Harry Potter and the Haters

If literature is in crisis in America -- or in the world -- people like me are almost certainly to blame. I know how to read. Indeed, I'm pretty well-educated. And, in fact, I read a ton of stuff. Books, even! But novels? Almost never. But Harry Potter novels? Yeah, I read those. I've seen all the Harry Potter movies and read all the Harry Potter books and pre-ordered my copy of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows.

This, it seems to me, might be a moment of opportunity for a literary critic. A chance for someone with the requisite chops to publish in the popular press an article that said something about the Potter books as literature, something smart and insightful that made me think "hey, this guy has smart things to say about books!" Something that would situate the books in some kind of context vis-a-vis the much larger cultural sweep of the novel. Something that might get an intelligence person who enjoyed the Potter books interested in some larger, more highbrow segment of the literary enterprise. Instead, the publication of each Potter book seems to herald the publication of a bunch of stuff like Ron Charles whine in The Washington Post which, to me, makes Charles -- and through his role as a stand-in for the larger enterprise, all the literati -- look like sneering losers who've decided to elevate their idiosyncratic hobby above everyone else's in order to look on the rest of us.

Not that the literary world is unique in this regard, but it's a weird impulse. If someone expressed an interest in some niche product that I enjoy I would, I dunno, try to convey some of my enthusiasm about the subject. Try to share some wisdom. Try to build further enthusiasm. Make recommendations. Anything other than act bitter and petulant.

Comments

Which is more embarrassing for an adult:

Reading the Harry Potter books, or being willing to admit that you read the Harry Potter books?

I'd choose the latter. If you have ugly proclivities, please have the good sense to hide them away.

"I read a ton of stuff. Books, even! But novels? Almost never. But Harry Potter novels? Yeah, I read those."

I believe pretty much no adult who reads the Harry Potter books reads other novels. Otherwise, why would they be reading Harry Potter books?

Posted by Petey | July 17, 2007 1:51 PM

look like sneering losers who've decided to elevate their idiosyncratic hobby above everyone else's in order to look on the rest of us.

If someone expressed an interest in some niche product that I enjoy I would, I dunno, try to convey some of my enthusiasm about the subject. Try to share some wisdom. Try to build further enthusiasm. Make recommendations. Anything other than act bitter and petulant.

Yes, except that what your saying is fucking absurd. Ron Charles is not a surrogate for "the literati" or for anyone else. He's not an elected representative. When Jonah Goldberg goes and says some moronic thing, I don't blame you. The fact that you suppose that there is some homogenous "literary movement" goes to show how poorly educated you are, no matter where you went to college.

I mean, really. Do you ever get tired of being a child? It's great that you're so bright, but you bring such an utter lack of intellectual rigor to your blog that you make it impossible to take you seriously. (You accusing someone else of being petulant is pretty fucking priceless). Grow up. Your "enfant terrible blogger" pose is a pretty tired act at 26.

And I'm not even older than you.

Posted by Freddie | July 17, 2007 1:51 PM

I'm indifferent to Harry Potter, but I do agree that it would be nice if there was some effort to capitalize on all the interest in books the Potter novels have allegedly created in the English-speaking world (and probably beyond for all I know--I'm sure it's been translated into every language up to and including Klingon and sold 143 million billion infinity copies in each of them). I'm happy that more people are reading, if that's actually true, but I'd be happier if they kept reading and expanded into other material.

Posted by Jake H. | July 17, 2007 1:54 PM

Petey wrote, "I believe pretty much no adult who reads the Harry Potter books reads other novels."

Petey is often wrong, but even he is not often this wrong.

Posted by peep | July 17, 2007 1:54 PM

Literature has always been like this. Look at the reviews Fenimore Cooper got in the 1800s.

Novels started out as entertainment for aristocrats. If you read early novels like Tom Jones, they are very long with no (modern) sense of pacing. This is because they are intended for people with much leisure time -- not the working class. They have always been under assault from the "rabble".

Posted by Walker | July 17, 2007 1:55 PM

I agree with Petey and Freddie.

Why don't you try reading some other type of novel, rather than pretentding that it's somebody else's duty to convince you to read something else?

Posted by blah | July 17, 2007 1:57 PM

"Petey is often wrong, but even he is not often this wrong."

While I have no doubt that there are many exceptions, literally every single person I know who has read the entire Potter series doesn't read other novels.

I mean, seriously, if you do read other novels, why would you be reading that stuff?

Posted by Petey | July 17, 2007 1:58 PM

As a corollary to what Petey is saying, if Matt were truly interested in reading other types of literature, he would seek it out. What is the point of trying to convince him to read something he has no interest in?

Posted by blah | July 17, 2007 2:00 PM

I read Harry Potter books because they're fun and sometimes I like to condescend to the level of the masses. I read other novels because I like to learn. Petey, it is possible to enjoy two different things.

Posted by eriks | July 17, 2007 2:06 PM

Petey asks, "I mean, seriously, if you do read other novels, why would you be reading that stuff?"

I won't speak for anybody else -- but in my case I read them because I enjoy reading them.

And, dammit, I am not ashamed!

And, yes, I do read lots of other novels some of which I suspect might even be deemed acceptable reading material by the all-knowing literary arbiter, Petey.

Posted by peep | July 17, 2007 2:08 PM

I know many prolific novel readers that have read Harry Potter. Including people who have gone on to read the books Charles recommends, namely "Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell" as well as "His Dark Materials." (I've read the latter. I liked it, although I thought the last book was weak by comparison to the start. I intend to read Jonathon Strange but just haven't gotten to it yet.) They all tend to be fans, although I doubt any of them would name Potter as their favorite series. However, the mass phenomenon of Potter can be fun and means there's a wider audience to discuss the work with.

