Matthew Yglesias (July 17, 2007) - Harry Potter and the Haters (Culture)

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

But what did everyone read when they were kids? Now that might be entertaining.

I read the Chip Hilton series by Claire Bee, over and over. Some Tarzan, Beauty and the Beast, classics like that. I saw an old beaten up copy of a Bee book the other day at a used bookstore -- didn't grab it -- but am planning on doing so. I don't remember a whole lot about those books -- so I am anxious to see my reaction. My memory sees Chip as just a goody two shoe all star athlete and life had problems, but things usually panned out. But he played fair and hard. And boy am I messed up today.

Posted by thersitz | July 17, 2007 2:56 PM

Petey, I know we have similar ideas about "culture," but, wow, I think that's the first time we've ever posted exactly-simultaneous comments with similar metaphors.

Posted by James Gary | July 17, 2007 2:57 PM

I don't read Harry Potter, and I think you're a dick too, Petey.

Posted by JP | July 17, 2007 2:58 PM

"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

Ah. I understand now. You're deranged. I'm glad you went so far out of your way to make it clear with that post. Some derangements are subtle, and can elude one's observation for a while. Thank you.

Posted by Njorl | July 17, 2007 2:58 PM

As a kid, I really enjoyed the Dark is Rising series. I hear they're making a movie of that one. I went back and read it again recently, and it didn't hold up as well as I thought it would.

My favorite book growing up was probably Cry the Beloved Country. Had to read it in 8th grade. Couldn't put it down, and it still has an effect on me.

Posted by John Burns | July 17, 2007 2:59 PM

Apparently James Gary has a new straw friend for us, the masturbator who defends his porn as art. Maybe you can introduce him to Petey.

The first to posts in this thread are Petey and Freddie trolling and its the Potter fans fault.

Where are the blogger ethics panels when you need them?!

Posted by crack | July 17, 2007 2:59 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.
I mean, seriously, if you do read other novels, why would you be reading that stuff?

All of my friends are voracious reader who read, like I do, dozens of novels a year, and we all read Harry Potter.

None of us are under the age of 35 and we're all college educated.

Why do we read them? Because they're fun. Sheesh, everyone get a grip.

Posted by fourlegsgood | July 17, 2007 2:59 PM

Here you go, Matt. Carlin Romano in the Philadelphia Inquirer this past Sunday. Has the requisite chops, as you requested.

http://tinyurl.com/33dr84

Posted by ljg | July 17, 2007 2:59 PM

Freddie has Ivy envy issues.

Petey is a conformist who would rather be an ass than look uncool in front of his friends and colleagues.

Neither deserves the amount of response they have generated.

Posted by mookie | July 17, 2007 3:01 PM

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.

Judging by my personal experience, and the comments on this thread, I'd really be surprised if that were so. Non-readers getting into it? Sure. More avid readers uniformly dismissing it? Not as much. Some will, but just by numbers, some won't.

I'm assuming, by junkie, you mean "read 6 books and are happily anticipating a 7th" (rather than, say, people who talk about it obsessively, or dress up as wizards, or something). I don't know how many of my friends stopped at one book (a few, I am sure), but I know many who continued through the series.

I'm guessing it is more likely that your tendency to ask "why would you read that?" and idea that reading a series makes you roughly a convention-geek or junkie means that some of your friends might not think you are the ideal Potter-conversationalist, or that it is worth the trouble to dissuade you.

Or, you just have a really odd sample of friends.

Posted by Brad L | July 17, 2007 3:02 PM

Petey wrote:

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.

This comment reminds me of the Ace-of-Spades/Glenn Greenwald controversy.

Posted by Guy | July 17, 2007 3:02 PM

If we're not going to talk about Potter (I'd ask not, since I haven't read the latest and won't for awhile), can we talk about something besides Petey being crazy?

If we're sticking to topic (fantasy) Pratchett? Modesitt? Robert Jordan not knowing when to let go? Terry Goodkind's hatred of his characters, and their bizarre objectivist rants? David Eddings milking the same story through four seperate series? Terry Brook's managing [i]Running with the Demon[/i] AND the godawful original Shannara Trilogy (admittedly, in historical context, such a total rip-off of Tolkien was understandable....)

Posted by Morat20 | July 17, 2007 3:03 PM

What I keep hearing, over and over, is that Petey and I have proved Matt's point. But I think that the reaction to Petey and myself may prove another point. I mean, look-- Petey expressed an opinion that is different than your own. And I didn't even really do that, in regards to Harry Potter. And yet, my god, look at this response. Whatever else is true, you are all almost irrationally invested in Harry Potter. If that was simply a mark of an eager and emotional fanbase, I wouldn't be concerned.

And yet I suspect that theres more to it than that. Part of the problem with the HP phenomenon is that there is an insular nature to the fandom. People feel the need, apparently, to violently react to opinions different than their own about the books. I don't think I'm exaggerating to say that whats going on in this comments thread transcends a simple exchange of opinion. The level of anger is just out of tune with that.

Look, Matt is suggesting that literature is in bad shape because people like Charles aren't inviting others into reading. Okay. But Matt certainly doesn't improve literature-- or the state of discussion-- when he shuts his mind to anything Charles has to say. I think if you read the actual article you'll find that Charles is very measured and fair. And, yes, he arrives at a conclusion most of you don't agree with. That's okay. Adults disagree, especially about things as subjective as the relative value of different books. Whatever lean times literature is going through now, it certainly is not going to be resurrected by an angry army that squelches dissenting opinion about a phenomenally successful series.

Finally, let me say-- you can't make appeals to how many PhDs you know who read Harry Potter and accuse others of beings snobs. Calling someone a snob is not an argument. It's an unfortunate reaction to the fact that not everyone likes what you like. Deal with it.

Posted by Freddie | July 17, 2007 3:03 PM

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.

Except, Petey, the empirical evidence outside of your curiously bisected social circle, indicates the exact fucking opposite. Actually, people seem to love talking about Harry Potter.

Posted by Quarterican | July 17, 2007 3:04 PM

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.

ok, so you're a troll. good one.

Posted by cleek | July 17, 2007 3:05 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.

I think this statement speaks more to Petey’s agoraphobia than to readers at large. Over the course of the year I’ll read 10-14 novels and about a half dozen books of non-fiction. I’ve read the entire series and have a prepaid copy of the seventh waiting for me.

Petey strikes me as the type of snob that thinks a sentence isn’t a sentence without a sub-ordinate clause...

Posted by Polonius19 | July 17, 2007 3:06 PM

"I'm guessing it is more likely that your tendency to ask "why would you read that?" and idea that reading a series makes you roughly a convention-geek or junkie means that some of your friends might not think you are the ideal Potter-conversationalist, or that it is worth the trouble to dissuade you."

Oh, in meat space, I humor the Potter fans. They're my friends, after all. And given that they tend towards the painfully earnest, why would I want to rain on their parade?

"Or, you just have a really odd sample of friends."

Certainly possible, but I doubt it. I really do think it's the general tendency.

(The thread has made me realize that professional English academics are going to be an exception to the tendency, for somewhat obvious reasons.)

Posted by Petey | July 17, 2007 3:09 PM

This thread delivers. Two thumbs up!

More drama please.

Posted by Morat20 | July 17, 2007 3:09 PM

Cleek,

I'm glad I read "Gravity's Rainbow" (though I wish an empowered editor had read it first), but there is plenty of daylight between Pynchon and Rawling on the readability spectrum. You can read rewarding literary novels without getting kicked in the groin for 8 months by Thomas Pynchon.

Posted by Fred | July 17, 2007 3:10 PM

When the new Potter is released, millions of readers of all education levels and walks of life will happily devour the book. Meanwhile, the Peteys and Freddies of the world will be able to bask in their imagined moral and cultural superiority to the ignorant, infantilized masses.

Everyone wins.

I win because I appreciate a good troll--someone who can essentially call Potter readers adult baby retards, compare them to people who like to watch rodents being killed or porn addicts, then complain that the victims of such characterizations are unhinged for taking exception. Well played, assholes.

Posted by Cole Moore Odell | July 17, 2007 3:11 PM

Wow. Petey's comments here have revealed him to be a real ass. Who would have seen that coming?

Freddie just comes across as quite disturbed and unpleasant.

Posted by mrgumby2u | July 17, 2007 3:11 PM

Apparently James Gary has a new straw friend for us, the masturbator who defends his porn as art. Maybe you can introduce him to Petey.

He's not straw. Actually, he was some guy I met in a dive bar while waiting for a bus. But OK then, I'll introduce you to my many non-straw friends who never seem to feel compelled to defend their tastes in literature, clothing, or music. Perhaps it's a total coincidence that none of them are fans of Harry Potter.

Posted by James Gary | July 17, 2007 3:11 PM

Freddie:
Petey didn't say 'I don't like Potter. Therefore lets agree to disagree.' He said:

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.

Can you honestly not see the difference?

You then either missed the point of Matt's post or intentionally distorted it to make it about Matt wanting someone to cater to him. His point was that you don't persuade people to branch out by telling them what they enjoy sucks.

I'll admit you didn't mention Potter, but you did crassly insult the one author I guarantee everyone here reads. Then you insulted blogs. Maybe you were making a very serious, thoughtful, argument that has never been made in such detail or with such care, but you just came off as trying to be a dick.

Posted by crack | July 17, 2007 3:11 PM

> If we're sticking to topic (fantasy)
> Pratchett? Modesitt? Robert Jordan not
> knowing when to let go? Terry Goodkind's
> hatred of his characters, and their bizarre
> objectivist rants? David Eddings milking the
> same story through four seperate series?

They handle that over at Crooked Timber.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | July 17, 2007 3:12 PM

Here is something by literary novelist Alison Lurie that praises the (first three) Harry Potter books as literature:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/264

But I think Matthew Yglesias's complaints about fiction reviewers apply for the most part across the board, for literary as well as for genre fiction; too many fiction reviewers don't situate their subjects within any larger notion of literature.

Posted by bgn | July 17, 2007 3:13 PM

Personally, I never understood the point of writing something so surrealistic that nobody really gets what you mean.

Hurrah, you wrote 875 pages. You included numerology and tarot cards and references to sadomasochistic Germans. great. what the hell does it mean?

And if you reply "it means nothing, that's the point" I will tell you that you are a moron. I will go read Lonesome Dove. Better book anyway.

Posted by John Burns | July 17, 2007 3:13 PM

My sister is neither an English lit Ph.D. nor a non-reader. In fact, between her, my brother, and me, she probably reads the most, and she has read the Harry Potter novels. Of course, she was the target age group for Harry Potter books when they first came out.

There are certain books that appeal to the "I don't normally read books, but I loved this!" crowd. The DaVinci Code is probably one. Harry Potter probably isn't. Petey's experience is atypical, judging from the fact that no one else seems to echo his experience regarding those who read the Harry Potter books.

And Freddie is just pissed off today.

Posted by Tyro | July 17, 2007 3:14 PM

I find all the comments in this thread interesting. I refer to literature, pop culture, philosophy, youtube videos, and everything else when I debate on the Internet. I have read a lot of fiction in the earlier stages of my life (high school and twenties), but I don't really touch the the high-minded or commercial stuff now. I'm just not as interested now. I think I read it earlier in my life because I wanted to understand adulthood and its complexities and now I've answered a lot of those questions for myself.

High culture has always been a matter of taste with me, you either like it and want to mine it for ideas or you don't. I do find cultural references important to raising awareness of history. If there is a knowledge a person must have, then I'd suggest that historical knowledge might be the one to focus our collective attention on. To that end, high culture does have an importance place, but I would hesitate to argue it were critical.

Posted by trip_wonders | July 17, 2007 3:15 PM

OK then, I'll introduce you to my many non-straw friends who never seem to feel compelled to defend their tastes in literature, clothing, or music.

I bet if they had some fellow come up to them and announce that their taste in literature, clothing, or music was exactly like those some obscure fetish porn and they should be ashamed of themselves, they would.

Well, the probably would call the cops, but blogging and commenting is a bit different. Here we have civil discussions with people who generally get a "Sod off" in real life.

Posted by Morat20 | July 17, 2007 3:15 PM

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.

This analogy would probably work if the top-grossing film of all time was a mouse-crushing fetish movie.

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.

I think the general tone of the pro-Potter comments was "They're fun, we like 'em" until you started calling us sci-fi geekboy junkie animal-porn-fetishist masturbators.

For some odd reason, that got people riled. Go figure.

It's not that big a trick to make people defensive by insulting them, though it really shows nothing other than that Potter-fans are like everyone else when insulted.

Posted by Brad L | July 17, 2007 3:15 PM

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.

This is an amazing bit of hyperbole, which is not softened by the "insofar as" lead-in. I found Charles's essay entertaining and informative, but perhaps it's because I didn't look into his soul and see all that vicious hatred. Jesus. Tastes differ, and not everyone needs to be a cheerleader for pop literature.

Posted by RSA | July 17, 2007 3:16 PM

Says mookie: "Freddie has Ivy envy issues.
Petey is a conformist who would rather be an ass than look uncool in front of his friends and colleagues.
Neither deserves the amount of response they have generated."

Utterly true.

What I do know is that people who sneer at Potter books are usually the sort who think they have some kind of honorary degree for listening to NPR. Their smug superiority mistakes shallow-middlebrow bourgeois sham intellectualism for actual thought and engagement with the life of the mind.

Phhhhht. Boring old farts even when they are young.

And not even remotely correct. Let's see, what's on my nightstand right now? Moby Dick (permanently), a couple Murakami books, "Another Bullshit Night in Suck City", "Portrait of a Lady", and something called "A Night of Serious Drinking" which is some early 20th century occult allegory it seems. Yeah, I know a couple of those things weren't on the approved middlebrow yuppie reading list, and those sorts of people would "like to read Moby Dick," but certainly wouldn't understand it if they did.

Posted by Arthur Frain | July 17, 2007 3:16 PM

Charles Taylor's 1999 review of the first Harry Potter book in Salon made me seek it out. It's a terrific review that provides a lot of things Matt was looking for:

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/1999/03/cov_31featurea.html

Taylor also wrote a good review of the fourth book.

Posted by Steve | July 17, 2007 3:18 PM

The Potter novels are fine. I love them all, except perhaps Order of the Phoenix, which has oddly become the best movie of the series by a long mile. Rowling's undeniably brilliant in her own way. I can't imagine someone like Julian Barnes can read them without feeling he's found a slightly more restrained blood relative.

Posted by djangone | July 17, 2007 3:18 PM

"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."

Yeah, Petey, who would have thought that labelling someone an illiterate based on the choice of reading material would incite such passion?

"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."

Okay -- so reading all of a particular author's works makes one a "junkie." Good to know. By the way, who told you about my porn collection?

Posted by Passing Shot | July 17, 2007 3:19 PM

What? Are we whipping out books we've read and comparing, um, lengths?

I read Les Mis -- unabrigded -- when I was 16. And you know what I learned? Hugo needed an editor. That's what you get by paying by the word. You think Robert Jordan is bad? Or Stephenson? You haven't read Hugo when he's on a tangential roll, ready to spend 100 pages describing the battle of Waterloo to establish a minor character was there, looting the dead.

I am therefore the most elistist of book snobs, and thus you should bow to my opinion. Also, I'm torn between "Night Watch" and "Wee Free Men" as the best of the Discworld novels. I realize this statement may cause violence.

Posted by Morat20 | July 17, 2007 3:19 PM

You can read rewarding literary novels without getting kicked in the groin for 8 months by Thomas Pynchon.

oh sure - can you imagine if that was all someone really read!

but i'm reading Against The Day as part of an online discussion group. i did Gravity's Rainbow on my own, twice, and probably still ended up missing half of it. so when this one came out, this group started and it sounded like a good way to get the most out of a Pynchon book the first time through - and with 20 people reading and discussing as we go, slowly, few of the easter eggs are left undiscovered. i'd never have tried it on my own - too much work for what you get.

