Harry Potter

[Serenity5815]

I haven't noticed a topic about it, so I thought I'd get one started!

I've heard a few complains about this book, how it lacks literary merit being one, but I think that if you really read into it you can find some profound meaning in it. It's a personal favorite of mine, and I'm lucky to be a part of the generation that grew up with these books. I was eight when the first one came out ten years ago, and I've been reading them since then. My mom told me to read it, and I came out of my room three days later to get her to take me down to the bookstore for the next one. Next thing you know, I'm driving myself down to the midnight party for the last book! It was great to be a part of that group who grew up with Harry, so it hold something special for me. Anyone else in the same situation?

[mayneverhave]

You are all a lost generation

[Leabhar]

At least they're reading something. They could just be watching TV.

[JBI]

Yeah, except I hate christian propoganda, and that's how I read Potter. It was practically spoon-fed to me as a kid by one of my elementary teachers, and I have been trying to shake it ever since. Honestly, the thing she lacks is character. I can't think of one memorable character in the whole series. Especially not her hero, or her main female role, or the best friend. Cliché over-done dribble in my eyes.

I think for kids, there needs to be a character they can relate to, and as for Harry, I don't think it is. In fact, the character of Harry just goes to show you how children's literature is unable to accept a strong female protagonist, and how Rowling was unable to break that sort of boundary.

The very name J. K. Rowling was designed to trick book buyers into thinking she was a man, and therefore to buy the book. If that isn't problematic, I don't know what is.

As for the whole generation bit, I think that's the problem. They are a generation, and like all generations, they end. I don't see the same Harry Potter craze occurring now as I did 5 years ago (though this could be just that I am older and around quite literary people most of the day) and it seems the books are already on the way to the recycling bin.

It's just a shame that those books sold for 45$ a pop on the first night, when one could have bought so many other great books with that money. lets say from book 5 - 7 they were 45$, that is 135$ or 10-20 great books. What a shame.

[JBI]

At least they're reading something. They could just be watching TV.

I think the problem is, that T.V. isn't worse than Harry Potter. They both are rather meh, at least T.V. doesn't pretend to be something else.

[mayneverhave]

Yeah, except I hate christian propoganda, and that's how I read Potter. It was practically spoon-fed to me as a kid by one of my elementary teachers, and I have been trying to shake it ever since. Honestly, the thing she lacks is character. I can't think of one memorable character in the whole series. Especially not her hero, or her main female role, or the best friend. Cliché over-done dribble in my eyes.

How old are you JBI?

[JBI]

*****

Though I will say, I am still an undergraduate.

The Potters came out I believe, when I was in grade 4, and everyone was raving about them.

[Serenity5815]

Honestly, the thing she lacks is character. I can't think of one memorable character in the whole series. Especially not her hero, or her main female role, or the best friend. Cliché over-done dribble in my eyes.

I remember plenty of great characters. The Weasley Twins were funny and lovable, and you had Luna who was just so strange. So the main characters were normal people. Is that such a crime? Why does a book need to break down social barriers or completely turn your view of the world topsy turvy to be "literary"?


I think for kids, there needs to be a character they can relate to, and as for Harry, I don't think it is. In fact, the character of Harry just goes to show you how children's literature is unable to accept a strong female protagonist, and how Rowling was unable to break that sort of boundary.

I didn't need a character to relate to growing up. And why does there have to be a strong, female protagonist? Perhaps she wanted to write about a boy? Hermione was a strong character, perhaps not the rock hard heroine you need, but at least she wasn't a flimsy little thing like Shakespeare's heroines.


As for the whole generation bit, I think that's the problem. They are a generation, and like all generations, they end. I don't see the same Harry Potter craze occurring now as I did 5 years ago (though this could be just that I am older and around quite literary people most of the day) and it seems the books are already on the way to the recycling bin.

They weren't read just by my generation, but even still, they've made an impact, and that's never going to go away. And the craze isn't occurring now because all the books have been written, so there's nothing else to go crazy over.


It's just a shame that those books sold for 45$ a pop on the first night, when one could have bought so many other great books with that money. lets say from book 5 - 7 they were 45$, that is 135$ or 10-20 great books. What a shame.

I bought my seventh one for $17, and I've read plenty of other great books as well, but this hasn't been a waste of my time. I've bought Kafka, Homer, Sophocles, Chaucer, and plenty of other books that you could argue are much more profound and literary, but if you look at Harry Potter from a different perspective, it's just as great.

[mayneverhave]

*****

Though I will say, I am still an undergraduate.

The Potters came out I believe, when I was in grade 4, and everyone was raving about them.

The only reason I asked was because your literary aptitude - or at the very least, extreme interest - made you seem years older.

I personally lament the Harry Potter craze because, unfortunately, I to am "part" of that generation, being an undergraduate myself.

[JBI]

Don't need a character to relate to or a strong female protagonist? Isn't that the basis of the whole genre, from Goethe to today, to create a character who relates, and experiences what the readers should be experiencing, or shows an aspect of what children's experience is. I find it puzzling how one can credit the genius of a work without isolating a memorable character.

In terms of character creation, I think there are two sides to the spectrum. There is the Shakespeare side, where you are left with unbelievably deep characters, who seem to be more real than real characters, whereas there is the Dickens side of the spectrum, which has cartoonish sort of characters that are meant to be comical. Aristotle mentions this sort of phenomenon somewhere near the beginning of the poetics, though it has somewhat gone through a series of distortions, being that shakespeare's comical characters seem to have melded with romantic characters, to create something newer and stranger.

But that is beside the point. Rowling's characters try to be deep, but fail, they are midway to cartoon side, without being comical, or memorable. They merely are flat characters posing as the real thing, where they sort of jump around pretending to have real emotions, though constantly fighting themsleves, and their own mediocrity.

Harry isn't a very strong character. In 7 books, tell me, does he ever really grow? Does he ever mature, even though he is going from 9 to 16? Does he experience real emotions? Does puberty effect him in any way? Does sexual desire even play a part in the book, besides some overly nostalgic often comical portrayal of a 14 year old boy's fear of kissing a girl (keep in mind, if they were ten it may have worked). Do issues like, for instance, sexual urge, masturbation, or even aesthetics hold any ground?

Of course not. But that is just the main male character, lets examine the main female character, Hermione.

I find it ironic how Hermione is named after the Hermione in Shakespeare's Winter's Tale, but that is besides the point. She to doesn't grow, and is often viewed as a bit of a nutter. Her progressive ideas are laughed at by everyone else, including the readers, and Rowling herself, and her desire to succeed in school, or to not break the rules is laughed upon. She is always yielding so Harry can have his spot light, and always emotional and the one to doubt the situation, when she is constantly proven wrong. In fact, the archetypal female in the story is none other than Mrs. Weasley, one "perfect woman." - A nervy stay at home mom, who, though is more intelligent and sensible than her husband, adheres to the conservative role of cooking dinner, and keeping the house. Not to mention birthing more than a half dozen children. Held up as the "perfect woman", as both Harry and Hermione see her, we have trouble, and big trouble, as the female characters all yield into those perceived gender roles.

But that extends to the minor female characters as well, and not just the good ones, but the bad ones too. I can't remember many names, but that girl who is always around that Malfoy kid seems to yield to him, enjoying sitting in the back and praising his witticisms. It's pathetic.

I challenge any fan of the series, to name me one female character who is shown as stronger than the males. The closest I can come up with is that giant woman, but even she is portrayed bellow the Hagrid character. Even McGonagall (sp?) is portrayed bellow the male teachers. And that isn't to mention that kooky Divination teacher who is a complete stereotype.

But yes, we don't need characters to look up to, or to enjoy, we simply can sit back, and see how things unfold, where Jesus Christ meets Gandalf.

[JBI]

The only reason I asked was because your literary aptitude - or at the very least, extreme interest - made you seem years older.

I personally lament the Harry Potter craze because, unfortunately, I to am "part" of that generation, being an undergraduate myself.

We are though, if you look at it. The first one came out in 97. We are the intended audience for the first book, being between 7-11 years old (in Canada anyway), and the book being a decent sized novel, without pictures.

[Drkshadow03]

Hmm, maybe that's what I like about the Harry Potter books. They seem to annoy Leftists and Right wing conservatives equally.

[JBI]

Hmm, maybe that's what I like about the Harry Potter books. They seem to annoy Leftists and Right wing conservatives equally.

Yes, but thankfully the Ivory Tower sways to a left wind. And, I don't think conservatives really mind the books - just radical religious zealots.

[stlukesguild]

Hermione was a strong character, perhaps not the rock hard heroine you need, but at least she wasn't a flimsy little thing like Shakespeare's heroines.

You have got to be kidding me. Flimsy characters? What have you actually read by Shakespeare?

I've bought Kafka, Homer, Sophocles, Chaucer, and plenty of other books that you could argue are much more profound and literary, but if you look at Harry Potter from a different perspective, it's just as great.

From what perspective would that be... so that I might avoid it? :D

[SirRaustusBear]

I'm an undergrad too so I was part of the first book's target audience. I've read all but the last one and I intend to read it eventually too. I like the books a lot, but you can't expect brilliant literature when you approach them. They're escapist and they're fun, and as long as Harry Potter isn't the only thing you read there's nothing wrong with it.

Now as for strong female characters, Hermoine is the smartest kid in the school, and McGonagal is second in command only to Dumbeldore. How is that below the male teachers? She and Trelawney are both stereotypes but so are Flitwick and Snape and everyone else so that can't really be claimed as evidence of sexism.

Mrs. Weasley is not supposed to be the "ideal woman," if she were Hermoine would look up to her rather than Mcgonagal. Mrs. Weasley is a loving mother, sometimes overly so, and Harry, having been raised by a cold family, likes that.

I don't pick up any Christian propaganda in the books, try C. S. Lewis if you're looking for didacticism. I mean Christians hate the books for endorsing witchcraft. Could you be more specific in giving examples of Christian messages in the books?

As for memorable characters, there really aren't any, but that's because escapist literature doesn't require memorable characters. Going all the way back to Theagenes and Chariclea which is regarded as one of the first romances, escapist protagonists just reflect the values of their society which allows the reader to place themself in the role of protagonist.

Whether J. K. Rowling was trying to disguise her sex by using initials is questionable. J.R.R.Tolkein did it, C.S.Lewis did it, maybe she wanted to follow in their footsteps. Why isnt the Great Gatsby by Francis Scott Fitsgerald? I wonder why any authors choose to abbreviate their names, and it is an open question but we can't assume it was a sexist move.

[Drkshadow03]

Yes, but thankfully the Ivory Tower sways to a left wind. And, I don't think conservatives really mind the books - just radical religious zealots.

You mean unfortunately it sways left. I find too often people's politics get in the way of their scholarship, and makes otherwise intelligent people into brainless Leftist robots that miss so many obvious things because of their political biases. I think the same would happen to right-wingers if they entered High education more often, but since that isn't the case I can only judge my Leftie peers. I am extremely suspicious of claims that seek to prove particular work of art X is left-wing or right-wing.

I found that my best teachers were the moderate/liberal lights (i. e. Conservative/classic liberals) because they took their scholarship seriously and gave an assortment of perspectives, while the other group was too often spending their time trying to convert us to their pet theory or get the Marxist revolution started. :sick:

As for my particular comment, I was thinking today about what it is that I want to do with my writing, and that seems to be a reoccuring desire for my own work.

[mayneverhave]

Why isnt the Great Gatsby by Francis Scott Fitsgerald? I wonder why any authors choose to abbreviate their names, and it is an open question but we can't assume it was a sexist move.

If my full name was Francis Scott Key Fitzgerald, I'd abbreviate it too

[JBI]

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.

As for Christian values in Harry Potter, well, as you haven't read the last one, I'll just say that at least Aslan was a lion - that took perhaps a little creativity. The whole thing is a Chirstian morality tale, between good and bad, and making the right moral choices, and what-not in a traditional English perspective. The Merry Old England virus runs deep within those books.

As for me, well, the culture wars don't really apply the same way to my field of research as to others, but I will say, there are stronger writers out there and betters ways for one to spend their money.

When I buy a book, I don't buy it just to read it. I can read virtually all books for free at the library, either or public or my universities (which has every book imaginable). When I buy a book, I buy it so that I can flip through to my favorite passages when I want to. Can trace back that memorable chapter or short story, or reread the great lines of a poem or essay. I don't quite think Harry Potter offers that same feel. I don't think I can reread Potter the same way as I can reread Jane Austen (ironically both me and Rowling's favorite novelist).

That being said, the argument always seems to drift to the question of age group. Well, I would think that the last 4 books or so are geared to adolescents around 15-16 based on marketing strategy, and the rest around 10-13 based on marketing as well, and when I think about it, first of all the 15-16 bracket is artificial and created completely by publishers (I see no reason why people shouldn't be reading Austen, or Dickens, or Twain at that age) and in the 10-13 bracket I can think of far more memorable work. There's more thrill and magic in Rossetti's Goblin Market, I would think, than in all 7 Potters put together.

Someone like Ursula K. Le Guin seems to offer in her Earthsea a much stronger children's fantasy (and 1000x more original one) than Rowling. Her works are stronger, better written, and overall far more interesting and complex. She manages to, with limited vocabulary and stylistic tropes, to convey far more than most adult writers. If we hold that up, as a series verses Rowling, I cannot see why Rowling is still persisted upon. But then again, we must keep in mind how long Earthsea has been here for a little while, and seems somewhat cemented in the canon.

That being said, I don't say you shouldn't read Rowling, but I do say you shouldn't study, discuss, and reread Rowling as seems (or seemed 3 years ago anyway) to be the trend. I know some of that has ebbed, and with the publication of the 7th novel, most of the fans have grown up and buried their costumes, but it still pains me to see people preaching the Potter, when the Potter has nothing to preach that seems to be of lasting value.

Feel free to preach Lewis Carrol, or the great Edward Lear, or even the wacky Dr. Seus. But the Potter leads to nothing great, and only more Potteresque stuff, like that Eragon dribble which has now moved on to become a 4 volume (and counting) work, which may hit 10 volumes by the end if we aren't careful.

[JBI]

If my full name was Francis Scott Key Fitzgerald, I'd abbreviate it too

from Wikipedia, if you can credit their sources:

Although she writes under the pen name "J. K. Rowling", pronounced rolling (IPA: /ˈroʊlɪŋ/),[8] her name when her first Harry Potter book was published was simply "Joanne Rowling". Before publishing her first book, her publisher Bloomsbury feared that the target audience of young boys might be reluctant to buy books written by a female author. It requested that Rowling use two initials, rather than reveal her first name. As she had no middle name, she chose K. for Kathleen as the second initial of her pseudonym, from her paternal grandmother. The name Kathleen has never been part of her real name.[3] Following her marriage, she sometimes uses the name Joanne Murray when conducting private matters.[9][10] She calls herself "Jo" and says, "No one ever called me 'Joanne' when I was young, unless they were angry."[11]


Tolkien's name actually had his real initials, as did Lewis's (though I wouldn't credit any of them as being great authors, though Tolkien had some good ideas, but horrible delivery). H.D. actually was Hilda Doolittle, which makes sense, yet the K as Wiki suggests, was stuck there so she wouldn't need to publish under Joanne, and therefore reveal her sex to potential male buyers. Hello? Isn't that pathetic? But yeah, she went along with it, and even came up with the K all by herself.

