In Celebration of Magic
Dec. 27th, 2011 04:47 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mark_asphodelDiscussion on Raphi's LJ on relatable characters and Harry Potter and such made me want to dive back into the "magic" books that enthralled me as a child.
See, I wasn't remotely charmed by the first two HP books, and other acclaimed modern series like His Dark Materials really haven't worked for me. I grew up reading the sort of books that are the foundation of kiddie fantasy lit, like the E. Nesbit Psammead trilogy, not to mention lots of Roald Dahl. If that's what you start out reading, J.K. Rowling and her generation don't seem like much of anything special. Now, I think Rowling got her groove on with Prisoner of Azkaban, which actually got me invested in her series and characters, but the first two books are pretty standard school-story formula with bonus Dalhian grotesquerie, IMO.
[I also realize that part of the cultural impact of the Potter books was that, for many kids, that was the first series of books they ever read or wanted to read. That's a valuable role. They were NOT the first books I ever read and that's all I have to say about that angle.]
Not that derivative works can't be amazing.
The #1 fantasy series of my childhood, the books of Edward Eager, wears its Nesbit influence openly, proudly. The books are intentional "gateway drugs" to the works of the woman that Eager called the "Master" of their trade. The seven books that Eager penned for children are a positive celebration of the power of literature, from Plato to Sir Walter Scott to Longfellow to Laura Ingalls Wilder. Prose and poetry transport the children as powerfully as the magic does-- the magic is often a portal into the fictional worlds they love. His characters are, in essence, little proto-fanficcers, trying to hook up Ivanhoe with Rebecca and Laurie with Jo because it's better that way! To fully appreciate the worlds that Eager constructs, it really helps to know what he's building upon, and I don't consider that a shortcoming of the books in the slightest. Reading Eager drove me to pursue the works of Nesbit and Alcott (thumbs up) and to read Ivanhoe and Evangeline (thumbs down, way down); they make themselves part of a literary tradition that stretches back to ancient Greece and Babylon.
That wasn't enough to make the books great, though. The prose style is clear and engaging, humorous and memorable (I can quote many passages from memory, with relish), and the characters are some of the best and most convincing children in Stateside kiddie lit. Boys and girls shine alike in Eager's books, and they were children I could sympathize with, children who loved reading as much as I did. Eager doesn't fall into the trap of making the "active" kid, the "motherly" kid, the "bookish" kid, and the "stupid" kid. All the kids (except Gordy from Magic or Not?) are bright, curious, engaged with the world around them. I was completely in tune with them-- with Ann when she orders pickled mangoes in the Pullman car, with Mark when he gets excited about a town called Angola because he recognizes the name from his stamp collection, with Laura and James when they discuss why their parents didn't buy the house where George Washington slept. And I was with them when they were being bratty and petty and occasionally cruel, because they were, well, kids.
The books aren't perfect. Artifacts of their time, they have some depictions of Arabs and "cannibals" that were still borderline acceptable in my 1980s childhood but are decidedly not so today. But for 1950s kiddie lit, the evenhanded portrayal of boys and girls, sisters and brothers and friends-- intelligent, active, independent, interesting kids-- is pretty impressive. Eager's standout character is probably Roger, the main hero of Knight's Castle, which might be the best book of the seven, but the supporting cast (with the possible exception of Gordy) is always solid and memorable. I loved characters like Roger and Mark, bookish boys who weren't in any sense the "nerds" that filled 1980s TV and movies, and I equally loved poetry-quoting Katherine, artsy Lydia, headstrong little Martha and her future daughter Ann.
[I was less sympathetic toward "bossy" types Eliza and Jane; as a very bossy child, I think I resented the accuracy of the portrayals! But I warmed up to them, and to the "stoic leader" character James as I grew older.]
Eager's books were not available for a long time, if I recall. I grew up reading my mother's battered old copies. They were re-issued when I was in university, and judging from the increase in "web presence" from 2000 (one little fansite) to today (articles, blogs, Amazon reviews) they've penetrated more of the public consciousness. I hope so.
If I have children, I may or may not insist upon introducing them to Harry Potter. I'm still deeply ambivalent about a series that, IMO, peaked in the third of seven installments. But I will definitely be reading them Half-Magic and Knight's Castle when they're tots, and then Magic or Not? when they're a little older and can handle its harder-edged, more ambiguous take on magic. I want them to have the same "friends" that I did as a child-- not Harry, Hermione, and Ron, but Roger and Ann, James and Laura, Mark and Katherine.
