What are you currently reading?

[North Star]

Bellatrix. I haven't read a single volume of the series, but I know my stars.

Oooh, now I am embarrassed. 

[Jaakko Keskinen]

While I like Harry Potter, I am concerned with Protagonist-centered morality. When "good guys" stuff a guy in vanishing cabinet which almost kills him - not a big deal. When "bad guy" tries to take points from you - scum of the Earth!

Also I wish Draco would have won at least once for ex. in Quidditch against Harry and only times when Harry loses it's only because of accident etc. And his polyjuice potion is goldcolored. Jeez!

[Geo Dude]

Currently working on these two: 

[Karl Henning]

I need to read that Ives bio.

[North Star]

Karlo, here is an interesting (and warmly sympathetic) critique.

Oh dear.
"

Harry is supposed to be a powerful wizard, even if he doesn't quite realize it yet. More importantly, Harry is supposed to be clever, quick thinking, and calm under pressure. Here is an opportunity for him to demonstrate those traits, rather than be handed an unearned solution."

Harry has known that he has magical powers for under two years at this point, and he most certainly is not supposed to be a powerful wizard yet..
And why should he remain calm and quick-witted when one of his best friends is paralyzed in a hospital and another's little sister is dead or at least could soon be, and it's up to him to save them and kill a huge poisonous snake whose eyes are deadly?? But this critic thinks it would make more sense if Harry would march to the Chamber of Secrets triumphantly, flick his wand a couple of times, killing the basilisk with the disarming charm, which is about as dangerous a charm he knows at this point.
Furthermore, does it make the writing intrinsically worse that the school's headmaster is a powerful and intelligent wizard who decides help the students on the school's premises, even if someone tried to get him elsewhere by inviting him to a meeting? A really smart headmaster would enjoy London instead. 


From the list:

That The Age rant (I wouldn't use the word review here) doesn't offer us a single sentence from the book that it criticizes, just a list of words that shouldn't apparently be used. Half a dozen of quotations from approved passages, though, which is nice, in itself.

"Nobody is trying to save or destroy anything beyond Harry Potter and his friends and family."
Yes, that's right - apart from everyone who isn't pure-blood, or opposes their killing.

"All of the central evil characters and senior authority figures in the books are men."
Bellatrix, Professor Minerwa McGonagal, Dolores Umbridge, Molly Weasley, I always thought you were women.

[Parsifal]

Just finished

Philip Roth, The Humbling

Just started

William Faulkner, The Hamlet.

[Karl Henning]

Oh dear.
"Harry has known that he has magical powers for under two years at this point, and he most certainly is not supposed to be a powerful wizard yet..
And why should he remain calm and quick-witted when one of his best friends is paralyzed in a hospital and another's little sister is dead or at least could soon be, and it's up to him to save them and kill a huge poisonous snake whose eyes are deadly?? But this critic thinks it would make more sense if Harry would march to the Chamber of Secrets triumphantly, flick his wand a couple of times, killing the basilisk with the disarming charm, which is about as dangerous a charm he knows at this point.
Furthermore, does it make the writing intrinsically worse that the school's headmaster is a powerful and intelligent wizard who decides help the students on the school's premises, even if someone tried to get him elsewhere by inviting him to a meeting? A really smart headmaster would enjoy London instead. 


From the list:

That The Age rant (I wouldn't use the word review here) doesn't offer us a single sentence from the book that it criticizes, just a list of words that shouldn't apparently be used. Half a dozen of quotations from approved passages, though, which is nice, in itself.

"Nobody is trying to save or destroy anything beyond Harry Potter and his friends and family."
Yes, that's right - apart from everyone who isn't pure-blood, or opposes their killing.

"All of the central evil characters and senior authority figures in the books are men."
Bellatrix, Professor Minerwa McGonagal, Dolores Umbridge, Molly Weasley, I always thought you were women.

Thanks for your response.  Of course, my post did not constitute an endorsement   

[Karl Henning]

At the least, Karlo, he made an attempt at compiling some criticism (of what quality soever) which was not of the yahoo-ish There's magic! Those books are the words of Satan! variety. (Thought that latter does not rise to the dignity of "criticism.")

My little direct experience was reading a brief passage or two.  What I read did not draw me in to try out a whole book.  And much of what I've read even of, let's say fandom (for not all that much of the admittedly limited amount that I have seen, rises to the level of favorable criticism, either) has not appealed to me.  (Very small, and current, example: the article by the chap who compiled that list writes that the books will appeal to adults, too, "if their imagination is not stunted" . . . which is pointlessly insulting . . . I'm a composer, no one is going to imply that my imagination is stunted.)

[North Star]

Thanks for your response.  Of course, my post did not constitute an endorsement   

Of course.

