# HP and JKR



## garza (May 22, 2010)

What I am about to say will be met with scornful laughter. My words will be ridiculed, and if this site and these entries were to last so long, my words will continue to be ridiculed for at least the next 80 years.

That's how long it will take for a majority of people to start to understand what Harry Potter is all about. That's how long it will take for Rowling to be recognised for what she is, and her work to be given its proper place.

Broader in perspective, more biting in its denunciations, richer in its political and religious satire, the Harry Potter series will one day be put on the shelf beside '1984', 'Animal Farm', and 'Brave New World'. The politics, religion, culture, and economic underpinnings of the 19th, 20th, and early 21st centuries have come under brutal attack, and no one seems to have noticed. 

Read the entire series, straight through, eyes and mind open. Read with the enthusiasm of a ten-year-old but the understanding of an adult. 

Eighty or a hundred years from now there will be a slow awakening. This is not a bad joke. I'm dead serious.


----------



## caelum (May 24, 2010)

I think Rowling's contemporary reputation is greater than you're making it out to be.  She's quite appreciated. I doubt anyone on this site - save one or two who don't know any better - will dispute what you're saying.  And unlike many books that people claim will stand the test of time and still be read years later, that's pretty much a given with Harry Potter because it's sold eighty billion-gajillion copies and those books aren't going anywhere.


----------



## ash somers (May 24, 2010)

gosh, i love her stories *blush* not that i've read any of them

i mean, well, it's not the sort of thing an adult likes to admit


----------



## Like a Fox (May 24, 2010)

I think a lot of people _here_ will dispute what Garza is saying. But there is a reason so many adults got into the Harry Potter series. Perhaps not as many writers, but I think the readers of the world got it.

It's not clear that I love the series from that is it?

I love the series.


----------



## moderan (May 24, 2010)

I'd certainly like to see garza's reasoning for that assertion. I haven't gotten through the first book. Found it much too derivative, with roots in Ms. L'Engle's work and a smattering of L. Sprague deCamp and countless Scholastic books. The writing was okay, but I found the auteurial voice pitched at a much younger person than I.
That said, I wouldn't be surprised if the OP was entirely correct.


----------



## Like a Fox (May 24, 2010)

The first and second books really do speak to kids, and I read it when I was 14 with my little sister who was 8, so it was easy for me to get through then. The third is my favourite, and starts maturing. By the sixth and seventh books they speak to adults, I think.

As much as I love the series, I did read an excellent, hilarious parody of the seventh book. I can't for the life of me remember where it is or what it's called (I'll report back. It's saved on my laptop).
It breaks the seventh book down to it's main plot points and makes fun of it, but with a loving touch. Like the one who wrote it really loved the books but was disappointed by the ending.

Edit - Found it! http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com/2007/07/potterdammerung-mega-spoilers.html


----------



## garza (May 24, 2010)

caelum - I'm judging by what I've read on a number of websites, ridiculing Rowling (say that fast a dozen times) as a no-talent writer of bad books for children and calling any adult who would read a Harry Potter book a mental defective. You are probably right, but in a subterranean sort of way, meaning that most adult fans of Rowling are in a literary underground, fearful of discovery.

ash somers - Oh, come on. Admit you've read them all and loved them.

Like a Fox - Everyone who sees the world as it really is today and would like to see changes made has gotten it, I believe. But will they say so, out loud?

I agree with you about the growing adult content as the series progressed. Probably Rowling planned nothing but a book for children, but as she went along realised that what she was saying had a deeper meaning. That happens to all writers. The sub-conscious takes over. Perhaps she decided to go with the flow. But the early books are a necessary preface, just as 'Hobbit' is a necessary preface to 'Rings'.

moderan - Once, in the dim recesses of the past, an early hominid ancestor scratched a row of symbols in the dirt, creating the world's first writing. Everything that followed was, and is, derivative. 

That Harry Potter is derivative is a given. That Rowling made brilliant use of her source material is my contention. And I'm sorry, forgive my ignorance, but you lost me with the OP. Who or what is that?


----------



## Linton Robinson (May 24, 2010)

> Everything that followed was, and is, derivative.



Demonstratively untrue.  You keep hearing people saying it's all been done, etc.  But it's not true.

I have a hard time seeing the HP books as any sort of knockoff or echo, myself.  They have a very fresh premise and attitude.  And reaped the results.

The only people you hear whining about Rowling are writers.  Who will make less money writing in their lifetimes than Rowling takes in over a fortnight.   Whine, whine, whine.

