Who's excited about J K Rowling's new book?

[JBI]

There are reviewers who are bound to love it regardless of what is in it. As such, it is hard to trust any review, especially one that only goes so far as to say it is "gripping" or whatever, but never explains why.

As for Bloom and his review - he assumes, like all academic critics, familiarity on the part of his readers with the text - why then would he need to tell people what it is about. His goal is to question the fad as justification for "good literature", which is a clever argument on his part.

As for his ego, his ego was big enough already, he was a massive player in criticism pretty much since he started his career.

This is not to say I am a fan of his, but then again my research and reading habits no longer belong on that continent - I am removed, if you will, from the Western Canon, and by extension the political ploys of theory-heavy critics and whatnot.

Still, he was responding to a specific point - what does 35million mean? does it mean that Potter is automatically good because it has sales? I would agree with him, it does not, and they are not necessarily "classics". The hype on them is already drying.


As for the BBC reviews, they bordered on polite to downright scathing. Nobody really taking the book very seriously. I'll let you all make your mind up over it, I am not going to read it unless someone does a lot of convincing to make me.

[Aylinn]

I don't care about Rowling's new book, especially if it is a romance. Romantic relationships were one of the weakest points in Harry Potter, so unless someone convinces me she learnt how to write a good romance, I'm not interested.

[Drkshadow03]

Harry Potter is good children's literature. I wrote some criticism here on Lit Net awhile ago on one of the old HP threads explaining what I found compelling about Potter and what interesting things I think the book is doing. No one had a rebuttal.

Despite JBI's belief that the hype is dying, I still have kids come into my library asking for Harry Potter.

However, as much as I liked Potter, I'm more skeptical about the new book.

[mona amon]

As for Bloom and his review - he assumes, like all academic critics, familiarity on the part of his readers with the text - why then would he need to tell people what it is about. His goal is to question the fad as justification for "good literature", which is a clever argument on his part.

As for his ego, his ego was big enough already, he was a massive player in criticism pretty much since he started his career.

This is not to say I am a fan of his, but then again my research and reading habits no longer belong on that continent - I am removed, if you will, from the Western Canon, and by extension the political ploys of theory-heavy critics and whatnot.

Still, he was responding to a specific point - what does 35million mean? does it mean that Potter is automatically good because it has sales? I would agree with him, it does not, and they are not necessarily "classics". The hype on them is already drying.

I think Bloom's critique is completely asinine not because he thinks the HP books are crap but because he does not say why they're crap, or even why he thinks they're crap. He does not make good points. He actually does not make any points. He has no examples. He has no arguments.

This is it, basically -

1. The Harry Potter books lack 'authentic imaginative vision'. (Proved by the fact that Bloom thinks so)
2. He counted seven clichés on one page (Bravo, Bloom! No wonder you missed all the fun if you were so busy counting clichés)
3. The Harry Potter books will not live on and will be consigned to the dustbins of history (Bravo once again, for giving us a statement that can only be proved or disproved several years from now)
4. Huge sales do not prove that a book is good (Who on earth said it did? Sounds like a great big strawman to me)

The BBC has collated a number of reviews. The sentiment seems to be pretty mixed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19740849

Love 'Mugglemarch'.

I'm reading it now, and haven't started liking it yet, but then I'm only about 50 pages in.

[Lokasenna]

Yes, I thought the name 'Mugglemarch' was rather amusing as well.

As for Bloom's review, it was clearly written with the intention of provoking. Which is a shame, because it actually detracts from some of the legitimate criticisms he levels at the franchise. He defeats his own argument by taking it too far. Also, it doesn't really help that he's judging the whole series on the strength of only one book.

I gave up on HP after book 4 - I'd found other things to read that were more suited to my tastes by that point. I probably won't read the new book, if only because my 'to read' list is already long enough.

[Pierre Menard]

http://www.wetpaint.com/network/arti...casual-vacancy

Some of those lines are laughable.

"Miraculously unguarded vagina".

[YesNo]

http://www.wetpaint.com/network/arti...casual-vacancy

Some of those lines are laughable.

"Miraculously unguarded vagina".

Actually, I kind of liked that line.

