I admit to having a Potter reader in the household and having read to book three myself (at which point, given it's deeper style, I wondered how many JK Rowling's there are, or, thank goodness she found a new editor). I've seen the movies.

My observation is that HP seems to reinforce conservative middle-class values and isolationism. The women in the books are treated apallingly. Harry, the hero does heroic things, plays sport and inevitably saves that day. The main female lead, Hermonie, just does sneaky spells. A lifetime of telling my daughter that she can do what the boys do has been lost. The minor female characters are stereo-types.

Yes, Rolling can roll lots of stories into one, telling a good tale. But the writing is lazy and lacks confidence. The books are dialogue heavy but she is unwilling to let readers 'read' the dialogue. Most statement are qualified with "he said anxiously....surprisingly...seriously ...(insert any other adverb)". My Potterite observed (wisely?) "these are children's books [really?] and shouldn't be taken seriously". Which is a bit like saying restaurants should only offer chicken nuggets and chips in a kid's menu.

The other aspect is that Potterdom is a closed world. My reader read the tome in the required day. Why? So she could get on the net and not see spoilers. The aim was not any richness in the narrative but simply to see 'how it ends' before someone tells her in a forum. The book finished, I asked how it ended (yes, I'm curious as to whether JKR has left space for a follow-up) but i was greeted with hostility. Apparently either I wouldn't understand or was not a citizen of HP land, so not entitled to know. Other parents had similar experiences. I'll wait for the movie as my household reader uses HP, (like IM/SMS/blogs), to exclude who she wants from her world.

'Fraid this article is garbage.

The author concludes:

"Moreover, the passage is like an allegory of reading: slow down, listen, take your time, think, don’t rush to the end, and a world will come to life. With Harry Potter, all there is, is a rush to the end to see whodunit."

Rush to the end? Welcome to the world of children. It's all well and good to ask them to be more contemplative, but we may as well ask them all to stop wanting to eat junkfood and stay up late.
Ain't gonna happen.

The premise - that children are immersed in an anti-social, impatient literary spiral of some description, essentially means that any popular books that children are eager to read, will fall into the same trap.

Unless there is some kind of fiction which is more contemplative... but most kids aren't going to want to read that. May as well ask them to trade cartoons for news programs.

This isn't an issue about Harry potter - it's an adult projecting their concept of what should be interesting to kids (and adults), in place of what actually is.

What's it like being stuck back in "the Good Ole Days" Helen? Do tell ;)

But seriously, to use a Tolkien example...I'd much rather re-read The Hobbit with its light airy writing, fast-pace and subtle hints at deeper things, than sit through the horrible monstrosity of dull, incoherent, rambling that Lord of the Rings becomes as Tolkien drifts into self-absorption in the latter "books".

Potter is The Hobbit compared to which all of the classics you listed are merely Lord of the Rings.

Whilst I understand why an academic lover of literature is unhappy with the popularity of the HP series, whilst so much of her beloved 'literature' goes unread by the masses, she's being entirely unrealistic and intellectually snobbish.

The works of Charles Dickens, and other's of his ilk, are products of earlier times when books had less competition for peoples' time, at least amongst the educated classes. The long winded and thoroughly descriptive prose of those times was obviously far more accepted and even highly regarded in those times. In today's busy world of instant gratification, such prose trys peoples' patience, except those with lots time on their hands or a financial interest - Such as academics. Frankly, it is doubtful anyone would ever read a Charles Dickens today if they hadn't been taught to appreciate such works as children.

Of course it is a good thing our education system 'teaches' us an appreciation of the literature of other times, but to complain that the popular fiction of this era is less valid or worthwhile than that of an earlier era is just plain silly. Modern prose may not be as colourful or pretty, but it is more efficient, and makes its point in a tenth the time (c.f. Charles Dickens) and that is what our modern age demands.

As for telling us what's good for children, as a parent I will stick with the realists who know that anything which sparks a love of reading in my children is a good thing

Dissect!
Define!
Be obsessed with minutiae!
Don't accept that kids just like or dislike.
Pore over experience for an imperative definition of fun, then tell the child what to like.
Don't ever let a child enjoy exploration!