I want them to experience Edward Eager's "gateway" into literature-- not a portal into one sealed-off world ruled by a single author, but a thousand different doors and windows into all that myth and history, prose, and poetry can offer.
See, I wasn't remotely charmed by the first two HP books, and other acclaimed modern series like His Dark Materials really haven't worked for me. I grew up reading the sort of books that are the foundation of kiddie fantasy lit, like the E. Nesbit Psammead trilogy, not to mention lots of Roald Dahl. If that's what you start out reading, J.K. Rowling and her generation don't seem like much of anything special. Now, I think Rowling got her groove on with Prisoner of Azkaban, which actually got me invested in her series and characters, but the first two books are pretty standard school-story formula with bonus Dalhian grotesquerie, IMO.
[I also realize that part of the cultural impact of the Potter books was that, for many kids, that was the first series of books they ever read or wanted to read. That's a valuable role. They were NOT the first books I ever read and that's all I have to say about that angle.]
Not that derivative works can't be amazing.
The #1 fantasy series of my childhood, the books of Edward Eager, wears its Nesbit influence openly, proudly. The books are intentional "gateway drugs" to the works of the woman that Eager called the "Master" of their trade. The seven books that Eager penned for children are a positive celebration of the power of literature, from Plato to Sir Walter Scott to Longfellow to Laura Ingalls Wilder. Prose and poetry transport the children as powerfully as the magic does-- the magic is often a portal into the fictional worlds they love. His characters are, in essence, little proto-fanficcers, trying to hook up Ivanhoe with Rebecca and Laurie with Jo because it's better that way! To fully appreciate the worlds that Eager constructs, it really helps to know what he's building upon, and I don't consider that a shortcoming of the books in the slightest. Reading Eager drove me to pursue the works of Nesbit and Alcott (thumbs up) and to read Ivanhoe and Evangeline (thumbs down, way down); they make themselves part of a literary tradition that stretches back to ancient Greece and Babylon.
That wasn't enough to make the books great, though. The prose style is clear and engaging, humorous and memorable (I can quote many passages from memory, with relish), and the characters are some of the best and most convincing children in Stateside kiddie lit. Boys and girls shine alike in Eager's books, and they were children I could sympathize with, children who loved reading as much as I did. Eager doesn't fall into the trap of making the "active" kid, the "motherly" kid, the "bookish" kid, and the "stupid" kid. All the kids (except Gordy from Magic or Not?) are bright, curious, engaged with the world around them. I was completely in tune with them-- with Ann when she orders pickled mangoes in the Pullman car, with Mark when he gets excited about a town called Angola because he recognizes the name from his stamp collection, with Laura and James when they discuss why their parents didn't buy the house where George Washington slept. And I was with them when they were being bratty and petty and occasionally cruel, because they were, well, kids.
The books aren't perfect. Artifacts of their time, they have some depictions of Arabs and "cannibals" that were still borderline acceptable in my 1980s childhood but are decidedly not so today. But for 1950s kiddie lit, the evenhanded portrayal of boys and girls, sisters and brothers and friends-- intelligent, active, independent, interesting kids-- is pretty impressive. Eager's standout character is probably Roger, the main hero of Knight's Castle, which might be the best book of the seven, but the supporting cast (with the possible exception of Gordy) is always solid and memorable. I loved characters like Roger and Mark, bookish boys who weren't in any sense the "nerds" that filled 1980s TV and movies, and I equally loved poetry-quoting Katherine, artsy Lydia, headstrong little Martha and her future daughter Ann.
[I was less sympathetic toward "bossy" types Eliza and Jane; as a very bossy child, I think I resented the accuracy of the portrayals! But I warmed up to them, and to the "stoic leader" character James as I grew older.]
Eager's books were not available for a long time, if I recall. I grew up reading my mother's battered old copies. They were re-issued when I was in university, and judging from the increase in "web presence" from 2000 (one little fansite) to today (articles, blogs, Amazon reviews) they've penetrated more of the public consciousness. I hope so.
If I have children, I may or may not insist upon introducing them to Harry Potter. I'm still deeply ambivalent about a series that, IMO, peaked in the third of seven installments. But I will definitely be reading them Half-Magic and Knight's Castle when they're tots, and then Magic or Not? when they're a little older and can handle its harder-edged, more ambiguous take on magic. I want them to have the same "friends" that I did as a child-- not Harry, Hermione, and Ron, but Roger and Ann, James and Laura, Mark and Katherine.
