"Harry Potter" and Joann Rowling.

Circumstances have developed so, that I have read all of books about Harry Potter. And I would like to share with you my impressions.

The first that is evident is an English literary tradition. Dickens's stylistics, with its characters-signs is clearly visible.

Meanwhile the border between goods and evil passes not between people as “through their hearts” in a reality. An amusing example from personal children's experience - certain rather mean person has hotly interceded for crushed frog J. But certainly characters-signs are quite allowable literary reception.

Though, some banality of methods slightly also guards, clearly, that completely original thing could not make so fast and deafening success basically (the society should "ripen" long).

Stylistics of “The Lord of the rings” is appreciable also. Therefore the success of books about Potter is quite clear, especially as the love of the modern people to sorcery and ‘paranormal phenomena’.

Basically, "Harry Potter" speaks about ‘eternal themes’ initiation, struggle against evil, thus is in convincing, attractive surroundings for the child (anyone would wish to study in such magic school as "Hogwarts", with its towers, underground transitions, monsters, magic lessons and real rivalry). And, as the modern society, is partly focused on an ideal of infantilism (as well as archaic aspired to an ideal of solidity) the circle of readers Joann Rowling is rather wide.

The central character - Harry Potter - the person who is as though taking place initiation like god or hero (Apollo, Dionysus) and so on.

Other archetype of histories about the young magician is his ‘duplication’. Double Potter is super villain Voldemort. Doubles are also other working characters, those whom we «hold on suspicion». It is necessary to note skilful the twirled plots of histories Rowling. Like also you suspect someone, but, it appears, the author by means of the conjurer’s dexterous gestures has directed us on a false trace. Thus reader has got the key to a solution.

And some words about "trifles". There is sport Anglo-Saxon spirit, all this pursuit of glasses surprises appearing in books. Agree that when almost each your action entails or addition of glasses to a joint account of college, or removal of these is taken abruptly away. That, perhaps the command spirit rallies a society not worse the clan-patrimonial beginning and it is bad, when there is no neither that, nor another (it is direct across Fukuyama: corporate business against family firms).

The moment with huge spiders is bad. In general, spiders are not too good material for creation of an artistic image. They somehow very badly match fantastic subjects (either dragons - or the spiders, one of two). Too frequently these animals turned into silly in films. Probably, cause of it are American producers with theirs subconscious horror for spiders and scorpions (going, probably, since times of the Silurian and Devonian periods when our ancestors-fish struggled with sea arthropod monsters). “Hate spiders - they do not love you too J”.

Of course Shelob from “the Lord of the rings” and Ungolianta ("Silmarillion") look more organically (it is possible because of own space scales). But it is not necessary to force hysteria and to create ‘an enemy image’ from these essences rather useful to the peoples.

Many details of the book are successful and work for success. For example idea of passwords or flying whisk marks for magic game in Quid ditch are successful. ‘Nimbus 2000’, ‘Nimbus 2001’ contain obvious allusion to early versions “Windows”, and newcomer model - to “Windows XP”. Some journal looks as a parody to wellknown glossy magazine for sexually anxious women.

By the way, books Rowling nominated in certain serious (and completely not children's) literary competition. We shall hope, that will not bypass those awards. At ceremony "Oscar 2002" in Los Angeles film about Potter has not received anything.

Alex Fantalov.