I think this take on Ron Charles article is exactly right. Sneering at Potter is a terrific way to encourage the general population to read less.

Posted by Greg Sanders | July 17, 2007 2:08 PM

At this point no one should at all be surprised that Matt's tastes, in literature as well as in movies, music, clothes, clubs, food, etc. are completely and totally common. There's nothing much wrong with having common tastes- most people do, after all, but it should not be a surprise to anyone that he has common (meaning, unsophisticated) tastes in literature giving that he quite obviously has common tastes in music, movies, etc. The opposite would be the surprising or interesting thing to learn.

(Whether having utterly unsophisticated or refined tastes in all of these areas should make us feel differently about, say, his other areas of interest is something I leave to others.)

Posted by Matt (not the famous one) | July 17, 2007 2:08 PM

I have to object to the idea of reading literature as an idiosyncratic hobby. Maybe I'm a sneering loser, but insisting that this is just one of any number of "hobbies" avialable to pass the time between serious pursuits seems like ignorant philistinism.

Posted by justin | July 17, 2007 2:08 PM

Did you see Michael Berube's piece in the Common Review? It doesn't quite meet all your criteria, but it is an instance of someone who's smart about books writing positively about HP.

Posted by Vance Maverick | July 17, 2007 2:08 PM

While I have no doubt that there are many exceptions, literally every single person I know who has read the entire Potter series doesn't read other novels.

Every single adult I know who reads Harry Potter also reads other novels.

Posted by McG | July 17, 2007 2:10 PM

Suppose that this individual article by this one guy is really a bellweather for some vast, Harry Potter-dismissing, arrogant intellectual front. I just can't imagine a weaker or less deserving target for opprobrium than people who read serious novels.
The publishing industry, the only people in the lit game who actually have a shred of power, are sucking on the Harry Potter tit like lampreys. Readers and critics of adult fiction? Can you imagine a less powerful group?

I just find a post like this such a transparent stab at a vicious take down. "You get 'em, Yglesias! Way to take it to that tiny, culturally insignificant, commercially ignored group who reads serious novels. You really don't care who's feathers you ruffle!"

Posted by Freddie | July 17, 2007 2:10 PM

"I mean, seriously, if you do read other novels, why would you be reading that stuff?"

Because it's good? What a smug jerk. No, its not Dickens (I just reread my favorite novel, David Copperfield, for the umpteenth time), or Tolstoy, or Melville, or Hemingway, or Shakespeare, or even Tolkien. As intellectually conceited as it sounds, I've read all those (voluntarily). But I'm 53 and think the Potter books are pretty good, and I have my copy preordered.

Posted by Marlowe | July 17, 2007 2:10 PM

You should read this article by Michael Berube: http://www.thecommonreview.org/fileadmin/template/tcr/pdf/berube61.pdf

Posted by JBL | July 17, 2007 2:11 PM

Petey, Freddie -- I really appreciate both of your remarks for helping to make my point for me.

Whatever it's worth in further information over the past 12 months I have read some real fiction -- Absurdistan, White Noise, and The Yiddish Policeman's Union. I started Mao II but dropped it for some reason.

Needless to say, it's not anybody's responsibility to get me interested in literature. But insofar as people who are interested in literature make themselves come across as horribly unpleasant people whom one would never want to meet or speak to, and whose primary interest in books is as an adjunct to the vicious hatred of human beings, then I think it's natural that lots of people won't develop an interest in literature.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | July 17, 2007 2:12 PM

I like the Potter books, too. But, you know, it's okay to have a cheesburger for dinner sometimes.

Posted by justin | July 17, 2007 2:12 PM

Have I read the Harry Potter books? No. Have I attended a "Harry and the Potters" concert? Yes!

Also, popular fiction needs to be reclaimed by literary critics from the clurches of the slash fanfic writers. The lack of engagement with popular fiction like the Harry Potter books by literary critics leaves popular engagement with the books to be limited to fringe players, effectively ghettoizing analysis of it. There needs to be something between "let's talk about how kids just love Harry Potter" and "let envision the sexual tension between the Hogwarts classmates."

Posted by Tyro | July 17, 2007 2:12 PM

While I have no doubt that there are many exceptions, literally every single person I know who has read the entire Potter series doesn't read other novels.

Oddly, my experience is nearly opposite: amongst my circle of friends, most have read the Harry Potter books and plenty else. Petey, it sounds like you are surrounded by a bunch of non-readers with some who get sucked into the publicity machine.

(Do you find the corollary to be true of your friends, that you have many who read novels regularly but skip Harry Potter entirely, so that you are surrounded by only these two types?)

I mean, seriously, if you do read other novels, why would you be reading that stuff?

Because it is fun. Do you really need a better reason to read a novel?

Posted by Brad L | July 17, 2007 2:14 PM

Mr. Petey. You have not done your homework. Five demerits for Snobbish House.

Posted by rootless3 | July 17, 2007 2:14 PM

Okay, Petey, I have read the Harry Potter novels. And I have read everything written by John Irving. I read Paul Theroux. I read Elmore Leonard. I read Bret(t) Easton Ellis. I read Margaret Atwood. I read Kurt Vonnegut. I read Ann Patchett. I read John Updike. I read Richard Russo. I read Mark Twain and Charles Dickens and Ernest Hemingway and Jules Verne and Ray Bradbury and Scott Turow and Stephen King. I read Faulkner and Shakespeare.

