Review: Defence for Harry Potter against escapism

[piedro]

this is an article that i have written in favour of Harry Potter books against the claim by many people (who i believe havent read the books) that they are escapist
i would like some constructive opinions:


It is a truth now universally acknowledged that the Harry Potter books are the new classics of this century. They have transcended all geographical barriers and sociocultural frontiers and have carved a special niche for themselves. But in every civilized society there is a sizable community of cynics and they have been quite vociferous in their condemnation of Harry Potter, namely on grounds of escapism and fantasy associated with its theme of magic. But if one looks closely, Harry Potter is not at all a story ‘about’ magic even though it is a story ‘of ’ magic. The theme of Harry Potter is simple “growing up” and therein lies its universal appeal for if there is one experience every individual, irrespective of his caste, creed or culture has undergone it is that of physically and mentally growing up and coming to terms with oneself.

Harry Potter is not an escapist story of magic for the simple reason that learning or knowing magic in it doesn’t simplify life’s struggles. Even those who have mastered it have to face several trials or tribulations. Voldemort’s quest for supremacy is fraught with several defeats from lesser mortals and even Dumbledore , God like figure that he is, questions and doubts his decisions like all of us. As for Harry, the real challenge he faces is not learning magic but to search for his real identity. Besides, magic is associated with homework, examinations and school and it doesn’t make things easier for students who go through all this, it is in no way different from other muggle studies. Thus magic is not a ploy in the books to offer facile, oversimplified solutions to the complex riddles of life. It is only part of the imagery.

During puberty, the world around seems confusing and intriguing which complicates the task of understanding others correctly. One judges others by their behaviour to us and forgets that such a judgment is biased. For example Snape hates Harry but still saves his life, which is something Harry cannot understand. Adolescence is when one often feels very lonely. Similarly Harry, despite having staunch support, is basically a lone figure. Being an outcast in the muggle world, he is nothing more than a symbol to everyone in the wizarding world. He suffers equally from the antagonism of some as the overt admiration of others. It is this feeling of loneliness that makes us identify with Harry Potter as it reminds us of our own adolescence. Harry’s story is the story of each one of us, the journey from adolescence to manhood and is therefore very realistic.

[murphyz]

I'll come back with your constructive critique once I've done the housework and such, but for now, as I am one of those people who believe HP to be nothing but escapist fiction, I counter:

Throughout recent years, Harry Potter has become a household name, not just in the United Kingdom, but the world over. With every medium that transcends the world, there are bound to be those who love it, and those who hate it, and there's always going to be debate on the significance of it and what effects it can have in today's society.

Depending on what age you read Harry Potter will be one of the most important factors in determining how you feel about it. Reading the novels as a teenager will, perhaps, allow the reader to feel a bond with Harry, and identify with the struggles of growing up in a school and environment that is ever changing and always new. A young reader will associate themselves with the making of new friends, and enemies, and a distrust for adults who, at the end of the day have a duty to protect them, but not always to like them. It's an age, for them, of discovery and experiment, that have their magical moments as much as the times of stark reality that bring them back to earth with a bang.

But does this hold true for all readers, especially those of a different generation?

The answer to this is simply 'no'!

The themes and storyline of Harry Potter have all been done before and there is very little that is 'new' to an older generation. They have already had the uphill struggle of puberty and attempting to 'fit in' with the world around them, consider Catcher in the Rye as a prime example. They have already dealth with a mystical unknown world based on fundemental myths and folklore, remember Lord of the Rings? or The Witches? or The Magic Faraway Tree? Harry Potter deals with the schoolchild lifestyle...but wasn't this covered many times over in another generation, just look at the classic Malorey Towers for one such example. Another prime theme of Harry Potter being abused by those who are meant to care for him is also not new, look towards Goodnight Mr Tom for a classic case of a schoolboy who was unloved at home and moved into different surroundings to find those who truely cared for him and wanted nothing in return.

