Harry Potter

[Tallon]

Then would it be too far a stretch to blame bad literature for a lack of real interest in more difficult stuff, or too easy literature for a lack of interest in better stuff? The problem is the cycle - you have people who have read nothing but Harry Potter, Steven King, and a bunch of self help books as parents - what example does that set for the children? They will grow up reading the rubbish of the day, and not read, and not better their minds.

I see no problem with reading bad books, as long as you read good books too, but the point is, most people don't. Most people read only bad books, or no books, and quite frankly, they are the ones who suffer, since I have read the good books, and they haven't.

I agree that most people won't use Harry Potter as a stepping stone, but surely some people do and if there is people out there who discover literature through Harry Potter then i can't find it evil.

Plus i have come across many well educated and well read people who love Potter, Mr. Stephen Fry for example.

[mayneverhave]

Then would it be too far a stretch to blame bad literature for a lack of real interest in more difficult stuff, or too easy literature for a lack of interest in better stuff? The problem is the cycle - you have people who have read nothing but Harry Potter, Steven King, and a bunch of self help books as parents - what example does that set for the children? They will grow up reading the rubbish of the day, and not read, and not better their minds.

I see no problem with reading bad books, as long as you read good books too, but the point is, most people don't. Most people read only bad books, or no books, and quite frankly, they are the ones who suffer, since I have read the good books, and they haven't.

We can only do so much JBI. This is, I think the role of a public education (at least in the states - I'm not entirely sure exactly what is required in Canada). We can't force people to develope an appreciation for literature, we can only show them that is there if they want to put the work in to understand it.

My parents are hardly readers. My father reads mostly biographies on professional wrestlers, and for them, the reading of Harry Potter would be an event. I discovered literature through school (well at least quality literature).

My fellow students recieved the same education that I did, and yet none of them (or none that I know of) developed the way I developed. We can't force people to be interested. The nature of this relationship has existed for centuries, and I doubt we'll eventually progress into a society made up entirely of artist/philosopher/intellectuals. I don't necessarily think a group (like us) is superior than the rest of society, but we certainly are different.

[JBI]

I wouldn't start with Yates - I would start with Homer and Sappho - there really is no easier way. You can read Yeats of course, but he works on many levels, and relates a lot more to the tradition than people think.

There is more to him than He Wishes for the Clothes of Heaven - in fact, his later Ottava Rima poems are incredibly dense - "Among Schoolchildren" especially, as each line contains multiple layers.

That's the problem though - the tradition is a long, and sometimes difficult one. The point though, is it is a process, a process of expansion - of redefining, or adding to what has been said before. If someone cannot understand the communication, cannot really read, they are going to suffer in the long run - they are going to miss out.

[mayneverhave]

That's the problem though - the tradition is a long, and sometimes difficult one. The point though, is it is a process, a process of expansion - of redefining, or adding to what has been said before. If someone cannot understand the communication, cannot really read, they are going to suffer in the long run - they are going to miss out.

Could we start children off early with an education in literary tradition? I know when I was in high school I had not even heard of Yeats (I'm a late bloomer), and aside from necessaries like Shakespeare and some Dante, we mostly stuck to Edgar Allan Poe and Dickinson. Teachers seem rarely inclined to introduce subject matter that might seem unpractical, requiring a lot of background reading, or a great deal of focus. Even in my university courses, my professors seem to completely avoided Faulkner in my 20th century American Lit. class.

[NEEMAN]

I think in truth this is a cultural issue. In the orient for example, young people generally have a far greater knowledge of classical music than in the west, and this is because in places like Japan and S. Korea, there is great and genuine prestige associated with western classical music, whereas in the west, it has increasingly become associated with snobbery etc.

Now, that's a whole new debate in itself, but the point is that the difference has nothing to do with the music, or even the way it is taught, but instead is a result of the difference in perception between the cultures. I believe it is the same with books; clearly, there is a world of great literature out there, the problem is that reading no longer has the same value placed in it by many western cultures as was once the case.

So where does a book like Harry Potter fall into this? HP was a cultural event more than a literary one, and I think that's important- it marked a small but important cultural shift, whereby books and reading regained cultural prestige. And as awful as books like Twilight sound, they are doing the same thing.