And I have a bunch of friends who read Harry Potter, and they, too, happen to be well-read.

I read the Harry Potter for the same reason I read the other authors and their books. I enjoy it. I like to be well-read. I like to read different genres, not what the smart-ass pretentious cool kids want to dictate that I read.

So, you got any other smart-ass remarks?

Posted by johnr | July 17, 2007 2:16 PM

Matt:

You went to high school and university with some of the brightest people on the planet with all sorts of diverse interests reading all sorts of great literature. Yet you say that you have no real interest in reading literature other than Harry Potter novels. Why pretend it's some dude in the WaPo who is turning you off from literature?

Posted by blah | July 17, 2007 2:16 PM

Most books actually are not as well written as Harry Potter (and I don't really like the books...the tone is wrong for the theme, but I'm a stickler on that...I once wrote a scathing review of Final Fantasy X-2 down those lines...yes, I'm a geek and proud of it), and I think that's a large part of it. The HP starts with a villain who's frighteningly powerful and a kid (or a neophyte really) with enough innate power to resist him. It's fantasy GOLD put into an easily accessible shell.

One of my biggest annoyances by far in our culture is of the "learn-ED reader". The people who really focus on high literature as being the savior of civilization.

Fuck high literature. Pardon my french. It's no better, no worse than Harry Potter or anything like that. It provides no special insight into the "human condition", which is what it claims. Usually the characters are self-destructive, unrealistic, and downright menacing.

You want people to learn through reading? Promote non-fiction. Say everybody should read The Assault on Reason, or something like that. But trying to take away Harry Potter and replace it with "serious" novel #236 is being a petty asshole.

Posted by Karmakin | July 17, 2007 2:16 PM

Sneering at Potter is a terrific way to encourage the general population to read less.

Really? Someone saying "I don't like Harry Potter, there's better things to read" is going to cause all these Harry Potter fans to suddenly cast aside other books? I don't understand where this notion of the phantom power of Ron Charles comes from. Oprah doesn't have the kind of sway over people.

I have to object to the idea of reading literature as an idiosyncratic hobby. Maybe I'm a sneering loser, but insisting that this is just one of any number of "hobbies" avialable to pass the time between serious pursuits seems like ignorant philistinism.

Ignorant philistinism that is even worse coming from someone who likes to leverage his arguments with his intellectual, "I-went-to-Harvard" cachet. Serious fiction will be around long after people stop reading whiny blog bullshit.

Posted by Freddie | July 17, 2007 2:17 PM

"And, yes, I do read lots of other novels some of which I suspect might even be deemed acceptable reading material by the all-knowing literary arbiter, Petey."

Y'know, I actually don't think Rowling is "unacceptable reading material". I actually read the first one, and thought it was perfectly acceptable, though I didn't have any interest in reading more of them.

I'm just saying that reading the entire series is like being the type of person who goes to science fiction conventions. If that's what floats your boat, fine. Just don't publicize the fact. Hide your shame.

Posted by Petey | July 17, 2007 2:18 PM

Um, I read a lot. I read all the Harry Potter books. I read other novels. I read other children's lit. I read non-novels and biographies occasionally. I read because I love it. I have a PhD. And quite frankly, I don't get it. Why the disdain for Harry Potter? Its entertaining stuff, its a good read, its got some mind-boggling subversive stuff in there ... I enjoy the books, I enjoy the movies, I read other stuff constantly as well ... but they're entertaining and well-written and funny and ....

I've never understood Bloom's takedown of Harry Potter, I've never understood the angst over Harry Potter in English Departments everywhere ...

Posted by MJL | July 17, 2007 2:19 PM

Petey is way off base. For example, I majored in literature in college, the last 5 books I read - Revolutionary Road by Richard Yates, Llamadas Telefonicas by Roberto Bolano, Les Bienveillants by Jonathan Littel, Ghostwritten by David Mitchell, and La Misteriosa Fiamma della Regina Loana by Umberto Eco (and yes, in the original languages). I'm currently in the middle of Der Butt by Gunter Grass. I read the Potter books because it's a good story, and because I can discuss them with my 45-year old cousin who scored 1600 on his SATs. Everyone in my family reads novels and pretty much all have them have read at least some of the Potter books. So don't be such a snob.

Posted by vanya | July 17, 2007 2:20 PM

I mean, seriously, if you do read other novels, why would you be reading that stuff?

So since I've read Mann, Musil and James, I shouldn't be reading Boyd, McEwan and Amis?

You don't want foie gras every day, most of the time a steak or pasta will be fine and sometimes the only thing that'll make you happy is a Big Mac.

Posted by novakant | July 17, 2007 2:20 PM

Whoa, whoa, whoa. There are some pretty nasty generalizations being thrown about here and most do not strike me as accurate. I'm a graduate student in a fairly competitive English program, and everyone I know has read Harry Potter. We also read novels, poetry, and criticism essentially all the time. (So yes, Virginia, one can read Rowling and other literature.)

What is the attraction to Harry Potter for such folks? It is, as Ron Charles says, the fact that Harry Potter (and The Da Vinci Code) are just about the closest we can get to a literary mass moment in America today. Reading Harry Potter is the equivalent of standing on the docks and asking the incoming ship if Little Nell dies. (And by the way, I hate Dickens.)

I think it is as depressing as all of you do that publishing and literary society is listless in America today. I'm sure that it is frustrating for Mr. Charles that as a critic (a protector and cheerleader for the new, as another pop culture production, Ratatouille, points out) he can't motivate his readers to pick up something interesting along with Deathly Hallows.

