I have just completed a most extraordinary book. The Deathly Hallows, of course.
I have to admit that I had had misgivings about the literary skills of J.K. Rowlings. Those have now disapparated, to coin a phrase, and I remain now in awe. Complete and utter awe.
I first came across the Harry Potter series thanks to CBC. Back in the day, when men were real men, and real men listened to the literary musings of CBC Radio 1, I heard a review of the first book. “Pick it up” they had said. “It’s bound to be a classic”.
I did. And read. And then my kids read. We even became infatuated, to a point, laying out good bucks (when good bucks were scarce) to get the first copies. I do remember the resentment at having to wait (lost the coin toss) to read the Half Blood Prince to the middle kid.
But I also remember the infantile joy when it came to be my turn. I was sitting with my mom and Stelios (and Astrid too, if you’re reading this) – and the boys – at 6am on 5th St., waiting for the 2003 Stampede Parade to begin. I remember – and everyone around me remembers, one presumes – my giddy excitement at being able to beging the book. The three hours wait for the parade to begin evapourated.
It is not a good book, but a great one. It is literature. (And trust me, I’ve read my share of literature.) My kids have read it, and my little girl will read it also. In fact, I shall read it to her. As I read the Chronicles of Narnia to my boys.
If you haven’t, then you must. From the beginning, or else the brilliance will not shine through. As I said, I was a skeptic. I am no longer.
Some links: From Orson Scott Card (one of my favourite science fiction writers), Who Is Snape. Also from Card, a review (with spoilers, so not to be read before the book, Doh!).
I can share this, though, without giving away anything:
Meanwhile, though, you won’t see this book on the New York Times Bestseller List.
In the stupidest maneuver in the history of literary criticism, the NYT succumbed to the whining of the poor, poor “adult” authors during the era when the first three or four spots on the list were all occupied by Rowling’s Harry Potter series.
They created a new “children’s literature” list and ghettoized the Harry Potter novels there, which amounts to a footnote. So the supposed “newspaper of record” will now show the bestsellers of the year 2007 without any mention of the conclusion of the single largest publishing phenomenon in history.
This is so typical of the New York Times. If they think something shouldn’t have happened, then by not reporting it, they make it so it didn’t happen.
But it did. And by removing Harry Potter from its bestseller list, the New York Times reveals itself as the toady of the elitists.
And yes, at then end, I cried. As I have for LM Montgomery’s Anne of Green gables, and Card’s Speaker for the Dead.