In defence of Harry Potter

[lyore]

I pity the young generation growing up on her books with a sad and skewed notion of morals and grammar through the broken glasses of The Boy Who Lived.

This essay/post is partly inspired by the above quote (unattributed on purpose, since I don't want her getting attacked by passing HP fen *g*), but mostly it’s in reaction to anti-HP comments I’m seeing a lot, in RL and in Fandom. Despite the title of this post, this isn't really a defence of HP, but more an examination of why I think the books are as problematic as they are.

When you're reading this, please insert IMO as needed. Other people's thoughts may vary - that's fine. In fact, I encourage you to tell me, since I spent far too long thinking/typing this up, and am interested in what people think.

With all that out of the way, let's get into it:

Let's start this debate from a moral perspective, since that's a frequent argument against the books. And let's leave aside religious issues, and whether or not children should be getting all their moral guidance from works of fiction.

Are the Harry Potter books really such bad moral examples? Straight away, I can think of a lot of events/plot points in the books that can be seen as morally dubious (the treatment, portrayal and sheer existence of Slytherin house for starters). On the other hand, I can think of a lot of times when the books are obviously championing 'do the right thing (Dumbledore's speech at the end of GoF, for instance).

To me, the problematic issues are those that are buried in the structure of the work (Slytherin=Evil, for example) and, and I think that, on a child-friendly level, they are countermanded by the raising of 'surface' issues such as the anti-werewolf prejudice, Hermione’s crusade for elf right, the whole 'doing what is right vs doing what is evil' theme. Does that make the subsurface issues any less problematic? Of course not. In fact, they are all the more problematic for the contrast, but what it does do is give anyone who cares to debate this with their children a good jumping off point. ('Children, discuss: What is the difference between portrayal of prejudice with respect to Werewolves and Slytherins?') If people are really interested in resolving the morality of Harry Potter, there's a lot there to discuss.

But looking at the moral issue raises another issue: the conflict between what the Harry Potter books say and what they show.

This conflict 'saying' and 'showing' is fascinating, and worth examining further. This issue is exemplified in the portrayal of Dumbledore. We are told that he is the best of the wizards, a kindly mentor, a caring teacher, and a powerful foe. But looking at these books from an adult level, what we see is a character who has consistently failed to protect those in his care, failed to defeat a villain he helped create, and who has consistently encouraged a minor to get involved in life-threatening situations, often in order to resolve situations the he (Dumbledore) is, at least in part, responsible for. We are left with two choices - he's either a manipulative bastard, or a well-meaning but incompetent failure. Not a very appetising choice.

This disconnect between what is said and what shown arises from the combination of a few factors:

a) the injection of a classic 'boarding school' tropes (where the adults serve as a framework for the child protagonists to pursue the story) into an 'adult' world (in that a war to protect society as we know it is normally considered the domain of adults).

b) the co-existance of the Real and Magical worlds. While it works well on a classic wish-forfillment level, the apparent values of the magical world sit uneasily with the situation described in a). As adults, we know that in the 'Real' world, leaving children to fight the battle against an evil overlord is morally wrong, and because the Real world still exists in the framework of the books, it's hard to leave that moral judgement behind. In a pure fantasy world, these objections can be more easily overcome.

c) adults reading what are, despite the increasingly adult storylines, still children's books. Yes, the plots have grown in darkness, but the world is still a children's one. The plots have matured, but the world cannot, because it works on that childhood, fairytale level. On an adult level, this world makes no sense, because it is based on classic childhood tropes of incompetent (or at least not very useful) adults and the 'world through the wardrobe'.

When the 'feel' and themes of the books were still content to work at a childhood level, the disconnect between the 'real' world and the Magical world could be ignored, the impotence of the adult characters glossed over, and the sub-surface moral issues ignored, because we could read these books on the childhood level we remembered . But as the later books brought in more 'adult' concepts and characterisations, readers were trying to look at the story through two sets of glasses, as it were. The increasing inclusion of more complex issues prompted reading through 'adult' glasses, and that's when the flaws in the world structure are apparent.

As a related note, the other common criticism of the Harry Potter books is that they aren't, on a technical, 'grammar and style' level, very good. But even on this level, Rowling's books work better on the childhood fairytale scale. Her strength, and one that served her very well in her earlier novels, is a gift for creating whimsical situations, realistic child protagonists and amusing/intrigueing adult caricatures character sketches, rather than being an excellent writer. This limitation, and the issues raised above, means that translating those sketches into workable characters, and those situations into a complete world, is occasionally less than successful.