But the condescension toward popular culture (which is mirrored in the academy: the study of British literature is considered superior to the study of American, the study of canonical literature is still more dominate than the study of non-canonical, no matter what Tony Horowitz says, and so on) is elitist, non-productive, and crotchety.

This week, I will finish Richardson’s Clarissa and then I’ll read Deathly Hallows, and frankly, I’ll feel richer for both experiences.

Posted by dckatiebug | July 17, 2007 2:20 PM

"If literature is in crisis in America -- or in the world -- people like me are almost certainly to blame. "

Yeah, but Charles misses (a lot of) points. Purchases of books are up, thanks to Amazon, Borders and Barnes & Noble. The music business would sacrifice Mick Jagger's wizened body to be in the situation the publishing business is in.

We're in a golden age of nonfiction, particularly of books for the layperson on science, economics, and (to a lesser extent) social science. I get the NYRB and the Times Literary Supplement, and skip the 'literature' reviews and get on to the nonfiction articles and reviews, 'cos, frankly, they're more interesting.

Given the general snobbery of literature towards genre fiction, the fact that Charles bemoans Potter fans not moving on to Strange & Norell or Pullman's work strikes me as welcome but odd.

Posted by Sock Puppet of the Great Satan | July 17, 2007 2:21 PM

So what if Matt said: "You know, all I really like to eat is Big Macs and french fries. But this guy in the WaPo said they are really unhealthy and bad for me. I think people like him are turning off the population from healthy food." Not very convincing.

Posted by blah | July 17, 2007 2:22 PM

Why do we assume it would be a good thing for people to read more novels? The vast majority of novels are a total waste of time.

If you want people to read more, they should be reading nonfiction - history, current events. At least that way we'd have a more informed electorate.

Posted by JG | July 17, 2007 2:23 PM

While I have no doubt that there are many exceptions, literally every single person I know who has read the entire Potter series doesn't read other novels.

Translation: While I am sure that my sweeping generalization based on anecdotal evidence is complete crap, I'm going to make it anyway.

I mean, seriously, if you do read other novels, why would you be reading that stuff?

What the fuck does that even mean? It's like asking, 'If you like steak, why would you eat carrots?' Utterly nonsensical.

I haven't kept track of whether Petey is most often right, wrong, or idiotic, but this definitely falls into the latter category.

Posted by Ryan | July 17, 2007 2:23 PM

Matt, the highbrow article on Harry Potter you requested was written in 2000 by Wendy Doniger of the University of Chicago in the London Review of Books. Here is a link to it when it was reprinted in the Guardiam, which today has an article of the type you lament. http://books.guardian.co.uk/lrb/articles/0,,135352,00.html#article_continue

Posted by Ben | July 17, 2007 2:24 PM

No one is ashamed of liking Harry Potter. Perhaps that's what you don't get.

And if you didn't read more than the first one, you missed out. One of the great things about Rowling is the development over the novels: the first is suitable for an 11-year old read, but they grow with their characters -- Phoenix is a pretty great depiction of what its like to be 15 and angry at the world.

Posted by MJL | July 17, 2007 2:24 PM

I don't know anyone who reads Harry Potter and no other novels, although I am sure there are people for whom that is the case.

I will go from re-reading a Hemingway novel, to something non-fiction, to a Chabon novel, to Harry Potter, and onto something else. Most readers I know are the same way. Harry Potter is like a really good hamburger and milkshake. You don't want it for every meal, but then you don't want sushi for every meal either.

Harry Potter is good, fun, entertaining. That's it. No need to hate it.

Posted by Jeff in Texas | July 17, 2007 2:24 PM

I read about 2 novels a month. I just finished Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. I read the Potter books because they are very well-written and entertaining with engaging characters. Prior to this book I re-read Flannery O'Connor's The Violent Bear It Away. Today I just started Bukowski's Post Office.

Methinks you need to meet some more interesting people, Petey.

Cheers

Posted by DanNo | July 17, 2007 2:24 PM

every once in awhile people say the same thing about stephen king and/or anne rice. they claim that they are master genre novelists whose work transcends pulp fiction. dashiell hammett and raymond chandler have gained some critical acclaim after their deaths, though, few, i think, would say the same about mickey spillane. similarly, i would not expect a lazarus-like critical embrace of michael crichton or john grisham, not even many years after they are dead and gone. the common feature that the genre-based art that escapes its fan-ghetto to be embraced by high minded lit crits is a mystery to me, but if i knew what it was, i wouldn't share it here - i'd be stuffing it into my own fantasy bildungsroman and taking meetings with harper collins and harvey weinstein.

Posted by David | July 17, 2007 2:25 PM

Let me just add that everybody should be reading Roberto Bolaño. Seriously.

Posted by vanya | July 17, 2007 2:25 PM

"Do you find the corollary to be true of your friends, that you have many who read novels regularly but skip Harry Potter entirely, so that you are surrounded by only these two types?"

Most of my friends are readers. The Harry Potter junkies amongst my friends are not.

Could be a unusual sample, but I suspect it's representative of a larger tendency.

Posted by Petey | July 17, 2007 2:27 PM

Matt -- you gotta give Mao II a second chance. Along with White Noise, it's all you need to read to really understand the post 9/11 world.

Posted by David | July 17, 2007 2:28 PM

Whatever it's worth in further information over the past 12 months I have read some real fiction -- Absurdistan, White Noise, and The Yiddish Policeman's Union. I started Mao II but dropped it for some reason.