[Drkshadow03]

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.


Who would you consider to be a Neo-con critic?

Also, I find your example of Camile Paglia to be downright puzzling, if not ironic. Most the Leftist critics I know loathe Paglia; many even consider her views to be reactionary and right-wing, despite how she defines herself.

I personally love Paglia BECAUSE she defines herself with complete disregard to everyone else's opinions, and where she seems to stand via the so-called "Culture Wars," is similar to my own views.

It may be true that you can get some interesting works by going beyond "traditional values" (whatever the heck those happen to be), but too often Leftist criticism turns into this gibberish:

New Criticism has a "concealed political agenda" that "sustains . . . charactistic bourgeois concern[s]"; and Lynda Boose refers to "the overtly apolitical, though inherently (if blandly) conservative, practice of 'New Criticism.'" For Terence Hawkes, "traditional criticism pretend[s] to be politically neutral"; for Jonathan Dollimore, "traditional literary criticism" is "a politically conservative way of doing criticism" that is "spuriously impartial"; for David Margolies, "traditional character-imagery-plot [analysis] is reactionary" and "helps preserve the status quo"; and for Frank Lentricchia, "interpretation according to traditional humanism," with its " 'disinterested' ways of reading," really "is not . . . apolitical; in the strict sense it is politically conservative" and "shores up things as they are." (Levin, 459).

Now to put the quote into context, I am referring to the quotes of the various critics that Levin references as gibberish, not Levin's essay itself. Levin himself is actually challenging their comments as downright ridiculous with a very sophisticated, but still based on commonsense argument. His essay is excellent. It's the people he is challenging that are ridiculous. This of course only hammers home my point about Paglia.

1) Leftist criticism often becomes more about labels than saying anything significant about literature or even an opponent's position. Interpretation according to traditional humanism is politically conservative? Seriously? Too often this is what happens to leftist criticism, it turns downright reactionary. Oh no, you want to talk about Ovidian allusions in Shakespeare, you wife-beater you!

2) it tries to argue from ridiculously abstract philosophical claims that can't be proven (i.e. the world is socially constructed), which is fine to believe in if that's what you think, except it becomes a problem when they start intellectual witchhunts against someone who doesn't buy into that idea and is so quaint as to believe in human nature (or a combination of the two). In other words, we have blatant group-think going on.

3) They tend to project their own faults on others, hence the litany of, "no, no you're really the biased ones, not us. Nothing to see here, folks." No, you're the ones with group-think not us.

4) Not to mention these attitudes contribute to downright unoriginality and repetitive essays more or less saying the same things in extremely jargonesque terms that prevent you from actually understanding literature.

It's point # 4 that's really the issue for me. I don't know what criticism you've been reading, but the majority of Leftist criticism I had to read, especially in my grad classes, said mostly the same sorts of things over and over again just in slightly different ways, usually about the holy trinity of race, gender, and class. I am not saying these aren't important issues and certainly original work can be written about them, but too often most of this sort of criticism ends up being extremely derivative, plus there is far more going on in literary works than race, gender, and class issues. So I really don't understand why you think most Leftist criticism is so interesting; it's so repetitive and boring.

I personally think the best criticism is the one that doesn't explicitly concern itself with politics and just tries to find something new and interesting to say about a book or poem or whatever. I also would suggest no politics is needed to accomplish such a task, just a good critical eye.



Work Cited

Levin, Richard. "Silence is Consent, or Curse Ye Meroz!" Theory's Empire: An Anthology of Dissent. Ed. Patai and Corral. New York: Columbia UP, 2005.

[miyagisan]

I haven't read any of them, nor am I planning to. By the time these hit the scene I was already beginning my love affair with classics. I think as youth fiction they're probably fine books and seem to get a lot of kids into reading. However, I have a problem when people try to pass them off as adult literature. As I said, I haven't read them, but I put Harry Potter books in the same category as the Narnia books.

[JBI]

But you see, those are general statements on context. Those analyze context, not texts. They aren't talking about specific works, but works in general. All criticism of that sort seems a little wacky. But when it comes to reading a work, a feminist reading, or a queer reading, or a marxist reading, or even a post-colonial reading is far more interesting than the traditional school of criticism - explaining and restating what has already been said, and refusing to move on.

Paglia may be loathed by many feminist critics, but there is certainly no hyper-right gene in her work. She clearly comes from a left tradition - if one could apply such a term.

[Drkshadow03]

But you see, those are general statements on context. Those analyze context, not texts. They aren't talking about specific works, but works in general. All criticism of that sort seems a little wacky. But when it comes to reading a work, a feminist reading, or a queer reading, or a marxist reading, or even a post-colonial reading is far more interesting than the traditional school of criticism - explaining and restating what has already been said, and refusing to move on.

Marxist critcism has been around for ages now. So I fail to see how one can claim "traditional" schools of criticism have gotten stale, while Marxist criticism is still fresh. Unless one is going to appeal to the various flavors of Marxism and the added seasonings of Postmodernism. But seriously Marxism is rather old hat.

Post-Colonial Readings and Queer Theory are certainly vibrant and brillaint the first time you read them, but again they get pretty old quickly, not to mention rely on questionable philosophical premises, and often (especially in the case of Queer Theory) manipulate the text to fit the reading rather than the other way around.

The point of literary criticism, in my opinion, is to get at a reasonable understanding of the text's meaning and think about how that relates to the reader's own life. Not to butcher, manipulate, and reshape the text so you can fit it into your pet methodology, thus transforming literature into a fun little meaningless puzzle (ooo, look what I can do with the text). Also, I think your assumption that traditional schools of criticism restate the same things over and over again is flat-out wrong. There is always something new to find in a literary text, some little sub-textual element or unexplored character or symbol.

But whatever, I just do what works for me, and I think I have been fairly successful in finding something new to say in a lot of my formal papers.


Paglia may be loathed by many feminist critics, but there is certainly no hyper-right gene in her work. She clearly comes from a left tradition - if one could apply such a term.

Like I said I love Paglia. Nothing I've been saying thus far is really all that out of line with things she herself has said. I am clearly a moderate/classical liberal in my political leanings.

Like I said my best professors were the ones who put their own political views to the side for the most part, and just taught their classes. Those were the ones I learned the most from because you always got a lot of diverse perspectives.

[DapperDrake]

I see a lot of fairly irrational criticism thrown at the Harry Potter books, I can understand a backlash against the popular, there's not much I like about pop culture myself, but is it really necessary to be so negative?
What we're talking about here are children's books! What does Enid Blyton have that J k Rowling doesn't? Why aren't you all bashing Blyton?

[JBI]

I see a lot of fairly irrational criticism thrown at the Harry Potter books, I can understand a backlash against the popular, there's not much I like about pop culture myself, but is it really necessary to be so negative?
What we're talking about here are children's books! What does Enid Blyton have that J k Rowling doesn't? Why aren't you all bashing Blyton?

The books aren't marketed at children (I try to draw the line at 11-12 for that category), well, at least the last 4 aren't. The publicists are feeding the books to teenagers, and older people. Even the movies verge on a PG 13 rating, because they are openly violent, when traditional children's work is not. The books also, have more non-children readers than children readers. They have ceased to be children's literature, yet still refuse to be piled with the Stephen Kings and Robert Jordans. They still refuse so, because marketers refuse to reclassify them. The reason? They sell, and they will sell more like this and (judging on what they are charging per book) it makes sense financially. IF they keep playing them off as quality literature, as they have been doing, or as children's books as they seem to be doing, then they can tap into the international market, and stick even more mediocre books on the shelves of other nations. After all, readers want to read what is the best from other countries, as a way of staying current, and if they are told Potter isn't too bad, they may say, "well, it is a translation, perhaps the original was stronger."


Back on the subject of criticism - I think there is a clear distinction between theorist and critic. Theory is rarely useful, with the exception of the starters of the trends, such as Derrida, who is one of the greatest literary theorist of the modern age, yet still theory has its limits. It it used as a backdrop for criticism, and how that is applied can be quite strange.

We live in a different time than when the texts were written. It is essential for the texts to adapt or be read in light of our time, and if they fail to do as much, then they no longer are relevant to our time. What new forms of criticism do is provide this, so we no longer toy over finding the "meaning" of a text, but rather find A meaning of a text.

Either way though, I work with Canadian literature mostly, and that is a much shorter tradition, where politics doesn't seem to take the same form as in the states, being that our infrastructure and views on politics are drastically different in our literature. You have a degree in American literature, so you probably no far more about culture criticism than I do, and I want to leave it at that to return to the topic, and specifically this idea of Harry Potter Generation, which I find so upsetting.

[Niamh]

You are all a lost generation

I'm sure many other generations have heard that said before, and the books that were criticised are probably still read. who knows.


At least they're reading something. They could just be watching TV.

That is true. there happens to be more crap storylines on tv than there is in literature. well thats my opinion anyway.


The very name J. K. Rowling was designed to trick book buyers into thinking she was a man, and therefore to buy the book. If that isn't problematic, I don't know what is.
And what is wrong with that? George Elliot (Mary Ann Evans) did the same thing. And Bloomsbury were right for suggesting it. There is a lot of influence in a name. I work in a very busy booksellers, and especially with kids books, whether the author is male of female does dictate who would by the books. I rarely see a girl by an Artemis Fowl book By Eoin Colfer and its because they automaticly think its a book for boys. By having it as J.K.Rowling the name that dictates the sex is eliminated and therefore opens is easier to see to both sexes.


As for the whole generation bit, I think that's the problem. They are a generation, and like all generations, they end. I don't see the same Harry Potter craze occurring now as I did 5 years ago (though this could be just that I am older and around quite literary people most of the day) and it seems the books are already on the way to the recycling bin.

It probably is because you are "around quite literary people". Those books are still in demand. Kids that were very very young when they first came out, are now part of the groups buying the books, and there are still a lot of adults and children alike that waited for it to come out in small paperback which it has only been out in since july gone.


I think the problem is, that T.V. isn't worse than Harry Potter. They both are rather meh, at least T.V. doesn't pretend to be something else.

:confused: I totally disagree with this statement. There is seriously a lot of rubbish on tv, plus a lot of programmes that just cant grasp the same reality as novels do, especially not for childern and young adults. I think it is tv that has a lot to answer for they change that was seen in your generation. Harry Potter was a frenzy and it wasnt just your generation, it was my generation, the generation above me and so on so forth. Now the twilight series, thats seems to be staying within a certain age bracket. More than likely that is because it is not being marketed at the adult reader the same way Potter was by having adult edition covers.


I see a lot of fairly irrational criticism thrown at the Harry Potter books, I can understand a backlash against the popular, there's not much I like about pop culture myself, but is it really necessary to be so negative?
What we're talking about here are children's books! What does Enid Blyton have that J k Rowling doesn't? Why aren't you all bashing Blyton?

If people only stopped trying to over analyse the Harry Potter books, they may see them to be entertaining books. Also they are incouraging a generation influenced by tv, cheesy z class celebs like jordon, and trashy gossip mags to read and thats a tough thing to do, especially when media stereotypes readers and reading as unsocial, nerdy, and generally goofy looking people. If it wasnt for books like Potter creating this encouragement, books, and the telling of stories through books, would be deminishing even quicker than it is because of film and tv.

It does generally annoy me that so many people who read classics look down on these books. Its not literary enough for them. To me, in order to understand and enjoy literature to its fullest, you have to show, understand and appriciate it in all forms not just classics.

[JBI]

The Bronte Sisters, George Eliot, Francis Burnett, etc. All published under a male name because they had to. I would think in this century, when it seems the best names in children's literature are female, that to do such a thing is a little regressive. I would think, in terms of the authors credibility as an author, and as a "moral guide" as people seem to judge her, it says a lot. It says quite frankly, that she and her publishers decided that it was more important to sell copies than to encourage female writers to be just that, female writers.

[Drkshadow03]

IF they keep playing them off as quality literature, as they have been doing, or as children's books as they seem to be doing, then they can tap into the international market, and stick even more mediocre books on the shelves of other nations. After all, readers want to read what is the best from other countries, as a way of staying current, and if they are told Potter isn't too bad, they may say, "well, it is a translation, perhaps the original was stronger."



As far as criticism sub-discussion goes: fair enough!

As for the quoted comment, I am pretty sure Harry Potter has been translated internationally (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_in_translation#List_of_authorised_tra nslations_by_language). As have King and Jordan. So I'm not sure why you are presenting the scenario as something that may happen in the future as it has already occurred, unless I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to get at.

[Niamh]

The Bronte Sisters, George Eliot, Francis Burnett, etc. All published under a male name because they had to. I would think in this century, when it seems the best names in children's literature are female, that to do such a thing is a little regressive. I would think, in terms of the authors credibility as an author, and as a "moral guide" as people seem to judge her, it says a lot. It says quite frankly, that she and her publishers decided that it was more important to sell copies than to encourage female writers to be just that, female writers.

As i've said above, the name does influence the sale. I've had to deal with many people looking to buy books, who look frown when i try to promote or recommend a book written by the opposite sex, and no matter how much i tell them about them and they say they that they do sound interesting, will eight times out of ten approach the till with a different book by an author of their sex.

[Bitterfly]

It does generally annoy me that so many people who read classics look down on these books. Its not literary enough for them. To me, in order to understand and enjoy literature to its fullest, you have to show, understand and appriciate it in all forms not just classics.

I totally agree with you. I loved all the Harry Potter books, waited for them anxiously to come out and had a lovely time not only reading them but re-reading them. What do they provide: a wonderful escape from reality, simply, and that's probably why most adults who read them enjoy them. There's nothing intrinsically awful in that - it doesn't stop me enjoying very good books as well.

And I agree it's snobism that encourages people who've never even read the books to look down upon them. Why speak abot something you haven't read in the first place! It's intellectual dishonesty.

And, speaking as someone who hates TV and who's never owned one and who never will, there's nothing comparable with the imaginative activity going on in one's brain when one reads one of those books with the passivity that accompanies TV watching.

Who cares, also, what the motivations of authors are, JBI? Balzac for one was obsessed with money! it didn't stop him from writing good books...


As i've said above, the name does influence the sale. I've had to deal with many people looking to buy books, who look frown when i try to promote or recommend a book written by the opposite sex, and no matter how much i tell them about them and they say they that they do sound interesting, will eight times out of ten approach the till with a different book by an author of their sex.

Of course it does. You have to be naive to think that sexism is dead in literature. Studies still show, alas, that women are taken less seriously when it comes to intellectual matters. And are also less taken into account (less heroines, especially in films) possibly because they're not seen as the main consumers - or they are believed to be more adaptable when it comes to identifying with a main character...

That said, I also was disappointed that Rowlings didn't have the guts to choose a female hero. There have been good heroines in the past - Pippi Longstocking, Nancy Drew... - but apparently they do appeal more to girls than to both sexes.

[Niamh]

As far as criticism sub-discussion goes: fair enough!

As for the quoted comment, I am pretty sure Harry Potter has been translated internationally (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_in_translation#List_of_authorised_tra nslations_by_language). As have King and Jordan. So I'm not sure why you are presenting the scenario as something that may happen in the future as it has already occurred, unless I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to get at.