The question of whether or not HP books are good is, as I said earlier, part of the wider subjective question regarding whether literature is about intellect or entertainment. That's a debate that's never really going to end. But as to whether or not HP books have a good or bad effect, I think they have to be positive. Yes, many people who read them will just turn back to TV when they're done, but it's very likely they wouldn't have become interested in books anyway. On the other hand, a lot of children are discovering reading via HP, Twilight etc., and are then moving on to other fantasy books, then to Poe, then to Yeats, and perhaps most importantly, on to college where they are exposed to real literature to a much greater extent.

The most important thing, in my opinion, is that the cultural perception of reading shifts from the old stereotype of bookish nerds to something that is current and relevent. The literature doesn't need to change, but the cultural perception does, and ultimately books like HP & Twilight do that.

[Emil Miller]

Oh when, oh when, are we going to stop this Harry Potter nonsense! The books are obviously written for CHILDREN and have been hyped up by the publishers and their allies in the media out of ALL PROPORTION.
It does this forum no service to harp on and on about something that can only be described as of little or no consequence. I don't buy into the idea that a passing fad of this nature can have any lasting value because some children and adults with a juvenile mental streak have read them. They are not The Wind in the Willows or Alice in Wonderland for God's sake.
For the 2nd and final time, I reprint below my post on another contributor's earlier comments on this topic:

"Why do say that you "try to avoid it"? Surely any person who understands
hype when they see it just ignores it.
The reason why "everyone is so obsessed over it" is because they are too gullible to see that they are being used.
In a world where the lowest common denominator has become the touchstone for excellence it is hardly surprising that so much juvenilia fills the bookstores.
Obviously, there are some childrens' books that might be considered as literature but they were written before the advent of mass-marketing and the band-wagon syndrome that has reduced publishing to an outlet for whatever people can be gulled into buying."

[Drkshadow03]

You all make me laugh when you start talking about this topic. I think most of you would have a coronary if you heard the kind of advice we get as librarians and the list of books that "we" consider good for young adults.

JBI:

Your standard that literary criticism will decide the day rather than popularity needs more explanation. There is plenty of literary criticism written on Harry Potter as I've pointed out in other threads.

Similarly, there are many people who begin with "trash" to move on to literary works; I know for a fact this happens. I myself am an example of such a reader. I started with Star Wars novels moved on to Wheel of Time to Stephen King and eventually moved on to so-called "Good" Literature. In this case, I'm only including personal reading choices, not what we were forced to read in school. However, I hate the "literature" we had to read in school as part of the curriculum.

Neeman:

I disagree that the debate should be framed as intellect vs. entertainment. Intellectualism is entertainment. For more on this argument you should read my post: Why Do I Read.

[JBI]

It's the critics who always seem to have the last say. The classic children's books will never be as possible as when they were originally published, and it is within the literary community that their status ends up being decided. There are Children's literature specialists, and they will in the end decide whether this is a book to keep supporting, or whether to ignore it.

The sales on the books are already dying out - in 50 years, they will probably be nothing, and it is then to be decided by the academics whether to group this with E.B. White, or whether to scrap it altogether and let it be forgotten.

The original readers will lose interest, and put away their suits sooner or later. The hype is already ebbing, and has three movies before it is essentially gone for ever. The only thing left to decide whether this book warrants classic status, at which time it will be moved to a classic children's literature publisher, and receive a few sales, though not a billion. The decision to move it, I think, is more in academics' court than in the general public. I don't think, for instance, classics like The Life of Samuel Johnson were made classics by their continuing popularity, but rather by academic reverence. Unless Potter can really break though, and decide itself as essential to the tradition, it probably will just be forgotten.

But either way, the books are, to an extent, rooted in our time. Language will change, wants in kids' books will change, and marketing will change. The only thing then, which will support these, is academic reverence.

[Drkshadow03]

It's the critics who always seem to have the last say. The classic children's books will never be as possible as when they were originally published, and it is within the literary community that their status ends up being decided. There are Children's literature specialists, and they will in the end decide whether this is a book to keep supporting, or whether to ignore it.

The sales on the books are already dying out - in 50 years, they will probably be nothing, and it is then to be decided by the academics whether to group this with E.B. White, or whether to scrap it altogether and let it be forgotten.

