The article I’ve linked to (Harry Potter And The Childish Adult by AS Byatt) came up on my Facebook notifications, so it got my interest as I thought it was a new article. Then I realised it was from 2003!
Never mind, I think it’s still relevant and I think it articulates well some of the objections I feel towards the Harry Potter books (and particularly the films) but never been to articulate myself. Basically, AS Byatt is saying, the Harry Potter books have very little original imagination: they are “comfortable, funny, just frightening enough”, but lack the true sense of mystery and danger in Tolkien, Alan Garner, Susan Cooper, etc.
I particularly like the sniffy put-down of “jolly hockey-sticks school story”, and this bit: “Ms. Rowling’s magic wood has nothing in common with these lost worlds. It is small, and on the school grounds, and dangerous only because she says it is.”
What do you think? Are you a Harry Potter fan, and is AS Byatt just a snob? I’ve heard people defending Harry Potter by saying things like “anything that gets kids reading can only be a good thing”, but AS Byatt seems to be agreeing that (in a way) and saying that the books are useful as escapism for kids, but still saying they are an imaginative cul-de-sac. I feel drawn to being on AS Byatt’s side here, but I’m interested in the counter-argument.
I haven’t read any of the books. However, I have fallen asleep during all the films.
I haven’t read any of the books of seen any of the films but fell asleep within the first par of A’s post
I have never read one, but I have listened to Stephen Fry narrate all of the audiobooks on several years of family holiday drives from Cambridge to the Cairngorms and back again. Better than listening to the radio – no chance of catching Moneybox, for a start.
I hear it can lead to a serious case of Louise Botting…
I have read the books and seen some of the films – out of curiosity. I always thought they were a very poor copy of the Earthsea stories by Ursula Le Guin – which I reread a few years ago and still stand up as dark and challenging in a way that Rowling’s books just never could.
The celebration of Hogwarts feels to me like derivative Blyton – more like an adventure playground than a school. Like AS Byatt, I went to a Quaker boarding school – and like her I did not wholeheartedly enjoy the experience. There could be a connection there.
Thinking about it now, what the stories remind me of now is Starship Troopers. All the good guys are brilliant and they destroy the ghastly baddies triumphantly, every chapter seemingly ending with a victory and a snub. Hurrah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They are so great.
Mmmmm….Louise Botting….
(insert joke about portfolios and call Mooooose)
I thought you were referring to Verhoeven’s film Starship Troopers, Sal – which is, of course a satire – but I’ve just been finding out about the original book on which it’s based – yikes!!
I was referring to the Verhoeven film, which I didn’t realize was a satire until after I had seen it. I think I would like a [satire] html for the AW, as that was what I was clumsily aiming for with my last paragraph. I found HP and his gang vainglorious.
‘Louise Botting,
Louise Botting,
And her fiscal totting,
I should like to go frotting,
With horny Louise Botting’
As sung by Chris Morris in Instant Sunshine-mode, on his ‘On the Hour’…
Well I never!
Never knowingly read or seen a TV/movie adaptation of anything by A S Byatt, though I had encountered the name. I had always assumed, prior to looking her up, that A S Byatt was a man. This concise description of her œvre from Wikipedia makes it unlikely I would ever want to.
“English scholar, literary critic, and novelist known for her erudite works whose characters are often academics or artists commenting on the intellectual process.”
I’m not a big Rowling fan, but I know what sort of thing I’d rather read.
Has anyone mentioned the fact that A.S. Byatt is Margaret Drabble’s sister?
No, no – we haven’t time as we’re going straight over to Luton!
Also, both were at school with Judi Dench.
Bah. Swallows & Amazons. Pooh. Masefield. Aah, Masefield, yes. Magic? Greymalkin – not that bloody Marvel character – had more magic in his paws than Dribbledoor and all his mates. Humbug. Blyton all over again etc. etc.
Personally I loved the Potter yarns. Read the books, saw the films. Actually preferred the films, if I’m honest, as they cut out a lot of baggage. I haven’t had time to read the article, but I can only suspect that the ‘literary’ criticism conceals a teensy weensy hint of envy.
I don’t mind admitting that I loved ‘The Midnight Folk’* even more though; a magic Birthday present on my eighth – thank you so much Mrs. Roberts, for nearly 60 years of appreciation!
*plus, Kay rides a broomstick. Wonder if JK read it too.
A few years back I embarked on a mammoth reading exercise – to read every Booker prize winner. Of the 60 or so book I gave up on a total of 4 – one of which was A S Byatt’s Possession which won in 1990. Never got into it at all and the overriding feeling I got was of the author showing off how well-read she was. So this book snobbery is not entirely surprising to me. Having said all that I didn’t really like either of the Rowling books I read either though.
@hoops-mccann
Of the booker winners, which ones were your particular favourites?
There are a few I have really enjoyed – Wolf Hall and Bring up the bodies by Hilary Mantel, The God of Small Things by Arundhati Roy, Shuggie Bain (which had me in tears by the end) from a couple of years ago, Remains of the Day, Sacred Hunger by Barry Unsworth, Lincoln in the Bardo, and both of the J G Farrell books. But probably my favourite is True History of the Kelly Gang by Peter Carey, partly because it took me a couple of tries at it. It is written as a stream of consciousness with no punctuation and takes a little while to get the rhythm of the thing, but once it clicked it just blew me away
That’s very interesting, thanks. I haven’t read THOTKG. I wasn’t that enamoured of the film, but I think now I’ll try the book. I like reading Booker winners. They tend to be good. I’m a big fan of Life of Pi. I also really enjoyed White Tiger and Vernon God Little. But Remains of the Day definitely my favourite (so far).
My five favourite Booker Prize winners are “Disgrace”, “True History of the Kelly Gang”, “Lincoln in the Bardo”, “Milkman” and “The Promise”.