I was talking to someone I know recently. She has written a number of books for children and read thousands of them. Naturally we discussed HP.
I think she was absolutely right when she said that the HP books had all the elements in them that children want.
Other modern books for children? As she said, "Go and look in the children's section of your local library. You will find a great many badly written books about 'social issues'. The characters are flat. The books are supposed to be 'realistic' and do nothing to stretch the imagination of the child. Is it any wonder children do not want to read. I don't blame the child who told me "I'm sick of AIDS and death and divorce."
Adults read fiction for pleasure. If children read fiction it is supposed to be to improve their minds (shades of the Victorian era here). If it does not improve their minds then they are "wasting time" and should be doing something else....thanks educators you are certainly putting kids off reading. Thank God for Harry!

I dunno. I read Biggles as a kid, and soon read every book of W. E. Johns that I could. But eventually I passed on to other things. Biggles, too, never said anything without a modifying adverb. As a father I read on the bed, too, but that passed as my kids learned to read their own stuff, and go off into their own imaginative world. They've got to learn on something. I hope Biggles didn't do me any permanent harm.

But three years of an English major at university deprived me of any joy in the classics of English literature. I was 40 before I could read such a book for pleasure.

For what it's worth I read the first HP novel, there being such a lot of fuss about it, and decided easily enough that one would be enough.

Helen Pringle

What a miserable person you must be. You haven't told us what you read as a young
child - perhaps that would be enlightening.

Because a child reads Harry Potter it does not mean that this is going to be the sole reading for the child's life. They move on. And if Harry Potter gives them the desire
to pick up a book and read, then the series has achieved something. I don't really see
a seven year old enjoying the Pickwick Papers, but certainly later as the child matures
they could well be drawn to it as to other greater classics.

Oh dear - this article reminds me why I abandoned English at uni before it destroyed my love of reading.

HP is a ripping yarn - not particularly well written, and it seems the last three books weren't edited at all, but JK Rowling has an astouning imagination, tells a good tale and can certainly weave a very inticate plot into a coherent whole. In my experience, very few children can or will read a HP book in a day - but they keep at it enthusiastically until thy have finished. I read the early ones to my daughter (HP and reading to children are not mutually exclusive), she has also listened to some read by Stephen Fry and has read the last three herself - fairly slowly. Well, she hasn't quite finished HP7 - it was confiscated at school along with about 15 other copies which had been smuggled into class! Kids love the story, and if they are the young reader's equivalent of an airport novel, so what? Better than the Triple D's (drugs, death and divorce) which infest so much of the 'literature' teens are meant to read these days.

An oblique comment.
I wonder what Plato would have thought of the practice of putting babies (even new born ones), toddlers and infants in front of a TV set as either a form of entertainment (ENTRAINMENT) or baby sitting?

Or letting young people of all ages spend several hours a day either watching TV or a computer screen?

Helen, have you read any of the books yourself? Some? All? One? A chapter?

The reason I ask is that you carefully avoid any hint that you might have an opinion of your own about their style.

>>Even if my readers allow that the Harry Potter books are written in a dull and cliché-ridden style...<<

>>It is sometimes said that even if the Harry Potter books are written badly, nevertheless ...<<

Significantly, you didn't say "I found the style dull and cliché-ridden" or "I found them badly written".

So, who exactly it is that holds the opinions that you parrot?

I was fed tripe as a kid. Enid Blyton was repetitive and cartoonish, with the naffest of naff characters. W E Johns' Biggles, Ginger and Algy were clichéd in the extreme, but fearless and honourable. Arthur Ransome wrote about kids who seemed to own both boats and real estate, perhaps a tad out of touch in the Depression. And post-war England, come to that. Antony Buckeridge wrote about kids who went to boarding school and had "tuck boxes" sent from home - as of course did Frank Richards' Bunter, whose entourage I can still recall included the stock-mock Indian, Hurree Jamset Ram Singh.