The original readers will lose interest, and put away their suits sooner or later. The hype is already ebbing, and has three movies before it is essentially gone for ever. The only thing left to decide whether this book warrants classic status, at which time it will be moved to a classic children's literature publisher, and receive a few sales, though not a billion. The decision to move it, I think, is more in academics' court than in the general public. I don't think, for instance, classics like The Life of Samuel Johnson were made classics by their continuing popularity, but rather by academic reverence. Unless Potter can really break though, and decide itself as essential to the tradition, it probably will just be forgotten.

But either way, the books are, to an extent, rooted in our time. Language will change, wants in kids' books will change, and marketing will change. The only thing then, which will support these, is academic reverence.

I think you missed my point. The question is essentially which critics do you mean since I contend there are critics who rate Potter highly and write textual criticism about Potter; I know this as I've read some of it. The problem with statements like this is it assumes all literary critics agree with each other.

There are critics who currently write positively about Potter. In fact, it's the literary critics with expertise in Children Literature I have found who tend to rate Potter higher than critics like Bloom who have there training in some other area (in this case, Romantic poets.) for the most part.

Now if your real argument is let's see if critics will still be writing about Potter 50 years from now and people will still be reading it, then to me that's a different argument. The real criterion then is: test of time.

Also, Children's Literature Specialist is a particularly interdisplinary area of literary studies. There are people with formal literary training who specialize in Children's Literature (they have a degree in English and teach Children's lit classes in the English department), there are people who are young adult librarians (they have either practical experience working with the age group, have written books on the subject, or even have a Ph. D. in library science where they focused on young adult literature and teach the topic to Library Science Students), there are people who have teaching degrees who are experts in Children's Literature (they teach it to education students).

[JBI]

True, you make valid points, but reception to the Potters has been lukewarm at best. There are people who praise it and people who detract. There are those who call it a very imaginative work, and there are those who call it a work which stereotypes women, and reinforces traditional norms. There are those who praise its politics, whereas there are those who call it too conservative.

I think, it is safe to say the book will slowly disappear from foreign bookshelves. It is not The Little Prince, or even Beatrix Potter's work. I think if it does exist later in foreign markets, it is safe to say it will exist minimally.

But back to who decides? First of all, there needs to be time. We all know of highly praised work that simply isn't read today. I'm sure Petrarch's Love can give you 100s of mediocre sonnets that she has read, yet, though highly praised in their time, simply aren't that great. The same can be said for even individual works by authors, being that, for instance Flaubert exists for one or two works, or Wordsworth stopped writing good poetry after 1807, of which, most is not commonly read the same way (though his Prelude (1850) is still fantastic). The point though is, one can't rely too heavily on consensus now.

Who will the critics be? Specialists in Children's literature 50 years from now, or perhaps 30. Will those people have read Harry Potter? Maybe - or perhaps Twilight. But it looks like the Potters are already on the way out.

When it comes down to it, we must also realize what we are dealing with. It is a children's book after all (well, the first 3 anyway). The chances that it will remain fresh, and relevant later on are slim, especially when people start rethinking the British Merry Old England pastoral, and continue to praise political works of children's literature. I think It's safe to say the fate of the book looks unfavorable, given the odds, as Children's literature is not the easiest canon to be accepted to, in fact, is perhaps the hardest, given the selective audience.

But yeah, top academics - Librarians will most likely promote the works of their own time over classical works - I know my librarian gave me contemporary books when I went to the library as a kid (the odd time that I did). We must take into account that literature isn't stopping, and the books of the past need to stand up to the torrent of new books flooding in. I doubt Harry Potter is so essential - though perhaps it will make media studies classes, due to its huge sales.

When it comes down to it, I think it will be as follows - critics will decide, whether they think Harry is a good role model for children, of both sexes mind you, and whether Hermione is a good role model for Women. I think on the first one, there is debate, on the second, most feminist critics seem to bash the work. The critics will decide whether or not the books belong in the context of their time - that is, twenty, or fifty, or one-hundred years from now, and whether or not they create a good image, and context.

I think the central problem will generally be the age divide in the book. The first three seem suited for pictures (which apparently appear in some editions), whereas the last 4 seem suited for an older audience. There is that, and the fact that there are 7 of them, all somehow dependent on the next, which will detract from them. If they were standalones, written in the same language, then I think the books would stand a better chance, but the development of language and "theme" if we can call it that, will seriously make an audience almost impossible to find.


