?) him later to some serious purpose. It must be a personal pet peeve.

If Hermione was so tired from using the time shifting ring to take extra classes, why didn't she just shift back again to get a good 8 hours sleep?

Maynard: I think I see your sarcastic point. We should come to political blogs for idle teen book chat, sex, and humor. Seriously, though, the whole Potter thing, including apologist posts here, are over the top. I think everyone who read the series deserves praise. Especially if they did it in secret and vowed to write their own series of books.

Really. . . .I cannot stand any more "elite snobs" who cry that the Harry Potter series is some kind of trash, not fit for truly "adult" readers. Those who say such things must be people who don't much care for fantasy, because it doesn't somehow reflect the "real world". Incidentally, I read LOTR soon after taking a literature course in which we had to read Beowulf, among other things. And while I liked the series, I could see, pretty much, even then, where Tolkien got his ideas. However, unlike most of my contemporaries at the time, I didn't swoon over LOTR, and when I tried to read it again(after seeing all the films), I found it pretty "impenetrable", and just quit. If anybody has an "elitist" attitude, it is Tolkien, not Rowling. . . it is clear he really disliked what the Britain of his time was becoming, and longed for some "good old days" when the ideal life was some "hobbitlike" village in the countryside. Rowliing is not like this *at all*! Practically from the beginning, as some comments have pointed out, Rowling has shown that she despises this elitism. And, oddly enough, the "bad guys" are the ones that despise anything but "pure blood". This becomes painfully obvious in the last book, where the "bad guys" try to enforce rules that sound a lot like the Nuremburg laws enacted by You-Know-Who, against You-Know-Who, and we all know where *that* led. No, Rowling clearly believes that everyone can and should have a chance to prove themselves and master whatever talents they have. Yes, it's written for kids, but if adults --- especially those adults who wrinkle their noses in disdain --- would actually *read* the series, they might find themselves *learning* something!
Anne G

Sparko is right. After reading his arguments I have decided to never again read a new Harry Potter book. Who's with me?

Ummm. It was not so much the reading as the demand for attention by those who let you know the read or were reading it.
The Geisel series of books are still pretty edgy and worthwhile.
Gold stars for everybody!! Thanks for sharing! We are a bit childish as a culture. That was my only point. That, and no one expects the Spanish Inqusition! Two main points! And may you all read something not hyped so damned much next time. Three. Three main points!

thethirdPaul -

Considering that would envolve me flying cross country, you would be obligated to mock me and then put me out of my mysery in the most embarassing way possible. Oh and dance on my grave when it was all over.

Please remember that before Tolkien, none of this stuff existed. Posted by: pbg

Well, I'd go Back to Robert E. Howard Conan stories (1932-36), set in the Hyborian Age. I would credit him with being the first Sword and Sorcery writer. Tolkien came later, with more details, but he was hardly treading 'new territory'.

B wins this round.

Shortstop - "Do you actually think that less than 72 hours after its release, everyone who's now reading the book has a) finished it and b) been unable to avoid spoilers in the media, so you might as well pile on?"

No, I would assume that anyone who was paranoid about stumbling onto extremely minor Harry Potter spoilers would be smart enough to avoid unmoderated blog threads about Harry Potter after the book has been released. Slate had a very big hint about Harry's fate on their front page as of about 3:30 PM today. I was VERY restrained by comparison.

And really, a mere acknowledgment that Neville plays a very important role in the book is hardly a spoiler. It could mean almost anything. Rowling herself dropped bigger hints about the book than that.

I certainly would not give away whether or not he lives or dies, whether or not he's secretly the real "chosen one," or whether he does a drag revue with Snape at a wizarding gay bar in Chelsea. THOSE would be spoilers. Settle down, shortstop. Seriously.

Somebody, Teresa maybe, said the Harry Potter series is a Chronicles of Narnia ripoff. Well Narnia was a Christian gospel rip-off. So much for the clowns who claim HP doesn't have Christian values.

Somebody, Teresa maybe, said the Harry Potter series is a Chronicles of Narnia ripoff. Well Narnia was a Christian gospel rip-off. So much for the clowns who claim HP doesn't have Christian values.
Posted by: Corpus Juris

WTF?

Wow. I guess I've been reading either a translated Chinese pirated version of HP or CoN, as I see no resemblance between the two other than both being stories written in English populated with magical creatures and human beings.

This has always bothered me: all the Hogwarts students dress like trim little MBA candidates while their wizard teachers mostly have long scraggly hair and odd wizardy outfits. This implies that upon graduation, the kids will throw away their public school duds—in some kind of ceremony, I assume—and stop shaving and combing their hair. Does this finally happen in book seven?

Another bother: what is the purpose of all that wizardly fighting? The American super heroes usually save the city or the world, but the wizards don’t seem to have any purpose beyond self preservation. So why should we care in the wizards survive or get creamed.

One last bother: All that food wasted! The dining hall tables are sickeningly overstocked. If there were such a thing as wizard school, they would demand self discipline from the students, not gluttony.