The language and tone used ranged from ultra-juvenile to out-of-touch patrician. I didn't notice this at the time, of course, but it is significant that none can be read by an adult without cringing.

When the first Harry Potter book came out, my son was of read-to-at-bedtime age, and it was very noticeable that Rowling's prose was far easier going that any of the above. It was actually fun to read out loud.

Despite their shortcomings, I lapped up all the available garbage as a kid, and in adolescence managed to move seamlessly through Conan Doyle, Ian Fleming and Agatha Christie into Dostoevsky, Sartre and Austen. I strongly suspect that growing up with J K Rowling will do my lad no harm at all.

But I never liked Wind in the Willows. Or Dickens, come to that.

Hated Dickens. Such a pompous ass.

Those that can, do; those that can't, teach. Sophie Masson clearly falls into the first class, while Helen Pringle falls into the second. It also seems that doers can respect and admire other doers, while teachers churlishly denigrate those doers who challenge taught dogma.

Why is it not possible for a child to enjoy both Harry Potter AND Wind in the Willows?

Helen, I agree with some of the things you say. But I cannot see any argument in your piece to support your contention that it is better for a child to read nothing than read about Harry Potter. The question is not whether Harry Potter books are inferior to classics, possibly they are in some respects. But for them to be worse than nothing is an assertion that needs to be supported. I am very thankful that I was able to read Wizard and Beano comics as a kid. They were certainly better than nothing for me, but if only I could have got my hands on a Harry Potter or two.
Fencepost.

Helen Pringle needs to take a chill pill.

Just because some of us may enjoy an excursion to Macca's doesn't mean we limit our taste buds and do not enjoy high cuisine. Though some will never venture beyond a burger, many do.

It's the same with books. In my household of three children, one enjoyed reading Harry Potter, one could never get into it, but devoured Lord of the Rings (twice) and one reads them, but tells me there are so many fantastic books which are better 'why does this one get so much hype?'. All three read all kinds of books.

As for reading out loud. That's wonderful, but also not all stories are interesting to everybody. The first book I read out loud was 'The Hobbit' some 12 years ago. Even my husband sat in and enjoyed it

As it seems that the interest in Harry Potterisms is a good way of getting our minds off what we are facing in our world today it might be a good idea to get Harry's philosophical favourites more interested in the following:

It has been said to be true that the more peaceful changes in history were brought on by philosophers such as Socrates, St Thomas Aquinas, and John Locke of Britain.

Just as Aquinas lifted Christianity out of the Dark Ages, with his acceptance of Socratic Reasoning to balance Christian faith, so John Locke carried on the task in 1688 to lift Britain from the clutches of autocratic religous royalty, his doctrine later patterning the democratic section or the bulk of the American Constitution apart from the so-called symbolic prerogative that allows both Regent and President to only play Garden-Gnome leadership in a true democracy.

Harry Potter's bearded thinkers if taken as real might agree that today's world has truly lost its philosophical reasoning through allowing for example the wornout religous philosophy of the Promised Land to interfere with the balance of power in today's Middle East.

The PL undemocratic formula also not only defies the Sermon on the Mount, but also has brought on most of the wars in Western history.

Come on, Harry, world problems are too serious to escape into romantics, so put on your truly democratic thnking cap, matey, our world needs it so much?

Tall poppy syndrome.

I wonder how many students have been put off reading by the Ms Pringles of the world?

"The first duty to children is to make them happy, If you have not made them so, you have wronged them, No other good they may get can make up for that.” Charles Buxton, English writer 1823 - 1871

Back in 1973 my high school history teacher told my 5th form class of the experiences of a friend of her's who taught in a 'housing development' / Housing Commission area Sydney's west. This teacher had asked her class of 38 students how many had books, except school books, at home. Out of a class of 38 there was only three.

Perhaps in the light of this history the HarryPotter phenomenon is not a bad thing, but then I look back on my reading school list from my early teens: 1984, Animal Farm, Lord of the Flies, Return of the Native. For relaxation I read anything by Arthur.C.Clark.