I want them to experience Edward Eager's "gateway" into literature-- not a portal into one sealed-off world ruled by a single author, but a thousand different doors and windows into all that myth and history, prose, and poetry can offer.
no subject
Date: 2011-12-27 11:03 pm (UTC)I never really read "series" books as a small child. As a pre-teen I found Nancy Drew at a garage sale and from then on would buy ALL THE NANCY DREWS FOREVER. When my parents said the Hardy Boys were similar, I scoffed because, pf, boys, who gives a shit? But my brother got into those. And then we happened upon NANCY DREW AND THE HARDY BOYS and my brother and I squeed for months over those. I still have quite a few original print Nancy Drew books iirc. I am not a huge fan (as the writing REALLY sucks, says the person who couldn't stop laughing two pages in the last time she tried to read one) but I loved them as a kid, so I have emotional investment there. I dabbled with Animorphs books for a short time, and was absolutely blown away by VERY few books as a kid. Let's see: The Girl Who Owned a City, Shade's Children, and I'll Always Love You-- the last being for very young kids, a picture book about death-- were the only super memorable books I really read. As a young teen I happened upon The Last Unicorn (and then the movie) which did leave me pretty excited because the writing was great, and I borrowed my friend's copy of Faun & Games (even though fantasy wasn't my usual genre-- I carried around a lot of autobiographies) and did enjoy it very much. (I remember the Daymare the best.)
I always knew what auto-biographies and biographies were, and I read a lot of them. Especially about presidents (they were easy to find at school), but I think it was when I realized that Laura Ingalls Wilder's books were AUTO-biographies, as in, written by her and not 2nd-hand accounts, that I about flipped my shit. I don't remember how old I was, maybe 13, I had read the books a million times before. But there was something about realizing that she actually fucking lived that absolutely BLEW MY MIND. That pretty much cemented my love of history-- that the world /actually was like that at one time in one place/. It's so hard to believe now with all our technological shit, though. But that's how it used to be! (I'm still kind of overwhelmed by it, in a good way!)
Then a teacher introduced me to The Giver. I was so intrigued by it that my younger brother filched a copy from his 6th grade teacher (I was a year ahead), and not only did he read it, but I read it to my six-year-old sister and quizzed her and asked the same questions my Reading teacher did. The "utopia" theme to this day is an intriguing thought, and the book pretty much spelled out my opinions on it for me. Jonas was probably my Harry Potter in that, when I picture a "young boy" in a strange type of world, relate-able but at the same time, completely not, I do picture him, I think.
They Cage the Animals At Night (auto-biography) hit upon EVERYTHING I loved in a book-- it was so realistic it was like I was there. It was an auto-biography which means it really happened. There were funny parts, and heartbreaking parts, and just...gah. I read this one to my sister, also.
And then Night (Eli Wiesel) was a required read in 8th grade. I almost flipped my shit over that, too. The teacher was made fun of to high heaven and called "a Jew" by half the kids for actively doing Holocaust-information units for 8th graders, but I was absolutely in love with history by this point and I wanted to know what happened so bad I was in the library checking out 20 books on the Holocaust (including Night). I was a seriously annoying know it all in that class, and I was also the only avid reader/bookworm. (I read this to my sister, too! A seven-year old. Hm.)
(I later teacher aided for this teacher and loved EVERY MINUTE OF IT. She taught me everything about foreshadowing and even though she didn't teach English, I learned most of my writing techniques from her teaching me how to absorb reading material! I never looked at reading material the same way again.)
In later years I picked up some Christian novels (Janette Oke was family reading material and my brother and I absorbed all the ones my mother didn't read to us. The ones she did, I really enjoyed). Janette Oke isn't an amazing author, and her writing is rather simple-- not a lot of detail. But the way she writes still tells a story, and the "west" during the 1800s was her prime choice for a setting, and I was seriously in love with the "wild west" and "history" and absorbed everything like a sponge. I learned a lot about writing by reading her works, too. She also wrote about fairly strong, capable women and I REALLY loved that.
