Pottering around

[tahnan]

Woke up early this morning. Stupid sleep schedule. Anyway, I'm nearly done with Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, and it's much better than the movie, although there are a number of things that annoy me. The two biggest things, though, involve--OK, brace yourself--games and puzzles.

Both are at the end of the book, but I don't think these spoil anything, and anyway, sheesh, go read the book, it's only been out for how long now? So anyway: first, the chess game. Ron specifically took the role of a knight and Harry of a bishop. "Harry moved three spaces to the left" might describe a bishop's move, liberally interpreted--but Ron's "I take one step forward" cannot, under any circumstance, be a knight's move.

Second, the potions. Rowling uses what's actually a fairly clever little logic problem. And then she doesn't give the reader enough information to solve it! Not even enough to come close--the problem is clearly solvable, and there's nothing wrong with Hermoine solving it, but it involves knowing what the bottles look like and she doesn't describe that. The missing information is so important that even knowing the answer, thanks to what Hermione says after she solves it, it's still impossible to reconstruct the problem. (There's a lovely little page about this at http://www.zhasea.com/logic/snape.html.)

I wouldn't be so annoyed by these if they weren't stupid, avoidable mistakes. If I read these to my children (once I have children), there's going to be some verbal editing, I tell you.

Comments

harry potter and the power of trends

[jadelennox]

Yes, the puzzle issue is definitely extremely irritating. My biggest complaint with the book, of course, has much less to do with the book and much more to do with its context (ignorant people speaking in ecstasies about how nothing like this has ever been done before). But I have plenty of nitpicking things, which I can't usually talk about, because of the number of people who think of this book is handed down by some benevolent deity, so if you feel like it, I'm up for it. ;)

Nitpicking Harry Potter

[lilisonna.livejournal.com]

My objection to people who I have heard nitpicking HP in the past is that they have done so in a manner that implies that the children are reading trash and they should stop right this minute and go pick up a real children's book. Buh? They're reading. Leave the kids alone and let them read. I don't care if they're reading Sweet Valley High, which is essentially Harlequin Romance Novels for the pre-teen girl, at least they're reading.

I would, however, be quite interested in what you see as the flaws of the book -- and the nitpicking. I enjoyed them, but I was also confused by those who saw them as the be-all and end-all of Children's Literature.

Re: Nitpicking Harry Potter

[tahnan.livejournal.com]

I'm never sure what to make of the "at least they're reading" argument. I mean, if your child ate nothing but M&M's, you wouldn't say "well, at least she's eating," you'd try to get her to eat food that was good for her instead.

Enh, maybe a spurious argument. All things considered, though, I wouldn't keep my kids from reading Harry Potter, but I don't think it's what I would give them to read. (Well, if I had an eight-year-old right now, I might, because horrible as peer pressure is, there's no reason for him to be the one kid who hasn't read it. But fifteen years from now, when I'm more likely to have an eight-year-old than I am at the moment, I'm less likely.)

My main problem with the book--setting aside the annoyances I gave above, and some other issues I had where I found things more annoying but in a less general way (like sending a bunch of kids into a dangerous place as punishment)--was House Slytherin. Too stereotypically evil, past the point of believability. I can't recall (bearing in mind I've only read book one) anything good that anyone from Slytherin ever does. There's some suggestion that Slytherin produces powerful good guys, but mostly we hear about the powerful bad guys; and no one currently in Slytherin is anything but horrid. And an over-the-top horrid.

I prefer more gray in my books than the first Harry Potter has. Perhaps even in my children's books. I could hammer that out more extensively (why does the Wrinkle in Time series interest me if it's all about Good and Evil?), but I won't

Re: Nitpicking Harry Potter

[jadelennox]

Mostly, what he said. While I don't think that the HP books are such trash they should be taken from children, there's no particular evidence that reading crap (not that these are crap) teaches any affection for any other kind of reading, or gives any real intellectual stimulation. Not that I'm a fan of taking books away from kids, usually, but I definitely don't think it should be considered a moral victory if kids are reading Goosebumps.\, and nothing else.

But that's a separate argument. While I don't agree with tahnan that all books should have shades of grey, I think there are good and bad ways to do evil. Here are three models of evil guardians:

• Downright qrotesque. We'll turn you into mice, eat your heart, and sell you to the camel traders. Dahl does this brilliantly.
  
• Psychologically evil. We'll make you feel bad, unsure of yourself, think it's your fault. Diana Wynne Jones does this brilliantly.
  
• Either of the above, in realistic fiction instead of humorous. In this case, the psychological evil is no more or less evil than in the humorous, but the grotesque is both worse (because it's real) and not as over-the-top. We'll beat you, keep you from school, sexually abuse you, or such like.
  

JKR uses the third model of evil in a humorous book. Which, in my mind, makes the Dursleys child abusers, not villains. They don't make Harry clean the carpet with a toothbrush, they lock him in a closet. In our world, the real world. And Dumbledore sends him *back*. Justifications in later books aside, that's just wrong. They're real world villains, not humorous fantasy villains, and Harry goes back to them.

That's a big nit. Littler ones: her obsession that only grows in the later books with fat == evil and stupid; the constant diminishment of Hermione's character. I'm also extremely peeved by how easy everything is for Harry; he's a natural at Quidditch, for example. He has to be brave, but he never has to struggle. I don't feel like the book gives me affection for any characters until the later books, when Snape starts to grow on me. The rest of them, including Harry, are far too flat.

