In response to the column “Harry Potter sucks,” I would first like to say that I agree with Ms. Li: The world would be a much better place without stories emphasizing love, friendship and sacrifice, written in prose accessible to children. The contention that J. K. Rowling’s series is somehow standing in the way of children’s connection with classic “Literature” is completely off-base. Does Ms. Li really believe that if there were no Harry Potter series, any but the most bookish of 10-year-olds would pick up “Treasure Island” or “Gulliver’s Travels” instead? The choice kids are making is between reading Harry Potter and reading nothing at all, not between Harry Potter and “Great Expectations.”
I am a fellow English major. I even read “Jane Eyre” for fun. However, I believe the attitude expressed in this column makes the study of English seem extraneous to those who are not already convinced of its value. There is a famous quotation by Mark Twain that goes: “A classic is something everybody wants to have read and nobody wants to read.” They are often verbose, impenetrable and down-right boring. Books like Harry Potter, on the other hand, foster a pure love of reading and story, removed from expectations of gaining prestige or experiencing arbitrarily-defined high culture. Children, their parents and nostalgic college students alike are not looking to boost their egos when they turn to the Harry Potter series. They read these books (and re-read them) because they want to, not because they should.
Laurel Burk
Trinity ’13
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.