Will the series appeal to 9 year olds? I doubt it, seriously, maybe the first two books. Will it appeal to 15 year olds down the line? I doubt it, they'll be busy reading Twilight, etc. Will the books appeal to adults? I sincerely hope not, or we live in a pretty sad world.

I think the books merely filled a niche. And now that the niche has expired, I think we will move on. I doubt that adults in universities will take the books so seriously that they are willing to dedicate 4-6 years to the study of them.

But yeah, the last call comes from the old professors sitting in the ivory tower. Who knows - perhaps their nostalgia will force them to favorably praise the book in their later years, or perhaps they simply will have moved on. I'm opting for the latter.

[Drkshadow03]

True, you make valid points, but reception to the Potters has been lukewarm at best. There are people who praise it and people who detract. There are those who call it a very imaginative work, and there are those who call it a work which stereotypes women, and reinforces traditional norms. There are those who praise its politics, whereas there are those who call it too conservative.

I think, it is safe to say the book will slowly disappear from foreign bookshelves. It is not The Little Prince, or even Beatrix Potter's work. I think if it does exist later in foreign markets, it is safe to say it will exist minimally.

But back to who decides? First of all, there needs to be time. We all know of highly praised work that simply isn't read today. I'm sure Petrarch's Love can give you 100s of mediocre sonnets that she has read, yet, though highly praised in their time, simply aren't that great. The same can be said for even individual works by authors, being that, for instance Flaubert exists for one or two works, or Wordsworth stopped writing good poetry after 1807, of which, most is not commonly read the same way (though his Prelude (1850) is still fantastic). The point though is, one can't rely too heavily on consensus now.

Who will the critics be? Specialists in Children's literature 50 years from now, or perhaps 30. Will those people have read Harry Potter? Maybe - or perhaps Twilight. But it looks like the Potters are already on the way out.

When it comes down to it, we must also realize what we are dealing with. It is a children's book after all (well, the first 3 anyway). The chances that it will remain fresh, and relevant later on are slim, especially when people start rethinking the British Merry Old England pastoral, and continue to praise political works of children's literature. I think It's safe to say the fate of the book looks unfavorable, given the odds, as Children's literature is not the easiest canon to be accepted to, in fact, is perhaps the hardest, given the selective audience.

But yeah, top academics - Librarians will most likely promote the works of their own time over classical works - I know my librarian gave me contemporary books when I went to the library as a kid (the odd time that I did). We must take into account that literature isn't stopping, and the books of the past need to stand up to the torrent of new books flooding in. I doubt Harry Potter is so essential - though perhaps it will make media studies classes, due to its huge sales.

When it comes down to it, I think it will be as follows - critics will decide, whether they think Harry is a good role model for children, of both sexes mind you, and whether Hermione is a good role model for Women. I think on the first one, there is debate, on the second, most feminist critics seem to bash the work. The critics will decide whether or not the books belong in the context of their time - that is, twenty, or fifty, or one-hundred years from now, and whether or not they create a good image, and context.

I think the central problem will generally be the age divide in the book. The first three seem suited for pictures (which apparently appear in some editions), whereas the last 4 seem suited for an older audience. There is that, and the fact that there are 7 of them, all somehow dependent on the next, which will detract from them. If they were standalones, written in the same language, then I think the books would stand a better chance, but the development of language and "theme" if we can call it that, will seriously make an audience almost impossible to find.


Will the series appeal to 9 year olds? I doubt it, seriously, maybe the first two books. Will it appeal to 15 year olds down the line? I doubt it, they'll be busy reading Twilight, etc. Will the books appeal to adults? I sincerely hope not, or we live in a pretty sad world.

I think the books merely filled a niche. And now that the niche has expired, I think we will move on. I doubt that adults in universities will take the books so seriously that they are willing to dedicate 4-6 years to the study of them.

But yeah, the last call comes from the old professors sitting in the ivory tower. Who knows - perhaps their nostalgia will force them to favorably praise the book in their later years, or perhaps they simply will have moved on. I'm opting for the latter.

Perhaps Harry Potter will disappear into oblivion. Perhaps not. Like I said before only time will tell. Obviously the sales will fall from their original levels, which happens to all books. The more telling observation will be to see if they continue to maintain a steady stream of sales over the years. Really until it happens everything else is just an educated guess from the Pro or Anti-Potter camps.