I’ve not read all the Booker winners but a fair number:
Rites of Passage, Oscar and Lucinda, Last Orders, The Blind Assassin, True History of the Kelly Gang, Life of Pi, Vernon God Little, The Sea, Wolf Hall, The Sense of an Ending, Bring Up the Bodies.
They’re all pretty good. The following I would have read anyway because they are favourite authors: Peter Carey, Graham Swift, Margaret Attwood, John Banville and Julian Barnes. What was the best? The Sea possibly because it’s furthest from straight narrative, it’s more poetic.
I feel you’ve missed a trick here, Hoops. You could have, Dave formerlyAmitri style, run a five year, once a month, series of threads about your thoughts on these tomes..
Hmmmm… let me check the diary up to 2028
I reckon I have read about 40 and I have enjoyed most of them, with a few exceptions where I wondered what on earth the judges were thinking – The Old Devils, Life of Pi and Vernon God Little, for example.
I’d agree with duco about True History of Kelly Gang, Disgrace, Milkman and The Promise, and would also cite Midnight’s Children, Remains of the Day and Line of Beauty as outstanding.
You didn’t like Life of Pi? Jesus, Mary, Muhammad and Vishnu, I absolutely loved it! Loved the character, the story, the writing. One of my favourite modern novels. The film wasn’t bad either.
The TV series of Line of Beauty rather put me off reading it, like the film of THOTKG put me off reading that. (Glad I read Sense of an Ending before seeing the film.)
Just didn’t get in with at all, but I know many people who loved it. Haven’t seen the film of Kelly Gang but I can imagine it not translating at all well on screen. It really is all in the writing.
I saw the film they made of the Kelly Gang.
What can I tell you?
It wasn’t as good as the book….
Just wanted to call out “Shuggie Bain”. I don’t read much fiction outside of crime novels but I’d read a couple of very positive reviews so took a punt. It is an astonishingly powerful book, unlike any I’d read before. I’d urge everyone to give it a try.
I started it, but then accidentally left it in Sardinia. Will go back to it when I return there next month. As far as I got, I found it a bit depressing, in an Eastenders-y kind of way.
If you’re into crime novels, can I put in a quick plug for a dear friend, crime novelist Sheila Bugler? It’s not a genre I normally read, but I recently enjoyed I Could Be You, set in her adopted hometown of Eastbourne
Thanks for the Shelia Bugler tip; I’ve placed an order.
Shuggie Bain was a tough read – I nearly bailed after 2 or 3 chapters but I’m really glad I didn’t. It takes a while for each character to become established and the early section with his grandparents was a bit confusing. But I’m glad I hung in there.
@fortuneight I could not agree more
I haven’t read any JK Rowling books. I did however very much enjoy the Strike TV series based on Robert Galbraith’s (JKR pseudonym) novels (which I also haven’t read). Holliday Grainger, who is great in The Capture, added considerably to it’s appeal. I didn’t imagine any cartoons either. I don’t really do magic, fantasy or the supernatural, like Harry Potter. I know it’s all silly, made up bollocks, although all fiction is, albeit not necessarily silly, but I prefer something based in reality more or less. Although I like Game Of Thrones, but then that’s real of course.
My first job was in a children’s bookshop. I remember the first Harry Potter arriving to no fanfair at all. I’d be a fair bit better off now if I’d bought a first edition.
Never understood the cross-generational appeal. My ex-wife tried to read the first one. Verdict: it’s a children’s book. The children have always been bigger fans of the films than the books.
I do have a lot of time for JK Rowling though.
One of the things I liked about the books was the way in which each subsequent yarn got a little bit darker, and a little bit more grown up. I suspect this was by design. The first book seemed like a Famous Five adventure, but that primary school jolly japes adventure feel was quickly thrown off by about book three, when the tragic Sirius joins the fun and things get decidely more nasty. The snoozefest part of the saga was the humungously dull sequence when the three little wizards went AWOL and lived in magic tents for about half a century. By the time I’d waded past that, I was all hell bent on a mahoosive epic battle to finish it all off. Such larks! I don’t know why there’s so much snobby disdain sloshing around the tale – as I’ve said elsewhere it has a distinctly green tinge to it.
When all the fuss started re Potter I, like many other adults, bought myself a copy.
I thought I was getting some sort of modern Lord of the Rings but instead I was reading a children’s book. An engaging, well-written children’s book. For children.
Haven’t read one since but I’ve watched a bunch of the films with grandson. They are perfectly ok. I’ve read a couple of Rowling’s adult books and they too are ok.
She’s made millions and given away millions – she seems one of the good ones.
This.
As mentioned in posts above, ASByatt’s view seems motivated partly by snobbery and partly by envy over sales. Adults can choose to read and watch wherever the hell they want – but if you’re critiquing the films and books, you shouldn’t ignore the fact that they were intended for children.
Comparison with Lord of the Rings is probably inappropriate as well: The Hobbit was intended as a children’s book; LotR wasn’t, if I recall correctly.
Henceforth, I shall refer to her as The Egregious Byatt.
Hi both, to be fair, I think AS Byatt knows that and is acknowledging it in her essay. I don’t think she is challenging the fact that they work as children’s stories, but what she is questioning is whether they have the depth to be appreciated by adults as well. Of course that appears to imply that adult literature is superior to child literature, but there you go.
I quite like Egregious. I might make it my middle name – Arthur Egregious Cowslip. 🙂
I once read part of a novel by A.S. Byatt called The Game, which it soon became clear (to me at least) was the worst kind of pretentious and self-referential literary twaddle. I gave up after about 50 pages and have never had the slightest inclination to read anything else she has written.
That said, I don’t have much desire to read anything by J.K. Rowling either – I can’t abide goblins, wizards and fantasy writing of any kind – though I do think Rowling has been on the receiving end of much undeserved stick.
