Harry Potter and the Half-Baked Plot

[JCamilo]

Then there's the above trivializing of my end of the discussion by calling it "a fit." So thanks for dishonesty, but always remember that practically anything you post on the internet is universally available.

I am glad, because either example, none was rude or personal insulting towards you. You are overacting (hence having a fit) because apparently you think Rowling must belong to the same place as guys like Carroll.
As again: you had a childish comment (not something personal) because like a spoiled kid you mentioned a falsehood (yes, because you had no problem with Carroll when you were 9 and not now is a falsehood. I had no problem wih Dante when I was 9, does it means Dante is easy? And of course, it would suggest that your experience at 9 and now are the same. Which is ridiculous.) about your own experience. Yet, I did not even mention you, because anyone with 9 years who decoded Jabbewocky alone is obviously a genius. You seem to seem so upset that in the last post you answered again about Carroll not difficulty language, which is a falsehood - Not my opinion - kids do not understand him without interference of an addult or by auxiliar notes simple because he did used a stylish difficulty technique to build his vocabulary (unlike your very first claim), adding the complexity of his text, and any kid know: something complex can not be called simplistic.

As matter of fact, more you try to argue, more ridiculous is. You added 3 sentences in a row. Those 3 sentences are linked. And you do start accusing that 'being simplistic" is not a "flaw". You may think that adding sentences one after another, when they have no relation, loose comments make up for good writing, but it only leads to bad communication. And anyways, you do not need to use the word complex (the english vocabulary is big, something complex is something not simple or difficult, I can use it as you used by simplistic and difficult).

But quite as simple: If you think accusations of Simplicity is a mistake, you just should argue it. Because for what you claim, you have not. The entire sentences that followed it were not related (albeit wrong, Carroll is "Great Literature", overall, great children literature is great literature and this is not my opinion, just the simple fact that greatness ignores genres), so you may wish to add something about it.

As Lewis Carroll, i repeat, he is neither simplistic or not difficult. He is complex (and complexity does add difficulty to a text, so your attempt to argue both words are different is in vain. They are, but obviously related) and used difficult techniques in all levels you claimed he did not. That is what I corrected you and it is not my opinion. I listed many of those and you are dismissing it as a personal attack or some literary theory school nonsense. Does not work.

And you get wrong, no theory accepts opinions as right. It is not relativism. I am not. Accepting multiple interpretations of texts is not a idea born from relativism neither from modern theories of literature. It is much older. It does not imply either that there is not a single correct interpretation, it just accepts that all interpreation are valid as possibility. It is considerable more advanced than what you are trying to argue. Yet, I gave not my opinion about any author. Lewis Carroll did used all that I said to you and Lewis Carroll is great literature because his considerable influence over great literature. It is not my opinion that Carroll use of words was influential for modernist writers, it happened. You need only to read Joyce to see it. It is not my opinion.

As faery tales, 1001 Nights are not fundational tales and they are called faery tales. 1001 is considerable recent to be any fundational. They have no didact purpose - or rather, some may have - just like I can use Shakespeare to teach in the school which wont make Shakespeare didatic. They are used for experience, only this, like any art. Much of Grimms uniqueness is exactly because they sought it for didact purpose (children literature as a genre is basically appropriation of texts with this purpose, from Fenelon and the XIX century creators, such as Grimm and Carroll, who infused on Alice teaching of mathematic and logic. Not without coincidence, pedagody as science was also developed in XIX century), but that was not Perrault idea, who added morals who did not existed on the tales, and his purpose was critical, not didatic. If you call them for teaching, I will call Odissey as Fenelon adapted it to educated his royal pupil.

[Scheherazade]

W a r n i n g

Please do not personalise your arguments.

Posts containing off-topic/personal remarks will be deleted without further notice.

[JCamilo]

Why does "good" literature have to be "complex"?

It does not have to be. It is. Good literature must survive time, different societies, traditions, translatiions, philosophies. A, simplistic tale does not have this capacity, it is flat. You use once and when the next generation try to use, it already lose some "elastic", and this will go on. When this same literature is found then by a diffirent society, no only about time, but geography and language -or even ideals, religion - it will remain the same. The other society wont have use with that.
As you can see, great literature is exactly the one who is never old, dated, rigid. It can be used by several people, like we still read Homer, how distant are we? It is their complexity (and I would add, this same process add more complexity) that allows it.

We can makes critics to Rowling or Meyer or Brown or Cormac McCarthy or Roth or Murakami, we can talk about our perception, about the actual reaction. It will be the years who will give us the correct perspective of their quality. If in 200 years they are all forgotten except as a historical mark, they all were bad literature. If 1 person still under its influence, then, they are good, because they are elastic enough to survive in a new world.

[spookymulder93]

I think I get what you're saying. So what about nursery tales like the story about the boy who cried wolf, would that be complex too? I mean it's still relevant today and will probably always be relevant.

That makes me wonder if it's possible in this age to actually say something that hasn't already been said.

[JCamilo]

The book crying wolf is not a nursery tales (most of those are lost, some remain) it is Aesop. And Aesop and fables are very complex. Not simple. They have the capacity to be used under a hundred sittuations, not to mention the minimalism implied on their construction, the economy and efficient language. Boy crying wolf is not even one of the best, but under this apparent simplicity, fables manage to have found the exact symbols and languages that can be understood by anyone. The building of such corpus is the complexity of Aesop and yes, they will remain.

[Alexander III]

"That makes me wonder if it's possible in this age to actually say something that hasn't already been said."

In my opinion in the last 2000 years, nothing new has been said, rather it is the mingling and reintegration of old ideas, in an creative and beautiful style which has created great literature.

