The popularity of Harry Potter might have hinged on its formulaic plots and stereotypes. This view has implications for children's literature in a consumerist society.
Some parents keep telling others that their children read Harry Potter, instead of cartoons, as if saying that their choice is an indicator of their good taste. Then, of course, adolescents and pre-adolescents who indeed enjoy Rowling's works and are not bored by their absence of pictures, most likely enjoy reading, which is a healthy pastime in itself.
American scholar Jack David Zipes, in his Sticks and Stones: The Troublesome Success of Children’s Literature from Slovenly Peter to Harry Potter (2000), contends that the Harry Potter phenomenon is something that causes concern. Unlike the majority of British book reviewers, Zipes does not belittle Rowling's works from an aesthetic point of view, but instead studies their popularity from a sociological perspective.
Zipes believes that the popularity of Harry Potter series has been a result of the publicity campaigns of its publisher and the largely formulaic content of its stories: every novel begins with the protagonist's imprisonment, or “Prison,”the “Noble Calling” during the most depressive moment, followed by his “Heroic Adventures,” until he defeats the bad guys, and the story typically ends by his “Reluctant Return Home.” Zipes further infers that if the books consisted of a lot of unexpected twists, then they would not have become so popular in a consumerist society. Yet what worry Zipes is not only that writers are discouraged from writing creatively, but the abundance of gender stereotypes in these popular works: female protagonists, such as Hermione, only play supportive roles, even if they are not downright stupid. Social problems, such as drugs and sex, are not even touched upon – the reader is reassured that the evil cannot defeat the good. Zipes even goes so far as to suggest that Rowling’s works are emptier than the Disney fairy tales.
Fans of Harry Potter suspect that Zipes' criticism is a mere case of “sour grapes.” Yet there is some truth to his opinions. According to a number of surveys, children indicated that they do not like Harry Potter as much as their parents do. These survey results remind the reader that children's literatures are written and chosen by adults, and these some of these adults also satisfy their creativity and value systems in the name of children, instead of truly writing for children's sake. Children's literature therefore becomes an experimental tool, and a money-making opportunity, in the adult world. The production of a children's book is also highly complicated, and owing to marketing concerns, the opinions of publishers and editors carry more weight than those of authors, teachers and parents; quite ironically, children's opinions might be the lowest in priority. There are people who have resigned from their full-time jobs to write profit-making children's literature that cater to the consumerist market, but some of those who genuinely care to write good works, only have their works rejected by big publishers owing to their perceived lack of marketing value.
Does children's literature truly exist? What books should children read? What values should they learn from the books? Can “children” and childhood really be treated as monolithic entities? Many years ago, a classmate of mine told me that Wuthering Heights has a simplified version intended for children, which surprised me, as I had always considered the book very difficult, let alone containing some violent elements. She retorted, “Why not? Children are always entitled to their own interpretations!” As caring adults, we probably do not have to devote much of our time in trying to choose the “best” books for our children – after all, no works exist which are deemed “most suitable” for children.