Posted by cleek | July 17, 2007 3:21 PM

"...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."

Which is exactly why I have not read the HP books.

"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" ...MY

Damn, that describes me exactly. 'Cept I stopped reading literature twenty years ago because I stopped liking that crowd too. Now all I read is violent revolutionaries and Peak Oil/Global Warming scenarios. Ahh, it is to dream.

Posted by bob mcmanus | July 17, 2007 3:21 PM

My guess is that Petey counts a lot of sci-fi/fantasy readers among his friends, most of whom probably don't read Harry Potter because their interest in fantasy genre fiction is already satisfied with better writers, while his other friends like the concept of fantasy but don't read any of it, and thus the HP books are the most accessible and most common example of it. That's really the only explanation I can come up with to explain his experience, which appears unique.

Or maybe most of the people he knows are teens, split between the uber-pretentious who refuse to read HP and the ones who don't like to read but like to read something about teenagers.

Ah, my record for most time to read a book: Dostoyevsky's Demons/Possessed, which I finally finished 10 years after I started it. Only later to find out that Joseph Conrad made the same points in The Secret Agent much more succinctly. But I still love the character of Shatov.

Posted by Tyro | July 17, 2007 3:21 PM

Oh, in meat space, I humor the Potter fans. They're my friends, after all. And given that they tend towards the painfully earnest, why would I want to rain on their parade?

Tone, particularly condescension, conveys even when you don't mean it to. I'm betting avid readers might even be more alert to it than average; many were teased for reading early in life.

But good on you for humoring them.

Posted by Brad L | July 17, 2007 3:22 PM

What I keep hearing, over and over, is that Petey and I have proved Matt's point.

Freddie, try not to pull something patting yourself on the back.

Petey expressed an opinion that is different than your own.

No he didn’t. He heaped derision on anyone with the temerity to acknowledge some level of affinity for the series. Most respondants replied in kind.

Calling someone a snob is not an argument. It's an unfortunate reaction to the fact that not everyone likes what you like. Deal with it.

Wrong again Kemosabe. Calling someone a snob, by accusation or flat declaration, is saying that the person scorns anything that doesn’t meet his standards. Which Petey did on several occasions.

Deal with that...

Posted by Polonius19 | July 17, 2007 3:22 PM

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

Because some people like different kinds of novels? Maybe?

I haven't read any of the Harry Potter series, but I do alternate Pulp and Serious--a little Elmore Leonard here, a little Tolstoy there, and so on. I get different things out of them, but I enjoy both.

There are novels I would never read, novels I do think of as beneath me (Tom Clancy, Harlequin romances)--but I certainly wouldn't put Harry Potter in that category.

Posted by Tom Hilton | July 17, 2007 3:23 PM

Is it just me, or are all of you just a little worked up?

Posted by Freddie | July 17, 2007 3:24 PM

The decision to indulge in one cultural product does not entirely define the limits of our taste we are not defensive about Harry Potter we are just correcting you because you decided that a taste for Harry Potter does in fact define our entire taste in literature.

Petey we are not defensive or angry you are just plain wrong. Not only that but you have been presented with numerous examples of how wrong you are but instead of admitting it you go in for silly comparisons involving high heels and animal cruelty.

Unless my pre-ordered copy of the Deathly Hallows is made of freshly clubbed baby seal skin it is quite an asinine comparison regarding what I would admit to at a cocktail party.

Posted by ellenbrenna | July 17, 2007 3:25 PM

There are novels I would never read, novels I do think of as beneath me (Tom Clancy, Harlequin romances)--but I certainly wouldn't put Harry Potter in that category.

Oh, you're missing out with Clancy. It's pretty much impossible to understand a wide-swath of American war hawk without reading some Clancy. It's a very clear window into how they think.

Posted by Morat20 | July 17, 2007 3:27 PM

Goodness, so many comments! Anyway, I am not particularly concerned about the novel, and have enjoyed the HP books. It is, however, irritating how homogeneous culture is spreading itself and marginalizing important diversity with an insufferable veneer of web 2.0 era individuality.

Posted by Wido Incognitus | July 17, 2007 3:28 PM

Goodness, so many comments! Anyway, I am not particularly concerned about the novel and have enjoyed the HP books. It is, however, irritating how homogeneous culture is spreading itself and marginalizing important diversity with an insufferable veneer of web 2.0 era individuality.

Posted by Wido Incognitus | July 17, 2007 3:28 PM

Is it just me, or are all of you just a little worked up?

says the guy who lead off with:

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.

Posted by cleek | July 17, 2007 3:29 PM

Golly, who knew the Harry Potter thread would elicit more (and more impassioned) comments than the teen sex one? So many possible conclusions/connections to draw there....

Posted by sara | July 17, 2007 3:31 PM

Cleek -- you'll have my undying gratitude if you can explain Vineland.

Posted by Passing Shot | July 17, 2007 3:31 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. '

You have it backwards. Disregarding the relative merits of the book in question, the point of a "seroius" novel is communication of greater truth through fiction. Yes, a 15 year-old's anger at the world is usually stupid. That is why adults completely lose touch with the concept. Through novelization, you regain the capacity to understand a fifteen-year-old's anger, which while stupid, exists.

Posted by Njorl | July 17, 2007 3:31 PM

I love how Freddie starts off with invective on high and now thinks everyone else is worked up.

Posted by crack | July 17, 2007 3:32 PM

It is, however, irritating how homogeneous culture is spreading itself and marginalizing important diversity with an insufferable veneer of web 2.0 era individuality.

What? Was that actually English? It's like someone dropped in a bunch of buzzwords, stirred, and threw it through babelfish.

Posted by Morat20 | July 17, 2007 3:32 PM

As a librarian and book reviewer, I read Harry Potter with enjoyment. The first book, which I read as an ARC, I thought somewhat derivitive (not up to Diana Wynne Jones), but a good enough read that I passed it on to my then 9-year-old niece. Then the phenomenon began. I had to order book 2 from James Thin in Edinburgh so my niece wouldn't have to wait for the American edition. My mother, a retired teacher, loves the books. My daughter, a certified acupuncturist who read Vonnegut & Tom Robbins at 14, loves the books. The most fervent Potterite I know is a college dean. The books do show the power of narrative, building upon one another to involve the reader in the saga. Harry's life follows the arc of Joseph Campbell's hero's journey; he is an avatar of Arthur and the other archetypes who populate our Jungian subconscious. We shouldn't be surprised at the enthusiasm the Potter books have inspired--they meet needs that other authors are not. I'll be in costume Friday night for our library's Harry Potter celebration; then I'll be trotting over to Border's to pick up my copy.

Posted by Storyteller7 | July 17, 2007 3:32 PM

I've been reading the comments here, and I would like to say this, calmly and rationally. I think the distinction between "high-brow" and "low-brow" is false. I think that the most effective literature should be entertaining and lead to a larger concept or two. I'm not going to say "I read Harry Potter AND more intelligent things," because I think the Harry Potter books ARE intelligent works. Fantasy, as a genre, has much to offer a careful reader and the Harry Potter books are no exception. Much like Tolkien, Lewis, or LeGuin, these are only children's books in the sense that the stories are told clearly and with a child's vocabulary. But, as with the Earthsea series, as the main character gets older, the writing matures as well. I look forward to crisp prose and lighthearted wit of the final book. She tackles the problems of an adolescent in the modern world in an interesting manner and that can be an enlightening read for anyone.

Posted by Joe | July 17, 2007 3:33 PM

I have no opinion about Harry Potter books, but I think the movies are ok. Seems to me Yglesias' biggest problem is with Ron Charles, not Harry Potter detraction generally. He didn't really defend the merits of the books at all.

For instance, I like some indie music, but fucking despise Pitchfork. I could care less if others don't like the idie records I like; but Pitchfork, they sound they don't like like ME.

Posted by MP | July 17, 2007 3:35 PM

Whatever else is true, you are all almost irrationally invested in Harry Potter.

Um, no, actually, from reading this thread what I gather is that people are instead rationally invested in not being called illiterate fetishist fanboy geeks who should be ashamed of themselves by people who not only have no concept of who is actually reading Harry Potter or why they do, but who themselves have just as much of a hair-trigger defensiveness toward any expressed disillusionment with literary criticism.

And I say this as someone who hasn't read any of the HP books. My wife however is a big fan and is eagerly awaiting the last book in the series, and she reads 12x the number of novels that I do.

Posted by Ferruge | July 17, 2007 3:37 PM

My favourite books as a kid were the Narnia series and Moomintroll; I followed that up with Conan and Barsoom, Heinlein and Norton and Tolkien, and then Lin Carter's reprints of all the classic older fantasy.

As an adult, parent, and children's ESL teacher I continue to read new fantasy and SF for younger readers (e.g. Pullman- agree with the standard criticism: first great; second so-so; third sucked)

So I was afire to read this great new book that was sweeping the world- my students here in Taiwan were plowing through it- something outside computer games, My God!

The first one was like eating at McDonald's- someone was trying to create a generic experience that appealed to the lowest common denominator of blandness- the second, more of the same; forced myself to plow through the third, then gave up- I'll wait for the rest on HBO.

Posted by MikeN | July 17, 2007 3:37 PM

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

I've got some beachfront property in Nevada I'd like to sell ya, Petey! `Cause you'll believe anything...

Last month's "fun" reading:

Bedlam by Greg Hollingshead

The Map That Changed the World: William Smith and the Birth of Modern Geology by Simon Winchester

and

Saturday by Ian Mcewan

That would be a longer list, but the geology had a tendency to put me to sleep at times; fascinating story but not exactly a pageturner...

And I'm looking forward to the last Harry Potter; they've been fun, easy reads, and I'll know what my kids are talking about. You're tastes may vary from mine, but don't be a snob about it.

I'm also looking forward to this one: Queen of Candesce by Karl Schroeder

Posted by A Hermit | July 17, 2007 3:38 PM

literally every single person I know who has read the entire Potter series doesn't read other novels.

This actually reminds me of the comment back in the 70's "How could Nixon get re-elected? I don't know a single person who voted for him!" But I digress...

Personally, I read a couple dozen books a year, about half fiction and half non-fiction, and have read the first five HP books. It never occurred to me that I would have to defend my enjoyment of the books, because it never occurred to me that someone might judge me for enjoying the books.

A snob isn't just someone who enjoys something different than what I enjoy. A snob is someone who enjoys something different than what I enjoy, and proceeds to make condescending judgments about me because of what I enjoy. Peter and Freddy may like different stuff than what I enjoy, and I make no judgment about that. But they explicitly made judgments about people who read HP *because* they read HP, and that is snobbery in my book.

Michael

Posted by greenlabormike | July 17, 2007 3:44 PM

You can read rewarding literary novels without getting kicked in the groin for 8 months by Thomas Pynchon.

I liked Gravity's Rainbow a lot. I think Pynchon gets a bad rap for "difficulty" -- he's funny, fun, etc. As long as you really you don't need to pass an exam at the end and shouldn't tie yourself in knots worrying about it, it's a perfectly enjoyable book.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | July 17, 2007 3:44 PM

I just read and immensely enjoyed "American Tabloid"

Does that make me a snob, a low brow pop culture loser or just weird?

Posted by John Burns | July 17, 2007 3:45 PM

The first one was like eating at McDonald's...

My guess would be that your background of having read Tolkein, Heinlein and CS Lewis made the HP series seem boring to you-- there was little new in HP compared to what you had read before. Someone without this same fantasy/sci-fi-heavy background (regular reader or non-reader) probably found the HP books refreshing and new.

Posted by Tyro | July 17, 2007 3:45 PM

PTJ at duck of minerva discusses the very Charles critique Matt started this thread with.

http://duckofminerva.blogspot.com/2007/07/expelliarmus.html

Posted by crack | July 17, 2007 3:46 PM

Asking why anyone would read Harry Potter when there are so many better books out there is like asking why anyone would go see Transformers when you could be seeing an arthouse flick. Because it's fun. Because sometimes you just want to enjoy the fantasy of another world without having to analyze it. And because, damn it, when everyone starts blogging about it in a few days, you want to be in the loop.

Posted by jimmy | July 17, 2007 3:48 PM

PTJ touched on one of my favorites -- Iain Banks, whose stuff really should be more widely read. Of course, his stuff is pretty depressing.

Posted by Morat20 | July 17, 2007 3:49 PM

Just finished Invisible Man. But I needed to get done before this weekend so I can read Deathly Hallows.

Petey, the first rule is to stop digging.

Posted by buggy ding dong | July 17, 2007 3:49 PM

It used to be that "normal" people could count on an aversion to sci-fi and fantasy as proof of their "normality." Unfortunately for them, its been a rough 10 years, with the Lord of Rings films, the Star Wars prequels, Buffy, and even the new Battlestar Gallactica crossing over into the mainstream. Harry Potter has been the ultimate cross-over. Its getting really hard to identify who the geeks are. So, please, easy on the muggles - the next few weeks aren't going to be very pleasant for them.

(BTW, Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell starts slow, but its an excellent read. Its like a cross of Potter with Jane Austin mixed together with a satire of academic writing, complete with absurd footnotes to non-existent tomes on the history of magic.)

Posted by mhpine | July 17, 2007 3:52 PM

I'm gonna copy and paste this one, but there are literally dozens I could put up here.

Peter and Freddy may like different stuff than what I enjoy, and I make no judgment about that. But they explicitly made judgments about people who read HP *because* they read HP, and that is snobbery in my book.

Um, when did I say that? This thread is filled to the brim with people attacking me for saying stuff I simply did not say. For the record--

I never said Harry Potter was bad, or offered any opinion on the books at all, in fact.

I never said that people who like Harry Potter aren't serious, or that they don't read other things, or that they aren't literary, or anything else.

I never said you couldn't like Harry Potter and like other things.

What I did say was--

that Matt's reaction to Ron Charles's essay was bogus for a number of reasons, and that he was being an asshole. I won't rehash those reasons here; you can read them up top

that there isn't some powerful throng of "literati" eager to stamp out the scourge of Harry Potter and shit on anyone who reads it.

that there are far more useful things to attack in our society than a powerless and disenfranchised minority who happens to read novels/adult fiction/whatever.

that Petey was taking an awful lot of attacks for having a different opinion than he does. Now, some have said that they are reacting to the way that Petey has expressed himself, not to what his opinion of Harry Potter is. Okay, that's fair game. But I don't believe that's all that is happening here. At least some of this is simply a reaction to Petey not liking the books. In fact, for many comments that is expressly the case.

and finally, that the reaction to my comments and Petey's is pretty spectacular, and may suggest some things about the Harry Potter readership. I don't know how you can read these 150 or so comments and not come away with the impression that Harry Potter readers really don't like it when you bash the books (or in my case, when they decide that you bash the books, even if you haven't.)

Good day.

Posted by Freddie | July 17, 2007 3:55 PM

This remark from Petey:

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

inspires me to propose a new game, called 'Similes Which Convey Truth Because I Say They Do'. My entry (in honor of Petey): "Being a fervent John Edwards supporter is sort of like being a pedophile."

I'm just expressing an opinion, Freddie. Can't fault me for that!

Posted by Ryan | July 17, 2007 3:56 PM

Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell

i'll second that recommendation. and, yeah it's very much a grown-up Harry Potter (set 150 years ago).

Posted by cleek | July 17, 2007 3:58 PM

I don't know how you can read these 150 or so comments and not come away with the impression that Harry Potter readers really don't like it when you bash the books (or in my case, when they decide that you bash the books, even if you haven't.)

