The tagline seemed to suggest some sort of statistical information on a lag point in readership corresponding with age.

Instead I got a dreary, self-important journal entry of someone who just couldn't bring themselves to get into the books as a teenager, and then laments what she *assumes* is the over all message the rest of us as readers have been hoodwinked into believing. It's a piece of snobbery at its finest, made more pathetic because the reason she states for her off hand dismissal of the books is based enitrely upon a misreading of the core theme of the book, Harry's normalness.

Go read them again ( or it sounds like perhaps the first time for the last few). It is not magic that makes Harry special. It's quite clear that Rawling depicts him as a C average student, due to both average skill and typical schoolboy laziness. Harry's "specialness" is not innate, or related to magic or the wizarding world at all ( a point pounded in repeatedly every book that your 15-18 year old brain was probably just to advanced to catch). Harry's specialness comes in his dedication to friends of all types, to his belief in fairness (though neither are perfect, he screws up repeatedly), and his willingness to break rules when nessicary to support the first two.

That's it. And it has been stated quite clearly several times in every book.

Nor do I know where you got the idea that these were books about a clear fight between good and evil. Rawling has a clear (and a bit brilliant) streak of satire encompassing class, government, bureaucracy, activism, criminal law, race, and gender (etc etc). Second only to the theme of Harry's normalness would be his overwhelming similarity to Voldemort, their only difference ultimately being what choices they make.

As someone who started reading these books right around the same age you did ( and thus as one of "Harry's peers"), you've clearly missed the point. Which is fine, I couldn't really care less.

But, if you thought yourself so remarkably unspecial, why did you bother to grace us with an opinon of books you never really bothered to finish, much less understand?

Seconded. Too smug by half. On my way to HP party now and I'm pushing 30.

Oh, by the way: if you are the self-same Ceallach from the Prudie fray,

::licks ceallach. purrs::

You're 30 and you emote to your e-friends on a news commentary message board? You're not just a statistical anomaly, you're a freak.

It sounds as if the writer is at that difficult age where she needs to declaim her superiority to children's books in order to feel like an adult. (Though why she has to do it in the Slate culturebox section is, I agree, unclear.) CS Lewis once pointed out: "When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up." And again, "No book is worth reading at the age of ten that is not equally (and often far more) worth reading at the age of fifty and beyond.”

Bafflingly, the writer seems to be complaining that she's grown out of the books because magic doesn't really exist. That English teacher may have been scruffy-but-wise, but they don't seem to have inculcated their student with any sense of the different ways literature can work on a mythical and imaginative level.

But it would have been much more interesting to read an article about a trend towards Harry's peers abandoning the books (if indeed it's true - the composition of the bookshop queues on Friday night seemed to suggest quite the opposite).

Why are people so obsessed with these books?

Anytime slate writes anything that even obliquely denigrates Hogwarts, people go all up in arms.

What is the deal? I mean, I get that Potter is this generation's Star Wars. Its a cultural sci-fi phenomenon that is fun and a great opportunity for people of different age groups to bond.

Still, that doesn't mean that fraysters should be getting their panties all twisted everytime slate writes a potter article.

I stated that I didn't care less that she didn't *like* the books. Just

1.) Why would you *ever* think yourself capable of writing a piece on books you never finished reading?

2.) why would you think that anybody would *care*?!

and 3.) If you are going to ignore those first two pieces of wisdom, then at least don't base your opinions on a misinterpretation of themes that a ten year old could spot.

not to mention, the tag line was annoying on so many levels.

So what, you drifted away from the books. It sounds like you got bored with reading so many pages (completely understandable when you have to go buy posters for your dorm room) and then were too concerned with some deluded notion of what it means to grow up and what it means to be a discerning reader. Once you realized that Harry Potter didn't just belong to you and your friend alone, some sort of elitist impulse (we all have them) led you to distance yourself from a series that you once loved. I admit to feeling this way at times while growing up, but I always came back to the series for the same reason that I initially loved it - it's a great series, and fun to read (even 700 pages of it). But then again, I really am one of Harry's peers - at 20, I am slightly younger than you are.

I was 13 when the third book came out, as were most of my friends, and although we can analyze the books more critically now, and we can have detached conversations about what initially drew us into the universe when we were younger, it doesn't diminish our enjoyment of the novels. If you're going to claim that many 18-23 year olds can no longer relate to Harry because they're somehow beyond all that childishness, you must have some broader basis for making these assertions. Yes, we're in college now, and we're well aware that there are other great books to read; we've read them too. From my informal sampling, there are still many more of us who love the books than those who don't. My friends and I enjoy the fact that millions of people enjoy the same books that we loved, for many of the same reasons, and it doesn't diminish our enjoyment at all.

Next time you write something, try to say something more relevant about you and your peers, please. Not all of us have abandoned fantasy novels just because we've graduated to the real world.

I am one of Harry's "peers" at 22, and I would have to say I am proudly still as much of a fan as when I read the first book about10 years ago or so. Although this article was slightly interesting, it seems silly to lump a whole age group into a personal experience. For me, Harry Potter was about something much more than making myself feel special- either for being one of the first in my school to read it or for imagining myself a part of his world.

As a college student myself, I declare that I am not a muggle and I hope that I never am.

are you new? C'mon, Fraysters are in a constant state of panty-twist. Today it's Hogwarts, tomorrow it'll be Hitchens.