The Harry Potter books are a classic combination wish-forfillment and old-style boarding school fiction with an epic twist. And for a kid, that isn't a bad combination, but from an adult's perspective, it's problematic.



Thoughts?

Comments

[ashavah]

This is really, really thought-provoking and I think you've hit a lot of the issues,

So does geo_chick, who is currently in a piece of plastic attached to my ear. And says 'hi'.

Do you mind if I link to this? I think some people on my friendslist would enjoy it.

*hug*

[lyore.livejournal.com]

Thanks. And say hi to geo_chick for me :)

Link away - I don't have that many HP fen on my flist, so I'd be interested in what your flist has to say.

*hugs back*

[thalia-seawood.livejournal.com]

Very good points. I really like the Harry Potter books, but the issues you have described are exactly the one that bother me.

However, it can be argued that these exact issues offer a challenge to the young reader: Kids will accept the HP world as it is presented, teenagers will probably start discussing these issues. It's a bit like Harry growing up really; e.g. up to book 6, he can't stand Slytherins and in book 6, he starts seeing more depths to them and his simplistic world view is changing.

[lyore.livejournal.com]

Thanks :) I've been nibbling at the edges of these thoughts for a while, but hadn't got around to really thinking it through. It's good to know that other people have the same reaction.

However, it can be argued that these exact issues offer a challenge to the young reader

I agree. I think that these sort of issues can be a good thing, from the point of view of challenging young readers - they reveal themselves based on (among other things) the maturity of the reader. If they can perceive an issue, then, IMO, they are capable of discussing/exploring it. I'm not willing to go so far as to say that JKR intended them for that purpose, but lemons and lemonade, right? :)

[divinemum.livejournal.com]

I'm here via ashavah's journal. :)

You're essay brings up some good points, but I think I disagree with most of your conclusions.

I don't think JKR sat down to write a moral tale a la The Scarlet Letter. She sat down to try and write a good story, and I think she succeeded beyond even her wildest dreams. I think she also succeeded at writing a story that can be analyzed on many different levels (which is exactly what you and so many other fans are doing).

Children may take a more simplistic view of the world JKR has created, but I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing. It's what children do. As they mature into adolescence and adulthood, their worldview also changes and expands. I would be more concerned about the adults who don't think beyond the Slytherin=Evil and Dumbledore=Perfect mindset!

My own children are at the age where they are starting to move away from the surface view of the HP world (they are 8 1/2 and 7), and I look forward to discussing with them the deeper ideas that JKR has presented. AS you said, there is a *lot* there to discuss!

I also think it is okay that JKR has 'told' us one thing but 'shown' us another. You speak of this as a 'disconnect'. I don't think there *is* a disconnection at all. Our own world is not laid out in black and white. You lay out only two options for Dumbledore, but I would present to you a third; Dumbledore is simply doing the best he can with what knowledge and information he has. He has made many mistakes, but he has also done many things exactly the right way.

And honestly, I see no problem with the co-existence of the Real and Magical worlds. I think this is one of the reasons why the books have acheived such popularity in today's world with such a HUGE variety of people. Personally, I do not consider myself a fan of the 'fantasy' genre. I would wager that most people are like me- they'll watch a Lord of the Rings movie, but they aren't going to learn how to speak Elvish and start writing fanfics. ;) Magical/alternate worlds with strange creatures and new races of people and all that just don't appeal to me.

But for JKR to make it seem plausible that a new and different world could truly exist along side our own? Genius, I think. She's not the first to do it, of course, but I think she has done it the best.

By that same token, I don't think the world she has created could ever be considered a "childhood fairytale world". Do fantastic magical things happen that appeal to children? Yes! All the time! But from the moment that we learn that Lord Voldemort killed Harry's parents and tried to kill a one year-old Harry, everybody knows that we have most certainly left a world where children are happy and safe from harm at all times.

The complexity has been there from the beginning (although it has certainly increased, which is a very good thing). It had to be. If it wasn't, I don't think JKR could have gotten most adults to continue reading and discussing the series with as much passion and stamina as they have for the past ten years.

