CCBC-Net Archives
The voice of the people
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Dr. Ruth I. Gordon <Druthgo>
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 15:02:22 -0800
Concerning "Harry Potter" one need only read the reports of what children say in the J.K. Rowling audiences or on the WWW or when they are interviewed in their schools and libraries. We, as trained professionals can--and too often do--analyze too much. Remember the newish old-saw about why bees can't fly--but they do. Remember what happens when we analyze a butterfly too much an pin it on a piece of cardboard? Magic enchantment can, of course, be analyzed but once we know the secret, the magic is absent from the magic trick and it become mere slight of hand,
But what J.K. Rowling--and her very willing readers--have done is to enter another dimension which is similar and yet different from our own. Her naming is brilliant--Dickensian. Her economy of description let the reader immediately know what s/he deals with. And action packed--very much so. We identify; we root for the good; we fear the bad--the evil. In short, we, too, are enhanted.
Yes, I would agree that Book 2 is weaker than 1 and 3--but it was still hard for me and my much younger informants to put down. When I wear my Harry Potter shirt people stop and ask where I acquired it, had I read the books, etc., etc. When I mentioned to some folk (child and adult) early last summer that I had a cpy of Book 3, the universal reaction was something like, "You are blessed." and then we launched into a discussion of the characters, settings, books, etc., etc.
In my not inconsiderable lifetime, I do not ever recall such a phenomenon except maybe those 'teen-agers of my pre-teen years who swooned over Frank Sinatra (but he couldn't be re-read, could he?).
Anyway--as someone else signs off, "That's my story and I'm sticking to it."
Grandma (NOT a Muggle)
================="You may not be able to change the world, but at least you can embarrass the guilty." Jessica Mitford (191796)
Received on Thu 04 Nov 1999 05:02:22 PM CST
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 15:02:22 -0800
Concerning "Harry Potter" one need only read the reports of what children say in the J.K. Rowling audiences or on the WWW or when they are interviewed in their schools and libraries. We, as trained professionals can--and too often do--analyze too much. Remember the newish old-saw about why bees can't fly--but they do. Remember what happens when we analyze a butterfly too much an pin it on a piece of cardboard? Magic enchantment can, of course, be analyzed but once we know the secret, the magic is absent from the magic trick and it become mere slight of hand,
But what J.K. Rowling--and her very willing readers--have done is to enter another dimension which is similar and yet different from our own. Her naming is brilliant--Dickensian. Her economy of description let the reader immediately know what s/he deals with. And action packed--very much so. We identify; we root for the good; we fear the bad--the evil. In short, we, too, are enhanted.
Yes, I would agree that Book 2 is weaker than 1 and 3--but it was still hard for me and my much younger informants to put down. When I wear my Harry Potter shirt people stop and ask where I acquired it, had I read the books, etc., etc. When I mentioned to some folk (child and adult) early last summer that I had a cpy of Book 3, the universal reaction was something like, "You are blessed." and then we launched into a discussion of the characters, settings, books, etc., etc.
In my not inconsiderable lifetime, I do not ever recall such a phenomenon except maybe those 'teen-agers of my pre-teen years who swooned over Frank Sinatra (but he couldn't be re-read, could he?).
Anyway--as someone else signs off, "That's my story and I'm sticking to it."
Grandma (NOT a Muggle)
================="You may not be able to change the world, but at least you can embarrass the guilty." Jessica Mitford (191796)
Received on Thu 04 Nov 1999 05:02:22 PM CST
