I don't disagree with your analysis but I feel like it falls victim to a problem I have with your overall take on literature (I wouldn't subscribe if i weren't largely with you on most things)
But it seems pretty clear to me that — which Harry Potter is good — no dispute — you must also factor in that to some degree it just kind of won societal lottery.
Right place.
Right time.
The right people saw it at the right moment. It had the right story.
There becomes a point for certain works that when they get big enough it becomes self-reinforcing. Other people consume the thing just because they want to be part of the conversation.
My take on Harry Potter has always been: It's good but it's not THAT good. Basically NOTHING is that good. It took on a life of its own that had nothing to do with its merits. Its become this social network that a certain kind of kid will probably want to join for a long long time.
Part of its story is just epic amounts of luck.
And this I think is my big critique of the Common Reader. I always feel like your take on things is that the entire story is merit-based.
And it's not the entire story. It might not even be most of the story.
And this is PARTICULARLY important with Harry Potter.
I'll never be convinced that there aren't other epic tales of young talented people that are every bit as inherently good as HARRY POTTER but they just didn't catch lightning in a bottle for reasons that were wholly out of the authors control.
Undoubtedly there will folks who read this as saying I'm saying the books aren't good. I'm not saying that. I just think the success of these books became at a certain point a perpetual motion machine long divorced from the books themselves.
The network around Harry Potter is crazy! It's beyond any sense that one tale can be like... THAT great.
The stories that get that big become social networks, where the question of "enjoying" them is more about the cost of not being in the network than whether or not it is this pristine and pointed piece of literature.
And, yes, I would extend that to other great things: The Existentialists. Shakespeare. The Bhaghavad Gita!
They are all great but they also have all taken roots in culture that become their own means enforcing adoption.
My 9-year-old, very American son, who loves the Mets and the Knicks above all -- cannot get enough of these books. I think the escape into a larger, fantastical world - where the rules/spells/history are to be discovered, but the morality is clear drives the appeal.
I think when they first came out many right wing Christian churches were against it. I read the books because my daughter wanted to and I wanted to see what they were like. I thoroughly enjoyed them. And it brought me closer to my daughter.
Because though she wrote a charming series, she’s notoriously a violent transphobe, and this is a particularly awful time for trans folks, at least in the US.
I hope it is obvious that I am not taking sides on that issue, I am merely interested in a cultural phenomenon I have been thinking about for some time...
That is not true. You have no means, in fact, of knowing my opinions on this matter, and no persuasion to enrol me in a political debate in a country of which I am neither resident nor citizen. That you insist on making everything a subset of political debate is no reason why I should. That I do not take sides in this piece of writing does not mean anything beyond what it literally states. Please note, also, that there is nothing in this piece which contradicts my generally liberal position on most matters.
I don't disagree with your analysis but I feel like it falls victim to a problem I have with your overall take on literature (I wouldn't subscribe if i weren't largely with you on most things)
But it seems pretty clear to me that — which Harry Potter is good — no dispute — you must also factor in that to some degree it just kind of won societal lottery.
Right place.
Right time.
The right people saw it at the right moment. It had the right story.
There becomes a point for certain works that when they get big enough it becomes self-reinforcing. Other people consume the thing just because they want to be part of the conversation.
My take on Harry Potter has always been: It's good but it's not THAT good. Basically NOTHING is that good. It took on a life of its own that had nothing to do with its merits. Its become this social network that a certain kind of kid will probably want to join for a long long time.
Part of its story is just epic amounts of luck.
And this I think is my big critique of the Common Reader. I always feel like your take on things is that the entire story is merit-based.
And it's not the entire story. It might not even be most of the story.
And this is PARTICULARLY important with Harry Potter.
I'll never be convinced that there aren't other epic tales of young talented people that are every bit as inherently good as HARRY POTTER but they just didn't catch lightning in a bottle for reasons that were wholly out of the authors control.
Undoubtedly there will folks who read this as saying I'm saying the books aren't good. I'm not saying that. I just think the success of these books became at a certain point a perpetual motion machine long divorced from the books themselves.
NOTHING is that good??
Hot take: I really don't think so.
The network around Harry Potter is crazy! It's beyond any sense that one tale can be like... THAT great.
The stories that get that big become social networks, where the question of "enjoying" them is more about the cost of not being in the network than whether or not it is this pristine and pointed piece of literature.
And, yes, I would extend that to other great things: The Existentialists. Shakespeare. The Bhaghavad Gita!
They are all great but they also have all taken roots in culture that become their own means enforcing adoption.
I think we have reached a simple disagreement of temperament. Shakespeare and Tolstoy are in fact that good!
My 9-year-old, very American son, who loves the Mets and the Knicks above all -- cannot get enough of these books. I think the escape into a larger, fantastical world - where the rules/spells/history are to be discovered, but the morality is clear drives the appeal.
Don’t you think the plot is Arthurian legend reimagined? Because I do!
I think she has said that TH White was an important influence. But there are so many! It would be a whole other essay to trace them all…
I think when they first came out many right wing Christian churches were against it. I read the books because my daughter wanted to and I wanted to see what they were like. I thoroughly enjoyed them. And it brought me closer to my daughter.
Is now really the time to be praising Joanna Rowling?
why?
Because though she wrote a charming series, she’s notoriously a violent transphobe, and this is a particularly awful time for trans folks, at least in the US.
I hope it is obvious that I am not taking sides on that issue, I am merely interested in a cultural phenomenon I have been thinking about for some time...
If you are not taking sides, you have taken a side, sir.
That is not true. You have no means, in fact, of knowing my opinions on this matter, and no persuasion to enrol me in a political debate in a country of which I am neither resident nor citizen. That you insist on making everything a subset of political debate is no reason why I should. That I do not take sides in this piece of writing does not mean anything beyond what it literally states. Please note, also, that there is nothing in this piece which contradicts my generally liberal position on most matters.