As far as the 'grammar and style level' of JKR, I would submit that most -if not all- authors get critisized somewhere by someone for that very thing. Again, the books aren't perfect, but the whole is much greater than the sum of its parts.

[lyore.livejournal.com]

I don't think JKR sat down to write a moral tale a la The Scarlet Letter.

I agree. But any books, especially those as popular as HP, and especially those with the classic good vs evil storyline, do shown their readers a certain view of morality, implicit in the actions and plot of the story. As indicted by the quote at that the top, this post was in response to the claim that the HP books don't present a 'good' morality (for lack of a better word). (I'll also add that I don't personally believe that ANY books have a duty to teach/show morality to children, but that's a whole 'nother argument.)

What I was trying to say was that the adults and children look at these books differently, and therefore 'see' a different moral structure in the books. I think most of the complaints come from adults looking at this from an adult level, and not at what children would actually take away from the books.

I also think it is okay that JKR has 'told' us one thing but 'shown' us another.

Of course. I think it makes the books a lot more interesting (and, as you say, gives me something to blather on about *g*). But I'm not entirely sure if the conflict between 'told/shown' was (always) intentional - I think a lot of it arises from the structure of the world she has written.

I knew I was going to get into trouble with the Dumbledore example! Honestly, I was leaning towards the 'doing the best he can' explanation, but as the books progressed I think he made far to many mistakes to be satisfied with that. He did exactly what was needed of an adult to allow that child protagonist to shine - but as I looked at these books through 'adult' eyes, I don't find the rationale for a lot of his decisions to be credible/defensible. But hey - each to their own.

But for JKR to make it seem plausible that a new and different world could truly exist along side our own? Genius, I think.

I agree. But I think that plausibility breaks down a little, when you look at these books in the full knowledge of the capability of the modern would. After all, how many people have looked at these books and said 'Why doesn't Harry just get a gun?" *g* It goes deeper than that, of course, but it's a convenience (and common) example.

Which is not to say I don't love the duality of the overall world she's created - I don't think the books would work nearly so well without it. It just becomes problematic on occasion, since so many of the events in the wizarding world are brought about by actions and worldviews (of the good guys) that are inconsistent with the world view (or even morals, if you will *g*) of the modern world.

I don't think the world she has created could ever be considered a "childhood fairytale world"....we have most certainly left a world where children are happy and safe from harm at all times.

I don't think 'safety' is a characteristic of fairytales - far from it! I think Harry's story is an almost classic 'Cinderella'-style story. I didn't intend fairytale to be a criticism, sorry.

As far as the 'grammar and style level'

I did have a whole paragraph where I listed best-selling authors who I thought were worse at the techincal/plot/characterisation 'stuff' than JKR. Funnily enough, Dan Brown was at the top of the list :) So yes, I most definitely agree with this comment.

Thanks for taking the time to reply - your thoughts were fascinating.

[divinemum.livejournal.com]

I don't think 'safety' is a characteristic of fairytales - far from it! I think Harry's story is an almost classic 'Cinderella'-style story. I didn't intend fairytale to be a criticism, sorry.

I shouldn't have used the word 'safe', especially in connection with fairy tales. As you say, safety isn't a characteristic of fairy tales! ;) And I didn't take your use of 'fairytales' to be a criticism. What I meant to say was that even though these books are considered children's books, they have definitely broke the mold as to what a children's book can be.


But I think that plausibility breaks down a little, when you look at these books in the full knowledge of the capability of the modern would. After all, how many people have looked at these books and said 'Why doesn't Harry just get a gun?" *g* It goes deeper than that, of course, but it's a convenience (and common) example.

Hmmm...that's a good point. But I also think of when Fudge told the Muggle Prime Minister that "[they](Voldemort and his followers) have magic, too." What works in the magical world won't necessarily work in the muggle world, and vice versa. It also helps that JKR set up from the beginning that the wizarding world has chosen to live, for the most part, seperate from the muggle world. Had she not made that point clear from the beginning, I could definitely accept your point about the plausibility of it all.

Your essay had been wonderful to think about all day. :D It seems as if JKR gets more criticism than most authors (as evidenced by the quote that prompted you to write this essay), and I think it's because she has become so successful writing children's(!) books(!)

*gasp* The audacity of her! ;)

[lyore.livejournal.com]

It also helps that JKR set up from the beginning that the wizarding world has chosen to live, for the most part, seperate from the muggle world.