This still begs the question of why is Harry Potter so popular? Perhaps the younger generation are able to appreciate it because of all these themes which, to them, are new and exciting. It's something they are able to relate certain aspects of with their own lives, as if they are growing up alongside Harry. Not the magic and spells aspect, as obviously our children are able to differentiate between the two, but the schoolboy struggle against adults and enemies and family life will certainly ring home for many.

Yet for a generation where this is not new to them, where they feel no association with the characters, Harry Potter acts as escapist fiction, remembering that 'fiction' is all these books are. They provide an easy read that expects no long term concentration or effort. A book that you are able to read for ten minutes on the train, stop reading suddenly, and rejoin again the next day from the same place without losing any of the storyline at all.

I reiterate, with any novel that is popular the world over, there are always going to be those who love it, and those who hate it - and for every cry of 'this is the best thing ever' there will be an equal voice stating the opposite. The only thing to remember is that this novel, along with any other, is whatever you want it to be, and is unique for everyone. If a schoolboy wants to consider it his Bible for growing up, then there is no harm in that. Likewise, a professor of literature is allowed to consider it brain candy for his daily commute into work. Who are we to decide what it should mean to others?

******************

Piedro, you stated that was an article that was written, which implies that you are submitting it somewhere as an article, and not just as your opinion.
If this is the case, do you mind if I ask where you were going to submit it to? This will make it easier to critique.
My response, I am sure you will agree, is one of the many of its type that would be used as a response to yours.

Mxx

[Litany]

Originally Posted by piedro

this is an article that i have written in favour of Harry Potter books against the claim by many people (who i believe havent read the books) that they are escapist

I thought all fiction was a form of escapism? Even it's it just to escape the bordom of the daily train journey into work. Am I missing something obvious here?

The best book will always give you characters and situations you can identify with but it's still not you living your own life.

[Wabbit]

this is an article that i have written in favour of Harry Potter books against the claim by many people (who i believe havent read the books) that they are escapist
i would like some constructive opinions:

It is a truth now universally acknowledged that the Harry Potter books are the new classics of this century. They have transcended all geographical barriers and sociocultural frontiers and have carved a special niche for themselves.

Sorry, you logic is faulty

Forest Gump did the same thing. Is that a modern classic? britney spears has transended all geographical boundries. She constantly sells millions of singles and is popular all over the world. Does it make her good??? Just because something is popular DOES NOT mean that it's GOOD. The logic if faulty. If we follow that logic. Popularity = quality we get things like. Coke is the best drink in the whole world. McDonalds is the finest food on the planet along with KFC and Pizza hut. Britney Spears is on a level with Mozart ( who i'm sure she outsells ). Do you see? Sorry, you can't use that argument.

You also state, " It is a truth now universally acknowledged that the Harry Potter books are the new classics of this century." Oh yes? By who in fact? Name a source? Who says it is? Not by me! Simply SAYING something does not make it true. I can say "Episode Poo is universally acknowleged to be a classic" but it wont make it true.

But in every civilized society there is a sizable community of cynics and they have been quite vociferous in their condemnation of Harry Potter, namely on grounds of escapism and fantasy associated with its theme of magic. But if one looks closely, Harry Potter is not at all a story ‘about’ magic even though it is a story ‘of ’ magic. The theme of Harry Potter is simple “growing up” and therein lies its universal appeal for if there is one experience every individual, irrespective of his caste, creed or culture has undergone it is that of physically and mentally growing up and coming to terms with oneself.

Harry Potter is not an escapist story of magic for the simple reason that learning or knowing magic in it doesn’t simplify life’s struggles. Even those who have mastered it have to face several trials or tribulations. Voldemort’s quest for supremacy is fraught with several defeats from lesser mortals and even Dumbledore , God like figure that he is, questions and doubts his decisions like all of us. As for Harry, the real challenge he faces is not learning magic but to search for his real identity. Besides, magic is associated with homework, examinations and school and it doesn’t make things easier for students who go through all this, it is in no way different from other muggle studies. Thus magic is not a ploy in the books to offer facile, oversimplified solutions to the complex riddles of life. It is only part of the imagery.