I was an assistant manager for a large Waterstone’s when the first 5 of the 7 books were published. Children’s books weren’t a particular interest of mine and the first two passed me by, but I remember agreeing with the Bloomsbury rep that 50 copies, a considerable number for a children’s hardback book, was an appropriate initial order or the 3rd, The Prisoner of Azkaban. And I was right. We sold the 50 in 2 or 3 weeks and carried on re-stocking while the sales turned over into 3 figures.
That’s when it started to go nuts. Head office organised the initial orders for the 4th book, and from our point of view did it inadequately. We sold out our several hundred copies by lunchtime on the day of publication. By the time the 5th came out the phenomenon was so great that a significant factor in the timing of publication was co-ordinating enough delivery lorries for the day before.
I read them of course, including the last couple published after I left the book trade. It seemed remiss not to when the books were so unprecedentedly popular, They are fine, but pot boilers. Each seems to feature some piece of school of magical history which comes as news to Harry but seems so significant that it would surely have been common knowledge in the school. And this may not have happened as often as I remember, but everyone at Hogwarts should have been last sceptical whenever Harry said that Voldemort was back. He’d been right every time before.
The books get very bloated too. When I interviewed for weekend staff the applicants were usually teenagers and the Harry Potter books often came up when I asked about what they liked to read. Almost without exception their favourite was The Prisoner of Azkaban, the last one before JKR became too powerful to edit.
Byatt is a prominent fan of the late Terry Pratchett, as it would be unfair to dismiss her objections as genre snobbishness. I think she’s pretty much on the money here in identifying the appeal of Harry Potter books. Take magic, schools, a Scooby gang, villains, and emotional family history, tie it all up in a hero’s journey and mix until world famous.
Rowling was undoubtedly very lucky, no one could have expected success on that scale, but took the responsibility that came with that success and the Potter legacy seriously. Good luck to her, for creating a generation of readers (and I really don’t much care if those readers never ‘advance’) and for her entirely sane stance on gender issues for which she knew she would get crucified but said what needed to be said anyway.
I like this: “I read them of course, including the last couple published after I left the book trade. It seemed remiss not to when the books were so unprecedentedly popular, They are fine, but pot boilers. Each seems to feature some piece of school of magical history which comes as news to Harry but seems so significant that it would surely have been common knowledge in the school. And this may not have happened as often as I remember, but everyone at Hogwarts should have been last sceptical whenever Harry said that Voldemort was back. He’d been right every time before.”
You’re so on the money with that, and identifying the pot-boiling/stirring elements of the book series.
“I think it’s still relevant and I think it articulates well some of the objections I feel towards the Harry Potter books (and particularly the films) but never been to articulate myself.”
You actively object to these books, Arthur – to the point where you need to have that objection articulated? Have you tried masterly indifference – or even actively ignoring them?
Cards on the table: my kids were exactly the right age at exactly the right time; my other half liked the books/films; and I have nothing but good memories about the movies, the books and the odd family trip to queue up at midnight outside our local independent bookseller. The views of The Egregious Byatt pale into insignificance by comparison.
And, for what it’s worth, I like this (from Gatz above): “Rowling (…) took the responsibility that came with that success and the Potter legacy seriously. Good luck to her, for creating a generation of readers (and I really don’t much care if those readers never ‘advance’)”
“Stirring” – that’s a good word to use here. You can’t beat a stirring yarn. I’ve got a huge pile of John Buchan titles here that have an exciting whiff of jolly fine chaps, maybe colonial district commissioners, sporting khaki shorts in all weathers under a bush hat, with an inextinguishable pipe and a raffish grin, whisking away the mosquitos while giving the bad fellows very short shrift indeed. Spiffing.
Biggles!
Cruise Of The Condor? Marvellous! Biggles of 666 (Squadron)? Fantastic!
I haven’t read any of the H.P. books but have seen some of the films and enjoyed them.
I have read, about 60 pages of that Booker Prize bollocks by ASB who I also thought was a man up to unfortunately paying for that bollocks of a book.
I have not read the ASB article nor do I intend to.
I haven’t read any Harry Potter either. I have however read Possession by A S Byatt (aka ‘that Booker Prize bollocks’) which I found extremely absorbing and enjoyable, if a little over-furnished with subordinate clauses and commas. I knew she was a woman, so perhaps that helped.
I’ve read her article too, which was much more sensible and interesting than I expected, given the general tenor of the conversation. Of course she’s an intellectual, and there’s always a possibility that she might come across as a little bit up herself.
I’m a big fan of commas – especially the Oxford comma.
Careful now…
I am also a big fan of the Oxford comma. But, given that I live in Cambridge, should I be calling it the Other Place comma?
I am a big fan of the Oxford comma when the sense requires it.. A slavish Yankee-style adherence to it under any circumstances is tin-eared.
I enjoyed all the films, particularly when they got darker and less, er, childish. I’ve only read the final book, and thought it was fine (although it would have benefited from being shorter). For whatever reason, the book struck me as 100% targeted at children while the films had a lot more appeal for adults.
But whatever the format, it’s obvious that JKR has imagination to burn, and can come up with a lot of interesting ideas, in both the HP books and as Robert Galbraith. Her job as a writer is to tell a good tale, and she can certainly do that. If those tales get children interested in reading, and maybe other/better writers, then all credit to her.
As for AS Byatt, before today I had little interest in her work, and having read that article, I now have even less.
The Byatt article contains some interesting observations, but at its root is a fairly typical middle aged lament for the deterioration of culture over time.
Forty years ago you’d have read many of these same arguments being deployed against adults continuing to listen to Pop music beyond their teens and yet…. here we all are.
Personally, I have always had a deep distrust of those who loudly pride themselves on having put away childish things. It usually proves the case that their self-proclaimed excess of maturity is inadequate compensation for a surfeit of actual personality.
