Professor Stephen Brown of Ulster University, after conducting an interview study of readers ages 7 and up, says there are four types of Harry Potter readers, and they correspond to the four houses:
His research found ‘Hufflepuff’ readers take the tales at a slow, steady and systematic pace and enjoy re-reading the books over and over.
‘Gryffindor’ readers are eager and energetic and will devour the latest Potter book in one sitting, but quickly move on to new things.
‘Ravenclaws’ are subversive and take the stories with a pinch of salt, while ‘Slytherin’ readers are not fussed about the books. They prefer the films but pretend to have read the books when it suits them.
Read the entire article here.
Thoughts? Do you see a correspondence between the house you think you’d belong to and the way you read the books? Is he on to something?
The interesting issue of the houses aside, Brown – a marketing expert – is way off the mark in his assertion that Harry Potter won’t last as long as Roald Dahl (are you kidding me?):
“It could come back into fashion but I think it could be like many fads and just fade away and people will look back and say ‘Why did we ever read this stuff?’”
His reason?
“It is at an interesting juncture because the main story has finished and the tension has gone. One of the things that was driving people to read the books was to find out what happened next.”
I argued at Portus 2008 and in my book that the Harry Potter stories have what Lewis calls a quality of “surprisingness” that makes them stories that are more exciting on the re-read than on the “what happens next” read. This is at the heart of James Thomas’s forthcoming book, Repotting Harry Potter.
For a fascinating discussion on the staying power of Potter, listen to the recent informal debate – John Granger vs. John Mark Reynolds and Paul Spears – on whether or not these novels are “great books.”
Arabella Figg on 
Joivre on 
PotterMom05 on 
Red Rocker on 
korg20000bc on 
Loading ...
{ 15 comments… read them below or add one }
I’m not sure how credible this is! I would consider myself a Ravenclaw and I am more into the books than I am fan fiction, etc. Also I do no think anyone involved in the fandom would ever say, “why did we ever read this stuff?”
I had read this article previously. Like Adam, I wondered about the research methods & conclusions reached. Really a pessimistic view of the series, too. As an avid reader, & thus fitting into his definition of Hufflepuff, I would disagree strenuously with the researcher.
To frame my response, as a result of my “Harry Potter geekness” (as my wife called it this morning), I have looked for quizzes on line that sort you into houses since I see myself having qualities of three different houses. As a Hufflepuff on nearly all of the quizzes, I can see that and I do like to reread the books over and over again.
But by that token, all of the fandom should self identify with Hufflepuff. Unless the study’s author is just putting people who read the Harry Potter books into 4 categories and then assigning a house to each group based on some core characteristics. I also wonder how much he “massaged” his data to make it fit nice and neatly into the four house categories (believe me, it happens).
But I think Travis and Adam have a point. Should we really put too much stock in someone who thinks this is a fad and questions why we read it in the first place? I guess, no.
Travis is right. In my opinion about the books being more exciting on the reread. I just got copies of the audio books for Order and Prince, which is a new experience to listen instead of read books in the first place, but I am amazed by how much I am still enjoying them. I never have had much love for Order before the Department of Mysteries chapter, and it has been my least favorite book in the series. I don’t know if it was the audio format or reading up on Granger’s alchemy, but I enjoyed that book 100 times more than I ever had.
To summarize, I think we’re just scratching the surface of Harry Potter. The fandom maybe waning a little right now, but analysis of the series is going to continue for years to come. Looking over the list of presenters for the Platform 9&3/4 Conference, there are a lot of English PhD students presenting papers. As many of these English/Lit students grow into their teaching and writing careers, they will be affected by Harry Potter because not only is it great literature, but it is a pop culture phenomenon. Even though the mystery aspect of the novels was exciting for us and anyone new to the series can sit down and read the books in a week or two, Harry will still permeate all aspects of our culture in the common years, and if you want a “fad” there are plenty of Harry knock offs out there that won’t be reread in 40 years.
Sorry, so long. Also, looking forward to listening to John Granger’s talks, thanks for the links!
Let me try to get my mind around this one.
Brown writes that:
The less committed types will now begin deserting Harry Potter, jeopardising sales, he said. “It is an interesting time in the development of the Potter brand because a lot of people have moved on. It will only be people who revel in his world who will continue with their admiration of the brand,” he forecast.