Again, your logic is faulty

You can say that about ANYTHING if you want. Star Wars is not really about lasers and SF it's about right vs wrong and is not escapist or SF. Lord of the rings is not really about magic it's about mans struggle to keep fighting when all hope is lost and do the right thing."

OF COARSE Harry Potter is about Magic! Of coarse it has other themes contained within the plot but so has every other book and movie in existance. It is possible NOT to?

During puberty, the world around seems confusing and intriguing which complicates the task of understanding others correctly. One judges others by their behaviour to us and forgets that such a judgment is biased. For example Snape hates Harry but still saves his life, which is something Harry cannot understand. Adolescence is when one often feels very lonely. Similarly Harry, despite having staunch support, is basically a lone figure. Being an outcast in the muggle world, he is nothing more than a symbol to everyone in the wizarding world. He suffers equally from the antagonism of some as the overt admiration of others. It is this feeling of loneliness that makes us identify with Harry Potter as it reminds us of our own adolescence. Harry’s story is the story of each one of us, the journey from adolescence to manhood and is therefore very realistic.

I did not find it so I think Harry Potter is very badly written.

Regards
SillyWabbit

[RaVeN]

Originally Posted by Litany

I thought all fiction was a form of escapism? Even it's it just to escape the bordom of the daily train journey into work. Am I missing something obvious here?

Let me point out that I have never read the books, only seen the movies but simply put my thoughts are parallel with Litany's.

ESCAPE...ESCAPE...ESCAPE.

RaVeN

[piedro]

whoa whoa whoa! outnumbered 4 :1 was the last thing i had expected!
* looks around for some Rowling supporters , fails *
* hesitantly plunges deep into this thread *

to Murph

you mentioned that the themes of HP were all done before. i never refuted that. this theme is in no way original. but that isnt the point.

you wondered why HP was so popular and indicated the reason to be that youngsters identified themselves to it. that is absolutely and utterly incorrect. i can say unhitchingly that the books are enjoyed by adults and children both. over 250 million books have been sold. thats around 1/10 th of the reading population as a bold estimate. i personally know as many adults of all ages to enjoy it as guys my age. but again this is beside the point

this article was just written as someone told me to write it. no immediate plans about it

to Murph and Litany

you seem to have misinterpreted what i mean by 'escapist' fiction. i dont mean escaping from the boredom of daily life. that is not a point which would raise criticsm. what many people are saying is that the concept of magic is escapist, cowardly or luring, having no touch with reality. what i am saying is HP is hardly a series to throw bricks at as it isnt the first fantasy series and the magic in the books doesnt make life easier for the characters so such a life isnt enticing us to 'escape' into that world

to Wabbit

i found some of your points really helpful.thank you. but with some , i disagree
u r saying that simply saying doesnt make a book a classic. what makes a book a classic? etching its name in gold? getting a great critic to say so? the definition of a classic is highly debatable but in my opinion a classic is a book which is trendsetting, which will be immortal, appreciated by most and which you like reading again and again. thats why Episode poo isnt a classic even if you say it of course you can argue HP might not become immortal though but it certainly looks that way. you asked for a source? half the critics and newspaper reviews called it a "modern age classic"

also, the last comment you made was hardly an argument to my paragraph. just a personal opinion

Moral of the story: my review wasnt that great

[Wabbit]

to Wabbit

i found some of your points really helpful.thank you. but with some , i disagree
u r saying that simply saying doesnt make a book a classic. what makes a book a classic? etching its name in gold? getting a great critic to say so? the definition of a classic is highly debatable but in my opinion a classic is a book which is trendsetting, which will be immortal, appreciated by most and which you like reading again and again. thats why Episode poo isnt a classic even if you say it of course you can argue HP might not become immortal though but it certainly looks that way. you asked for a source? half the critics and newspaper reviews called it a "modern age classic"

also, the last comment you made was hardly an argument to my paragraph. just a personal opinion

Glad to have helped !

