Pondering Potter

David Card | June 22, 2003, 05:47 PM

I did go to the latest Potter debut on Friday night at midnight. It was a little creepy. I'd say maybe 15% of those who were there were under 18, and it wasn't because there were two parents for every kid. Round glasses were handed out, so don't think everyone you saw on TV had prepared their own costume. (About as many adults as kids were dressed up. I was not. I was only there to observe.) It kind of reminded me of a comic convention. I overheard someone engaged in a conversation on The Silmarillion . Ugh.

On the kids front, I have this to report: More girls, and of wider age range, than boys. Boys very geeky. And, bless you, JK Rowling, Harry Potter is a multiracial phenomenon, at least in Manhattan.

I didn't pre-order. I had to take a ticket - mine was number 540, and I got there at 11PM. However, pre-ordering was no great strategy, since Barnes and Noble moronically passed out pre-orders in last-name alphabetical order simultaneously with the numbering system. I got mine less than an hour after midnight.

I read a few hundred pages of the book this weekend. The formula still works. The books are exciting page-turners, their world is richly realized, they're funny, they're nostalgic for grown-ups, and the characters are far more realistic than your average bestseller.

I also think the whole thing works subversively as a metaphor for a kids' eye view of the adult world. Rules are random and arbitrary, and adults impenetrable and frequently misguided or even evil. Harry's getting a little older, more rebellious, and, unfortunately, whinier. (I like the supporting characters better, anyway. See amusing Slate piece on Harry as spoiled jock.)

A friend of mine who's a teacher but shared a common interest in children's lit long before that, has an excellent theory that great kids' books are age-aspirational. (Though he'd never use such a pretentious, psych-major term.) That is, a good book for 8 year-olds will have a 12 year-old protagonist, etc. He thinks the Potter strategy of aging the hero is very risky, but he also thinks that Potter's real audience are adults. He points to unaging franchise heros like comic book superheroes, the Hardy Boys and James Bond.

I wonder. I think JK Rowlings is even slyer. I see this as a generational rather than age-based franchise. As the original fans age, younger kids will start with the series, and they'll read it in order. So far, the books' style does not age much though, and I agree it will be a real test to engage 12-18 year-old readers on a psychological level. But so far, it seems to be working.