Is the 'Harry Potter' series overrated?

Do you think YA fiction is restrictive because of its readers? I don't think it's a matter of understanding what's happening but a matter of relating to what's happening. Do YA readers have trouble relating to the characters/themes/ideas found in adult literature? There are plenty of non-YA books that deal with adolescent themes (i.e., Portrait of the Artist by James Joyce and The Raw Youth by Dostoevsky), yet we don't call them YA. Why is that? Is it a stylistic issue? Because it's certainly not a thematic one. Do YA readers identify more closely with characters like Harry Potter, Bella, etc.? You don't need to answer these questions; they're just there to get a discussion going.

 

I know it didn't for me. I was bullied and extremely alone, yet I was smart too. YA's that deal with these issues, never do it in a realistic manner that ever spoke to me. I just rolled my eyes and went, I wish my life was that simple. In YA novels they always always always have a role model figure, someone to give them advice and confidence. It may seem boring, but where is the main character who couldn't get help at all from anyone? Why do they always have some wise figure in their life? I guess my detest came from the fact that when I was in school I was really really hurting inside and no one, no one wanted to write about that.

Where as we struggle with strong female leads for young readers. We struggle for emotionally vulnerable young men for readers, I think.

Lovecraft, Poe, Homer, Stein, Bradbury, Snicket, just to name a few took me elsewhere from the pain. Or they took me to my most inner dark fantasies of murder and killing. They Bradbury, Poe, and Lovecraft were the ones that inspired me to write. They inspired me to write horror novels and explore the depths of human psychology.

 

Ah, I see what you mean now. Thanks for the clarification. Yeah, it does get tiring reading the same tropes over and over again.

I like your strategy, but I've got a few problems with it:

You're having Voldemort's men gather bombers and other weaponry that the British government would need to fight a war. How are they going to do this without getting caught? Voldemort wouldn't need to use muggle military weaponry. You said it yourself, he's got the entire magical government behind him. He's basically the de facto ruler of the wizarding world. I know of one single thing that he could do that doesn't require Bond-level stealth and smuggling. He just wants Harry, no? It's not like he's trying to invade Wizarding World France or Wizarding World Germany, no?

Here's what he could do: have Harry tried for treason. Think about it. Almost every time Harry has been accused of something, almost everyone turns their back on him. Imagine if Voldemort had been smart enough to try Harry for treason? Make up a story where Harry was so selfish and self-centered, he revived Voldemort and put the wizard world at risk so he could stroke his own self-glory as 'The Boy who Lived'. If he had done that, Harry would have quickly become the most hated wizard, the Vidkun of the wizarding world. Voldemort's men would then be free to hunt Harry down, collect him, and Voldemort could proceed to do a public execution of Harry. Preferably with someone else performing the kill.

That or...just kill the kid in the fourth book when he had the twerp tied to the gravestone. Seriously, he could've simply pointed his wand and said, "Avada Kedavra" rather than, "Crucio". I'll excuse that moment as I'm sure he was still riding high on the whole 'yay, I'm alive again!' trip. But by the seventh book, he had three years to figure out how to kill Harry.

And woo! Go fellow CrashCourse! *high fives*

 

Wow, I hate to be the one to defend Harry Potter. But Voldemort couldn't kill Harry Potter in the fourth year. Because his parents charm to protected him from his harm, until he was 17th. Which seems like a pretty shitty charm to me, but eh whatever.

 

I'm sure there are books like that out there. In fact, I guarantee it. It just may be that they aren't that popular, so you have to search a bit harder to find them.

Also, what may not be realistic to you was realistic to someone else. After all, all writers draw from experience. The great thing about literature is that we get to learn about the experience of others and better ourselves in the process.

Anyway, sorry you had to go through all that. Hopefully life is better for you now.

 

Ah, ok. So what you're saying is that most YA are filled with sappy drama with the lead character having at least one or two people in their lives to support them, and they're almost always a Chosen One, a voice box for morals, or that lucky girl who got to love a vampire/werewolf? It doesn't do it realistically where it covers what to do if you really do feel alone in the world, with no one to care about you?

 

Basically yes. They always have some kind of hope in the world. I should just write the most depressing YA novel ever. Using myself from experience. ha. No that would be terrible.

Well damn I am lazy to search.

 

God damn, yeah, I can't argue with that, you are absolutely right.

 

Well, there's your problem. Unless you seek out good books, you'll have to make do with all the popular crap.

 

It was mostly a joke.

 

As far as I'm concerned, the value of Harry Potter is that it got kids reading. Period. I don't care if it's good or bad; I care that kids picked up a book.

Before Harry Potter, my perception was that it was a little weird, a little nerdy, a little "kick me; I'm bullyable" for a kid to pick up a book, any book. Now, I was an adult when the first book came out, so I could have that wrong, but that was certainly my impression. (And it was certainly true when I was a kid--most kids, at that time, didn't read anything that wasn't assigned.)

I don't know if the thriving children's bookstore in my little town would still be in existence if Harry Potter hadn't increased kids' interest in reading.

As for whether there are any good YA books, I think that it depends on what you call YA. In the past, I think there were children's books and not-children's-books. The children's books were divided into picture books and chapter books, but I don't think there was a clear line between children's books and those for young adults.

There are plenty of very good children's books. Randomly throwing out titles, and excluding picture books:

The Dolls' House, and every other children's book written by Rumer Godden.

Harriet the Spy, and everything else written by Louise Fitzhugh.

The Light Princess, and probably every other children's book written by Georege MadDonald, though I haven't read them all.

A Wrinkle In Time has some glorious language and emotions, and some serious writing flaws. But the people who fell in love with it as kids love it even more fiercely than the fans of Harry Potter love him, IMO.