Well, in reply

How is a book defined a classic? Well, as I illustrated before not by it being popular. There are LOTS of things that are popular and not "classics!" I think that if it has stood the test of time and regarded by many as a great work then it's a classic.

I think all this crap about stuff being classic when it's only been around for a few years is, well... utter crap! It's just a marketing thing! Disney makes a new movie and after a year it's a classic? Sorry, to me that's rubbish.

As for your source. Yes, you can show me many articles and reviews that state HP is a classic and wonderful but I can show you just as many that say it's not. So we get nowhere and prove nothing

IS it a classic??? I think it's too early to say. I'm not gonna state that it is or it's not. I think only the test of time can tell us it's classic.

I would say it IS escapist fiction. It contains the themes you say but then, as stated before, so does every other work of fiction. What's Harry Potters main point? Simply to be entertaining, nothing more. I would say that makes it escapist fiction

Regards
SillyWabbit

[third man girl]

Originally Posted by piedro

* hesitantly plunges deep into this thread *

Never plunge hesitantly, piedro. If you're going to plunge, plunge wholeheartedly

Third Man Girl

[Ashlea]

Popularity is certainly no guarantee of status as a "classic". One of the best sellers of the 19th century was Charlotte Temple, and the first time I ever heard of it was in my American Literature class.

I truly enjoy the Harry Potter series, despite being several years older than its target audience. I think it will acheive, ultimately, the same level of acclaim as the childen's lit of Roald Dahl.

I'm really curious to see what Ms. Rowling will come up with when she's done with Harry.

[piedro]

Originally Posted by SillyWabbit

How is a book defined a classic? Well, as I illustrated before not by it being popular. There are LOTS of things that are popular and not "classics!" I think that if it has stood the test of time and regarded by many as a great work then it's a classic.

i agree. but i had never said that being popular makes something a classic. i had illustrated HP's popularity and being a classic in totally different contexts.
now here's a deal. we will meet here, same place,same time after twenty years, and if HP has withstood the test of time, then i win. and yes, if i win, you buy me a coke, a Mcburger , a britney video and show me what Episode poo is

As for your source. Yes, you can show me many articles and reviews that state HP is a classic and wonderful but I can show you just as many that say it's not. So we get nowhere and prove nothing

naaah Wabbit, i could show you articles whose number is a teeny weeny bit larger than yours

p.s- sandra....stella...HP hardcore fans... where the hell are you??????

[Wabbit]

Hello again lol

Well... You said in your post that it's universally accepted that Harry Potter is a classic and that's not true. Like I said, I can show you many articles that say it's not. I think you are right that there would be more articles that say it's good but that's not the point I think. And you DID kinda link the fact that Harry Potter is a classic because it's so popular. Right after your sentace claiming it to be a classic you start with another sentace of how it's read all over the world. Maybe that was not your intention but that's how it read

Finally: OK, in in 20 years Harry Potter is regarded as a classic I'll by you a MC-D, coke and a Britney Vid. Why you would WANT a Briteny vid is beyond me lol

Regards
SillyWabbit

[piedro]

here is something else that i had wanted to say. this has NOTHING to do with classics , escapism , popularity and Britney Vids

i am differentiating between POPULARITY and CRITICAL ACCLAIM. it has been mentioned in this thread that there would be some 'for' opinions ,and some 'against' ones for all books. similiarly there are good critical reviews and bad ones. so do we "get nowhere and prove nothing "(???) with critical reviews? then how can we say whether a book is good or bad?
obviously a book doesnt satisfy all readers. so..
i think we HAVE to consider the number of reviews on either side in every books's case. we have to see what they are arguing about.
the theory of popularity not being a true indication is acceptable , but that of reviews not being so doesnt hold water.

