What do you think?
Rate this book
Harry Potter's World: Multidisciplinary Critical Perspectives
The Harry Potter books have become ubiquitous early texts for children, and are also a popular choice for many adults. Potter-mania has expanded to become a significant cultural phenomenon complete with a feature film and a wide range of paraphernalia. However, there has been little critical attention devoted to these books and the cultural phenomenon surrounding them. Containing powerful, thought-provoking literary themes as well as portrayals of social and cultural normalcy, the Potter books cumulatively serve as a powerful form of social text and deserve serious critical attention. Elizabeth Heilman brings together scholars from various disciplines to provide literary, cultural, sociological, and psychological examinations of the Harry Potter books as both cultural product and social text.
Covering many facets of the Harry Potter series and Potter-mania, this collection begins with a cultural analysis of marketing hype and product spin-offs. Literary and interpretive perspectives consider Harry as a romantic hero and review the books for their capacity to contain elements of every genre. Critical and sociological theorists explore how the Potter books present gender, race, class, school, family and citizenship. By providing numerous perspectives on the Harry Potter series, the contributors provide teachers, administrators, critical theorists and those interested in cultural studies with a variety of ways to read these popular texts.
Covering many facets of the Harry Potter series and Potter-mania, this collection begins with a cultural analysis of marketing hype and product spin-offs. Literary and interpretive perspectives consider Harry as a romantic hero and review the books for their capacity to contain elements of every genre. Critical and sociological theorists explore how the Potter books present gender, race, class, school, family and citizenship. By providing numerous perspectives on the Harry Potter series, the contributors provide teachers, administrators, critical theorists and those interested in cultural studies with a variety of ways to read these popular texts.
308 pages, Paperback
First published November 25, 2002
66 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
January 13, 2019
I was expecting something, definitely, but it sure wasn't this.
For a book that claims to give a technical view on all of the issues covered, the product itself seemed to be very one-sided and extremely negative. I would also think that if you were going to do a technical review on how a series impacts culture, sexism, etc. you would want to wait until that series was finished so you could analyze the entire thing in one set (and conveniently, if they had waited, the majority of the analytic assumptions would have been turned on their heads). The fact that only the first four books had been released when these essays were written and the book published tells me that they are striving for the exact end that they warn against - trying to cash in on a popular culture phenomenon.
The authors of the essays underestimate the ability of children to separate real life from imagination, assume that they are all-consuming drones who only follow the latest trend, and devalue them into mindless, empty heads that are to be filled with whatever advertisers throw at them. Children do have the ability to make their own decisions, to go against the flow of mass media and culture hype, and often do so with surprising ease.
My biggest issue with this book was with the essay on gender roles and sexism in the series. Once again, if they had waited for the rest of the series to be written and published, they would not have been able to make half the assumptions that they do about the female characters. Even with the material that they had at hand, this analysis was still extremely one-sided and misleading.
When the female characters swoon over Krum and Cedric, it's demeaning to only the female characters. But at the same time, when the male characters swoon over the Veela and the students from Beauxbotons, it's STILL demeaning to only the female characters. Seems like a very contradictory analysis to me.
They fail to mention any time that a male character has a frightening experience, such as Ron's issues with spiders in the second book. He is quivering with fear and shaky and crying and cannot go on because of his fear, something that is never mentioned in the essay, but oddly enough, these same attributes are used to describe Hermoine on multiple occasions, to show how much of a stereotypically weak female character she is. The several occasions in the first four books when we see Hagrid bawling are not mentioned either, and neither is the weakest male character that exhibits most, if not all, of the "female" traits that are described in this essay - Neville Longbottom. When Rita Skeeter is pestering Hermoine and lying about her relationship with Harry, the author mentions how this plays on Hermoine's weakness, because the other girls use it as an opportunity to make fun of her, but never mentions the fact that she, a 14 year old girl, single-handedly defeats the adult that is harassing her and makes sure that she never treats anyone badly again, all behind without getting caught. How is that weak?
Hermoine is portrayed as a weak, ugly, follower/outsider from the boys' adventures, even though on multiple occasions she is either having her own adventures (with the Time Turner) or is involved in an adventure that one of the boys is not, such as at the end of Prisoner of Azkaban, when Harry and Hermoine have to save the day while Ron is in the infirmary unconscious. Each instance of Hermoine being "left out" of the main adventure because she's a girl is dissolved if you pay even the slightest attention to the larger background of the plot. In Sorcerer's Stone, she has to go back and Harry goes forward because there is only one potion, and they are certain that Voldemort is going to be on the other side, and as Harry is the only one that has faced Voldemort before and lived, it makes sense that he should be the one to face him again. There's also no mention that Ron gets left behind much earlier than Hermoine does, but of course that wouldn't show how "weak" she was if they had bothered to do so. Again, when she cannot go into the Chamber of Secrets with the boys, it's because of the fact that she's weak that she has been petrified, with no mention of the fact that there were male characters petrified as well earlier in the narrative, and also no mention of the fact that Harry goes into the chamber by himself and Ron is not present for the entirety of the adventure either. He gets left behind to basically babysit Lockhart while Harry himself moves forward to the real danger.
There is an entire section of this essay discussing the fact that there are "hazy" female characters that drop into the background and that aren't given much thought, and are always seen together doing the same thing. What about the twins, Fred and George, who are always together and always doing the same thing? They aren't given much fleshed out personality in the first four books, and are only seen together, causing vague mischief, much as the groups of female characters are always clumped together. Crabbe and Goyle are never mentioned in this essay, even though in the first four books all they do is follow Malfoy around and act stupid and never think for themselves. What about Seamus and Dean who do nothing but talk about soccer and Quidditch in the background of the first four books?
