Harry Potter and the Half-Baked Plot

[The Atheist]

Because my kids own books and films, I've been through the Harry Potter experience from go to whoa.

Aside from overwhelming feeling that J K Rowling's success is based upon slick marketing rather than good writing, I have one serious issue with her books:

I get a strong impression that two different writers are involved.

Maybe it's a deliberate ploy of Rowling's and she's much cleverer than I'm prepared to see?

Has anyone got any comments in this vein? Is it possible that Rowling, like Dick Francis, has her very own Chamber of Secrets?

The subject is obviously out there in some form - there's even a betting market on it here (http://home.inklingmarkets.com/markets/5317)- with odds of 25:1 against her having used ghost writers.

[Hank Stamper]

I heard harry potter was written by those same monkeys who wrote all that shakespeare

[Joreads]

Wow I really enjoyed the HP series but I have to admitt the books got better as they went along. I never considered that she used a Ghost writer but there you go. I will do some research on it now.

[JBI]

I don't think so, and if it's true, the ghost writer isn't a very good writer either. Either way though, who cares. The books are on their way out, it's time to move on, and throw out the wand and hat you spent 30$ a piece on for your children.

Another point, want me to do some word count checks, and phrase checks to compare the documents of each book. I would have to obtain an e-text copy, but then I could scan the text for text usage, and things like that (rather easily).

[mayneverhave]

I wouldn't waste my time, JBI.

I'm growing slightly weary from all these Harry Potter threads.

[Drkshadow03]

Hey, all this Harry Potter discussion has inspired me to write some HP criticism talking about the virtues of Potter and what Fantasy can do that realism cannot.

[librarius_qui]

I don't think so, and if it's true, the ghost writer isn't a very good writer either. Either way though, who cares. The books are on their way out, it's time to move on, and throw out the wand and hat you spent 30$ a piece on for your children.



Potter era's ending, Potter generation's growing up, and beginning to date vampires, once Twilight era's beginning ...

Oh the youth, the youth ...

O tempora, o mores! :alien:


librarius
:crash:

[JBI]

Fantasy is good, Potter is bad. I have no problem with Crowley, or Le guin, or Thamora Peirce, or Peake, or Roger Zelazny, but Potter wasn't intended to be good. Of the genre itself, I find it ironic that fantasy resorts to clichés, and yet still sells. There is the odd imaginative thinker, like Italo Calvino, but for the most part, it's pretty crappy writing with pretty crappy purposes. Lets be honest. A book is supposed to be one book, not a 6 book series, or whatever. If everyone else can express a whole life saga in one book, why is it that the fantasy writer takes 6 books for one quest.

Point taken?

[SirRaustusBear]

You can't really attack someone for writing a series. How about Proust or Balzac or Zola or Phillip Roth or John Updike. Writing as a series is not a fault in itself. Commercial fiction tends to use the series as yet another way to turn a profit, more books equals more money, but that is a fault with commercial fiction not the idea of a series.

[JBI]

Balzac and Zola's series are interconnected standalone novels. Proust's is one long novel. Rowling's is 7 dependent novels, with refurbished plots.

There is a limit to how long a book can hold out. Proust, I would argue did the best job at maintaining throughout, but if we look at, for instance, Robert Jordan, he A) never finished his work which is nearing 10000 pages (Proust at least had an ending in sight), and b) lost even avid fans along the way.

Rowling's novels are problematic, in the sense that they don't stand alone. What that means is, we must treat the series as one long book, in which case, we can safely say it doesn't quite measure up. If we read the books as independent installments, perhaps it would work better, but I would argue they can't be read like that, because of their dependence on each other, and their unfinishedness. From the singe book angle, we have a several thousand page bildungsroman, which I would argue, doesn't justify itself as quality literature, or worthy of our time.

That being said, the reason series work, is because they get a following, and sell copies. Rowling manages to do that, and it is quite possible she cheated by ghosting out in order to get the money while she still was hot on the shelves.

That's all speculation of course - I personally am rather unconvinced of a ghost reader - in terms of writing, no book in the series was that great - the only redeeming qualities of the original 3 verses the other 4 is that they were far shorter, and exhibited a somewhat satisfactory editing of size. By the last books though, she doesn't seem to want an editor anymore, and you end up with fat tombs, which sell just as well, but cost 40$ a pop.

[Etienne]

EDIT: JBI beat me to it.

[The Atheist]

I heard harry potter was written by those same monkeys who wrote all that shakespeare

:lol:

[JBI]

To expand on my edit, since I don't wish to edit it again with more info, I would note that the time scale is the same in every book, but the lengths are all different.

I would mark a turning point in book 4 as the transfer from regular size to obesity.

In terms of time to publish, the first 4 are one year apparent, whereas the rest are about 2 years apart, each installment seeming to come out in the summertime. Meaning she is taking twice as long to write the books, writing twice as much, to three times as much, and making twice as much. I would think no real ghost writer, simply a bad writer, who got arrogant, and stopped trimming her books to reasonable lengths.

[bazarov]

Because my kids own books and films, I've been through the Harry Potter experience from go to whoa.




You!?!?! :bawling:
I thought you're raising new Orwellians :lol:



Oh the youth, the youth ...

O tempora, o mores! :alien:


librarius
:crash:

Yes, so sad :(
7 books - Divine Comedy, The Brothers Karamazov, War and Peace, Don Quijote, Crime and Punishment, Good soldier Svejk, Hamlet - that would a smarter kid.

[Niamh]

Potter era's ending, Potter generation's growing up, and beginning to date vampires, once Twilight era's beginning ...

Not sure about the twilight generation. Its really only over in America. It hasnt taken off as much over this neck of the woods, and less people buy them because the books are being written to the same standard as the first. I've had it from more than one source. Its like she tryinf to pump out too many books, too fast and is not giving the writing side of it the time it deserves.
****
With the case of Rowling, her first few books were pumped out pretty fast becasue of publisher deadlines, and it was her decission to take a step back and spend more time on the last ones or else we would have had a similar situation as with the twilight series. Finishing off a popular story with poor quality writing.

You must remember, that it is not always the case of the writer writing a loto f books in a short period of time, but the deadlines and pressure put on them by the publishers.

[JBI]

Then explain the lack of editing in the later volumes? Is that intentional, or just pure laziness/arrogance.

[AuntShecky]

Here's a couple of reasons that I am reluctant to resent or to feel envious of Ms Rawlings' success:
1. She was a single mom in London (?) and packing up her baby, she'd sit in a coffee shop, nursing a coffee while writing her first Harry Potter book in longhand. I don't need to tell you the odds of her achieving success were, and how astronomically her star rose. Who can beat a rags-to-riches story? Her life story is just as fantastic as her made-up stories, yet it gives the rest of us poor schlubs typing away a drop of hope. We have to be realistic, though, and realize that what happened to Rowlings is really rare. Still -- how can we resent her for it?

2.I used to be among the established (i.e. published) critics who would resent the success of horrormeister Stephen King. He, too, came from a very poor background -- in Maine. But when I started teaching young adults my opinion of Mr. King changed radically.
Here were lads (and young women) who had dropped out of high school and were taking a second chance to earn their diplomas. They had probably never read an unassigned book in their lives, but here they were choosing and reading the works of Stephen King.
So any author who can get kids and young adults interested in reading is admirable in my book.

3. Yes, I am envious of "literary" success when the works themselves aren't all that much to, well, write home about it. But instead of being envious, perhaps struggling writers should be grateful that there have been such strong sales for these so-called middle brow writers of popular fiction. Because they bring a profit to the publishing company, the publisher is in a better position to take a chance on previously unpublished "first" novelists.

[JBI]

Are they really though? Are more first-time writers being published now? or is Scholastic, who, from what I know, only publishes previously published authors, just sitting on a pile of gold.

Is the market any better because of Stephen King or Rowling? If dumbing down is what it takes to get people to read, then honestly, they might as well not read. Reading poorly written/mediocre books is just as bad, if not worse, than not reading.

Let's take it one step further - how about someone who doesn't pick up Stephen King, because he is too difficult for him, or too "brainy" and only reads the adds and columns in pornographic magazines. Are we to say well, "At least these porno columnists are getting people reading".

[Niamh]

They are taking a lot more risks with new authors. Not all of them mind, but a good load of them are. That gives me confidence and i'm sure a lot more people who write that one day they too may get published. :) After all, if a publisher doesnt think a book has potential, they wont publish it.

[Drkshadow03]

Are they really though? Are more first-time writers being published now? or is Scholastic, who, from what I know, only publishes previously published authors, just sitting on a pile of gold.

Is the market any better because of Stephen King or Rowling? If dumbing down is what it takes to get people to read, then honestly, they might as well not read. Reading poorly written/mediocre books is just as bad, if not worse, than not reading.

Let's take it one step further - how about someone who doesn't pick up Stephen King, because he is too difficult for him, or too "brainy" and only reads the adds and columns in pornographic magazines. Are we to say well, "At least these porno columnists are getting people reading".

Why do you think people are better off not reading at all than reading Stephen King and J. K. Rowling?

[Niamh]

It shouldnt matter what people are reading, as long as they are reading.

[mayneverhave]

Just as a piece of general interest, I recently googled the T.S. Eliot quote: "Dante and Shakespeare divide the world between them; there is no third." - a relatively agreeable statement.

One search result linked to a "Yahoo question" - where people can post questions and anyone can answer them. This particular question was "Who is the greatest author ever, besides dante and shakespeare?"

I was expecting Homer, Milton, Virgil, hell, I'd even except Chaucer, Dickens, anyone.

What I read was that the majority of the responses were in praise of J.K. Rowling and J.R.R. Tolkien - most being the for the former. Here's my favorite response:

TS Eliot didn't live in the days of JK Rowling.

JK Rowling made reading cool again. She was the first author billionaire. Harry Potter has become a household name. I count her in with Shakespeare.

"Give her hell Peeves" is just as recognizable as "to be or not to be" in today's society.

and nowadays, nobody's heard of Dante's the Inferno or anything.

