Forgive me if I’ve jumped on the bandwagon this week. Anyone who fancies  himself or herself a fan of the printed page can hardly help it, after all. Saturday was the release of the final Harry Potter book,  and with no other obligations upon me, I allowed myself that luxury that comes more cheaply, and it still more effective than any other sort of vacation: I devoted the weekend to reading a book.

Over a century ago, people were lining up to read Sherlock Holmes, a fact that we Sherlockians are amply proud of. These days, the lines are longer and there are more – so many,  many more – of them. Harry Potter has been a literary phenomenon that even dear old Sherlock Holmes  and his fans have to give the boy, and his author J.K. Rowling, a nod.

But here we are a century post-Sherlock, and his fans still gather. Will Harry’s lot be able to say the same? We’d like to think so. But let’s compare the two and speculate:

• Magical worlds. Both Holmes and Potter dwell in places that their readers enjoy going to,  and can relish even when the main character is not present. This comes from the vivid colors of the writer’s prose, of course. In Holmes’s case,  so many details of that world are historical, and we fans can go look in all sorts of other places to learn more.  In Potter’s case, more details of his world of wizards and witches have to be invented, either by J. K. Rowling, her successors, or fans themselves.  Has Holmes’s ties to the Victorian period and history books helped him stay more evergreen with fans than if he hadn’t?

• That main character.  Harry Potter is a child who has to learn who he truly is over the course of seven books. Sherlock Holmes knew who he was in book one, and stayed that course through book nine. We admired him at the start, we admired him at the last. And while the same holds true for Harry, his basic strengths, things like friendship, love, and loyalty are not that unusually unique to him. He’s like Luke Skywalker or D’Artagnan, a good guy who is in a good story. Swap Luke and Harry and D’Artagnan around, and one would like to think Luke could handle Hogwarts , D’Artagnan could bring down the Empire, and Harry could deal with Cardinal Richelieu’s plots. Sherlock Holmes, however, was unique in his specific gifts . . . the stories themselves sometimes pale beside his flourishes, rather like a Doctor Who. But as one might observe, D’Artagnan is still with us.

• The story or stories. The tale of Harry Potter is basically a seven-book epic,  a multi-part tale that ends with a grand, climactic finish.  Sherlock Holmes never got so lucky, whupping his arch-nemesis off-stage at the end of book three of nine. Lack of a finale never seemed to hurt Holmes, but Harry Potter is his story. Holmes just hangs around other people’s stories, kind of like Simon Cowell  commenting on their life-performances. A memorable finis can only help Harry.

• Metaphor of the times. While Sherlock Holmes was symbolic of the rise of science and technology in all aspects of life, Harry Potter stands for the fact that science and technology have surpassed the common man’s ken. Sure, we have an idea how cell phones work, but how many of us could build one? And of those people, how many could engineer the parts from raw ore? It might as well be magic, as far as most of us are concerned, and like Harry, we seem to do pretty well wielding powers we can’t quite understand. Holmes lived in a time when a man could get a pretty solid grasp on things and be a master.  Potter’s concerns are not so much about mastery as the ethical use of what powers he’s been handed.  Will it speak to those in the future? Seems sound enough.

With that, I’m afraid it’s time to say adieu to the topic of Sherlock and Harry. I’ve finished the last book and have to wonder if I’ll pick Harry up again.  It was a great ride while it lasted, but aside from Holmes, I’ve never been a big re-reader, and re-reading the Canon is often a weird pleasurable sort of study-reading that doesn’t really count.

But who knows what the future will bring for any of us, fictional or non. Perhaps we will cross paths again.

Your humble correspondent,

Brad Keefauver