[PeterL]

Now how this relates to HP is important because Rowling's implementation of certain archetypal situations can be argued as just as heavily layered as you claim Carroll to be.

Nay, Rowling's implementation of the archetypes are much deeper than Lewis Carroll's.

[LMK]

Why does "good" literature have to be "complex"?

In my opinion it does not. The questions that will be debated throughout time are:

1. Which writings constitute literature?
2. Then, which of those constitute good literature?

The answers to BOTH are subjective and a matter strictly of personal opinion. The 'rub' is, that there are those in certain positions (say teachers, professors, essayists, etc.) who, taken by many, as authority figures are in a position to promote their opinions and so it goes...through time.

This thread is specifically about Harry Potter, and I believe that many will not read, like, or respect much of this series and unfortunately, by association, the author, simply because they became popular, in my opinion.

Oh, the opinions may be dressed up as other arguments, but looking at the merit of those points of view in good light, they seem, as one might say in some of the southern United States, "like putting lipstick on a pig."

"That makes me wonder if it's possible in this age to actually say something that hasn't already been said."

In my opinion in the last 2000 years, nothing new has been said, rather it is the mingling and reintegration of old ideas, in an creative and beautiful style which has created great literature.

I'll not step into the mire that is the last three words of the above quote; however, with regard to saying new things and if that is even possible, it comes down to the basic formula that there are only three stories to be told;

1. Man vs. Man (inclusive of wo-man)
2. Man vs. self
3. Man vs. nature

The Harry Potter series takes on all of those in an entertaining way, in my opinion. Is it new completely, no, but it's fresh.

Harry Potter vs. self in The Order of the Phoenix as well as Harry Potter vs. Voldemort and his nasty minions.

Voldemort vs. nature in all, but specifically mentioned in The Half-Blood Prince as murder being a crime against nature, for example.

[JCamilo]

In my opinion it does not. The questions that will be debated throughout time are:

1. Which writings constitute literature?
2. Then, which of those constitute good literature?

The answers to BOTH are subjective and a matter strictly of personal opinion. The 'rub' is, that there are those in certain positions (say teachers, professors, essayists, etc.) who, taken by many, as authority figures are in a position to promote their opinions and so it goes...through time.

That is unrealistic at beast. Literature is a universal word, there is a meaning. The fact people may debate his use is not a indicative that the word have not an objetive definition: the body of written text of a given culture with capacity to pass information. That simple. If you use this to every defition of literature, you will see it answers the question quite well.

As what is good literature, the capacity to discern it is subjetive. But we know for a fact, good literature ignore time and space. I know objectvelly that Homer is good literature. Shakespeare, etc. Authorities does not mean anything: Shakespeare was attacked by Voltaire, Virgil by Ezra Pound, Joyce by Woolf, etc. The best defense good literature may have is themselves. The best form to show why Goethe was great is reading Goethe. It is not however the best argument of why you should like Goethe. That is subjetive part of art. People do not exactly like of what is good and this wont kill them. Art is not food. If eat too much candy, you may develop diabetis, but if you read too much Sidney Sheldon you may just have hours spent in peace.

This thread is specifically about Harry Potter, and I believe that many will not read, like, or respect much of this series and unfortunately, by association, the author, simply because they became popular, in my opinion.

What is right about your question is that we can not talk about an specific work of literature without addressing related issues, exactly like what is good literature, its effects, etc. But the assumption that Rowling receives critics because its popularity is not a good argument (just like the argument she could be "forgiven" by simplicity since it is just children literature) because Rowling dreams to be as popular as Shakespeare. Or in the long run as Lewis Carroll or many other authors which popularity is also impressive. And like anything, the reverse could be true: she have only such passionate defense because of her popularity. Both ideas are misleading.

Oh, the opinions may be dressed up as other arguments, but looking at the merit of those points of view in good light, they seem, as one might say in some of the southern United States, "like putting lipstick on a pig."

Opinions are arguments, and <->. There is no much difference. What you may accept is the absence of support for the argument.

[LMK]

Various books will be written through the ages some will promulgate others will not.

Some will have been well thought out and multi-layered; others may turn out that way to some without the author having thought of it.

Some will open eyes and broaden minds, with or without intention, others might simply allow a reader to drift away for a bit, while still others may be slammed shut after only a few pages out of frustration, disagreement or other opinion.

With regard to all books and all liturature, I maintain, it is opinion that makes it literature, it is opinion that makes it read or set aside, it is opinion that makes it recommended, it is opinion that gets it published, it is opinion that drives any discussion.

Anyone making declarative statements as though they hold the answers may pretend (to ONLY him/herself) that it is the spirit of debate, but fools only him/herself in that delusion.

I recommend Harry Potter books to parents who read to their children, children who are old enough to read, teens, and adults; anyone who cares to pass some time escaping.

[breathtest]

Man vs. Man (inclusive of wo-man)
Man vs. self
Man vs. nature

what about self vs. nature?

[Drkshadow03]

Why, I was just thinking we haven't had a good Harry Potter debate in a few weeks, so why not resurrect this old thread!

[Scheherazade]

Why, I was just thinking we haven't had a good Harry Potter debate in a few weeks, so why not resurrect this old thread!

Why, thank you Drk!

[Paulclem]

Watched part of The half blood Prince tonight. Reminded me how...intake of breath...much I enjoyed it.



Now what was it I enjoyed about the books that made them such good reads and arguably good literature...(runs after lighting touchpaper)...?

[JCamilo]

So, now Darkshadow also like zoombies...