I'm pretty sure a person reading this thread would read the first two posts and think you and Petey are dicks.

Posted by crack | July 17, 2007 4:01 PM

Kind of a shallow discussion.

On my bedside table I have the new Pynchon novel, book 6 of the Harry Potter series, and a volume for school ("Global Shadows: Africa in the Neoliberal World Order").

Just because one does not read does not mean that one does not read the other.

I enjoy the Potter novels. They remind me of being a kid again, that first thrill of the written word, of reading Tolkien and Dahl and Stevenson and the host of other books I loved as a child.

Sure this is escapism, but sometimes that beats the turgid middle class fixations that dominate too much of modern literature.

Posted by dadanarchist | July 17, 2007 4:03 PM

I don't know how you can read these 150 or so comments and not come away with the impression that Harry Potter readers really don't like it when you bash the books

Actually, my impression is, they really don't like being called mentally deranged junkies simply for liking the books. There's been almost no attack on (or defense of) the books on the merits. This has always been about Petey's persistent equation of people who like the books with pornography addicts who should be ashamed of themselves.

Posted by Ryan | July 17, 2007 4:04 PM

I review books, mostly fiction, a lot. Like I do at least two novels a month for Publishers Weekly, and have done so for a decade now. So I figure I'm pretty current on the fiction scene.
In fact, I've even reviewed for Ron Charles, when he was editing at the Christian Science Monitor.

Now, every paper has its own cultural attitudes. WAPO has what I think of as a very D.C. attitude -that is, that novels should somehow be good for something. Exercises in style, for instance, are viewed as cheating - so it is rare to squeeze a good review of a Don Delillo book out of the WAPO review page. I wouldn't look at Charles' article as representative of the literati, but representative of an inhouse attitude.
You want to read this year's great novel, read the Savage Detectives by Roberto Bolano.

Posted by roger | July 17, 2007 4:07 PM

Eh, jeez, so people have bad taste, film at 11. Harry Potter is at least better written than most bestselling novels read by adults, for whatever that's worth. Not great literature, sure, but people also watch Law and Order and listen to "My Humps." Who cares?

Posted by tps12 | July 17, 2007 4:11 PM

For those above complaining about MY's supposed low brow taste in novels, let me recommend this a book I recently came across, called Tristan and the Hispanics, by a guy named Jose Yglesias. From the Amazon review:

Antonio Granados, a once famous left-wing author whose books have been out of print since the 1960s, has just died in Tampa, Florida. His grandson Tristan, a straight-laced Yale student, is sent down by the Waspy Boston branch of the family to arrange for a quick cremation and to collect the old man's possessions. This simple assignment is thwarted by a mob of eccentric Hispanic relatives who unexpectedly turn up to meet the boy at the airport. After an exhausting week of ethnic food, barrio gossip, and family intrigue, Tristan manages to overcome his culture shock and begins to appreciate his "roots."

:)

Posted by rea | July 17, 2007 4:13 PM

Petey has always been a turkey. And now we find he's also a literature snob. No surprise there.

My 8 year old turned me onto Harry Potter. I addicted her with the reading bug in first grade by giving her some Kim Possible comic books. She returned the favor in second grade by reading HP books 1-5. Basically HP is a lot of fun. Mysteries written in a magical world mashed up with the 20th century. I'll be very disappointed when we find out that magic is a function of midichlorians.

Didn't we have this debate a few months back about Stephen King? Maybe that was at FARK.

"Literature" is not in crisis. There are many many books well worth reading and well worth discussion being published.

Literature snobs are having a crisis.

P.S. HP Books 4-6 are a good way to engage in a discussion with the third graders about the evils of George Bush as well as unimaginative snobbish functionary authoritarian kiss asses like Petey Weasley turned into.

Posted by jerry | July 17, 2007 4:16 PM

Morat20-- my money's on Night Watch, though Wee Free Men is a much better introduction to Prachett.

I think one of the problems in literature today is that so many modern novels are the same damn thing-- there's a wretched sameness to too many works, which is what Franzen blasted IIRC before publishing The Corrections. (For the record, I liked it.) I think one of the reasons Harry Potter took off with adults is that they were tired of bland, same-sounding novels-- Harry Potter made it okay to like something different, and to have some fun.

It will be a tragedy if the HP phenomenon doesn't get more people reading genre fiction and fun stuff, though.

Posted by Persia | July 17, 2007 4:17 PM

Now, some have said that they are reacting to the way that Petey has expressed himself, not to what his opinion of Harry Potter is. Okay, that's fair game. But I don't believe that's all that is happening here. At least some of this is simply a reaction to Petey not liking the books.

I'm curious why you think that. His very first post began with "no adult who reads the Harry Potter books reads other novels", suggesting that Potter fans are childish and immature.

The first volley of responses sounded like "Hey, they are fun books" until Petey gradually deepened the insults, going from convention geek to junkie to lonely masturbator to animal-porn-fetishist. Not surprisingly, these pronouncements set the tone for their response.

the reaction to my comments and Petey's is pretty spectacular, and may suggest some things about the Harry Potter readership.

When you start off with a Shrill Screed, you don't really get to claim the high ground, but it is kind of amusing to see the effort.

I don't know how you can read these 150 or so comments and not come away with the impression that Harry Potter readers really don't like it when you bash the books.

You do it by noticing the confounding factor; that in addition to criticizing the book, Petey managed to call the commenters who are posting everything from simple-minded to wankers to bizarre fetishists, and that your opening salvo to the original post was filled with course, expletive-laden vitriol.

That would be how.

(If anything, the fact that you didn't criticize the book suggest that people are responding to the tone of your posts, and not to any book criticisms).

Posted by Brad L | July 17, 2007 4:20 PM

Persia: I'd lean towards Wee Free Men for three reasons:

1) It's a children's book that is, nonetheless, not a dumbed-down Pratchett book. It is ever bit as complex and mature as the best of his series, yet accessible to young teens.

2) The very obvious love he has for the Chalk -- or more properly, it's English counterpart.

3) Tiffany Aching. Enough said. :)

Posted by Morat20 | July 17, 2007 4:20 PM

may suggest some things about the Harry Potter readership.

Many commenters defending Potter fans have said they are not fans themselves. You just said you didn't make a judgement about Potter fans (which you didn't in your original post), but then you derisively imply they (and anyone else who agrees with them) have given in to a cult mentality. Not to mention that you claim you were only criticizing Matt for being an asshole by, in my judgement, being a complete asshole yourself, essentially calling him a fake. I apologize if I've read too much into your comments, but you might want to consider the fact that so many people took offense might be a reflection on how you express yourself, not on their taste in books.

Posted by ibid | July 17, 2007 4:23 PM

the reaction to my comments and Petey's is pretty spectacular, and may suggest some things about the Harry Potter readership. I don't know how you can read these 150 or so comments and not come away with the impression that Harry Potter readers really don't like it when you bash the books (or in my case, when they decide that you bash the books, even if you haven't.)

That's so true! Why, just the other day, I went to a bowling alley on league night and told the people how stupid bowling was, how ashamed they should be for doing it, and casually suggesting that they bowl because they have nothing better to do with their lower-class lives. Their reaction to my comments was pretty spectacular too, and suggests some things about people who like to bowl. After getting chased out of the alley by that distemperate mob, I don't know how you can not come away with the impression that people who bowl really don't like it when you bash bowling.

Posted by Snobby Literati | July 17, 2007 4:24 PM

What I don't get about these "Americans are dumbing down" articles (like the original Post editorial) is why people don't get that we like getting our fiction from sources different than the printed word today.

People buy more books than ever--from Amazon, Borders, etc, as pointed out earlier. They buy a lot of fiction and a lot of non-fiction. Even the Post editorial pointed out the non-fiction that people buy and consume. What seems to upset literary critics is the loss/shrinking of mass consumption of high-brow literature. But let's look at what's really happening. It's not as if our culture is turning away from imaginative fictional stories. It's just that high-brow literature now needs to compete with a lot of other mediums when sharing its stories. People watch films--and while many of them are terrible, many are also works of art. People watch television. And while much TV sucks, this is also the golden age of intricate plot-based serials...people still consume fiction, just in different forms.

People also have substantially more disposable income than they did a generation ago. Think about how much more often we go out to eat, etc, then our parents generation. We can afford to. Or vacations. I used to hear stories from my father about all the amazing reading he would get done as a child on vacation. With national and international air travel so much cheaper people now vacation in destinations where they get outside and see stuff, rather than spending it lounging in their lawn chair in the backyard reading.

I read a lot, I love it, and I describe it as my hobby. But people who don't read as much as me don't bother me, there are so many other things they can be doing with their time.

Posted by Peter | July 17, 2007 4:24 PM

I agree with Atrios. Everyone older than 12 who reads Harry Potter is a complete idiot.

Posted by John Emerson | July 17, 2007 4:25 PM

I read a lot, mostly novels, although I try to balance with non-fiction. Right now I'm reading Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell as well as Lawrence Wright's The Looming Tower.

I read the first Harry Potter a while ago and thought it was pretty silly, and didn't touch them again until last fall. Some friends of mine were combining their books and had doubles of the first 4. It is completely true to say that each one was an improvement on the one before, both in terms of the writing and on the themes developed. As the characters got older, the issues they dealt with got more "mature," for lack of a better word. I'm not obsessed with them (I haven't looked at any Potter blogs), but I'm looking forward to the next book.

Sorry - I lost the point of my comment. I think I was headed somewhere, but now I'm not sure anymore.

Posted by being released | July 17, 2007 4:25 PM

I never said Harry Potter was bad, or offered any opinion on the books at all, in fact.

I never said that people who like Harry Potter aren't serious, or that they don't read other things, or that they aren't literary, or anything else.

I never said you couldn't like Harry Potter and like other things.

Fair enough. You never attacked anyone for liking HP and never expressed an opinion about HP. But in that same vein, your attack of Matt's post is equally bogus. I read his piece as frustration at literary snobbery (which is not exactly an uncommon phonomenon) and a disappointment that there hasn't been a broader effort to encourage fans of HP to expand their reading selection.

After reading Ron Charles' article, I am comfortable saying that it reads like "Why the fuck do people read trash like HP?" The fact that he then goes on to suggest other books (which are quite good) doesn't take away the insulting tone of the first two thirds of the article. Matt's point is well founded, I think.

But whatever the merits of Matt's essay, the entire second paragraph of your first post was nothing but ad hominem attack. And it reads like condescending snobbery. Or perhaps it is just petulant defensiveness that can't withstand constructive criticism. Whatever. Ad hominem attacks say much more about the speaker than the subject.

Posted by greenlabormike | July 17, 2007 4:27 PM

Well, I admit it, you made me look.

Posted by jerry | July 17, 2007 4:28 PM

But Morat20-- Vimes. I mean, really. Vimes.

Posted by Persia | July 17, 2007 4:31 PM

Mentally deranged junkies never like being called mentally deranged junkies. They don't like much of anything except junk anyway, but especially they don't like being called mentally deranged junkies. That's the way mentally deranged junkies are.

Posted by John Emerson | July 17, 2007 4:31 PM

Charles doesn't really trash HP. He tells a story about how he and his kid got bored of the books and stopped reading, but that he felt cowed by the massive popularity of the series from offering any criticism. He goes on to lament that the popularity of HP doesn't translate into increased readership for other books. The piece really is rather innocuous and MY bizarrely mischaracterizes the point of the article.

Posted by blah | July 17, 2007 4:32 PM

Stop it, John. I'm just warning you.

Posted by jerry | July 17, 2007 4:32 PM

Matt,

"I liked Gravity's Rainbow a lot. I think Pynchon gets a bad rap for "difficulty" -- he's funny, fun, etc."

I liked Gravity's Rainbow a lot too -- I thought parts of it were brilliant and I occasionally go back and read those parts (particularly the parts inspired by strange-but-true history, such as the pacifist Society for Space Travel laying the groundwork for the V-series rockets). But Pynchon deserves the rap for difficulty. Aside from the narrative structure of GR itself, which jumbles chronology by periodically jumping backward and forward in time, and intentionally diffuses many plot lines, Pynchon rarely uses a common English word when he can substitute a more obscure, archaic, or foreign word or phrase (e.g., "lammergeier", "paregoric", "indiolalia", "phthisic", etc.).

It's also hard to argue that an un-intimidated editor couldn't have improved the book by cutting out at least 100 pages of it. Also, Pynchon's not really funny -- at least in GR (unless you mean in an unfunny, "Monty Python and The Flying Circus" sort of way).

Aside from all of that the brilliant parts of GR, IMO, are still good enough to recommend someone who hasn't read it read the book. Not enough to inspire me to read one of his subsequent novels though, but perhaps I will at some point.

Posted by Fred | July 17, 2007 4:33 PM

Wow --- reading this all has been an experience. Personally, I think it's snarky and in bad taste to criticize what people read, whether it's Harry Potter or Canterbury Tales. What is the really great thing to realize is that people are READING at all!!! Reading is something that gives personal enjoyment and escapism (and also is something that can educate and entertain). To me, it doesn't matter what someone is reading, but that they are reading at all -- this can really be appreciated by anyone who has taught adult literacy. Lighten up, folks!

Posted by Jenma | July 17, 2007 4:34 PM

All the bookstores around here, from the small independents to yes, even WalMart are having Harry Potter parties Friday night, with contests, refreshments, and even live music.

I am pretty sure these bookstores understand something that blah, Petey, and Charles do not.

Posted by jerry | July 17, 2007 4:35 PM

Persia, Vimes yes. Vimes is by far my favorite character, even in cameo (Monsterous Regiment, which has grown on me quite a bit).

Nonetheless, Tiffany has secured a steady lead with her relationship with Weatherwax -- specifically, You. I don't think anyone has nailed Granny Weatherwax so perfectly.

Posted by Morat20 | July 17, 2007 4:36 PM

I started reading the Harry Potter books to my kid when they were too difficult for him. I totally enjoyed the experience. I was actually pretty sad when he was old enough to start reading them on his own. He humored me and let me read him the first chapter of the last book when it came out.

I ended up reading it because of how invested in the story I had become over the years, plus the bonding experience that the stories provided. I will read the new one as well.

I find it absurd for someone to be arrogant enough to make such generalized assumptions about a book that will be read by millions of people. I would be happy to compare "literary" novels read with just about anyone, but that smacks of an insecurity that I wouldn't want to validate.

My kid who is in junior high has moved on to things like Black Swan Green, The Wonder Boys, and Catcher in the Rye in recent months and shows signs of being a devoted reader of fiction. I think the Potter books were superb for him in that regard, while simply giving us both a great deal of pleasure.

Posted by Klein's Tiny Left Nut | July 17, 2007 4:37 PM

Tolkein was shit too, but nowhere near as bad as Harry Potter.

Posted by John Emerson | July 17, 2007 4:37 PM

Jerry:

What don't I understand?

I understand that the HP series is massively popular and that all of those establishments stand to make money by holding special events.

I do not understand why MY has mischaracterized the Charles article and blames supposedly snobby book critics for low readership in this country.

Posted by blah | July 17, 2007 4:39 PM

I'm torn between "Night Watch" and "Wee Free Men" as the best of the Discworld novels. I realize this statement may cause violence.

You meant Small Gods. Put your fightin' gloves on.

Posted by dob | July 17, 2007 4:39 PM

Persia, Vimes yes. Vimes is by far my favorite character, even in cameo (Monsterous Regiment, which has grown on me quite a bit).

Nonetheless, Tiffany has secured a steady lead with her relationship with Weatherwax -- specifically, You. I don't think anyone has nailed Granny Weatherwax so perfectly.

Posted by Morat20 | July 17, 2007 4:40 PM

The law of the excluded middle.

Posted by jerry | July 17, 2007 4:40 PM

I bet those friends Petey mentions don't like him as much as he thinks they do.