Jk Rowling is the new Shakespeare.

* 7 months ago

The writer makes this sound like "The Age of JK Rowling", like the "Age of Dryden". Every praise of Rowling seems to be either directly linked to her monetary success or her popularity, never the actual writing.

Here's the entire link - http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080310184145AAz3vSR

[Etienne]

Just as a piece of general interest, I recently googled the T.S. Eliot quote: "Dante and Shakespeare divide the world between them; there is no third." - a relatively agreeable statement.

One search result linked to a "Yahoo question" - where people can post questions and anyone can answer them. This particular question was "Who is the greatest author ever, besides dante and shakespeare?"

I was expecting Homer, Milton, Virgil, hell, I'd even except Chaucer, Dickens, anyone.

What I read was that the majority of the responses were in praise of J.K. Rowling and J.R.R. Tolkien - most being the for the former. Here's my favorite response:

TS Eliot didn't live in the days of JK Rowling.

JK Rowling made reading cool again. She was the first author billionaire. Harry Potter has become a household name. I count her in with Shakespeare.

"Give her hell Peeves" is just as recognizable as "to be or not to be" in today's society.

and nowadays, nobody's heard of Dante's the Inferno or anything.

Jk Rowling is the new Shakespeare.

* 7 months ago

The writer makes this sound like "The Age of JK Rowling", like the "Age of Dryden". Every praise of Rowling seems to be either directly linked to her monetary success or her popularity, never the actual writing.

Here's the entire link - http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080310184145AAz3vSR

Yahoo has chosen it's name correctly, it's a place full of Yahoos.

[JBI]

Why do you think people are better off not reading at all than reading Stephen King and J. K. Rowling?

Because, there are better things to invest time into than reading Rowling. Reading is only as good and beneficial as its content. Meaning if you read rubbish, you are merely wasting time, and money, whereas if you read good stuff, you are benefiting.

I see more productivity in watching T.V., or perhaps going outside and playing sports than reading Rowling. The opportunity cost of reading Rowling, and Stephen King for that matter is too much.

At lets say 50 pages an hour read, the books being like 3000 pages, that means 60 hours of time spent reading Potter. I think it could have been better spent elsewhere.

When reading, one must take into consideration what they are not doing. And if the not doing is better for the person than the reading, then there is no point in them doing the reading. If you read Proust, you gain something, which is well worth the effort. If you read even simple, easy works, those by Houseman, or Christina Rossetti, the time allotted to read such works is justified. If you read Dan Brown, or Rowling, or King, or Grisham, or Steele, or whomever, I do not feel the time allotted is worth it.

Rowling doesn't seem to challenge her readers, and neither do the others. I think that is the simple staple for their stressfulness, the fact that one need not think to read them.

[JBI]

This first response made me laugh out loud:


Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
How about Tolkien?
It may sound cliche, but he actually was quite a genius.
He created an epic that has had huge sales worldwide, has been translated into dozens of languages and I have no doubt will survive the test of time for as long as Shakespeare and Dante will.
He wrote prose, poetry, and histories. He created worlds and invented languages. He took inspiration from both ancient literature and personal experience. The lessons in The Lord of the Rings are as timeless as Shakespeare's characters or Dante's allegory.

I think you can make a good argument that he's done a lot of things that make him quite as good as Shakespeare and Dante.

Edit:
And, in reference to J.K Rowling being the next Shakespeare - good Lord, what an insult to Shakespeare. Rowling has done *nothing* for the English language, nor does she come anywhere near Shakespeare's wit or his way with words.
Rowling is simply a good storyteller, not a literary genius.


Even the edit is unbearably comical, as the foolish kid fails to realize he mocks himself. Pure Irony for you!

[JBI]

Another comical snippet




My favourite author is Jean M. Auel, author of the Earth's Children series simply because of the extra effort she puts into writing her books. Unlike some authors, she does not just write, she also studies and researches A LOT before writing.



This coming from the unrelenting Rowling fan who declares Rowling's sales have made her the best writer since Shakespeare, and has deemed "Rowling made reading cool again." Of course, the only answer I have to that phrase is, no, Rowling made reading Rowling cool for the people who are too insecure to read in the first place.

But of course, there is also the future to look forward to. This bright and promising star concludes with the following:



Also, I know this has nothing to do with the question, but it's my dream to be an author ^^


Good luck.

[The Atheist]

I would think no real ghost writer, simply a bad writer, who got arrogant, and stopped trimming her books to reasonable lengths.

I was looking at the style rather than substance. The increasing size is just a marketing ploy.


You!?!?! :bawling:
I thought you're raising new Orwellians :lol:

Which goes to show how well the marketing ploys work!

(They're a bit young for Orwell yet)

[Niamh]

Not everyone is interested in the same types of books. who cares if people read trash. the main thing is that they are reading. Just because they dont read dante, doesnt mean they shouldnt read at all.

[Etienne]

JBI, I also think it is a bit pedantic to tell people to use their time better than read book X or Y, they can just do whatever they want. If they argue that Rowling has the value of Shakespeare (as the Yahoos), then that's another matter. If someone wants to read for pure escapism, well better that than, say watching a sitcom, for example. Or even if it's as "bad" well what do I or you care? They could spend their time sleeping or just watching paint dry, for all I, or you should, care.

[JBI]

It's just this problem with the whole "at least there are reading" fallacy. There is a distinction, and people shouldn't get "credit" for reading something of such a low quality. We shouldn't praise Rowling and Stephen King for things like making children read, since they aren't. Reading Rowling and Stephen King isn't the same as real reading. Has society come to the point where we give credit to the successfully published trash as being "beneficial" for getting children, and other lazy people to read a book? Where is the justification in that.

Why not praise all the simpleminded female readers who only read genre romances, for being such avid and zealous readers. Why not praise the people who only read Starwars fiction (god knows there is enough of it) for being avid readers, and so dedicated and intelligent, and well read.

The point is, there is a difference. There is reading, and there is reading. If the book doesn't challenge the reader, I see no justification in reading it as helping society by getting more people to read. Sure, people will read junk, and personally, I couldn't care less, until such time as people start praising the junk, and praising people for reading it, and people for writing it.

We live in a society where children are praised for eating their food at the dinner table, whereas in the other parts of their world, that food is a luxury. Let's be honest, that's decadence.

[Etienne]

Well, you certainly have a point.

[Niamh]

As has been said before, not everyone likes the same types of books. Some people read classics and think bestsellers are rubbish, other read best sellers and think classics are boring. then there are those of us who read everything. we all have our different opinions, and no one person should discredit another just because they dont read classics. who cares. The world would be boring if we all liked the same books.

[Etienne]

As has been said before, not everyone likes the same types of books. Some people read classics and think bestsellers are rubbish, other read best sellers and think classics are boring. then there are those of us who read everything. we all have our different opinions, and no one person should discredit another just because they dont read classics. who cares. The world would be boring if we all liked the same books.

Well the debate is not about classics vs bestsellers, it barely has anything to do with that. (A "good" book is not necessarily a classic, and not all best-sellers are worthless, it is not about such clear-cut dichotomy).

I think JBI's point is really that a "worthless" book doesn't have more worth because it makes people read. Reading in itself is not constructive, it's all about what you read. And so the debate is not about whether one should or not read X book, but rather at if reading this X book should be seen as a constructive activity, or simply a base form entertainment or relaxation with no educative, formative or constructive value whatsoever (which would be to the level of watching some kind of soap or sitcom). Which was the point made by JBI in his last post, and to which I can certainly agree.

[papayahed]

Hellooooo?? Not everybody is a lit major. Most people read because they want a good story not to be challenged.

[Niamh]

Whats so worthless about Harry potter?
If you want to read a worthless book, read guarding maggie by Ellen McCarthy. If a book gets kids reading in this day and age, then its not worthless. dont you agree?

[Etienne]

Hellooooo?? Not everybody is a lit major. Most people read because they want a good story not to be challenged.

Hellooooo? Have you read? The point made is that reading is not a constructive activity in itself. If a read offers no challenge it is not constructive and is on the same level as watching a sitcom on TV. It's not about telling what people can/cannot, should/should not do, but about putting things in the right perspective.

Harry Potter does not gain worth "because it makes people read", because this would be like saying Family Guy is good because it makes people watch TV.

[Etienne]

Whats so worthless about Harry potter?
If you want to read a worthless book, read guarding maggie by Ellen McCarthy. If a book gets kids reading in this day and age, then its not worthless. dont you agree?

Well, let me ask you the question in reverse. What IS the worth in Harry Potter? Not that I want to get involved in this debate though, because, frankly, I don't care.

[papayahed]

Hellooooo? Have you read? The point made is that reading is not a constructive activity in itself. If a read offers no challenge it is not constructive and is on the same level as watching a sitcom on TV. It's not about telling what people can/cannot, should/should not do, but about putting things in the right perspective.

Harry Potter does not gain worth "because it makes people read", because this would be like saying Family Guy is good because it makes people watch TV.

Why isn't reading a constructive activity in and of itself? I get great joy out of getting lost in a book. I get challenged everyday in the real world, I don't want to be challenged when I come home and read, I'm looking for a good story.

Harry Potter has worth because I deem it has worth. I got what I wanted to get out of the series - pure escapism.

[Etienne]

Why isn't reading a constructive activity in and of itself? I get great joy out of getting lost in a book. I get challenged everyday in the real world, I don't want to be challenged when I come home and read, I'm looking for a good story.

Harry Potter has worth because I deem it has worth. I got what I wanted to get out of the series - pure escapism.

Well, you're only getting into semantics here. Your post does not contradict what I said, and that is that reading Harry Potter is pretty much on the same level as watching some "worthless" (note the "", I know you can understand what I mean without getting into sophisms) TV program, or playing some video games.