Well it definitely has been translated. can even buy it in Irish Gaelic! :p


That said, I also was disappointed that Rowlings didn't have the guts to choose a female hero. There have been good heroines in the past - Pippi Longstocking, Nancy Drew... - but apparently they do appeal more to girls than to both sexes.

And that is a fair point. But, as someone who writes herself, its some times the character that are the ones to stir in you mind before you start to unravel the story. I have plenty of stories where the main character/ hero is a man. but i also do have stories with main heroines. Just because she is female, doesnt mean her characters have to be dominantly
I dont know any guy who grew up reading nancy drew.

[Lioness_Heart]

Just a general question to all those who think that Harry Potter is not worth analysis and/or is a waste of space: why are you spending so much time criticizing it? Surely that is countering your argument.

And also, this seems to have been blown out of proportion. Harry Potter has never pretended to be something that it's not; JK Rowling has never claimed that it is great literary work. It may have been claimed by the media, but that is hardly her fault. And taken in context, Harry Potter is, in my opinion, a really good series: there's something about it that appeals to so many people. For me, it was the total all-encompassing sense of magic that was parallel to our world - it was something that you could almost believe was real, rather than purely confined within the imagination.

And as for abbreviating her name, while in principle I disagree, from a business standpoint it was the sensible thing to do. If it was a choice between being published or not, or even mediocre sales against huge ones, then it was the reasonable, rational thing to do. If she had taken offense and stormed off into the sunset, would JK Rowling not have just been falling into the stereotype of a hysterical woman?

[Bitterfly]

Back on the subject of criticism - I think there is a clear distinction between theorist and critic. Theory is rarely useful, with the exception of the starters of the trends, such as Derrida, who is one of the greatest literary theorist of the modern age, yet still theory has its limits. It it used as a backdrop for criticism, and how that is applied can be quite strange.
.

Theory is very enlightening, when the theorist is good. Have you read any apart from Derrida? Bahktine (can never get the spelling right), Foucault, Deleuze and Guattari, even Ricoeur... and I'm forgetting tons of others. I would consider Frye to be a theorist as well, and Kermode, who's wonderful! The French one I cited are often half-way between literature and philosophy (like Derrida) and I find this enrichening.

It's "strange" only when it's applied badly, when it becomes a research tool that yields the same results whatever book you use it on. I've seen enough critics and teachers doing this to know that it's a threat even to critical integrity. But when theory helps you understand a text better, it's extremely useful.


For me, it was the total all-encompassing sense of magic that was parallel to our world - it was something that you could almost believe was real, rather than purely confined within the imagination.

Yes, that's why I like it as well. Just like I liked other books with wizards in them when I was younger (Ursula Leguin and other authors).

[Nightshade]

OK a few points...
1)Did you know there is an American english and a British english version of Harry potter?
2)I really object to the use loose of the term Undergraduate to define an age group, my undergraduate course group ranges from a majority of people in their forties ( and one in his 50s) down to someone who has yet to turn 20. A more efficient way of defining your self would be a 90's baby or a late 80's baby or hey a baby boomer or flower child.
3)


. And the craze isn't occurring now because all the books have been written, so there's nothing else to go crazy over.

Ok this is where harry potter falls down IMO a true classic still has people going 'crazy' over it over 100 years later that is the whole point! However it hasnt had this test yet and for all we know it will be hailed as a loved classic for ever, I dont think it will personally mainly because I think there are too many current cultural specific referances in it that will get lost with time.

4) When all is said and done harry potter made a massive impact on the childrens book industry one that in many ways changed alot of things and more importantly than anything else it got the tv/computer generation reading!! do we actually care what started them reading? We do not in fact I would argue we should not... just be happy for small graces, the book is still alive!

:nod:

And if nothing else harry potter will go down in history as a pivotal work in the history of the childrens novel- a bit like Richardson's pamela which is also a rubbish piece of work but whose true importance lies in its reception and overwhelming popularity at the time it was publish and its effects on the writing and works of other authors of the time such as Henry Fielding.

[Niamh]

4) When all is said and done harry potter made a massive impact on the childrens book industry one that in many ways changed alot of things and more importantly than anything else it got the tv/computer generation reading!! do we actually care what started them reading? We do not in fact I would argue we should not... just be happy for small graces, the book is still alive!


my sentiments exactly!

[JBI]

It didn't get them reading. I have posted on other discussion threads proof that the rates are still going down, and lets be honest, how many of the T.V. computer generation kids are reading good books? All I can see is that they read Harry Potter, not Austen, not Hardy, and not poetry. I don't see any difference between reading Robert Jordan, and playing World of Warcraft.

[Niamh]

It didn't get them reading. I have posted on other discussion threads proof that the rates are still going down, and lets be honest, how many of the T.V. computer generation kids are reading good books? All I can see is that they read Harry Potter, not Austen, not Hardy, and not poetry. I don't see any difference between reading Robert Jordan, and playing World of Warcraft.

Ratings are going down yes, but not as much as they would be if the harry potter frenzy hadnt happened.
But as for that generation not reading classics and poetry, you are wrong. There are still plenty of young people from that generation buying austens, hardy etc. I see it on a daily bases because i work in that industry.

[JBI]

Ratings are going down yes, but not as much as they would be if the harry potter frenzy hadnt happened.
But as for that generation not reading classics and poetry, you are wrong. There are still plenty of young people from that generation buying austens, hardy etc. I see it on a daily bases because i work in that industry.

And how many would have had they not read Harry Potter. The point is, I have seen no evidence that shows Harry Potter readers are more likely to go on to read mature, and excellent novels, and until such a study has been done, with conclusive evidence, and been challenged to the point of no doubt, than I can basically say that such claims as "Harry Potter makes kids read" is a fallacy. As it is reading rates in America and Britain seem to be going down. And Since the release of Harry Potter, in the States at least, the have gone down more. Where is the conclusive evidence.

[Nightshade]

OK as I also work in the industry and am currently doing an indepth study of the subject of children literature and am surrounded by textbooks and manuals on the subject as I type this. I can assure kids are still reading, I had a couple of preteens ask me the other day for the original unabridged versions of the swiss family robinson and Treasure island, and they only got to the stage that they were comfortable enough to attempt those books because of reading so called 'junk' books, the important thing is to foster a love of reading whatever it takes before you get them trying other tings, my sister who is 11 has just started to read Austin for the joy of it and she started off with the Harry Potter!

[Nightshade]

Where is the conclusive evidence to the contrary? There hasnt been a study that proved otherwise while there has been studies that have proven that getting a child interested in reading anything at a relativity early age is likely to increase their receptiveness to books and reading through life.

[Niamh]

And how many would have had they not read Harry Potter. The point is, I have seen no evidence that shows Harry Potter readers are more likely to go on to read mature, and excellent novels, and until such a study has been done, with conclusive evidence, and been challenged to the point of no doubt, than I can basically say that such claims as "Harry Potter makes kids read" is a fallacy. As it is reading rates in America and Britain seem to be going down. And Since the release of Harry Potter, in the States at least, the have gone down more. Where is the conclusive evidence.

The Harry potter books came out when i was about 16, and i had been reading classics for years by then. I also knew plenty of people younger then me that where reading classics around the time the first potter came out and they where at that 11 year old age. Where Harry Potter did incourage a large quantity of children to read and helped them to move on to the more popular contemporary novels and classics, there where still plenty that where reading classics, before picking up Potter. Its not just an influence from society, but from families also.
Do you work in a bookshop JBI? I see it everyday i go to work, and that is enough evidence for me. I dont need statistics to prove something to me especially seeing as where statistics are concerned, they usually only take in the info gathered from a small minority, and it might be that that minority are of an opinion other than what the case may truely be. It is a biased, nonvalid example of gaining evidence.

[JBI]

Where is the conclusive evidence to the contrary? There hasnt been a study that proved otherwise while there has been studies that have proven that getting a child interested in reading anything at a relativity early age is likely to increase their receptiveness to books and reading through life.

Which Books? I personally couldn't care less if more romance novels were sold, or cheap paperback thrillers, or any such doorstops. At to put it bluntly, I don't think Harry Potter, in terms of in the long run, really effects anything. I'm not trying to put down, and say people may not be inspired, but for the most part, they aren't. They may go on to read Eragon, but quite frankly, I would prefer that they didn't.

Of course, one child may be inspired, but perhaps they could have been with Le Guin, or E. B. White, or what I started on, Roald Dahl. The point is, people say Harry Potter justifies itself with its inspiration to kids, and quite frankly, I don't think that inspiration exists, or is significant in the majority of readers. Quite frankly, I don't think Harry Potter does anything, but make people read Harry Potter, and perhaps books like Harry Potter, of lesser merit than even it, with of course, the odd exception. Your cousin was it? who went on to read Austen quite possibly would have gone there without reading Potter, and perhaps it is a mark of good parenting that she did go there, rather than a statement to the power of Rowling.

[Joreads]

Do you have to read the classics to be considered a serious reader? I don't think so but that is just me. Anyone who picks up a book and takes the time to read it gets points from me. It would be a very quite forum if we all agreed an everything would it not?

The other important point here is we do not know if Harry Potter will stand the test of time who knows what people will be reading in 100 years time.

I have read all of the books and I loved them all. In fact I can't wait for the next movie.

[Niamh]

Do you have to read the classics to be considered a serious reader? I don't think so but that is just me. Anyone who picks up a book and takes the time to read it gets points from me. It would be a very quite forum if we all agreed an everything would it not?

The other important point here is we do not know if Harry Potter will stand the test of time who knows what people will be reading in 100 years time.

I have read all of the books and I loved them all. In fact I can't wait for the next movie.

I agree with you. It shouldnt just be people who read classics, but just people who read in general regardless.
I read everything and anything. even napkins! :p

[Nightshade]

and ceral packet and the small print ! :p

[Leabhar]

JBI, you're wrong. I started on HP myself when I was like 15, and I know people who went on to read actual literature, including myself. And Harry Potter making kids read isn't a fallacy. The Harry Potter books are books, aren't they? They contain words that you read. Of course they suck compared to real stuff, but that's not the point. I actually thought they were good writing, because that is all I was exposed to until I went on to read better books and then realized how crappy a writer Rowling was. The popularity of Harry Potter does make kids read, and they may go on to read better books, or they may not. It depends on the kids. Kids who just watch TV have no chance of reading, though.

[Nightshade]

Kids who just watch TV have no chance of reading, though.
Or to take your point further ids who never read anything never read anything good as well as anything bad.

[glory]

As a teenager, i feel that Harry Potter is a enhancing peace of fiction. True, it's literary components aren't that great, and that the characters aren't very strong, but her creativity is one of a great source. To create an entire school, with miscellaneous teachers and students, is quite an accomplishment.

To the classics, yes, many of them are god peaces of work, that enpower the mind, but some are clearly to old fashioned. Take the Count of Monte Cristo, by Alexander Dumas. A few of my younger siblings friends came to me and questioned it, just because they had heard it was about a sailor, and figured it would be a twist between The Pirates of the Carribean(the movie) and the animated Treasure Island. Naturally, they quickly noticed it was nothing of that nature, but i still got them to read the Oxford edition, finish it, and then I couldn't get them to stop raving about it.

But when I then supposed Great Expectations by Charles Dickens. They read the first hundred pages, then speedily declinded finsihing it. The reason? Just because there was no overlasting plot, no real point to the book, nothing truly interesting. Dickens only wrote about a plain boy who grew into a man, nothing significant to truly grasp. I agree with them, that the book was a waste of time, and a waste of being called a classic. I also believe that with Charlotte and Emily Bronte. Where were there creativity and originality.

Many classics were not meant, nor should have been, placed as classics. Have you not noticed that, the reason adolescents and teenagers of my calibur have been playing games and watching television is because of the everlasting fantasies, the magic, the fighting, all of which unfold in Harry Potter, whether or not the characters are strong or outstanding. Pip never truly matured, he was always the same little nervous lad he always had been after being raised by his sister. But with Edmond Dantes, he moves from being a happy-go-lucky shiplad into a canaiving intelligent mastermind.

I rest my case until someone believes they can outlast my comments:D

[Bitterfly]

But when I then supposed Great Expectations by Charles Dickens. They read the first hundred pages, then speedily declinded finsihing it. The reason? Just because there was no overlasting plot, no real point to the book, nothing truly interesting. Dickens only wrote about a plain boy who grew into a man, nothing significant to truly grasp. I agree with them, that the book was a waste of time, and a waste of being called a classic.

Hmmm, honestly, I could have said the same thing about other novels by Dickens which I found rather boring (Little Dorrit, for instance), but Great Expectations? It's practically his greatest novel! And even what you criticize - just the story of a boy growing into a man - is the "plot" of quite a few wonderful novels, a whole genre called the Bildungsroman. I think you might have to study it to understand what an interesting work it is.

[glory]

Some novels, yes, are interesting to an extent. But all of the pointless plots leading up to Pip's life, they were all meaningless, there was no point at all. Great Expectations cannot be one of Dicken's Greatest novels, for there is no story to tell.

But take Dicken's Oliver Twist. Is there not an ongoing story, which shapes his future and presents Oliver with many self-abiding tasks? Great Expectations falls short of his truly framed work.

[Drkshadow03]

It's "strange" only when it's applied badly, when it becomes a research tool that yields the same results whatever book you use it on. I've seen enough critics and teachers doing this to know that it's a threat even to critical integrity. But when theory helps you understand a text better, it's extremely useful.

Exactly!

------------------------

As for all this gibberish about her characters, I think one of the main draws is in fact her characters. There are so many and they are all so different and have such unique personalities.

The other draw of the series is the setting, the way she combines fantastical tropes and makes them breathe with life and uniqueness, it's a world full of wonder where the everyday is transformed fantastical.

The biggest weakness is the writing itself. Here still I disagree with a lot of people here. The writing certainly isn't Shakespeare, but I've also seen a lot worse too. It's sort of mediocre, capable writing, with a few too many adverbs, and very simple in style, but its adequate enough to present the vividness of the world and tell the story effectively, even if the prose itself isn't always as vivid as it could be.

I also think she misses a lot of opportunities with the lack of gay characters, except for telling us Dumbledore is gay after the fact. The gender issues that JBI already raised.

[JBI]

Honestly, texts must be analyzed beyond plot setting characters. I'm sorry, but that is about a grade 10 level criticism, purely based on content. To say she has an interesting setting is missing the point of reading, and to say she has many characters is also missing the point.

Thematically, I would argue she is weak.
Stylistically, I have seen no argument yet to say she is particularly strong
In terms of originality, she simply isn't.
In terms of conventions, she is highly fixed into her predecessor's examples
In terms of credo, The Bible > Bunyan > Lewis > Rowling.
In terms of relevance? Well, I hardly feel the books are relevant.

But beyond that, in terms of aesthetics... well, if as people are arguing, it is a starter book for most people, what qualifies them as good judges of literature. Who is to say they won't read anything put in front of them. Are you suggesting this is some sort of gate-way drug, to the better stuff out there, the more shattering.

Lets be honest. Reading the classics doesn't make you well read, and only reading the classics is the opposite of well read. One must also read contemporary works, and the contemporary tradition. The whole wizard school bit has been done in children's literature before, from Le Guin who I love, to even as different a writer as Thamora Pierce, who I also like greatly. I use the go on to read the classics as an example of what is good, in order to avoid debate about what is good and what is bad in contemporary fiction. The truth is, that against other contemporary children's fiction writers, Rowling is a rather weak voice.