In an age where reading is on the decline, I say anything that gets noses in books without hurting anyone is to be applauded. And the world would measurably be the worse for the absence of the Potter books. Of all the things to which one might object they seem a little eyebrow raising.
I haven’t seen or read any of the HPs, but I do think Daniel Radcliffe and Rupert Grint have turned into fine actors after their youthful beginnings.
I recently watched Wild Target (2010), with Grint, Emily Blunt and Bill Nighy. A most enjoyable comedy in which Grint is very funny. And I’m currently on the second season of M Night Shyalaman’s tv series Servant, which I’m really enjoying, and Grint is superb in it. I haven’t seen any films with Radcliffe that I would particularly recommend, but in those I have seen (Kill Your Darlings, Horns, Swiss Army Man, Guns Akimbo) he always gives a good performance.
Interesting thread, @Arthur-Cowslip – plenty for and against and relatively little indifference, which is always good.
I have to ask, though: how come the 20-year old article popped up in your Facebook?
Yeah, I agree it’s thrown up some interesting points! As for why it came up on my Facebook, I’m not sure. I now can’t find the post. I follow a couple of Alan Garner groups so it might be that.
Alan Garner page as it’s just appeared on my page.
Can’t comment on JKR as I’ve not read any or seen the films.
Mind you I’m not keen on JJRT.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/112469885438879/permalink/6728844870467981/
Who or what is JJRT?
And what might they have to do with JKR?
(Asking for a friend)
Sorry I’d nodded off (asleep for an hour) and my eyes were a bit fuzzy when I woke. JRRT I meant to put.
Japanese Journal of Radiological Technology
Excellent!
I got through A level English and can’t abide “high art/ low art” cultural snobbery. A lot of humbug and special pleading. It’s the old Keats/ Dylan debate. It’s a bit of an archaic debate now, as compared to even 20 years ago, recreational reading now marks you out as a sophisticate.
I have not read HP as I am not a child, but I saw some of the films as a dutiful dad, and the first few were entertaining family fare, if formulaic “school story” stuff. My residual class war tendencies see boarding schools as places where emotionally blind abusive parents send their children, and hope they’ll come out OK, so the Hogwarts elite thing does not exactly rub me the right way. But I dont quite understand why Oxbridge culture ponce AS Byatt reviewed HP anyway; did she review “Jennings” or Angela Brazil? What are her views on the latest “Fast and Furious” film, the new album by “Metallica”?
Agree, agree, agree. The Keats/Dylan thing is spot on.
My thing about high and low culture is, they are real things, but it also doesn’t matter. I love both. HP isn’t Possession, which I have read (and loved) but so what? ASB’s attempted takedown just makes her look a bit silly, and it’s hard to avoid the impression it comes from a place of sour grapes, probably related to sales: as someone else says, she’s a Pratchett fan, so it’s not genre snobbery, but neither she nor Terry are anything like medium-transcending household names, as JKR was already when ASB wrote this.
FWIW I adore Potter. Is it always flawless prose, or super original? No, but it doesn’t matter. Those who say it’s just a synthesis of classic tropes fail to mention that, despite being clever enough to spot that it’s just a synthesis of classic tropes, they themselves didn’t synthesise the tropes. JK Rowling did, and made hundreds of millions of quid by doing so very effectively.
Your last para: very much so. Those who look at artwork, or listen to music etc and tut, ‘well, I could have done that’
I’m sure they could have. The point being – they didn’t.
Also HP books and films. I don’t mind reading anything whether aimed at children or adults as long as there is a decent modicum of wit and charm to it. As such, the HP’s were I thought perfectly servicable bits of kit and led me back to Anthony Buckeridge’ ‘Jennings’ stories. Buckeridge being an unsung Wodehouse, I still think.
Where was I? Anyway. There.
I’ve never read any Rowling for my own pleasure, but I read the Potter books to my kids and found them very cleverly written and full of vivid imagery. It’s very obviously a hotchpotch of C.S Lewis, the Sword in the Stone, Tom Brown’s school days, etc, but – as you say – if mixing those elements was so very obvious and easy someone would have done it long before Rowling got there.
I don’t think it’s genre-snobbery at play, I think it’s a belief that culture has been dumbed down, that adults are stupider for reading books written for children, and that when it comes to kids’ books fings ain’t wot they used to be.
A.S Byatt likes Pratchett, because Pratchett’s books have the appearance of children’s novels, but are written for adults. Hence, they contain a range of vocab and wordplay found nowhere in Rowling’s work (I’m guessing not even the thrillers). Also, let’s not forget “He writes amazing sentences”. I’m certainly glad someone does – yeesh.
However, in addition to being a classic example of gatekeeping (oh no – some adults are reading *the wrong books*!), Byatt’s analysis does beg the question as to why, if the Potter books are indeed for children, she herself feels the need to overlay them with an analysis comprised of pure psychoanalytic twaddle. I particularly enjoyed “There are no insights that reflect someone on the verge of adulthood. Harry’s first date with a female wizard is unbelievably limp, filled with an 8-year-old’s conversational maneuvers.” Yes, that was my big concern with the Harry Potter novels too – Harry’s first date is insufficiently priapic.
Ultimately, if these are children’s novels and therefore verboten for adults, simply note as much and move on. Certainly spare us nonsensical statements such as “Nobody is trying to save or destroy anything beyond Harry Potter and his friends and family” – clearly inaccurate, but why would this be a problem even if it were so? You could make a similar argument about Hamlet (although you wouldn’t, because it would be daft).