Long story short, this collection of essays was demeaning to the series, is extremely sensationalized, and seems to only exist so that the authors could ride on the back of the cash cow that is the HP series. I'm glad I rented this book from the library, because if I had paid for it I would want my money back.
For a book that claims to give a technical view on all of the issues covered, the product itself seemed to be very one-sided and extremely negative. I would also think that if you were going to do a technical review on how a series impacts culture, sexism, etc. you would want to wait until that series was finished so you could analyze the entire thing in one set (and conveniently, if they had waited, the majority of the analytic assumptions would have been turned on their heads). The fact that only the first four books had been released when these essays were written and the book published tells me that they are striving for the exact end that they warn against - trying to cash in on a popular culture phenomenon.
The authors of the essays underestimate the ability of children to separate real life from imagination, assume that they are all-consuming drones who only follow the latest trend, and devalue them into mindless, empty heads that are to be filled with whatever advertisers throw at them. Children do have the ability to make their own decisions, to go against the flow of mass media and culture hype, and often do so with surprising ease.
My biggest issue with this book was with the essay on gender roles and sexism in the series. Once again, if they had waited for the rest of the series to be written and published, they would not have been able to make half the assumptions that they do about the female characters. Even with the material that they had at hand, this analysis was still extremely one-sided and misleading.
When the female characters swoon over Krum and Cedric, it's demeaning to only the female characters. But at the same time, when the male characters swoon over the Veela and the students from Beauxbotons, it's STILL demeaning to only the female characters. Seems like a very contradictory analysis to me.
They fail to mention any time that a male character has a frightening experience, such as Ron's issues with spiders in the second book. He is quivering with fear and shaky and crying and cannot go on because of his fear, something that is never mentioned in the essay, but oddly enough, these same attributes are used to describe Hermoine on multiple occasions, to show how much of a stereotypically weak female character she is. The several occasions in the first four books when we see Hagrid bawling are not mentioned either, and neither is the weakest male character that exhibits most, if not all, of the "female" traits that are described in this essay - Neville Longbottom. When Rita Skeeter is pestering Hermoine and lying about her relationship with Harry, the author mentions how this plays on Hermoine's weakness, because the other girls use it as an opportunity to make fun of her, but never mentions the fact that she, a 14 year old girl, single-handedly defeats the adult that is harassing her and makes sure that she never treats anyone badly again, all behind without getting caught. How is that weak?
Hermoine is portrayed as a weak, ugly, follower/outsider from the boys' adventures, even though on multiple occasions she is either having her own adventures (with the Time Turner) or is involved in an adventure that one of the boys is not, such as at the end of Prisoner of Azkaban, when Harry and Hermoine have to save the day while Ron is in the infirmary unconscious. Each instance of Hermoine being "left out" of the main adventure because she's a girl is dissolved if you pay even the slightest attention to the larger background of the plot. In Sorcerer's Stone, she has to go back and Harry goes forward because there is only one potion, and they are certain that Voldemort is going to be on the other side, and as Harry is the only one that has faced Voldemort before and lived, it makes sense that he should be the one to face him again. There's also no mention that Ron gets left behind much earlier than Hermoine does, but of course that wouldn't show how "weak" she was if they had bothered to do so. Again, when she cannot go into the Chamber of Secrets with the boys, it's because of the fact that she's weak that she has been petrified, with no mention of the fact that there were male characters petrified as well earlier in the narrative, and also no mention of the fact that Harry goes into the chamber by himself and Ron is not present for the entirety of the adventure either. He gets left behind to basically babysit Lockhart while Harry himself moves forward to the real danger.
There is an entire section of this essay discussing the fact that there are "hazy" female characters that drop into the background and that aren't given much thought, and are always seen together doing the same thing. What about the twins, Fred and George, who are always together and always doing the same thing? They aren't given much fleshed out personality in the first four books, and are only seen together, causing vague mischief, much as the groups of female characters are always clumped together. Crabbe and Goyle are never mentioned in this essay, even though in the first four books all they do is follow Malfoy around and act stupid and never think for themselves. What about Seamus and Dean who do nothing but talk about soccer and Quidditch in the background of the first four books?
Long story short, this collection of essays was demeaning to the series, is extremely sensationalized, and seems to only exist so that the authors could ride on the back of the cash cow that is the HP series. I'm glad I rented this book from the library, because if I had paid for it I would want my money back.
February 24, 2009
I read Heilman's essay "Blue Wizards and Pink Witches" and was not a fan. She tries to take a feminist approach to the first four books of the series, but ends up just analyzing the surface content. She contends that because Hermione helps Harry and Ron get out of peril she's only enabling their adventures and not her own. Anyone who's read the books more than once can tell you that Hermione is always an active participant of the group's hijinx if not the only reason the trio survives in the first place. She's an equal member in the group dynamic (at the very least), so to say that she's left out is, to me, simply ignoring what's right in front of you.
April 6, 2011
Like every Potter-essay anthology in the known universe, this one has an essay critiquing it from a feminist perspective, an essay critiquing it from a Neo-Marxist perspective, and a bunch of filler about child consumer culture and fantasy tropes. The feminist essays always annoy me the most, not because I'm not a feminist (I am), but because they always undervalue the strong female characters I think the Potter series has, and dismiss anything in the text that might disprove their point about the patriarchy and it's all powerful hold on society. Yawn.
January 17, 2009
A mixture of insight hidden within a wealth of critical silliness. Which is all too common in lit crit. Still, overall it has smoe helpful things to say.
October 26, 2010
Some of the essays are thought provoking but some of them are rage inducing!
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews