Harry Potter and the Attention Deficit Disorder

[Charon_Black]

Rowling puts out pre-packaged fluff fiction with most of the thinking already done for its readers. Most of her creatures are completely unoriginal, and most of her material is from existing fantasy novels or misunderstood real-world mythology. There have been incredible feats of British children's fantasy done in recent decades, such as the (now movie-mutilated) Dark is Rising series by Susan Cooper, but you don't see people trampling over each other to get to them... yet, they were bestsellers. Harry Potter is easy to read, simplistic, and comes in brightly colored packaging. It's the literary equivalent of Robot Chicken or Aqua Teen Hunger Force. There's nothing behind it, no substance.

It didn't "get children reading again," it "got children reading more Harry Potter, and going to the movies to see Harry Potter, and buying Harry Potter merchandise."

Do you honestly think that any of these kids, who wouldn't have read anything more complicated than the name of their favorite breakfast cereal without being goaded by a red-hot poker, are going to put down Deathly Hallows and suddenly develop a craving for Shakespeare, or Mark Twain, or Edgar Allen Poe, or even a solid and in-depth fantasy like Tolkien's?

You know what gets kids reading? Parents reading to them before they're old enough to do it themselves. Parents telling their kids stories. Parents encouraging them to read, once they're ready, instead of saying "it's such a lovely day, why don't you spend every last nanosecond outside rolling in mud puddles and climbing trees?" to get them out of the house so they don't have to deal with them. Everybody I know that loves reading was read to by their parents, and read to themselves at every stage of their early development with things ranging from 'See Spot Run' through the Little Critter, Berenstein Bears (sp), etc.

A lot of parents who took absolutely no responsibility for their children's early development are now praising Harry Potter as a substitute for their own responsibility. We live in a society where the ability to play football is valued much more highly, obviously, and universally than the ability to read or write, imagine, or do anything intellectual. Combine complete parental disregard and a lack of encouragement for feats of early intelligence in favor of that which is physically impressive, with the general "uncool" persecution of "wasting time" or "being stupid" that'll come from a kid's peers, and it's no wonder that most kids don't read.

Rowling didn't make reading cool, which is what needs doing.

 

[Tickle_Demoness]

Hmm...

I know that when I first started reading Harry Potter, I was in the sixth grade, and in general, I had always loved reading. At that point, I was still a bit too young to read Tolkien and I remember that what I had been reading at that point had been things like Goosebumps and such. I don't think the series gets kids reading, more as it gets kids into a certain type of literature. Soon after I read Harry Potter, I began to read the Dragon Lance Novels, and then Tolkien. Things like Stardust by Niel Gaiman and Inkheart by Cornelia Funke began making their way into my books shelves. I've noticed this with my younger brothers, and my nephews, who have all begun reading the Harry Potter series, that they tend to migrate towards things that are generally the crazy sorts of Fairy Tales that you hadn't heard of for a while. When they try to write their own stories, it is of Fairies and Goblins. My older brother and my Husband, on the other hand, began to read things like Star wars and such when they where younger, thus, turned them on a path for Sci-Fi and World of Warcraft and such.
I think J.K Rowling was a brilliant writer, in the fact that she knew which audience she was going to appeal to, and how. Why not use unorigional characters like Hippogryphes and Goblins, if that is what the old Fairy Tales tell about? Your right, I don't think she got kids reading again...but...I think she found a way to get the started on their way to Tolkien and other such writers by introducing children early on into Fairy Tales.

 

[Headsnap]

Do you honestly think that any of these kids, who wouldn't have read anything more complicated than the name of their favorite breakfast cereal without being goaded by a red-hot poker, are going to put down Deathly Hallows and suddenly develop a craving for Shakespeare, or Mark Twain, or Edgar Allen Poe, or even a solid and in-depth fantasy like Tolkien's?

Erm... would you want your kids reading Edgar Allan Poe? They're already prone to topping themselves for the most specious of reasons. I don't think I'd want them to read Tolkein's stuff either; it's a solidly constructed fantasy yes, however it's solidly constructed around the message that a hereditary patriarchy is "The Answer" and that dark-skinned foreigners are to be distrusted. And there's elves in it. Bleurgh.

Aside from that I can't help but agree with pretty much everything you're saying here, although I do think that you're being a tad bit cynical in places. For instance, if a kid starts reading Harry Potter and the Montezuma's Revenge or whatever the book is called instead of playing on the Playstation then surely that has the potential to form a habit and could potentially lead to them choosing a book over the console in future. The other problem with literature is that there is a prevalent feeling of it being inaccessible. Getting them interested in literature is difficult, particularly if you're not much into it yourself, and half of the battle is getting them to concentrate on the 400 pages in front of them in the first place; there's no point trying to put Shylock's character in context or explain why Fortinbras really isn't just some random Norwegian bloke if they find the very notion of actually reading that much text daunting. Surely Harry Potter, fluffy and baseless as it is, can help kids get over the initial dread of reading if nothing else.

 

[theshire]

I must say I am somewhat baffled by your cynicism.