Likewise, in Byatt’s central complaint as to why these books are not suited for adults, her contention that children’s books of the past retained a “compensating seriousness” as represented by “dangerous creatures in dark forests”. My faint recollection is that Rowling’s own dark forest is chock full of giant spiders and hooded creatures that feed on centaurs, which would seem dangerous enough to me, but according to Byatt, evidently made of sterner stuff, said forest “is small, and on the school grounds, and dangerous only because she (Rowling) says it is.” Evidently the giant spiders are simply in the wrong geographic location, and lacking the necessary scope of habitat to be truly scary. Set them loose off the school premises and then we’ll talk.
The most telling section of the essay is the following: “Ms. Rowling, I think, speaks to an adult generation that hasn’t known, and doesn’t care about, mystery. They are inhabitants of urban jungles, not of the real wild. They don’t have the skills to tell ersatz magic from the real thing, for as children they daily invested the ersatz with what imagination they had.”
I’m afraid that what we have here at heart is a fairly standard issue moan that today’s adults (or those of 2003 at least) did not have the good fortune to enjoy the bucolic splendor of A.S Byatt’s own childhood, thereby rendering them incapable of the necessary feats of imagination to truly appreciate magic in literature. Jumpers for goalposts, a smiling policeman on every street, bobbing for apples, proper community, and so on.
From that perspective, it’s ironic that Byatt condemns the imaginative lives of contemporary adults, when she herself displays in this piece so little ability to imagine an inner life of others that is distinct from her own and yet still of value.
Oh, I say! Chapeau!
Indeed!
Dylan – Bob or Thomas? I’d choose His Bobness over Thomas any day.
Close call for me, as a King Crimson fan.
Oxbridge Culture Ponce.
I want one of those t-shirts.
TMFTL
It’s just like a cartoon…by AAP!
Actually, I genuinely admire young JK. The amount of kids/now adults worldwide who read books – directly because of her – is astonishing. She has, probably, raised literacy rates by about 20% on her own.
The late Mrs thep read the first Harry Potter book for a publisher, forget who, when it was being shopped around. She absolutely loathed it. Retrograde nonsense, was her pithy opinion. Apart from anything else, she said, it was a shameless rip-off of Jill Murphy’s Worst Witch books. At least she couldn’t be accused of jealousy at that stage.
As time went by, however, she did credit JKR with getting boys to read the books as much as girls did, which was something very few children’s authors had pulled off – since Enid Blyton, probably.
@mikethep did she have any professional regrets, having rejected it? I imagine it’s an occupational hazard.
“Books about wizards are on their way out Ms Rowling”…..
Not that I remember…but whoever she was reading it for turned it down too, as did load of other publishers, so she wasn’t alone.
Came back from a Cornish holiday about 15 years ago (would that be right?) and everyone in the train carriage seemed to be reading the latest one that presumably had come out that weekend. Adults too, indeed mainly adults.
I think I preferred the people who populated Inter-City trains after an away match in the dire. Now I come to think of it, I definitely did, they weren’t as scary.
Course you did.
Indeed they published the books with adult covers so that you wouldn’t be embarrassed to be seen reading a children’s book, not sure if that worked.
I have only happy memories associated with the HP books and films. Reading the early books to the kids, them reading the later ones themselves. Plus JKR seems like one of life’s good eggs.
This, in a nutshell, encapsulates what I think – and expresses it better than my attempt further above.
Simon Armitage talks to J.K. Rowling in his excellent ‘Poet Laureate Has Gone to His Shed’ series on Radio 4. It’s available on BBC Sounds and is well worth a listen.
I read the early ones to my daughters and they loved them. One daughter became a HP obsessive and still rereads them, very much for comfort as Byatt says she does with Tolkein.
To be fair to Byatt, she does acknowledge that the books have strengths as children’s books but she is puzzled by their popularity for adults. I must admit I share that view – whilst I think they are brilliant as children’s books I never felt inclined to read them for my own pleasure. Where I disagree with her is that she seems to have a down on children’s books per se with a few exceptions. I can’t compare JKR with Alan Garner and the others she cites, but I will remain ever grateful to the likes of Anthony Buckeridge, Richmal Crompton, and, yes, Enid Blyton, who fired my imagination when I was a child as Rowling did that of my daughters. To do that for so many young people is a great achievement and it takes no small amount of skill.
I admire Rowling and love the fact that the HP books get children so enthusiatic about reading. But I share Byatt’s puzzlement at their popularity among adults. I don’t think it’s a question of high culture vs low culture but a question of adults’ tastes vs children’s tastes. The books were written for a specific demographic (9ish to 13ish). I can’t see the appeal for adults. Like comic books or superhero movies. Where does one draw the line? Can adults find David Walliams’ children’s books enjoyable? Tellytubbies and Peppa Pig?
There is a time and a place for things. I for one am almost at (company) penison age and enjoy comics. They are enjoyable and relaxing. Same with HP – just watched most of them with the GLW because they are now on Netflix.
She has a stressful job and sometimes is in the mood for stretching content, but often isnt. I tend to “relax” reading the Economist, boring books (currently Nudge), and getting angry on Twitter. Oh and comix (currently Absolom from 2000AD). Sometimes you just want something less taxing.
And of course my Chem Eng daughter has basically only read HP, Thursday murder club and Outlander books in her life (philosopher twin brother inhales books). She would not be reading ASByatt instead. Truly.
And I could be wrong but I think she was once asked about what English students should read and said that by 16 they should have read all Shakespeare, all Dickens, Chaucer, all Elliot, all Austen, Milton, Spenser…. enough that it was about a book every other day from age 13. It may represent her life but is unrealistic for most people.
Oh and I love Pratchett. And if anyone tells me Love and Rockets isnt literature I’ll thump them (well, I wont really but I will give them a Paddington stare).
Are you implying there a penis off age??!! Christ, this is worse news than that time I found out about Santa!!!