In fact the writing isn't bad or even mediocre--it's just simple and transparent and pitched to the readership.   

They're never going to be acclaimed as great lit though.  They're never going to be held up alongside "Catcher In The Rye" (which I thought sucked when I read it, by the way) beause they don't fit the lit rat mold.  They're about a popular kid, not some self-styled rebel calling everybody else phonies.  They're fantasy (not the stark, gritty reality Holden Cauflied lifes in).    

But it's lame for people to diss the books or the writer.  They're some of the most successful novels ever written and they didn't get there by pandering or writing down or exploiting.   They stand on their own feet, and those are some huge, firm feet.


----------



## garza (May 24, 2010)

lin - With all due respect, I'm surprised. Having read my way through libraries on three continents in everything from Attic to Tagalog - not fluently, you understand, but struggling to find a reasonable level of comprehension - I can assure you that people have been repeating plots, themes, concepts, metaphors, jokes, and bearded clichés for thousands of years all over the world. 

Two of the obvious sources for Harry Potter have been pointed out by moderan. No doubt scholars of witchcraft and fantasy literature could name many more. What is fresh is Rowling's use of the ideas, the way she turns them to her own purpose. She is, in a word, brilliant. 

And yes, I too would like to have deposited in my account the income from Harry Potter for one fortnight. Oh, wouldn't it be loverly? I've not the gift, but yet can rejoice that someone does have the gift and has given it to us to enjoy.

I'm not sure how J.D. Salinger got involved here. I see no parallel between 'Catcher in the Rye' and Harry Potter, and I frankly doubt that 'Catcher' will last 80 or a hundred years except in lit classes.

I remember reading 'Catcher' a year or two after it was first published. I must have been 12 or 13, and remember that I was able to relate to what Salinger was saying. But we lived in a different world, then. Salinger's message is not as relevant today as it was then, except in a broad sense. 'Potter' will remain relevant, as will a handful of other writers of our era - Faulkner, Eliot, Stevens, for example, along with one or two people writing today.


----------



## Linton Robinson (May 24, 2010)

> can assure you that people have been repeating plots, themes, concepts,metaphors, jokes, and bearded clichés for thousands of years all overthe world.



Yep.  But it's a far cry from saying that "everything that followed the first scratchings is derivative".  Obviously, I would think.

And you're inability to clump Harry with Holden (both books about schoolboys), but to mention it with 1984 and Brave New World is just flat-out peculiar.


----------



## Sam (May 24, 2010)

The mark of a great book is not how many copies it sells, or how many people flock to the store to buy it. Instead, it's how long it remains in print. Since their publication date, there are only two books still in print today. One of them is the Bible (not saying the Bible's great, by the way ). Kudos to the person who can tell me what the other one is.

Hint: It was first printed in the fifteenth century.


----------



## garza (May 24, 2010)

lin - Thank you for reminding me of Holden Caulfield's first name. I'd forgotten it (getting old) and too lazy (and tired) to go look it up. 

Perhaps saying everything from the first scratchings is derivative is a bit of an exaggeration, but not, I believe too much of one. If you like, we can adjust that and say there's been nothing really new for around three thousand years. There's a carving on a post-classic stella down south somewhere that starts out, 'An Aztec, a Mayan, and a Toltec went into a bar...'

As for not being able to 'clump' Holden and Harry together, in what way are they alike other than being schoolboys? Their backgrounds, attitudes, abilities, surroundings, development, everything, indeed, about them is different. 'Catcher' is a realistic tale of teen-age angst in post World War Two U.S. 'Harry' is a fantasy tale set in more or less present day U.K. They are different genres that happen to have adolescent boys as their central characters. Everything else is different.

'1984', 'Brave New World', 'Animal Farm', 'Man's Fate', 'Darkness at Noon', are all commentaries on the social and political realities of the 20th century. The last two are realistic, while the first three deviate from strict reality in one way or another. If you read all four of these books, then read all of Harry Potter, you will begin to see what I'm talking about. If you have already read Potter without considering its social, political, and religious metaphors, then a re-reading may be needed. 

The four books I've mentioned here, taken as a group, go a long way in explaining what happened in the last half of the 20th Century.

Five books. There are three kinds of people in the world. Those who can count and those who can't.