What does that mean exactly “deserting Harry Potter”? Not buying any more of his books? Although there are some extremists out there who might buy more than one copy of a book, most readers only need to buy one copy and re-read that if they feel the need. Books are not like boxes of cereal, which need to be replaced once consumed. So what is he talking about when he talks about the HP brand? The movies? the hats and cards and costumes and wands and Hallowe’en costumes? The books about HP? The merchandising stuff has nothing to do with the staying power of a book
And speaking of staying power, what on earth does he mean by:
One of the things that was driving people to read the books was to find out what happened next. Well, yes. What’s the point? That people won’t buy the books again because now they know what’s happened? Well, no, they won’t. That’s how books work. Or does he mean that people who haven’t read the books won’t buy them? Why not? He doesn’t offer a reason.
As for equating the four kinds of readers with the four houses of Hogwarts, there are is a big problem with his logic. As explained above, brand loyalty doesn’t apply to books, even to a series, because most series end. (And this series has definitely ended). There could be loyalty to the author. But Brown doesn’t talk about that. So being a “Hufflepuff” vs being a “Gryffindor” or “Ravenclaw” or even “Slytherin” has no meaning in terms of buying behaviour. In terms of marketing, a “Slytherin” who buys but does not read a HP book is no different than a “Hufflepuff” who buys a book and is eternally loyal to it ever after.
Brown should stick to his day job: analyzing cereal sales, and leave the discussion of the books’ longevity to those who actually understand what that means.
I tend to think that there are more than a few Ravenclaw-type readers on this site. There’s something very Ravenclaw about reading Potter books with a literary eye.
Mostly, though, I love Thomas’ title, and might buy the book for that reason alone. Well, maybe if I wasn’t a starving [sic] grad student…
I’ve always considered myself a Hufflepuff, and I have read all the books so many times I’ve lost count. But the first time through, I read most at one sitting. So that makes me a . . . what? As for fan fiction, most people I know who are really into that are Slyths, not Ravenclaws. But what difference does it make anyway? His whole theory is just silly and pointless.
As for the staying power, I can see that the readership will change over time. But there will always be the ones who start reading the series. The advantage – or disadvantage – is that they’ll be able to read them straight through without the wait between books. That was part of the fun – the wait and all the speculation. That part won’t happen again. But each time I reread the books, I find something new or marvel at how interwoven the stories are. And I love the books even more. So I don’t see myself moving on.
That doesn’t mean that I won’t read other things. I already have. But I keep coming back to Harry Potter, for the fun of it, for the challenge of analyzing it, comparing it to all sorts of other literature.
Oh, one more thing. He brought up Raold Dahl. I know it’s just me, but I’ve never found his books interesting enough to finish. So that’s clearly a matter of taste, and mine is obviously not like Prof. Brown’s.
Pat
I can’t really see the connection, I see a stronger connection between various parts of the Church and the Hogwarts Houses, then various readers.
However, I believe Rowling has said that they correspond to the four elements of ancient lore… Earthy Hufflepuff, Fiery Gryffindor, Airy Ravenclaw, and Watery Slytherin. (Hence why the Slytherin common room is under the lake.) That is not only more interesting, it makes a lot more sense. Gryffindor’s do tend to be rather hot-headed and yet warm and welcoming, as well as being valuable to the survival of Hogwarts. Earthy Hufflepuff, headed up by Professor Sprout of Herbology, is very down to earth and is interested in helping people grow where they are planted so to speak. Ravenclaw, a bit more on the airy side of things. They tend to think a lot and quite frankly can sometimes seem to have their head in the clouds. They see things from a different perspective, much like a raven would flying above the world. Slytherin, cool, yet powerful. Slytherins’ can have a temper but mostly they have a very good grasp on their emotions. It is strange to me that most of the folks we meet in the potter books, good or bad, who are able to control their emotions are from Slytherin. Not only that, they are cold and reserved, almost icy to those they don’t like. Boiling when enraged.
Harry is a unique student in my mind as he seems to have elements of all four houses. He’s got a lot of Gryffindor’s courage, which does tend to be a predominate trait in Gryffindor, though not always as in the case of Peter Pettigrew. Harry is also both somewhat outside the box and intelligent like Ravenclaws tend to be. Cunning and wise like Slytherin, and surprisingly warm and welcoming, helping people to grow where they’re planted like Hufflepuff. Harry is not really a Gryffindor student so much as a Hogwarts one. He may not be the most powerful wizard ever but he does have the ability to love people who are different then him.