Some people are saying Harry Potter is good because it makes people read, that was the point addressed. Reading here is an empty shell, if it was said it has the worth of pure escapism, just relaxing, then so be it, I can certainly agree that some people can relax and have fun reading it. But that is not the point at hand. The point is that some people imply that reading is an intellectual activity by itself, which it's not.

[mayneverhave]

Hah, I'm afraid you've been drawn in Etienne.

This is a matter of taste - refined or other wise.

One of my professor used an interesting metaphor to describe the reading of classics/literary works versus the reading of genre fiction or popular fiction. He described it in the way of a food critic who, having sampled a larger variety of foods than most people and with a greater developed sense of taste, is able to judge the taste of food better than a person who has no interest in such things. Not only that, but the food critic can then enjoy the greatest of food because of his developed tastes.

To put it bluntly, after encountering the works of Shakespeare, Dante and the like, it is impossible to go back to the level of Harry Potter and Robert Jordan - it would bore me to death. It's not even an issue of a "classic" being more challenging to the reader, but it lies in the simple fact that I can draw a far greater enjoyment out of quality literature than I can popular literature.


EDIT: In terms of the reading Harry Potter vs. not reading at all debate that I completely ignored, if we are to put the reading of Harry Potter as simply entertainment, then it is the equivalent of watching T.V. or playing table-tennis, etc. There seems to be no educational value in the reading of books simply for entertainment other than, perhaps, the growth of vocabulary - or, haha, the ability to spot cliches and hackneyed writing.

[andave_ya]

(I haven't read Harry Potter and neither do I intend to, but I just wanted to say that the thread title cracked me up :lol:)

[Etienne]

Hah, I'm afraid you've been drawn in Etienne.

Argh :lol: Actually I feel like I've just been repeating the same thing over and over again, but people just don't seem to be able to understand some not-so-subtle subtleties, and only come to the conclusion - he snobs Harry Potter and it's fans, he thinks reading Harry Potter is wrong, etc. etc. etc. which my posts are absolutely not.

Such misreading strikes me as ironic on a literature forum. (perhaps that's because it comes from Harry Potter readers :D Hey you, don't read my posts for escapism, it just won't do! :p)


One of my professor used an interesting metaphor to describe the reading of classics/literary works versus the reading of genre fiction or popular fiction. He described it in the way of a food critic who, having sampled a larger variety of foods than most people and with a greater developed sense of taste, is able to judge the taste of food better than a person who has no interest in such things. Not only that, but the food critic can then enjoy the greatest of food because of his developed tastes.

To put it bluntly, after encountering the works of Shakespeare, Dante and the like, it is impossible to go back to the level of Harry Potter and Robert Jordan - it would bore me to death. It's not even an issue of a "classic" being more challenging to the reader, but it lies in the simple fact that I can draw a far greater enjoyment out of quality literature than I can popular literature.

I can completely agree with that. However, I do think it has something to do with being challenged as well. Not necessarily being challenged in the sense of having a hard time going through the book, maybe "challenged" is not the right word, actually I think it is but perhaps just not in the usual sense of it.

[papayahed]

Argh :lol: Actually I feel like I've just been repeating the same thing over and over again, but people just don't seem to be able to understand some not-so-subtle subtleties, and only come to the conclusion - he snobs Harry Potter and it's fans, he thinks reading Harry Potter is wrong, etc. etc. etc. which my posts are absolutely not.

Such misreading strikes me as ironic on a literature forum. (perhaps that's because it comes from Harry Potter readers :D Hey you, don't read my posts for escapism, it just won't do! :p)



I can completely agree with that.

Exactly, I can't figure out why people can't see the other side of the coin either. It's the same ridiculous arguement everytime.

[JBI]

Seriously, why is it always classic verses contemporary. I don't think I used those examples, and quite frankly, my area of study is not in classics, but in modern to contemporary literature (with of course, the course requirements met, meaning I need a literature pre-1800 credit of which I still need to complete).

There are plenty of accessible books out there which are fantastic, and there are plenty of popular books out there which are fantastic. There is terrific contemporary literature out there which is fantastic, and much of it sells decently well.

Countless amounts of people read cheap magazines and tabloids. Are we to praise those periodicals for their benefit of getting people to read? Or perhaps pornographic magazines, or sports articles, or shopping lists. The point is, reading is everywhere, and we cannot say the fact that something is read is grounds for its literary merit, or justifies it as being beneficial to society, which it very well could not be.

I have no problem with people reading the Potter. But I have problems with them screaming of Potters excellence, and people champoining Rowling as the Redcrosse (how cheeky an allusion :))Knight of the literary world, saving literature from the clutches of abandonment. Seriously, she isn't and she hasn't changed anything significantly, except perhaps her socio-economic well being, and that of her publisher.

[Drkshadow03]

Hah, I'm afraid you've been drawn in Etienne.

This is a matter of taste - refined or other wise.

One of my professor used an interesting metaphor to describe the reading of classics/literary works versus the reading of genre fiction or popular fiction. He described it in the way of a food critic who, having sampled a larger variety of foods than most people and with a greater developed sense of taste, is able to judge the taste of food better than a person who has no interest in such things. Not only that, but the food critic can then enjoy the greatest of food because of his developed tastes.

To put it bluntly, after encountering the works of Shakespeare, Dante and the like, it is impossible to go back to the level of Harry Potter and Robert Jordan - it would bore me to death. It's not even an issue of a "classic" being more challenging to the reader, but it lies in the simple fact that I can draw a far greater enjoyment out of quality literature than I can popular literature.


EDIT: In terms of the reading Harry Potter vs. not reading at all debate that I completely ignored, if we are to put the reading of Harry Potter as simply entertainment, then it is the equivalent of watching T.V. or playing table-tennis, etc. There seems to be no educational value in the reading of books simply for entertainment other than, perhaps, the growth of vocabulary - or, haha, the ability to spot cliches and hackneyed writing.

Except it's perfectly possible to enjoy reading "classical"/literary works and genre fiction just as it's possible to eat a $100 succulent juicy Kobe steak perfecty marinated and cooked, and still consider your local $2 greasy pizza joint a great meal too. I know imagine that! It's interesting that you seem to be not just talking about Potter or King anymore, but ALL genre fiction . . .

I've found in my experience that the professors who were the most critical of genre fiction were the ones who had never read any of it.

[mayneverhave]

I've found in my experience that the professors who were the most critical of genre fiction were the ones who had never read any of it.

Unfortunately my professor did not hand me a list of every single work he has read when he made the comment.

The food analogy is hardly perfect, but the basic gist of it is that as one begins enjoying a higher quality of literature, one begins enjoying lower quality literature even less because our expectations have been utterly destroyed by the literature we have previously read. For example, after reading Hamlet, my understanding is that the limits of poetic imagination are so great that anything I read thereafter is a downgrade and does cannot hope to live up to the standard of Hamlet.

Of course I agree with you regarding food. Taste is extraordinarily subjective and open-ended when compared with literature.

[Etienne]

I've found in my experience that the professors who were the most critical of genre fiction were the ones who had never read any of it.

Gasp... that's such a rhetorical argument.

[Drkshadow03]

Unfortunately my professor did not hand me a list of every single work he has read when he made the comment.

The food analogy is hardly perfect, but the basic gist of it is that as one begins enjoying a higher quality of literature, one begins enjoying lower quality literature even less because our expectations have been utterly destroyed by the literature we have previously read. For example, after reading Hamlet, my understanding is that the limits of poetic imagination are so great that anything I read thereafter is a downgrade and does cannot hope to live up to the standard of Hamlet.

Of course I agree with you regarding food. Taste is extraordinarily subjective and open-ended when compared with literature.

Heh. I wouldn't expect your professor to hand out a list of every single work he has read. Certainly I exaggerate. However, when I was looking for a mentor to write my Honors Thesis in undergrad (on Science Fiction about Mars) a lot of the professors who made the distateful or blatant statement "why would you want to waste time on that?" it only took a little probing through conversation about the topic and particular genre-canonical titles for me to figure out that they hadn't read much Sci-fi or fantasy at all. Though, a lot of my professors were open to Tolkien.

I would actually extend the food analogy. Sometimes I want Thai food, sometimes Mexican, sometimes Korean barbecue, sometimes a greasy diner burger, sometimes a slice of pizza, sometimes some italian food, and sometimes a four-star French cuisine. This explains my reading tastes. It's not about better or worse for me; it's about difference. I've already summarized a lot of these points in a more concrete fashion here in answering the "why do I read question?" at this link (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=615023&postcount=26).

There actually is a lot of room for subjective tastes in literature. Very few American universities teach strictly the Canon anymore for better or worse.

[Etienne]

Heh. I wouldn't expect your professor to hand out a list of every single work he has read. Certainly I exaggerate. However, when I was looking for a mentor to write my Honors Thesis in undergrad (on Science Fiction about Mars) a lot of the professors who made the distateful or blatant statement "why would you want to waste time on that?" it only took a little probing through conversation about the topic and particular genre-canonical titles for me to figure out that they hadn't read much Sci-fi or fantasy at all. Though, a lot of my professors were open to Tolkien.

Haven't you thought that maybe it's for this very reason, that there is very little to no literary value in genre literature, that your professors haven't read much of it?

[Tallon]

I tend to read either classics or sci-fi. It's true that there is little literary value in most sci-fi, and perhaps that is why English professors wouldn't be that interested, but i would say there is alot of value in it in other ways. Some of the most challenging and philosophical books i've read have been sci-fi. Plus there is alot of overlap, 1984 could be banded sci-fi.

