New Harry Potter book

[Peter Giordano]

Josh said:
[...]
>I've read it advanced that the Potter books are actually popular
>with adults because they're dumb, mediocre books that make the readers
>feel comfortable.

I say:
Harry Potter is everywhere lately, featured on the cover of Time (but not
as man of the year yet), making the rounds of the TV talk shows (in the
guise of the author J.K. Rowling), and holding the top three slots on the
NY Times Bestseller List.  He's making headlines as both the savior of
literacy and the spawn of Satan.  But what's lost in this all this noise is
the fact that, when all is said and done, Harry Potter is boring.  He's
popular the way Big Macs are popular; it's easy to sell something bland and
formulaic.

The first clue to Harry Potter's franchise status is in the interesting
title switch.  Harry became all the rage in Britain under the title Harry
Potter and the Philosopher's Stone.  Since no red-blooded American would be
caught dead with a book about philosophy, the title had to change.  So as
Harry crossed the Atlantic, he dropped the Philosopher's Stone and picked
up the Sorcerer's Stone; the occult sells better than contemplation.

The second problem is the gross simplicity of the plot and characters.
Magic works in these novels the same way Waylon Jennings' singing worked in
the TV show The Dukes of Hazard.  Whenever Bo, Luke and Daisy got into a
pickle they couldn't get out of, the show would cut to Waylon Jennings
singing yet another variation of "Good Ol' Boys" and the problem would be
miraculously solved.  Logic, character development, consistency even within
the parameters of the story, were always ignored.  Harry has the same luck.
Whenever he's in a jam or things aren't going well, he manages to find some
long lost spell or some arcane rule of quidditch to make everything all
right.

Character development is, of course, out of the question.   Just like the
rule requiring every Big Mac around the world to taste equally bland, every
character in the Potter books is either good or bad from start to finish.
Harry runs the emotional gamut from A to A and back again.  The villains
twirl their mustaches and cackle like an army of Snidely Whiplashes.  The
characters in the Potter books are all gross cartoon exaggerations; but as
Homer Simpson has proven, even cartoon characters can have hearts.  Too bad
Harry hasn't learned that.

The real trouble with Harry is that his oversized ego and the hype all
around him is crowding everybody else out of the field of new children's
books.  He's like the George W. Bush of children's literature.  If you want
to read books that don't insult the intelligence of your inner child try
Holes by Louis Sachar, or The View from Saturday by E. L. Konigsburg.
Jules Feiffer has two amazing novels: A Barrel of Laughs, a Vale of Tears
and The Man in the Ceiling.  Or if you need something British try The
Daydreamer  by Ian McEwan.  Like Harry, these books were all written in the
last five or six years; and like Harry, they all have magic of one kind or
another.  But unlike Harry, these books are also fresh and intelligent.
These books aren't products to be mass-produced for maximum sales; these
books have hearts.

Peter