Posted by too many steves | July 17, 2007 4:41 PM

Of course I haven't read a word of Harry Potter. Whywould I read that kind of crap?

Posted by John Emerson | July 17, 2007 4:41 PM

Every proposition is either true or not true?

Posted by blah | July 17, 2007 4:43 PM

John Emerson:

I think the indignation is dying out. Your provocations have come too late.

Posted by blah | July 17, 2007 4:44 PM

Basically, people read novels either for style; for characterization; for subject matter; or for plot.

"Serious" contemporary novels tend to be confessional, and are all style and characterization. The plots are defective or predictable and the subject matter is always the same (i.e. 'me').

"Serious" modernist novels (like those by Joyce and Pynchon) are all style and subject matter. Nobody reads them for plot, and the characters aren't very interesting.

"Serious" 19th century novels (Austen to James, let's say) are mainly about characterization, and secondarily feature style and plot. The subject matter is always the same, i.e. getting some woman married.

"Popular" novels from every era are often careless about style but ramp up the focus on plot and subject matter, often creating or describing marvellous new worlds in which the heroes have interesting adventures.

The Harry Potter books have zero style, but this works to their advantage, since it serves to make the subject matter and the plot more immediately accessible. The characters are entirely conventional.

Literary snobs are just people who are able to derive pleasure from a rich style and subtle characterization, and consider people who lack this facility contemptible.

Personally, I think all novels are too long. I prefer anecdotes, fables, and blog posts.

Posted by lampwick | July 17, 2007 4:44 PM

"Of course I haven't read a word of Harry Potter. Whywould I read that kind of crap?"

You are too late, John. This thread has become impossible to troll.

Posted by bob mcmanus | July 17, 2007 4:45 PM

Harry Potter fans have no staying power.

Posted by John Emerson | July 17, 2007 4:45 PM

As others have mentioned up above, Harry Potter is a gateway drug, and every book read is a victory over Voldemort (Sauron for John Emerson), Xenu, Osama Bin Laden, and even Karl Rove and George W. Bush.

I suspect the bookstores are going to make a lot of money Friday night, not just on Potter books but also on a lot of other books too, including the latest works of "literature."

Posted by jerry | July 17, 2007 4:48 PM

I feel as though my whole life has been wasted. I was born to troll Harry Potter threads.

Posted by John Emerson | July 17, 2007 4:48 PM

You meant Small Gods. Put your fightin' gloves on.

Small Gods is good, but around that and Reaper Man is when Pratchett stepped up into his current phase of writing.

Phase One: Stock parody. (The Light Fantastic, The Color of Magic)

Phase Two: Fantasy, with a heavy humor element, but the emphasis on storytelling: Everything from Equal Rites to just before Small Gods/Lords and Ladies. Complex and interesting characters, strong plots, emergent themes.

Phase Three: Serious works -- Pratchett has moved onto complex and living characters, major themes that revolve around his characters and their core motivations. Plots are still strong, but it's the characters that infuse and drive the story. Starts with Reaper Man, Small Gods and continues.

Small Gods is good, don't get me wrong -- until Night Watch, it would have been my favorite. But it just didn't stand a chance against Vimes. :) I'm looking forward to I Shall Wear Midnight in a way I'm not anticipating the next Vimes book, as happy a day as that will be.

He's done an amazing number for a man who started off making jokes about fantasy.

Posted by Morat20 | July 17, 2007 4:50 PM

perhaps the adults reading Harry Potter were crack babies. Has anyone done a study?

Posted by John Emerson | July 17, 2007 4:55 PM

Stop hating! Y'all are a bunch of wack snobs who have denied yourselves one of the great pleasures of our age.

I happen to be an English major with a deep and abiding love for Joyce, Austen, Woolf, Trollope, Dickens, the Brontes, and many of the other bigwigs. But JK Rowling is the best author alive, hands down. She's done what none of the "literary" authors today has done: enticed kids back to the written word.

Mr.Emerson, sucks for you for not being able to allow yourself to enjoy something so uncontroversially fun and pleasant to read! Your namesake, R.W. Emerson would surely not approve.

Kudos to Matt for admitting his HP love.

Posted by Fellow-ette | July 17, 2007 4:55 PM

Small Gods is good, don't get me wrong -- until Night Watch, it would have been my favorite.

You are forgiven for your apt analysis, but sadly you've forgotten Phase Four: Phoning it in. Excepting the Tiffany Aching subseries, most of the recent batch of Discworld books have been fairly uninteresting.

I still stand by Small Gods over all the others, though. It has some interesting observations about the nature of religion, science, belief, and obligation.

Posted by dob | July 17, 2007 4:57 PM

This argument is stupid.

I love William Faulkner, James Joyce, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, and I also love J.K. Rowling. Just because I listen to and adore "The Rite of Spring" by Igor Stravinsky doesn't mean I can't find Radiohead to be intellectually engaging.

Posted by Matthew Struhar | July 17, 2007 4:58 PM

But JK Rowling is the best author alive, hands down.

best s/b luckiest

I'm not a hater, she's more than competent, but best?

Posted by dob | July 17, 2007 4:59 PM

Harry Potter fans over 12 are overwhelmingly liberal (I would guess 90%), no surprise that this site is full of Potter defenders. I didn't realize John Emerson had so much contempt for liberals.

Posted by vanya | July 17, 2007 5:02 PM

All right, let me finish this off.

Petey likes Family Guy. He's a douchebag.

Posted by Kyle | July 17, 2007 5:02 PM

Sorry Matthew, "Rite of Spring" is hardly an "intellectual" masterpiece. It's basically an early version of heavy metal. People hated it at the premiere because it was too primitive and raw, not because it was too sophisticated. If you want to score intellectual points you need to name check Bach, Schoenberg and Lutoslawski.

Posted by vanya | July 17, 2007 5:07 PM

It's a shame JK Rowling didn't announce, months ago, that the last HP book would not be published until the US and UK had pulled their troops out of Iraq. I think the overwhelming public protests would have toppled the Bush regime by now.

Wasted opportunies...

Posted by Robb B | July 17, 2007 5:07 PM

Success!

Everyone hates liberals. That's what liberals are for.

Posted by John Emerson | July 17, 2007 5:07 PM

Charles doesn't really trash HP. He tells a story about how he and his kid got bored of the books and stopped reading, but that he felt cowed by the massive popularity of the series from offering any criticism. He goes on to lament that the popularity of HP doesn't translate into increased readership for other books. The piece really is rather innocuous and MY bizarrely mischaracterizes the point of the article.

This is salient point one.

I do not understand why MY has mischaracterized the Charles article and blames supposedly snobby book critics for low readership in this country.

That is salient point two. Matt has conjured out of the ether the notion of this literary elite who denounce Harry Potter and are killing reading. That's nonsense, and I pointed it out. Yet in 200+ comments, it has not been responded to. Why? Matt says in the comments above that novels suffer because people who read novels are so horrible they turn other people off. Surely that's the sort of offensive, sweeping generalization that people here might criticize. But there's nothing. Why?

Ad hominem attacks say much more about the speaker than the subject.

Be honest-- who has endured more ad hominems here? Matt Yglesias, or me and Petey?

Posted by Freddie | July 17, 2007 5:08 PM

I read the Potter Books to my kids when they were in the 6-7 range. They have re-read all of them (twice) and are voracious readers. My 9 year old now reads large preteen books in the same genre ( Eragon, Magyk, etc ) at a rate of about 1-2 per week while my now-13-year old has gone more towards adventure and military history.

Limiting TV and computer time (severely) makes a huge difference. Reading tends to leave them engaged but calm, TV leaves them inert and unable to deal with adversity (i.e. life ).

For myself - I get book recommendations from blogs.... Read Wodehouse last year after quotes from Lance Mannion.

Posted by fasteddie | July 17, 2007 5:08 PM

What was the Atlantic thinking?

Posted by Matt | July 17, 2007 5:11 PM

See, Yglesias? The Aristocracy at work. You can go to a good school, get a good degree, move on to better things and in general prove your worth at large, but you'll never be one of them.

It's the Clinton Effect!

Posted by Boronx | July 17, 2007 5:12 PM

I find literary snobbery to be among the least attractive aspects of academia. It's also suffused with historical ignorance.

The fact is that most of the classical works of Western civilization - what is now considered "highbrow" literature - was written for a popular audience at the time it was published.

Dickens wrote for a large audience. So did Shakespeare. The classical Greek epics were designed as a form of popular entertainment.

Sure, there are exceptions (like Moby-Dick, one of the most overrated books in existence). But, for the most part, literary greatness was recognized by the public at the time. In contrast, most self-consciously highbrow literature published by academics will be forgotten as soon as fashions change.

The attempt to get more people to read highbrow literature is doomed because if more people read it, then it wouldn't be highbrow any more. Highbrow literature is basically the academic equivalent of an exclusive country club. If everyone could join, it wouldn't be exclusive any more, would it?

In 200 years, the Harry Potter series will be considered highbrow literature. And another generation of clueless English Lit snobs will be busy criticizing the greatest writers of their own era.

Posted by Josh G. | July 17, 2007 5:13 PM

You are forgiven for your apt analysis, but sadly you've forgotten Phase Four: Phoning it in. Excepting the Tiffany Aching subseries, most of the recent batch of Discworld books have been fairly uninteresting.

I still stand by Small Gods over all the others, though. It has some interesting observations about the nature of religion, science, belief, and obligation

Everything from Small Gods on has interesting observations about the nature of religion, science, belief and ethics. That's why they're so damn good.

As for 'phoning it in'? Night Watch, Thud, Monsterous Regiment (which I didn't like nearly as much the first read, I admit), Thief of Time, The Truth, The Fifth Element? And all three Tiffany Aching books?

I could see maybe calling "Going Postal" as "phoning it in", except I saw it as Pratchett trying something very different as a writer, and still managing to pull it off with aplomb. About the only book in the last decade he's "phoned in" was Masquerade, and there's still several very good moments in that (and it's quite readable overall -- just uneven. Some of it's just more reminscint of his older works than others).

Posted by Morat20 | July 17, 2007 5:15 PM

I wonder how many people would have joined Petey if MY had said he liked the Backstreet Boys rather than Harry Potter.

Posted by blah | July 17, 2007 5:15 PM

Has anyone said this yet - Matt has read 3 novels this year, almost a 4th, as well as Harry Potter and who knows what else. Guess what Matt? YOU ARE NOT TO BLAME for the crisis in Literature. Maybe you think reading a novel every 4 months is "almost never" but most of the public reads a novel well ... almost never. Meaning: NEVER.

So your premise is wrong. Carry on.

Posted by will | July 17, 2007 5:15 PM

In 200 years, the Harry Potter series will be considered highbrow literature.

I was with you up until there.

Posted by goethean | July 17, 2007 5:16 PM

Read the Lion, the Witch, & the Wardrobe, and then the Bible.

Posted by Gregorio | July 17, 2007 5:16 PM

Will, Matt is trying to destroy literature, but the flesh is weak. He's like Vitter that way.

Posted by John Emerson | July 17, 2007 5:19 PM

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

In which order?

Posted by Tyrone Slothrop | July 17, 2007 5:24 PM

Looking back over Charles' article, he's complaining that people who read Harry Potter don't move on to read other books; but it seems counterproductive, if his desire is to see people read more, to call HP readers "infantile" instead of just telling them "hey, if you like HP, you'll REALLY like Johnathon Strange..."

Gratuitous insults generally aren't a good method of persuasion...

Posted by A Hermit | July 17, 2007 5:24 PM

Marcus Licinius Crassus: Do you eat oysters?
Antoninus: When I have them, master.
Marcus Licinius Crassus: Do you eat snails?
Antoninus: No, master.
Marcus Licinius Crassus: Do you consider the eating of oysters to be moral and the eating of snails to be immoral?
Antoninus: No, master.
Marcus Licinius Crassus: Of course not. It is all a matter of taste, isn't it?
Antoninus: Yes, master.
Marcus Licinius Crassus: And taste is not the same as appetite, and therefore not a question of morals.
Antoninus: It could be argued so, master.
Marcus Licinius Crassus: My robe, Antoninus. My taste includes both snails and oysters.

Posted by HP Fans like Snails And Oysters | July 17, 2007 5:27 PM

Here's what I find obnoxious about Ron Charles's article:

"I'd like to think that this is a romantic return to youth, but it looks like a bad case of cultural infantilism. And when we're not horning in on our kids' favorite books, most of us aren't reading anything at all."

Cue the well-dressed women driving their stiletto heels through marmots' necks. As has been said 1000x in this thread, people don't like to called illiterate infants (explicitly or implicitly) because they occasionally enjoy pop culture.

Plus, the end of Charles's article does come across as a whine. I love experimental fiction, and wish more people read books by David Markson and Kenneth Goldsmith--but I understand why they don't. It's my job to explain to them why I think they should. It's Charles's job to explain to people why they should read what he loves--not complain about how they're still reading something he's tired of.

Cheers,

Posted by A D Jameson | July 17, 2007 5:28 PM

This is how you troll!

Posted by Emerson is a snail bashing oysterphile | July 17, 2007 5:29 PM

I pointed it out. Yet in 200+ comments, it has not been responded to. Why? ...there's nothing. Why?

Because the rest of us don't share your obsessions, Freddie. Get over it.

Be honest-- who has endured more ad hominems here? Matt Yglesias, or me and Petey?

None of the above -- the correct answer is 'Harry Potter readers writ large', courtesy of Petey and his hater friends.

Okay, possibly not 'more', but certainly 'the most egregious'.

Posted by Ryan | July 17, 2007 5:30 PM

He didn't call HP readers infantile. He speculated that the fact that more adults than children read HP may represent cultural infantilism. I think it's an interesting question to raise.

Posted by blah | July 17, 2007 5:31 PM

Because the rest of us don't share your obsessions, Freddie. Get over it.

Actually, it's because I'm right, and you have no counter-argument to prove otherwise. If you did, you would voice it.

Posted by Freddie | July 17, 2007 5:32 PM

Telling morons they're morons is a thankless task, but someone has to do it.

Posted by John Emerson | July 17, 2007 5:34 PM

Actually, it's because I'm right, and you have no counter-argument to prove otherwise. If you did, you would voice it.

Congratulations. You've won the internet. A plaque and certificate will be mailed to you.

Posted by Morat | July 17, 2007 5:34 PM

Every once in a long while you see a dim light switch on, and the guy says "Oh, I see. I'm a moron". We live for those moments.

Posted by John Emerson | July 17, 2007 5:37 PM

I have never actually read any of the HP books, so I cannot comment on them per se. But I was forced to sit through one of the movies, and it was really bad. Just a horrible movie all around.

Am I allowed to criticise the movies?

Posted by blah | July 17, 2007 5:37 PM

Matt has conjured out of the ether the notion of this literary elite who denounce Harry Potter and are killing reading. That's nonsense, and I pointed it out. Yet in 200+ comments, it has not been responded to. Why?

Um, because it isn't what Matt actually said (although I tried to point this out way up top). As you might say... show me where he wrote that?

The post was about an opportunity missed, particularly by Charles. He never said Charles was responsible for killing readership by derision/snobbery, but rather he is wasting a chance to shine as a critic, given the huge authorship of this one book.

I think this is a good, valid observation. Good, engaging criticism in this work might spark interest in further work, but Charles does nothing like that, and instead comes across as petulant and snobby. Agree with the latter or not, the former is certainly true. Charles adds absolutely nothing to the appreciation of this book (thereby fanning interest in others), instead bemoaning that he'd hope for a more widely read audience to begin with.

He tells a story about how he and his kid got bored of the books and stopped reading, but that he felt cowed by the massive popularity of the series from offering any criticism.