[JCamilo]

The problem with the "at least they are reading" is that it sounds like a major acomplishment. It is not. People will read, there will be books filling the places of any best-seller writer. And sorry, when people - I will use Paulo Coelho because major markets like America or Europe the damage is minor - read Paulo Coelho, praise him and not go to the original sources or better writers because Paulo Coelho is helped by a major system of marketing then he is Damaging brazilian culture. How many of you people here even know the name of another brazilian writer? Maybe some will say Machado de Assis but how many have read him? Or Vinicius (some may know him as a musicist, but before it he was a hell of poet), or Drummond, or Monteiro Lobato, Manuel Bandeira, Guimaraes Rosa? Those guys are awesome but they are not best-seller writers. Today the market, the model is Paulo Coelho. As result... meh...Even if Brazil achived the highest level of literacy in our story, brazilians read only 3 books a year. We do not have today a writing habit because the writers read do not build a public, a reading love.
Then another point, "First readers, then writers" - The future generations of writers are going to be those "at least they are reading?". Meh, imagine "at least they are writing." If the model is best-seller (Dan Brown style or Self Help like Paulo Coelho) then imagine what they will produce one day. They must move foward. (Harry Potter fanboyism is a major problem I think, but that is a market effect, does not say much about the book). I must say that Stephen King (at least until the time I used to read him, early 90's) at least left signals pointing to the next step. King pointed to the old horror movies and magazine stories (which could lead one to Bradbury) but also to Poe or Lovecraft. At least this function his books could have (plus he was not that nice, his books are big, a bit dense, sometimes life was not easier for his readers). Tolkien pretty much the same. I do not think Dan Brown have lead to anything except more cheap literature and books about his own book. That is the kind of reading that meh. (I always disliked the easy defense : It is just fun, I can read in two hours and put aside, without anything to bug my head. Alas, we are talking about an art, we can not be happy with a book which experience is justified when we forget about it. Books are meant to be remembered).
Finishing, I have nothing against fantasy. I dislike genre definitions but if there was ever a genre in literature is fantasy.

[Hank Stamper]

i would rather a world in which the population was literate not illiterate

there might not be any intellectual reward for reading Harry Potter, but to say that it is worse than watching TV is total rubbish... that implies you would rather have a population who can't read, which is quite scary to be honest.

JBI calculated that to read the Harry Potter series would take around 60 hours - i would argue he has spent just as much time moaning about Harry Potter on here. it is clear to me which is the biggest waste of time.

[Niamh]

I would actually extend the food analogy. Sometimes I want Thai food, sometimes Mexican, sometimes Korean barbecue, sometimes a greasy diner burger, sometimes a slice of pizza, sometimes some italian food, and sometimes a four-star French cuisine. This explains my reading tastes. It's not about better or worse for me; it's about difference. I've already summarized a lot of these points in a more concrete fashion here in answering the "why do I read question?" at this link (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=615023&postcount=26).

There actually is a lot of room for subjective tastes in literature. Very few American universities teach strictly the Canon anymore for better or worse.

And i agree with you here. I can quite easily finish a classic, and go straight into a fantasy or childrens book, and still get as much enjoyment out of it.
***
One of my nephews is a complete brainbox when it comes to maths. when he was in primary school, the school entered him into loads of chess comps and maths comps because he was so good. The problem was they were so focused on his math, logic and science, that they didnt notice his poor quality reading and writing. He was so bad they where considering keeping him back a year so he would be a year later going to secondary school. To prevent that, they gave him extra classes and gave him harry Potter to read which he did quite slowly.
when he finished the first one, rather than wait for the teachers to give him the next one, he came to me and asked me could he borrow the next one, which i gave him. He started to enjoy them so much (now remember he didnt read at all. was computers and chess mad.) that his reading pregressed until he had all five read within a year. (now i know you are all thinking, thats rather slow, but he was a very poor reader, and it took him a long time to read the first one) His teachers were pleased with the improvements and the fact that he was showing an inititive to read. So were all of us at home. I ended up buying him the first five books, which where out at the time, as a christmas present, which he was very happy with. After that, he started coming to me looking for more books. As he liked the themes that ran through Potter, i gave him Garth Nix Sabrael, Lireal and Abhorsen. And he liked these too. When the school decided they werent going to hold him back from secondary school because his reading and writing improved dramaticly withing a year and half period, they gaving him the school reading list for the Secondary school he had chossen to go to. On it Was Artemis Fowl. So my nephew came to me looking for the book as he wanted to read it before he started school. He loved these, and i think he agrees with me they are better than Potter.
Over the last four years, he has gone from being someone who wasnt a reader, and hated the thought of reading to someone who cant get enough of it. He still plays his computer games and his chess, but he also makes his time for reading, which is something i'm very proud of. He is almost fourteen now, and he has said that had it not been for his teachers giving him Potter, he wouldnt have enjoyed reading as much as he does today. I havent given him any classics yet, because i think its important for him to enjoy reading childrens and young adults books before i throw a dickens at him.
This comes from my own personal experience. I've plenty of stories from parents who have been into the shops i supervise also, but i thought this was the better story to tell you all. Now if that doesnt give Potter worth and also show that it can encourage kids to read, then i give up trying to argue the point.

[JCamilo]

This story can be told with almost any book .There is no reason why to believe Harry Potter have more power to turn people in readers than any other fantasy flick. I would say that freedom your newphew had to pick his books is considerable more important than what he picked. (And I would say Freedom is not complete in a world like ours, where fashion and market give no room to breath).


i would rather a world in which the population was literate not illiterate

I have a huge problem with the simplistic reasoning. First reading is quite useless by itself. Whoever thinks reading makes sense without saying what is read is just unable to shake off the notion that several societies existed and exist with almost the same (un)happiness we have today without the predominance of written text. Writing is also a toy for social domination.
Another problem is that, we believe in equality, so It is fair to think everyone must have access to all knowledge (or possiblity of access) because it means a way to personal freedom. That is why we try to make everyone read. But accepting just it is ridiculous. It is but a step, the very first, not the final. There is no sense in teaching people how to use keys but telling that a few doors must remain shut. That is why Blue Beard was a villain and curiosity a feeling that only free people can enjoy.
So, peoeple must read, not just to read,but to have access to the knowledge humanity places in books. To have access to reading codes in the books. Obviously, some books are unable to perform such task.


there might not be any intellectual reward for reading Harry Potter, but to say that it is worse than watching TV is total rubbish... that implies you would rather have a population who can't read, which is quite scary to be honest.

Scary is forgetting that TV is just a media. Akira Kurosawa, Goddard and Kubrick are showed in the television, just a way to show audio-visual products. A media. Just like books. Being a book - a writing text - it is not garantee of superiority over oral tradition, paiting, music, movies, and the other arts. I would say however reads too much but listen to no music is almost like a illiterate. Believing a book is superior to anything just because it is a book is not understand the question.


JBI calculated that to read the Harry Potter series would take around 60 hours - i would argue he has spent just as much time moaning about Harry Potter on here. it is clear to me which is the biggest waste of time.

I do not know JBI much, sometimes reading him I feel he trust in absolutes too much or write them, but this kind of attack - this veiled censorship is funny. Critics are a very relevant part of literature. Thinking is a key. I would not hunt down the Harry Potter fans (because I reckon people may just like something) but thinking it is a waste of time, or that he should not do what he pleases while doing the exactly same JKRowling does (writing) is absurd. She is now a holy woman because she writes?

[Niamh]

Can i ask why everyone wants to pick on J.K. Rowling and the Harry Potter books when there are books out there that are getting a lot of credit, and are really bad? would it not be more worht your while debating the point of book three of the Inheritance trilogy, or some other story? why is it always Potter? Is it because of the fame Rowling got? How much Money she made? Does it really matter if its not shakespeare? I mean they are kids books. Yes alot of adults read them, but alot of adults love reading kids books. i know i do. They are not as bad as you are all making them out to be.

[Taliesin]

I truly wonder if there has been some kind of a scientific study about the people who have started reading from Harry Potter and then moved on to more challenging literature. Of course, it would be quite problematic how to measure how challenging a book is, but perhaps it would be possible to create study in the style of - if people start reading from Harry Potter, what happens to their reading habits. I am quite curious.
On the other hand, I am not very certain how social sciences studies are made - perhaps it is impossible.

[Drkshadow03]

Haven't you thought that maybe it's for this very reason, that there is very little to no literary value in genre literature, that your professors haven't read much of it?

Ironically enough, I think this captures the point I was making. If they haven't READ ANY, how the hell do they know about the literary value of genre fiction one way or the other!

Besides the story ends with me eventually finding a mentor in the English department who had taught Sci-fi courses to mentor my thesis. For all the short-sighted professors, there are plenty of universities teaching Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror courses, and there are plenty of tenured professors in literature writing positively about genre fiction. My friend even was lucky enough to take a grad course on Science fiction (http://www.hergenraders.com/wordpress/2007/01/25/spring-semester-outlook/#more-643). Much genre fiction does have strong literary values. Here are three (http://beyondassumptions.wordpress.com/2008/09/11/booklist-2008-30-do-androids-dream-of-electric-sheep/) genre (http://beyondassumptions.wordpress.com/2008/09/20/booklist-2008-32-the-man-in-the-high-castle-by-philip-k-dick/) books (http://beyondassumptions.wordpress.com/2008/10/08/booklist-2008-38-hitchhikers-guide-to-the-galaxy/) I read this year that I thought were excellent and of a pretty high quality.



JBI calculated that to read the Harry Potter series would take around 60 hours - i would argue he has spent just as much time moaning about Harry Potter on here. it is clear to me which is the biggest waste of time.

It's funny I was thinking that exact same thing!




I do not know JBI much, sometimes reading him I feel he trust in absolutes too much or write them, but this kind of attack - this veiled censorship is funny. Critics are a very relevant part of literature. Thinking is a key. I would not hunt down the Harry Potter fans (because I reckon people may just like something) but thinking it is a waste of time, or that he should not do what he pleases while doing the exactly same JKRowling does (writing) is absurd. She is now a holy woman because she writes?

How is this censorship? He's playfully criticizing JBI's point that Harry Potter is a waste of time by pointing out how much time JBI spends on multiple threads criticizing Harry Potter, a book he doesn't think is worth much, with people who probably aren't going to change their minds, when he himself could've been doing something far more productive. It's he just pointing out the irony.

