Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« The Morning News | Oly Action »

Friday, February 15, 2008

Good News/Bad News

posted by on February 15 at 9:54 AM

The good news: Last year saw a significant increase in book sales.

The bad news: Last year saw the release of the last new Harry Potter book, which might have singlehandedly caused the increase.

RSS icon Comments

1

Are you saying Harry Potter isn't the great masterpiece of our time, worthy of record-busting sales?

Posted by Katelyn | February 15, 2008 10:06 AM
2

I am so glad that Harry Potter is over. Once the final movies are made, it is my dear hope that I will never have to overhear or be engaged in an adult conversation about this tripe again.

Posted by Aislinn | February 15, 2008 10:07 AM
3

Don't book sales get a bump every year an HP book is released?


The Wal-Mart factor is also important. Considering most of their "selection" consists of the Left Behind series and similar books, I'm not sure this is something to be proud of.

Posted by laterite | February 15, 2008 10:07 AM
4

Thank goodness for Harry Potter - little boys actually started wanting to read.
LOTR couldn't hold the fort forever.

Posted by Carly D. | February 15, 2008 10:12 AM
5

The story says that book sales are up by about 7%, but that bookstore sales are only up by about 1%. That extra 6% is probably attributable to Wal-Mart and Amazon and all those non-book stores.

I think that the 1% is also independent-only bookstore numbers, but I might be misreading. If that's true, then it could be a good sign: independent bookstores have been suffering for years, and many independent bookstores even refused to carry Harry Potter in the face of the big box discounts.

I've never read or seen the Harry Potter blah-blahs. I just refuse to believe that I'm missing anything. Maybe someone could convince me otherwise, but I doubt it.

Posted by Paul Constant | February 15, 2008 10:14 AM
6

Yeah, Harry Potter, ugh. Everybody knows that 13-year-okd kids should be watching MTV and not wasting their time with those silly books. Ban them all!

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty | February 15, 2008 10:23 AM
7

@4: and little girls, too. I guess maybe they read more to begin with, but I never saw my little sister read until she found Harry Potter.

Posted by Abby | February 15, 2008 10:26 AM
8

I think Amazon counts as a socially, intellectually legitimate bookseller. It might not be "independent" but just because someone purchases their books from Amazon does NOT mean that they are buying tripe. Many of the most avid readers I know purchase a majority of their books online for sheer cost efficiency and the mind-bogglingly huge selection. No need to announce that book sales on Amazon are somehow different than TRUE book sales.

Personally, because I am poor, I trade books with friends and use the library. About once a month I hit up Half Price Books, and maybe once a quarter I hit up Elliott Bay or Bailey Coy for a serious splurge.

"When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left I buy food and clothes." -- Erasmus

Posted by Katelyn | February 15, 2008 10:41 AM
9

Didn't a lot of big box retailers lose money on the last Potter book, due to steep discounts they made to boost sales?

The entire industry was bracing for a steep dropoff in sales after Potter ended -- didn't UK publisher Bloomsbury's stock take a gigantic hit?

Posted by Peter F | February 15, 2008 11:10 AM
10

I would assume that everyone here started reading long before the days of Harry Potter. Now look at us, still reading! Harry Potter is not a magic makes-kids-read elixir. Want a book about courageous youth with special abilities? Try Lloyd Alexander.

I'm not saying kids reading Harry Potter - and therefore reading at all - is a bad thing. I'm saying there are books that are more book and less hype. And I do not understand childless adults who read Harry Potter for pleasure. I understand their existence, and I understand their right to read whatever they like, but I will never grasp their motivation.

Posted by Aislinn | February 15, 2008 11:11 AM
11

@10 - As one of those childless adults, I guess I should speak up. I read (and have read) lots of books, of varying degrees of quality and highbrowness. I like weird, long, difficult books; I like dense, fascinating nonfiction; I like muckraking journalism; and I enjoy the occasional big, dumb, fun, unputdownable, read-it-in-a-couple-days book about wizards.

Have you read the books? They're not - obviously - high-quality Literature, but they are a fun, and even exciting, read. As a series they are very well constructed.

So, I guess my motivation is to read something fun and engrossing every once in a while; call me a philistine.

Posted by Levislade | February 15, 2008 11:24 AM
12

And another thing: Yeah, sure, try Lloyd Alexander. Try Philip Pullman. Tolkein, of course. But the cool thing about books is you can read a bunch of different books by different people!

No one's saying - obviously - that Harry Potter is the first thing to get kids reading ever in the world. But it has gotten a lot of kids reading, and they've probably mostly gone on to read those mentioned above, and others. Right? How is that bad?