I think it helps, but doesn't completely alleviate the issue - because I know the 'real world' still exists in her world structure, I find it harder to separate my existing knowledge and beliefs from the plot of the book. However, I am perfectly willing to accept that other people don't have this issue. We might have to agree to disagree on this one :)

Your essay had been wonderful to think about all day.

Thanks! I was aiming for thought-provoking, glad I succeeded :)

The audacity of her! ;)

I know! How dare she! :P

[hazelline.livejournal.com]

Hi, I read this via JK and I think you picked up on some interesting points and discussed them cleverly. I must apologise that this will probably be a disjointed reply as I've been studying all day and my brain hurts!

I first began reading the series when I was about 10 or 11. From what I remember, I didn't consider these issues in great detail. I did wonder in an offhand sort of way why Dumbledore didn't intervene more or if every single Slytherin was infinitely bad but it never bothered me enough to make me stop reading.

I would object strongly to the assumption made in the beginning quotation. I am part of the young generation growing up on her books, and I don't exactly think I have "skewed morals"! I consider the examples set by many of the characters to be positive ones, and where they are not meant to be taken as such, this is made clear.

What you have pointed out about Dumbledore, that he is either malicious or incompetent, strikes me as extremely interesting. Dumbledore, in effect, embodies all the difficulties and incompatibilities of the God of classical theism. Very interesting from a philosophical point of view.

I find the criticism that J.K. Rowling is not technically a good writer a bit exasperating, to be honest. Whenever a lot of people enjoy or admire something, you will have an instant backlash. What great author has not been slated? It has always been said of George Orwell that he is skilled at depicting political musings and making astute appraisals of the world, but that he is not actually a good writer because his characters are stereotypical. On the other hand, Rowling is supposedly not a good writer because, despite being wonderful at the very thing Orwell is not, her books may lack the realism that Orwell was actually so good at. You can go round in circles with this, and it's mainly due to the fact that there is no way to objectively be a good writer, as stories are an interest, and the preferences will always be subjective to the individual.

My apologies for the length of this, but your post really interested me!

[lyore.livejournal.com]

I would object strongly to the assumption made in the beginning quotation.

Yes, so did I. And apparently I get very wordy when I object to something, since what started out as a two line reply to that comment mutated into essay! :)

Dumbledore, in effect, embodies all the difficulties and incompatibilities of the God of classical theism.

I haven't looked at it from that point of view, but you're right.

I find the criticism that J.K. Rowling is not technically a good writer a bit exasperating, to be honest.

Yes, I know. I agree that she isn't the world's best writer, but so what? I think her style matches the books (especially the early ones), and I think her strengths compensate for her weaknesses. As you say, different writers are good that different facets of writing. Except for Dan Brown, who fails at everything writerly except conspiracies *g*

Hee, don't apologise from long comments! I looove long comments!

[proudofthefish.livejournal.com]

I'm here via JK's journals and I found this post interesting and thought provoking as I am a literature nerd. I blame it on my two bestfriends who are both English majors. Anyway I think that when you talked about the disconnect especially with Dumbledore that is the difference (as you pointed out between adult and children leaders. Teens who are transitioning into adulthood are an interesting study.

Overall I think JKR is a good storyteller (perhaps why her grammar is lacking tho i can't judge as mine is worse) and your essay sort of reminded me of my view of The Chronicles of Narnia by C.S. Lewis. One one level they can be read as the Chistian allegory that they are but on another level they can be read as a great story told by a superb storyteller.

[lyore.livejournal.com]

Overall I think JKR is a good storyteller

I think she's a GREAT storyteller, and that compensates for her technical weaknesses.

I'm glad you found this interesting. I don't have a lot of literature nerd friends in real life (I'm an engineer *g*), so I love reading their thoughts on LJ!

[kit-the-brave.livejournal.com]

Here via Ashavah :)

You've articulated something that I've been thinking since Goblet of Fire, but haven't been able to express nearly so well: the idea of the story maturing while being stuck in a world as we first saw it when Harry was eleven.

I do think JKR set herself an amazingly difficult narrative task in deciding to age her point of view character from childhood to adulthood in the course of the books; I imagine that she didn't realize quite what she was getting into, just because I can't even think of another novelist who's done that. (Most books I can think of that portray child-to-adult transformations do it from the point of view of an adult looking back.)