I was always a major bookworm, and three of the four of us (3/4 kids) grew up readers. Reading helped me immensely as a writer and just in general comprehension. The one sibling that always hated reading? Did terrible on writing-related stuff and reading comprehension and only RECENTLY learned how to write a real sentence. Reading good material is always good for kids, in my opinion. I wouldn't tell my kids they couldn't read, say, Harry Potter, because I preferred other things, but I would make certain they were of an appropriate age beforehand (and of appropriate maturity-- not all kids age the same, etc etc).
Books were such a huge part of my childhood I can't even imagine what I'd do if I had a kid who hated reading! Late in high school I got into the Star Wars books (pretty simple writing there, too) and after high school I hit upon some favorite books-- The Lovely Bones, Memoirs of a Geisha, The Glass Castle.
I think it's so neat how books that we loved as kids are not loved by kids today. I both find this unsurprising and surprising at once. When I was a kid, I NEVER would have picked up Harry Potter. There are a million reasons why, too-- the name is stupid as shit, the cover art wasn't cool looking, I wasn't into fantasy unless there were unicorns involved (haha), and I don't think I could have been assed to look past the dumb shit to see if it was a good book or not. (My parents would have thought it was evil when I was a kidlet, anyway.)
But I didn't grow up like most people and I readily admit this. I grew up watching Little House on the Prairie, I Dream of Jeannie, Petticoat Junction, My Three Sons and Road to Avonlea-- not cartoons or popular shows that were on TV at the time. I really LIKE the older shows-- I wish I owned them all, especially Petticoat Junction and My Three Sons, haha-- but I can totally see why kids now wouldn't be remotely interested in those shows. :X I guess books go through "popular" cycles, too: and with the internet and stuff, it's so EASY to find good reads if you really want them.
I LOVE how easy that is! Love it. SO MUCH. When I was a kid I had to read the back of a book to see if I'd find it interesting or not. Now I can read that and look up reviews, too. Though I still kind of get nostalgic and every now and then I DO pick up a book based on the cover art and summary alone. XD
no subject
Date: 2011-12-27 11:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-12-27 11:17 pm (UTC)I loved the Nancy Drew and Hardy Boys books, too, especially all the old ones from the 1950s. I had a crush on Joe when I was really young and then I realized Frank was more my style. And I looooooved biographies from third grade onward.
[I will say that The Giver really disgusted me and pretty much broke me of interest in dystopian YA lit. I was initially enthralled, and the more I thought it over, the more cheap it all seemed, and then I was just DONE with the genre!]
I grew up in a very Anglophilic household, reading Rumer Godden's doll books, anything with talking mice in it, and some really weird stuff like "The Thursday Kidnapping" that my mother actually stole out of a library. My mother and grandmother had a lot more impact on my tastes than my, ah, peers. But I thought my peers were all idjits anyway.
Glad you found this a good read!
no subject
Date: 2011-12-27 11:33 pm (UTC)I thought The Giver was alright, but it was Gathering Blue that really got me interested in dystopian literature. I've yet to read the third book in that trilogy, though.
no subject
Date: 2011-12-28 12:27 am (UTC)Haha I was always more into Frank, myself. Maybe because I was the eldest child and then had a thing for the "oldest" male in a family. XD!!
The reason I think I liked The Giver was for two reasons (because as a genre I never cared):
1.) A real utopia? Impossible.
2.) The scene where Jonas gets the memory of war. And afterward, how he felt when he saw his friends playing at war, and he yelled at them. I literally cannot forget that.
I have also never forgotten (and now it's a joke in my family with my brother who also doesn't forget shit like this) the part where as a kid, Jonas's friend says, "I'm starving!" and he gets slapped or something, and someone says, "You are not starving! YOU WILL NEVER /BE/ STARVING!" That always struck me really hard and I'm not quite sure why. Maybe it's because as human beings we speak so many non-literal phrases-- I literally had said "I'm starving" a lot in my life and...holy shit some people ARE starving, but I'm not. Just exaggerating! I think I felt guilty.
I liked the idea behind The Giver-- with the memory-giving, and I think at first I didn't realize it was a "utopia". At first I felt cheated by the book because the ending felt like a total copout, but the ending to me was "death"-- depressing as that is-- and though it did suck, it also felt right somehow. I mean, I wanted Jonas and the kid to, you know, find a new place and start over somewhere safe, but in the world's attempt to create a utopia there is no such thing.
I think I was kind of awed by it. But I never read anything else about utopias (and after feeling satisfied with the whole "a true utopia is impossible" revelation I had, I didn't care to).
