Harry Potter

Yes, I have done little in these past two days but read and finish the new "Harry Potter" book. I'm sad because the saga is over. It was such a great series and JK Rowling is done. Sigh.

After I finished, I was reading some comments on the Chronicle's website, comments written by a variety of people as a reaction to a newspaper article about Harry Potter. Many of those comments got me irritated, especially the ones that said that reading the Harry Potter books was a waste of time and that the books were stupid and foolish and that they are nothing but pointless escapism and people should read nonfiction instead.

Time for my general reply. As both a reader AND an English teacher, I think I have a good backgrounds for my arguments.

First of all, the books are getting people to read. Kids should definitely read the older books, but the newer books, espcially this one, is very violent and there are deaths of many beloved characters (including my favorite, which made me sad). But these books are getting not only kids reading, but adults. Many adults stop reading books after college and therefore become alliterate (not illiterate, but alliterate, which is choosing not to read). I know many adults, including myself, who are hooked on these fun books.

Secondly, these books teach great lessons: honor, loyalty, discipline, trust, family, good vs. evil, evil never prevails, etc. Harry and his friends should be models as how people should act with their friends - they're helpful for each other, determined to not let the others fall, and will go through great lengths for their friend's safety. Also, people who do wrong in these books are punished. Except for small mischiefs that really hurt noone but the doer, every bad thing that happens has a repurcussion.

Third, they are the mark of a great imagination and irony. Has anyone really looked at the character's names. Look up their names in other languages (especially Latin). For example, Umbridge in Latin means shadow. See the resemblance? Malfoy's first name is Draco, Latin for Dragon (a typically harsh mythical animal). Voldemort - "mort" meaning death. Also, listen to the connotations of the names. Potter - a simple, everyman. Weasly - sneaky (as they all are, but in good ways). Hagrid - almost sounds like "haggard", which fits his descriptions. Dumbledore - goofy, eccentric. Snape - sounds like snake, sneaky. Luna - she's slightly loony, crazy. And on, and on, and on. Rowling took her time with these names and used great creativity.

Fourth, these books provide excellent examples of imagery, which is a literary element that the kids need to determine in school - and also analyze their effects. One of the reasons these books are so fun is that Rowling describes everything very tactilly- warm butterbeer, squashy poofs, scabby hands, brilliant sparks, piercing pain. Her descriptions make the readers see, feel, taste, smell, and hear.

Fifth, these books all have the classic plot diagrams - the expositions, inciting incidents, rising action, climax, falling action, conclusions.

Sixth, she is a master of both suspense and dramatic irony.

I could go on, and on, but my point is that, as silly as some of the books may seem, don't knock them until you've read them and know that the story is as classic as it comes: good vs. evil. Except this time, the heros are teenagers, and not experienced adults.

PS - If you disagree with me, please don't waste your time replying. This is MY blog. Voice your own opinions on your own blog.

Time to finish a nonfiction book on Shakespeare, another fantastic writer.

Cheers!