As for censorship, there is nothing stopping JBI from posting a response. The moderators haven't jumped in and started deleting posts left and right, declaring "Thou Shalt not criticize the Potter" on these boards. I fail to see how he is being censored.

Criticism of criticism is the life-blood of academia and intellectualism. In fact if we look at what just happened JBI criticized people who read Potter (to oversimplify his point a bit), Hank criticized JBI's criticism, you criticized Hank's criticism of JBI's criticism, and I just criticized your criticism of Hank's criticism of JBI's criticism. :D

[Niamh]

Ironically enough, I think this captures the point I was making. If they haven't READ ANY, how the hell do they know about the literary value of genre fiction one way or the other!

Besides the story ends with me eventually finding a mentor in the English department who had taught Sci-fi courses to mentor my thesis. For all the short-sighted professors, there are plenty of universities teaching Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror courses, and there are plenty of tenured professors in literature writing positively about genre fiction. My friend even was lucky enough to take a grad course on Science fiction (http://www.hergenraders.com/wordpress/2007/01/25/spring-semester-outlook/#more-643). Much genre fiction does have strong literary values. Here are three (http://beyondassumptions.wordpress.com/2008/09/11/booklist-2008-30-do-androids-dream-of-electric-sheep/) genre (http://beyondassumptions.wordpress.com/2008/09/20/booklist-2008-32-the-man-in-the-high-castle-by-philip-k-dick/) books (http://beyondassumptions.wordpress.com/2008/10/08/booklist-2008-38-hitchhikers-guide-to-the-galaxy/) I read this year that I thought were excellent and of a pretty high quality.


I love hte Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy, but its on of those series where it starts to loose it with so long and thanks for all the fish. Personally i think it should have ended with life the universe and everything.
Not a sci-fi, but have you read the fantasy series Bitterbynde saga by Cecilia Dart Thornton. it is an amazing feat that really brings to life the folklore and mythology of Britain and Ireland. This definitely has a literary quality.

[JCamilo]

Deleting, editing, etc are not the only form of censorship. If everytime someone (Ok, JBI seems to be a lot this someone) open critics to HP or J.K Rowling he is attacked because of his motives (jealousy or watever) or how meaningless is the critical exercise he does (as if you should only do critics about things you like) and not by what he is saying, this is a form of censorship. Subbtle and all, but it is rather annoying to see every discussion be 1 - ignored the critics , 2 - attack the critic reasons. Maybe that is why he is so adamant in his critics. (Maybe not, maybe he feels it is his obligation to do it, I dunno, but it does not matter)


Can i ask why everyone wants to pick on J.K. Rowling and the Harry Potter books when there are books out there that are getting a lot of credit, and are really bad? would it not be more worht your while debating the point of book three of the Inheritance trilogy, or some other story? why is it always Potter? Is it because of the fame Rowling got? How much Money she made? Does it really matter if its not shakespeare? I mean they are kids books. Yes alot of adults read them, but alot of adults love reading kids books. i know i do. They are not as bad as you are all making them out to be.


I must point I did not considered the initial topic of this thred that worth and I would ignore it if the subject didn't move to something more interesting which is the reading habits.
Now, HP gets more bashing because it gets more praising. (Not saying it is right, but that is why). A simple matter of action and reaction. I am sure during the Da Vinci fever, Dan Brown was the usual cullprint.
Being Kids books is not excuse, it must be even a matter of responsability. We had another thread recently and I think it was pointed 1 - HP is not just a kids book, aiming for a mature audience as well 2 - Among the Kids books we have Alice books or Treasure Island, both complex and very well written books, meaning being a kids books does not mean being a plain simple book.

[Hank Stamper]

Subbtle and all, but it is rather annoying to see every discussion be 1 - ignored the critics , 2 - attack the critic reasons.

so the critic's reasoning is absolute? rubbish! i am as much entitled to challenge the critic as the critic is entitled to challenge the literary merits of harry potter

[stlukesguild]

Except it's perfectly possible to enjoy reading "classical"/literary works and genre fiction just as it's possible to eat a $100 succulent juicy Kobe steak perfecty marinated and cooked, and still consider your local $2 greasy pizza joint a great meal too.

But is this an apt analogy? I am enamored of Bach, Beethoven, Wagner, Schubert... but I still listen to the Rolling Stones, Johnny Cash, and the Louvin Brothers. I can't listen, however, to Madonna or Britney Spears. My taste has become such that I can enjoy the best of genres that are quite different... but there are still standards. It seems that everyone who suggests that the Harry Potter novels are so much schlock are being branded as elitist snobs. Now while I will heartily admit to being an elitist, my taste in the arts is fairly broad. One may reject the Harry Potter novels as being mediocre (at best) and grossly overrated... and still read and admire more than just the "classics". One may even enjoy the best of certain literary genres.

As mayneverhave put it, "after encountering the works of Shakespeare, Dante and the like, it is impossible to go back to the level of Harry Potter and Robert Jordan - it would bore me to death. It's not even an issue of a "classic" being more challenging to the reader, but it lies in the simple fact that I can draw a far greater enjoyment out of quality literature than I can popular literature." This says it all. After one's taste evolves to a certain level with the experience of having read a good number of great books it is difficult to appreciate mediocre popular fiction. The clichés are too obvious. The language offers nothing special. The characters are not well-developed. Most importantly, I draw a far greater degree of pleasure from the better books.

[JBI]

To answer Niahm's question, the reason I (and others) jump on Harry Potter, and not other mediocre writers, is simply because of the way media responds to them. Nobody actually regards (or at least I hope not) Eragon as quality literature, besides some of its readers. Nobody really gives much credit to, for instance, Terry Goodkind as a literary genius, or takes his work seriously. But Rowling on the other hand, is in a different category. Her mass-success has become problematic; too many people have read her books, and her works are translated into more languages then I personally can name.

Rowling is everywhere - she is impossible to ignore - she is in every continent in every major language, in multiple dialects of some. But the main problem I have, is that she gets too much credit because of her sales. She is heralded as the "making literature cool again" hero, or the gets children to read hero, or the increases children's literary hero. But quite frankly, I think it is all hogwashed rubbish, and nobody stops to criticize the actual books, they only talk about the context - her mass sales - and the benefits of her work - her mass readership. Her mass readership is so big, that it has come to the point where criticizing her is seen as criticizing everyone who likes her, and quite frankly, by doing so you get branded a snob. Meaning, that you cannot criticize her work without attracting attention, yet people can praise her work without the same.

Even classic literature undergoes fire. For instance, even poets as central as John Milton have been under serious attack at one point or another. But Potter on the other hand seems immune to criticism. Everyone who mentions the name negatively is seen as a spoil-sport, an elitist, an ignorant, because the readership is that big, and therefore the amount of complainers are that big. If it was possible to look into the text and discuss the merits of the book, I would be glad to make only a few comments, as I have done with other novels, and poems, and the like. Like I said, I'm studying mostly contemporary fiction and poetry, so that is sort of a given practice. But one simply cannot, because of the Potter fans, finding every justification to praise Rowling as (to use my previous analogy) the quixotic Redcrosse Knight of literature, going out to slay the dragon of illiteracy.

I don't hear people say pornography gets people reading

I don't hear them say tabloids get people reading

But Potter... Potter gets our children reading, so it must be gold! Let's be honest, even if that fallacy was true, over 97% of people are literate in the majority of Western countries - they can read without Potter.

[stlukesguild]

Can i ask why everyone wants to pick on J.K. Rowling and the Harry Potter books when there are books out there that are getting a lot of credit, and are really bad?

That is an easy enough question to answer. It is simply the fact that the harry Potter novels have received a level of recognition and popularity that is grossly disproportionate to their literary/artistic merit. No, they are not the worst thing ever written... far from it. They are, however, not unlike the works of many other "artists" in that they have been put forth in the press, in the marketplace, in schools, etc... as if they were something extraordinary... an artistic achievement worthy of envy by anyone. This is bound to irritate those who certainly recognize that not only are they not Shakespeare, but there are actually far greater works being written by contemporaries or even within the fantasy genre. In my own field of the visual arts there are figures such as Jeff Koons and Damien Hirst whom many would love to see trampled to death by a herd of raving wildebeest. It is not that there are not worse artists... but there are few as bad as they who are held up to the public as something exemplary.

[stlukesguild]

Rowling is everywhere - she is impossible to ignore - she is in every continent in every major language, in multiple dialects of some. But the main problem I have, is that she gets too much credit because of her sales. She is heralded as the "making literature cool again" hero, or the gets children to read hero, or the increases children's literary hero... Her mass readership is so big, that it has come to the point where criticizing her is seen as criticizing everyone who likes her, and quite frankly, by doing so you get branded a snob. Meaning, that you cannot criticize her work without attracting attention, yet people can praise her work without the same.

Even classic literature undergoes fire. For instance, even poets as central as John Milton have been under serious attack at one point or another. But Potter on the other hand seems immune to criticism. Everyone who mentions the name negatively is seen as a spoil-sport, an elitist... ignorant,

Exactly! Here... at a literary site... we have had those who have outright dismissed literary figures as central as Milton or Chaucer or Spenser or Proust or Joyce (the perennial favorite whipping boy)... but to suggest that the hoopla over Harry Potter may be a bit much or that the work as an actual piece of literature may actually be rather mediocre is almost immediately taken as proof positive that one is an elitist snob... a boring pedant who obviously can't ever let themselves go and just have a bit of pleasure. And yet, I say it again, I can't find the pleasure in a work that I find overly laden in clichés, poorly developed characters, mediocre mastery of languages, etc...

[JCamilo]

so the critic's reasoning is absolute? rubbish! i am as much entitled to challenge the critic as the critic is entitled to challenge the literary merits of harry potter

No, his reasoning is not absolute but just attacking his motivations and not his reasoning is quite annoying. A huge difference from someone that build up critical reasoning towards the merits Harry Potter.

