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.