15 - Harry Potter Should Have Died

Harry Potter Should Have Died by Emerson Spartz and Ben Schoen
Ulysses Press, 2009
205 pages
Date completed: November 22, 2009


So someone got this for me as a fun thing, because I have been so into rereading Harry Potter this term (often foregoing sleep and homework to do so). And while it was definitely a fun and interesting little read, several things about it bothered me.

The format of the book was that it addressed specific questions about the series. Some were serious, some were funny. For example: "Which character is most surprising?" Underneath the question, different opinions were addressed in long format (possible choices: Barty Crouch, Jr., Severus Snape, Draco Malfoy, Narcissa Malfoy, Dudley Dursley) and at the end there was a verdict (Barty Crouch, Jr.).

So it seemed, like I said above, like a fun, light read for pure entertainment. For the most part, it fulfilled my expectations in that respect. However, a lot bothered me in terms of the book's approach to the arguments.

It was often hard for me to choose one argument over another because of the way the authors formulated the arguments. In almost every single instance, defending one opinion meant completely dissing and putting down the opposing opinion, which I totally disagree with! The point of these questions seemed to be that it was very difficult to choose between answers, and the authors often paid absolutely no respect to any other side of the argument in their defense of one side. This often resulted in sentences that made absolutely no sense and were completely incorrect.

One aspect that bothered me was probably when the authors discussed whether the Harry Potter books should be considered among the classics of literature. The opposing argument was ok (though I don't really buy the statement that "Harry is an orphan, which is a cliche of children's stories. That proves that there are no new plots in the world, but tugging at the heartstrings is a great way to sell books" (Spartz & Schoen, 2009). Uh, okay? So just because some books have orphans in them means that there is no originality in the rest of the book?). But the argument that said the HP books should be classics made me want to claw my eyes out. Instead of proving valid points, it went on for two and a half pages attempting to relate Harry Potter to any classic it could possibly think of. It's a coming-of-age story? Oh, so it MUST be just like Tom Sawyer and Anne of Green Gables! Tom Riddle was raised in an orphanage? Must be David Copperfield all over again! Snape somehow resembles The Little Prince?! Purebloods "arrange" marriages (though there is no evidence of this, just that they CHOOSE to marry into other pureblood families), so they must be like the families in Pride and Prejudice! Honestly? I mean, seriously? A classic doesn't become a classic because it has elements of other classics embedded within. And all of those things listed above could have been found in about a million other books that AREN'T "classics" as well.

As an avid HP fan, I really don't think this book did the issues within the series any justice. There were no gray areas; the authors merely tried to sort the issues into black and white, which is not always possible. It didn't work for them. I'm sure it would have satisfied little teeny-boppers who don't delve deeper into these issues, but I was a little disappointed. Yeah, it was ok. Yeah, it was pretty entertaining at times. No, I don't really think it was successful. Especially when the authors made the arguments sound like little kids on a playground. "You're wrong because I'm right!" "No, YOU'RE wrong!" Ugh.