At the least, Karlo, he made an attempt at compiling some criticism (of what quality soever) which was not of the yahoo-ish There's magic! Those books are the words of Satan! variety. (Thought that latter does not rise to the dignity of "criticism.")

My little direct experience was reading a brief passage or two.  What I read did not draw me in to try out a whole book.  And much of what I've read even of, let's say fandom (for not all that much of the admittedly limited amount that I have seen, rises to the level of favorable criticism, either) has not appealed to me.  (Very small, and current, example: the article by the chap who compiled that list writes that the books will appeal to adults, too, "if their imagination is not stunted" . . . which is pointlessly insulting . . . I'm a composer, no one is going to imply that my imagination is stunted.)

Yes, it's definitely levels above that kind of "criticism".
I wouldn't say that reading a brief passage would give the books much justice, though - it's like sampling a Bruckner symphony from the middle of a movement - actually, I'd say that reading a single book is like that, too, or perhaps like listening to an idle movement that is totally linked to the others. "Gee, I just heard the middle movement of Beethoven's 23th PS, and it isn't worth the fuss". Rowling's books are all about the characters and their development across the books. But of course one can see many things from a brief passage already.
Bad wording on the stunted imagination bit, even though I know many people who are too 'grownup' to read even Lord of the Rings (I don't think that seeing the Jackson movies really makes a difference, even though they certainly aren't good PR for the books)

While I like Harry Potter, I am concerned with Protagonist-centered morality. When "good guys" stuff a guy in vanishing cabinet which almost kills him - not a big deal. When "bad guy" tries to take points from you - scum of the Earth!

Also I wish Draco would have won at least once for ex. in Quidditch against Harry and only times when Harry loses it's only because of accident etc. And his polyjuice potion is goldcolored. Jeez!

Well, Harry was very close to being expelled on numerous occasions, and Dumbledore had very good reasons to not expel Harry whatever he did. If Snape's behaviour towards the students isn't bad, I don't know what is - even though there are reasons for this behaviour, in Snape's past.
And really, Draco (and Slytherin's house champs and quidditch team) did quite well, and only lost in quidditch because Harry & the rest of the team just were so good, but especially Harry was extremely talented. Why should the boy who got in the team because his dad bought everyone in the team the most expensive broomstick win? And, in the end, he was certainly one of the luckiest of all the characters. But, I agree that the characters have faults, and they're not perfect, not a single one of them is. Rather like me & most people I've known or read of. 

[Karl Henning]

. . . even though I know many people who are too 'grownup' to read even Lord of the Rings (I don't think that seeing the Jackson movies really makes a difference, even though they certainly aren't good PR for the books)

I've probably said this before, but I cringed when I heard a good friend of mine say, "I never could get into the books, but I love the movies . . . ."

[North Star]

I've probably said this before, but I cringed when I heard a good friend of mine say, "I never could get into the books, but I love the movies . . . ."

Yes, that's probably the best response, along with quickly changing the subject. It's a shame that in so many adaptations the main element - the language - has suffered so much.

[Jaakko Keskinen]

Well, Harry was very close to being expelled on numerous occasions, and Dumbledore had very good reasons to not expel Harry whatever he did. If Snape's behaviour towards the students isn't bad, I don't know what is - even though there are reasons for this behaviour, in Snape's past.
And really, Draco (and Slytherin's house champs and quidditch team) did quite well, and only lost in quidditch because Harry & the rest of the team just were so good, but especially Harry was extremely talented. Why should the boy who got in the team because his dad bought everyone in the team the most expensive broomstick win? And, in the end, he was certainly one of the luckiest of all the characters. But, I agree that the characters have faults, and they're not perfect, not a single one of them is. Rather like me & most people I've known or read of. 

You're making some good points. I just find it kind of boring for the good guy to win over and over again (although being an orphan and living with abusive assholes certainly means that he has enough shit on his plate already). But now that I think about it there is at least one time when draco kind of won against harry: in HBP he almost managed to send him back to London with broken nose (although Harry being the lucky bastard that he is, was eventually saved by Tonks).

[kishnevi]

Being something of a Potter fan,  I think the series would do well viewed even as serious adult literature.  The whole series is a long arc in which we watch Harry become a mature individual, and many details add up over the series into important themes.  The entire moral crux of the book--the acceptance of one's own mortality and the acceptance even of self sacrifice--are explored even in the very first book, and the real contrast is not so much good Harry/evil Valdemort as it  Harry-who-accepts-his-own-mortality (even if he's not too keen on dying) versus Valdemort who does everything he can, including murder and totalitarian dictatorship,  to become immortal.  And it's not until the last two books that we see how much Harry and Valdemort have in common--something that Harry sees at least in part but Valdemort does not.  Two lonely boys whose mothers died to give them life, brought up by uncaring, even hostile, adults in an abusive environment,  finding in Hogwarts the only true home they will ever have--but then they choose completely different responses:  Harry chooses to love,  Valdemort to hate.  (In part because of the nature of the love affairs between their respective sets of parents, but only in part.     And subsidiary to this is the thread, developed in the latter half of the series, that the three men who Harry truly idolizes--Harry's father,  Sirius, and Dumbledore--have serious character flaws--and we see the progress in Harry's maturity as he successively comes to terms with the fact that each of his idols were not superhuman and had in some circumstances prodigious feet of clay.