This is essentially right. Not to mention, willingness to be cowed is not exactly the trait that you would hope for in a critic of any sort.

Posted by Brad L | July 17, 2007 5:38 PM

Silence you Muggles! I'm busy subverting good moral Christian culture by further stultifying lumpy, sedentary Gen-X and Y'ers. My wand throbs as theirs go limp- I am sponsored in part by Cialis.

Posted by Haughty Poofter | July 17, 2007 5:43 PM

"This is how you troll!"

For some reason, there seems to be troll boogers on my wand . . .

Posted by rea | July 17, 2007 5:45 PM

Cleek -- you'll have my undying gratitude if you can explain Vineland.

Find the review that Edward Mendelson wrote in The New Republic shortly after it came out -- good stuff.

Posted by Tyrone Slothrop | July 17, 2007 5:49 PM

Am I allowed to criticise the movies?

My wife and I have watched the 1st four movies. I've read the books; she hasn't. I'll admit I got angry watching them because the books were much better and she was getting the wrong idea about the books. The movies present a synopsis of the story, but like any good book, Harry Potter is much more than just a plot.

Posted by being released | July 17, 2007 5:50 PM

Freddie, please

Matt has conjured out of the ether the notion of this literary elite who denounce Harry Potter and are killing reading. That's nonsense, and I pointed it out. Yet in 200+ comments, it has not been responded to.

Because most of us don't disagree with that point, it's not controversial. I get the impression many of the HP readers on this thread actually consider themselves part of the literary elite, and they're not denouncing Harry Potter and they're not killing reading. Have you actually read any of this thread? And if so, how can you consider Petey to be your ally? He hijacked the thread and took it in a completely different direction.

Posted by vanya | July 17, 2007 5:51 PM

blah:
He didn't call HP readers infantile. He speculated that the fact that more adults than children read HP may represent cultural infantilism. I think it's an interesting question to raise.

Sure, interesting. I have to admit I'm somewhat distressed by how superhero comics and fantasy novels have become mainstream fare. I think it's healthier for everyone when that kind of stuff is subversive and devoured by lonely high school kids (which I was). But I'd encourage you to revisit Charles's quote:

"I'd like to think that this is a romantic return to youth, but it looks like a bad case of cultural infantilism. And when we're not horning in on our kids' favorite books, most of us aren't reading anything at all."

You don't need an MS in explication to understand that the guy's insulting anyone who hasn't wearied of Castle Hogwart. (Note his clever comparison between reading the books and changing diapers.)

It's probably a minor point--I can't say I really feel offended by Charles--but insulting people isn't a good way to connect with them. Like, read this thread.

Cheers,

Posted by A D Jameson | July 17, 2007 5:51 PM

Matt has conjured out of the ether the notion of this literary elite who denounce Harry Potter and are killing reading. That's nonsense, and I pointed it out. Yet in 200+ comments, it has not been responded to. Why? Matt says in the comments above that novels suffer because people who read novels are so horrible they turn other people off. Surely that's the sort of offensive, sweeping generalization that people here might criticize. But there's nothing. Why?

Dear Freddie,

A certain friend of mine is, like me, a well-read guy. We each read 50+ novels/year. (We're both fiction writers.)

He's never read a single Harry Potter book, or seen a single one of the movies, and yet he'll happily tell you that they're crap.

I've read all 6 HP novels and have pre-ordered the seventh. I've seen 4/5 movies. My opinion: They're stupid in many ways, but they're also a lot of fun and have their charms.

This is what Matt's talking about.

Posted by fflweddur fflam | July 17, 2007 6:00 PM

Ever notice how Petey is the exact mirror image of his hated enemy Steve Sailer? Petey has generally progressive, unobjectionable political views yet acts like a complete and utter douchenozzle to others, while Sailer has horrifying political views but expresses himself in a genial and good-natured fashion.

Posted by Hank Scorpio | July 17, 2007 6:04 PM

This may seem like a marginal or unimportant issue, but it really isn't.

You know how a lot of Americans seem to think that liberals are "out of touch" with ordinary people? Well, this is one reason why. (The gun thread showcases another reason.) Literary snobbery is not only vacuous, but it pisses people off. An awful lot of Americans vote Republican because they think the Marxists in ivory towers are secretly laughing at them and plotting to take away their guns and give their jobs to Mexican immigrants.

The entire academic field of English Literature is a vast wasteland. These morons were so busy holding pretentious MLA conferences about deconstruction that they somehow missed the fact that their entire profession was being destroyed - that tenure track positions were being replaced en masse with cheap adjuncts, who got no benefits and no job security.

If a profession can't even look after its own interst, why should I believe that they have anything of substance to say about the world as a whole? These are head-in-the-clouds dreamers who know nothing of the ordinary issues that concern most Americans in their day-to-day lives.

Plumbers and electricians are much smarter than English majors. They at least know which side their bread is buttered on.

If English Lit departments were all disbanded, what would be the loss? We'd see a severe reduction in the output of pretentious bullshit. Unlike political science, sociology, math, or the hard sciences, English Lit produces nothing of value to society as a whole. It's a sterile, incestuous fraud.

Posted by Josh G. | July 17, 2007 6:04 PM

Sure, interesting. I have to admit I'm somewhat distressed by how superhero comics and fantasy novels have become mainstream fare. I think it's healthier for everyone when that kind of stuff is subversive and devoured by lonely high school kids (which I was).

Of course, Slaughterhouse 5 is a science fiction novel, and The Name of the Rose is a mystery novel. Genre fiction is often used to present a framework for reference that the author can work with. Right now I'm listening to John Coltrane play a 25 minute version of "My Favorite Things." You can't dismiss it by saying, "Well, it's just a standard."

Posted by being released | July 17, 2007 6:06 PM

Literary snobbery is not only vacuous, but it pisses people off.

Hmm...yes...pisses people off, I see...

English Lit produces nothing of value to society as a whole. It's a sterile, incestuous fraud.

Oh dear.

Posted by Righteous Bubba | July 17, 2007 6:09 PM

I read this first comment in this thread, then saw that it had 245 more, and decided to stop. Incidentally, the first comment happened to be one "Petey".

"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."

Dear Sir:

Your tastes in novels, movies, and political candidates are equally terrible.

Sincerely,
Me

Posted by Korha | July 17, 2007 6:12 PM

I'm not saying that the destruction of reading is necessarily a bad thing. I just saying that even though destroying reading might be a worthy goal, the end does not justify the means. Harry Potter is too big a price to pay.

Posted by John Emerson | July 17, 2007 6:12 PM

I know a million people have responded to that Petey comment way up there claiming that adults who read Harry Potter don't read any other novels over. So I'll be +1.
I'm an English major.
I read J.K. Rowling.
I read Tolstoy (War and Peace is great, so it's long, pretend it's five novels).
I read Chomsky.
I read Hugo.
I love Thomas Hardy, E.M. Forester, Kazuo Ishiguro, James Joyce, The Iliad...
I also love Star Wars, Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica, Buffy and Harry Potter. They're called common cultural myths. Read your Joseph Campbell. What is so hard to understand about the appeal? Gee manetti.

Posted by Erin | July 17, 2007 6:17 PM

You know how a lot of Americans seem to think that liberals are "out of touch" with ordinary people? Well, this is one reason why... Literary snobbery is not only vacuous, but it pisses people off.

Huh? Which of us liberals are supposed to be the snobby ones, Matt for saying he reads Harry Potter but few other novels, or the wider group or commenters for saying they read both?

Unlike political science, sociology, math, or the hard sciences, English Lit produces nothing of value to society as a whole.

Yes, writing, like all other entertainments (sports, movies) don't offer the concrete value of a well-installed toilet.

Do away with them all, I say! No more football! No more books! Everyone should only work in productive fields such as farming and masonry, where the toil of our labor will make us and our country great. The "elite" are not to be trusted, and we'd be better off if they vanished.

they think the Marxists in ivory towers are secretly laughing at them

Oh, wait, we don't want to act like Marxists? Forget I mentioned all that stuff.

Posted by sheesh | July 17, 2007 6:26 PM

I have read Tolstoy and Dickens, most major Sci-Fi and fantasy novels in addition to the numerous books and articles associated with my role as an academic.

Judging from the responses Peety, I'd say you need to go back to the drawing board on your hypothesis...

I read the Potter series in one and a half weeks. At the same time I was reading Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.

The Potter series helped to cleanse the palette...

Posted by Nazgul35 | July 17, 2007 6:27 PM

I'm an English lit major and kind of agree, to a certain extent, that it is an incestuous fraud of a discipline, but sterile it is not. It is a filthy, puerile, grotesque and boggy field and that is why I love it. At Harvard and Berkeley, Freud is king, Joyce is Jester, and Jonathan Edwards sops up the licentious leavings with his brimstoney tongue. Puritans are pantsed, depantsed, and left to rot in flower pots, where the bees leave them for the shit-sluicing houseflies.

Who knew Jane Austen wrote Pride & Prejudice on a rigged-up rocking horse and Charlotte and Emily Bronte were sisters...with benefits. No one, for sure, but it's fun to fill in the seedy shadows of the shame-scoured past and view our literary forebears bulges, bilges & all.

Back to Chaucer! Queynte pride! The quill is just a feathery cock in a greasy hand. Just ask Oscar- Boys are for riding! Just ask Gertrude- tender buttons for dinner! Marcel the monkey has hands for feet, four posted roosters in the morning! James like the rips through the bodice rather than rips of, Henry's got a hankering for some Jungle Beasts, but his bashed in bollocks shiver in ignominy beneath his bulbous breadbasket. Edgar Allen cousin-lover, little one great balls of fire! Filthy skeevy scoundrels, mad monkeys typewriter hammering, foam-rabid yammering, greatest minds of generations, Wit and Gin, man vs. Mountain, en flagarante delectable! Beard to beard, black & white, entwined, grey limbed dual-incubusts of Pallas, ravens both, NEVERMORE AND MORE IS NEVER ENOUGH!

Posted by Gregorio | July 17, 2007 6:34 PM

Ever notice how Petey is the exact mirror image of his hated enemy Steve Sailer? Petey has generally progressive, unobjectionable political views yet acts like a complete and utter douchenozzle to others, while Sailer has horrifying political views but expresses himself in a genial and good-natured fashion.

Yes exactly. This is pretty much how he excommunicated himself over at TPM Cafe.

Posted by yg betsoP | July 17, 2007 6:37 PM

I've tracked down the names of these Potter-reading English majors and will send them to the heads of their English departments. There will be consequences.

Posted by John Emerson | July 17, 2007 6:39 PM

"He didn't call HP readers infantile. He speculated that the fact that more adults than children read HP may represent cultural infantilism. I think it's an interesting question to raise."

Actually, I find that it was precisely as the last echoes of my post-adolescence died out that I lost any interest whatsoever in literary fiction.

It's just such a juvenile endeavour - reading "serious authors" and then striking a "serious" pose and tendentiously discussing the insights said serious authors have given you into life. The cult of the literary author, like most kinds of hero worship, is a young man's game. It's hard to get excited about the "next Hemingway" as a true adult, because as one you realize that the LAST Hemingway was a douchebag, and the next one is likely to be just as bad.

Reading literary fiction in your late 30's or 40's is like continuing to go to a psychotherapist after you've been to one for 20 years. If shrinks haven't helped you by now, they aren't likely to. And neither are authors.

Frankly, at least with true juvenilia like the Potter books you get a little humor, and a little excitement, and a mystery of sorts, and the pleasure that comes from seeing old wine cleverly transfered to a new bottle. With literary fiction all I'm likely to get is someone with less life experience then myself boring me with their redundant introspection. Pass.

Posted by Fluffy | July 17, 2007 6:48 PM

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

For the same reason I read all the other novels. Sheesh, what a dumb question!

Matt, if you like Rowling, you might also like Diana Wynne Jones.

And don't let the stuffed shirts get you - Rowling isn't writing "bad" fiction, she's writing engaging YA fantasy, which is Good Thing.

Posted by Avedon | July 17, 2007 6:54 PM

Could-be-worse department:

"For the last 5 years I was reading my daughter at her bedtimes books from "Left Behind" series. Initially, with interest..."

Could be better: some classics. In principle, nightly readings could go through 4-5 thousands of pages per year, giving room to a number of novels, short stories, myths and poems (There was an old man in the kingdom of Tess who once invented an unusual dress...).

There are some problems with classics, though. In my mother tongue, there is really not much problem in reading even 150 year old novels, because the missing vocabulary is not large. But English has the vocabulary of 2-3 languages hastily slapped together and tykes can be easily overwhelmed. Once I got a bargain edition of stories of Edgar Allan Poe, and I found one of them singularly hilarious, "The Art of Diddle", so I read it to my son, then 12 years old. Not funny at all. Climactic sentence from memory: "As it is, the constables go hither and tither, our hero is nowhere to be found and the landlady purchased a stick of India rubber to erase the deep thought inscribed on the margin of the Book of Solomon". I swear, in the context it is very funny, if you understand it, that is.

Posted by piotr | July 17, 2007 6:55 PM

Wow, miss a day of MY's blog and you miss the 200-plus comment thread.

Posted by Reality Man | July 17, 2007 6:56 PM

And that is why you shall stay fluffy 'til the end of your days, however matted, sallow and raggedy that Fluffiness becomes.

Enjoy your premature senescence, bedraggled one, whilst the rest of us introspective types continue to bark upwards near tall, cylindrical flora which may at any moment spring to life and haul us by our tails (and their tales) into a world of whimsy, wonder, &c.

now that's ENTertainment.

Posted by Gregorio | July 17, 2007 6:58 PM

How can you not read HP? Aren't you interesting in reading about the Harry, Ron, Hermione threeway in book 7? Swish and flick!

Posted by anon | July 17, 2007 6:59 PM

On the second thought, I should be translating into contemporary English, but I thought that "the constables go hither and tither" sounds so much funnier than "police are looking everywhere". Stories of Mark Twain should be a safer choice, in all probability. Indeed. give me once more the power that a father can exercise with a 10 year old child, the things I could read...

Posted by piotr | July 17, 2007 7:02 PM

If the Edwards campaign doesn't issue a statement disassociating themselves from Petey, they're toast. Obama's crew in Iowa must be rubbing their hands: Potter-snobs come out for Edwards.

Talk about two Americas!

Posted by otto | July 17, 2007 7:09 PM

Response to JBL and Vance Maverick: Thank you both for pointing out the Michael Berube piece at http://www.thecommonreview.org/fileadmin/template/tcr/pdf/berube61.pdf I post the link again so that others may enjoy.

My own take on Rowling is that she has a wondrous imagination, and I'm appreciative to her for sharing it with us.

Posted by Shari | July 17, 2007 7:15 PM

As said above, read the article by Michael Berube:

http://www.thecommonreview.org/fileadmin/template/tcr/pdf/berube61.pdf

Posted by Bloix | July 17, 2007 7:15 PM

It's pretty ignorant to make absolutist claims. If for no other reason than it takes just one person to blow it all up.

I'm a writer. I'm a book snob. I choose to read and study Joyce, Pound, Ford, Lewis, Eliot, Woolf, Barnes, Borges, Cortazar, Bolano, Lezama Lima, Arguedas, Gracilianos Ramos, Nabokov, Akhmatova, Bulgakov, McElroy, Pynchon, Abish, Barthelme, Barth, Valery, Breton, Eluard, Rimbaud, Mallarme, Baudelaire, Mishima, Osamu, Xingjian, Narayan, etc. etc. etc.

I used to read about 60 books a year. That number has fallen dramatically due to job changes. But I still read a lot.

I choose to read classics, should-be classics, will-be classics, and I choose to read and have enjoyed Harry Potter.