These books challenged both my reading ability and my mind.

Should any child be encouraged to read a book that they can speed read? It is like junk food, as someone else has previously alluded to: but do we want to feed children's minds the equivalent of low fibre, high sugar and high salt food as an exclusive diet?

In some ways I agree with Helen: if we don't feed our kids the HarryPotter junk food and instead satisfy their hunger for reading with something that they cannot read that fast, but requires thought and contemplation, they will be better nourished, intellectually, spiritually and emotionally for it.

I think that is what she means about having children read nothing rather than reading Harrypotter. Leave them hungry for something, instead of gratified and satisfied that they have raced through a series of books, that are the equivalent of comic books, without the pictures.

As a speedreader, I take some offence at the suggestion that speedreaders dont get anything out of a book except gratification from getting to the end. I LOVE reading. I own many books, all of them read many times. To me, to dispose of a book is a capital crime. However, like everyone else in this world my time is limited with many drains on my attention. As a teenager I had plenty of time to curl up with a book; now as a working mother it is a luxury I get one or two times a year. I love reading so much, that I CANT put a book down once I start, hence the need for speedreading! It also gives me ongoing enjoyment, as everytime I re-read a book, I get something new out of it (racing through does by necessity skim over some things)

Ours loved poetry. Much of it, written by some of the world's best poets, is very light and silly but it entertains and creates an appetite for more and perhaps more wholesome fodder.

What Ms Pringle needs to accept is that even comics are useful if they get children reading.

JKR is a storyteller and a very good one at that. A good yarn is supposed to move at a rapid pace, what modern kid's hero struggles with Shakespearian soliloquoys, baring the very depths of his soul when there are dragons (maybe like Ms Pringle) at large?

A table would be very boring if every dish was an over-rich pudding filled with suet, fruit and spices. Anyhow, most children like jelly sprinkled with Smarties and that's children for you.

I suspect that Harry Potter has brought many children to books whose parents would never have read a book themselves, let alone read to the children.

I wonder what the frowning Ms Pringle thinks of Dr Suess?

Quote:

I wonder what the frowning Ms Pringle thinks of Dr Suess?
Posted by Cornflower, Saturday, 28 July 2007 9:06:56 PM

Cornflower, do you mean Dr Seuss?
(to check spelling see: http://www.catinthehat.org/)

Which sort of makes a point, Dr Seuss wrote basic children's' books for very young readers. Contrary to post-modernist thought, 'Dr Seuss' is not comparable to Shakespeare, or Vonnegut, or Eric Blair (aka George Orwell).

Whilst I am sure that Theodor Seuss Geisel could write excellent English literature he is mainly known for his children's books. They are just one stepping stone to reading deeper and more difficult literature.

No literate and normally intelligent adult would chose the works of Dr Seuss as the literature of choice to inspire them, to cause them to look at the world differently.

People grow out of Dr Seuss, so why in the world are adults so potty about HappyPotty? (maybe people should consider 1 Corinthians 13:11)

I have recently had Internet contact with a young woman who used Shakespeare as a source of inspiration for an HSC artwork, involving the death of Ophelia. An intelligent 15 year old, properly taught and guided, is able to read and understand the questioning about existence raised in the play 'Hamlet'. The famously misquoted 'To be or not to be' soliloquy is Hamlet pondering his own suicide. Does HappyPotty really ask the questions that are confronted in the timeless literature that is available? In 100 years who will remember what a muggle is? HappyPotty will go the way of 'Boys Own Annual' 1917 edition.

Speed reading? Yes, important - speed reading can be an absolute boon, but I am just glad that I didn't speed read Hardy's Return of the Native when I was 16, because I was so disappointed when I finished it, I just wanted it to go on and on.

