Byatt's attack on us (not long anymore)

[Tim Regan]

Hi All,

The Leaky Cauldron posted a link to a NYT review of the Harry Potter 
adult reader phenomenon by A.S. Byatt  
<http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/07/opinion/07BYAT.html>.

First disclaimer: I'm a fan of A.S. Byatt's books.
Second disclaimer: I'm not a fan of A.S. Byatt. At least, when I've 
heard her interviewed she sounds very 
 up-her-bum (= intellectually 
conceited).

There is a discussion of the review on TLC 
<http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/MT/mt-comments.cgi?
entry_id=3237>, but the last thing I need now is another Harry 
Potter discussion forum to watch so I thought I'd try to start one 
here.

Essentially, the review says that the reason adults enjoy Harry 
Potter books is because the books are derivatives of the Enid Blyton 
and Billy Bunter books we enjoyed as kids. I.e. they are crap. She 
contrasts the restricted imaginary world of the Harry Potter books 
with the metaphysical wit, genius for strong parody, startling 
originality, and amazing writing of authors like Terry Pratchett 
(whom I haven't read).

In the TLC discussion, one point that's made repeatedly is that 
Byatt cannot have read the books. I doubt that is true. I know from 
a BBC radio interview with her that she has a particular reading 
style, where she reads books in two phases. In the first phase she 
speed reads the book to decide if it is worth reading slowly. If she 
gets to the second phase, she reads slowly and savors the language 
and the ideas. So she's read them at least once, fast.

But there is something lame about the Harry Potter books (though I 
love them to pieces), and I like the Byatt review for trying to 
tease that out. I've several adult friends who are well read, who 
enjoy good children's fiction, but who read them and just didn't get 
it. Like Pullman <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-
OTChatter/message/12664>, I think that JKR has "the quality of 
making children want to read on without any effort at all" and it 
works on me too, but does the potterverse feel philosophically 
coherent, does the evil in it feel fully three-dimensional?

Cheers,

Dumbledad.