As for librarians, they promote the works that are right for the individual child based off that child's particular interests and abilities.* You shouldn't force the "classics" on a child or teenager who isn't ready to read them. You should find the appropriate book that matches the child's reading level and interests. Not to mention I don't think worthwhile books ends with the books that we typically would label as part of the "tradition."

I also think that your point about the "characters as role models" is strange criteria for judging books. Judging a book by its political affiliation and political themes is equally strange to me. In theory, there should be nothing wrong with a book that promotes so-called "traditional values," especially if the book isn't necessarily denigrating non-traditional values. Not to mention if critics can come up with different readings of the politics in a book, especially readings that are at odds with each other, I believe we would normally think that good sign about the book's worth, not a bad one.

*This gets a bit tricky in that there is slight differences in what a school library media specialist, a public librarian, a special librarian, and an academic librarian do. I have experience as an academic librarian and am now training to be certified as a school librarian to open up more job opportunities, plus I generally enjoy the differences in the jobs as each appeals to a different side of me.

[Emil Miller]

JBI and Drkshadow03,

Please read my post immediately preceding yours.

[DaveB]

No, left leaning people are more likely to look beyond "traditional values" which is almost always a good thing. Neo-con critics are quite dry really, whereas a radical critic such as someone like Camile Paglia is often quite interesting to read, even if you don't agree with her work.

The political bias you speak of, only really seems to apply to contextualization, and only in limited forms on the reading of the text....

While I find many of your literary comments interesting, your attempts to use literature to make a case for your far left political leanings are very ill-conceived. You have clearly drunk the leftist koolaid and can no longer separate it from analytic thinking. Slinging around the "neo-con" label only weakens your position.

I value many of your literary insights, but can't understand the apparent need to politicize everything read and said.

Sorry to be so personal. It could be that I'm being overly sensitive, having just survived two+ years of political mud wrestling.

[NEEMAN]

Neeman:

I disagree that the debate should be framed as intellect vs. entertainment. Intellectualism is entertainment. For more on this argument you should read my post: Why Do I Read.

Oh, don't get me wrong; that's not how I see it myself, it's just that those are the lines that tend to be drawn when I see these kind of discussions. I'm not saying what the debate should be about, just what it tends to be about (at least in my experience). Personally, I'm on the fence on this issue, and to be honest, I think it's the best place to be- you get a good view of both sides of the garden!

[JBI]

Perhaps Harry Potter will disappear into oblivion. Perhaps not. Like I said before only time will tell. Obviously the sales will fall from their original levels, which happens to all books. The more telling observation will be to see if they continue to maintain a steady stream of sales over the years. Really until it happens everything else is just an educated guess from the Pro or Anti-Potter camps.

As for librarians, they promote the works that are right for the individual child based off that child's particular interests and abilities.* You shouldn't force the "classics" on a child or teenager who isn't ready to read them. You should find the appropriate book that matches the child's reading level and interests. Not to mention I don't think worthwhile books ends with the books that we typically would label as part of the "tradition."

I also think that your point about the "characters as role models" is strange criteria for judging books. Judging a book by its political affiliation and political themes is equally strange to me. In theory, there should be nothing wrong with a book that promotes so-called "traditional values," especially if the book isn't necessarily denigrating non-traditional values. Not to mention if critics can come up with different readings of the politics in a book, especially readings that are at odds with each other, I believe we would normally think that good sign about the book's worth, not a bad one.

*This gets a bit tricky in that there is slight differences in what a school library media specialist, a public librarian, a special librarian, and an academic librarian do. I have experience as an academic librarian and am now training to be certified as a school librarian to open up more job opportunities, plus I generally enjoy the differences in the jobs as each appeals to a different side of me.

Look, if librarians aren't necessarily promoting the canon, then if Harry Potter is to survive in the children's market, the librarians will not have much of a say, being that the books will have to be relabeled classics, by their date of composition, and therefore be judged canon-worthy anyway. Like I pointed out, the idiom itself is fit for changing - the style may become dated - the references I believe to a Playstation in the 4th book will become oblivious (unless they have a Playstation 200 or something), the Ford? car in the second one may become dated, the telephone perhaps, or something we cannot even begin to imagine may change, and the book itself will require some sort of footnoting. It isn't too hard to imagine - language evolves. If the Librarian isn't recommending classics, then when the time comes, they won't be recommending Potter anyway, since it will be in the "classical" time frame.