Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Anu's avatar

I have a very nostalgic feeling about this whole era because my mom went to the UK around this time on a business trip. I was a bookworm of a child and had long lists of books unavailable in India that I wanted her to get for me. She happened upon a wonderful bookseller in a store in London who recommended some real bangers to her, including the first Harry Potter and great intro Discworld books (Men at Arms, Guards, Guards and Equal Rites). In total, she brought back 32 books, a whole suitcase-worth.

She was understandably a little peeved when I read the first Harry Potter and then immediately asked why she hadn’t immediately bought the second too. If recall, that was a period when the second book had just come out but the series wasn’t quite as red-hot as it eventually became but super buzzy.

Expand full comment
Brian Slattery's avatar

I was fascinated by the differing accounts of how the first Harry Potter book came to be accepted by Bloomsbury. What stood out for me was Cunningham's statement: "I think it was because I didn't come from a traditional background. I'd come from marketing and promotion. I'd seen how children relate to books, so I perhaps wasn't looking for those kinds of books that tried to teach them lessons, or tried to be good for them." A remarkably high proportion of books published for kids today still try teach them moralistic lessons of a very particular sort. By contrast, what distinguishes the Harry Potter books is strong old-fashioned story-telling, a fascinating range of characters, and highly imaginative world-building. Dickens would have approved.

Expand full comment
3 more comments...

No posts