BASIC Magic

I liked getting them every week. They were interesting, and they were a window on a world I wanted to know more about.

They were flyers that came on, I think, a Thursday. By Friday, most of them were littering the parking lots and sidewalks around our elementary school. I usually took mine home, but sometimes they were at least left in the appropriate trashcan.

They featured a cover story, maybe on a news topic, plus little blurbs for ordering classic literature, usually edited for childrens’ or pre-teens’ reading ability. I ordered a few books, I think, but mostly I just checked out the blurbs to give me some indication of whether or not to get the book out of the library. Sometimes, I did. I remember reading Fahrenheit 451 that way.

They were called the Weekly Reader, and they were published by Scholastic Book Services. Sometime in the early 1980s I recall reading a news story that Scholastic was in serious financial trouble. Book publishing was going through a period of “consolidation,” and Scholastic was getting squeezed out of the business.

Now, it’s worth millions.

It was 1999, maybe 2000. I was covering state news, and I was always hunting for new story ideas. One day, I bought a book (don’t remember what it was) and got charged the Canadian price by mistake. So, at the earliest opportunity, I headed back to the out-of-town bookstore for a “price adjustment.”

While standing at the register there, I noticed something that struck me. The list of bestsellers (I don’t recall if it was the NYT or what) was dominated by a series of books, all with “Harry Potter and ...” in the title. I’d never heard of this series, and I asked the clerk.

She told me some of the books were actually paperback versions of the hardback, published (and this was really strange) while the hardback was still on the bestseller list! Instead of getting my money back for the other book, I pulled out a dollar or two from my pocket to (with the refund) pay for the paperback of the first book, Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone.

I did not finish the book. I did not get the chance.

Someone I worked with saw me with the book as I was preparing my story. She insisted that I sell it to her on the spot, because her daughter just HAD to have one, and have it now! I finished my story, and, five dollars later, the book was hers.

I managed to read about 50 or so pages, plus skims of the rest. And something about this book struck me: its language.

It was written in BASIC English.

BASIC stands for British American Scientific Industrial Commercial.*  It is an artificial version of English created by C.K. Odgen and I.A. Richards in the 1920s. I had (many years before that) read their book outlining the concepts behind BASIC. It allowed for proper nouns and new technical terms outside its “basic” vocabulary of 850 words. It also allowed for some British or American “idioms” in its very simple grammar, as well.

BASIC was championed by Winston Churchill as a viable “lingua franca” for world use, and Ogden was also involved in that effort. Beyond that, I’d all but forgotten BASIC. But here before me was a novel written in that language!

The author was no Jane Austen or George Eliot, that was clear. But the way this hitherto unknown “J.K. Rowling” built the narrative was based on the inner structure of BASIC! Each episode was built from smaller story elements very carefully, as if laying one brick on top of another.

While not masterful literature by any stretch, the Harry Potter book I (partially) read instead seemed to be masterful linguistics!

It’s no wonder those books broke records in sales and formed worldwide blockbuster movies. It was in their structure to begin with.

The American publisher who saw what these books could accomplish?

Scholastic.

___
*This is one of the few posts I ever received an independent comment on. It came from "anonymous”, and here it is, title and all:

‘Basic English

quote “BASIC stands for British American Scientific Industrial Commercial.”

no it doesn’t, the “I” is for “international”, a word invented by Bentham,whose “Theory of Fictions’ provides the rationale for the simplification.’

I have no idea who wrote the comment. All I can do is express my appreciation for his or her correction and clarification.

Also, my judgment on Joanne Rowling's literary abilities were premature (obviously, I thought at the time) and based on a quick glance-over of one novel. Time, as in most things in literature, will tell the tale.

LJ orig.: 09/12/07