AGAINST

The __Harry Potter__ series does not rightfully deserve the praise it has been given. Rowling demonstrates little to no originality in her writing, oftentimes mimicking her themes and story lines off of other literary conventions. In "Under the Spell," Joan Acocella informs, "If you take a look at Vladimir Propp's 1928 book 'Morphology of the Folk Tale,'...you can check off, one by one, the devices that Rowling has unabashedly picked up." Likewise, Harold Bloom lists the various works which mirror the __Harry Potter__ series, including, "Tom's Brown's School Days," "The Lord of the Rings," and "Tommy." Though one might argue that Rowling's originality shines through the unique world she has created, a commendation based on this fact would be one poorly given. Should we award a six-year-old for thinking of a story tantamount to Rowling's, abundant with eerie monsters (inspired by those that lurk under their beds), scary school authorities (influenced by authoritative school aids, principals, and teachers), and adolescent heroes (obviously prompted by their own desire for purpose in life)? You know in kindergarten you've written one of these stories before. --MaryCate Muschet

The well known __Harry Potter__ series does not deserve any literary merit what so ever. It is merely a drawn out series of mythical creatures, magic, and monsters that captivate its audiences, not the ability or creativeness of Rowling's writing techniques. Harold Bloom asserts that __Harry Potter__ is concisely based off of Thomas Hughes "Tom Brown's School days," and all that Rowling did was take that book and add fantasy and illusions and magic to it. Some may say that Rowling's works are genius, but they are sadly mistaken. **Anybody** can take a bleak, boring, old story and add their imagination to it in order to make it better-- it is not to be commended though. Some may be impressed that Rowling was able to create such a mystical world with Ice Mice, Jelly Slugs, and Fizzing Whizbees, but honestly it is not hard to make up things-- go ahead and try it yourself. If someone is able to create an imaginary animal, or person, then they should be given the same praise as Rowling is! --Jessica

On a hunch, I "googled" the top novels of all time and results such as __The Catcher in the Rye__, __The Great Gatsby__, and __1984__ were all present; one series, however, was not. The __Harry Potter__ Series is not a work that deserves literary merit because it is simply just another good story. J.K. Rowling deserves credit for her books, but one is mistaken in calling a series full of barf flavored jellybeans and hocus pocus a masterful work of literature. __Harry Potter__ is one of the greatest teen stories of all-time because it transports young adults to a place of mystical glory and avoids all conjunction with reality. This series has about as much literary importance as the __Twilight__ Series, and yet no one seems to argue that the story of Bella, Edward, and Jake is an example of the "//kiinship// of good and evil," as Joan Acocella described the __Harry Potter__ books. Harold Bloom would state that the real merit of the books is that they are just a non-reader's delight and a time filler, "Perhaps Rowling appeals to millions of reader non-readers because they sense her wistful sincerity, and want to join her world, imaginary or not. She feeds a vast hunger for unreality: can that be bad? At least her fans are momentarily emancipated from their screens..." __Harry Potter__ is a story, and its lessons are not meant to be matriculated into society, but rather thought about in the ocntext of the book, for when will I ever have to defend myself against an //Avada Kedavra// spell? -Benny Sal

The __Harry Potter__ series is widely popular not because of literary merit or deep intellectual value, but rather because it provides cliche and satisfying plots. Stories involving misunderstood, underprivileged youth never fail to captivate audiences simply because everyone can relate to them, to some extent. This is the reason why John Hughes movies were so wildly popular in the 1980s, however no one refers to them as revolutionary cinematic genius. Joan Acocella states that "part of the secret of Rowling's success is her utter traditionalism." While some may find this "traditionalism" to be appealing, it also shows how threadbare the concept of the series truly is. As Harold Bloom says, Rowling has simply reworked the classic model for this type of story, as seen in "Tom Brown's School Days" by Thomas Hughes," by adding fantasy-like flourishes. Although the books provide the reader with quick thrills and perhaps some broadly stroked lessons, they hardly qualify as art and Rowlings does not deserved be praised in the same vein as Dickens or Austen. -Gabby Noone

The greatest literary works are those delicately crafted to manipulate the thoughts and emotions of their readers, arising only when a visionary author is able to deliberately synthesize tones, themes, and symbolism to create a true piece of art. The __Harry Potter__ novels are hugely popular; however, this success speaks more of their accessibility and lowest-common-denominator appeal than of genuine literary merit. Potter proponents brag of innumerable references and allegories; they claim that these children's books allude to everything from puberty to Nazism, and point proudly to the tangled mass of issues and clichés as affirmation of their worth. Joan Acocella, the author of the pro-Potter article //Under the Spell//, almost boastfully states, "If you take a look at Vladmir Propp's 1928 book "Morphology of the Folk Tale"... you can check off, one by one, the devices Rowling has unabashedly picked up," and, "Rowling's books are chock-a-block with archetypes." Such pride in these statistics is not uncommon for Rowling fans, and proves the way in which the novels appeal to the populace's ever-shortening attention spans. Certainly, if literature was judged by sheer quantity of tropes and ideas it contained, the Potter novels would be masterpieces of glut. Ultimately, however, the __Harry Potter__ series remain a mish-mash of vaguely related content in a larval state, resembling more of a journal of ideas haphazardly layered atop a prefabricated backdrop than a fully-formed piece of genuine literature. - Emil

The mass-hysteria inducing __Harry Potter__ series does not deserve to be credited as having literary merit. All of Rowling’s books are simply a drawn out and hackneyed plot lines embellished with wands, flying brooms and magical talking portraits. The Harry Potter series is not the first time that a mystical world wrought with danger has been created. For example, there is the __Lord of the Rings__, __Twilight__, and even, as Harold Bloom delineates, __Tom's Brown's School Days__, which Rowling simply added a magical flare to. Many __Harry Potter__ enthusiasts claim Rowling to be a genius; however, imitating another work is far from being an Einstein of literature. The only honest adjective that can be given to __Harry Potter__ is “escapist.” The avid fans of the novels are taken on a journey outside of their everyday lives, into a fantastical world full of mythical creatures and magic potions. This being the case, were literary merit to be bestowed upon __Harry Potter__, it would also have to be given to every single novel that allows its readers to escape the world as well. Mass appeal and borrowed story lines do not amount to literary genius, and they certainly do not deserve any literary merit. -Shaina