Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="WizarDru" data-source="post: 2461135" data-attributes="member: 151">From The Washington Times: " The books teach the values of friendship, loyalty and self-reliance, along with many other positive character-building traits. The sale of nearly 7 million books in 24 hours means they have encouraged children to read. The National Assessment of Educational Progress, in its 2004 report card issued this month, showed a 7-point increase in the average reading scale among 9-year-olds. This is a significant jump -- the largest on record since 1971. The Harry Potter book are not solely responsible for the gain, of course. But they surely had a part. If children can find a love for books early on, then there is hope that the habits will continue, and grow.  The United States has not conducted a comprehensive survey of the effect of the books on the youth, but the British-based Federation of Children's Book Groups recently released statistics illustrating that 59 percent of British kids think the books have improved their reading skills. Forty-eight percent say the books are why they read more."This article in the <a href="http://www.sptimes.com/2003/06/20/Tampabay/Harry_s_not_the_only_.shtml" target="_blank">St. Peterburg Times</a> references that the last book (article is from 2003) had a 'halo effect' on book sales in the kids section, for books like the Thief Lord, the Lemony Snicket series, the Princess Diaries and others. In short, there is some evidence to back up the claim that the Harry Potter series has increased reading among young readers.Now, take a notice of the books that benefit from the 'halo effect'. Not Glen Cook. Not Terry Pratchet. Not Steve Erickson. Not even a book like Eragon, written by someone not that much older than Harry Potter or his readership. No...the benefit went to CHILDREN'S FICTION. That's the genre that Rowling thinks she writing in, I think...a fantasy in the same vein as the Phantom Toolbooth, not Lord of the Rings. She may have benefited the fantasy genre LATER, as her readers matured...but not now.  Are A Series of Unfortunate Events or the Spiderwick books Fantasy?  I wouldn't say so and I suspect Rowling lumps herself in with them, not with Tolkien, Lewis or Eddings.As for fantasy being stilted...well, yeah, some of it is, from the perspective she's discussing. If you only look at the trappings, then Martin's Song of Ice and Fire is classic fantasy in the 'greensleves' mode; sure the tone is massively different, but she's right in the respect that it's about knights and kings and dragons and quests. Completely wrong in other ways and in execution, but for a quip, I can let that slide. The Assassin series certainly fits that mold, too. LotR is certainly foremost in her mind. The fact of the matter is, to a non-fantasy reader, she's probably expressing the opinion held by a large number of people. Is it puff-talk?  Sure.  I just think it's a tempest in a teapot, is all.</blockquote>

Verification