Look how long her series is for crying out loud. How much of it is just pure filler? in the first 4 books, she uses the same plot construction throughout. Start new year everything fine - secret problem revealed - clue as to the culprit - red herring revealed, true culprit revealed - some deus ex machina fix to the problem, Harry saves the day, whereas his smarter, older, and more experienced teachers and adults have it all wrong, and nearly let things go.

By that notion, books 1-3 must be filler, as the central plot line isn't begun until the very last chapters of book 4. Nothing really happens in book five until the end, and book 6 has virtually no plot progression, and simple reintroduction to "past events". I haven't read the 7th in entirety (nor, though to a lesser extent, the 6th or 5th for that matter) so I can't accurately judge the pace of it, but from what I know, we have the same reoccuring Ron feud that we have seen since book 4 (and in books 1-3 but to a lesser extent) resurface, and take up a good 200 or so pages. Where's the gold? She plots worse than Tolkien.

[glory]

JBI, well said, but bessech the fact of her filler books and such, is it not true that a large quantity of people did pick up the book? Is it not also true that after reading it, naturally most of them would go on to find more. The only problem with her writing, is it does decay the works of Tamora Pierce, and such. She shadows out greater writers just because she appealed more to adolescents and others.

But Tamora's books are more set to a woman's liking, seeing the sex and womanly issues and such, although she is very well written and places inane concepts nobody else would incorporate into her stories. The fact is, Rowling purely had a unique idea, whether it has eben done before or not, and transfixed it better than others before her.

You have to acknowledge that, no matter how poor or splendid her books are. The plots may be meaningless and otherwise a long-length of pointless bad-written scribble, but she still came out on top of other writers. I believe her publiscist may be part of the blame for it, by doing her job exceptionally well.

Needless to say, this argument will go on for years, but we can't change the course of events that will come across in the future with Harry Potter. The deal is, the movie's are still going to be made, finished, and have high box-officer earnings. Rowling will continue to write to teens, however bad or good it may be, and whether she decides to incorporate our critiques or not is purely her decision. Nevertheless, she is still rich, still famous, and still going to have this book out.

Needless to say, nothing will coincide with her points and views, as we type our anger and thanks for her. So merely just acknowledge that yes, her books are more on the leanient side of intelligents, and that she still shaped a wide-range and amount of readers. So we should still thank her, because she did get the new era of children and teens to get their faces off of screens and into books, whether they are good or bad.

[Drkshadow03]

Honestly, texts must be analyzed beyond plot setting characters. I'm sorry, but that is about a grade 10 level criticism, purely based on content. To say she has an interesting setting is missing the point of reading, and to say she has many characters is also missing the point.

I'm assuming you're gearing this part of the response towards me? I wasn't actually performing criticism, I was making passing comments on the merits of the work as entertainment and what I think readers like about them. In other words, I wasn't making any attempt to deeply analyze Harry Potter. Just comments on why I think they are successful as entertainment.

For some interesting takes on Potter with someone whose literary tastes I highly respect and have had even more long-winded arguments and epic battles with than with anyone so far here, check out:

Is J.K. Rowling Becoming the Next Charles Dickens? (http://ofblog.blogspot.com/2005/07/is-jk-rowling-becoming-next-charles.html)

Harry Potter is more than just Plot? (http://www.wotmania.com/fantasymessageboardshowmessage.asp?MessageID=19020 4)

* Disclaimer: I don't necessarily agree with any of the views provided in the two posts above, but I do think they provide some interesting perspectives.

[JBI]

I'm assuming you're gearing this part of the response towards me? I wasn't actually performing criticism, I was making passing comments on the merits of the work as entertainment and what I think readers like about them. In other words, I wasn't making any deep attempt to analyze Harry Potter.

Nah, I was kind of addressing the thread, as I had gone away to attend a lecture, and came back and had found quite a few comments shoved at me. I respect the fact that you are far more knowledgeable in literary theory and criticism than I am.

[JCamilo]

I also read studies showing that Harry Potter generation is not reading more than the previous generation. The reason seems quite simple, HP is a marketing product. There is a spot before, the industry will fill it with a book, use the systems to keep the selling. If HP was that great he would increase those numbers because it would bring something new. It just didnt.
It is true that as soon people start reading, faster they will develop their sensibility and I am sure some people started with HP. The problem however of the industry is that it does not provoke the reader to go beyond, just to return to the same product over and over, under a new guise. If the kid does not move from HP to the classics (and yes, the classics, not all classics, just find your place among them because it is not possible, with a variations of classics we have you wont like one), then there is nothing benefict there. And if a pop book is wrote in a way anyone can understand, lowering the textuality, then the reader will never have his perception sharpened and they will find reading even Agatha Christie hard. Most best sellers do it.
As HP, not that bad (not because it is children literature, silly genre, Andersen, Stevenson and Carroll all wrote children literature and are classics, complicated books, great books, specially Alice), everything correct and that is all. The characters do seem poor, simple because they are just copy of hundred other characters and she banalyze a lot of fantasy... but it is not that pretencious as Dan Brown or Paulo Coelho, considerable more damaging workers.

[JBI]

Honestly - the whole female experience - and that argument... There are female readers of Harry Potter, and that has a male protagonist, are we to assume a double standard? Are male readers not allowed to enjoy a heroine?

The very genre of the novel was built around female readers. It puzzles me that we cannot accept a female lead, and a book that deals with the female experience, when the vast amount of novel readers are female (according to statistics). If a girl can read a book about a boy, boys should be able to do the same thing.

Of course, I'm a Can-lit guy, and most of my reading these days has been geared towards that, and the fact remains that Canada seems to have more great female writers than male ones (but only just), and this sort of thing isn't really a problem. But within other canons, the old patriarchal structure of regressive suppression is still there.

Edit, to built on the above post, if they start with Harry Potter, that doesn't necessarily mean they would not have started with something else. People who read generally do so because they like to; I can't see why Potter would be such a shocker, unless of course you hadn't read anything before it, and once we factor that in, it becomes puzzling to think that the book can be credited with having provoked the necessity in ones life for reading, or the joy that other books bring the reader.

I am puzzled by the rhetoric that goes around without any real logical proof, which basically says, "they read Potter first, and then went on to read other stuff" but doesn't justify the fact that for thousands of years, people went on to read other stuff without there being a Potter.

Think of it like sex - if you had a different first partner, would you have stopped having sex altogether? Of course not.

Also, the dismissal of children's literature as unimportant I find troubling to. It is a legitimate genre, with great writers in it. From Blake's early works, through Rossetti, Carrol, The Brothers Grimm, Anderson, and all the way to modern days, it has been a very strong genre. Why do we think it is fair to say Stephen King writes mediocre books, and they are boring, or Daniel Steele, Does, but when it comes to Potter, criticizing him is blaspheming. I guess I'm the child sitting in the crowd shouting at how naked the emperor really is. (and note, I got that from one of my child-hood favorites, not Harry Potter).

[Drkshadow03]

Nah, I was kind of addressing the thread, as I had gone away to attend a lecture, and came back and had found quite a few comments shoved at me. I respect the fact that you are far more knowledgeable in literary theory and criticism than I am.

Oh. Sorry then. I probably shouldn't be so narcasistic. :blush:

I'll see if I can turn up anymore interesting comments on Harry Potter tomorrow, both scholarly and unscholarly, which may be of interest to this thread.

[JCamilo]

I am guessing that the higher number of young female witches made the option for a young male witch a better differencial when Rowling started to create the charater, So I also do not understand why the relevance of the protagonist sex.

[JCamilo]

Edit, to built on the above post, if they start with Harry Potter, that doesn't necessarily mean they would not have started with something else. People who read generally do so because they like to; I can't see why Potter would be such a shocker, unless of course you hadn't read anything before it, and once we factor that in, it becomes puzzling to think that the book can be credited with having provoked the necessity in ones life for reading, or the joy that other books bring the reader.

I am puzzled by the rhetoric that goes around without any real logical proof, which basically says, "they read Potter first, and then went on to read other stuff" but doesn't justify the fact that for thousands of years, people went on to read other stuff without there being a Potter.

Think of it like sex - if you had a different first partner, would you have stopped having sex altogether? Of course not.

When fishing, never try to hook and pull the fish with the first bite. I am more worried with the destiny after the first reading, the continuity than anything else. I do not see 50 years old people reading HP (those who read it with 10), so what will fill the needs of this reader and how for 40 he kept reading?

(Note, I dismiss all genres, they are not important unless a help to point a style (Romanticism, realism, etc) or structure (novels, poems, etc. I know some of the best books ever written are written for children)

[JBI]

When fishing, never try to hook and pull the fish with the first bite. I am more worried with the destiny after the first reading, the continuity than anything else. I do not see 50 years old people reading HP (those who read it with 10), so what will fill the needs of this reader and how for 40 he kept reading?

There actually are a surprising amount of older people that read the Potters. The publishers even published a set with more "mature" covers to appeal to an older audience.

I remember going on the public transit to classes, and seeing the people, all on the subway reading the books; they weren't kids.

[JCamilo]

There actually are a surprising amount of older people that read the Potters. The publishers even published a set with more "mature" covers to appeal to an older audience.

I remember going on the public transit to classes, and seeing the people, all on the subway reading the books; they weren't kids.

no,no, you misunderstood me. I do not mean those reading HP now with 50 years, but those who are reading it now and will have to keep reading it for 40 years with the same passion. I do not see that happening.

[Joreads]

no,no, you misunderstood me. I do not mean those reading HP now with 50 years, but those who are reading it now and will have to keep reading it for 40 years with the same passion. I do not see that happening.


I agree with you on this point JCamilo. I love the books and have read them all but I can not see myself reading them again. They are great books for what they are entertainment.

[Leabhar]

I am puzzled by the rhetoric that goes around without any real logical proof, which basically says, "they read Potter first, and then went on to read other stuff" but doesn't justify the fact that for thousands of years, people went on to read other stuff without there being a Potter.

For thousands of years only a small part of society was even literate, so you don't have any logical proof yourself. There are obviously more people reading today, literacy is very high. It wasn't half as high even a hundred and some years ago. That's a fact. Its also a fact that popular authors, Stephen King, Dan Brown, Koontz and the like write most popular books and the books people who don't read much read. It whats people who don't even own a bookcase have sitting around. If these people happen to have a child who reads these books as well, he/she could request more books and go on to actually read more than his parents, due simply to Stephen F'in King. I am puzzled that this is even hard to understand.

Anyway, this obviously doesn't mean King, Rowling, etc are very good, but it means that people from small towns, like myself, who wouldn't of read otherwise, end up reading because of JK Rowling, Stephen King, and the other popular garbage. If it weren't for the popularity of these authors, a lot of people wouldn't even read at all except for maybe the newspaper. Some people don't read more than other books like them, and some people go on to read better books. It happens, it happened, I've seen it happen. Wheres your "logical proof" that it doesn't?

[Mollidew]

I am 61 and I love the Potter books and the movies made from them. I think they are timeless and quite frankly are too violent to be regarded as children's books. I can only see that being the case because the characters the story is most connected to are youths but so what? RK Rowling has a great imagination and her books have sold more than any other books. Give her credit and if you don't like them then don't read them. Better is a matter of taste. Some of the so called "better" books are boring with too much about descriptions and drag on. This is why I have not read the Historian yet. Appears to be far too long.

[JBI]

I am 61 and I love the Potter books and the movies made from them. I think they are timeless and quite frankly are too violent to be regarded as children's books. I can only see that being the case because the characters the story is most connected to are youths but so what? RK Rowling has a great imagination and her books have sold more than any other books. Give her credit and if you don't like them then don't read them. Better is a matter of taste. Some of the so called "better" books are boring with too much about descriptions and drag on. This is why I have not read the Historian yet. Appears to be far too long.

The Historian isn't a "better" book the way most literature-people see things, just so you know.

It's actually amazing now that I think about it - the book seems to have drifted away from my memory, and I never hear it mentioned, as if it never existed, yet it was published in 2005, that's 3 years, and it already seems dead. Woah!

[stlukesguild]

First of all... Welcome to LitNet Mollidew. I hope you won't be scared off but you really have jumped into the middle of a fray. I'm not certain... in spite of my own admitted elitism... if I fully agree with JBI. Of course I think the Harry Potter books are grossly overrated considering how good (or bad, as the case may be) they are. However... I'm not sure as to what their impact will be upon the reading habits of fans. There have been cultural phenomenons of a like manner in the past, and personally, I doubt that the Rowling phenomena will in any way prove itself timeless. When I was a child I remember needing to reserve Charlie and the Chocolate Factory months ahead of time. I thought that Jaws would never stop playing at the local theater... and before my time there were the Beatles. The fact that I grew up with each of these and loved them never prevented me from reading more... and eventually better books... seeking out better films (although admittedly Jaws is a pretty damn good movie), and maturing in my musical tastes to Miles Davis, Mozart, and Bach. Indeed, I might note that my beginnings in reading included a great many works that were far from being classics... including Fun with Dick and Jane (yes! we actually read that!). The reality is that serious literature is an acquired taste and whether we like it or not few will ever move from Harry Potter to a voluntary and enthusiastic reading of Shakespeare and Proust, but I'm doubtful that this will change greatly if the same readers were to start with Huckleberry Finn and Through the Looking Glass.

Having said this much, I disagree with any of the notions of aesthetic relativity... the idea that Rowling or Stephen King or any number of other mediocre writers are in any equal to a real "classic" or culturally "important" or relevant because of their sales figures... or if we look at them in the right way... quality being nothing more than a matter of taste:rolleyes:. Popularity has nothing to do with merit, and everything to do with filling a certain niche at the right time (and marketing... in today's culture). There are great writers who were virtually ignored and there are great writers who were very successful (Dickens, Scott...).

I'm rather amused by some of the comments by those in defense of the Potter novels... slamming Dickens, Shakespeare, and other classics for their weak characters (a comment best ignored)... or for their excessive description... This comment always reminds me of that scene in Amadeus when the Emperor suggests that Mozart's latest opera is really something new... but it has too many notes. Simply snip a few and it'll be perfect.:eek2: It's intriguing that one gets the exact opposite from those with limited experience in the visual arts when it comes to painting. I've never heard someone complain about "too much detail" or suggest that the artist should have simplified things or been more suggestive and less literal. Again, this is a discussion we have had several times already, and it grows tiresome. Then, as now, my position would simply be to state that some artists are more concerned about lush description... others want a crisp, concise writing. Neither manner is better than the other.

Having said my piece I will go back to my elitist corner where I most certainly won't be reading trash out of some misguided notion that to be really "well-read" I must read the "good, the bad, and the ugly". I can certainly understand JBI's frustration. I feel the same when I recognize the talentless hacks that have achieved recognition and even stardom as opposed to any number of far greater artists, poets, novelists, musicians. But I'm done rambling... I'm tired and need to get up early tomorrow.

[JBI]

Some other food for thought - looking at the Toronto public library, and counting copies of books, they have

165 copies of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's stone, with less than a half-dozen holds

and 542 copies of Harry Potter and the Deathly hallows, with 54 holds, and around 200 copies lent out.