[Cassandra]

I love HP but I have to agree with Litany and co. It s escapism, it has interesting points worth reading apart from that but every book is escapism for me. Probably different with other people, there is no way you can make generalisations about any book.

One can't tell now what will be a classic, many things were rejected in their own time, were incredibly unpopular and are now considered inspired classics. However as we deecide what is a classic doesn't that mean that popularity is part of the decision just that things that are well written, have in depth relevent themes etc.. tend to remain popular?

[murphyz]

How many of you have heard of a lovely author called George Meredith? In his time, he was even more popular than the wonderful Charles Dickens...now who gets all the press?

I think those deemed popular at the time are not certain to become classics. The likes of Roald Dahl are only going as strongly as they are because we pass the books down through the generations. I feel they are getting less popular as time goes on, and doubt if they will be remembered as fondly within a hundred years time.

The general consensus, as far as I have read on the Internet, is that the 5th of the [Harry Potter] books isn't as good as the others. If the 6th is also a disappointment there will be readers who abandon it - although possibly not the diehard fans who love Potter and can't see the bad points. Before we divert into the 'what makes a classic' debate, back to the topic, and your original request.

I feel the first statement is too bold to have without having some sort of source. I read it and think two things. 1) How much it reminds me of the opening line of Pride and Prejudice. 2) How I disagree with it, especially without a reference, and therefore feel that the remainder of the article should not be taken seriously (by myself).

But in every civilized society there is a sizable community of cynics and they have been quite vociferous in their condemnation of Harry Potter

Quite accusatory there. Why am I being called a cynic? Opinionated, perhaps, but not really cynical. Sure, I have my moments of putting little Potter down, but I feel I am doing that on merit after reading them and having an opinion on them. My housemate really slags it off and hasn't read them - he's a cynic (as mentioned in your article of people not reading them), and I always try and urge him to read them, but it seems that I am being called a cynic for 'condemning' it when I have just as many nice things to say about it and, I have stated before and can't state enough, I am a fan of Potter.

Personally, I do not feel that I 'relate' to Harry Potter growing up and truely believe the only people who do relate fully are children who are growing up at this time. I do not know any 'adults' who like Potter because they relate to the growing up aspect, I only know adults who like him because of it being escapist (more on this later) fiction. I have attended discussions where Potter was one of the topics and, ranging from single mothers to the professor of literature at Cambridge, and from school children to the marvellous feminist that is Germaine Greer, the reasons for liking it were the same. The single mothers answered they like it solely because their children are reading it, and they can read it to their children, the professor because it gives him something to read on the train (mentioned by myself earlier), Greer because it's brain candy, and the school children (giving slightly varied and opinionated answers) because they can relate to the angst of Harry, because they like the storylines, because they like the magic. There was even a sweet discussion amongst the children of which is their favourite invention in the series (I think Portakeys came out on top, and the Screamers were most disliked).
I really doubt the book would hold up if it wasn't to do with magic - have you seen children attempting to recreate a Quidditch match? Their imaginations are captured by the things that are not of this world...as with any child who imagines being a cowboy or an astronaught - they want to imagine themselves as someone and somewhere outside of their daily lives - they want to escape. Why do they want to escape? Perhaps this is the part they relate to in the book and they wish to escape from the school work and the adults?

You state 'the theme of Harry Potter is growing up'. I agree, but I would have said that it was only one of the themes. Obviously magic is a theme, as is friendship and enemies (perhaps coupled with growing up?), To say it is not a story about magic is, in my opinion, rubbish. Read the blurb on the back of the books and the thing that hits home is that Harry Potter is a wizard, he goes to a school of witchcraft and wizardry. There is no indication that the story a rites of passage, merely that it is about magic. That, I feel, is the prime theme, with a secondary theme of him growing up.
You are right in saying that magic doesn't help them - but without it, where would the story be? Some would say it would then be a story of a boy who lives under the stairs of his evil aunts house and goes to a tedious school - but even that wouldn't be so. Take all aspects of magic from the story and Harry would not be feared by his relatives and, thus, would not be under the stairs. Take away magic and you suddenly have Adrian Mole.