Boy, where could I have gotten the impression that you don't read? Oh, right. It was when you bragged about not being much of a reader in this very post.

But insofar as people who are interested in literature make themselves come across as horribly unpleasant people whom one would never want to meet or speak to, and whose primary interest in books is as an adjunct to the vicious hatred of human beings, then I think it's natural that lots of people won't develop an interest in literature.

Except that I don't have vicious hatred for human beings. I do however have contempt for people who spend their whole day building an edifice to their own intellectualism and then turn around and launch a Bill O'Reilly-style pedantic, moralizing reverse-snobbery screed. When you name drop the guy who you went to Harvard with later on today, remember that that institution is built on exploiting precisely the sense of superiority you suppose your critiquing.

Posted by Freddie | July 17, 2007 2:28 PM

Right now my reading list is finishing up Against the Day (100 more pages), then Harry Potter, and then the Yiddish Policeman's Guild.

Do I fall into dirty, vulgar masses or effete intellegentsia?

Posted by Zephyrus | July 17, 2007 2:29 PM

Petey, I don't recall you being THIS much of an ass. I've read all the Potter novels (and have pre-ordered #7). They're actually quite good children's literature (some better than others). I'm also working my way through some Mary Gordon. I just finished Lahiri's Namesake, though I haven't yet seen the film. You seem convinced that it is entirely impossible to enjoy different genres of literature; I hope some of the responses to your stupid comments have shown otherwise.

Posted by Passing Shot | July 17, 2007 2:29 PM

"I mean, seriously, if you do read other novels, why would you be reading that stuff?"

Umm, because it's quite good?

If a counterexample to an anecdote helps clarify anyone's thinking, literally every single person I know who has read the entire Potter series does read other novels. I guess I'm sheltered (here in this university town famous for its writing programs), but this is the first I've heard of anyone actively insulting anyone who enjoys the Potter books.

There's no accounting for taste, of course, but I have to wonder what point is being made here. Eating a fine meal at a great restaurant doesn't prevent me from enjoying the occasional twinkie, and my iPod has classical favorites alongside the Dixie Chicks and Nirvana.

I don't claim to be an expert on high culture, just someone who enjoys a wide range. What's wrong with that, exactly? Why are some of you so constrained? I don't get why that would be a good thing.

Posted by jack | July 17, 2007 2:30 PM

I was snobbishly against the Harry Potter series for years until I discovered that a friend with a PhD in Shakespearian literature was an avid fan. I decided to read the first book and couldn't put it down. Rowling is a good writer who tells an entertaining story. She doesn't talk down to the (presumed child) reader, so an adult can read the books without being bored. The series reminds me of my childhood favorite--The Chronicles of Narnia. I recently read Bleak House, re-read Pride & Prejudice and Skinny Legs & All, and am working on a St. Exupery omnibus called Airman's Odyssey. I also read a ton of non-fiction. I am most definitely offended by anyone who says that reading Harry Potter implies I'm not intelligent or mature.

Posted by LisaPA | July 17, 2007 2:31 PM

MJL, English-department novelists and literary critics are howling because J.K. Rowling is now worth more than the Queen.

Almost no novelists make money, and only a few make enough to live comfortably. Now all of a sudden this...woman, who'd never been published in a peer-reviewed journal, who came out of nowhere with absolutely no bona fides, got published, got popular, and got rich. And then got richer. And then she got a fan club in the millions, movie deals, product spin-offs. She's a huge star.

They're jealous as hell, and they're not hiding it very well.

Posted by merciless | July 17, 2007 2:32 PM

I read Charles's article. Sigh. Upon reading Joyce, Dumas, Dostoevsky, Hugo, etc., I thought that what separated the literate-minded from, well, science Ph.D. ueber-geeks like me was their grasp of complex human emotions.

Apparently, Herr Charles doesn't seem to understand the joy of inter-generational bonding (although his bile is saved mostly for adults who read the Potter books sans children). I have read all 6 books to my 8-year-old son, and we are both excited to begin #7 this weekend. I am obviously not unique - in fact, I'd say the majority of folks with kids my age that I know have read at least 1 of the Potter novels to their kids.

And if Charles thinks the 'good and evil' theme is silly for kids books, then I suggest he pick up the Narnia series. Or L'Engle's 'A Wrinkle in Time'. (BTW I am not Christian and still enjoyed reading these to my kids.)

Posted by rlgordonma | July 17, 2007 2:32 PM

I don't think literature snobs are any worse than beer snobs or rock music snobs. Isn't it snobbery in general that you're railing against?

As for Harry Potter, I read the first one, and thought it was ok, but it didn't really float my boat. I have no desire to read any more of them. But why should reading Harry Potter be something to be ashamed of? Any more than drinking Budweiser or listening to the Police? I was going to say Phil Collins, but that really IS something to be ashamed of.

Posted by Jim W | July 17, 2007 2:32 PM

"While I have no doubt that there are many exceptions, literally every single person I know who has read the entire Potter series doesn't read other novels."

Well, you don't know me, I guess. I eventually broke down and read the Potter books, and I'm willing to admit this in public.

a) I read nearly everything I can get my hands on, whether highbrow, lowbrow, or in between.
b) Millions of people, including many of my friends and family members, seemed to enjoy them.
c) I've generally gotten more pleasure in life from occasionally indulging in unhip activities than from sneering at people who do.
d) I honestly fail to understand why reading well-written books aimed at teenagers should be considered any more juvenile and time-wasting than, say, watching professional basketball.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | July 17, 2007 2:32 PM

Indeed the last piece of fiction I read, two months ago, was the Mysterious Flame of Queen Loana by Umberto Eco and I have preordered a copy of the new Harry Potter book.