Talking mice...reminds me of the Mouse and the Motorcycle. And the Indian in the Cupboard, randomly. How do I remember reading all this stuff? Haha, I did enjoy that type of book as a kid, too...for some reason.
no subject
Date: 2011-12-28 01:18 am (UTC)That "I'm starving" part was memorable, though.
And the Indian in the Cupboard, randomly
I liked that one. The sequels were progressively worse and the final one was so bad it made me hate the other books retroactively.
That same author did "The Fairy Rebel," though, which was pretty good.
no subject
Date: 2011-12-28 04:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-12-27 11:30 pm (UTC)Growing up, I was always the bookworm of our "group", and I quite literally read anything that came my way. I don't remember much of what I read, I'm afraid, but a lot of what I do remember reading wasn't standard "American" reading. I read a lot of Dahl, Carrol, C.S. Lewis, and Dickens, and then was introduced to Dumas and the like. Funnily enough, I didn't start reading HP until I was second or third grade, and even then it was at my mother's insistence. I didn't really get into the series until the third book, which I really loved, and since the fourth book hadn't been published then, I read a lot of Nancy Drew and Hardy Boys, and then lots of "classic" American literature--I have very vivid memories of reading Huck Finn when I was nine or so. Animorphs too, eventually, and Garth Nix and Diana Wynne Jones. Also the Redwall books, and after I got The Hobbit for a birthday present, Tolkein quickly became the Next Big Thing for me.
Looking back, HP really wasn't one of my favorites--aside from the initial excitement of a new book being released, I wasn't that totally vested in the series. But I still think fondly of them, and if, in the future, my children wan to read the
no subject
Date: 2011-12-27 11:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-12-28 12:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-12-28 01:12 am (UTC)(Love that book.)
no subject
Date: 2011-12-28 06:51 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-12-27 11:31 pm (UTC)His Dark Materials and Garth Nix's Old Kingdom books were my personal favorites growing up, though, and probably the ones I felt most passionate about. Were I to get my kids to read any books from my childhood, those would probably be the ones. And possibly Diana Wynne Jones' work, too.
(So with you on The Giver, though. Slap Bridge to Terabithia in there as well, while you're at it. :|)
no subject
Date: 2011-12-27 11:40 pm (UTC)I'm sure that's a tremendous part of it-- being "in the middle" of it, speculating how it'll all shake out...
I'd rather chew off my hand than read the first two installments aloud to a child, though.
I was SO disappointed by HDM, as it came to me with many, many passionate recommendations. I didn't really like either of the kids and by the end I just didn't give a damn about anyone except the woman who made the amber spyglass. I actually gave the trilogy away, and I don't GIVE books away. Compared with the kids from the Psammead books, or the Eager books, or The Thursday Kidnapping, Lyra and Will felt so... unreal. I never bonded with them as characters.
I wanted to make spoiler T-shirts like the "Dumbledore Dies on Page Whatever" except saying "God Dies on Page Whatever," I really did.
Slap Bridge to Terabithia in there as well, while you're at it.
That was such a god-damn bait and switch. It made me very angry.
no subject
Date: 2011-12-28 12:10 am (UTC)But pffft, that would be kind of excellent. I'm not at all surprised it didn't do well in film form, though.
Even as a first grader, I felt cheated by Terabithia. Killing off characters=/=deep great literature, world.
no subject
Date: 2011-12-28 01:11 am (UTC)Killing off characters=/=deep great literature, world.
It's just a more sophisticated version of A Taste of Blackberries-- the only real value is to teach kids that random terrible things happen.
no subject
Date: 2011-12-28 04:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-12-28 05:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-12-28 12:21 am (UTC)Buuuuuuuuuuut it would have been really cool if I had. That's probably part of why Pokemon was so popular, too. I mean, good idea aside, the fact that you could talk about it with friends/discuss the latest episodes AND play the games...
I mean, if not for FE FANDOM we wouldn't probably be so invested in FE individually. I loved FF games but there was no such thing as fandom when I was into it (I didn't have Internet haha) so my love died off pretty quick. Nobody to discuss it with but my siblings. Bah.
no subject
Date: 2011-12-28 12:28 am (UTC)But I think the books are still enjoyable, in the same way the Star Wars movies are (probably) still enjoyable. (I haven't seen the original trilogy, oops.) If nothing else, there are piles of people to talk about it with, even if it isn't the same shiny new discussion. :D
no subject
Date: 2011-12-28 12:40 am (UTC)When I was a young kid eeeeeeeveryone talked about the...uh... oh! the Power Rangers. I literally had no idea what that crap was about (and when I found out I thought it was stupid-- I was such a nerdy little weirdo I thought little House on the Prairie was cooler okay) and I could not discuss or play "let's be power rangers" with my peers. <--one of the reasons I was a friendless bookworm, probably. I had NOTHING in common with these kids.