The publishing distance is 11 years.

Meaning that within 11 years, the demand for a Potter book went from way high, to a very select few (I assume the rest of their coppies they simply just sell off for dirt cheap).

I think, though this is rather flimsy data, that the number of people reading the Potters, and rereading the Potters is going down significantly. People are seeming to read these books, and simply moving on, and not staying.

Of course, this is borrowing books, not buying them; but still I just wanted to show the gap between the last and the first, and the lack of reread interest given to the books.

[Joreads]

JBI can you clarify something. Have people placed them on hold because they are all out at the moment?? Just asking because that is the way that it works here

[Niamh]

Okay i'm going to mention a thing or two about how things work in the book industry. When a new book by a popular Author comes out, of course you sell more than you would a year later. In the Case of J.K.Rowling, she has a large fan base who were all demanding a copy of the book at the same time, hence why she went on to sell so much in so little a time. It would be insane to expect the same amount of sales continuously. The Market demand then slows down, it slowly leaves the charts, but the books are still in demand, so they continue to be printed, and sold. Thats what makes them best sellers. 11 years on, and the first book is still selling as newer generations are buying them to read.
And its not just the case of J.K.Rowling. There are many other authors that would sell a lot of books in their first week they are on shelves. Marion Keyes for example, although not as big out side of Ireland, we sold approx 2000 copies of her latest one in its first week.
But then there is another side to it all. There are books that get deem best books of 2008 etc that do well in their first couple of months and then just fall from the shelves due to lack of or no demand. The Dan Brown books arent selling like they did, but then he hasnt written a book in over four years, so the interest has gone. J.K. Rowling will keep writing and as long as she does, people will read her books. Enid Blyton is finally coming back onto shelves because her books are fashionable again. If there is no demand for an author, their books will stop being printed.
And dont forget that most books will have two main runs in the industry. When they come out first as trade paperback or hard back, go off sale for a few months and then come back as small paperbacks. A lot of the time, if they where popular and in demand, they will end up in the bestselling charts twice.
I said it before and i'll say it again, those books will remain in demand, they same way Roal Dahl is.

[Drkshadow03]

A couple of personal statements.

1) I eventually do plan to re-read the Harry Potter series. The reason mostly is I never got to read it as an actual continuous series with no books in-between. So I have no idea if I represent other Potter fans, but I certainly would like to re-read the series at some point in the future.

2) I am in fact someone who went from Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series to reading the Classics. True, this is a bit of an oversimplification as I still read Fantasy and Sci-fi alongside the classics. Not to mention the first "classic" that taught me to appreciate literature, the one that made me finally understand what literature was for and what it could do beyond simply entertain was Philip Roth's "Goodbye, Columbus." But still the fantasy novels made sure that I kept reading and enjoyed it so that I was in fact prepared for Roth's novella, which then led me onto other books.

[Nightshade]

I am actually quite glad Tamora Pierce came up, I remembered last night that in that she deviated in her writing style post the Harry Potters, writing shorter series with longer books for instance The Trickster books was a pair as compared to the Alanana books which came out in a quartet. Anyway in the acknowledgements at the end of the second book Trickster's Queen she writes and I quote "Aly's story is a pair of books instead of a quartet thanks to J.K. Rowling ( I haven't met her!), who taught adults that American kids will read thicker books, which means I don't need four books to tell a complete story."



Some other food for thought - looking at the Toronto public library, and counting copies of books, they have

165 copies of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's stone, with less than a half-dozen holds

and 542 copies of Harry Potter and the Deathly hallows, with 54 holds, and around 200 copies lent out.

The publishing distance is 11 years.

Meaning that within 11 years, the demand for a Potter book went from way high, to a very select few (I assume the rest of their coppies they simply just sell off for dirt cheap).

I think, though this is rather flimsy data, that the number of people reading the Potters, and rereading the Potters is going down significantly. People are seeming to read these books, and simply moving on, and not staying.

Of course, this is borrowing books, not buying them; but still I just wanted to show the gap between the last and the first, and the lack of reread interest given to the books.

I need to explain here how public library stock control works now I think. Ok basically nowadays while major pity alot of public libraries stock is controled by the suppliers and of course market factors. Public libraries need to keep their customers by whatever means possible and if this means that they have to insure a realtivly short waiting period for books that they can predict will be in high demand for a short period then they will over buy- mostly suppliers cut them very good deals on these books to make this possible. Take for example the other day I was doing a reservation for a customer on a book that wasnt going to be published for another 3 months now so far we only have 5 copies on order but this woman was the 37th person on the waiting list which means the stock manger may very well up the order to around 55 copies so that there is usually a copy hanging around if a customer comes in a wants a copy instantly. When the Jacqueline Wilson comes out we usually have a waitinglist of well over 100 kids months in advance so we about 150 books and for the first year you never see them on the shelves, eventually they start trickling back in by which time at least 10% of them are no longer fit for use and are scrapped instantly and then over the next 3-4 years they are gradually culled to make room for more such is the way of public libraries, its the only way they can afford to stay in business unless people start leaving them money in their wills.
:D
Now I gave up on the Harry potters after the 5th book mostly because Im not very good with long series and I read the 4th on first ( I couldnt afford to buy books when they first came out and the4th book was the first I could get my hands on at a library when I eventually had access to the library) but I can tell you that while have worked my way through loads of classics, the first grown up book I read was Colin Forbes' The Sisterhood and when it comes down to it 'the classics' are just as much tripe filled as the modern best sellers , which is why I can never understand people who wont try the classics because they are classics and must be hard and boring or wont try modern best sellers or chicklit because it rubbish, there are no new stories the only real difference I have ever been able to see is that age the setting and the language and I suppose the cultural context. But a romance about 2 people who misunderstand eac other is still a romance about 2 people who misunderstand each other whether it was written by Austen and has a grave black and gold leather cover or was written by Sandra Brown and has a jazzy bright pink cover with a couple falling all over each other.

:D

[JBI]

JBI can you clarify something. Have people placed them on hold because they are all out at the moment?? Just asking because that is the way that it works here

No, it counts as a hold until the person goes and picks up his copy from the library. Most people, I think, by now, order their books from the website, and therefore just go and pick them up. the number of check outs is like 3 or something.

Honestly, what's with everyone and the classics. I want to here someone say that from Harry Potter they went on to read good contemporary fiction, both children's and adult.You can't trust a reader who only reads classics.

And for the stocking of the shelves, I know libraries stock many-many copies at the beginning. Deathly Hallows was stocked at over 1000! when it first come out. The point I was trying to make, is slowly but surely, the books will only be left taking up space, until they are completely forgotten.

Pride and Prejudice, for example, has 149 books with 68 available, and 7 holds, meaning 81 people are currently reading, and 7 are waiting for their turn to read (I.E. the book to go to the library and pick up their novel). This is just one copy of the book though, the library has several different publications, and they all have holds. Unlike the Potters, this book, for instance, is an evergreen, and probably will never drop in popularity. I was just trying to show the difference between popularity at the launch of a Potter, verses after several years.

[enzobambino]

Just to add my own bit of information, I thought the Potter series was very enjoyable. I am forty years old and I have taught literature for fifteen years. I am an avid reader of everything! Taking into consideration the books are for junior age readers, I had a great time reading them all. Sure there may be some inconsistent parts or weak plots, but if we read a lot of any specific author's works (especially ones with recurring characters) we will find the same mistakes. Just look at Conan Doyle. As for its place in history, I can't imagine it becoming a great classic. It will probably fall into the same place as Madeleine L'engle's A Wrinkle in Time, great readable stories, but not The Count of Monte Cristo. Let's not over analyze this whole thing. :)

[Taliesin]

I loved Harry Potter when I was around 12-16. I constantly reread them.
In this summer I tried to read a Harry Potter book in German. Turned out I could do it. I hadn't had the patience to finish other books in German as my German isn't very good because it is my second foreign language.
Now I managed to buy one HP book in French (my third foreign language which I know even less than German). Again, I could read it.
Now I just need to to get my hands over a HP book in, say, Latvian or Swahili - because if I can read them in those languages I know that reading HP in some language doesn't have anything to do with knowing or not knowing the language - then I just have learned the series by heart.

[Nightshade]

I loved Harry Potter when I was around 12-16. I constantly reread them.
In this summer I tried to read a Harry Potter book in German. Turned out I could do it. I hadn't had the patience to finish other books in German as my German isn't very good because it is my second foreign language.
Now I managed to buy one HP book in French (my third foreign language which I know even less than German). Again, I could read it.
Now I just need to to get my hands over a HP book in, say, Latvian or Swahili - because if I can read them in those languages I know that reading HP in some language doesn't have anything to do with knowing or not knowing the language - then I just have learned the series by heart.

Hey brilliant thought Tal! Thats how I will learn these languges I have to accquire in the next 3 years :D

[glory]

Knowing the series by heart is a thing that shows your memory is well, but do you truly just want to over use it on this speck of literature. It isn't very well written, but the fact is still the fact.

JBI, sad to tell you, but you must live in a very literate area. After your post of stocks yesterday, I came to the central library branch, and was sad to find we only had 80 copies of P&P, with only 16 of them checked out. I went on to look at the Deathly Hollows, and was suprised to find nearly 500 copies, over a fourth of them checked out. Good books are falling through the cracks.:flare:

[JBI]

Knowing the series by heart is a thing that shows your memory is well, but do you truly just want to over use it on this speck of literature. It isn't very well written, but the fact is still the fact.

JBI, sad to tell you, but you must live in a very literate area. After your post of stocks yesterday, I came to the central library branch, and was sad to find we only had 80 copies of P&P, with only 16 of them checked out. I went on to look at the Deathly Hollows, and was suprised to find nearly 500 copies, over a fourth of them checked out. Good books are falling through the cracks.:flare:

I'm using the TPL statistics, which is all the libraries in the system around the GTA, comprising what I believe is the second busiest public library system, if Wiki is to be believed.

[glory]

Ah. I simply headed to the central library downtown. Those are still bad statistics though.

[JBI]

Ah. I simply headed to the central library downtown. Those are still bad statistics though.

Nah it means nothing - Deathly Hallows will be busy for a while yet - it was published last year. But wait until 5 years from now, or 200 years, as the case of Austen. She still, after all this time is one of the, if not the, supreme novelists in English.

[kilted exile]

Knowing the series by heart is a thing that shows your memory is well, but do you truly just want to over use it on this speck of literature. It isn't very well written, but the fact is still the fact.

JBI, sad to tell you, but you must live in a very literate area. After your post of stocks yesterday, I came to the central library branch, and was sad to find we only had 80 copies of P&P, with only 16 of them checked out. I went on to look at the Deathly Hollows, and was suprised to find nearly 500 copies, over a fourth of them checked out. Good books are falling through the cracks.:flare:

I dont understand the anger here. The library is their to provide access to information & literature for the surrounding local community - what difference does it possibly make to you if people decide to use their leisure time reading Harry Potter?

[JBI]

I dont understand the anger here. The library is their to provide access to information & literature for the surrounding local community - what difference does it possibly make to you if people decide to use their leisure time reading Harry Potter?

Nothing, I merely was pointing out the fluctuation in popularity and readership between book 1 and two, showing how readers stopped reading Potter as obsessively, as imagined, by showing the drastic difference in number of loans and copies of the last book than the first. The Library should stock Potter, I have no qualms about it, I was just trying to show that one the book was read, it was read, and left. Whereas other books on the other hand will continue to be read, though the so called Potter generation seems to be over, being that new readers aren't flocking in the same numbers.

The authors popularity depends on how many people at the current time are reading/discussing their work. I'm sure now, that the advertisement, and the mystery are over, academics will go on to completely ignoring the work, instead of half ignoring it, and students and readers will cease to read the books.

[glory]

That sounds good. Well, despite the Potter fad finally over, we still do have to prove that a few of those people who didn't read mcuh must have gone on to better works.

[Joreads]

Well that certainly is a lot of copies of the book JBI. We are lucky if we get ten copies of a new book here no matter who the author is

[JBI]

Well that certainly is a lot of copies of the book JBI. We are lucky if we get ten copies of a new book here no matter who the author is

This isn't one library - it's the entire Toronto library system which caters to millions of people.

[Niamh]

Hey brilliant thought Tal! Thats how I will learn these languges I have to accquire in the next 3 years :D
Well you could try get a dutch one online but as for Latin, they sell them in one of the gift shops up by Hadrians Wall. My Friends Hein and Ine bought a couple of copies for their nieces who where currently studying latin in school back in belgium. They hoped by reading the book in Latin, it would incourage and help them to learn and progress with the language.
I should really buy it in Irish, to refresh my memory. Either that or Artemis Fowl.

Ah. I simply headed to the central library downtown. Those are still bad statistics though.

I dont trust statistics.
Nor wiki for that matter.(well most of the time)

[glory]

Well Niamh, you should never trust Wiki 100% as we all know that it is all put up by people around the world, no matter how truthful they may be. Much research on their is not done very well, if not at all.

SO... just as an add-on, cite and check your sources my friends. But I believe JBI's is fairly close to right, if not spot-on.:D

A small matter completely different from this; I'm glad I've found a site with truly literate and intelligent people.

[stlukesguild]

I can never understand people who wont try the best sellers or chicklit because (they're) rubbish...

Perhaps... "because they are rubbish"?

there are no new stories the only real difference I have ever been able to see is that age the setting and the language and I suppose the cultural context. But a romance about 2 people who misunderstand each other is still a romance about 2 people who misunderstand each other whether it was written by Austen and has a grave black and gold leather cover or was written by Sandra Brown and has a jazzy bright pink cover with a couple falling all over each other.

And there's no difference between a painterly painting of a rural landscape by Monet and the same by Thomas Kinkade? Perhaps... just perhaps, now... there is more to literature than the story.;)

[stlukesguild]

Sure there may be some inconsistent parts or weak plots, but if we read a lot of any specific author's works (especially ones with recurring characters) we will find the same mistakes. Just look at Conan Doyle. As for its place in history, I can't imagine it becoming a great classic. It will probably fall into the same place as Madeleine L'engle's A Wrinkle in Time, great readable stories, but not The Count of Monte Cristo. Let's not over analyze this whole thing.

I will agree that some of the best classics have their flaws. Cervantes' poetry added to Don Quixote in not even mediocre... it is just plain awful. But this flaw is more than compensated for by strengths in other areas. The Harry Potter novels are simply mediocre all around. There are no aspects of phenomenal brilliance that in any way make me think it will survive as anything more than an example of a cultural phenomena... not unlike Jonathan Livingston Seagull or Peyton Place. Of course I could be wrong... they may survive as a minor "classic" such as the works of Arthur Conan Doyle or Alexandre Dumas... who in reality is far closer to the sort of phenomena represented by Rowling than he is to a true "classic". Hell, he didn't even write most of his own books, but rather farmed out plots to ghostwriters... some of whom were far greater writers than himself (such as Gerard de Nerval.