----------



## Linton Robinson (May 24, 2010)

> Perhaps saying everything from the first scratchings



No perhaps about it.  It's a ridiculous hyperbole that doesn't stand up to the simplest logical tests.  (So there were a few dozen scratches, now there are millions of books...but none of them are new?  Gimme a break)

OK, so "Catcher" and Harry are from two completely and totally different universes, but Harry and Brave New World are similar.  Sure thing.

Not really as peculiar as the idea that Harry has anything whatsoever to do with satire or social commentary.


----------



## moderan (May 24, 2010)

garza said:


> And I'm sorry, forgive my ignorance, but you lost me with the OP. Who or what is that?


Original Post or Original Poster
If synthesis is genius, as some believe, then JK Rowling may well be a genius. I don't see the social satire angle, but then, I can't get through the books. I may not have enough ten-year-old left in me and will have to wait until I reacquire such.
Interesting discussion nonetheless.


----------



## garza (May 24, 2010)

lin - Millions of books repeating the same ideas in different ways. How different, really, are the concepts expressed in 'The Art of War' from North Korea's statements in the last few days, and the West's response to them? Move and counter move, outlined long, long ago.

We as a race have changed little in the last 50,000 years. Our thought processes are much the same as those of our ancestors tens of thousands of years ago. So of course we keep repeating ourselves. What we write varies from one year to the next, from one culture to the next, but scrape away the accumulated societal clutter and what you find underneath is the bedrock of human thought and emotion. 

Young writers are often urged to 'write about what you know', but in truth we can do nothing else. The wildest bit of fantasy literature will have an underlying structure built on what the writer has learned and lived. Rowling is a gifted writer, but she can't invent what has already been invented. She can improve on it, make it hers, point the way she wants it to go, but that's all. 

As writers we are re-writing what has been written before. The idea that we are not capable of coming up with a totally new idea for a story or a poem may damage our ego, but it's the truth.


----------



## garza (May 24, 2010)

moderan - Sorry, I overlooked your post somehow.

Though some here may doubt it, in my mind there is no question. JK Rowling is a genius. She deserves every bit of the praise and every coin of the realm that she has accumulated. I've never had the talent or imagination for fiction writing of even the simplest sort, and Rowling's ability to create such a believable world and believable characters, to make  us accept magicians as everyday folk we're apt to meet on the 'bus  or in the local 'round the corner is awe-inspiring. Her talent is on a level with Tolkien. 

If that's blasphemy then show me the way to the stake and I'll help stack the wood myself. It's what I believe.


----------



## moderan (May 24, 2010)

No problem there. I have no difficulty accepting your premise. Whether I agree or not is immaterial. There have been others with talent on a level or perhaps larger than Ms. Rowling's to make that "magicians as everyday folk" idea work (I'd submit Fritz Leiber's Conjure Wife and Poul Anderson's Operation Chaos series as prime examples, or "Bewitched", which was derived from Leiber's novel), but that's a quibble.
The synthesis is quite good, and has been subsumed into general popculture as a recognizable trope.
Whether the satire is on a level with Swift or Voltaire, as you're claiming, is another matter, and a tale for Father Time to relate.


----------



## Linton Robinson (May 24, 2010)

> As writers we are re-writing what has been written before.



Maybe you are.  But don't lay that crap on me.   
Again, it only takes a tiny bit of thought to figure out the bankruptcy of the oft-repeated, but inanely sophomoric "everything's been done" screed.

Try it.


----------



## garza (May 24, 2010)

moderan - Swift or Voltaire? I will readily equate Rowling with human authors, but not with the gods. Why did you believe I would make such a claim or commit such a heresy? 

Huxley, Koestler, Malraux, and company are mere mortals. With their works I will readily make comparison, but certainly never with the works of such as you mention. 

Rowling's satire is biting, but has neither the grand sweep of Voltaire nor the wicked, heart-stopping punch of Swift. 

But Rowling's satire does sting. Is not Rita Skeeter the perfect type of many of today's journalists and, indeed, one or two politicians I could mention but won't? She reminds me of a certain media person in Belize whose motto seems to be, 'if it didn't happen that way it should have'. Rita's behaviour cuts deep as a comment about today's reporters and their media houses and their public. 

And it goes much deeper than that. You must consider Rita's performance over time and not judge her too quickly after one or two of her obnoxious appearances. Rita is not flighty. She appears so, but she is intelligent, passionate, a clever schemer, and she harbours a deep hatred for Harry and all he represents. 