#Kraplife
I am in my mid-50s with a daughter in her early 20s. My personal highlights of the last couple of weeks have been (what my mum would call) a pop concert in the back room of a pub, and buying a haul of pop records for a bargain price. Kidult? Quite possibly.
I really don’t think I’d like to spend an evening in Byatt’s company any more than she’d like to hear the Kane Gang album that I bought for two quid.
I think a lot of the flak towards the books came from comparisons to Tolkien. Tolkien spent decades creating a world and then set a narrative within that world. Rowling very obviously just made stuff up on the spot.
I read the first book years ago, when it was just starting to create a buzz as a kids book that adults would enjoy. I thought the writing was dreadful and very much in the Enid Blyton camp of smashing adventures. But I also feel that way about reading Enid Blyton as an adult, and I guess that’s the point. The target audience loved them enough for there to still be a thriving Harry Potter themed shop in my local village of Samford here near Brisbane.
Good point about Tolkien – he was a professor of English language and, IIRC, he invented the series of languages first. Then he created the world where these languages would be spoken, and the differing races who would speak them, along with the history of his world from its creation to his “present”.
The narrative came well down the list. I suspect LoTR might not have been written, if he hadn’t wanted to try out his languages.
JKR is a writer of children’s stories, and none the worse for that.
She’s not JUST a writer of children’s stories though. The Strike series are decent crime fiction IMO, not literary masterpieces but populated with interesting characters and well-plotted. I particularly liked her first non-HP social commentary novel “The Casual Vacancy” which is as unlike the world of young wizards as you’re ever likely to see.
Fair comment. I suppose I was thinking about the Harry Potter books, since they were the focus of The Egregious Byatt’s ire. I’ve never read any of JKR’s other books – worth a shot?
If you like crime fiction (a lot of people don’t) the Strike series are hardly up there with Raymond Chandler, but as I said above they’re well-plotted and the characters are fairly believable. The TV adaptation is pretty close to the books.
“The Casual Vacancy” is an interesting one-off social commentary tale. It was adapted, with an excellent cast, as a 3-parter for BBC TV and pretty well-received when it aired early in 2015. The TV adaptation was rated as better than the novel.
Thanks.
Read ’em all, and seen all the movies, because I had a son who liked going to the movies when I visited him. And I enjoyed all of them, taking them for what they were.
I read comments by the likes of Byatt, and I can’t help but wonder…how much of it is just jealousy? And how much of it snobbery? Popular and quality can’t coexist, and therefore JKR’s work is substandard.
Is JKR going to win the Nobel for literature? No. Did she create a fun world that energized a generation of kids to read, and participate? Yes. So, a net win for JKR.
This is the right answer. And the confected furore about the T thing isn’t even wrong. To be controversial, JKR is simply what used to be called “sensible”.
“The T thing”! 🙂 Well, now, whatever can you mean! It’s funny how that’s now become a defining part of her public image.
Whilst I think she underestimates the HP books, I don’t think Byatt’s analysis is just down to literary snobbery – she does cite Pratchett and Garner as writers she admires.
Read the first 3 books with my son. He got tired with them but his attention span is as brittle as mine. Love the films. They’re one of my go-to options on long flights (just about every airline across the Atlantic has them). We’ve also done the Universal Studios stuff in CA which is brilliant. It’s escapism really I suppose, much like the Star Wars universe.
I read at least the first 3 or 4 to both of my daughters – I much enjoyed the earlier ‘fluffier’ ones that were peppered with gags & seemed quite comfortable with the fact that the settings were pretty derivative.
As the series went on, I found the repetition & increasing ‘dark seriousness’ pretty tiresome & never finished the whole run.
JKR’s triumph is really the sheer number of young readers that were encouraged into the reading habit. Some of those will never read anything else, some will have fallen out of love with JKR over the ‘T thing’ , but many others will go on to read every imaginable genre & some will go on to be writers themselves. I don’t think any writer in recent times comes close to that kind of impact.
I think Byatt’s beef is more concerning the culture of ‘kidults’ & in that she may have a point, but it can’t be laid at the door of JKR, being more an aspect of marketing & commodification.
I can’t count myself as a JKR fan, but on balance, her contribution to getting people to read is a huge positive.
I trust all of us who applaud JK for stimulating the reading bug in children feel equally warmly towards Louis Walsh and Simon Cowell for getting our kids into music with their faceless parade of boy/girl bands..
Are you suggesting the parallel – or just being provocative?
Cos you might be on to something…
Mostly joshing fitter, although it does seem odd, here, of all places, to hear people tutting about someone being sniffy and dismissive about creative stuff they don’t care for.
I’ve heard that the children of The Lighthouse Family still cry themselves to sleep because of that one time they visited this site..
That’s brightened up my day.
Arf!
I would be very much up for a faceless boy band. Sounds ace.
It’s not really the same, is it? Kids listened to music before Walsh and Cowell, in much the same volume. X Factor just changed for a while the type of music they listened to.
Rowling isn’t being praised for getting kids to read more books about wizards. She’s being praised for demonstrably raising the actual rate of reading for an entire generation.
Personally I favour pretty much anything that works as an entry point to the arts.
All kinds of disposable tosh, pulp & downright trash has performed that function in the past & will continue to do so – even including the odious Cowell – (I’m sure loads of youngsters will have discovered laughing Len Cohen as a result of godawful versions of ‘Hallelujah’ performed as auditions on talent shows) & if that’s what it takes, I’m fine with it.
JKR is rather different though, because reading isn’t a passive occupation, like watching telly or listening to music, & requires a little encouragement to ‘work the reading muscle’ . I think getting the reading bug at any age is great – I have an in-law who only learned to read in his 40s & dived right into Dostoevsky, Camus & Nietzsche with the zeal that only the newly illuminated can muster.
If there’d been a JKR equivalent when he was a kid, he may have got started decades earlier.
