(no subject)
www.theawl.com/2010/11/harry-potter-and-the-incredibly-conservative-aristocratic-childrens-club
qualifier: though among adults, it seems like people are either devout harry potter fans, or they just aren’t really into it, i actually probably fit somewhere in the middle. i mean, i like it, but not that much. im writing about it because i get into it when good writers like this critic write from really weird perspectives about stuff like this.
i enjoy the nice language in which this review is written, and think that most of what it says is true, that the story of harry potter and his world are really failures as examples of choice over destiny, and anyone being able to do anything they set their hearts on, etc, and that the stories instead reinforce systematic entitlement and implicitly disavow the kind of righteous DIY right-making rebellion that Rowling seems to want them to stand for, but like, is it okay if that is not the point? I thought the appeal of the stories was that everyone, especially every kid, wishes that s/he had a wand in his/her pocket or a lightning bolt hidden by bangs that was going to serve up some “AWWW, NOW WHAT!!” when you know, regular boring, trying, wait-in-line life starts to seem sucky, right? I thought the books were just giving kids a place to go in their minds where they could put slugs in bully’s mouths, and teachers always knew if you were a good person even if you got in trouble, and there were flying cars, a place where the world itself, literally, the objects, seemed to empathize with the moment and leave them less alone in the normal shit. It’s just a really appealing, elaborately constructed fantasy. I guess i figure that the adults surrounding children are more of an influence on them about what to expect from the world in terms of values and ethics and eventually politics than the books they are reading, hopefully. I also dont like how the critic offers choices that she thinks are more morally consistent with what she expected out of the HP series, i guess, because its really presumptuous to say ‘this is what you really wanted to say’, both to Rowling and then also about all the authors she then refers to. More importantly than that, i think if we start talking about the HP series as literature with which we are going to teach our children about the perils of racial cleansing and class wars, picking another book from the same YA section of the library probably isn’t the kind of different choice we need to consider. As i said, in my experience working with kids, i think it matters much less what theyre reading and much more who is engaging them about it at the dinner table/tutoring desk/whatever. In the meantime, reading’s not really famous for fucking up kids’ lives, and telling them not to read stuff is a pretty good way to get them to read it anyway, so while we’re trying to devise a way to make them get really into lolita and catch 22 and all that, i mean, hey man. Chill. lets not fail to see the forbidden forest for the whomping willows, amiright?
qualifier: though among adults, it seems like people are either devout harry potter fans, or they just aren’t really into it, i actually probably fit somewhere in the middle. i mean, i like it, but not that much. im writing about it because i get into it when good writers like this critic write from really weird perspectives about stuff like this.
i enjoy the nice language in which this review is written, and think that most of what it says is true, that the story of harry potter and his world are really failures as examples of choice over destiny, and anyone being able to do anything they set their hearts on, etc, and that the stories instead reinforce systematic entitlement and implicitly disavow the kind of righteous DIY right-making rebellion that Rowling seems to want them to stand for, but like, is it okay if that is not the point? I thought the appeal of the stories was that everyone, especially every kid, wishes that s/he had a wand in his/her pocket or a lightning bolt hidden by bangs that was going to serve up some “AWWW, NOW WHAT!!” when you know, regular boring, trying, wait-in-line life starts to seem sucky, right? I thought the books were just giving kids a place to go in their minds where they could put slugs in bully’s mouths, and teachers always knew if you were a good person even if you got in trouble, and there were flying cars, a place where the world itself, literally, the objects, seemed to empathize with the moment and leave them less alone in the normal shit. It’s just a really appealing, elaborately constructed fantasy. I guess i figure that the adults surrounding children are more of an influence on them about what to expect from the world in terms of values and ethics and eventually politics than the books they are reading, hopefully. I also dont like how the critic offers choices that she thinks are more morally consistent with what she expected out of the HP series, i guess, because its really presumptuous to say ‘this is what you really wanted to say’, both to Rowling and then also about all the authors she then refers to. More importantly than that, i think if we start talking about the HP series as literature with which we are going to teach our children about the perils of racial cleansing and class wars, picking another book from the same YA section of the library probably isn’t the kind of different choice we need to consider. As i said, in my experience working with kids, i think it matters much less what theyre reading and much more who is engaging them about it at the dinner table/tutoring desk/whatever. In the meantime, reading’s not really famous for fucking up kids’ lives, and telling them not to read stuff is a pretty good way to get them to read it anyway, so while we’re trying to devise a way to make them get really into lolita and catch 22 and all that, i mean, hey man. Chill. lets not fail to see the forbidden forest for the whomping willows, amiright?