I used to be an anti-Harry Potter snob and the person who got me hooked on them, my sister, has a Phd in Literature. So indeed Petey you do not know what you are talking about. I mostly read non-fiction but I have also read Jonathan Strange and the His Dark Materials series. The Potter books are engaging and fun they do not need to be justified beyond that.

Posted by ellenbrenna | July 17, 2007 2:33 PM

Having read one of the Harry Potter novels, as well as my share of more 'literary' novels, I feel uniquely qualified to comment here (of course if I didn't feel so qualified, that probably wouldn't stop me).

I read the first Harry Potter book after a woman I was dating (a professional in her thirties, btw) recommended it. A friend of hers, also a thirty-something Manhattan professional, raved about the Potter books as well.

I procrastinated for a few weeks, then finally read the book. It wasn't bad: quite imaginative, entertaining, and cinematic in its imagery. But ultimately, it was a children's book -- it was easy to read and didn't leave much impact on me. I certainly had no urge to read the next one in the series.

On the other hand, I have read books with some literary acclaim that were a lot more fun to read than the Harry Potter book -- for example, Jonathan Franzen's The Corrections. Franzen decided to write that novel, btw, after criticizing turgid modern novelists in an essay.

Then there are those literary classics that make you realize why critics rave about them. I'm sure this list varies with each reader, but one example for me was V.S. Naipaul's A House for Mr. Biswas which sort of sneaked up on me as I was reading it. I remember sitting at the gate in an airport during a business trip for a financial tech start-up (think East Coast Internet-age version of Dickens-era workplace, not Silicon Valley ping-pong tables and beanbags) when I realized how much of myself I saw in that book's main character: how duped I'd been on occasion without realizing I wasn't so clever, how much less control I had over my own trajectory than I thought, etc.

Posted by Fred | July 17, 2007 2:34 PM

Freddie, your angry ire directed at MattY's blog post far exceeds any that was actually warranted. Seriously, you can agree or disagree with what he said, but the mediocrity of MattY's observation certainly doesn't warrant the attack you laid on him for it. Matt wasn't even attacking the literati in an O'Reilly-style faux-populaist screen. He was asking, "why is the columnist whining so much? Why don't the literati publish stuff about Harry Potter that applies their intelelctual background to the books?"

Posted by Tyro | July 17, 2007 2:35 PM

people who spend their whole day building an edifice to their own intellectualism

I don't think Freddie is reading the same blog I read.

Posted by Quarterican | July 17, 2007 2:36 PM

Didn't know Wizard fans could read ... wait ... wizards, Harry Potter ... call starkist!

Posted by thersitz | July 17, 2007 2:36 PM

Suppose that this individual article by this one guy is really a bellweather for some vast, Harry Potter-dismissing, arrogant intellectual front. I just can't imagine a weaker or less deserving target for opprobrium than people who read serious novels.

I think you missed the point... this never read as a swipe at readers of serious novels so much as critics who squander an opportunity to add value.

Out of the whole Ron Charles piece, this was the full literary criticism of the book:

"Start carrying on like Moaning Myrtle about the repetitive plots, the static characters, the pedestrian prose, the wit-free tone, the derivative themes, and you'll wish you had your invisibility cloak handy."

A quick search turned up none of Charles' earlier critiques of the Potter books, so (for me) this is the entirety of his contribution to the discussion of the quality of the books. One whole sentence.

I know this was an Outlook piece, but he could have at least mentioned an article that did the actual heavy lifting somewhere, or do it himself.

I just find a post like this such a transparent stab at a vicious take down.

A take-down? You really think MY has some personal axe to grind here?

Posted by Brad L | July 17, 2007 2:36 PM

Nothing is more tiresome than reading people like many of the above commenters, who think Harry Potter so unimportant that they simply MuSt devote hours to slagging the books on blogs. Blogs, mind you. Not literary magazines. Blogs. Bastion of literary discourse like political blogs.

The books are fun to read and they read quickly. The stories are engaging and enjoyable, even if character development is a bit thin, and it is something I can talk to my kids about. Something we both enjoyed reading. Try as I might, I can't seem to get my kid interested in Gravity's Rainbow or DeLillo's latest. Nor, frankly, do I have time to wade through those books unless I happen to have a few weeks off.

Much like that other much maligned, but enormously successful children's book - The Hobbit. The Hobbit, another masterwork of purportedly lowbrow fiction that will long outlive the carping whiners in this comment section.

So, in sum, I will greatly enjoy burning through the last Harry Potter book this weekend. And I will feel a little sad that there won't be another one. My mood, however, will be greatly lightened by the thought that somewhere an obnoxious snob, no more educated or literate than I, is wasting his time time trashing a harmless book for no reason other than that a lot of other "less worthy" people liked it.

Posted by John Burns | July 17, 2007 2:38 PM

For those mocking Harry Potter - I went to an elite liberal arts college loaded with English majors and the books were wildly popular. They're popular on their merits which somehow doesn't seem to sink in for a lot of people who see something broadly popular and react instinctively with sneering derision. The Potter books weren't created in a lab by some corporation and they went against EVERY possible cultural trend (American kids reading???) to become a phenomenon against all odds. Every so often a cultural work comes along that is so naturally and broadly appealing that it can't be held back. Harry Potter is one of those times. We'll be reading them, and yes analyzing them, many, many, decades from now and there will be zero shame in adults discussing them seriously (and there really isn't now, judging by the large number of books I see on the subway in NYC).