[Clopin]

Yes, I thought the name 'Mugglemarch' was rather amusing as well.

As for Bloom's review, it was clearly written with the intention of provoking. Which is a shame, because it actually detracts from some of the legitimate criticisms he levels at the franchise. He defeats his own argument by taking it too far. Also, it doesn't really help that he's judging the whole series on the strength of only one book.

I gave up on HP after book 4 - I'd found other things to read that were more suited to my tastes by that point. I probably won't read the new book, if only because my 'to read' list is already long enough.

Well to be fair the first book is easily the best, though a case could be made for 'Prisoner of Azkaban' as well.

[Aylinn]

1. The Harry Potter books lack 'authentic imaginative vision'. (Proved by the fact that Bloom thinks so)

Actually, he has a point. A school where children learn how to use magic is interesting if someone hasn't read a lot of children books. It's not an original idea.

Although I have some fond memories of these books, I definitely understand why it might not be everyone's cup of tea. It is not original. The characters lack depth, and sometimes their are just badly-written. Ginny Weasley is a case in point. It was annoying to read how pretty, powerful and smart she is and how good at sport she is in the sixth book. As for smartness we never see her doing anything smart, it's only said by other characters. As for being powerful, once more, we never see her doing anything that would justify this claim. It's just other characters who make comments that she is. And the fact that other characters (including those from slytherin) are made to tell what a pretty, wonderful person she is makes it even worse. Rowling overused this method in a bad way. She desperately tried to make Ginny a likeable and admirable person for a reader, but instead created a totally unconvincing Mary Sue. Naturally, as a result, Ginny relationship with the main character is as shallow and weak as her characterization. I don't know on what basis they were together. What was that they had in common, apart from that Harry was the most famous boy in the school, and that she turned out to be the most famous girl in the school? And, of course, that she is good at Quidditch, but then again, in the sixth book we learn that she is a good at everything.

There are some potentially interesting characters in Harry Potter, it is a shame that Rowling didn't choose to flesh them out better.

[JBI]

I'd say judging from the last movie, she cut one arc totally in favor of another. The general plot has two threads - harry coming of age in school and maturing through classes and friend, and the second Harry fighting voldemort. The first set of books balance the two, but from my understanding the last two completely lose it. As a result, it would seem most of the cute minor characters do not develop in the end, and the novels lose their coming of age gimmick in favor of straight narration of a melodramatic conclusion.

I did not read the last one but I hear the pacing is totally off and the writing gets progressively cheesier. Judging from the movie, it gets far more preachy too.

[YesNo]

Actually, he has a point. A school where children learn how to use magic is interesting if someone hasn't read a lot of children books. It's not an original idea.

What children's books are you referring to? I think the HP books have enough originality in them to make them distinguishable from other children's books.

Such complaints, however, remind me of Paul and Linda McCartney's "Silly Love Song". Some people want to fill the world with entertaining stories about children going to school, playing sports, eating at banquets, making friends, fighting evil wizards and befriending good wizards. What's wrong with that? Nothing. And when they are wildly successful, what's wrong with that? Again, nothing.

What I don't like about Bloom's review is captured in this quote from him:

But I will keep in mind that a host are reading it who simply will not read superior fare, such as Kenneth Grahame's "The Wind in the Willows" or the "Alice" books of Lewis Carroll. Is it better that they read Rowling than not read at all? Will they advance from Rowling to more difficult pleasures?

What Bloom did was to pit the reader's experience against his authority without providing any good reason to accept his authority. He tried to undermine the experience of pleasure that millions have had and for what benefit? I can see no benefit in what he did outside of exaggerating his ego.

That reminds me of the fraudulent behavior of the weavers and the parroting behavior of the Emperor and his sycophants in Hans Christian Andersen's "The Emperor's New Clothes" which was also a children's story. Perhaps Bloom isn't very original himself. He's just weaving another authority tale.

Rowling's new book is likely already financially successful. Time will tell whether it resonates with readers and gives them the pleasure she gave to them in her HP books. Actually, I hope she and others are successful at writing entertaining stories whether they ultimately make a lot of money doing it or not; or, whether they meet Bloom's approval or not.