I must say I’m absolutely baffled by this idea, that most of you seem to share, that adults shouldn’t read and enjoy childrens books. I’ve never heard such nonsense – why shouldn’t we?
I’m 56, I learned to read at 4, and immediately became an avid and obsessive reader who’d go through any book I could get my hands onto – which included anything from picture books to Shakespeare, Strindberg and the contemporary novels my mum borrowed from the local library. I enjoyed all genres – at the time I was most interested in the books written for an adult audience (because they taught me things I didn’t know about yet), but childrens books were usually funnier.
These reading habits have continued all through my life. I still read mostly books written for adults, but ever so often I’ll read a childrens book, or YA, or a picture book (there are some absolute corkers in that genre) and have the best time and usually a whole lot of laughs – which so called humorous novels for adults very seldom manages to provide.
Just because I’m able to read Ulysses and love it, why should I stop enjoying things like Harry Potter (which I enjoyed, especially the first few) or Diana Wynn Jones or, for that matter, a brilliant picture book version of Waiting for Godot?
You’re missing out, in my opinion.
Isn’t it that people believe, quite correctly in my view; that they will not appreciate nor really find anything revelatory or improving in children’s literature. Why not read something that you have a better chance of enjoying?
Well; I certainly try to avoid any childrens books that are written to be revelatory and improving!
Yes.
Revelation and improvement from reading books are vastly overrated. IMO.
No hope for you two. That AS Byatt book Possession, respect.
Anyone who uknks they couldn’t find something in, say, Philip Pullman”s work, or indeed some of that Neil Gaiman, Diana Wynne Jones, SE Hinton, Marcus Zusak, Angie Thomas and others, really isn’t trying very hard. Or hasn’t read them.
Don’t they mostly write for “young adults” though, rather than for children?
I hoovered up Pullman’s Lyra books and never for one moment thought I was slumming it with children’s books.
JK set out to write engaging fantasy fiction for teens, aiming for entertainment rather than literature, and succeeded beyond anybody’s expectations. The movies were entirely successful adaptations, and the Harry Potter books, on paper and celluloid, have given millions and millions of people massive amounts of pleasure. It’s not for me, but that’s irrelevant. AS Byatt, however, can give that stick up her arse another twist.
JK has also the honour, in the US, of being hated by the Evangelist Right for her “satanic” stories, and cancelled by the Extreme Woke for her “transphobic” comments, so she must be doing something right.
Did you actually read her article? Just wondering.
JK Rowling wrote an article?
I read it. She finishes with a kwote from Keats, always good to drag into any argument. I get it, but I don’t get why she bothered. The Harry Potter universe is for those who want to inhabit it. Not I, but I can see the appeal. Byatt seems to me to be criticising Rowling’s books for being what they’re not, like criticising Star Wars for not being 2001. Who cares? Rowling’s achievement is colossal, getting people (of any age) to read anything is mostly a hopeless struggle.
I never much enjoyed kids’ books, even as a kid. I learned to read, I could read, I saw no sense in hanging around the kids’ shelves of Earlsdon Library (a jewel in the Carnegie crown). I was taking home SF (particularly Ray Bradbury) and ghost/horror stories (Algernon Blackwood amongst many others), much of it shouting at me from the shelves in garish yellow and red jackets. I read James Bond as an Old Child, pre-Young Adult. We read what we want to read, and shouldn’t read what other people want us to read. JK Rowling does nothing for me, but neither does AS Byatt. I’m currently bingeing on Jordan Harper (an Archie Valparaiso© recommendation) – beautifully crafted stories of despicable people doing bad shit.
Why she bothered is presumably because she was going to get paid for writing the article. Though not poor, I don’t imagine AS Byatt is especially rich.
Her net worth for this year is between 950,000 and five million dollars. It says so right here on the internet.
Blimey!
There’s gold in that typewriter!
And back in 2003 there would have been a lot more head-scratching going on about the Harry Potter phenomenon than there is now. Except on the Afterword, obviously.
This thread got a lot more responses than I predicted. I humbly thank you all, and I have read and considered everyone’s view. Some of you are Voices of Reason, some of you are Cranks. I will not say which is which. 🙂
One thing which has stuck out is how hard it is to criticise children’s entertainment. I suppose the same applies to all the arts, but it seems to me (on the basis of this thread anyway) that in criticising children’s entertainment it’s really hard to avoid accusations of snobbery and/or not understanding that you can’t apply the same rules as adult-orientated arts and literature.
For those of you who have come out in support of JK Rowling, I’m afraid I must admit you haven’t really changed my mind and I still don’t like the Harry Potter books or films. I know, I know, I know, she’s driven reading habits up immensely and she’s given pleasure to millions of people, etc etc. But still I can’t help thinking that if there’s going to be a cause we all rally around and hold up, can’t it be better than a daft story about wands and boarding school? (I’m being facetious for effect, please don’t take me to task on that comment, I know there’s a bit more to the books than that).
I suppose what I’m saying is, effectively, Harry Potter deserves more of a critic’s eye on it because it’s just so big. There are plenty of pieces of children’s entertainment which are popular which I’m quite happy to ignore and accept as light entertainment. I’m pretty happy saying Yu-gi-Oh, Barney the Dinosaur, Transformers and Alvin and the Chipmunks (for example) are all rubbish and forgettable, for example, and that Hey Duggee, Spongebob Squarepants and In The Night Garden (for example) all show signs of genius. They don’t really bother me in the end and I don’t bother them, and I’m happy for my offspring to engage with any of them. BUT it seems like certain things like Harry Potter get put on a pedestal, probably just by virtue of being SO popular… surely with that kind of exposure you have to expect curmudgeons like A S Byatt (and me) to start judging them and offering critical opinion?
After all, isn’t that why we’re all here? Curmudgeons, analysts, critics and egregiants (is that a word?) unite!