Posted by Benjy Sarlin | July 17, 2007 2:41 PM

It's great that you're so bright, but you bring such an utter lack of intellectual rigor to your blog that you make it impossible to take you seriously

What the fuck is up with you people who come here solely to tell M.Y. what he should or shouldn't be posting about ? For fuck's sake, get a life.

Posted by GlandSanitizer | July 17, 2007 2:41 PM

Who ever said I didn't like Harry Potter?

Posted by Freddie | July 17, 2007 2:42 PM

I can't think of a single person I know who has read the Potter novels who doesn't read other novels as well. I think Petey has friends made of straw.

As for Freddie, who knew MY's sock puppet could be used so effectively to prove his point.

Posted by crack | July 17, 2007 2:43 PM

I am a sensitive artist. Nobody understands me because I am so deep. In my work I make allusions to books that nobody else has read, music that nobody else has heard, and art that nobody else has seen. I can't help it, because I am so much more intelligent and well-rounded than everyone who surrounds me. I stopped watching TV when I was six months old, because it was so boring, and stupid, and started reading books, and going to recitals, and art galleries. I don't go to recitals anymore because my hearing is too sensitive, and I don't go to art galleries anymore because there are people there, and I can't deal with people, because they don't understand me. I stay home, reading books that are beneath me, and working on my work, which no one understands. I am sensitive... I am a sensitive artist...

Posted by King Missile | July 17, 2007 2:43 PM

Petey: I'm just saying that reading the entire series is like being the type of person who goes to science fiction conventions.

This is just stupid. It's a series, for chrissake. Does watching every episode of Wire or Sopranos also make you this kind of person? People want to know what happens. And it's seven books in about ten years. Reading all of them is hardly tantamount to the kind of obsession that leads people to spend weeks designing their Cardassian costume or whatever.

Posted by Christopher M | July 17, 2007 2:45 PM

"Phoenix is a pretty great depiction of what its like to be 15 and angry at the world."

That's a pretty good reason for people not over 15 to not want to read it to my mind. The truth is that most 15 year old's anger at the world is stupid. When you get a bit older you see this.

Posted by Matt (not the famous one) | July 17, 2007 2:45 PM

Terry Pratchett. Everyone loves Terry Pratchett. His books -- especially the Tiffany Aching books, if we're talking 10 to 15 year olds -- would be excellent for any fan of Harry Potter.

Yes, I suppose recommending a book Matt might like isn't as fun as being snobbish about Harry Potter, but I read so much that frankly anything I've read in the last six months will give someone something to feel snobbish about.

Posted by Morat20 | July 17, 2007 2:46 PM

Every time these books come out I'm baffled by the confusion in some quarters that popular fiction a) exists and b) is, you know, popular. This isn't a new development or anything, but you'd think it was some sort of new menace that had sprang out of nowhere, instead of the latest incarnation of popular fiction that been around for at least the better part of a century in pulp novels or serials or any number of other forms.

Not sure what Matt's education has to do with it. Taste in literature corresponds to attendance at Ivy League Universities and similar institutions about as well attractiveness or athletic ability, not very well, at least outside majors where it's self selecting like English, or foreign languages. Balanced educations and canon reading selections are all well and good, but frankly there's only so much time in the day, not much reason to expect Ivy Leaguers to devote more of it to reading novels specifically than anyone else.

Posted by Nick | July 17, 2007 2:46 PM

Having read the Charles piece, it isn't really that bad. And he isn't whining or acting snobbish. He personally found the Potter books to be boring, which really isn't the main point of the piece. His main point is that the popularity of the Potter books has not translated into increased reading for other books, even books of the same genre. And he does recommend other books!

Posted by blah | July 17, 2007 2:47 PM

[i]Most of my friends are readers. The Harry Potter junkies amongst my friends are not.[/i]

Even if you more friends than anyone on the planet, the sample size of your friends is meaningless. Besides, do the "Harry Pottter junkies" inject the pages into their veins? Or does the way their eyes scan the words on the pages not qualify as "reading?"

Pass the Grey Poupon!

Posted by Eric | July 17, 2007 2:47 PM

as long as we're taking a poll, i know four adults who love Harry Potter, and three of them regularly read serious literature.

Harry Potter doesn't do much for me, but i generally don't read fiction -- why read stories about people who didn't exist when you can read stories about people who did?

Posted by jimmy boy | July 17, 2007 2:47 PM

Christ. Freddie, Petey, you two are assholes with little ability to read between the lines, catch the subtext of Matthew's post, or really to absorb its larger point. You two are assholes who suck at reading comprehension.

You both say you read literature? Do you really? Because none of it shows up in your posts. If either of you really do read literature, and yet display such close-minded, uncompassionate, shitty reading skills, and such craptacular communication ability, I suggest you stop. It's obviously, painfully, not doing either of you any good.

Go watch a movie, or maybe find a friend.

Posted by Bribes | July 17, 2007 2:48 PM

I'll second Pratchett. He's great, and a decent fit for someone who likes Potter.

Maybe Petey can recommend Pratchett to all his straw friends.

Posted by crack | July 17, 2007 2:49 PM

You both say you read literature?

When did I say that? When did Petey say he did?

Posted by Freddie | July 17, 2007 2:50 PM

Who knew that Harry Potter fans were such angry indivuals?