Posted by Levislade | February 15, 2008 11:28 AM
13

@12:
Any stats to back up your claims? Jus' curious...

Posted by KeeKee | February 15, 2008 11:32 AM
14

Harry Potter got a lot of my childless adult friends reading again.

Posted by Katelyn | February 15, 2008 11:45 AM
15

@12 - No, I'm just pulling stuff out of my butt; isn't that what blog comments are for?

Posted by Levislade | February 15, 2008 11:55 AM
16

Blog comments are SCIENCE, Levislade. We require data, hypothesis, and double-blinds.

Posted by Katelyn | February 15, 2008 12:06 PM
17

I

Posted by Nay | February 15, 2008 12:11 PM
18

Sorry, I am fail at Internetz.

Posted by Levislade | February 15, 2008 12:12 PM
19

But what about control groups, Katelyn?

Don't we need to go find some kids who are reading and take away their books and manga and graphic novels to study them?

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 15, 2008 12:17 PM
20

@11, 12: It's not bad at all. I specifically said it is not a bad thing, because I completely agree that any reading is better than no reading. I also was not trying to offend you or imply you were a "philistine." One of my best friends - who is currently in law school at Georgetown and is one of the smartest people I know - loves them, and goes to all the movies on opening night. But as someone who relishes books, someone who tingles at a Nabokovian turn of phrase and gives away Kundera when I've finished them because I can't contain my last-page euphoria and want to thrust it upon the world, the idea that it takes Harry Potter to move the masses just... rubs me the wrong way.

I read a lot as a kid. I've always read. So while I appreciate the anecdotal evidence of Katelyn, and Abby, and countless others who say these books affected them or their loved ones, the idea that someone would not generally enjoy reading but would enjoy Harry Potter doesn't resonate with me. Fantasy novels aimed at children - better fantasy novels aimed at children - are plentiful; did anyone try reading one of those with their child before they bought into the Harry Potter machine and then claimed it changed their lives?

I'm honestly not trying to be a jerk, and in no way am I claiming that my literary tastes are "better" than anyone else's, but I've carried a grudge againtst Harry Potter since he first burst onto the scene, and rather than be the bigger person and give it up, I await the day that he is no longer relevant and I don't have to hear about him anymore.

Posted by Aislinn | February 15, 2008 12:26 PM
21

Fair enough. You still don't say whether you've actually read any of the books, though. If not, what are you basing your dislike on?

Posted by Levislade | February 15, 2008 12:52 PM
22

@21: Sorry, in one iteration of that overly-long explanation I did include that I have not read any of the books. I wasn't purposefully avoiding the question :) I've skimmed the first book and seen the first two or three movies, as I used to nanny and I have a seven-year-old brother.

I dislike the magnitude, virulence, and monopoly of the Harry Potter franchise. Why do some people dislike Microsoft, or Starbucks? Because it's everywhere, it's in your face, and it's mediocre.

Posted by Aislinn | February 15, 2008 1:31 PM
23

I agree the franchise is out of control and obnoxious. The books themselves, though, are pretty damn fun to read! It's okay to like the books and hate the hype.

Posted by Katelyn | February 15, 2008 1:55 PM
24

@22: Not liking the books because of the movies... that's just unworthy of you.

I am a big fan of the Harry Potter books. I've read them all at least twice, the earlier ones probably four times apiece. Why do I enjoy them so much? Because I think that to some extent they are not just books but part of an ARG. There are puzzles, riddles, clues, hints, references, allusions, and such that build an play off each other throughout the series. Each book, and really the entire set of the books, is a clock with many moving parts meticulously laid out. It can be very interesting to try and follow a particular component through the bits that show through the narrative. Or you can play spot-the-children's-literature-reference. It's a game. It's fun.

Posted by Greg | February 15, 2008 2:47 PM
25

@24: Unworthy of me, eh? Thanks. To qualify, I don't dislike the books based on the the movies (which weren't terrible, as far as children's movies go); I cited seeing the movies more as a source of familiarity with the plot and characters than a reason not to read the books. Though Katelyn is perfectly correct to say that it's okay to like the books and hate the hype, I view the hype as a reflection of the books and choose to hate the whole kit and caboodle.

Posted by Aislinn | February 15, 2008 4:03 PM
26

I enjoy the HP movies for the actors. I enjoy the books for the story and to see how it ended, finally. I have teenagers who don't like HP, but I don't care if people don't like the books or the movies. Books can be like any kind of art form, if it's a personal choice to read some types of books and not others, it's their choice. I tend to keep to the modern stuff mostly and less classics. Same with movies.

Posted by adaptation | February 15, 2008 10:30 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).