It is certainly possible to do both. Just as it's possible to read and love the works of Joyce and Lawrence at the same time. I had a prof who said it wasn't.

Wrong.

Posted by Cuchulain | July 17, 2007 7:16 PM

Nabokov's Lolita at once validates and nullifies the entirety of English Literature. Discuss!

I knew the russkies would get us, eventually-- meaning a half-century ago but us only realizing it now as we look down Wylie Coyote-style to discover our path extends out into thin air and OH MY GAWD what have we been treading upon if not the rocky cliffs? You cannot fall if you do not know, or at least not know until you hit the ground. There, out flings a branch- Grab it! Break our Fall.

Oh wait. It was a wand. We are bewitched.

Ca c'est la vie, ca c'est le mort.

Eloi, Eloi, lema sabacthani!

Posted by Gregorio | July 17, 2007 7:17 PM

Wow! This might be the hottest thread I've ever seen on MY. People are passionate about their reading--more so than their politics. Who knew?

Fluffy says:

It's just such a juvenile endeavour - reading "serious authors" and then striking a "serious" pose and tendentiously discussing the insights said serious authors have given you into life.

I went through a very similar experience, though perhaps a bit later. Pursuing a masters in creative writing and posturing myself as the artiste gave me more of a vested interest into my mid twenties or so, until that enterprise fizzled for me. What I came to realize was that I didn't actually enjoy "serious" fiction. To the extent that I enjoyed it, what I was actually enjoying was a sort of smug satisfaction of having made it through some dull book and "getting it". A dubious pleasure at best. So why would I want to write such stuff. Well, in fact, I didn't.

I kind of intellectualized my own personal feelings on this issue, at least in my own thoughts, as I moved into my early 30s, and I really thought I was on to something. My whole reverse snobish, anti-high-art philosophy felt very fresh and very right to me. But now I see so many people here saying pretty much everything I think on this subject and I realize that I'm not so clever and original after all. Kind of makes me want to re-think the whole thing. Ah, well.

As for the HP books themselves, I read the first 3 and then completely lost interest. I really don't see what all the fuss is about. The books are OK-ish, but really not so much different from scores of other teen-lit fantasy or SF. If I was about 12, I'm sure I'd be dying for the next book to come out. But are these books really so much better than, say, a Wrinkle in Time, or John Christopher's awesome Tripod series? Really? I think the hype is out of hand, but these things take on a life of their own.

My taste in fiction, at this point, runs to books that I find to be both serious and fun. John Le Carre, for example, the better Lawrence Block, and the absolutely amazing fantasy series by Steven Erickson. To me, fiction like this does what fiction is supposed to do--inform the human condition, yes, but also entertain.

Posted by Rob Mac | July 17, 2007 7:19 PM

I wish "Never Let Me Go" by Kazuo Ishiguro would have the kind of readership of the Harry Potter books. One author who does pretty well, but should be huge, is TC Boyle - I feel like he's our closest thing to a contemporary Dickens.

Posted by Pat | July 17, 2007 7:19 PM

In response to Emerson; the head of my English department would be much more upset that I'm striving to write stand-up comedy rather than fiction.

Posted by erin | July 17, 2007 7:20 PM

This thread is awesome. At first I thought Petey was serious, but it's pretty clear now that he's just having some fun. Freddie, on the other hand, seems to be arguing in earnest. I bet Petey is laughing at him more than anyone.

Posted by Christopher M | July 17, 2007 7:28 PM

As for the HP books themselves, I read the first 3 and then completely lost interest. I really don't see what all the fuss is about. The books are OK-ish, but really not so much different from scores of other teen-lit fantasy or SF.

I think this explains my lack of interest in the HP books-- I have nothing against sci-fi/fantasy-- I consume lots of it -- but time spending the HP books could be spent reading other things, even in the same genre, that I am much more interested in. However, the HP books would be worth much more to me if my friends and family had all read them, because it would be a shared culture that I would gain utility from participating in. As an isolated text, the opportunity cost of reading HP as opposed to something else doesn't make it worthwhile for me.

Posted by Tyro | July 17, 2007 7:30 PM

George Martin's song of Ice and Fire series is much more gripping and-- at least the first three books-- are narratively inventive and thoroughly gripping for even some of my most anti-SF/F friends. These are good books, written with a near historical comprehensiveness and eye for detail, and some colorful chracterization and voicing reminiscent of the better HBO series like the Sopranos, 6 Feet, & most of all, Deadwood (especially in the antihero category-- I'm thinking Tyrion Lannister/Al Swearengen).

As an admitted Tolkiennite, I might not be the most credible in this matter, but give Martin a chance to speak for himself. His series could be losing steam, but the first three books at least stand together with any modern trilogy (LotR was simply one book in 3 volumes).

Posted by Gregorio | July 17, 2007 7:38 PM

I read around 200 books both fiction and non fiction every year. Potter is my bus riding fiction. And it's wonderful because it makes the time pass quite quickly. Every one's taste differs on what is or is not good reading. I absolutely hated the Malazon series that Rob Mac adores. Too complex and way too much action, at the expense of character development and not enough time for a little humor. But I know others who rave about it. Obviously everyone's different. If we were all the same it would be pretty boring.

Posted by moe99 | July 17, 2007 7:38 PM

Thanks, erin. I'll put that in the report.

Posted by John Emerson | July 17, 2007 7:39 PM

I'm an MBA, PhD, and my two girls and I can't wait til Saturday comes.

I read all the time, fiction and nonfiction. My undergrad degree was in English lit, which was one 4-year quest of reading novels.

What the hey is wrong with you snobs? Grow up, will ya?

Posted by kim | July 17, 2007 8:03 PM

Re Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norell. I found it precious, pretentious, and irritating, perhaps because I regularly reread Jane Austen.

In contrast, I very much enjoyed His Dark Materials and the Harry Potter series. I could probably also write a newspaper column that wildly extrapolates from a ridiculously small sample to make silly generalizations like those of Ron Charles.

Posted by trillabead | July 17, 2007 8:08 PM

Dadanarchist sez: "...the turgid middle class fixations that dominate too much of modern literature."

Roger that. Whoever coined the phrase "write what you know" totally kneecapped contemporary fiction.

I'm not a regular here--does this Emerson guy think he's funny?

Posted by solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short | July 17, 2007 8:11 PM

Nah, I'm just trying to troll the moron Potterites. Yglesias's crew is a real challenge for me, and I haven't quite figured out what works with them.

Posted by John Emerson | July 17, 2007 8:27 PM

Wayyyyyy down on this long thread, but a few quick hits. I kinda slammed fiction as a whole above, but I have read my share. And the good stuff can be just as good as the bad stuff.

I'm an avid fan of Rushdie. I love how he can fit huge ideas, small wordplay, into a flowing structure of words. But here's something. Enjoy Rushdie? Try Terry Pratchett. As others have mentioned above. His writing is beautiful as well. Some people suggest Equal Rites to start with, for the Granny Weatherwax series, however, I suggest starting with Guards! Guards! Actually, I suggest just reading a few of the best ones. THUD! for example, is a great book exploring racism.

As well, I read a lot of Harry Turtledove. Disjointed and contrived writing, but that's why I like it. It's the scenario (it's alternate history..change one event in history and let things play out.) that takes the focus over the characters. And as he allows his scenarios to play out over generations, you get a good vibe for what's going on. I'd suggest starting with How Few Remain (the story of the second war between the states after the civil war fought to a draw), and is currently up to WWII, where the fascist state has risen in the south, and replace the holocaust of the Jewish people with the holocaust of blacks. (A communist rebellion among the slaves is blamed for the loss of WWI)

Posted by Karmakin | July 17, 2007 8:44 PM

Well, they are snobs, and staunch echo-feminists if that helps.

Posted by Marty Peretz | July 17, 2007 8:46 PM

What a crock of pretentious twits posting here! (myself included for presuming i have anything to add to the mountain of bombast above . . .)

But may I add that JKR is the richest woman in Britain, and in the world, second only to the likes of a Walmart heiress?

The elitist prigs here -- either decrying the HP books as pulp or proudly proclaiming that they also read Pynchon (Pynchon! talk about phoney baloney! that drug-soaked poseur takes the frankfurter.) are unanimous in their smug assumption that their tastes are more nuanced, or something, than the gazillions of Potter readers in the world.

Just get over your friggin' selves, o.k.? Nobody is forcing you to read Potter if you don't feel like it, and ditto, no one stopping you if you do.

WHAT A WANK!

And those people going on about reading Faulkner and Tolstoy and DeLillo AND Rawling? What? do you also wear Polo and Prada and Hermès but also pick up the odd t-shirt @ the Gap or Target? Using brand names to define oneself is puerile, insecure, and really, really tedious.

Posted by teknozen | July 17, 2007 8:53 PM

"This week, I will finish Richardson’s Clarissa"

You had me up to there, Katiebug. No one has ever finished Clarissa.

Posted by SqueakyRat | July 17, 2007 8:58 PM

She's probably reading the abridged version.

Posted by blah | July 17, 2007 9:02 PM

If the real "John Emerson" is actually trolling here, he's a complete and utter douchebag who I'm sorry I ever read.

If, as seems more likely, there's a fuckwad namestealing prick here who puts "John Emerson" in the Name: block because he thinks he's being cute while he makes an ass of himself, then he's a complete and utter douche bag who may finally shut the fuck up because I'm finally paying him some attention.

Well, I can dream, at least.

Posted by Captain Goto | July 17, 2007 9:10 PM

Re: Serious" 19th century novels (Austen to James, let's say) are mainly about characterization, and secondarily feature style and plot. The subject matter is always the same, i.e. getting some woman married.

Um, Dickens? Melville and Hawthorne? Tolstoy and Dostoevsky? A whole gaggle of French novelists? Sure character counted for a lot in all of them, but plot and theme matter very much too-- and getting some woman married was not the subject matter.

Re: In 200 years, the Harry Potter series will be considered highbrow literature.

Well, maybe, maybe not. Though I do think Tolkien at least is on the way there. Harry Potter might aspire to the status of "Tom Sawyer" and "Huckleberry Finn", widely seen as immoral trash when they were written.

Posted by JonF | July 17, 2007 9:15 PM

http://machinist.salon.com/blog/2007/07/17/potter_leaked/index.html

Posted by Freddie | July 17, 2007 9:21 PM

I am currently in a swoon over Roberto Bolaño that I don't think will end until I die. Like Wayne Kostenbaum, "I am addicted to the haze that floats above Bolaño’s fiction." (Go find him if you haven't yet.)

But I also think the Harry Potter novels are terrific. The writing is serviceable (not gorgeous but definitely does not get in the way, which is nothing to sneeze at), the plotting is outstanding, the characters are very well drawn -- even the minor ones are distinct and memorable, the themes provoke thought and stay with you, and the magic, of course, is wonderful.

Is J.K. Rowling Roberto Bolaño? Heck, no. But her books are such fun and somewhere there's a reserved copy of the last Potter book with my name on it that I can't wait to dive into.

Posted by Lindy | July 17, 2007 9:56 PM

As a frequent target on this blog for having expressing minority viewpoints, I can almost empathize with Freddie and Petey here. When lefties get into "mean girl" mode, it can be vicious. Nevertheless, MY touched on something in his initial response to Petey and Freddie (the apparent misanthropy and obvious hostility) that makes it difficult to empathize with them.

BTW, Martin Amis wrote a book somewhat relevant to the subject of this thread, The Information. About a failed novelist who writes pretentious, impenetrable, post-modern books and his jealousy of his college friend, who writes bestsellers full of pablum.

Posted by Fred | July 17, 2007 10:08 PM

I just read through the posts prior to mine and discovered Roberto Bolaño is getting lots of play. Good. I agree with whoever said everyone should read him.

I wonder if anyone else has had an experience similar to mine: I've long been a fan of Gabriel Garcia Marquez, but the first book of his I picked up after reading Bolaño's By Night in Chile struck me, with the force of a blow, as over-written. I don't believe I'll always feel that way (I sure hope I don't), but it was as if, after the silence of a monastery, even a cathedral was too noisy.

Posted by Lindy | July 17, 2007 10:15 PM

P.S. But allow me to repeat: The Harry Potter books are great fun. You're missing a treat if you pass them by.

Posted by Lindy | July 17, 2007 10:16 PM

Wow! This might be the hottest thread I've ever seen on MY. People are passionate about their reading--more so than their politics. Who knew?

Yeah - is this a record for the longest Yglesias thread ever? Pretty impressive in less than half a day.

I've never read any Potter books or seen any of the movies, although I do look forward to reading them to my son when he gets old enough. But I wanted to comment on Matthew's original post: I don't understand it. Why would you be scared away from something merely because a bunch of people promoting it are assholes?

Posted by Al | July 17, 2007 10:20 PM

I haven't read and have no intention of reading the Potter Books. From what I've heard they occupy a pleasant sort of mid-range position in literature; probably having more literary merit than Baum's Oz books. I like the genre, and enjoyed Pullman's DARK MATERIALS immensely, along with the horribly written but delightful ILLUMUNATUS! trilogy by Shea and Wilson.
But there is so much of importance in this mid-range niche in literature. Why should I read the potter books when I've hardly sampled Mrs. Gaskell? George Washington Cable? William Gilmore Sims? Louis Bromfield? Albert Payson Terhune? All of these worthies of what might be called craftsman fiction as opposed to inspired or artistic fiction? Blessings on these conscientious artisans. Want a good one? read Walter Edmonds, best known for DRUMS ALONG THE MOHAWK.

Posted by Dick Mulliken | July 17, 2007 10:28 PM

Any thread that starts with a good troll comment is pretty much predestined to have a long run.

For the mini-Pratchett thread: It's "Night Watch" all the way with me. That was when Vimes become real to me, having evolved from caricature to character to the real thing. I love Tiffany Aching, and even more so in the second book, where she learns, with some poignancy, what makes Granny Weatherwax tick, but I've spent too much times with Vimes to abandon him for a new fling.

I don't really think that Pratchett is phoning it in yet. There have been ups and downs but I've never found any of his books to be unreadable, boring, insulting my intelligence, needing a lot more editing, or all of those other sins that come when a writer runs out of things to say or gets too complacent or too familiar with their subject material.

Oh, wait, we were talking about Harry Potter. Yup, I've read them all, and will read the seventh when it becomes available.

Posted by PaulB | July 17, 2007 10:30 PM

Oh, and Petey and Freddie doth protest too much and are really stinkers.

There, have I covered everything?

Posted by PaulB | July 17, 2007 10:32 PM

Captain Goto, you made my day worthwhile. I'm real. The Harry Potter phenomenon baffles me. I don't hate the books, never having read them, but I'm astonished at the level and intensity of interest in them.

Posted by John Emerson | July 17, 2007 10:36 PM

BTW, Martin Amis wrote a book somewhat relevant to the subject of this thread, The Information. About a failed novelist who writes pretentious, impenetrable, post-modern books and his jealousy of his college friend, who writes bestsellers full of pablum.

I tend to avoid reading books about writers for the same reason I avoid watching movies set in Los Angeles.

Posted by Tyro | July 17, 2007 10:40 PM

"but I'm astonished at the level and intensity of interest in them."

For me, it's the other way around. I'm astonished at the level and intensity of interest in dissing them, whether it's the "witchcraft is evil and these books should be banned" crowd or the "these are children's books that you should be ashamed of reading" crowd. I think the books are fine but I'm not going to go to bat for them as great literature or try to defend myself for the sin of reading them, anymore than I'll defend myself for my other choices. I like what I like.

Posted by PaulB | July 17, 2007 10:47 PM

Three hundred comments on Harry Potter? Holy crap.

I can't believe there are this many people here arguing passionately against reading Harry Potter books and exulting in their rarefied literary tastes. It's like I stumbled into a convention made up entirely of clones of the Simpson's Comic Book Guy.

