<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/platform.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d17829824\x26blogName\x3dWrong+Side+of+the+Tracks\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLUE\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttps://wrongjr.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://wrongjr.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d7706307521957129916', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>
          CONTACT     |      ABOUT     |      SEARCH     |      RECENT POSTS     |      ARCHIVES     |      BLOGS, &TC     |      RELIGION     |      ENTERTAINMENT     |      MEDIA     |      IDEAS     |     

7.28.2007    |    Obligatory Harry Potter Post
Book 7First, straight off, this: J.K. Rowling's latest book, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is nothing short of brilliant. Yes, I suffer from having swallowed, practically whole, all six of its predecessors. In short, I've been suffering from Adult Onset Pottermania since the first book came out in June, 1997.

First, the obvious: this is a spoiler-free zone. Second, a complaint: why do some critics complain that the Potter series is suitable only for retarded children? Well, perhaps not quite so bad, but consider a sampling of what the uber-snob Harold Bloom had to say:
I have just concluded the 300 pages of the first book in the series, "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone," purportedly the best of the lot. Though the book is not well written, that is not in itself a crucial liability. It is much better to see the movie, "The Wizard of Oz," than to read the book upon which it was based, but even the book possessed an authentic imaginative vision. "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" does not...How to read "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone"? Why, very quickly, to begin with, perhaps also to make an end. Why read it? Presumably, if you cannot be persuaded to read anything better, Rowling will have to do.

I might have some choice words for Bloom; I knew snarky kids like him growing up in the Bronx. They mostly came from upwardly-mobile households and had been trained, early on, to look down on anyone who's father earned his living with his hands (as mine did).

Bloom, and perhaps most others who advise us from the academy, in stentorian tones, to not read children's books if we're able to read "literature," have, to be gentle, lost touch with the magic. Magic, not of the literal sort of the Wizards and Muggles world of Harry Potter, but of serving the very best purpose of a book: engaging the reader, getting him to enter a world beyond the limits of his daily grind.

J.K. Rowling has done that famously. My only request of her is that she continue to write. I. Want. More.

Labels:

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home






about this blog

I was born, grew up, and went to school in the Bronx, New York -- on the wrong side of the tracks. Got the chance to go to college, so instead of joining the NYPD (the obvious career choice at that time and place), I became an engineer. Spent some years designing things that go boom (or things that take things that go boom to their destinations...), principally for our military. Also took an interesting career turn and for some years was in charge of counter-terrorism for my agency...so I learned something about guns. And when to use them.

I am a believer, in God. Christian. My opinion of most denominations is that they seem to be more concerned with the collection plate and devising intricate rules as to who is in and who is out.

My politics are a mix of conservative and libertarian, as in live and let live. With one exception, I favor small government, maximum personal freedom, coupled with personal responsibility and accountability for one's actions. I also know that there are, and have always been, things that are true, and things that are not. Two problems: Being smart enough to know which is which, and having the guts to act on it. I make no claims...

The exception to small government? I favor a robust national defense, against enemies foreign, and domestic. Or, as Teddy Roosevelt should have said, "speak softly and carry a whole bunch of armored divisions."

This blog will focus on politics, culture, religion, national security. That's pretty much the same territory as the New York Times. Just that I will never label my opinions as "news."



top of page