Every children's book written by E.B. White. And Roald Dahl. And lots more that just aren't coming to mind.

 

I don't think its a mystery the books were so popular. The story was very whimsical at the time. It was an easy to read flight of fancy. Rowling created a world that, while it defies all logic, still had a unified mythology and lots of details for a fandom to concentrate around. The story itself was completely cliche, and the characters didn't do much, but these qualities pretty much mandatory for a children's book.

 

Dude, this book was for children.

 

I would say that Lord of the Rings is not garbage.

 

I totally agree with this. It was talked about a lot at the time, that kids who had never voluntarily read a book were now clamoring for more Harry Potter, standing in long queues at the bookstores when the 'next' book came out, devouring them, writing reviews of them, etc. It was a fantastic period.

But then the books got instantly turned into movies. I mean, before the series of books was finished. In fact, as soon as one book got finished, it was filmed, too. Now? I totally suspect the next generation of kids will watch the movies and not bother reading the books at all. Same has certainly happened with Lord of the Rings. So, until the Next Big Thing comes out in book form, I suspect kids will go back to not bothering to read any more. There is too much out there on film, and easily available, for kids to want to sit and read.

You've read the book?—now, see the film. No, wait, just see the film...

When I was a kid, both movies and TV existed, but filmed stories weren't EVERYWHERE like they are now. I had read Old Yeller LONG before I saw the (disappointing) movie. Same goes for the Laura Ingalls Wilder series of books. That TV show was horrendous, and I'm SO glad I got the books first. I read The Swiss Family Robinson long before seeing the movie, and was again, disappointed. I was very familiar with the fairy tales ...Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella and others, before seeing the Disney films. In other words, the books came first.

Nowadays, however, any YA book that shows even minor signs of success gets instantly turned into film. Twilight, Hunger Games, etc. And of course, future generations usually just opt to see the movie instead of read the 'boring' book. They don't even have to wait till it appears in a cinema near them. It'll be out on DVD or available for download almost as soon as it's released.

I don't think there is much we can do about this trend, other than make sure our children get read to, and read for themselves, when they are young ...if we are parents. And do what we can to minimise their exposure to films. Without making them appear so weird to their peers that they get bullied, or whatever. Geez. Despite aches and pains and general deterioration due to the natural aging process, I'm SO grateful I grew up when I did!

 

I tried the first Harry Potter book, but it felt a bit childish for me so I stopped.
I'm sure I'd have loved it if it'd been out when I was a kid.
I was a teen in the early 90s, so I'm just slightly to old to have caught this YA explosion.
I remember at around 13-14 lamenting how poor the "teen" section of our local library was. Their was a superb collection of books for kids up to 12 and plenty for the adults. The teen section was mostly a bunch of Sweet Valley High and the like. The only books I found worth reading in there were a few Tanith Lee books. After that like Wreybies, I ended up moving on to the adult sci fi and fantasy. I can imagine many kids just stopped though.

 

I have already dealt with this, sorry but no it isn't. What 4 - 9 year old is going to read an 800 page tome? Harry Potter is YA, and thus open to criticism. The series might have started out with a younger audience in mind, but by the end was very obviously meant for adults.

 

Saying that there are probably books that would these days be classified as young adult that got shunted into the children's sections. The Lord of the Rings was in the stuff for 8-12 year olds. I found it rather heavy going when I was eleven.

 

That's interesting. I would never classify Lord of the Rings as a children's book. The Hobbit, however ...yes, I think that was written with children in mind.

I remember reading the Hobbit first (as a 17-year old) and being quite captivated by the story. Then I picked up Lord of the Rings. Wow. What a different book. At first I was slightly taken aback by the change in tone, but I was also immediately captured by the story, and could not put it down. I took it to bed with me, to school with me—more or less everywhere it was permitted to take a book. And a few places I wasn't.

I remember trying to finish The Return of the King at my high school graduation ceremony! I had tucked it into my bag, and was sneaking peeks during the ceremony. Why? Because my dad was also reading the series at the time, and I knew he was nearing the finish of The Two Towers, and I didn't want to have to fight him for Return of the King.

In fact, after the ceremony, he chaperoned our leaving 'do,' and I found him sitting out in the car under a street lamp, devouring the last few pages of The Two Towers, when it was time to go home! I had a very cool Dad.

 

Yeah I think that may have been a flat out wrong classification on the part of my library. Still I managed to get through all of the Lord of the Rings at 11

My Dad's always been a fantasy reader too. And made sure I got into the genre. He always pointed out the best fantasy books for me to try when I was kid. Things like the Phantom Tollbooth and A wizard of Earthsea were good choices.

 

I'm sorry, but yes it is. A ten year old is not an adult. HP's target audience was whatever age Harry was in that particular book so the target audience ranged from 11 to 17.

 

Right. That makes it YA. A 17 year old is not a child, and 11 is just at the starting point of transition to maturity. You don't even need to do an average age there, the difference between the two genres are pretty well defined.

 

I think @Lemex is a vindictive mudblood. He is angry because he thinks he should have been the chosen one.

 

I have a question about "chosen ones." Who, exactly, does the choosing? Who chooses the Ones? Lottery number machines? Vegas oddsmakers? Sorting hats?

Couldn't some of these "chosen one choosers" be bribed? I mean, if Lemex wants to be the Chosen One, isn't there somebody he could pay off to make that happen? 'Cause that would be kinda cool and filthy.

 

My son loved chapter books:

Captain Underpants
Goosebumps
Animorphs
A bunch of books I can't remember the names of about aliens that invaded the school and a zillion other places
Harry Potter