[JCamilo]

Rowling is everywhere - she is impossible to ignore - she is in every continent in every major language, in multiple dialects of some. But the main problem I have, is that she gets too much credit because of her sales. She is heralded as the "making literature cool again" hero, or the gets children to read hero, or the increases children's literary hero... Her mass readership is so big, that it has come to the point where criticizing her is seen as criticizing everyone who likes her, and quite frankly, by doing so you get branded a snob. Meaning, that you cannot criticize her work without attracting attention, yet people can praise her work without the same.

Even classic literature undergoes fire. For instance, even poets as central as John Milton have been under serious attack at one point or another. But Potter on the other hand seems immune to criticism. Everyone who mentions the name negatively is seen as a spoil-sport, an elitist... ignorant,

Exactly! Here... at a literary site... we have had those who have outright dismissed literary figures as central as Milton or Chaucer or Spenser or Proust or Joyce (the perennial favorite whipping boy)... but to suggest that the hoopla over Harry Potter may be a bit much or that the work as an actual piece of literature may actually be rather mediocre is almost immediately taken as proof positive that one is an elitist snob... a boring pedant who obviously can't ever let themselves go and just have a bit of pleasure. And yet, I say it again, I can't find the pleasure in a work that I find overly laden in clichés, poorly developed characters, mediocre mastery of languages, etc...


I for once, think the position of elite and snob is acceptable. Merits can be displayed if one can hold his position. If it ends in personal attacks (and lets be frank, we talk about the best works, we are building an elite.) obviously the loss is not Miltons, Shakespeare, etc. Those guys do not depend on this or any forum considerations.

But to me it is amazing that people forget that this a place where we can only talk and the only subject are books. The most simple reason why one post about this subject is simple because we come here to post. Give a single opening and one will post.

But I must say we can return, otherwise the simple reading of Stevenson would be impossible after the reading of Dante.

[Etienne]

Ironically enough, I think this captures the point I was making. If they haven't READ ANY, how the hell do they know about the literary value of genre fiction one way or the other!

Oh come on, the critic of genre fictin is based first and foremost on concrete argument, and the fact that they haven't read much of it does not mean that they haven't read any of it. And do you honestly believe that one absolutely has to read a couple of Forgotten Realm books to know that they have no literary value? No, they could even not read a single one and still be right. What genre fiction exactly do you claim have such literary value as to be worth being studied by a university teacher, other than perhaps some general theme.

For example, your subject was Mars in science-fiction. This is a theme. Is it, first, a rich subject in analysis? I doubt it. Then could you honestly make a thesis based on, say the narrative technique in some genre fiction? Etc.

[JBI]

When a book begins to be viewed as a great work of fiction, generally it stops being considered genre. For instance, Italo Calvino is not read as a fantasy novelist, though by convention if we were to genrize him, many of his works would fall into fantasy or science fiction. By romantic genre definition, any book that has a couple getting married at the end is a romance, yet we wouldn't call every book with a marriage at the end a romance. It would be absurd.

Either way though, the titles of genre verses literary are set up abstractly by publishers, and then writers who seek to meet a publisher's desire. In terms of criticism, such genrization has no real purpose, and one can feel free to say Terry Goodkind is a bad novelist, and not a bad fantasy novelist.

Good books are reappropriated by their best suited audience. Angela Carter can be seen as a writer of fantasy, but who would stick her on a fantasy shelf? no one, we simply call her stuff by some other term, and stick it on the literary shelf, since fantasy readers probably aren't going to buy as many of her books as literary readers. The genre therefore is undercut, and the book is no longer genre fiction, but literary fiction. By that same notion, one could cut almost any good genre book, and deem it literary, and thereby one could consider the bulk of genre fiction mediocre, or unsuited for the literary reader, or unsuited for the reader looking outside of the genre.

[Niamh]

To answer Niahm's question, the reason I (and others) jump on Harry Potter, and not other mediocre writers, is simply because of the way media responds to them. Nobody actually regards (or at least I hope not) Eragon as quality literature, besides some of its readers. Nobody really gives much credit to, for instance, Terry Goodkind as a literary genius, or takes his work seriously. But Rowling on the other hand, is in a different category. Her mass-success has become problematic; too many people have read her books, and her works are translated into more languages then I personally can name.
But surely just because the media has responded to them, and because so many people have read the books, shouldn't make some critics place them in the same catagory as mediocre writers and books? (And before you accuse me, i'm not saying you)


Rowling is everywhere - she is impossible to ignore - she is in every continent in every major language, in multiple dialects of some. But the main problem I have, is that she gets too much credit because of her sales. She is heralded as the "making literature cool again" hero, or the gets children to read hero, or the increases children's literary hero.
My argument for Potter encouraging kids to read in this day and age, comes from my personal experiences. I have mentioned that here and elsewhere already.

But quite frankly, I think it is all hogwashed rubbish, and nobody stops to criticize the actual books, they only talk about the context - her mass sales - and the benefits of her work - her mass readership. Her mass readership is so big, that it has come to the point where criticizing her is seen as criticizing everyone who likes her, and quite frankly, by doing so you get branded a snob. Meaning, that you cannot criticize her work without attracting attention, yet people can praise her work without the same.Ah yes but dont those of us who try to praise the books not get criticised by the critics? ;) Its a two way thing.


Even classic literature undergoes fire. For instance, even poets as central as John Milton have been under serious attack at one point or another. But Potter on the other hand seems immune to criticism. Everyone who mentions the name negatively is seen as a spoil-sport, an elitist, an ignorant, because the readership is that big, and therefore the amount of complainers are that big. If it was possible to look into the text and discuss the merits of the book, I would be glad to make only a few comments, as I have done with other novels, and poems, and the like.
But JBI, as far as i can see, no one has blatantly turned around and said that Potter is great literature, and classics are crap. I myself only pointed out that not everyone likes the same literature. some like classic, and dont like everything else because its not their cup of tea, some like everything and not classics because find them droll and boring and others read and enjoy everything. I didnt realise saying this was an attack on classicists. I was only stating a fact.My point was, if this is not the case, than isnt it only right that people should be allowed to like the Potter series, and see something in them that others who dont will not?

Like I said, I'm studying mostly contemporary fiction and poetry, so that is sort of a given practice. But one simply cannot, because of the Potter fans, finding every justification to praise Rowling as (to use my previous analogy) the quixotic Redcrosse Knight of literature, going out to slay the dragon of illiteracy.
Just as you will get on the defensive of what you enjoy reading, so too will poeple who enjoy the Potter books. this does not make either wrong. We just need to acept that not everyone is going to agree with us. I think the Potter books have merit, especially when it come to getting the computer game era to read, and that comes from my experience in both my neighbourhood and my job as a bookseller and volunteer for a publishing house. You as a student of lit, see things differently. Life would be boring if we all thought, saw and went about our lives similarly.

[JBI]

Like I said before, I have no problem with people enjoying books, the same way I have no problem with people who enjoy watching reality television, or people who read cheap magazines, I just have a problem when these writings are portrayed, and heralded as supreme works of fiction, and integral parts of the literary tradition.

On other threads, for instance, works such as Nabokov's Lolita, a far more controversial work, were criticized. There was significant debate, but overall not much attention was given. Potter on the other hand being criticized, for not inappropriate writing, but for poor writing, all of a sudden is controversy, and judging by the thread's length, a popular topic. Why is it that this work takes so much attention?

Because of the status of the author, and the context of the works, not the works themselves. When discussing Lolita, the discussion was on text, when discussing other authors, on these boards mostly the text, and sometimes the context are discussed. When discussing Potter however, context is always discussed, because quite frankly, the text doesn't have much in it.

I think people are missing my main point however; what is gained by reading Potter? Sure, people moved on to read other books, but people were reading other books for thousands of years. Sure, it has increased literacy, but couldn't E. B. White do the same? Sure it has inspired people to read, but couldn't Christina Rossetti do the same? sure it has sold millions, but so has the novel She, and I bet many of you haven't even heard of it, despite its 50million copies sold.

[Petrarch's Love]

First to address the OP on this thread: No, I don't think there's a ghostwriter involved. I would be very surprised if there was another person involved, partly because the voice seems so consistent throughout the series, and partly because of the wandering quality of the first part of the final book, which is usually pretty clearly the sign of one writer with writers' block.

As to the brouhaha that has predictably erupted on a Harry Potter thread: I have to say I don't entirely understand getting upset over the popularity of the Potter series. Do I think that Harry Potter is going to wave a magic wand and make the whole population a bunch of bibliophiles? No. Do I think that people enjoying and praising (even overpraising...those yahoo quotes were pretty amusing :lol:) Rowling and the Potter series is going to interfere in any way with the amount of Shakespeare that is or is not read? No. Shakespeare has survived plenty of other popular writers who have come and gone. If some yahoo (sorry, it was just too tempting) enjoys Harry Potter and thinks it's the best thing in the world, and wants to sing its praises, I don't see any reason to rain on his or her parade by going about frowning and saying they're spending their time on worthless trash. I know that isn't the specific point the anti Harry Potter-ites are trying to make, and I'll address their entirely valid points in a moment. Perhaps my problem understanding these responses to the Potter phenomenon is that I actually don't think that in the long run anyone is going to canonize Rowling as the equal of Shakespeare and Dickens. I find the enthusiasm of the people on the Yahoo boards, not threatening but sort of endearingly amusing. They're comparing Potter to Shakespeare because they haven't had the experience of really engaging with something like Shakespeare, and they have had what I imagine is a first brush with entering an imaginative and engaging world via the written word, and they are so excited by that that they compare it to the writer with the greatest reputation they can think of. If a well read critic writing for the New York Times book review were comparing Rowling to Shakespeare then I might worry a bit more, but that isn't the sort of praise critics are giving her. They are, as JBI points out, praising her books for being the books in our time that people are excited to read. I don't see much wrong with that characterization of their contribution.

A response to a few points:



It's just this problem with the whole "at least there are reading" fallacy. There is a distinction, and people shouldn't get "credit" for reading something of such a low quality. We shouldn't praise Rowling and Stephen King for things like making children read, since they aren't. Reading Rowling and Stephen King isn't the same as real reading. Has society come to the point where we give credit to the successfully published trash as being "beneficial" for getting children, and other lazy people to read a book? Where is the justification in that.