Are there not, in today's world, public figures either in or out of the media who appear harmless, flighty, with a sting no worse than a mosquito? And when we laugh at them, do we not often forget that the sting of the mosquito can carry malaria and yellow fever? 

lin - Harry is loaded with both satire and with political, religious, and social commentary from beginning to end.

Sam W - I remember failing this test once befoe about 50 years ago. Remind me.

lin - Sorry if I touched a nerve. If you have absolutely original, non-derivative material, I would like to see it. 

But neither Shakespeare nor I mind that others have already beaten down the path where we tread.


----------



## Sam (May 24, 2010)

The only two books still in print since the fifteen century are the Bible and _The Nostradamus Code. _


----------



## Linton Robinson (May 24, 2010)

> lin - Harry is loaded with both satire and with political, religious, and social commentary from beginning to end.



I gathered that you think that.  And think it's really cute that you do.

What I don't anticipate is you being able to demonstrate that in any way.


----------



## moderan (May 24, 2010)

garza said:


> moderan - Swift or Voltaire? I will readily equate Rowling with human authors, but not with the gods. Why did you believe I would make such a claim or commit such a heresy?
> 
> Huxley, Koestler, Malraux, and company are mere mortals. With their works I will readily make comparison, but certainly never with the works of such as you mention.
> 
> ...



Who's Rita Skeeter?
garza, I'm merely expanding the scope to allow further discussion. You did _not_ compare Rowling to such explicitly. For that matter, I think Hunter Thompson or Frank Zappa are much more effective satirists than Huxley, et al. Frederik Pohl moreso than either.
It's hard to say what societal mores will be like in 80 or 100 years.


----------



## garza (May 24, 2010)

Sam W - Thanks. That's the kind of fact - not trivia, facts are never trivial - that is, in itself, a comment on Western civilisation. There were serious works on nature, mathematics, philosophy, and the human condition around at that time, but the only two that have remained in constant demand are, well, perhaps I'd best not say what they are, in my mind. Best not go there.

lin - Did not my example of Rita Skeeter demonstrate Rowling's satire? And satire of that type always carries with it a certain level of social commentary. People today seem to love the Rita Skeeters we have among us more than ever, just as the people around Harry loved Rita. Does that not, in itself, constitute a comment on our values as a society? 

Let me ask you this, and please do not take offence. Have you read all the Harry Potter books, all the way through? And have you read the five books I mentioned, or at least some of them? And have you given serious thought to how they compare, and how Rowling might fit into that group?


----------



## Linton Robinson (May 24, 2010)

Oh, no,. I'm just idly chattering about books I've never read.   What a fucked-up insulting question.

But I can see how it would be easier to toss up some sand like that than actually try to buttess the remarkalbe (to say the least) theory that the Potter books are social commentaries or satire.

I always saw them as cleverly disquised commercials for term life insurance, actually.


----------



## moderan (May 24, 2010)

Hmm. It would be best if we could tone down the rhetoric just a tad...I take it that Rita Skeeter is a character in the HP books, a reporter of some kind?
Are there perhaps more examples of the author's social commentary and satire that the unwashed, such as myself, might hang our hats on?


----------



## garza (May 24, 2010)

moderan - I'll certainly agree with you about Frederik Pohl. 'The Space Merchants' is a good example of sustainability. It's message is as relevant today as it was, ah, how many years ago? Given the recent events off Chandeleur, perhaps even more relevant. 

Rita Skeeter is a reporter and is a really nasty, ah, witch. She twists everything to suit her own agenda, and is enormously popular. If you need a satirical comment on today's seemingly lightheaded but possibly devious - and dangerous - media, you need look no further than Rita Skeeter. 

You really ought to try Potter again. As was pointed out earlier, the first two books and well into the third the voice is somewhat that of aunty talking to kiddies. Even so, it's very well written and a delightful story. By the time you reach the end of 'The Goblet of Fire' you should be hooked. For one thing Harry is no longer a little boy but is growing up. 

lin - Best thing, I think, we leave it there.

moderan - Sorry. Your last post came in as I was writing this one. Yes I can certainly point to other examples of satire and social commentary. Give me some room to find the best examples. I'm not sure how many volumes I have in the house - people keep borrowing them. I happen to have 'Goblet of Fire' at my elbow, but I'll have to hunt for the others. I'll get back to you.


----------



## Linton Robinson (May 24, 2010)

Rita is a tabloid reporter.  I suppose she could be considered a satire on tabloid reporters, if anybody considers that a social commentary.