JKR does revise Harry's perceptions of the major characters, I think - Harry realizes (and we realize through him) that his father and Sirius, Snape, and to some extent Dumbledore are more complex than he first thought. But there isn't a corresponding moment when he sees that the whole wizarding world is not set up the way he first thought it was - and it would take that kind of reimagining of the world to solve the problems you mention.

Thanks for writing this! It's really interesting!

[lyore.livejournal.com]

the idea of the story maturing while being stuck in a world as we first saw it when Harry was eleven.

Yes, I think this gets to the crux of the 'problems' with the HP books.

JKR does revise Harry's perceptions of the major characters, I think - Harry realizes (and we realize through him) that his father and Sirius, Snape, and to some extent Dumbledore are more complex than he first thought. But there isn't a corresponding moment when he sees that the whole wizarding world is not set up the way he first thought it was - and it would take that kind of reimagining of the world to solve the problems you mention.

I just quoted the entire paragraph, because I agree with it all completely :)

Thanks for replying! Your points are really fascinating.

[divinemum.livejournal.com]

But there isn't a corresponding moment when he sees that the whole wizarding world is not set up the way he first thought it was - and it would take that kind of reimagining of the world to solve the problems you mention.


Kit, I think I would argue that we do see this moment, and we see it when Harry sees it. It's at the end of GoF, when Fudge refuses to listen to Dumbledore about Voldemort's return. Harry certainly views the whole wizarding world much differently after that moment, and I know that I did too. This perception shift is really on display all through out OotP.

[necromage.livejournal.com]

Interesting essay - and I'm glad you seem to be thinking HP at the same time I am. If you're going to go_the_brumbies tomorrow we can discuss it further there, since I'm at my other work at the moment and nowhere near coherent due to a new flu virus I've picked up - you want me to bring all the source material? ;)

(I won't tell you what I bought yesterday in a moment of boredom and weakness. My only excuse is a sudden renewed interest in the 'analytics' of Harry Potter - and work. Gee, it's draining...!)

[lyore.livejournal.com]

Why were you thinking of HP? I'll be there, and feel free to bring the books :) I feel like I should set this post as required reading for the laptop party :P

Now you have to tell me - what did you get? And whatever it is, can I borrow it?

[necromage.livejournal.com]

Dunno. It was probably seeing the stand up for the OoTP movie at Hoyts that rekindled interest - oh, and the trailer at the beginning of PotC3. Besides that, I've always been at least marginally interested in anything to do with HP...

Trust me, you don't want to read it. It's one of those unauthorised 'essay' type books; this particular one intending to present both sides of the argument for whether Snape's a good guy or a bad guy. I was bored. Felt like reading some HP-meta. And my laptop has been usurped by students so I can't ready any online.

In retrospect, a better unauthorised book-investment would have been the 'all the secrets of HP revealed' type one that was below the Snape debate book. I read a few chapters (they're very short) and the author was far more coherent and a far more interesting read. I love it: I have no money and I'm throwing it away... Oh well, live and learn.

I'll bring it tomorrow just because it does bring up some interesting points that may be relevant. I still have to finish the SW book you loaned me, but HP's caught me attention again.

[lyore.livejournal.com]

I can't talk, I wandered into a bookshop this afternoon - but at least I only bought one! And it was on sale! And I just know I'm going to add it to the growing pile of books waiting for me to read... why does work eat up so much of my time?

[psuedoskribe.livejournal.com]

[raises hands] It was ME-EE-EE-EE! [/bellow]

Rawr.

Well spoken on all the above points and there's nothing you've said that I have any reason to contest, though when I mentioned the questionable morality, it was really some of the attitude and actions of her protagonists that concerned me. Tomorrow I'll bring a couple of books and see if I can find the exact passages for reference. We can have a meta and guitar heroes afternoon over food. I have a feeling we'll be ending on a note of 'agreeing to disagree', but it'll be a nice break from RL commitments.

[lyore.livejournal.com]

Well, I wasn't going to dob you in without asking :)

when I mentioned the questionable morality, it was really some of the attitude and actions of her protagonists that concerned me.

Fair enough, but I don't think you can judge the attitudes/actions of any character anyway from the context in which they are set.

We can have a meta and guitar heroes afternoon over food.