Or ... God help me ... the book club version of Late Night Shots. Run away! RUN AWAY!

Posted by justme | July 17, 2007 11:38 PM

I don't know what else needs to be said, other than the fact that J.K. Rowling is arguably the most successful writer in the the most successful literary genre (melodrama) in the history of the human race.

Posted by DCeiver | July 17, 2007 11:41 PM

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

I see a lot of people watching the superbowl, should I think "hey, maybe I should feign interest in the superbowl to get them interested in the niche television shows I'm interested in."?

Posted by Consumatopia | July 17, 2007 11:41 PM

blah: "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."

Now that I've stopped laughing at this ridiculous characterization, let's get a few things straight.

(This is all In My Humble Opinion, of course...)

The Harry Potter series *is* healthy reading food. Yes, it's light and it's not nutritionally complete -- kind of like a refreshing salad. More to the point, it's a hell of lot better written, more creative, and more enjoyable than most mass market blockbusters (I'm looking at you, Da Vinci Code, Robert Ludlum, Anne Rice, et. al.).

Petey mentioned that he'd read the first book, thought it nothing special, and had no compulsion to continue with the series. Fine, no problem. But how does he move from that to the concept that the people who do enjoy it should feel some kind of shame?

On the basis of one book? The first in the series?

Yeesh.

The first two books are both very clearly children's books in tone, albeit wittier and more original in their details than most. Starting with the third book, with its loop the loop ending, the books become not just more emotionally complex, but more structurally complex with all sorts of little tricks, some deftly executed, others a little more obvious -- as if Rowling is embedding a structural 'how to read for fun' subtext in the development of the series. It's neat. It's fun to recognize it and appreciate all these goodies she's subtly teaching the kids about novelistic structure.

So, with only the one book read, Petey, you simply have no idea what you're talking about.

I read novels often, adding yet another data point to contradict your assertion that people who read the Potter books read no others. And, just so you can assess my literary hipster bonafides, my favorite writers include: Milan Kundera, Jeanette Winterson, Jorge Luis Borges, Donald Barthelme, Anne Carson, Gabriel Garcia Marqez, Proust, Suzanne Gardinier, WB Yeats, GB Shaw, et. al.

Finally, no, Rowling isn't in that company. But she's definitely in the same company, and maybe even better, than some of my other favorite children's writers, like Susan Cooper and Lloyd Alexander.

Really, Petey, telling people they should be embarrassed by enjoying Rowling is like saying they should be embarrassed by liking CS Lewis, or Llewis Carrol. It's just silly.

Posted by JGabriel | July 17, 2007 11:42 PM

blah: "Am I allowed to criticise the movies?"

Yes.

As movies, only the third one, Prisoner of Azkaban, really worked -- probably because it was directed by Alfonso Cuaron (Y Tu Mama Tambien, Children of Men). And the new one isn't bad either.

But I agree, the other three kind of sucked. If all you know of the Potter series is what you saw in one of those three films, you're skepticism of the Potter phenomenon is entirely justified -- albeit underinformed.

Posted by JGabriel | July 17, 2007 11:49 PM

'Your' not 'you're'. My typing sucks.

Posted by JGabriel | July 17, 2007 11:51 PM

Ursula LeGuin's web site has the definitve response to "serious literature" analysis:

On Serious Literature

"Michael Chabon has spent considerable energy trying to drag the decaying corpse of genre fiction out of the shallow grave where writers of serious literature abandoned it."
— Ruth Franklin
(Slate, 8 May 2007)

Something woke her in the night. Was it steps she heard, coming up the stairs — somebody in wet training shoes, climbing the stairs very slowly... but who? And why wet shoes? It hadn't rained. There, again, the heavy, soggy sound. But it hadn't rained for weeks, it was only sultry, the air close, with a cloying hint of mildew or rot, sweet rot, like very old finiocchiona, or perhaps liverwurst gone green. There, again — the slow, squelching, sucking steps, and the foul smell was stronger. Something was climbing her stairs, coming closer to her door. As she heard the click of heel bones that had broken through rotting flesh, she knew what it was. But it was dead, dead! God damn that Chabon, dragging it out of the grave where she and the other serious writers had buried it to save serious literature from its polluting touch, the horror of its blank, pustular face, the lifeless, meaningless glare of its decaying eyes! What did the fool think he was doing? Had he paid no attention at all to the endless rituals of the serious writers and their serious critics — the formal expulsion ceremonies, the repeated anathemata, the stakes driven over and over through the heart, the vitriolic sneers, the endless, solemn dances on the grave? ...

Go read the whole thing

Posted by RepubAnon | July 17, 2007 11:53 PM

Ah, Ursula K. LeGuin. Another very good writer that blah and Petey no doubt wish we would discuss only in the confines of the SF convention world.

Oddly enough, she's also the only writer I'm aware of who's had two stories published in a single edition of the 'Best American Short Stories' series (modern incarnation).

Posted by JGabriel | July 18, 2007 12:02 AM

A reflexive inclination to self-identify with 'literature' is exactly the same as knee-jerk hysteria about 'electability' in candidates: they both are self-preening, psychologically-based pronouncements that reveal more about the speaker than the subject under discussion.

Read what you like, vote for who you like. But don't think for a second that your own insecurity isn't at the root of this cynical 'high idealism'.

FWIW, I've read the Potter books. The first is pulpy, a writer who hasn't found her way to the art of story telling. The subsequent books are better: rhythym, timing, tempo, etc., etc. They're good.

The Potter books suffer from the Yogi Bera Paradox: nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded.

Posted by scudbucket | July 18, 2007 12:02 AM

Ah, Ursula K. LeGuin. Another very good writer that blah and Petey no doubt wish we would discuss only in the confines of the SF convention world.

Oddly enough, she's also the only writer I'm aware of who's had two stories published in a single edition of the 'Best American Short Stories' series (modern incarnation).

Posted by JGabriel | July 18, 2007 12:02 AM

This is all very amusing.

I've read the first few Potter novels. I think they're cute enough, and I think that even if Rowling-reading kids aren't diving for the heavier stuff right this very now, they've been primed to enjoy the flights of fancy they can get from a book; they'll get to other stuff eventually.

Exposing a child anything new is like planting an oak sapling. Years later, someone else will enjoy the shade. I was taught hobbies and crafts by old relatives when I was 6 that I did nothing with for thirty years; now, I can't get enough of them. Those kids you despair of who "don't read anything but Harry Potter" will do so in a few years time. Maybe a decade -- who cares? It'll pay off eventually.

And I don't read other novels in general, no. I don't care for fiction as a general rule. At the moment, I'm busy with John Davies's "Hanes Cymru/a History of Wales" and the Allen Grammar for Middle Egyptian, as well as "The ASL Phrasebook."

The fictional novel is not the sum total of human literary output, you know. I don't generally care for fake stories about fake people; I prefer reality, and there is a strong streak in me that is listening to the occasional expressions of smugness about these books with the same facial expression that I've worn while listening to comic book fans acting high and mighty about lowbrow movie adaptations of their favorite little color pictures of people in tights who glow in the dark. Today's crap beloved by the groundlings is tomorrow's doctoral thesis topic.

Posted by Janis | July 18, 2007 12:11 AM

Jim W.: "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."

Jim, don't kid yourself. So is drinking Budweiser.

(Just kidding. Er, sort of.)

Posted by JGabriel | July 18, 2007 12:16 AM

Being made to feel stupid

You can't possibly get smarter until you're made aware that you're stupid. Not that this will endear to you the messengers who proclaim unto you your stupidity. Great literature is distinguished from its cheap imitators precisely by this ability to make you feel personally stupid, so I never look down on people who own up to an aversion to this or another truly great work of art. If they hate it, if they want to throttle the messenger, maybe it's starting to do its job, which is a more hopeful situation than that of people who blindly accept that so-and-so is a great writer, but just haven't been paying enough attention to be properly outraged.

I have to agree with the critics on this one to this extent, that I think the Potter books encourage smugness rather than promote a personal sense of stupidity in the reader. So they really fail at what you want a novel to do.

But the critics have to meet the same standard. If what they write is a clumsy, transparent attempt to make you feel stupid by snearing at your literary tastes, then they too have failed to make you feel stupid, have actually encouraged your self-satisfaction. Real writers make you feel stupid by drawing you into a fable which you gradually realize is about you, and, by the way, you aren't the hero, you're the schlemiel. If the critics really understood this, they wouldn't be critics, but would find honest work instead. Me? I'm retired.

Posted by Glen Tomkins | July 18, 2007 12:36 AM

FFLEWDUR FFLAM! God I forgot. Prydain rules. I've read every Potter but they suck compared. Maybe cos I read Alexander when I was a kid.

Posted by Gregorio | July 18, 2007 12:44 AM

Only thing I'd have to say is that as per the comment I left at pandagon, my problem with Harry Potter is that the series is taking up all the friggin' oxygen.

We all here are literate people. Some of us don't get out enough to realize that people are reading these things because it's the done thing. Same phenomenon as Dan Brown or the Left Behind series.

I personally like harry potter. I just wish that the mass media was more into the long tail phenomenon.

Posted by shah8 | July 18, 2007 1:22 AM

You can't possibly get smarter until you're made aware that you're stupid.

What the fuck?

Posted by jerry | July 18, 2007 1:29 AM

"I see a lot of people watching the superbowl, should I think 'hey, maybe I should feign interest in the superbowl to get them interested in the niche television shows I'm interested in.'?"

No, but since that isn't what Matthew said, it's kind of irrelevant. If you're enthusiastic about your "niche television show," you'll do a lot better at persuading those football-watching chaps if you show them why you're so enthusiastic and why perhaps they might be, too, rather than sneering at their football game.

Posted by PaulB | July 18, 2007 1:42 AM

"What the fuck?"

I'm with you. Even worse was this line:

"Great literature is distinguished from its cheap imitators precisely by this ability to make you feel personally stupid"

What can you possibly say in response to something so nonsensical?

Posted by PaulB | July 18, 2007 1:44 AM

How the fuck has no one mentioned Neil Gaiman in this entire thread? American Gods, Neverwhere, Stardust, Coraline...Good Omens (with Terry Pratchet.) I'm astounded that he hasn't come up.

Posted by Svlad Jelly | July 18, 2007 8:53 AM

See, you're all morons in denial. Therapy can't begin until you understand that.

Posted by John Emerson | July 18, 2007 8:54 AM

"No one has ever finished Clarissa."

Well, then I'm going for broke. I'm writing a paper about 1790s rape trials and want to see Lovelace's crime and Clarissa's suicide (sorry if I've spoiled the ending for anyone). My current mantra is 175 pages left to go ...

Posted by dckatiebug | July 18, 2007 9:14 AM

I can't stand the snobs who look down on us common folk for reading Harry Potter or actually enjoying what it has done for reading. I was an elementary school teacher for a while before the books were popular (I THINK that the first one was the only one out at the time). However, I enjoyed reading some children's novels with my students. I did this, not because I had to, but because I wanted to - nobody forced me, and I wasn't ashamed of being able to discuss the "Redwall" series with them. In fact, we began competing with each other - who could read the book the fastest...I found myself watching TV less so that I could keep up with a group of 10 year olds! They loved it and soon, more and more students got involved in the challenge....they put down their Pokemon cards, stopped playing their Playstations (this is back when the FIRST Playstation was popular) and actually read.

Now, all of these years later, I tell my college students that there is no shame in Potter, and I tell them that to this day, my favorite read is "Green Eggs & Ham", and I dare anyone who has commented here to say that they have not received enjoyment from any of Dr. Seuss's books.

Pottermania is a trend, but an important one, and the fact that 20s, 30's and up are reading them indicates to me that they will be around as classics just as the works of Dickens, Carroll, Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, etc stil are today. Harry Potter is not the same as Moby Dick, but it very well can be this generation's Oliver Twist or 3 Musketeers.....and not realizing that is foolish.

Posted by webslinger | July 18, 2007 10:38 AM

How the fuck has no one mentioned Neil Gaiman in this entire thread? American Gods, Neverwhere, Stardust, Coraline...Good Omens (with Terry Pratchet.) I'm astounded that he hasn't come up.

You mean the man who was personally responsible for a rapid change in the rules for the World Fantasy Award's "Best Short Story" to ensure no other graphic novel ever won it?

"A Midsummer Night's Dream" was quiet good, and I think the WFA's knee-jerk reaction the next morning was bloody stupid.

Frankly, the man has to work to write bad.

As for Pratchett, Vimes, and Night Watch -- Pratchett has complained that it's become almost impossible to write a good mystering in AM without Vimes showing up, bending the story around him. He's a very interesting character, more like Vetinari than he cares to admit, and certainly a lot like Granny Weatherwax.

Vimes is certainly the most complete and living character Pratchett has developed, but he's done almost as much with Tiffany in three books as he did with Vimes in six.

Posted by Morat | July 18, 2007 10:55 AM

Frankly, the man has to work to write bad.

True, dat. I will say that his transition from graphic novels to word novels was a bit bumpy - Neverwhere didn't really work as a novel, but he really hit his stride with American Gods.

Personally, I think The Sandman still stands as his best work to date.

Posted by dob | July 18, 2007 11:24 AM

No Michael Swanwick readers among the sci-fi geeks here?

For those of you interested in non-fiction, you might want to take a look at The Orientalist, by Tom Reiss. I'm only 150 pages into it so far, but it is truly bizarre and entertaining. One of those stranger-than-fiction stories. Along the way, lots of interesting history about the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the Russian and German revolutions, etc.

Posted by Fred | July 18, 2007 11:36 AM

True, dat. I will say that his transition from graphic novels to word novels was a bit bumpy - Neverwhere didn't really work as a novel, but he really hit his stride with American Gods.

Personally, I think The Sandman still stands as his best work to date.

Neverwhere started as a mini-series (or British equivilant) for TV. Every version is a bit different, but I rather like the book.

I'm also fond of Iain Banks -- it seems the UK writers have that mix of humor, insight, and occasionally horridly depressing and dark storylines that I like.

Posted by Morat20 | July 18, 2007 11:45 AM

Neverwhere started as a mini-series (or British equivilant) for TV. Every version is a bit different, but I rather like the book.

It is a much better TV series than a book.

Posted by dob | July 18, 2007 11:54 AM

I got into reading - not just novels - via the Harry Potter gateway.

I wasn't really sure what else to read, but when I cried my way to the end of the fourth book, there was another year before another HP book would come out. So I picked up the Norton Anthology of Lit. I had from college and read in it randomly.

I was surprised to find that I could read and make sense of things written by people with names like Dickens and Chekov and Conrad, but I also felt like I was missing something - the stories themselves made sense but I could feel that I was missing allusions and references and pot shots at other authors.

So I went to Barnes and Noble and bought "How to Read Literature Like a Professor". And that helped. Not only did that book have plenty of recomendations for good accessable modern novels, it openned them up to me in a way How to Read a Book couldn't. It showed me what was in there that I was missing. I highly recommend it.

Beyond that, How to Read Literature Like a Professor helped me see me that even if HP isn't great highbrow literature, it is based in the world of literature and is tied to it by more than just it's format. And we should use that truth because good novels touch something inside you and change you in ways that straight non-fiction doesn't.

As for recomendations, try "Lolita" or "Love" or "Lamb" or (for something that doesn't start with "L") "A Disorder Peculiar to the Country".

Or do what other novel readers do - just take books from your friends' shelves. All good book collections are started with a loaner. All.

Posted by The Black Monk | July 18, 2007 12:00 PM

I'm amazed that in 200+ comments, nobody has said that Harry Potter reviewer Ron Charles seemed to be doing his best to kill his daughter's enjoyment in a book she liked.