----------



## moderan (May 24, 2010)

Hmm. It sounds like the author's writing grew as the series did, but the elements still seem a trifle simplistic. I'll try the books again sometime. Not right now. I have too many other things on my plate.
I have a taste for satire, so to look at it from that angle may satisfy my appetite. Space Merchants was written 60 years ago.


----------



## garza (May 24, 2010)

moderan - I just wrote a great long post giving some more examples of Rowling's satire on football, education, and mail. It was lost somewhere among the clouds. I'm writing this on my oldest computer, a 1996 Pentium Pro running at 160 mHz with 64 meg of RAM. In '96 this was top-of-the-line. I still use if for writing, but sometimes it shows its age and forgets things, just like a person. I don't have time to re-create the post just now.

There is a running commentary through the books on the civil rights of immigrants. 

The books do mature, and as you deliberately look I think you'll find some real gems. 

While I expected disagreement, I never thought that my thesis would touch so raw a nerve as it did. Sorry about that.

60 years? So long ago? I read it in high school, and I graduated 53 years ago, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised. But consider the book in the context of today's world. Its message remains valid.


----------



## moderan (May 24, 2010)

Controversy is good. We just need to be PG, not necessarily PC. No need to be sorry on anyone's part. If the discussion continues, I may have to take the tiller or serve drinks periodically, that's all.
I don't have the Potter books, but I can get them. I'll take a look. Space Merchants I have. I read it first in high school, and I graduated a mere 31 years ago. Pohl and the late CM Kornbluth wrote quite a few things that have stood the test of time...if JK Rowlings work can equal, say, The Marching Morons, then she's got something.
Again, I find your initial premise interesting. It seems some others do also, judging by the pageviews. If worst comes to worst, fodder for an article, if such hasn't been done already


----------



## Linton Robinson (May 24, 2010)

> It sounds like the author's writing grew as the series did


Frankly, I'd say the opposite. After the third one I found myself getting tired of all the politics and wishing for more of the whizzbang wonder that made the first books such fun.
I'd compare it, in a way, to the Dune series in that respect.  It's so awesome at first, but eventually just keeps getting more and more into intricacies of boring court machinations and wondering how many times Duncan Idaho is going to come back to life.
I'd be interested in seeing sales figures on the series.    The sequence of SIZE of the books is interesting.  They just kept getting longer and longer and longer.


----------



## moderan (May 24, 2010)

Hmm. I left off the Dune books after God Emperor of Dune appeared in Playboy. Boring. I'll check HP again. At least the writing isn't so bad that I'd lose interest in anything except seeing how many times it could bounce, as in many series I've seen (Meyer, Debbie Macomber, Diana Gabaldon), or such an inherently stupid premise that I wouldn't open it in the first place (most ersatz high fantasy).
I wanted to like it the first time around, but I kept getting hung up on the similarities to Harold Shea and the Practical Magic-type stuff. Especially Shea.


----------



## caelum (May 24, 2010)

I prefer the earlier HPs to the latters.  They got darker, longer, more political, and less magical.  The latter dunes got crazy.  I loved the first one, one of my favs, and sort of liked the next three - but after that it was a huge wtf fest.  By the end there was that race of warrior women who enslaved people with sex and can kick as fast as a soundwave and there were all those clones running around, and it turns out that those Tleilaxu vats are actually giant, mutated women whose bodies are 95% vagina.  Yuck.

Rowling sure has made a generation of people hate the likes of Umbridge and Malfoy, who were elitists and your typical fascists.  Voldemort's racism and discrimination against muggles, werewolves, mudbloods, etc. is an example.  Honestly, is there anyone who didn't want to roundhouse kick Umbridge by the end of that one book?  Man, I was just hoping, just _praying_ Hagrid was going to take a huge stump of a tree or something and just smash her into the sky, BAM.


----------



## garza (May 24, 2010)

moderan - I barely finished the first Dune books, and have been assured by fans that I've missed out on the literary adventure of a lifetime. Past a certain age Potter may appeal to only a few. 

I'm tempted to take volume one of Potter and do an exegetical study of selected key passages, the pivot points. Even in that introductory volume there are some real nuggets, though the veins grow thicker and denser as you move from year to year.

caelum - I think I'm glad I stopped half way through the second Dune. 

Obviously you are reading Rowling the way I do. Hagrid, by the way, is my favourite character in the books.


----------



## Like a Fox (May 24, 2010)

I think the social commentary within the series is completely obvious.