You are all correct in your own ways and I love you all. Next month I’ll be posting my thoughts on Dr Who, so watch out for that and we can all have an argument about whether it’s fair to criticise light entertainment sci-fi.
“ if there’s going to be a cause we all rally around and hold up, can’t it be better than a daft story about wands and boarding school?”
Hi Arthur. I really don’t think it’s a cause that we are all rallying around. Waaaay too strong. Just responding to your (YOUR) OP, but not taking to the streets with placards just yet…
Also, you brought it on yourself – I for one had not read The Egregious Byatt’s critique and, if you hadn’t posted the link, would have remained in blissful ignorance that such even existed. You poked the bear! But it’s been a very interesting thread to follow, so thank you!
Ultimately, if you’re after considered opinion and nuanced criticism on the writings of JK Rowling then titling the thread “Harry Potter is written for people whose imaginative lives are confined to TV cartoons” probably sets the wrong tone 🙂
“not taking to the streets with placards just yet…”
Speak for yourself.
It’s hard to pick you out in the crowd, Gary – everyone’s facing the wrong way!
He’s the blonde to the right.
My best wig. (€13.25 from Amazon.)
I rather suspect that my quote above has been c&p’d and taken out of context…
This one?
Mummy! Gawd bless her.
This is a website almost entirely dedicated to still loving kids’ stuff in age. I’d have thought if anywhere were likely to rightly defend the joy of unsophistication, it would be here. I’m all for it.
Excellent point.
In a slightly related way, there was an interesting article in the New Yorker the other week about the Marvel Comic Universe. I had heard of it but didn’t realise it was so big. I have seen Thor and thought it was a bit dull, just not my kind of thing. A lot of the article is about how this franchise, which seems to be the term, developed. But there are also comments from people who think it is having a negative impact on other types of films, such as this one.
“Marvel’s success, he added, has “sucked the air out of” more human-scaled entertainments. Whole species of movies—adult dramas, rom-coms—have become endangered, since audiences are happy to wait and stream “Tár” or “Book Club: The Next Chapter,” or to get their grownup kicks from such series as “Succession” or “The White Lotus.” ”
And a couple of years ago, Martin Scorsese said the Marvel films weren’t real films.
If people enjoy these films, I can’t see anything wrong with that. But I do think there is something in the idea that a lot of the more interesting types of film in the seventies struggle to get made now, in Hollywood at least. They made money then, the only reason that the studios backed them, but don’t seem to now.
I’m not sure if this link will work for non-subscribers but here it is anyway.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/06/12/how-the-marvel-cinematic-universe-swallowed-hollywood
“Whole species of movies—adult dramas, rom-coms—have become endangered, since audiences are happy to wait and stream “Tár” or “Book Club: The Next Chapter
That’s a very long article, no way I’ll ever find time to read it, but one thing I already feel compelled to say: while superhero/Marvel movies don’t interest me at all, none of them could possibly be as bad as Book Club: The Next Chapter, which I was forced to sit through last weekend. Dire beyond belief. Jane Fonda and Diane Keaton shouldn’t be anywhere near utter shite like that. If films of that level of shiteness are “endangered” by Marvel, then I might even become a fan!
Two things:
1. the squeezing out of decent-sized budget films for grown ups in favour of mega budget Cert 12s and cheaply made indie or genre films started before the Marvel juggernaut ever got going.
And this isn’t an absolute catastrophe as prestige television and streaming turns out to be a better way to tell complicated stories with mature and nuanced themes. Also – I don’t have to go out..
2. said Marvel juggernaut is running out of steam now, although the template of a “cinematic universe” or daisy chain franchise will have a comet tail influence in cinemas for a few years yet..
Point 1 is entirely correct.
The highest grossing movie of the year in 1988 was Rain Man. Unimaginable now.
In 2023, you simply cannot drag people to the cinema to watch movies of that kind. The audience has long since demonstrated that they’re quite happy to watch a well written, well acted drama at home on their 50 inch TV screen. They go to the movies for visual spectacle, and where they’re confident they’ll have a good time based on previous experiences (hence franchises). They’re not going to the time and cost for something they feel they have on tap in the house.
They’re also drowning in high quality TV they don’t have time to watch as it is, and as the traditional window model has eroded they know that the wait for content to migrate from cinema to TV screen is only getting shorter. Oh, and the supplementary DVD business is no longer there to give an underperforming theatrical title a little extra life. Movie releases are riskier than before.
All of this is to my own personal disappointment, because I would absolutely love to go to the movies and be offered a slate as varied as in decades gone by, but you cannot fight market forces in the end. The audience will get what it wants. Dramas will go to streaming services, and the silver screen will be reserved for CGIfests, kids movies, horror and the odd sparky Brit flick.
Personally, I think cinemas have got their value proposition wrong. If it’s always bigger screens, better sound and more explosive spectacle for a higher price, they’ll just winnow their offering down further and further. They need to look at how retail (smart retail, anyway) has responded to online competition; make your bricks and mortar site a place worth visiting. That means leaning on the magic of watching a good movie in a crowd – that shared human experience thing. It means selling the virtues of two hours in a dark room with no one bothering you (which is something most of us struggle to get these days). And most of all it means ensuring that screenings aren’t disrupted by people talking loudly/on their phones/doing god knows what else. That latter point seems to have got worse since lockdown and I’m amazed that it’s so widely tolerated when it’s so obviously toxic for business.
I’ll keep going to the movies as long as there are movies to go to, but I do hope some of these trends can be reversed at some stage. Either that or more specialist cinemas emerge to show old movies.
I’m a bookworm and have never been able to read or fathom JK Rowling books, even in emergency situations such as pre-internet long bus/plane journeys when Harry Potter was the only English lit available. I once tried in a controlled setting to ‘see what I was missing” but still emerged none the wiser.