In a recent interview, a character actor from Scotland who portrays the popular Inspector Rebus has launched an odd attack of sorts on those in the education field who favor children reading the Harry Potter novels. The Scotsman reports that actor Ken Stott (who also appeared in “The Girl in the Cafe” directed by David Yates) said the following during an interview with Radio Times:
“If we’re going to make a fuss about children reading books, do it with Philip Pullman’s His Dark Materials books, not JK Rowling.
“I can’t believe idiot educationalists are praising children for turning up at school and reading Harry Potter.”
In a small bit of irony, the Rebus series are based on works by author Ian Rankin, a longtime friend and neighbor of J.K. Rowling in Edinburgh, Scotland. Mr. Stott continued on in his interview about his future, noting “I’ll remain a grumpy old man.” We wish him continued success with his grumpiness!
I mean, I read books before Harry Potter and I started the series when I was ten. So an arrogent part of me agrees with him, but still—not the best phrasing and definitely not the best public statement to be making when HP HAS made such an impact on reading.
Yeah this has to do more with ideology than anything else. I don’t particularly care if he’s entitled to his opinion. Being entitled to an opinion is not the same as being entitled to using his position to broadcast his beliefs. He wants to believe what he believes, then let him believe, nobody is stopping him. But he should not attack others for their beliefs. Bloody fool.
Oh, what ridiculousness! I have a Master’s Degree in Literature, so perhaps Mr. Scott will consider me a more qualified person to assess whether someone is an “idiot” for praising such a book? Perhaps not. Nonetheless, there are three clear flaws in his argument:
1) The question is, as Gail Callicott said earlier, “not WHAT they’re reading… but the fact that they ARE reading!” We should commend a child in second or third grade who starts reading Harry Potter. He or she is attempting to read something quite complex linguistically at an early age. Clearly, Mr. Scott does not have a firm grasp on literacy education. Of course, he’s an actor. So, are we really surprised?
2) It is very arbitrary to say that Pullman’s work is on a higher literary level than Rowling. More specifically, it is a sign of an inexperienced amateur who praises the darker, bitterer text over the lighter, more positive text simply because it is so. If we want to speak of a children’s text that is clearly “literature,” then we must look to “Alice in Wonderland,” the work of Poe, and other such books for our aim. If we look to contemporary literature (as I think we should), then choosing Pullman over Rowling is, quite frankly, ridiculous, and speaks more to Scott’s lack of experience as much as anything.
3) Even if we except, for the moment, that Pullman is a higher literary work than Rowling, the truth is that they are two authors working within the same genre. In this case, it is very difficult to find fault in the one without finding fault in the other. This may be a bit of an exaggeration, but it is much the same as saying that Emerson is high prose, but Thoreau is not worth our time. In fact, critics made such a claim when the works first came out, but now the literary community rejects such criticism. Either we must reject all Transcendentalist literature or not. Do we say that Shakespeare is literature and Christopher Marlowe is trash? Do people who encourage us to read “Faust” deserve to be called “idiots”? I certainly hope not.
I think the quote may have been taken slightly out of context, but let me say something. Mr. Stott doesn’t seem to truely understand the problem with children illiteracy. As a high school student and a teacher’s assistant at the 3rd grade level, it’s very hard to get kids reading. So far, in my reading group, Harry Potter is the only book that has sparked intrest.
Who does this man think he is to call other people idiots out in the open? I am sorry, but this is another example of broad minded becoming the new closed minded…Stick to acting you Ken Stott, cuz a diplomat you ain’t.
gosh! why do people think that just because we read Harry Potter, we read nothing else?
whatever, I couldn’t care less about his opinion.
but HDM is pretty awesome, I have to say.
What a complete #jerk!!! It shouldn’t matter what the children are reading, the fact is that reading has finally become another favorite past time in this generation of children!! J.K. Rowling is awesome author and I think that he books are good for children, because of the underlying messages that she is trying to teach us. Keep on reading!!
And (after reading said article) I would like to add that not because he can act he can criticize people that HAVE STUDIED children psychology and therefore understand more on the subject. Me thinks he fancies himself as an all knowing cultural gurú.
I guess I was wondering what makes this guy such a great critic of fine literature. Just because he can act doesn’t make him an expert on modern works. College courses have been developed to discuss these books. I bet he cannot say that about anything he has been apart of.
A grumpy old man should not use his grumpiness as an excuse for blurting out statements he has not thought through very well. A grumpy old man should have lived long enough to know where to direct his grumpiness to effect the best outcome. Else his grumpiness can descend to the level of pedestrian irritability.
Harry was still looking out of the window, feeling increasingly nervous. Ernie didn't seem to have mastered the use of a steering wheel. The Knight Bus kept mounting the pavement, but it didn't hit anything; lines of lampposts, mailboxes, and trash cans j
I love you, Sue, for wishing him continued success with his grumpiness!!!!