I imagine HP must have been the same way for a lot of folks. It's a LOT more fun when you can speculate and squee over things with friends! Which is why FE fandom > the actual FE games. Not that the games aren't good-- but if I had nobody to talk with about them...the squeeing would end after a few days of beating the game and shutting it off, most likely.
no subject
Date: 2011-12-28 01:38 am (UTC)As for myself (since I remain an avid reader, and always will), I grew up reading Piers Anthony, Robert Asprin, Raymond E. Feist, Dragonlance, Elfquest, and a variety of other things. ... Which might explain a few things about me. ^_^;
no subject
Date: 2011-12-28 01:42 am (UTC):(
My tastes did skew back a generation; I grew up reading most of my mother's childhood favorites when I wasn't reading Sweet Valley Twins and The Babysitters Club for escapism. But Eager's books really do deserve a wider exposure.
no subject
Date: 2011-12-28 04:31 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-12-28 07:47 am (UTC)Harry Potter was very much my childhood, although I remember trying to plow through Lord of the Rings as a kid when the movies were coming out. I loved the films but only got through the first book. I'd like to finish reading The Hobbit before the movie comes out, at least.
no subject
Date: 2011-12-28 12:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-12-28 07:57 am (UTC)Harry Potter was a lot of fun, I thought. I picked the books up expecting very little, mostly because I was curious about what made it so popular - I think I started reading them around the release of Goblet of Fire, when I was working at a bookstore and could get them cheap. They're enjoyable. For a short time I even wanted to write fic for them. (Whew, dodged THAT bullet.) But otherwise, I didn't see much to get obsessed about. I do still like to reread them occasionally, but only because they're such an easy read; I'd like to read Name of the Rose again, too, but that consumes way more brain power.
no subject
Date: 2011-12-28 12:20 pm (UTC)The stuff people always say they read as a kid (Diana Wynne Jones, for example, or HDM) I didn't even know about until I was an adult. I still haven't read The Dark is Rising, which it seems everyone has read.
Same here. Didn't know about 'em, and with the exception of HDM, I've never read 'em. But as I said above, my tastes in fiction were very much filtered through my mother, so if she didn't know about it, I didn't usually encounter it. (I even tried reading Mists of Avalon when I was nine or so. Snore.) And once I got into non-fiction, I wasn't much interested in kiddie stories.
no subject
Date: 2011-12-28 04:28 pm (UTC)But, I do think that there tend to be reasons that certain books become popular, and at least one of them has to stem from something inherent to the book itself.
I liked Dahl as a child, but thinking back on it, his style was rather like goat milk. He had a quirkiness to his writing that I suppose one could find either incredibly charming or too weird to really stomach -- especially if you've been growing up less "weird-mindedly". Dahl is incredibly unique and I think the fact that he's done well shows that children more often than not appreciate him. His goat milk flavor is not, however, something I'd attempt to market on the scale of Harry Potter. It may very well be considered a plus that Harry Potter stays within blander boundaries, because I think that makes it more potentially accessible. Not requiring the reader to be familiar with existing literature -- that, too, makes it more accessible.
Not to say that Harry Potter offers special. I think there's a lot about its particular premise that makes it more relatable for this generation. (Which, uh, would be mine I guess.) It builds the magic around a world that a child essentially already experiences. It hides Diagon Alley in the streets of a mundane city, and the magical train in the walls of a normal train station. It says kids get sent a magic letter on their 11th birthday (and their parents get a visit if no one knows any better) and then they get to go to magic school where they don't have to learn crappy subjects like math.
Cut to Hogwarts, and it's still an embellishment upon an existence kids essentially know. Harry Potter is its own High School AU. I think fandom's demonstrated the appeal of that one by its immeasurable archives of it.
My point is, until the final book, the striking thing about Harry Potter is that it's about a world that is parallel in more than one sense to ours. I think that sets it far apart from most books about magic, in which the magical hijinks cause things to diverge (even temporarily) from the routine of normal life.