[Aylinn]

The first set of books balance the two, but from my understanding the last two completely lose it. As a result, it would seem most of the cute minor characters do not develop in the end,

To me it seemed that Ginny, in the sixth book, becomes a major character. But I admit I haven't read it for years, so I may be mistaken.

What children's books are you referring to?

For example: Die Zauberschule und andere Geschichten (The Magic School and Other Stories) by Michael Ende or;
The Lives of Christopher Chant by Diana Wynne Jones
I'm not going to make a long list, but it's not like you have to look very hard.

What Bloom did was to pit the reader's experience against his authority without providing any good reason to accept his authority. He tried to undermine the experience of pleasure that millions have had and for what benefit? I can see no benefit in what he did outside of exaggerating his ego.

That reminds me of the fraudulent behavior of the weavers and the parroting behavior of the Emperor and his sycophants in Hans Christian Andersen's "The Emperor's New Clothes" which was also a children's story. Perhaps Bloom isn't very original himself. He's just weaving another authority tale.

Rowling's new book is likely already financially successful. Time will tell whether it resonates with readers and gives them the pleasure she gave to them in her HP books. Actually, I hope she and others are successful at writing entertaining stories whether they ultimately make a lot of money doing it or not; or, whether they meet Bloom's approval or not.

You are missing the point. Bloom is not denying that Harry Potter can be entertaining to some people. What he denies is that Harry Potter is a good literature. The problem with the review is, as Lokasenna wrote, that it is provoking.

[Drkshadow03]

I think Bloom's critique is completely asinine not because he thinks the HP books are crap but because he does not say why they're crap, or even why he thinks they're crap. He does not make good points. He actually does not make any points. He has no examples. He has no arguments.

This is it, basically -

1. The Harry Potter books lack 'authentic imaginative vision'. (Proved by the fact that Bloom thinks so)
2. He counted seven clichés on one page (Bravo, Bloom! No wonder you missed all the fun if you were so busy counting clichés)
3. The Harry Potter books will not live on and will be consigned to the dustbins of history (Bravo once again, for giving us a statement that can only be proved or disproved several years from now)
4. Huge sales do not prove that a book is good (Who on earth said it did? Sounds like a great big strawman to me)

The problem with Bloom's essay is that he rarely supports his contentions in it. He offers a few reasons for why it's bad, but offers very little textual/specific evidence to support his points. The only time he comes close is the seven cliches on one page comment in which he gives a specific page number and hints at the type of cliches he's talking about (character actions such as stretching legs). Everything else is just one declaration after another.

[JBI]

The problem with Bloom's essay is that he rarely supports his contentions in it. He offers a few reasons for why it's bad, but offers very little textual/specific evidence to support his points. The only time he comes close is the seven cliches on one page comment in which he gives a specific page number and hints at the type of cliches he's talking about (character actions such as stretching legs). Everything else is just one declaration after another.

Look at the periodical he is publishing in. It's a very loose essay about the phenomenon, not a piece of serious academic criticism.

[Drkshadow03]

Look at the periodical he is publishing in. It's a very loose essay about the phenomenon, not a piece of serious academic criticism.

Well, sure. Yet how hard would it have been to offer a specific example like Aylinn:

Harry Potter lacks an authentic imaginative vision. A school where children learn how to use magic is interesting if someone hasn't read a lot of children books. It's not an original idea. Works like The Magic School and Other Stories by Michael Ende or The Lives of Christopher Chant by Diana Wynne Jones have already explored this territory. Potter adds nothing new to this well-worn sub-genre.

This immediately tells us: Here are two examples that the basic idea of Potter has been done before and this is why I think it lacks an imaginative vision.

Instead he seems to try to address that particular point by talking about Potter's models, but it's an ineffectual argument. I could name the models for Shakespeare, the Bible, Milton and Dante. Some of our best writers modeled, even ripped off, previous works; it's what they did with it and changed that make their vision's imaginative. So he points to the two models: Tolkien and the British School novels. But by pointing to two different traditions that she is combining, one can flip his "argument" on its head and say that combining these models in the new way is evidence of a unique imaginative vision.

Basically the whole article is just Bloom bloviating and trying to be provocative with very little substance.