I sense a touch of intellectual arrogance here...I am better than you because I have read Austen, Dickens, Hardy etc - the classics no less!
According to those afflicted by intellectual arrogance these works border on perfection. It's great literature! Or is it?
I can remember attending an evening once at which the late Alan Marshall was speaking. He was being ferried around by the late Derek Whitelock. During the course of the after-speech questions the subject of Patrick White came up and Alan Marshall admitted he had never read any. Derek then asked the question as to whether anyone in the room had read any White. There was one lone voice, "Only because I had to". So, the guy got a Nobel Prize for literature...but, who reads him? How can literature be great if people do not read it? Surely one of the marks of great literature is that many people want to read it for the sheer pleasure of reading it. They will seek it out and not read it just because they are required to do so.

Thank you for the comments! I have written a few pieces for OOL, but none has attracted the level of personal vitriol as this piece on Harry Potter. That is quite surprising to me, as I have written on abortion and racism, topics about which people feel, and rightly feel, very strongly indeed. So while I am disturbed by the personal comments, perhaps they reflect in a distorted way some things that are valuable: that people still feel very strongly about literature, and that many of us agree that books do have power. As our universities become more and more like intellectual wastelands rather than places of learning (developments that do make me and many of my finer colleagues “miserable”), these things are hopeful signs.

But no, Danielle, in general I am not miserable. And yes, Cornflower, I do think, like Charles Buxton, that it is important for children to be happy, but making children happy is a very different thing from keeping them amused. (Charles Buxton himself seems to have thought that freedom was more important than happiness.) Yes, Pericles, I have read all the Harry Potter books except the final one, or what I hope is the final one (a glance at the last chapter of the final book leads me to think that there is a “Son of Harry Potter” in the works). So when I say that the book are written in a dull and cliché-written style, I am speaking in my own voice, although I am not the first person to say that of course (Harold Bloom and AS Byatt being much more eminent voices along similar lines). I should add however, that in reading the first four books aloud, I would often get to the end of a chapter and realise that I had not a clue what I had just read. And when I read the first four books aloud, I was never asked by the listening child to read any part of them again.

Have exceeded word limit, have to split reply, and sorry can't reply to all comments. Helen

part 2...

I also thought a bit yesterday about Yvonne’s metaphor of the Maccas meal. The analogy only goes so far in regard to Harry Potter: both are poor nutrition, in the one case as food for the body and in the other as food for thought. But I have never heard anyone say how wonderful Maccas meals are because they have got children eating again, and I have never heard anyone claim that eating Maccas leads children on to eating and appreciating good food. As Hamlet so perceptively notes, sometimes it is important to rediscover our hunger – rather than just stuffing our bodies or minds with pap. In my experience, as a person, a writer and a teacher, boredom is usually a sign of overstuffed minds rather than hungry ones.
Helen

As an oldie with Honor's in the general social sciences, including International Relations and the Philosophy of History, would like to know when kids should start learning about what is now real in this world.

With this modernised return to the corporate culture of the colonial times, so evidenced now in both politics and economics with big businesses becoming almost as large as the East India Company, our youngsters around the age of ten, maybe should have such things explained to them - and also be told of course - as said - that Harry Potterism is mainly designed to encourage kids to read.

But philosophically it is believed we still must prepare them for what a well-known author back in the 1970s termed - Future Shock.

And really one could ask - has our world got any better for the young 'uns to inherit?



While

Not to be encouraged to take any political side, but to be ready for the shocks

I was talking with a year 11 student who had performed the obligatory speed reading of the latest. She could not understand why so many adults were fascinated with what she described as a children's book.

I have seen the HP books described as ripping yarns, and indeed they may be, I would like to contrast them with two books that I have read by an Australian author, Peter Fitzsimmons, each book having a one word title: "Kokoda" and "Tobruk". I don't think that Fitzsimmons would ever describe himself as a writer of classic literature, and anyone with any knowledge of history already knows the 'endings'. These are not history textbooks, and do not claim to be, but to young Australians they represent a chance to thoughtfully read stories of courage, tragedy, humour, life and death, and triumph. I know which books I would prefer to see young Australians reading.

