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!
If I see that Ken Stott has a large part in a play/series I make a point of NOT seeing it. I find his characters unpleasant or bad-tempered, or both, so why bother?
I have read His Dark Materials twice, but I don’t get as much pleasure from that trilogy as I do from Harry Potter. In my opinion, J.K.’s work is a far greater stimulus to children’s minds, especially when many of them can, under supervision, seek out interesting areas to research on the web, because they soon learn that there is more “under the surface” information to be gleaned in her writing. In this way the books can grow as the child grows and understands more of the outside world. This, to my mind, is the first principle of teaching, “stimulate imagination and curiousity.” How can any educator decry that? The gilt on the gingerbread, of course, is that they are all gripping reads.
Personally, I think some of the philosophies in His Dark Materials are WAY too heavy for young children. Harry Potter may be dark, but it’s not nearly as dark as His Dark Materials (I find HP more positive). I know that’s an entirely subjective observation, but I think many would agree. A well written book doesn’t mean that it will have a positive influence on a child’s phyche, just on his or her reading ability. Though I’d be very hesitant to even hand a 10 year old the final HP book, I’d rather do that than give the child a book by Philip Pullman.
Certain concepts in the Pullman books are not appropriate for young children (in my opinion). Of course, I know that’s entirely subjective. ;) I’m merely commenting on age appropriateness.
Also, while the writing of the Pullman series may be superior I don’t consider the morals superior in any way. Harry Potter has a less convoluted message and HP is more optimistic. (Naturally, that’s just my opinion. I’m not looking for an aguement.)
What exactly is his problem with the Harry Potter books? He can’t just say they should read something else instead. Personally I think this is some sort of odd publicity stunt, or just an example of someone saying something stupid for no particular reason. I love His Dark Materials, but those books are even darker than HP, and I find it odd that parents aren’t in an uproar over the religious under/over tones in HDM, like they were over the “witchcraft” in Harry Potter. Either way, kids are reading, so he just needs to get a life.
i totally agree i mean you can’t say one author is highly superior over the other i mean they are both imaginative magical series HP and His Dark Materials but does that mean one is higher over the other because it is more darker then light hearted i mean reading is fantastic and if it makes a person read more to them and it should be an exciting wonderful imaginative read something that is captivating and you should never pick one author over another.it would also be like picking Tolkien over Lewis or like someone said Shakespeare over Marlowe or Robert Jordan over Terry Brooks or Roald Dahl over Lewis Carrol you can’t just do that cause every author is talented in their own way.BTW I Loveeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Emmaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Watsonnnnnnnnnnnnnnn so muchhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Posted by emma watson fan on September 25, 2007, 03:42 PM
report to moderator
Grey Lady:
Hmmm. Tirade is a bit of an exaggeration, isn’t it? As to my “scathing, sweeping judgments about actors,” I believe you may have misunderstood me. Quite understandable, as I’m sure I wasn’t completely clear. What I said was:
“Clearly, Mr. Scott does not have a firm grasp on literacy education. Of course, he’s an actor. So, are we really surprised?”
My point (and I think it a valid one) was a) that Mr. Scott does not have a firm grasp on literacy education and b) that we shouldn’t expect him to, given that he is an actor, not a teacher. My comment about his being an actor had nothing to do with his ability, or lack thereof, to speak as an expert on literature. It is his views on literature that show his inexpertness, not his being an actor. Many actors and directors are quite good at interpreting literature. It is, in many cases, a required part of the job.
The point is that an actor should not presume to tell experts in the education field that he/she knows more than they do about teaching literacy. I would not presume to tell an actor the best way to portray a character. If I could do that, I would be an actor. As Jason said, “Just because he can act doesn’t make him an expert on modern works.” However, it does mean that he is a reader, as we all are. Trained literary experts are simply trained to read better. It doesn’t mean that the word of a literary expert is law. To quote Sirius in the film version of CoS: “Brilliant, Snape. Once again you’ve put your keen and penetrating mind to the task and as usual come to the wrong conclusion.” That is often true of literary professionals. Any literary expert with a “keen and penetrating mind” can come to the “wrong conclusion” about a literary work. Some are too vain admit it. I’m not. However, those who have not been trained as literary professionals can also be just as vain. To make as baseless a claim as Scott made in an attempt to establish his own artistic values as sacrosanct is nothing more than blind arrogance.
as a british person in britain who watches british tv (and has a mum who is very into inspector series’) I can honestly say I have NO IDEA WHO HE IS. so therefore what he says is unimportant- possibly he’s trying to use high profile potter to boost his own profile?
Do people really think Pullman’s writing style is better than JKR’s? I’ve only read the first two books of the His Dark Materials series, but I can’t stand his lack of character and plot development. It’s driving me crazy in fact. I just started reading the Amber Spyglass last night, so I hope it gets better. But to say a series is better written because the plot is more violent and their is a direct discussion regarding spirituality, is just stupid.
Julie: Don’t not read His Dark Materials now just because of what someone completely unconnected with the books said. They’re good and well worth a read and many people do find them superior to Potter, while still acknowledging Rowling’s greatness. I personally prefer Potter and feel HDM is overrated, but many would disagree with me. The trilogy is definitely worth a read.
Mollywobbles I agree. That’s why I’m not a huge fan of them. I just didn’t care about the characters in HDM. I cared about Harry from the the first few pages of Philosiphers Stone.
She had started drawing up study schedules and colorcoding all her notes. Harry and Ron wouldn't have minded, but she kept nagging them to do the
same.
If I see that Ken Stott has a large part in a play/series I make a point of NOT seeing it. I find his characters unpleasant or bad-tempered, or both, so why bother?
I have read His Dark Materials twice, but I don’t get as much pleasure from that trilogy as I do from Harry Potter. In my opinion, J.K.’s work is a far greater stimulus to children’s minds, especially when many of them can, under supervision, seek out interesting areas to research on the web, because they soon learn that there is more “under the surface” information to be gleaned in her writing. In this way the books can grow as the child grows and understands more of the outside world. This, to my mind, is the first principle of teaching, “stimulate imagination and curiousity.” How can any educator decry that? The gilt on the gingerbread, of course, is that they are all gripping reads.