Why not praise all the simpleminded female readers who only read genre romances, for being such avid and zealous readers. Why not praise the people who only read Starwars fiction (god knows there is enough of it) for being avid readers, and so dedicated and intelligent, and well read.

The point is, there is a difference. There is reading, and there is reading. If the book doesn't challenge the reader, I see no justification in reading it as helping society by getting more people to read. Sure, people will read junk, and personally, I couldn't care less, until such time as people start praising the junk, and praising people for reading it, and people for writing it.

JBI--I know that the "at least they are reading fallacy" is what you are most upset about. I think that you are partly right in calling it a fallacy. You are right in that just reading anything doesn't mean that you are necessarily doing something productive. On the other hand, I think you are wrong to dismiss the idea that reading Harry Potter might not necessarily be a helpful first step toward exploring more interesting reading. I'm sure this is much less true with adult readers than with children, but in the case of the latter (whom the books are aimed at in any case) I'm sure that reading Harry Potter has led many children to think of reading as an enjoyable thing and go on to read other books. Could other books just as easily fill this purpose? Certainly. They can and have. But at the moment the book that are most commonly filling this role are the Harry Potter series.

There is an aspect of the "at least they are reading" thing that does annoy me, but a response like the one you've given above only intensifies that annoyance. The thing I don't like about all this "at least they're reading" stuff is that it makes reading sound like some onerous duty that one must perform: something difficult that one receives credit for doing like doing your chores or volunteering to pick up litter along the highway, rather than an enjoyable, and often rewarding experience and exploration of ideas and imaginations. A response like the one you give above plays into the annoying aspect of viewing reading as some sort of challenging task, and the most problematic thing about that is the way it will turn people off from wanting to do what you are very passionately suggesting that they ought to do. Talking about not giving people credit for reading Harry Potter, and suggesting that genre reading is not sufficiently "beneficial" will turn people away from more complex reading because it makes it sound like reading is the equivalent of boiled brussel sprouts that you should eat because they're good for you rather than the equivalent of a good wine that you may enjoy acquiring a taste for.

Which brings me to the second point I wanted to address:


One of my professor used an interesting metaphor to describe the reading of classics/literary works versus the reading of genre fiction or popular fiction. He described it in the way of a food critic who, having sampled a larger variety of foods than most people and with a greater developed sense of taste, is able to judge the taste of food better than a person who has no interest in such things. Not only that, but the food critic can then enjoy the greatest of food because of his developed tastes.

To put it bluntly, after encountering the works of Shakespeare, Dante and the like, it is impossible to go back to the level of Harry Potter and Robert Jordan - it would bore me to death. It's not even an issue of a "classic" being more challenging to the reader, but it lies in the simple fact that I can draw a far greater enjoyment out of quality literature than I can popular literature.

Yes, and the comparison between dining tastes and reading tastes is certainly an old and an apt one. Certainly the writing of the Renaissance humanists is peppered with references to digesting reading material as though it were food. Along with this metaphor there is usually a caution against giving too strong meat too fast, or the person will be unable to stomach it. You must start by digesting simple foods, and then move gradually to greater foods. When you have once learned to digest that better food, however, the dishes that are less well cooked and seasoned will seem bland by comparison. As someone who, I think, qualifies as a literary gourmand, I completely agree that I could never possibly look at the Harry Potter books and be thrilled by them the way someone who has tasted very little written "food" might be. At the same time, I have to quibble slightly with what I think is a suggestion that it is impossible to enjoy lesser authors once you have sampled the heights. I've read all the Harry Potter books and found them pleasantly entertaining. I read each of them in about a night, so I hardly thought the time invested was that shocking a waste, and they are so popular that having read them served a social purpose in the same way that watching a reasonably enjoyable television program might. It's something many people were enjoying talking about, and I figured I might as well join in the fun (and occasionally use it as an opportunity to put in a successful plug for some of that "stronger meat" by giving a few suggestions about other books that Potter readers might enjoy exploring). So, though I really do agree with your point in the main, I would just qualify your "impossible." I don't think it's "impossible" to enjoy reading that level of work, just something that those with more experienced tastes aren't apt to do as often.

[The Atheist]

**The Atheist makes mental note not to try to start a thread on Rowling/Potter ever again!**

Anyway, since the argument "Literature vs Pulp Fiction" has begun, I'll join in, and I'll explain why I think Literature is a clear loser....

...but I'm going to start a new thread on the subject right now as the discussion will otherwise be relegated to those who are already in this thread, and I think it deserves wide participation.

Entitled:

Literature has no more value than Mills & Boon (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?p=633333#post633333)

Please carry the rest of this discussion on there.

Thanks!

[The Atheist]

First to address the OP on this thread: No, I don't think there's a ghostwriter involved. I would be very surprised if there was another person involved, partly because the voice seems so consistent throughout the series, and partly because of the wandering quality of the first part of the final book, which is usually pretty clearly the sign of one writer with writers' block.

Funnily enough, it's because I thought the voice & style were inconsistent that made me wonder in the first place.

And it's books 3 or 4 to the end which seemed to have the problem, so it isn't just #7.

And apologies, but I've shifted the good vs bad literature subject as above - feel free to copy the relevant bits to the thread I've linked above.

Cheers

[mortalterror]

It is simply the fact that the harry Potter novels have received a level of recognition and popularity that is grossly disproportionate to their literary/artistic merit. No, they are not the worst thing ever written... far from it. They are, however, not unlike the works of many other "artists" in that they have been put forth in the press, in the marketplace, in schools, etc... as if they were something extraordinary... an artistic achievement worthy of envy by anyone. This is bound to irritate those who certainly recognize that not only are they not Shakespeare, but there are actually far greater works being written by contemporaries or even within the fantasy genre. In my own field of the visual arts there are figures such as Jeff Koons and Damien Hirst whom many would love to see trampled to death by a herd of raving wildebeest. It is not that there are not worse artists... but there are few as bad as they who are held up to the public as something exemplary.

Cough. Joyce. Cough. Cough.

It does my heart no small measure of good to see you and JBI railing away at Rowling and Tolkien in this manner and if indeed there is no next life, there is justice enough in this one. Oh, the world is fair girls and boys, and it's a beautiful thing.

[Drkshadow03]

I'm moving my comments over to The Atheist's other thread. I have responses to Stluke, Etiene, and JBI in them.

[Jozanny]

I wasn't going to join in here (once again) over The Network's Potter complex, but I rather agree almost entirely with Petrarch's Love, with one more caveat: Knowing a bit of Rowling's story in creating Potter, she achieved what any writer can only admire, even if solely on a marketing level. This is the 21st century, and franchise is the name of the game. You can whine or study it and respect it and or offer warnings about it, and again, Shakespeare was disparaged in his day by the academic aesthete, even while his work was popular with all classes, and I've read that he is what he is today because of the Romantic Movement--in this sense it is too soon to canonize or trash Harry Potter. Stop being so eager to settle the score, and let the baby boomers die off, and we will see what her staying power is in the market.

[Etienne]

So, Jozanny, you are joining the bandwagon of comparing Rowling to Shakespeare?

I have a question: What was Shakespeare criticized for? What is Rowling criticized for?

If anything, criticism to Nabokov is closer to the criticism of Shakespeare, than the criticism pointed out at Rowling. They are in fact, completely different. But can you not see the irony?

[mortalterror]

Yes, and the comparison between dining tastes and reading tastes is certainly an old and an apt one. Certainly the writing of the Renaissance humanists is peppered with references to digesting reading material as though it were food. Along with this metaphor there is usually a caution against giving too strong meat too fast, or the person will be unable to stomach it. You must start by digesting simple foods, and then move gradually to greater foods. When you have once learned to digest that better food, however, the dishes that are less well cooked and seasoned will seem bland by comparison.

The first chapter of Tom Jones immediately springs to mind, starting:

An author ought to consider himself, not as a gentleman who gives a private or eleemosynary treat, but rather as one who keeps a public ordinary, at which all persons are welcome for their money. In the former case, it is well known that the entertainer provides what fare he pleases; and though this should be very indifferent, and utterly disagreeable to the taste of his company, they must not find any fault; nay, on the contrary, good breeding forces them outwardly to approve and to commend whatever is set before them. Now the contrary of this happens to the master of an ordinary. Men who pay for what they eat will insist on gratifying their palates, however nice and whimsical these may prove; and if everything is not agreeable to their taste, will challenge a right to censure, to abuse, and to d—n their dinner without controul.

To prevent, therefore, giving offence to their customers by any such disappointment, it hath been usual with the honest and well-meaning host to provide a bill of fare which all persons may peruse at their first entrance into the house; and having thence acquainted themselves with the entertainment which they may expect, may either stay and regale with what is provided for them, or may depart to some other ordinary better accommodated to their taste.
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~rbear/jones/jones1.html

I know what you mean about reading or watching certain things just to have a common frame of reference with the rest of society. Upon occasion, I've run up against someone who had never seen Star Wars or an episode of the Simpsons and people stared at them as if they were some kind of alien bug. This sort of thing happens frequently with homeschooled children. They may be smart as a whip and educated as all get out but they often lack the shared cultural narrative points which lend color and commonality to our small talk and conversation.

If history is a group of lies agreed upon, as Napoleon claims, then you could say as much for a dialogue of any type. One must make an effort to understand where one's fellow men are coming from. I know that StLukes has marked this phenomenon himself, since he takes note of it in one of the teaching threads we have here, some months back. He mentions that in the absence of directed inheritable culture children crave structure and will create it out of their surroundings. I think this is what has happened with Tolkein and Rowling, but we also do it with baseball scores, popular tunes, graffiti, and advertising. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with it.

[Jozanny]

So, Jozanny, you are joining the bandwagon of comparing Rowling to Shakespeare?