In terms of accessibility to other literature, perhaps people should try tuning into Radio National's book reading, then if they are tempted they may read the words for themselves. I rediscovered Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" in this way.

You don't have to be blind, or a child, to enjoy good literature being read to you.

Literature doesn’t end with HP. These, after all, are children’s books. Perhaps those who want to attack Helen Pringle haven’t grown out of their own fixation with children’s literature, and the fact that teenagers are no longer children: Teens who grew up with HP are not the same age as when the series started, but the books are still at the same level. The first HP book came out in 1997, the last in 2007. Do we really want teens reading the same standard of book as they were when they were 8? Harry grew up and so have the readers. Why not the books?

If the stories had matured, so that the 2007 book was suitable for the same cohort as read the first book in 1997, it would not be suitable for 10 year olds today. Can anyone else see something wrong here?

Hamlet,

Re Dr Seuss, I experienced the dreaded 'Oh, No' feeling after the comment was posted, but thanks anyway.

What is the matter with you people? What on earth can you possibly think makes it permissible to be unkind to other people for the cardinal sin of holding a different opinion? Free speech? Your "right" to express yourself? The word "forum"?

This person is exercising the right to state her opinion for the purposes of lively debate, and doing so in a way that does not rob anyone of their dignity; transgress the rights of others to their good name; nor rob anyone of their self-esteem. In other words she is responsibly using the right to free speech and deserves to have her words read and responded to in the same vein.

It has also become acceptable on OLO to denigrate and to abuse, vilify, threaten and impugn posters and authors (i.e. total strangers) and to describe the expression of their feelings as winging, whining, bleating, screaming, ranting, or raving.

I am neither whinging, whining, bleating, screaming, ranting or raving but STATING that I am shocked at the depths of the unkindness and sheer nastiness directed at others by some people through OLO. Like the author, I am astounded that an opinion about a kids novel should generate such sheer bloody-mindedness.

The comments on these pages have more than once reduced me to tears. Is this the aim of some posters? If anyone holds a different opinion you must rob them of all dignity - jeer and mock in order to prove yourselves right? Do you switch off your computers with a satisfied "There! That'll show 'em!" and sleep the sleep of the just?

Jeez, people, get a grip. The woman doesn't like a book. You do. Must she be pilloried in order for you to hold your opinion?

have read no h(arry) p(otter) books. saw one of the films (the first) and apart from quidittch (spell? please correct me - i won't be transported into fury) i had to admire unashamedly every child (and adult) who could keep awake and alert - talk about shouting 'fire' in a public theatre - if it were up to me there'd be no one capable of doing so as we sunk and sunk deliciously into our comfortable seats, transported into another world as we drifted off into our own imaginations ...

great piece h(elen) p(ringle). both a good read in and of itself, a greatly provocative and thoughtful piece, and the ratty-mole story such a parable of times past. in accordance with the ethos imposed upon 'our' australia under the current federal regime, would there ever be a ratty today who would even listen to a mole, much less retrace the path to the molehouse?

Trust Jocelynne to agree with Helen...it sounds suspiciously like, "I didn't like it so we should get rid of it". I don't like the sort of music that modern teenagers seem to like but I won't advocate getting rid of it or saying they should not experience it.
I went to see the first HP film too Jocelynne. The theatre was packed, the kids were enthralled and the adults seemed to think it was pretty good too...and it was not just the hype that did it...the kids came out with the words tumbling over one another as they tried to tell others what they wanted to say...I doubt that a modern rendition of Great Expectations would have the same effect.

I'm surprised you're surprised, Helen.

>>none has attracted the level of personal vitriol as this piece on Harry Potter. That is quite surprising to me, as I have written on abortion and racism, topics about which people feel, and rightly feel, very strongly indeed<<

Yes, but.

If you had simply said "I think the Harry Potter books are rubbish, and here are the reasons why", these are your views and folk could feel free to offer theirs in return.

Instead of which, you deliberately tread on the corns of a great many people by telling them that they are wrong to allow their children to read these books.

