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? [click to continue…]
{ 15 comments }
diva_alix on 
Arabella Figg on 
Ally on 
Travis Prinzi on 
Gifty on 
Robin on 
Loading ...
Harry Potter – Great Literature?
by Travis Prinzi on July 5, 2009
That’s the question being asked by Philadelphia Literature Examiner’s Peter McEllhenney. He answers, “no,” not great; but they are literature. I’m not really sure what that means. It is a very interesting article, however, assessing Rowling’s strengths and weaknesses. I wonder the extent to which Hog’s Head patrons will agree and disagree.
The question caught my attention immediately, because the first 60% of Hog’s Head Conversations contain essays which, in one way or another, answer this question, “yes” – primarily the two essays that start the volume: “The Literary Value of the Harry Potter Books,” by Colin Manlove, and “Repotting Harry Potter: Popular Lit Made Legit,” by James W. Thomas.
Rowling’s strengths, according to McEllhenney, are her storytelling (his assessment of this is spot on) and her characters (who, if not very complex, he says, at least “engage our sympathy” and “are vividly drawn.”) [click to continue…]
{ 54 comments }