Posted by blah | July 17, 2007 2:50 PM

Which is more embarrassing for an adult:
Reading the Harry Potter books, or being willing to admit that you read the Harry Potter books?

bitch please.

i'm currently reading Pynchon's latest (and have been, for the past 8 months). but my wife and i are going to have to flip a coin or draw straws to see who gets to read the new H.P. book first, when it shows up this weekend.

i guarantee the new HP will be 5x more fun, and 20x easier to read, than Against The Day - and i won't have to hunt for symbolism and allusion in every single word Rowlings uses.

Posted by cleek | July 17, 2007 2:50 PM

Petey,

You have it backwards. The Phenoma your seeeing is that people who don't read at all read Harry Potter. You'll find most regular readers read HP amongst other stuff, but so many people only read HP that if you survey at random you'll find a bunch of people who only read HP. The number of non-readers in the general public is much much larger than the readers.

(since it seems to be the trend in this thread here is my list, I've read all the HP books, I probably read about 500 pages a week, right now I'm reading Officer Factory, before that I read a mystery by Michael Dibdin, before that I read Daughter of Time, I skip around anything from George Pelecanos to Tolstoy.)

Posted by Eric | July 17, 2007 2:51 PM

I think it all these spiteful Harry Potter fans that have turned me off of the books. Maybe if they had actually explained the virtues of the book to me, instead of calling me snobbish and other insults, I might try the books.

Posted by blah | July 17, 2007 2:51 PM

After reading comments from people who read the first HP and weren't interested in reading any more, I realized that this may all be a horrible misunderstanding.

People: the first book was about an 11-year old, and was pitched to that level. I promise you that subsequent installments have become steadily more complex (still children's books, yes, but more complex ones).

I too would despair of reading 400 pages of text aimed at 11-year-olds, so please take my word that the later books are more than merely longer examples of the material found in the first.

I'm just one guy, but I found the later novels easily as satisfying as Mr. Charles' recommendations (Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell, the His Dark Materials series).

If you can bring yourselves to test the theory that the rest of us aren't entirely off our rockers, you might try going back to book two of HP and starting again from there. See where it takes you, ok? I promise I won't make fun.

Posted by jack | July 17, 2007 2:52 PM

Obscure Matt, when you read the anger the 15 year old feels you recognize how misplaced and pointless it is. It conveys the feeling without making you feel it. Do you only read novels about people in your exact position in life? What's the point of that?

Posted by crack | July 17, 2007 2:52 PM

Just noticed that another Eric showed up so I need an initial, I'm the one right above this post

Posted by Eric K | July 17, 2007 2:53 PM

I can't think of a single person I know who has read the Potter novels who doesn't read other novels as well. I think Petey has friends made of straw.

I can't think of a single Harry Potter fan (and I know a lot of them)who doesn't feel compelled to offer an aggressive and lengthy defense of the books every f*cking time the topic comes up. The closest parallel I can imagine is a chronic masturbator who's constantly defending his porn collection as "artistic."

Posted by James Gary | July 17, 2007 2:53 PM

"You seem convinced that it is entirely impossible to enjoy different genres of literature; I hope some of the responses to your stupid comments have shown otherwise."

Well, I've certainly learned from the responses that many Potter fans are intensely defensive about their choice of reading material, which is something I'd suspected before.

But my larger point wasn't anything even vaguely like that it's "impossible to enjoy different genres". I'd argue the opposite, that being catholic in regards to genre is a huge virtue.

My only point is that being a Rowling junkie is sort of like being a fan of the fetish videos where women in fancy dress crush rodents under their high heels. There's nothing particularly wrong with the taste in question. But most folks would have an aversion to admitting to that taste in polite company.

Posted by Petey | July 17, 2007 2:53 PM

"While I have no doubt that there are many exceptions, literally every single person I know who has read the entire Potter series doesn't read other novels."

Wow.
It is pretty damning that you know such an unusually illiterate group of people. Every adult I know who has read the Harry Potter books reads other novels regularly. Petey, I think you have to question what kind of people you associate with.

Posted by Njorl | July 17, 2007 2:53 PM

While we now have quite forcefully established that literary snobbery is bad, it should also be noted that there are a lot of people who seem to be happily and eternally stuck in the realms of comics and genre literature, which is a bit of a pity, since they're missing out on a lot of good stuff. We've mostly talked about people like ourselves who read all kinds of stuff, from low- to highbrow, but that's not the majority. Guess that was part of Matt's point.

Posted by novakant | July 17, 2007 2:54 PM

Interesting discussion. Perhaps I can cut to the chase.

Whereas YOUR tastes in literature are degraded, declassé, devolved, deranged, and disgusting, marking you as an ineffectual poseur at best and more likely a dangerous Philistine,

MY tastes in literature are correct, proper, and appropriate for a decent adult of reasonable intelligence, and show me to possess a curious and subtle mind, as well as good oral hygiene.

This is reflected in my general superiority. To you.

Posted by Matt (also not the real one) | July 17, 2007 2:54 PM

Sorry-- please add italics to the first line of my previous post.

Posted by James Gary | July 17, 2007 2:54 PM

Matt's take-down of Petey and Freddie:

"But insofar as people who are interested in literature make themselves come across as horribly unpleasant people whom one would never want to meet or speak to, and whose primary interest in books is as an adjunct to the vicious hatred of human beings, then I think it's natural that lots of people won't develop an interest in literature."

Describes how I (and a lot of conservatives) feel about angry, self-righteous, netroots lefties. Priceless. Thanks, Matt.

BTW: What impact has your father's being a novelist had on your views of literature?

Posted by Fred | July 17, 2007 2:55 PM

You beat me to the spot, James Gary...

Posted by Petey | July 17, 2007 2:55 PM

<