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: culture
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home