Few have the advantages of your education, but nevertheless constantly strive to "do the right thing" by their kids. For you to beat them around the ears with your disapproval is to invite exactly the kind of personal observations that you did in fact receive.

These same people are totally comfortable to accept the views of that crusty old traditionalist, Harold Bloom. No-one expected him to actually engage with the book (singular: he was invited to review only one), which of course was the prime reason the WSJ asked him. But it is impossible to be cross with a 77-year-old ultra-conservative literary critic who thinks Camille Paglia is really neat.

Nor of course would anyone take exception to the views of A S Byatt, whose principle audience is Eng. Lit. majors. Why would she, an unbelievably talented writer who takes exceptional care over every verb and every obscure literary allusion, say nice things about a young single mother who sits down in a cafe one day to write a string of highly successful (and lucrative) children's books?

But for you to take up where they left off, and propose "that children would be better off not reading anything rather than reading Harry Potter", is simply a bridge too far.

Stick to beating the bushes on abortion and racism, Helen, and fewer folk will get personal.

Better still, get back to Albrechtsen-excoriation. We all enjoy that, and suspect that you do too.

I think that the popularity of HP speaks for itself. Children like it. I have not read any HP, but have seen the enthusiasm that children greet it. Some of these children will go on to read women's magazines as their normal fare. Others will go on to read great English works, as well as Goethe, Kafka, Musil and Camus and others in their original language; perhaps even Latin and ancient Greek works. As many people are aware, even the best of translations, miss subtleties (even full meanings) of the original language.

I think it is much more deplorable that no-one speaks out against the trash of women's magazines (I do not know the equivalent in men's, but am sure there is). Also of concern should be the fact that the editorial policy of many newspapers is that copy must be at
the level of comprehension of a twelve year old.

Don Aitkin,

I read Biggles too....and Hornblower, Dennis Wheatley, Noddy and the Famous Five.

I also explored Mary Stuart, Dickens, Thomas Hardy and Virginia Wolf, who said, "simplicity fathoms what intellectuals falsify".

Children need to explore in a safe environment.

Harry Potter is fun and a well written yarn.

Purchall

Go with it.

I am surprised that Helen and others believe that the responses to this article have been particularly nasty. Perhaps it is because I have become habituated to mud slinging through reading the political columns of our daily newspapers. I thought responses to the article were generally quite mild. In addition to the calloused nature of my interpersonal sensitivity I am perhaps also obtuse in not gaining any further insight about the assertion that HP is worse than nothing. This was perhaps hyperbole though I am wondering whether it was a more considered position in view of the analogy with keeping kids away from Maccas and hungry so that they might have appetite for more nutritious food? Fencepost.

Romany, Helen did not only say she didn't like the books, but that children are better of not reading them at all if this is all they will read. As if this can be determined beforehand.

There are children and adults who read and those who don't. As Danielle pointed out, some will not read anything more arduous than those appalling women's magazines. That they are commercially viable is a mystery to me.

As somebody who has loved reading from a very young age and still does, I find it sad that there could be those who think that HP is the best thing. So does my daughter by the way. There are many, many wonderful children's books besides the classics mentioned by Helen.

By the way, was Charles Dickens, or Shakespeare for that matter, regarded as 'literature' in their day or did they too receive flack for being too 'popular'?

With my children, two of whom are avid readers we've discussed the well orchestrated hype surrounding HP. It was a great discussion in the power of marketing. A bit like that dreadful book 'the Da Vince Code'

It always makes me laugh when I read adults criticising children's literature. In the case of Harry Potter, I also can't help thinking that the ones who do criticise the books, would probably feel quite at home in Slytherin - perhaps they recognise themselves only too well in some of the books' less appealing characterisations.

The best judges are, of course, children themselves. I don't think any great marketing kicked in until about the third book. The Harry Potter sensation took off because of children - through good old fashioned word of mouth. The marketers’ job was easy - by the time the first film was being made and the third book published - children in their millions had already fallen in love.