I'm perhaps being a bit long winded tonight,  but I do think Rowling achieved something that only the best of children's literature achieves--blending in serious adult level explorations of morality with what is, admittedly sometimes a cumbersome and even tiresome plot.  (Just keep track of how many times characters resort to Polyjuice Potion, starting with the second book.)

ETA: if you want a contrast with a book that fails to do that,  try Percy Jackson and the Olympians.

[North Star]

Being something of a Potter fan,  I think the series would do well viewed even as serious adult literature.  The whole series is a long arc in which we watch Harry become a mature individual, and many details add up over the series into important themes.  The entire moral crux of the book--the acceptance of one's own mortality and the acceptance even of self sacrifice--are explored even in the very first book, and the real contrast is not so much good Harry/evil Valdemort as it  Harry-who-accepts-his-own-mortality (even if he's not too keen on dying) versus Valdemort who does everything he can, including murder and totalitarian dictatorship,  to become immortal.  And it's not until the last two books that we see how much Harry and Valdemort have in common--something that Harry sees at least in part but Valdemort does not.  Two lonely boys whose mothers died to give them life, brought up by uncaring, even hostile, adults in an abusive environment,  finding in Hogwarts the only true home they will ever have--but then they choose completely different responses:  Harry chooses to love,  Valdemort to hate.  (In part because of the nature of the love affairs between their respective sets of parents, but only in part.     And subsidiary to this is the thread, developed in the latter half of the series, that the three men who Harry truly idolizes--Harry's father,  Sirius, and Dumbledore--have serious character flaws--and we see the progress in Harry's maturity as he successively comes to terms with the fact that each of his idols were not superhuman and had in some circumstances prodigious feet of clay.

I'm perhaps being a bit long winded tonight,  but I do think Rowling achieved something that only the best of children's literature achieves--blending in serious adult level explorations of morality with what is, admittedly sometimes a cumbersome and even tiresome plot.  (Just keep track of how many times characters resort to Polyjuice Potion, starting with the second book.)

Hear, hear!

[mc ukrneal]

You're making some good points. I just find it kind of boring for the good guy to win over and over again (although being an orphan and living with abusive assholes certainly means that he has enough shit on his plate already). But now that I think about it there is at least one time when draco kind of won against harry: in HBP he almost managed to send him back to London with broken nose (although Harry being the lucky bastard that he is, was eventually saved by Tonks).

These types of books are not usually downers (especially for kids(. But if you are looking for dark fantasy (with all sorts of conflict of morals, actions, etc.), this is the book that did it for me:

[Karl Henning]

Thanks for that, Jeffrey. Chances are, I shall remain a Potter agnostic, but it is a refreshing change on this thread to have the books defended by gents of even keel whose opinions I hold in high regard.

[Cato]

Since entering grade-school teaching in 2006, I have necessarily skimmed through the fantasy books which the kids are reading.  I think I have given Harry Potter a fair shot: an Irish teacher I knew had gotten hooked on the books, and because of that I delved into the first one, and then skimmed through others.

For whatever reason, I was not interested in continuing.  Perhaps it is just the genre: e.g. I like science-fiction movies in general, but science-fiction stories, whether novels or from the magazines, have never impressed me.

One exception from a completely unexpected author: Franz Werfel's Stern der Ungeborenen (Star of the Unborn) about life 100,000 years in the future.

Tolkien: I thought The Hobbit was very good, but as I forced my way through the Lord of the Rings trilogy, I kept wondering why every chapter became just a little bit worse and more turgid.

Thanks for that, Jeffrey. Chances are, I shall remain a Potter agnostic, but it is a refreshing change on this thread to have the books defended by gents of even keel whose opinions I hold in high regard.

Amen!  0:) 

One of the best books of the last 20 years, "a book about childhood but not for children," is from German author Patrick Süskind: Die Geschichte von Herrn Sommer (The Story of Mr. Summer). 

[Karl Henning]

BTW, I hope I phrased that in a way that suggests, if not indicates, that I consider Karlo's keel even, too . . . .

[North Star]

BTW, I hope I phrased that in a way that suggests, if not indicates, that I consider Karlo's keel even, too . . . .

I at least hoped you meant that, Karl. 

[Karl Henning]

Very good!