Wow, Shane ! Although I had those ideas swirling around in my head for a while, you putting that idea into writing, really fitted everything in place with a clang !
Thank you for my inspiration today !
Just as an afterthought, after having read the article again; I wonder if the author is a Slytherin ?
Brent said, “To frame my response, as a result of my “Harry Potter geekness” (as my wife called it this morning),”
Huh, that’s what my wife calls it too! Must be a clinical term now. Fortunately my wife likes geekiness. I just had to say the words ‘Doctor Who’ when we were dating & she would swoon.
Anyway, lots of great commentary on this. You all put it into a nice, coherent analysis. And like Victoria said, it sums up a lot of what I thought when I first read that article. I think I saw it over at Leaky first.
As Red Rocker said, perhaps this guy should stick to his day job, because his research & conclusions seem really shallow & thus don’t lend any credence to his categorizations, which are a dangerous & slippery thing at best even when they can be helpful. And his assertion that HP lacks the staying power of Roald Dahl?! I’m with Pat on this one, completely laughable. Who reads Dahl anymore?
(Actually, I know that people read Dahl still. In fact, I did read ‘Charlie & the Chocolate Factory a few years back when the new movie came out. Let’s just say that’s one time where I found the movie, and by movie I mean the Gene Wilder version, to be much better than the book.)
Revgeorge, it’s funny that your wife has that response too. I guess we’re both in good company. I always thought my wife was just making fun of me, but while I was finishing that post, she asked me what I was doing and her reply was, “I think it’s cute.” So must be a clinical term now!
Excellent discussion, making me think a lot.
Shane’s post is especially caught me, maybe I’ll let that simmer a while and see if I can muster an intelligent response.
Brown clearly doesn’t have a house specifically for Hog’s Head readers. I imagine most of us devour the books, read them over and over, do slow mining, and read new things, which we connect back to Potter (and sometimes found because of Potter discussions). It seems to me that his assumption that HP is merely a fad (and not even a worthwhile one) skews his analysis of readers’ characteristics and intelligence.
I agree with Granger’s view: one of the things that makes HP so great is its accessibility. Even assuming that Brown’s categories exist, surely it’s amazing that all of them are aware of HP, that it’s become a shared text. Perhaps these categories reflect what Granger was saying about the parable of the sower? Some readers are more “prepared ground” than others? I’d guess that at least some of Brown’s Gryffindors and Slytherins may be late bloomers.
I wonder if Professor Brown hasn’t sorted too soon? It would be interesting to see how HP readers would be sorted in say, fifty years from now.
Since I’m generally skeptical of labels (especially these), I’ll stand outside the walls of Hogwarts and lob stones through the windows of the houses!
As for Harry’s staying power, the Internet has virtually assured that Harry will maintain a large standing audience, even if it is only a minority of we crazies who hung out for hours at release parties, and hang all over every word of our favorite Potter-philes…
Besides, in my spare time lately, it’s been either Harry or the Cubs. Guess which one hasn’t failed me yet…
…yeah…
Very good points, miles365, especially when you say, “I wonder if Professor Brown hasn’t sorted too soon? It would be interesting to see how HP readers would be sorted in say, fifty years from now.”
We’re only just a year & a few months past the release of the last of the 7 books. But there’s other stuff still going on like the movies, the theme park, ancilliary books, & conferences. The fandom is certainly going to change & be different than the way it was before. But that’s not necessarily a bad thing; it’ll just be different. In a sense, it’s like a relationship or marriage. 5, 10, 15, 70 years into the relationship you certainly react to each other differently & don’t do some things you did when you first entered into the relationship & do other things that you didn’t do at first but it doesn’t mean there’s something wrong with the relationship or something lacking. It’s just changed & hopefully grown.
Some people will move on from HP completely but many others will still harbor a spot in their hearts for it. And some others will still be enamored of the books for years to come. And then some others, like us on The Hogshead & Hogpro’s, will be fanatical about it. But fanatical is the wrong term, of course. We’ll still be enamored of the books & love to read them & discuss them but that won’t stop us from doing other things either & increasing our love of good literature.
Perhaps some things, like the HP phenomenon & the fandom, can only best be judged by hindsight.
Dave, your avatar I think expresses the feelings we Cubs fans have a lot of the time.