Rowling puts out pre-packaged fluff fiction with most of the thinking already done for its readers. Most of her creatures are completely unoriginal, and most of her material is from existing fantasy novels or misunderstood real-world mythology

This is all pretty much true. But that does not make them bad novels, in itself. Children are going to be much more responsive to things that are familiar to them. Confuse them too much and they're going to get bored or...confused. In any case, Rowling invented plenty of original creatures.

Harry Potter is easy to read, simplistic, and comes in brightly colored packaging. It's the literary equivalent of Robot Chicken or Aqua Teen Hunger Force. There's nothing behind it, no substance.

That's why kids like to read them in the first place, and I see no reason why it should be any different at this stage in their lives. In any case, one would think that if Harry Potter is so "light and fluffy", Rowling wouldn't dare to make the more recent installments six or seven hundred pages long. One would think that would turn kids right off. And yet it hasn't. Why is that?

It didn't "get children reading again," it "got children reading more Harry Potter, and going to the movies to see Harry Potter, and buying Harry Potter merchandise."

Do you honestly think that any of these kids, who wouldn't have read anything more complicated than the name of their favorite breakfast cereal without being goaded by a red-hot poker, are going to put down Deathly Hallows and suddenly develop a craving for Shakespeare, or Mark Twain, or Edgar Allen Poe, or even a solid and in-depth fantasy like Tolkien's?

Why are you making the assumption that this expansion to better things has to come immediately after they finish Harry Potter? Are you saying that they're not going to read anything else for the rest of their lives? I don't buy that.

You know what gets kids reading? Parents reading to them before they're old enough to do it themselves. Parents telling their kids stories. Parents encouraging them to read, once they're ready, instead of saying "it's such a lovely day, why don't you spend every last nanosecond outside rolling in mud puddles and climbing trees?" to get them out of the house so they don't have to deal with them. Everybody I know that loves reading was read to by their parents, and read to themselves at every stage of their early development with things ranging from 'See Spot Run' through the Little Critter, Berenstein Bears (sp), etc.

My brother was read to by my parents as a child just as I was, and yet he hates reading books and I love it. Why is that?

A lot of parents who took absolutely no responsibility for their children's early development are now praising Harry Potter as a substitute for their own responsibility. We live in a society where the ability to play football is valued much more highly, obviously, and universally than the ability to read or write, imagine, or do anything intellectual. Combine complete parental disregard and a lack of encouragement for feats of early intelligence in favor of that which is physically impressive, with the general "uncool" persecution of "wasting time" or "being stupid" that'll come from a kid's peers, and it's no wonder that most kids don't read.

I don't believe most parents are doing any such thing, to be honest. They encourage their children to read Harry Potter because they want them to read. I think if you want to make the claim that most parents are trying to set Albus Dumbledore up as their child's second grandfather and mentor, you need to back it up with that little something called proof.

Rowling didn't make reading cool, which is what needs doing.

And how do you think people are to achieve this? What can any author do to make reading "cool"? Why have you placed the responsibility of doing this on one author's shoulders?

 

[cloudgazer2k]

i went from reading Twain, Poe, Wells, and Homer to Harry Potter. though, in my mind, that was not a downgrade, but rather a catching of interest. you, Mr. Ferryman of the River Styx, seem to have missed the whole point.

sure, Rowling has borrowed from other literary works of art. who hasn't? the thing is, she made it her own. added intrigue, suspense, betrayal, and tribulation.

why can't one just enjoy the fact that there is something that makes kids want to read, and even add fuel to the dwindling flame of imagination that many of the older generation once had? so what if Rowling made something that became a merchandising machine. her efforts, and the efforts of those that came before and after, have continued the on-going legacy that is literacy.

 

[locker669]

You forgot to add "and made a lot of money doing it." If you found an eay job that made you rich you'd do it too.

 

[Tickle_Demoness]

But....

But as Charon_Black so graciously pointed out without any solid ground to say so earlier...none of us have degree's in Psycology...So do we have a right to be speaking at all in the cynical world according to Charon_Black? The world may never know! Now, above, Charon_Black, was demonstrated how normal people can have a wonderful conversation and agree to disagree about most anything without causing each other insult. A beautiful thing in my mind...possibly you'll learn it one day.

 

[Tickle-Demon]

The curse of ignorance.

you know what i love. how Charon_Black likes to say stupid shit, and then when everyone proves him wrong he doesnt have the balls to write back. Where is your witty sarcasim, and willingness to prove everyone wrong? Whats wrong Charon_Black, cat got your tounge? or did Harry curse you 😛

 

[Musicroxmysox]

Being an avid reader I have read Twain, Poe, Palahniuk, King, Wolf, Ovid, Austen, and many many things in between. I too am a Harry Potter fan and read all of the books. Yes they are not the most difficult things to read but that does not mean that they do not provide some value. Instead of spending all your time judging and actually taking the time to inflict on us your strong opinion why not just say nothing at all. It is not as if one seems to be holding a red hot poker to your skin to read these books. So again why bother, to bother yourself about them?

 

[PBL]

It's the literary equivalent of Robot Chicken or Aqua Teen Hunger Force. There's nothing behind it, no substance.

I disagree with the (implied) idea that robot chicken and/or aqua teen hunger force have no substance.

 

[Headsnap]

I disagree with the (implied) idea that robot chicken and/or aqua teen hunger force have no substance.

This is what I should have said 🙁