[Drkshadow03]

I will agree that some of the best classics have their flaws. Cervantes' poetry added to Don Quixote in not even mediocre... it is just plain awful. But this flaw is more than compensated for by strengths in other areas. The Harry Potter novels are simply mediocre all around. There are no aspects of phenomenal brilliance that in any way make me think it will survive as anything more than an example of a cultural phenomena... not unlike Jonathan Livingston Seagull or Peyton Place. Of course I could be wrong... they may survive as a minor "classic" such as the works of Arthur Conan Doyle or Alexandre Dumas... who in reality is far closer to the sort of phenomena represented by Rowling than he is to a true "classic". Hell, he didn't even write most of his own books, but rather farmed out plots to ghostwriters... some of whom were far greater writers than himself (such as Gerard de Nerval.

Hmmm, except I know people who still read Jonathan Livingston Seagull. Also, we're still reading Dumas too. It seems to me the central question is whether we will still be reading Potter 30 years from now, a 100 years from now, 200, etc. I am not saying it will keep up the same numbers, but will it still maintain a steady stream of readers?

Even more interesting to this question might be not just to focus on children or the general adult reader, but will fantasy readers still be reading Potter alongside the likes of Tolkien 40 years from now?

[JBI]

I don't know how many are reading Dumas - most people I know who are fans read a 400 page Count of Monte Cristo, and lets face it, the book was not 400 pages.

[glory]

Ah. Well JBI, as I'm glad to state, I and a few of my freinds read the Oxford edition of The Count of Monte Cristo. Which is around 1200 pages.

[JCamilo]

I still read Dumas, the first book of 3 Mouskeeters is a damn fine book, with all flaws of Dumas, but a capacity to build the action and characters (not the mention the good sense of being humourous). Lets face it, if the best-sellers writers today had the same capacity of Dumas (and his ghosts) to organize a product, it would be considerable harder to attack the level of the industry. They just do not. Dumas I think (alongside with guys like Stoker, Doyle, Le Fanu,etc) the limit of what will be immortal and what is not. I do not think HP got near there, and that is the problem: even enterteiment can be better. (Even if I think HP is even a little better than a few other popular writers).

[glory]

Hmm, you bring interesting points J. But, can you honestly say that Dumas would be able to adapt into this modern era? I'm not criticizing you, but maybe if he could adapt, would he still have as an adept Literary concept as he had before? I think this really raises a few questions, such as if he would be able to adapt and be able to keep things as funny and interesting as he had wanted?

[mortalterror]

Hmmm, except I know people who still read Jonathan Livingston Seagull. Also, we're still reading Dumas too.

Count me down for that. I read Jonathan Livingston Seagull, The Complete Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, The Three Musketeers, The Count of Monte Cristo, and The Catcher in the Rye the summer of my sixteenth year. JLS was a decent book and I still think of it from time to time, but it cannot stand with the rest of that company. Having recently reread some of the Three Musketeers, I am confident to proclaim it phenomenal, one of our very best books. StLukes and JBI have some misplaced notion that in order to be good a book shouldn't appeal to anybody or have any action. All they love are Jane Austen and James Joyce the king and heiress apparent of namby pamby fancy pants effeminate letters.

There's something to the Harry Potter books. The language, diction, philosophy, and construction are solid but not impressive on their own; but that's not a negative with the audience which reads these books. As Drkshadow03 mentions in his blog, genre fiction often subjugates language to action and ideas whereas the opposite applies to belles lettres. I can see something in the Potter series. It is something like the appeal that the Wheel of Time series has for men of my generation. But like I said, neither is really my thing and I think Dumas, ghostwritten or not, is still better than either.

[glory]

So... Your supposing that JBI does not know what he's talking about. Hmm... this is a unique situation, seeing as you yourself seem to be a little lost. Let's see if I can help.

Alright, first let's take Dumas. As you said, he is one of the world's most renowned writers. Naturally, the three Muskateers is still a wide and unsurpased book filled with adventure, comedy, and full right down to existence. Dumas is creative, intelligent, and known as a world ranked writer.

Next, there is Rowling, a woman who is clearly not a Feminist( which I have nothing against) as she disguised herself to sell a book of mediocre level and had ideas already been done. I fail to see where no character developement and uniqueness should not also be characteristics in a good book? She filled page upon page with things that do not even influence or make a change into the books. As JBI had earlier written, the first three were fillers, and the last four didn't catch to the main scheme until the last 100 pages of each book. There's also the fact that even though she kept the book pg-7, she should have raised herself beyond that limit. She should have maybe brought in a little gayness/lesbianish type ideas, besides telling people the headmaster was gay in her own little conference. That completely depletes the importance of half of Dumbledors actions in the first few books.

Sadly, as I will conclude, Rowling is not a structured writer, and could not keep basic facts straight and developement to surpass her character's merits. You can never place Rowling with any classics writer. Ever.:flare:

I believe that JBI clearly knows what he's talking about, and has very good taste and knowledge in Lit. yet sadly that is all I can add unless I want to sounds as if I'm all over him. Mortalterror, I command you for your insubordination for this topic.

[JCamilo]

I do not think JBI or St have this concept that a good book cannt appeal to masses, but the other round, that just because it appeal to masses - or it is a fashion - it is good. I have seen them talking about Dickens and Dickens was a writer for masses but he would wipe the floor with writers like Dan Brown who can not even lost his way with actions scenes, much less lead an entire book split between two different cities.
It is not being popular or not that make me Defend some cannonical status for Dumas. It is his capacity to provide continuous reading, to have impact on literature (and other arts), to have expressions and characters reckonized and used by everyone else and all this Dumas achived. If he had done this while having only 100 readers during 200 years it would be as worth as having 100 millions in 200 years.


Hmm, you bring interesting points J. But, can you honestly say that Dumas would be able to adapt into this modern era? I'm not criticizing you, but maybe if he could adapt, would he still have as an adept Literary concept as he had before? I think this really raises a few questions, such as if he would be able to adapt and be able to keep things as funny and interesting as he had wanted?

Well, Da Vinci today would not be him, imagine Dumas. Altough a dude who can pull up adventures with perfection like Dumas would rule in Hollywood, in fact he seems to have settled down every rule of what a blockbuster would be. I dunno why Hollywood still thinks they must change him... Now, Imagine Melville writing today... maybe in his blog...

[Etienne]

StLukes and JBI have some misplaced notion that in order to be good a book shouldn't appeal to anybody or have any action. All they love are Jane Austen and James Joyce the king and heiress apparent of namby pamby fancy pants effeminate letters.

Oh! the bitter frustrations of a frustrated plebe!

Your first sentence is really just an plebeian's rhetoric.

The second sentence is really just a frustrated plebeian's rhetoric.

What are you even doing in a literature forum if you have such opinions? You don't like literature, you like stories... go watch a movie, go play a video game if it's a story you want.

[JBI]

Why read a story for plot? What is the purpose of that? The plot cannot sustain itself alone. The plot is a premise, not a book. Action is only interesting because of the motives behind it, not because of the action itself. In terms of plot, there is essentially no originality anywhere, as plots seem to fall into two categories, as Frye tells us, Comic and Tragic. Everything else is the way it is handled, and the way other devices play to achieve the end. Not the Plot. The Plot is backdrop for the real story.

Even in the most basic examples of literature and storytelling we see the plot as the background. The plot in a fairy tale, for instance, is a means of bringing about the moral. The plot in an epic poem, for instance, is the means of expressing themes, particularly idealistic ones that are relevant to the culture producing the epic.

A book that can only be read once is not a very good book, and plot rarely deserves a second read, if not for the other elements at play within the work. I can't reread a completely plot driven work, because knowing what happens deeply lowers my appreciation of such works. I can, however, reread, for instance, Alice Munro's Short stories, while enjoying them more on the second reread. That is what, and how literature should function. If it's only good once, it can hardly be that good.

[glory]

Why read a story for plot? What is the purpose of that? The plot cannot sustain itself alone. The plot is a premise, not a book. Action is only interesting because of the motives behind it, not because of the action itself. In terms of plot, there is essentially no originality anywhere, as plots seem to fall into two categories, as Frye tells us, Comic and Tragic. Everything else is the way it is handled, and the way other devices play to achieve the end. Not the Plot. The Plot is backdrop for the real story.

Even in the most basic examples of literature and storytelling we see the plot as the background. The plot in a fairy tale, for instance, is a means of bringing about the moral. The plot in an epic poem, for instance, is the means of expressing themes, particularly idealistic ones that are relevant to the culture producing the epic.

A book that can only be read once is not a very good book, and plot rarely deserves a second read, if not for the other elements at play within the work. I can't reread a completely plot driven work, because knowing what happens deeply lowers my appreciation of such works. I can, however, reread, for instance, Alice Munro's Short stories, while enjoying them more on the second reread. That is what, and how literature should function. If it's only good once, it can hardly be that good.


Well said. I'd add but, you pretty much summed up my giant post I was about to make...:bawling:

[mortalterror]

:flare:
Mortalterror, I command you for your insubordination for this topic.

Sir, your effective use of the smiley feature unmans me. I am humbled and must change my life.


What are you even doing in a literature forum if you have such opinions? You don't like literature, you like stories... go watch a movie, go play a video game if it's a story you want.

Wow. You're right. I don't like literature. I don't know anything about it. That's a load off. I think I'll go play some video games. Thanks.

[stlukesguild]

StLukes and JBI have some misplaced notion that in order to be good a book shouldn't appeal to anybody or have any action. All they love are Jane Austen and James Joyce the king and heiress apparent of namby pamby fancy pants effeminate letters.

Ah yes... we are but effeminate aesthetes... while you, undoubtedly, speak from that masculine strain of thought that embraces the machismo of Hemingway and Charles Bukowski and Joe the Plumber, no doubt. Even that manly Roman avatar... (but why not Caracalla?) Combine it all with a feigned preference for the tastes of the "common mensch" (in spite of your obvious rather "elite" education and taste in reading) and it creates a marvelous illusion... the intellectual who is also down with the people... although perhaps a bit unsettled in his own manhood.:D

[glory]

Well, I'd just like to tell you, Mortal, that it is quite ridiculous to just come out and try to stab someone like that. You hadn't made any comments, or said anything in this forum, and you come out and just say there ideas are ridiculous? It truly raises some questions mate. You should probably apologize, and back up your statements for them better.

Never diss the smilies:flare::flare::flare::flare::flare::flare:: bawling:

[JBI]

All right, before this goes on to petty namecalling, lets just have a bit of a re-cap, and a summing up of things.

A) can we agree that Rowling's prose is far from perfect, and is not stellar, or spectacular, and perhaps not even good?

b) can we agree that the last 4 or so books are not geared towards kids, but towards young adults, and perhaps adults, given their bloody content, and their darker, and more violent nature, thereby outing them from the genre.

c) Can we agree that the most acclaimed points in Rowling's work seem to be her plot, setting, and magic?

d) Can we agree that the books are Christian in moral focus, especially given the ending of the 7th book, which is purely out of the Bible, without much possible dispute.

e) can we also agree that fashion, advertisement, and word-of-mouth marketing can contribute to large amount of scales, regardless of the quality of a work

f) That a book's contemporary popularity is no real judge of its merit, being that there were as many books that were popular in their day and went on to be enduring, and popular in the future, and as many books that got bad receptions in the beginning, and then became popular later.

[mortalterror]

Even that manly Roman avatar... (but why not Caracalla?)

You know me too well. I tried a picture of Caracalla first, but the detail of the statue didn't show up at that resolution. It was all dark and pixelated. Plus, it didn't fit the color scheme of my page.

[glory]

JBI, i can agree with A,B,C,D,E, and partly F. The book must have have been decently well, no matter how good or bad it was written, to gain so much attention and popularity.

[stlukesguild]

Plus, it didn't fit the color scheme of my page.

So... you are an aesthete after all? A secret volume of La Bas hidden away somewhere?:D

[JBI]

JBI, i can agree with A,B,C,D,E, and partly F. The book must have have been decently well, no matter how good or bad it was written, to gain so much attention and popularity.

I beg to differ, see the Da Vinci code, and anything else by that author. It essentially proves the theory that marketing and sensationalism can sell anything. In Angels and Demons, for instance, I hear Brown uses a literal Deus Ex Machina.

[JCamilo]

I also partly disagree with F, but because popularity at any given momment of time, past, present, future is no indicative of anything at all. Picking a single momment of time makes no sense ,it is a form of relativism.
As the other part, Glory, today you have mechanisms of marketing and commerce that will give enough contribution to sell a product for what it pretends to be (Da Vince code is awful, only the polemic factor added sales, The Alchemist is utter crap, only the self-help discourse saved it. As Rowling I think it was an efficient and easy to grasp product with magic), so I can not say it is a matter of quality.

[Niamh]

Alright, first let's take Dumas. As you said, he is one of the world's most renowned writers. Naturally, the three Muskateers is still a wide and unsurpased book filled with adventure, comedy, and full right down to existence. Dumas is creative, intelligent, and known as a world ranked writer.
Although i find Dumas swashbukling tales entertaining, he is not a great writer in my eye. Three Musketeers is all plot driven. Action and no emotion.


Next, there is Rowling, a woman who is clearly not a Feminist( which I have nothing against) as she disguised herself to sell a book of mediocre level and had ideas already been done.
You must remember it was not her idea, but the idea of her publishers. If she had down right refused, they may have refused to publish on the grounds that it might not make enough money for tehm to bother if it only dragged in one side of the market instead of the other. It was also the publisher who decided on childrens and adult editions. They are the ones that know the market and take the risks, not the author.


I fail to see where no character developement and uniqueness should not also be characteristics in a good book? She filled page upon page with things that do not even influence or make a change into the books. As JBI had earlier written, the first three were fillers, and the last four didn't catch to the main scheme until the last 100 pages of each book. There's also the fact that even though she kept the book pg-7, she should have raised herself beyond that limit. She should have maybe brought in a little gayness/lesbianish type ideas, besides telling people the headmaster was gay in her own little conference. That completely depletes the importance of half of Dumbledors actions in the first few books.
Unfortunately the way modern writing is, either an author is plot or character. They focus on one or the other. I was told this when in a discussion with an author only recently. And she was right. In my opinion they should have a bit of both. but there is a lot of drivel on hte shelves that are just purely one or the other.
Personally i enjoy the potter series. It doesnt bother me that some of the characters are underdeveloped. But its the main reason i love the Aremis Fowl books more.


Sadly, as I will conclude, Rowling is not a structured writer, and could not keep basic facts straight and developement to surpass her character's merits. You can never place Rowling with any classics writer. Ever.:flare:
When i read over manuscripts for a publishing house, one of hte first things i look at is structure. If there is no stucture there is no book. J.K.Rowling is a structured author.

I believe that JBI clearly knows what he's talking about, and has very good taste and knowledge in Lit. yet sadly that is all I can add unless I want to sounds as if I'm all over him. Mortalterror, I command you for your insubordination for this topic.


Oh! the bitter frustrations of a frustrated plebe!

Your first sentence is really just an plebeian's rhetoric.

The second sentence is really just a frustrated plebeian's rhetoric.

What are you even doing in a literature forum if you have such opinions? You don't like literature, you like stories... go watch a movie, go play a video game if it's a story you want.


Well, I'd just like to tell you, Mortal, that it is quite ridiculous to just come out and try to stab someone like that. You hadn't made any comments, or said anything in this forum, and you come out and just say there ideas are ridiculous? It truly raises some questions mate. You should probably apologize, and back up your statements for them better.



