It's in the covers

Here's a prediction founded on the inverse of a truism.

It's a shame the Harry Potter movies were filmed during emo culture as opposed to Hello Kitty or Manga fads, because the movies are dark and brooding and impart a serious sort of angst and disturbed aura to the underlying stories. On their own, I'd guess they'd be remembered as a remarkable achievement: so many linked films tracking the growth of the individual actors as well as the story itself. And I would also LOVE to get an unguarded and utterly frank hour with Rowling regarding the interplay between literary and cinematographic developments: how much did the global movie event shape the course of the literary evolution? That one can sit, though, in the face of a more tangible literary consideration, the likes of which is perfect fodder for armchair academia: how much did fame and a global following alter the development of the story?

Book One: pure, fun narrative indulgence. Two: similar spark. Three: losing it. Four, Five, Six: Hmm, if every kid in the world is going to know about Harry Potter, how do I make sure that every mother in the world approves of him?

Seven: oh yeah, here's what good storytelling is about.

And by the last page, what started as a fun story for kids comes back to a killer adventure story for a young audience.

Here's where the prediction comes in.

The Harry Potter books will be what we read our children, where our children learn to lose themselves in narratives.

Chances are, people in my generation will do that reading out of the pastel-colored Scholastic editions we bought on release days, which is where the truism comes into play: judge them by their covers.

In the Scholastic editions, the pastel stylizations are happy, fun, kid-friendly deals. And ultimately, that's what the books are about: a kid-friendly story.

I just hope that the literary culture lives with sufficient strength to occlude the cinematic reinterpretation.