From: Butrico <ebutrico>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 09:21:21 -0400 (EDT)

I can't say for certin whether "real" fantasy lovers enjoyed Harry, for I have not heard. I am just recently back to work full time and hit the Harry craze a little late so I am sill giving it to my fantasy lovers, but some non?nsasy people have expressed a dislike for the book based on the fact that it was too much fantasy. Though it definitely has other appeling aspects and everyone I believe enjoys a book for a different specific meaning, Harry is very much fantasy.

On Fri, 4 Jun 1999, Melody Allen wrote:
  s. It seems to me its strength is as a school story (which is part of the Dahl connection), and that some of the weaknesses are related to its being a fantasy. I've only read it once, but it seems to lack the depth and resonance of fantasies that draw on the classic themes and symolism of fantasy (you mention Arthurian legend). The Redwall books would be a fair comparison for popularity and action. I was trying to find meaning in the materials used for the various wands and I'm not sure it's there whereas in Wizard of Earthsea the material of the staff is meaningful. That book also presents a much more fully developed wizard's school and a powerful developing rivalry between two characters. Usually the depth of meaning based on symbolism and allusions is what makes a fantasy work for many age groups and readers of various degrees of background and literary sophistication. What surprises me with Harry Potter is that people refer to adults as "getting" the same thing from it as kids. n
Received on Mon 07 Jun 1999 08:21:21 AM CDT