Harry Potter is not an escapist story of magic

In order to tie this up with your previous comments, I would suggest having 'HP is not an escapist story about magic' - just a little thing, I know, but it seems appropriate as you had stressed it is a story 'of magic' previously.

I agree that magic does not make it easier for any of the characters (although still feel it is a story about magic fundamentally).

When you stated escapist fiction I think it was easy to misunderstand exactly what you meant by that. I can now see what you are saying and agree somewhat with it, I agree that magic does not make the struggles of both students and adults any easier. As you mention, it's like other muggle studies and 'potions' can easily be our 'chemistry' subject.

Can you clarify what the story is, to you, if not escapist?
I see your reasoning and what you are saying, but there is something within each paragraph that I disagree with and so it's harder to spot your meaning.

Tell me, why do you read Harry Potter? When reading it do you feel attached the character and relate it to the struggle in you life?

I don't. I like the magic, the fact he can get away and participate in things such as Quidditch, transporting himself through the fireplace, the pictures on the walls that move by themselves. I walk through Kings Cross very often and see the 'Platform 9 3/4' sign and always think of Harry running through the wall. I disliked the latest book so much because of the angsty teenager aspect. I hated that it was trying to be more than a story of magic and fantasy, it seemed to take the charm out of it for me. I read it simply to escape into this world of magic, not because I want to be there personally, but because that's what fiction is all about - taking me from my world into somewhere new and exciting through words and imagery. If I was reading it aged 15 then it may have a link to what I was doing, but, in a similar manner to Salinger or Pierre, if you read their books once you have left your teenage years, you kinda want the angsty main characters in their stories simply to 'grow up and stop moaning' rather than feel any sort of association with them.

Well done, to you, for writing it though. I'm sure there are as many people who agree with what you have written as those who disagree.
As your personal statement I would say it is very good and would provoke debate.
As an article I would say it is biased and unpublishable except for anywhere that has a bias towards Harry Potter. This could be rectified with sources to backup your facts and slightly rewriting certain ascpects to be more 'on the fence' of the subject.

Please take all of the above as my personal opinion, and hopefully you do not see it as a personal attack on yourself or your article - it really isn't meant to be that. I do disagree with what is being stated, but then that's the whole point of discussion
Please, also, do not get the idea that I dislike HP. I just see it as a different thing to you, and others, and what I get from the book is obviously different to what you get from it.

Mxx

[piedro]

First of all , i thank you wholeheartedly for reviewing my review
i see this article in a totally different light, the way you have put it.
i regret for the delay in posting this.

There is no question of being offended. Difference of opinion is a part of discussion. my main purpose for joining a forum was to argue..argue and argue more but more importantly, improve the way i argue. i seem to be on the right track , with people like you around.

Originally Posted by murphyz

Can you clarify what the story is, to you, if not escapist?
Tell me, why do you read Harry Potter? When reading it do you feel attached the character and relate it to the struggle in you life?

naw. i am not that much of an indepth reader.
BUT.........
i have a totally different perception of reading books than some others. i dont consider books to be escapist at all unless they are utter crap having no meaning. i dont believe the purpose of books is "escape from your boredoms" or "pass time on a train". i think books are a part and parcel of life. this is a crude way of putting it, i cant find words.

why do i read Harry Potter? one word: 'Rowling'. i find her imagination unparalleled in the world. the way she creates situations, links up everything, and hatches major subplots from insignificant details is exemplary. few others have created a world with such preciseness apart from the legendary Tolkien.

Well done, to you, for writing it though. I'm sure there are as many people who agree with what you have written as those who disagree.

there sure arent any on this forum :o

As your personal statement I would say it is very good and would provoke debate.

but you just said it was biased??? umm.. what do you mean by my personal statement?