|
Toby Young, a blogger over at Telegraph.co.uk, unfairly critized J.K. Rowling for the success of Harry Potter. He claims that J.K. Rowling's books are second-rate and that she doen't deserve to be a billionaire as a result. In fact, in his title, he calls it "a thoroughly undeserved honour." Rarely would I find myself railing over someone else's opinion, but this is just too low and too offensive to be ignored.
I attempted to respond to his criticism in a comment on the Telegraph website, but after three unsuccessful attempts at receiving an email confirmation, it occurred to me to just use our own platform to express my opinion. And to that end, this is what I have to say...
First, I'd like to address the question of "entitlement." Who deserves to be a billionaire? I'm fairly certain that just about everyone will agree with my answer: "anyone who has earned their money through honest means." J.K. Rowling invested a great deal of time and creativity into her masterful seven books and over six hundred million people purchased them! In my opinion, that's not only an honest means of work, it's also a clear indicator of success. Her books resonated with a lot of readers, which lead me to my second point.
There is nothing second-rate about the Harry Potter series. I could go on and on about the many wonderful things I love about Harry Potter, because the list is truly exhaustive. However, I do not believe it is really necessary to do so; I believe everyone who loves the series as much as I do loves them for different reasons, as it should be. Good literature open up our imaginations!
There are a few things I would like to say about the books, however. I'll admit, I had trouble getting through the first few. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001), Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002), and Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004) were clearly written for children and young teenagers. They can be read at about the same reading level as the children's books I read as a child by Beverly Cleary, another favorite author of mine.
This, however, does not make them any less enjoyable. They are wonderful tales that lay much of the groundwork for later stories. With each book that progressed, so did her audience, and so did the characters. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005) and Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007) opened the story to young adults and beyond, as the darker elements of the story started to become more and more of a presence that could literally be felt.
And as a grown man, I cried for thirty minutes -- unable to put the book down with tears streaming down my face -- when I reached the part where Professor Dumbledore was murdered in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009). That book was simply epic in my opinion. And any book that has a character in it that resonates that strongly with me emotionally is not to be summarily dismissed.
I was in my early twenties when the first book was published. I remember the mania surrounding them, but it did not capture my attention until the first movie came out. It was a few years later before I purchased them, and a few years after that before I actually read them. I finished reading Half-Blood Prince, late at night, only a year ago, and I immediately left my house to purchase Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.
When I was finished, I was in absolute awe, because it felt as if J.K. Rowling had known since the very first book exactly what she had planned to weave into a series of seven books. I felt as if the story had been perfectly told, that not one sub-plot had been overlooked, and that the arch of the series was both compelling and distinctly concluded.
This of course was not the case (the writing process evolved with each book), which, in my opinion, just shows the genius and creativity of her work. I realize this sounds like a glowing review for J.K. Rowling, but this is about the merits of her work, not her as a person. She holds some opinions I disagree with -- like being unwilling to release the books on the Amazon Kindle. However, there is very little to criticize and far more to praise. Indeed, my criticism is that I can't enjoy her books in another format!
I equally adore the movies and look forward to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I (2010) and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II (2011). Like so many, I'm absolutely captivated by them -- and their release dates cannot come fast enough for me!
The characters created by J.K. Rowling, and the actors who portray them, are simply magnificent. I love them all and I could not imagine anyone else playing Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe), Ronald Weasley (Rupert Grint), or Hermione Granger (Emma Watson).
Aside from the trio, my favorites from the books and movies are Professor Dumbledore (Michael Gambon), Minerva McGonagall (Maggie Smith), and Luna Lovegood (Evanna Lynch).
And I absolutely love the fact that there is doubt throughout the entire series as to what allegiance Severus Snape (Alan Rickman) holds, until the very last book, which blows your mind with new truths about the character. Bellatrix Lestrange (Helena Bonham Carter) is a marvelous character and Rubeus Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) always brings a smile to your face.
And in no way am I discounting the roles of Ginny Weasley (Bonnie Wright), Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton), or Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes), who are quite central to the story as well, as are so many other characters, such as Dobby (whose funeral scene in the book was one of the most touching ever).
But I digress...
The bottom line is this: I find it in complete poor taste for the author of the Telgraph article to disparage J.K. Rowling for actually being successful and creating a series that has captured the hearts and minds of millions. And I completely disagree with him; a hundred years from now, these books will be classics, right alongside C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkein.
And, in my humble opinion, the only point of his ranting article is to stir up controversy (knowing that many people reading the title of his post will read it) for his own selfish gains. I mean, honestly, what other purpose could an article like that serve? And to me, I would not consider that an honest means for making money. Who's with me?
 |  |  |  |
 |  |  |