I could go on. ;)

Re: Nitpicking Harry Potter

[tayefeth.livejournal.com]

Some random thoughts while procrastinating at work...

Snape is definitely the most interesting single character, IMO. He's apparently destined to be redeemed in the final book. I haven't decided what I think of that.

I did not take my kids to see the movie, though I saw it myself, and I'm likely to see the others, as well. I own the British editions of the novels, mostly because of the Philospher's Stone issue. My kids (currently six and two) will either read or not read them, just the way they'll read or not read anything else on my bookshelves. I, personally, can't really point fingers about trashy books for children, given the amount of Mercedes Lackey on my shelves...

Re: Nitpicking Harry Potter

[juliansinger.livejournal.com]

He needs redeeming?

He's working for The Side Of Good, at this stage, isn't he? (Or did I lose track and forget everything that happened in the most recent book? After a reality check, he appears to still be on Yon Side Of Good. Though serving as a double agent.) Yeah, fine, he dislikes Harry. At this point, that's freakin' /refreshing/.

I'm procrastinating at work, too, but I just have to agree with the other criticisms. If I get the urge after work tonight, I may go on at more length.

Spoilers

[tahnan.livejournal.com]

Hey, whoah, *tweet*, time out. Yeah, I posted spoilers, but it's my LJ and I get to set the rules. No spoilers for books I haven't read, and I haven't read past the first book.

I didn't read Julian's comment very carefully, so I'm not sure if she did or didn't spoil, but just in case, careful there.

On an unrelated note: Hi, Julian. ;-)

Re: Spoilers

[juliansinger.livejournal.com]

Oh, urk.

I did do spoilers, though in my own defense, so did Tayefeth; anyway, is there any way to go back and edit my own comments?

(On that other note... Hi! (This is, btw, in case it wasn't clear, and it probably isn't, Kaz/Derrick/one of your current housemate's ex-housemates.))

At least they're reading....

[chrysoula.livejournal.com]

It IS a gateway. :-) It really really is. It's like a switch in the brain that gets flipped, but once it gets flipped, the kid learns more and more control over it, and, as trite as it sounds, new worlds open up. In your M&Ms example, if the kid in question /did not/ eat, ever, and you didn't have access to intravenous feeding...

I find the thought of reading things that are 'good for you' kind of silly, honestly. I don't have huge amounts of evidence, just personal anecdotes, but they involve a kid who didn't read and was, as a result, functionally illiterate. When people say, "OMG, my kid read Harry Potter," I suspect many of them are talking about children like that. And since reading, and interest in reading is both nearly fundamental to scholastic and 'professional' success, /anything/ that motivates these children to practise their skills is worth it.

But I'm also a pretty big Harry Potter fan; I enjoyed the first book so much that halfway through it I went out and bought the next two in hardcover.

Re: harry potter and the power of trends

[spenceraloysius.livejournal.com]

I loved Harry Potter, but I too had issues with the fact that you couldn't reconstruct the logic problem at the end of the book. I like logic problems. I would have enjoyed a chance to solve it before Hermione told me the answer.

I suppose, just to give Rowling a positive among the negatives, that, as an author, she reminds me of Roald Dahl in some respects, like the Dursleys and the horrible icky things. Roald Dahl often used child abusers, but they often got their just desserts in the end (Take Aunt Sponge and Spider in James and the Giant Peach). Some children cannot escape abuse, so they have to learn how to 'deal' with it? I don't know. I suppose that might be something Rowling is trying to accomplish or she simply didn't think about it those terms. She needed some icky relatives. They may simply not get their comeuppance until the seventh book.

Oh, jadelennox, I too love Diane Wynne Jones. She's one of my favorite authors. I also find her style of dealing with issues to be quite unique among children's authors.

As a new mom, I think that getting a child to read requires his/her parents to read. My son tries to read and he's 16 months old, but then his parents have books stuck in front of their faces all the time. Right now, he's mimicking, not actually reading. If a child's parents don't read, I think it would take a /lot/ of peer pressure to get any child to move from a book to the next book, be it Harry Potter, or C. S. Lewis.

witch week

[jadelennox]

see, now JKR as a gateway book to Diana Wynne Jones, I'm all for that.

Re: witch week

[spenceraloysius.livejournal.com]

This probably isn't the place to share this, but 1. I loved Witch Week, in fact I was ecstatic with joy when the 4 Chrestomanci books were recently republished in omnibus form. Also, 2. today I went to the used bookstore and found a Diana Wynne Jones book I hadn't read yet (Time of the Ghost).

[janne.livejournal.com]

Sometimes, I suspect Rowling is being subtle at us. I hear a lot of people griping about the unfavorable portrayal of Hermione/girls in general - but to me, it seems this is an effect of the books being seen through a boys-eye view. The older Harry gets, the less unfavorable Hermione is portrayed, and the more attention is paid to the actual looks of the girls in the books. By the time puberty hits Harry full force, I suspect she'll be very favorably treated, indeed. (Especially since JKR has claimed that Hermione is based on herself... :)

Same with the portrayal of evil Slytherins. Children see things in very black and white, though there's at least one 'good' Slytherin about. (No spoilers =).