Okay now this is where i become a Mod.
Under no circumstances are we to discuss the poster and not the post. If you do not agree with what they have written, disagree with the post, do not jab at the poster.
We are here to discuss Harry Potter NOT each other.
If personal jabs continue, this thread will be close.
Okay :)

[Bitterfly]

Alright, first let's take Dumas. As you said, he is one of the world's most renowned writers. Naturally, the three Muskateers is still a wide and unsurpased book filled with adventure, comedy, and full right down to existence. Dumas is creative, intelligent, and known as a world ranked writer.

Not really, considering he didn't write his books by himself. You don't go looking for style in him, but as you said, for adventure, comedy, action. Where that is lacking (I'm thinking about the second sequel to the Three Musketeers), he's not a success as an author. So I think he compares well with Rowlings: they boh have a lot of imagination, and that's quite wonderful.

Why not accept that some authors have more imagination than they have a gift for writing, and for others it's the contrary? John Irving also comes to mind, even though he's not a writer for children: lots of imagination (although a bit staler in his latest books) but not a very talented writer when it comes to style...Dan Brown also comes in that category: no style whatsoever (his is pretty awful, even, much worse than Rowlings') but he does possess a certain amount of creativity.

I think we read for several reasons, and therefore there have to be several types of books (and some great books that satisfy all our needs). Harry Potter is enjoyed by people who like delving into an imaginary world, and being "comforted" because it becomes a familiar place to them (since it's a series). Umberto Eco wrote that detective fiction could be appreciated for this reason as well: the plot is always roughly the same, therefore it's reassuring in a way.

Other books don't reassure us, and I suppose books without plot least of all, because we don't know where they're going. I don't know if any of you here have read Julien Gracq, who's considered as one of the greatest French authors of the twentieth century - Le rivage des Syrtes, for instance, has no discernable plot, and its greatness rests on style (beautiful writing!) and atmosphere.

The literary intelligentsia tend to consider novels of the second type as superior to novels of the first type - maybe because the first type doesn't need them to explain much! :D

I wonder, also, whether this difference isn't undercut by the one between what Barthes called the scripterly and the writerly, hum...

[kiki1982]

Not really, considering he didn't write his books by himself. You don't go looking for style in him, but as you said, for adventure, comedy, action. Where that is lacking (I'm thinking about the second sequel to the Three Musketeers), he's not a success as an author. So I think he compares well with Rowlings: they boh have a lot of imagination, and that's quite wonderful.

Dumas, admittedly, made use of ghostwriters but it has to be noted that he did have the last word, added details and also wrote the dialogues and the last chapters in his books. Of course, Dumas saw writing as a kind of industry rather than a kind of art, but it doesn't really take anything away from his stories. Indeed the sequel of The Tree Musketeers is flat, but it is still moving, funny and passionate in places. The plot itself was largely based upon the same principle as the original musketeer book, which was a mistake. However the Vicomte is better, it is a shame that they didn't implicate the musketeers more... I don't agree that he didn't have anything apart from adventure, comedy and action. Monte Cristo has none of that (or very small parts of that) and is still very profound if you think about it.
What you say about style is not totally true. His 'works' are intertextually not very interesting because he doesn't make references, but in French schools he is read for his superior French. So maybe, there is nothing special about him in English, but he is certainly very stylish in French.

For me there are two kinds of books: the ones with a good plot that are read because of that and the ones that you read for the language/ideas/philosophy alone, regardless the plot. The one kind shouldn't be superior to the other, but I think that mere plot-books have a lot to prove.

[JCamilo]

Also, this is not true. Rowling is not that imaginative. She basically only use and abuse of the old plot (choosen one that always solve everything) and take everything in HP from other sources. She does not add anything. Dan Brown much less. Everything he wrote was copied from other sources.
Dumas was something else. His characters are more living even if completely stereotypicals such as Milady. But Milady is the basical fatal blondie that XX copied so much. The swashbuckling adventures rules are refined under his ideas and command. He was not only more creative (Not just a repetition in a new order like the others cited),but he also have more timing (even with the need to write long descriptions and dialogues to fill more pages for money) and this shows his narrative capacity while manipulating time x space than most writers today. Even if nowhere a Victor Hugo, he is not a Dan Brown, by large.

(Maybe this part of the discussion can be split in another thread, after all, there is no room for those who just like HP to post here anymore)

[Bitterfly]

What you say about style is not totally true. His 'works' are intertextually not very interesting because he doesn't make references, but in French schools he is read for his superior French. So maybe, there is nothing special about him in English, but he is certainly very stylish in French.

I read his works in French. :p
Yes, his French is beautiful, but it's the language of a specific era. Most of the books that have survived from that time are written in beautiful language, I think, no? And his style, I found, is nothing to write home about - nor are his thoughts in general, which is why I don't consider him to be a writer for adults, even though I loved him as a child.

[cundiff11]

JBI.. i am a teenager and i enjoy these books. I have read them all at least three times. And when i read these books, i read them because i like fantasy or anything like that. why would i care if they talk about masturbation or sexual whatever? and at the beggining of this post you compare them to SHAKESPEARE? These books sell on the Childrens Racks at barnes and noble. shakespeare is suposed to be a little bit more deep. and if these books are so horrible, why do so many people like them.? obviously there is something that catches all those people's eye, or is just the fact that she pretends to be a male author that makes everyone buy it?

[NEEMAN]

Dumas is an exceptional author simply because he was a master of pace. Dumas makes a book which would normally be considered epic due to its length feel like a breeze. There's no taking that away from him, and I have yet to find an author who has come close to matching the sheer thrill of The Count of Monte Cristo.

That said, on an intellectual level, TCoMC is basically Batman circa 1800. What we're talking about here is the classic divide regarding literature: is it about entertainment or intellect? Some readers want books to always challenge them intellectually, some just want them to entertain, and some want a fairly even dose of both.

To me, both is best. I love Catch 22 because of its scatter gun humour and madness but I also love it because some of the ideas are actually worth thinking about. But I also love Dumas, because despite his comic book characters, he is a pleasure to read- if something is entertaining on a level like that, I don't mind a lack of 'intellectual weight'.

[JBI]

JBI.. i am a teenager and i enjoy these books. I have read them all at least three times. And when i read these books, i read them because i like fantasy or anything like that. why would i care if they talk about masturbation or sexual whatever? and at the beggining of this post you compare them to SHAKESPEARE? These books sell on the Childrens Racks at barnes and noble. shakespeare is suposed to be a little bit more deep. and if these books are so horrible, why do so many people like them.? obviously there is something that catches all those people's eye, or is just the fact that she pretends to be a male author that makes everyone buy it?

Thank you for taking the time to punctuate your point, but the fact remains that young readers will read essentially anything. I know - my parents fed me lots of crappy books. Either way though, the clock is ticking for Potter, - Twilight already is the new In, and sooner or later another thing will replace that.

Either way though, if a book's excuse for being good is that it is rubbish, I find that rather problematic. In the end, it is the readers themselves who are going to be ripped off, not me, as I have read my fix of good books.

Lets be honest - I am, and I am trying to remain modest, somewhat of a strong reader - I have read a lot, worked hard, developed the skills, and can read at a proficient level. But what of the others who cannot? What happens if someone only reads Harry Potter, and isn't allowed to grow? As you've put it, you have read the series 3 times, meaning you have read 21 books, averaging around, I think, 400 or so pages each? Meaning, you could have read 21 great works, or 84 poetry books in the same time, but you didn't.

Now, of course you have stumbled to this site, so your interest in literature is not ending there, but what of the kid who only knows Harry Potter? Where do people go from there, to Dan Brown, or where? Do they go anywhere, or just head back to video games and T.V., which statistics show is happening.




I sound like a snob, but in truth, I didn't really start reading so insistingly until I was about 14 or 15. My parents never read to me, and I only got cash for birthday presents, which I usually deposited in the bank. I think th ebulk of my spare time was taken up sleeping (13 or so hours a day), and the rest cooking and eating. The fact that I even read books today is by some fluke, me coming across a copy of Eugene Onegin, and devouring it (a first reading, that essentially lead nowhere, in terms of understanding the text, though I have returned to the book 5 times now).

If one hasn't read good books, or hasn't read challenging books, all they can go by, in terms of judging, or understanding books, is their experience with mediocre ones. Usually a reader will pick up on the basic patterns - readers of fantasy, for instance, will notice plot clichés and structural devices which are repeated over and over again, as will romance novel readers, etc. But will that help someone, when it comes to understanding a poem?

The question then comes down to whether understanding the poem is good or not. I would say it is - I think the poetry reader benefits more than the mediocre fiction reader, or the pornography magazine reader. But the point is, these skills transcend the act of reading too, and allow people to excel, no matter which field they work in.


Some people think English is a joke, but if you look at people, there are different levels of proficiency.

For instance, Yesterday, I received a comment from someone at a social gathering I attended, on the fact that I use too many big words, and unconventional language. In truth, my vocabulary isn't even that great, I just choose my words carefully to pack the most meaning. But the point is, someone was mocking me for being too brainy (ironically after bragging about her average in university no less!). If I wasn't myself, and another person, perhaps I would have lowered the bar, and reduced my vocabulary to the simplest vernacular. Avoid polysyllabic words, and long sentences all together. And what effect does that have? None other than someone suffering to fit in, someone reducing themselves, because society says it is "cooler" to do so.

Of course, I am older, and a smart *** enough to answer with a witty reply (with all the frills of a Polonius), but even then, what if I was, lets say, 11, and the person was twice my height, and reading Harry Potter. To what point would I feel comfortable saying Harry Potter is rubbish? I wouldn't. I would simply read it.

If the cool kids are reading something, everyone is reading something. If the cool kids where Nike Jordans, assume everyone is wearing them. Harry Potter is no different. The commercial success of the book isn't determined by the book, but by the book's sales. Literary criticism is the only way to determine the books worth in the long run.

To say "I enjoyed them", without having read, for instance, Anne of Green Gables, or for a more mature book, A Wizard of the Earthsea, or even more basic works, like those of Monica Hughes, who is by no means a fantastic author, but is a very encouraging one (I read about 10 of her books in my youth, she is particularly good in her depictions of female protagonists).


I see no reason why kids of 15 shouldn't be reading Jane Austen, and shouldn't be reading Pushkin, or Alice Munro, or Pablo Neruda, or Homer, or Tagore. They may not understand everything the first time, but the only way to grow is with challenge, and is with quality, and with guidance. I don't see any of that in the Potters, and I don't see anything particularly creative in the Potters. I see a dead end - a nowhere, one that saps all the markets time, all the bookshelf space, and all the advertisement. One that has been translated into countless languages and dialects, been stuck in every book store in every country. Why? The same reason why Pop music sells, and then is forgotten.

That's why I don't support

[mayneverhave]

I see no reason why kids of 15 shouldn't be reading Jane Austen, and shouldn't be reading Pushkin, or Alice Munro, or Pablo Neruda, or Homer, or Tagore. They may not understand everything the first time, but the only way to grow is with challenge, and is with quality, and with guidance. I don't see any of that in the Potters, and I don't see anything particularly creative in the Potters. I see a dead end - a nowhere, one that saps all the markets time, all the bookshelf space, and all the advertisement. One that has been translated into countless languages and dialects, been stuck in every book store in every country. Why? The same reason why Pop music sells, and then is forgotten.

The common sentiment I get (mostly from people my own age and not 15 year olds - since I don't know any), is that they are just not interested in being challenged. This is not necessarily because they're stupid - they just lack the interest in literature. When I suggest some poems of Yeats to a friend of mine, he gave me the common answer of: "I don't really read/like poetry, because I don't understand it".

How do we combat that? This, to me, is the same as a person watching only romantic comedies or comic-book-hero movies and avoiding Citizen Kane or Casablanca. There is (as we all know) a large world of literature that exists that is absolutely fascinating, but the majority of people are either unaware of it or uninterested.

The problem isn't just education, it's seemingly ingrained in the culture.

[JBI]

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.

[Joreads]

The common sentiment I get (mostly from people my own age and not 15 year olds - since I don't know any), is that they are just not interested in being challenged. This is not necessarily because they're stupid - they just lack the interest in literature. When I suggest some poems of Yeats to a friend of mine, he gave me the common answer of: "I don't really read/like poetry, because I don't understand it".

How do we combat that? This, to me, is the same as a person watching only romantic comedies or comic-book-hero movies and avoiding Citizen Kane or Casablanca. There is (as we all know) a large world of literature that exists that is absolutely fascinating, but the majority of people are either unaware of it or uninterested.

The problem isn't just education, it's seemingly ingrained in the culture.


I agree with you here mayneverhave 100% people are only to happy to stay with what they know or what they think they will understand or enjoy I am not sure what which it is. I have a policy with reading and most things that I will try anything once and while I don't always enjoy the books that I read or even sometimes understand them on the first read I always give them a go. Once you close your mind off to something it makes it easier to keep closing it off to other things that we think we may not like.

That being said I am a HP fan but I also like Austen and other Classic writers. (I have never tried poetry so I will give it a go I will start with Yeats) Why do I like books like HP? Well after a stressful and busy day at work I don't always like to come home and read something that I am going to have to think about I sometimes like to read a book just for the act of reading and enjoy the escapism.

[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. :lol:

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 (http://beyondassumptions.wordpress.com/2008/08/26/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 (http://beyondassumptions.wordpress.com/2008/08/26/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.

[JBI]

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.

Literature is political - the world is political - it's like trying to read a text without reading the setting of the text. It's impossible.

I believe Orwell wrote a famous essay on politics and literature, perhaps you can check it out.

In terms of yelling at the leftist, you seem to be a hypocrite, on one hand condemning me for my stance on neo-conservatism, and on the other hand slapping liberalism.

As for separating it from my thinking, well, could the authors of their works seperate the world around them from their literature? Was Virgil not writing, essentially, a politically motivated poem? How much of Horace is political (note, I used those examples to slam down on the conservatism). Literature is a product of a time frame, and the reading of literature is an appropriation of that into another time frame. If a work doesn't reflect the values, or fundamentals of another time period, than it needs to a) be said, or b) be thrown out.

Either way, I'm not as political as you make me out to be, I could easily, as I have done, go on about the mediocrity of the prose of some works. The point is, I like to branch out and accept different viewpoints. The most conservative readings anyway, that is, the American religious communities, seem to condemn Potter as satanic anyway, which is the dumbest reading of them all in my book.

[aBIGsheep]

Literature is political - the world is political - it's like trying to read a text without reading the setting of the text. It's impossible.


Either way, I'm not as political as you make me out to be,

Uhh, wait wut?

[Drkshadow03]

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. . . . 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.

I think the problem is I still don't agree that literary critics get the last say. The only people who generally pay attention to literary critics are other literary critics. Otherwise, most people ignore literary critics. It is important to remember that the study of literarature as an institutionalized profession is fairly new.

Plus the historian in me grows suspicious when I hear statements like that. What books we read a hundred years from now I suspect is part of a complex interaction between hundreds of little nodes: the librarians, the critics, the average person's tastes and values, tradition, popularity, book clubs, classrooms, availability in print, etc., rather than ultimately decided by one of those sources.


Literature is political - the world is political - it's like trying to read a text without reading the setting of the text. It's impossible.

I believe Orwell wrote a famous essay on politics and literature, perhaps you can check it out.

In terms of yelling at the leftist, you seem to be a hypocrite, on one hand condemning me for my stance on neo-conservatism, and on the other hand slapping liberalism.