In his review, he described how he was 'dutifully' rasping through the 'chore' of Harry Potter Book IV. And then, oh the joy of discovering the 'secret' that she wasn't wild about Harry either.

Wouldn't most little girls say that if their Daddy made it clear that what he was reading was icky?

Even the possibility that that this might be true creeps me out and makes me angry. Of course I don't actually know anything about Charles personally, so I can't really have an opinion about the man. But I can express my opinion about what the text means. Isn't that what serious literature fans love to do?

And the Lord only knows why I'm making my first comment in a Harry Potter thread, instead of the horrible political situation of the day...

Posted by CardassianCostume | July 18, 2007 12:03 PM

If I can take Cynthia Ozick as an example, the literary types are not engaging in snobbery. They are engaging in despair that people will only read a novel if Oprah has signed onto it or if it is a Harry Potter book--if it is part of a larger media phenomenon. Before TV, there were more readers intensely interested in literature. Cynthia Ozick has pointed out in Harper's something of what was in this post--that writers are not writing for the general literary audience: they are writing for their small individual audiences. The poor state of criticism is to blame for not creating that general audience. Good critics can certainly take a novel such as Orhan Pamuk's and explain to you why it tells you something about the world.

Posted by 4jkb4ia | July 18, 2007 12:04 PM

Alan Gilbert to lead NY Philharmonic! We get to keep David Robertson! Frabjous day!

Posted by 4jkb4ia | July 18, 2007 12:06 PM

Gregorio gets mad props for bringing Song of Ice and Fire into it. Looking desperately forward to Dance with Dragons. Am worried GRRM has written Arya into a corner.
Haven't read anything by Terry Pratchett in 20 years. Am assured I am missing something.

Posted by 4jkb4ia | July 18, 2007 12:51 PM

"Vimes is certainly the most complete and living character Pratchett has developed, but he's done almost as much with Tiffany in three books as he did with Vimes in six."

That's not entirely fair. As has been previously noted, Pratchett's work has been evolving. Vimes began early, before Pratchett had really taken off. Tiffany came along later, after he had established his current style.

To be honest, I didn't like the third Tiffany Aching book as much as I liked the first two. I thought the ending of the second book was superb, highlighting as it did the characters of Tiffany Aching and Granny Weatherwax -- the description of the sheep herding trials, Tiffany's insight as to what drove Granny Weatherwax -- I absolutely loved these.

Posted by PaulB | July 18, 2007 1:04 PM

I haven't read any of the Harry Potter books, plus I haven't seem the films based on them, so I have no opinion on the literary merit of the Harry Potter phenomenon.

As a dispassionate observer, all I can say is that millions of readers cannot be wrong, so the popularity of the book series certainly indicates they are well written and entertaining, or at least have a mass appeal that belies any weaknesses contained within them. Anything that gets kids and adults to read can only be a good thing.

I have not read any of the Harry Potter books simply because I am not interested in them. I am not a literary snob, but at the same time I have a huge wish list of novels to read that I have yet to read, and the Harry Potter books are not even close to my top 100 of these.

I am glad all you Harry Potter enthusiasts are so passionate and positive and have so many ready-made defense mechanisms to justify your love of the books, but none of your arguments are causing me to trip over myself while dashing to the bookstore to buy Harry Potter books.

I suppose my point is that you should not have to justify why you read Harry Potter books any more than I need to justify why my life is not meaninglesss because I haven't read them, nor ever want to.

Our culture seems to be awash in this sort of childish solipsism, where everything you do has to be "justified" with extreme gusto, especially in the face of even the slightest criticism, not just to prove how absurd the criticism is to you, but also how insulted you feel by such criticism, even if the criticism isn't directed at you personally. I wonder: are you really justifying your choices to your critics, or to yourself?

Posted by mat | July 18, 2007 1:40 PM

Really, I think that the problem is that in publishing it seems to the general public that all books are equal. Those that try and say that The Yiddish Policeman's Union might be worth more of your time and devotion than Harry Potter are seen as elitist. There's always frustration when something becomes a sacred cow and may not be criticized because it is popular -- especially when that object quite flawed.

But how is this any different that a movie critic panning a blockbuster?

It's like watching movies. If all you ever go see are the big Hollywood movies, then yes, you're going to judge film based on a standard of entertainment. But if you branch out and see a lot of movies from a ton of different places, then you'll start to judge them based on other qualities. And maybe you'll grow bored with some of the lesser Hollywood fare. Same thing with television. Same thing with books.

That's one of the reasons why I think that the critical darlings of fantasy (Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norell, His Dark Materials) haven't caught on, even when they get compared to Harry Potter by a critic who gushes about the series. The Harry Potter books are entertaining and written for middle readers (they're also classist, which is amusing given the novels' theme of promoting equality). They're books that an occasional reader can breeze through without much difficulty. Jonathan Strange and His Dark Materials are not easy reads. The first is written as a Victorian pastiche, and the second is thematically difficult . They require a certain ability that goes beyond the sixth grade reading level of the average daily newspaper. It would be like a film critic telling someone who absolutely loved the first two Harry Potter films to go see Pan's Labyrinth because they're both fantasy.

Oh, and to the person who says that reading novels is a waste of time -- so is eating good food. Don't you think that we should be existing on some vitamin pill by now? No more sitting down to dinner, no more spending 30 minutes preparing a meal. Think of how much better we can utilize our time and being more productive, learning something!

Posted by jilly | July 18, 2007 1:46 PM

Haven't read anything by Terry Pratchett in 20 years. Am assured I am missing something.

If you read him 20 years ago, you read him at the beginning of his craft as an author AND when he was doing stock parody. Funny, especially if you'd read enough of the genre to get all the jokes, but nothing more.

If you want something good by Pratchett, pick up Small Gods or Good Omens. The latter is a totally stand-alone book, and the former is a stand-alone Discworld book, and you'll see what's changed.

PaulB: I agree -- the Vimes of Night Watch and Thud is far superior to the one in Jingo or Feet of Clay. Nonetheless, I still think Tiffany is a superior character (Vimes is my favorite, however!) for several reasons. And Wintersmith was much deeper on the second reading, to me.

I found Monsterous Regiment to be the same -- didn't really care for it the first time through.

Posted by Morat20 | July 18, 2007 2:11 PM

If the greater fear is that people/kids who read Harry Potter don't read other stuff, then that fear is needless. Spend five minutes trolling Harry Potter fan boards. Some of the most heavily commented threads revolve around "What else are you reading?" Jane Austen figures pretty heavily on those lists, as do any number of "serious" authors. Have no fear, the kids are alright.

(Incidentally, one fanfiction site recently held a series of discussion groups revolving around the source material for Harry Potter. Required reading included Ovid, Plato, Aristotle, Seneca and Marcus Aurelius.)

Posted by Vincent | July 18, 2007 2:13 PM

"As a dispassionate observer, all I can say is that millions of readers cannot be wrong, so the popularity of the book series certainly indicates they are well written and entertaining, or at least have a mass appeal that belies any weaknesses contained within them."

Anyone here remember the adult equivalent of Harry Potter that came out in the early 1990's? "The Bridges of Madison County". I didn't think it was bad, though, unfortunately for the author, it didn't lend itself to six sequels. But the book was monstrously popular, and the critics hated it.

Posted by Fred | July 18, 2007 3:31 PM

sorry if I've spoiled the ending for anyone

erm, well, yeah you kinda spoiled the ending for me; but never mind, I probably will have forgotten should I ever get around to reading it - is it any good?

a friend of mine did her M.A. thesis on epistolary novels and she seems to be one of the few to have finished Clarissa - I've always admired her for actually reading all these novels that one was expected to have read in comp lit cover to cover; I took the shortcut to theory-land, seemed like a smart choice at the time, now I'm not so sure...

Posted by novakant | July 18, 2007 3:37 PM

Fred: As I said in the newer Potter thread above, I think the very idea of widespread criticial hatred of Harry Potter is largely a myth, or at most something that has only developed in recent years due to the inevitable backlash that strikes anything popular. I was under the impression that most critics had gushed over Harry and continue to do so, whereas something like The Bridges of Madison County was indeed widely reviled by critics.

Posted by James Kabala | July 18, 2007 4:14 PM

James Kabala,

Although, it's worth noting that Clint Eastwood's movie version of The Bridges of Madison County (starring him and Meryl Streep) got good reviews.

Posted by Fred | July 18, 2007 4:31 PM

What did you expect from Ron Charles anyway?

He's a muggle.

Posted by Webster | July 18, 2007 5:07 PM

"BTW, Martin Amis wrote a book somewhat relevant to the subject of this thread, The Information. About a failed novelist who writes pretentious, impenetrable, post-modern books and his jealousy of his college friend, who writes bestsellers full of pablum."

I loved The Information. It's one of my favorite Amis books.

Posted by Petey | July 18, 2007 5:10 PM

"Ever notice how Petey is the exact mirror image of his hated enemy Steve Sailer? Petey has generally progressive, unobjectionable political views yet acts like a complete and utter douchenozzle to others, while Sailer has horrifying political views but expresses himself in a genial and good-natured fashion."

I'll buy that for a dollar.

Petey specializes in being the anti-Dale Carnegie.

-----

And finally, just in case folks were confused by my initial point:

I'm not saying the Potter books are bad literature. I'm not saying folks who enjoy the Potter books are bad people.

I'm just saying that it's bad fashion.

If you don't care about fashion, then you don't care about fashion.

Posted by Petey | July 18, 2007 5:19 PM

Petey, I have to say, if there were a Weblog Award for Most Horrifyingly Effective Troll Comment, you'd have swept the awards ceremony with this thread.

You're a sick bastard. But I'm impressed.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | July 18, 2007 5:29 PM

"I'm just saying that it's bad fashion."

Not only is that not even close to what you said above, it doesn't even make sense!

Posted by PaulB | July 18, 2007 5:29 PM

"And Wintersmith was much deeper on the second reading, to me."

I'll have to take another look at it, then. What I liked most about Tiffany is that our introduction to her is so compelling. Within a dozen pages or so, you get such a wonderful delineation of her and her character -- measuring the soup plate? using her brother as bait? taking out the river hag with a frypan? After reading that first section, how could I not read the rest?

Posted by PaulB | July 18, 2007 5:38 PM

I don't even know where Petey gets the notion that it's unfashionable to like Harry Potter. HP books aren't like Michael Bay movies or something, where uncultured slobs like them and high-brow people don't. Everybody likes Harry Potter. Well, not really everybody (I've never read any of the books myself) -- but the people who read Harry Potter seem like a perfect cross-section of the literate population. There's nothing fashionable or unfashionable about them. Unless you think "fashionable" is the opposite of "popular."

Posted by too many steves | July 18, 2007 5:39 PM

Paul: Prachett's trying to realistically age her, showing her a few years apart each time.

Wintersmith is, among other things, "girl becomes woman" sort of tale. I mean, she briefly becomes the Summer Lady --- her feet get away from her. It's about the turning of the seasons -- how that isn't about puberty, confusing hormones, and the general all-around self-confusion of puberty and the early teenage years, nothing is.

Also, You was brilliant. :)

Posted by Morat20 | July 18, 2007 7:51 PM

What can one add to this beast of a thread, except the asserion that, yes, it IS good that people are reading, that there's no surprise that the accessible outsells the inaccessible, and that Ron Charles is being, so to speak, a gigantic prat about all this?

I guess just that I wouldn't start with Small Gods as a Discworld book. It's good, but it's TOO good- it'll be like expecting another Citizen Kane out of poor Orson Wells.

Definitely start with Guards! Guards!

Oh, and that the guy upthread complaining about "picture books of men with tights" is absolutely hilarious considering the context. Comics snobbism from someone attacking Potter snobbism? HILARIOUS.

Posted by Demosthenes | July 19, 2007 11:46 AM

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

Petey must be pretty subliterate, since he apparently thinks that 6 fast-reading novels are enough to occupy anyone who read a lot for long. Petey, most communities have remedial education available; there's no need to keep yourself so limited that you can only get through 6 novels in a lifetime.

Posted by Helen | July 19, 2007 4:02 PM

re Dickens and popularity

http://www.education.theage.com.au/pagedetail.asp?intpageid=104&strsection=students&intsectionid=3

Dickens' books were serialised in the popular periodicals of the time and read in instalments. Dickens, like a journalist, was constantly writing to a deadline. To many critics, with hidebound notions of what constituted art, Dickens had the stigma of populism. ``Art'' was read by a few discerning readers - not by a grasping mob at Victoria Dock, eagerly clambering for the latest editions of All the Year Round, Household Words or Harper's Weekly as they were unloaded from the ships. All the Year Round, in fact, was founded by Dickens, and Great Expectations first appeared in its pages in 1860.

Posted by k | July 20, 2007 3:15 PM

I'm going to laugh at all you HP reader, and, yes, I'm one of them, but I shall laugh anyway.

Why? Because I was a Buffy fan, and put up with exactly this sort of crap for the longest time. I was also a Xena fan, although I didn't actually admit that to anyone.

Anything any sort of 'non-serious' fantasy shows up and is the slightest bit popular, people immediately jump all over it. (Yes, the Harry Potter series is getting more and more serious, but the people jumping on it do not actually read it, so that's moot.)

You can sit and read Lord of the Rings or Thomas Covenant or Chronicles of Narnia whatever, and people might think you're a nerd, but those can and have made the transtition to popular culture and no one cares. But take any slightly non-serious fantasy and have it jump the gap, and it, or, more accurately, its readers, is attacked relentlessly. (And it's not attacked before then simply because no one knows what the hell it is.)

People here are under the mistaken impression that people attacking it are under the mistaken impression that it is aimed at children. (Read that sentence three times fast.) That is a good attack strategy, but it is not the reason for the attack. It's because the entire fantasy genre is perceived to be aimed at children, and only certain really deep and metaphorical fantasy is 'allowed' to be popular for adults.

As to who is doing this 'allowing'? I have no theories there. It doesn't happen as much for sci-fi, but I don't know how much of that is due to the fact that sci-fi been fighting for longer and harder, or that most popular sci-fi is the serious stuff, that even very stupid people can see is 'deep' and 'exploring issues' (Even when it's not actually, like The Sixth Day.), so any popular non-serious stuff slips under the radar, like h2g2.

Posted by DavidTC | July 22, 2007 6:03 PM

Petey

I'm an adult who reads Harry Potter books in addition to a large list of books each year. In fact, if you'd be willing to post the titles of every book you've read in the last year, I'd be happy to post mine because I have no doubt that my list would far exxceed yours in number, breadth and scope. It is an eccletic list but I am far from ashamed to admit that I've read JK Rowling's novels and many others.

Posted by Lee Ann Sontheimer Murphy | July 23, 2007 9:09 AM

I am administering a Summer Reading Program at a public library, so I'm keeping a list, as I am requiring the kids to do. Since June 18th, I've read 3 non-fiction and 16 novels, including HP7.

Posted by Michael Hadfield | July 24, 2007 2:14 PM

I'm a big fan of Victorian English fiction. I've read Dickens (repeatedly) a couple of dozen Trollope novels, George Elliot, Wilkie Collins and others, down to Bulwer-Lytton and even a little of Disraeli's fiction.

I have read all seven Harry Potter books. So many of you seem blind to the fact that J. K. Rowlings is a very good writer. Her writing is certainly in a class with Collins, and in my opinion easily equal to Trollope's lesser works.

I suspect that most of the people who ridicule these books have never read them. That, in fact, is not so bad compared to the alternative- that they are so filled with preconceptions that they just can't tell good writing when they see it.

Which are you?

Posted by Carl from L.A. | July 25, 2007 6:00 PM

Harry Potter and the Haters

Comments (354)

Search

Books by Matthew Yglesias

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Weekly Archives

Categories