J K Rowling is a genius writer. She has captured the imaginations of the world's children. I for one think the world could get very interesting indeed when the Potter 'children' grow up. After all, the world of Hogwarts is, in so many ways, eerily close to our own. The last book is a thrilling read and she concludes the series wonderfully well - teaching children that compassion and love for others eventually triumphs over authoritarianism, power and control.

Why the 'Christians' got scared is beyond me - unless they were of the far right of course - and then it is more than clear why they would be so disparaging - preferring themselves to control others by fear - rather than teaching the true gospels of love and compassion.

For me, J K Rowling has done a sterling job and nobody can dispute the enormous pleasure she has brought to millions of our children’s lives - not forgetting the odd adult, of course.

Yvonne - yes, she did say children are better off not reading them etc. etc. But she prefaced the comment with "I think". Then went on to justify why she thought so. I don't see why that should get up anyone's nose. If she had said "I think..." and then gone on to say that she thought the moon was made of cheese would people have become so impassioned?

So what if she holds that opinion? I also teach university lit. students and I encourage them to read HP. To engage with this topic I would also say "I think..." and then list my reasons. We'd almost certainly then rigorously debate the conflicting points of view. Which surely is the purpose of a forum?

But personal invective? What purpose does that serve except to expose meaness of spirit?

And Pericles, I can't see any examples of her telling people they are wrong. She merely gives her reasons for her opinion - which may conflict with other peoples' but certainly doesn't threaten them or their parenting skills in any way.

After all she doesn't propose banning the books, or punitive measure for parents who disagree with her. I see no evidence either of beating people around the ears with her opinions. She backs up her statement with both researched and personal opinions. Those who disagree - as do I and, it appears, others - are thus implicitly invited to retaliate in kind.

Name-calling and personal denigration? Hell, one doesn't have to have a degree in Literature - and thus the human condition - to interpret what such tactics reveal about those who employ them.

Where did I go wrong? Am I a bad parent?

I read to my children each night starting from about 10 months, (as well as getting up to change nappies, and then going to work at 6 AM).

They now read everything from Shakespeare to Steinbeck, but I do allow them to read for fun. So at 1 minute past 9 I had to have them at the bookshop to get the latest copy of Harry Potter.

Odd how most of the other children there were girls, and many of them were dressed up as Harry Potter. Perhaps the author does not like the fact that so many girls were reading about a boy.

I do think the series should end, or perhaps it should have ended sooner, perhaps after 3 – 5 novels. It has become rather commercialised.

But the series of books did give children something to become interested in and excited about, and when reading the latest book, each child knew that millions of other children were also reading that book, and nearly at the same time as them

Is poor unfortunate Violet Baudelaire on the hit list too?

Has anyone had the heart to inform Lemony Snicket that the thirteenth may never come?

Yvonne,

I don't know if Charles Dickens was considered too popular at his time, but during Shakespeare's period, the audience and the actors were much more closely engaged than
in the theatre today. As any actor will tell you, every audience is different - and during
a performance of Shakespeare the action or the text would change accordingly. If the audience were particularly roused by a fight scene, the scene would be extended and another part of the play cut; I imagine there would have been considerable ad-libbing if a a courtship scene was preferred. It is quite possible that Shakespeare's own script changed as plays were performed. The superb works we have today may have been quite different than when he first wrote them.

During Patrick White's first production of "Night on Bald Mountain," the actors and director had a terrible time. The actors found some of the dialogue too difficult to present successfully, and the great master himself was not prepared to change any word. Eventually, some sort of compromise was reached, but not until many tears were shed.

I apologise, I've gone off topic. Two of my young grand-daughters are the same age, one is a prolific reader, reading 2-3 hours every evening - she has no interest in HP. The other grand-daughter's reading skills were so bad, we thought she might have dyslexia, but this proved not so. As her confidence dropped, her reading became worse. However, HP engaged her imagination, and consequently her reading greatly improved and with it her confidence - for that the family is grateful. She is now looking at books
she would never have considered before. I wonder at what age literary "discernment"
occurs