As for separating it from my thinking, well, could the authors of their works seperate the world around them from their literature? Was Virgil not writing, essentially, a politically motivated poem? How much of Horace is political (note, I used those examples to slam down on the conservatism). Literature is a product of a time frame, and the reading of literature is an appropriation of that into another time frame. If a work doesn't reflect the values, or fundamentals of another time period, than it needs to a) be said, or b) be thrown out.

Either way, I'm not as political as you make me out to be, I could easily, as I have done, go on about the mediocrity of the prose of some works. The point is, I like to branch out and accept different viewpoints. The most conservative readings anyway, that is, the American religious communities, seem to condemn Potter as satanic anyway, which is the dumbest reading of them all in my book.

It's not your questioning of Neo-Conservativism that is the issue for me anyway, but rather where are all these Neo-Con critics that you keep talking about? I've been to three (technically four schools and know plenty of English majors from other schools), and I've never once met an English major who was right-wing. The furthest right I've seen in any of my classes were Centrists/Moderates. The vast majority were not only Leftist, but Far Left.

Also, it becomes problematic when one starts judging the value of a text based off whether it has the correct politics.

[JBI]

They exist, they just aren't really taken seriously most of the time. I haven't used the term since the (third?) page of this thread, but I think there (it was a while ago anyway) I was referring more towards the a) Religious, or Bible-centric readings, b) the kinds of readings that look for "truths" and morals in a book, and c) is generally an older generation.

Generally, no one pays attention to these people, but you, I'm sure, have run across some of their essays in your reading.

But on a less academic level, I think before I was referring to the people who wrote reviews on the books, and not actual literary critics in the Academic sense. Those, I'm sure you know, are very apparent in society.


Thinking back now again, I think I may have also been trying to imply simply the older F. R. Leavis influenced generation, who evolved out of new criticism, and is now slowly dying out. Their method of reading, you will know, and their method of writing, is very, very different.

But yes, on the whole, most critics still writing are left-leaning, and are somewhat radical in their thinking, given that they don't accurately represent the divide between left and right in the mainstream of society.

The problem is identifying major neo-con critics now, which is more difficult, but to name some in the last 20 years, I would put: the Late work of Lionel Trilling, Susana Sontag to an extent, Sidney Hook, the author Saul Bellow, V. S. Pritchett, and others.

[JBI]

It's not your questioning of Neo-Conservativism that is the issue for me anyway, but rather where are all these Neo-Con critics that you keep talking about? I've been to three (technically four schools and know plenty of English majors from other schools), and I've never once met an English major who was right-wing. The furthest right I've seen in any of my classes were Centrists/Moderates. The vast majority were not only Leftist, but Far Left.

Also, it becomes problematic when one starts judging the value of a text based off whether it has the correct politics.

Like I said, I was merely trying to get in more viewpoints. As it is, children's literature in general seems geared towards the "moral of the story". If there is a moral, from what I read in the book, it is "Jesus saved us and was reborn, because he loves us". Which isn't really a moral at all. Either way though, this is futile - the bad prose enough is to burn the book, let alone the crummy clichés, and monotonous characters.

[*Classic*Charm*]

If there is a moral, from what I read in the book, it is "Jesus saved us and was reborn, because he loves us".

Are you aware that this series was banned in a number of catholic elementary schools in several countries? I'd love some examples of where this message was found. I suppose if you were really forcing it, you could make the Harry-Jesus comparison, but I think you'd have to have read the book deliberately looking for such a connection to find it, and even then it's weak.

What I think is often overlooked about novels in general (especially by those who read classical literature) is that books fall into two categories:

Art and Entertainment

Much like film, there are novels written to diagnose the human condition, make some sort of statement about an unlimited number of things, tap into a certain human emotion, etc. Then there are those which are meant purely to capture a reader's attention and provide him or her with a diversion of an entertaining nature. These categories are not limited to more adult literature, either. Such divisions are present within children's literature as well, such as the obvious distinction between EB White's works and something like the Goosebumps series. I think it's completely irrelevant and unnecessary to evaluate novels written to provide entertainment in a political sense in this particular case.

The Harry Potter series were written in the latter sense- they were written to entertain children and whomever else decides to read them. Entertaining children's books are not written to delve the reader into the human psyche or reveal some life's mystery. I'll even go so far as to say that they're not always about the moral of the story, once the reader hits a certain age. Harry Potter was meant to provide young readers with an entertaining and creative story, and that was clearly accomplished. You're inhuman if you can't credit Rowling with having an impressive imagination.

I'm so tired of arguments like this one! The author never claimed that her work would be the be all and end all of literature, and neither do most readers. And for those who do- who are you to decide what is worthy of being an individual's be all and end all? Every person has some piece of literature that is the single greatest writing he or she will ever read. If it happens to be Harry Potter, then people should stop looking at them as inferiors and appreciate that maybe they see something in it that you don't!

[JBI]

Yeah, that is the irony of the whole thing - religious people banning religious stories. But then again, those people weren't very bright to begin with.

[*Classic*Charm*]

Yeah, that is the irony of the whole thing - religious people banning religious stories.

Like I said, I'd like some evidence. What exactly makes you think this is a religious story? This has never been insinuated by the author, from every account I've encountered.


But then again, those people weren't very bright to begin with.

That's something entirely different that has no place in this thread. Take that argument elsewhere.

[JBI]

The whole thing is fused with Christian perspective since the beginning. The conflict between good and bad is a construct out of the system, and the players are fused by this sort of morality.

But in depth, there are plot devices, such as the Irish kid denying Potter, or the notion of love as virtue, or the simple fact that all the kids in the book seem to be Christians (and celebrate Christmas) which creates a Christian feel. The ending of the first book for instance, offers Voldemort's temptation in the desert, in this case right in front of the mirror, offering the world and power if he will but serve him.

The ending is the biggest give away. The book builds itself on a chosen-one construct to save the world, and ends with the self-sacrifice and rebirth so cliché and overdone to hit you on the head. In truth, there was a fear in Rowling, apparently, when writing the earlier volumes, that some would "guess the ending" by thinking of the Christian components.

[*Classic*Charm*]

The whole thing is fused with Christian perspective since the beginning. The conflict between good and bad is a construct out of the system, and the players are fused by this sort of morality.

But in depth, there are plot devices, such as the Irish kid denying Potter, or the notion of love as virtue, or the simple fact that all the kids in the book seem to be Christians (and celebrate Christmas) which creates a Christian feel. The ending of the first book for instance, offers Voldemort's temptation in the desert, in this case right in front of the mirror, offering the world and power if he will but serve him.

The ending is the biggest give away. The book builds itself on a chosen-one construct to save the world, and ends with the self-sacrifice and rebirth so cliché and overdone to hit you on the head. In truth, there was a fear in Rowling, apparently, when writing the earlier volumes, that some would "guess the ending" by thinking of the Christian components.


I think that these conclusions can be drawn when reading the novel from a perspective that is looking specifically for these connections. While the notion of love as virtue is of course a Christian concept, it is a conclusion that transcends religious beliefs. Potter being denied by another kid is purely a childhood event, if you think the fact that he's Irish also plays into this notion, that's rally stretching it as the entire cast of characters is from the U.K. Why do you assume all the kids celebrate Christmas? Simply because the novels don't address other options does not mean that they were deliberately avoided. The offering of power in exchange for servitude is also a concept that, while having it's place in Christianity, transcends it's religious reference. This offering, as well as the chosen-one construct has been the centre of literature and story-telling since before the imposition of Christianity.

To say that these references are more than the coincidental implementation of the most common theme known to literature in a creative way is over-analytical, in my opinion.

[JBI]

Rowling, like I said, knew her ending was religious, and said as much. They weren't found there, but put there. The text is Christian in scope, I just haven't read it in x number of years, or even in its entirety (I got summaries for the abnormally long, pointless parts).

[*Classic*Charm*]

I just haven't read it...in its entirety (I got summaries for the abnormally long, pointless parts).

I'm done here then.

[JBI]

I'm done here then.

How so, I have read the parts I am commenting on - I have read the first handful of books in entirety, and merely skipped silly bits. Go ahead an be done, but I am not the only person to make Christian parallel observations. Much has been written on the subject.

But yeah, I guess I can't comment since I didn't read about a stupid game of Quidditch that some want waving Victorian English schoolboys play.

I'll remember this statement, so if you ever comment on one author's works, I will be capable of attacking your authority if you haven't read their entire opus.


But Ok, since you're done here, we can move on.

[aBIGsheep]

You guys are lame. Why can't we enjoy a book for being a book? Jesus Christ.

That's a religious parallel by the way.

[mayneverhave]

Why can't we enjoy a book for being a book?

The entire nature of literary analysis relies on the fact that we actually "analyze" the book. Simple exclamations of: "Oh that book was great", or "Oh that book was not great" are fine for casual conversation, but when we want to get to discussing the nuts and bolts of a work, we need to think beyond just "enjoying a book for being a book".

[aBIGsheep]

The entire nature of literary analysis relies on the fact that we actually "analyze" the book. Simple exclamations of: "Oh that book was great", or "Oh that book was not great" are fine for casual conversation, but when we want to get to discussing the nuts and bolts of a work, we need to think beyond just "enjoying a book for being a book".

Then doesn't that partly defeat the point of a book? I can give you all these wonderful rules and regulations that a book should, wait, must, have before it's considered a work of literature, but doesn't that take away from the whole point of reading?
I like to read a book to be entertained. People like to read books to loose themselves in another world. Everyone should read to learn a moral or lesson. But isn't hacking it apart, piece by piece, line by line, defeating the purpose of writing?

I hate people like you. You lose the point of novels to become some initiate of the soulless, literary elite. You're too good for the mainstream, modern and the contemporary. You're too good to enjoy or appreciate anything below your golden standard. **** it. I'll stick with my dusty, long-winded novels because your childish pieces are much too mundane for my ego.

If you didn't successfully analyze that last sentence, it was sarcasm.
Christ.

[mayneverhave]

Then doesn't that partly defeat the point of a book? I can give you all these wonderful rules and regulations that a book should, wait, must, have before it's considered a work of literature, but doesn't that take away from the whole point of reading?
I like to read a book to be entertained. People like to read books to loose themselves in another world. Everyone should read to learn a moral or lesson. But isn't hacking it apart, piece by piece, line by line, defeating the purpose of writing?

I hate people like you. You lose the point of novels to become some initiate of the soulless, literary elite. You're too good for the mainstream, modern and the contemporary. I'll stick with my dusty, long-winded novels because your childish pieces are much too mundane for my ego.

If you didn't successfully analyze that last sentence, it was sarcasm.
Christ.

You don't study literature if you have no interest in it. Analysis, criticism of poetry, etc. arises from a love of literature. We don't just do it for the hell of it. There would be no point.

Even the most erudite critic will think "oh that was fantastic; I loved that", but the point is to figure out why what he read was great, why it had such an effect on him. By understanding how one author does it, in turn, we can apply it to ourselves an figure out how to do it.

If you merely stay on the surface, without thinking critically about something, you're going to get nowhere.

[Etienne]

You're too good for the mainstream, modern and the contemporary.

There is much good modern, contemporary literature and mainstream literature, Harry Potter is just not among it.

[aBIGsheep]

If I stay on the surface, I'll eventually sail to America.

But to completely be turned off by a book because it doesn't merit the same old drudgery of the classics is appalling. What about being turned off because it doesn't have a strong female character? And what about when a story has too many religious undertones? Sweet Jesusmaryandjoseph, that's ridiculous.

If you refuse to read a book just because you think it's below yourself, then you're never going to enjoy what could potentially be an amazing experience.

[*Classic*Charm*]

How so, I have read the parts I am commenting on - I have read the first handful of books in entirety, and merely skipped silly bits. Go ahead an be done, but I am not the only person to make Christian parallel observations. Much has been written on the subject.

But yeah, I guess I can't comment since I didn't read about a stupid game of Quidditch that some want waving Victorian English schoolboys play.

I'll remember this statement, so if you ever comment on one author's works, I will be capable of attacking your authority if you haven't read their entire opus.


But Ok, since you're done here, we can move on.

I'm not attacking your authority, I simply don't think it's fair to disregard the parts of the novel that don't suit your theories! At no point did I ever tell you that you weren't allowed to comment.

I'll admit, I see the parallels you draw. Even if the author herself admits that her ending is decidedly similar to the Christian climax, it is a complete contradictory that if her goal was to write a version of the Christian foundation, she would do so veiled by a concept condemned by Christianity. I also don't see how doing this affects the validity of her writing.

[*Classic*Charm*]

If I stay on the surface, I'll eventually sail to America.

But to completely be turned off by a book because it doesn't merit the same old drudgery of the classics is appalling. What about being turned off because it doesn't have a strong female character? And what about when a story has too many religious undertones? Sweet Jesusmaryandjoseph, that's ridiculous.

If you refuse to read a book just because you think it's below yourself, then you're never going to enjoy what could potentially be an amazing experience.

Well said.

[JBI]

Ironically we are on a forum that discusses literature. If reading was such a masturbatory act, then why bother posting on the forums. As it is, you are here posting, so there must be some desire for discussion. To discuss, we must analyze. You can't condemn literary analysis when it disagrees with your views on literature, yet still hope to discuss works, which is technically why you are here.

I didn't start the thread, and I didn't make you read it. The thread has a topic, and to some extent it has branched off from there. From what I can see, the only reason for your outburst is the fact that my argument is beating yours, and you are falling back on the "You're nothing but a snob who likes to destroy books." No, I am a snob, but I like to read books, not simply flip the pages.


Analysis is what the reader does. Some just look deeper than others. Don't yell at me for looking deeper than you say you do, and finding something that you didn't find.

As for evaluating works, well, that's part of the process. The topic of this thread, after all, points right back to it.

[Gretchen]

There are two strong female characters in "Potter":Ginny and Lily! They are both perfect feminists:Strong, intelligent, beautiful, brave, ect. They were two 100% perfect and unrealistic as all those feminists characters. I think the male characters were really weak, especially Harry.

I agree with you about that this book is one big cliche and spoon-fed. In ten years' time nobody will know who is that "Harry Potter" boy.

[JBI]

You are deliberately playing semantics to prove a point, so I won't humor you. All I will say, is that you simply wish to imply nothing, but destroy my argument without arguing on the grounds that it is elitist.

Either way, the topic is on Harry Potter criticism, and being part of the Potter generation.

You also assume looking at a text deeply is to not enjoy the text. Again, another remark out of place. I enjoy reading. I don't enjoy reading Harry Potter really, but I enjoy reading. Understanding works is part of the enjoyment. Are you insisting you have a better capacity to enjoy art? Are you insisting not reading the text closely is more enjoyable than reading it closely? Where's your scale?

[aBIGsheep]

If this is about Harry Potter criticism, can't I question the criticism of the critic? Yo, let's give up, yah?

I win.

[Logos]

General Mod Note To All:

Closed because there's too much discussion of each other going on and not enough about the topic.

Maybe I'll open it tomorrow when I have time to clean it up and I'm not so tired :)

[Logos]

A few posts have been removed because they were off topic, and/or, either contained or quoted insults. (any more will also be removed)

This was a good discussion, so please let's get back to it without the personal invective :)