The Ministry of Magic are a largely unreliable force. Cornelius Fudge, the minister, is portrayed as well meaning but incompetent, and less well meaning as the pressure on him rises. We as the readers, are against him because he is so suspicious of Dumbledore.
And we love Dumbledore.
She constantly illustrates that government can be tainted and make dumb nervous decisions.

The media flip flops on Harry taking him from hero, to Slytherin heir, to nutcase, back to hero.

Using Slytherin - Race is a constant discussion in the book. Hermione is a mudblood because neither of her parents are magic. Harry's mother was a mudblood too. The Weasleys are full wizarding blood, but they're poor and kind to muggles so they're also worthy of slytherin scorn.

What I find more interesting than the politics of Potter is the affect that Rowling's relationship with her parents had on the series. Her mother was sick and died, I think, right before she started writing the first one. Her father and her were/are estranged. Throughout the series Harry is always looking for a father figure, with Sirius, Arthur Weasley, Hagrid, Lupin, and Dumbledore, but never a mother figure. As if Rowling is at ease with the death of her mother, but not with not having a father figure.

As for the progression of the books, she wrote the first one living on the dole coming out of a failed marriage with a baby in tow. 
By the fifth, sixth and seventh books, everyone in the world knew who she was and was just desperate to see what she was writing.
Can you imagine the pressure? Harry becomes very bitter and frustrated in the later books. It seems mighty transparent to me that Rowling couldn't quite contain her own bitterness when she wrote those.


----------



## caelum (May 24, 2010)

Now this is the story all about how,
My life got flipped, turned upside down,
And I'd like to take a minute, just sit right there,
I'll tell you how I became a famous wizard of Britain

In Godric's Hollow I was born and raised
In a crib is where I spent most of my days.
Chillin' out, maxin', relaxin' all cool,
And all oblivious I was goin' to wizarding school.

When a some dark guy who was up to no good,
Started killin' people in my neighborhood.
I survived one little fight an while my mom was clinging,
Said "You're movin' with your auntie and uncle in Little Whinging."

I heard a motorcycle, and when it came near,
I said "fuck" because it was gigantic.
If anything I could say that this shit was live,
But I thought "Nah forget it, Yo home to Privet Drive."

I pulled up to the house about seven or eight,
and I yelled to Hagrid "Yo homes, smell ya later."
Looked at my kingdom, I was finally there,
Then I got married to Ginny and had three children named Lily, James,  and Albus Severus on pages 753-759. 


I found this a while ago and thought it was awesome XD


----------



## garza (May 24, 2010)

Like a Fox - You are telling me things about Rowling I did not know. I had read that she was on the dole when she wrote the first book, but I did not know about her mother and father. That explains a lot.

The Ministry of Magic is a typical government ministry. It's difficult to miss both the cynicism and the in-your-face satire Rowling uses to destroy any respect we might have for the workings of government bureaucracy. The worse a situation becomes, the louder they talk about how all problems have been solved, and when at last they can't deny the problem, they become frantic in their search for a scapegoat. 

What effect might some of this have on the attitudes of future voters, the kids who have grown up with Harry Potter. Even a child should be able to recognise the scathing commentary Rowling is offering here.

caelum - How dare you! (snort, cough) That's not the least bit (gah...ha) funny, you heretic you. Jeez, where did you find that? You are wicked.


----------



## Chuckleberry (Aug 2, 2010)

I agree wholeheartedly with garza. I believe HP will be remembered in the same way LOTR is remembered. It is a brilliant piece of literature, and I absolutely love JKR's writing style. The rhythm and flow appeal to me on levels I can't describe. I was part of the original HP generation, the first book was released when I was 9, and I followed the series from beginning to end. The wait between the release of each book allowed the audience to grow and mature, as did Harry himself. This also followed the maturing content of the books as they progress from childish adventures to serious plots. I have since read them numerous times (my copy of HP4 has been read so many times that every single cover has fallen off). Also, my mother seemed to have no problem with them. She has also read them more than once.
I believe HP is similar to LOTR in the following it has. It has made history in literature, and now movies. It is a literature phenomenon that, whether for good reasons or for the controversy it has inspired (I know of several families who forbade their children from reading HP because they were Christian) , will be remembered for a very long time.
I do not apologise to anyone if my opinions offend you, they are my opinions and I am entitled to them, as you are entitled to yours. I do ask that people respect the rights of others to hold their own opinions.


----------