As I said to Mage, I have a feeling we should set this as the required reading - but I don't think that go_the_brumbies would be impressed! ;)

[psuedoskribe.livejournal.com]

Well, I wasn't going to dob you in without asking :)

Of course, I'd expect nothing less of such a considerate friend. :]

I don't think you can judge the attitudes/actions of any character anyway from the context in which they are set.

'Anyway' or 'away' from the context? I'll presume you didn't typo there. Fair to say, it certainly would be unreasonable to try and transpose the morality of their actions on a modern analogous case, so I'm not doing that. If I'm going to criticise the character of certain people in Rowling's universe I do it with consideration of their background, upbringing and social pressures to date (at least, those that are made apparent to us). In some cases a potentially immoral act may follow naturally from all of this and you could say that within their context, a character's actions may seem justified, at the very least, to themselves.

Regardless, I would dispute that there persist some issues of normative ethics even in the magical world that still render some of the actions of some characters questionable.

Rowling makes me dislike the moral character of certain individuals through no fault of their own, save them being simply who they are, i.e. accept these people for who they are, but some of them don't warm to me.

It will all become clearer over tomorrow's afternoon with direct source material and, yes, your threads are definitely required reading if GtB wants to have any idea what we're rambling about in his house.

[lyore.livejournal.com]

'Anyway' or 'away' from the context? I'll presume you didn't typo there.

I did typo, but since it prompted fascinating thoughts, I shall forgive myself :)

Regardless, I would dispute that there persist some issues of normative ethics even in the magical world that still render some of the actions of some characters questionable.

Absolutely. I never meant to imply that there AREN'T questionable actions/motivations, but that by creating a world where the normative morality of the real (adult) world exists in the same fictional space as the demands of classic 'boarding school' tropes (incompetent authority figures, stereotyping of characters based on group identify), these questionable actions are inherent in the story.

Effectively, I guess the gist of my argument is that, because of the way JKR has chosen to set up her world, these shorts of issues where always going to arise.

GTB is going to have no idea what we are talking about, but I think I shall prompt bob_ette to read up so she can get involved :)

[quiet-snowfall.livejournal.com]

Ooh, incredibly interesting lyore - both your essay and the comment thread in general. I love the books but have not read a lot of the 'meta' about them. I've not actually heard anyone criticise HP for 'skewing' kids morals (unlike all the hoo-har over His Dark Materials!) Totally agree with your very interesting fine-tuned analysis of what is actually problematic/not problematic in the books, eg the Slytherin=evil structured into the book - a sort of child-like 'children's fiction' good vs evil simplicity that is hard to break free from (I think Dr Who suffers from this sometimes too in making overly 'pantomime' villains with little shades of grey). I'd not thought about the difficulties in translating something from originally a 'children's fiction' world and moving it into an adult world and the 'disconnection' that can happen. I also hadn't thought of Dumbledore's actions from an 'adult world' point of view - it's quite an eye-opener when you think of it like that!

Anyway, all said, I agree despite inevitable problems it's a wonderful world she's created and I'm sure has inspired a lot of children to be creative and imaginative in their own turn. Oh and I can't see the problem in her writing style either - seems fine to me, maybe I'm not picky enough :-)

[lyore.livejournal.com]

I vaguely remember hearing something about His Dark Materials, but I've never read the books (they're on my list, when I get a chance).

I haven't thought about that in relation to Dr Who - in that case, what's your take on episodes like Dalek?

I can see (and agree with, to a certain extent), the criticisms directed at her writing - but I've also seen a whole lot worse from equally lauded authors, so I'm not really inclined to lob too many stones in JKR' direction. I have better targets! *hoists rock consideringly*

[quiet-snowfall.livejournal.com]

Ooh yes, the Dalek episode is a good one to consider - will get back to you with a proper thought-through response. At the moment my work are determined to squeeze the last drop of blood out of me before I leave at the end of the month...don't they know I have far more important things to do on LJ!!! :-) Would definitely recommend the His Dark Materials trilogy - beautiful, really imaginative stuff. Went to see a stage version of it at the National Theatre a while ago and it was really magical. I'm hoping the upcoming film will be as breath-taking.

[lyore.livejournal.com]

will get back to you with a proper thought-through response

You know I'll hold you to that :P

I've heard His Dark Materials are good. I know my sister has the books, I might have to steal them from her.