Comparing respective contexts is not a claim to equivalency of merit.


I have a question: What was Shakespeare criticized for? What is Rowling criticized for?

Jonson whined about Shakespeare's violation of the unities. Petrarch can probably discourse on this at greater length than I, as I've been in exile from academia for a long time. Can't help you over the anti-Potter faction. I've read very positive reviews of Rowling's work, and even Cal Montgomery finds themes therein for the disability movement. Cal is a critic in disability publications in which I too occasionally appear.


But can you not see the irony?

No.

[Etienne]

Comparing respective contexts is not a claim to equivalency of merit.

But the contexts are completely different.


Jonson whined about Shakespeare's violation of the unities.

Which has nothing to do with saying that Rowling is just a popular writer with no literary merits other than it's sales. Shakespeare violated (which is in a way the reproach that you articulated to Nabokov). That's certainly not the reproach to Rowling.


No.

No?

[SleepyWitch]

is there any evidence that the Potter books have made children read more than they used to? maybe children have been reading all along, but since they all read different books that went unnoticed. now that they are all reading the same book their reading is more visible and it's easier to ascertain that they are reading because their all reading the same series? it would be interesting to see whether the combined sales of pre-Potter children's and young adult books amount to significantly less than the sales of the Potter series.

[Taliesin]

Sleepy, I complained about the same thing.
I want to see what Science says about this so that it would be nice and clear what exactly the impact of Rowling on reading is and people couldn't make a fuss over "It seems to me that people who read Potter move on to more advanced literature" versus "No, it seems to me that they stay on the same level and just read HP-level things." - which is just a question of impressions.

[Joreads]

If this thread and the others on Harry Potter are anything to go by I am not so sure the books are on the way out, we are still talking about them!!!

[Niamh]

If this thread and the others on Harry Potter are anything to go by I am not so sure the books are on the way out, we are still talking about them!!!

here here!!

[JBI]

here here!!

Meh, no one is really talking about Harry Potter, we are talking about Harry Potter's context - there is a difference.

[Niamh]

Meh, no one is really talking about Harry Potter, we are talking about Harry Potter's context - there is a difference.

thats still talking about it JBI. :)

[JBI]

thats still talking about it JBI. :)

Nah, I haven't seen one quote from the text here; we merely are quibbling over context. I am almost tempted to start a thread on the text itself, in order to perhaps quench these sort of context threads, by proving with concrete examples from the text the true merit and quality of the book, outside of its context.

[Jozanny]

I am almost tempted to start a thread on the text itself, in order to perhaps quench these sort of context threads, by proving with concrete examples from the text the true merit and quality of the book, outside of its context.

I do not like flying blind in defense of any author, but if the movie adaptations were somewhat faithful to the texts, I do not believe either you or luke are being fair to Rowling on the merits. The story about the werewolf instructor wasn't just fantasy for the sake of fantasy JBI. She is teaching lessons about the price of stigma when it is imposed on the minority by the majority, and she seems to have a rather deft hand in doing it. The simple fact that her work created a mass media franchise doesn't mean her talent should be automatically crucified. I have read too many educated people who take her work seriously not to respect what they have to say, even if I have no desire to buy the series myself, or sample them at the library, at least not now.

[Etienne]

I do not like flying blind in defense of any author, but if the movie adaptations were somewhat faithful to the texts, I do not believe either you or luke are being fair to Rowling on the merits. The story about the werewolf instructor wasn't just fantasy for the sake of fantasy JBI. She is teaching lessons about the price of stigma when it is imposed on the minority by the majority, and she seems to have a rather deft hand in doing it. The simple fact that her work created a mass media franchise doesn't mean her talent should be automatically crucified. I have read too many educated people who take her work seriously not to respect what they have to say, even if I have no desire to buy the series myself, or sample them at the library, at least not now.

But such commonplace morality does not make a book good or great. I could create a little tale, the worse I could do on purpose, with a moral conclusion to it, that does not change the fact that it would be utter crap.

[mayneverhave]

I do not like flying blind in defense of any author, but if the movie adaptations were somewhat faithful to the texts, I do not believe either you or luke are being fair to Rowling on the merits. The story about the werewolf instructor wasn't just fantasy for the sake of fantasy JBI. She is teaching lessons about the price of stigma when it is imposed on the minority by the majority, and she seems to have a rather deft hand in doing it. The simple fact that her work created a mass media franchise doesn't mean her talent should be automatically crucified. I have read too many educated people who take her work seriously not to respect what they have to say, even if I have no desire to buy the series myself, or sample them at the library, at least not now.

Sorry Dr. Johnson, but I care not if my literature teaches moral lessons.

[JBI]

I do not like flying blind in defense of any author, but if the movie adaptations were somewhat faithful to the texts, I do not believe either you or luke are being fair to Rowling on the merits. The story about the werewolf instructor wasn't just fantasy for the sake of fantasy JBI. She is teaching lessons about the price of stigma when it is imposed on the minority by the majority, and she seems to have a rather deft hand in doing it. The simple fact that her work created a mass media franchise doesn't mean her talent should be automatically crucified. I have read too many educated people who take her work seriously not to respect what they have to say, even if I have no desire to buy the series myself, or sample them at the library, at least not now.

She is preaching Christian morality. And either way, in the Harry Potter world, status is by birth, not by effort put it. It's all "natural talent" and not hard-working, or a good person. There is no really grounds for morality in the text, other than an almost clichéd version of Christian values.

Either way though, I don't think the books are very moral-driven or didactic in themselves.

You would by any chance be reading F. R. Leavis are you?

Either way, there are no Jewish wizards, and the one Irish one is the person who betrays Harry, which I find ironic, not to mention the (Chinese?) girl being the subject of infatuation by all the white characters, which I find comical as well. But to the point, they are all Christian and for 99% of them, they are all white Anglo-Saxon protestants. I guess Jews aren't magical.

[Jozanny]

But such commonplace morality does not make a book good or great. I could create a little tale, the worse I could do on purpose, with a moral conclusion to it, that does not change the fact that it would be utter crap.

What does she do so poorly then? The stories seem to have a warmth and humanity to them which comes through the humor and the caricature, which mediates nicely with the dramatic conflict. I think she relates well to what interests children, and I think she does have a talent for it, and that the franchise reflects the appeal of her work as much as it hypes it. Kids aren't fools Etienne, try talking to one.

[JBI]

What does she do so poorly then? The stories seem to have a warmth and humanity to them which comes through the humor and the caricature, which mediates nicely with the dramatic conflict. I think she relates well to what interests children, and I think she does have a talent for it, and that the franchise reflects the appeal of her work as much as it hypes it. Kids aren't fools Etienne, try talking to one.

She's not a children's author past book 3. She has even said so herself, denoting that her "readers grow with her books." She's a teen writer, so I think such justification can only go so far.

I think my biggest problem with her text in itself is the stupidity of the writing. It lacks style, and it lacks craftsmanship. I don't have a text in front of me, so I can't give you a quote, but just go on wikiquote, punch Rowling in, and read some samples yourself.

[Etienne]

I do not disagree with your last post, but that doesn't make it good literature in any way. And not because it's aimed for children, since there are plenty of children books who are great literature.

By the way I teach to young children.

[stlukesguild]

Cough. Joyce. Cough. Cough.

It does my heart no small measure of good to see you and JBI railing away at Rowling and Tolkien in this manner and if indeed there is no next life, there is justice enough in this one. Oh, the world is fair girls and boys, and it's a beautiful thing.

You of course know I threw in Joyce and Proust just for you. I was tempted to add Hemingway as well... but too obvious.:D

[Drkshadow03]

She is preaching Christian morality. And either way, in the Harry Potter world, status is by birth, not by effort put it. It's all "natural talent" and not hard-working, or a good person. There is no really grounds for morality in the text, other than an almost clichéd version of Christian values.

. . .

Either way, there are no Jewish wizards, and the one Irish one is the person who betrays Harry, which I find ironic, not to mention the (Chinese?) girl being the subject of infatuation by all the white characters, which I find comical as well. But to the point, they are all Christian and for 99% of them, they are all white Anglo-Saxon protestants. I guess Jews aren't magical.

Dude, what books are you reading?! If I remember correctly the Potter books had a TON of People of Color in them. Also, there are multiple Irish wizards. And which Irish wizard betrays Harry?

The book is anti-natural talent in many ways, though I will grant there are a couple of things where natural talent plays a part like Harry's Quiditch skills. The main villain gets his butt-handed to him, despite his natural talent. Hermione is more talented than her two friends in magic overall because she studies her butt off. Natural talent is NOT what Potter praises.

[JBI]

Magicality is by natural talent. Hence that squib or whatever you call it notion, or the muggle notion - magical ability is by birth, not by merit.

Fine, in the fourth one we see some foreign wizards, but we must admit Hogwarts is very English, you get your odd black kid, and the one Irish kid (Seamus I think his name is), two Indian twins, and one Chinese girl. Either way though, where are all the Jewish Wizards! Where are they? Where are all the Buddhist Wizards? But of course, Christ echoes in every moral lesson in the book, and it is overall a christian text.

[mayneverhave]

Dude, what books are you reading?! If I remember correctly the Potter books had a TON of People of Color in them. Also, there are multiple Irish wizards. And which Irish wizard betrays Harry?

The book is anti-natural talent in many ways, though I will grant there are a couple of things where natural talent plays a part like Harry's Quiditch skills. The main villain gets his butt-handed to him, despite his natural talent. Hermione is more talented than her two friends in magic overall because she studies her butt off. Natural talent is NOT what Potter praises.


JBI's points are well taken. I can't assume to be an expert on the matter, I've only read the first four of the books, but from what I've read of the matter: Harry's status in school is completely based on birth and events that were entirely out of his control. Even his magical abilities are natural, and he often doesn't have to work hard for anything, and, in fact, doesn't really seem interested in the whole nature or art of magic to begin with - especially compared with Hermione.

This is the book's major contradiction- its constant appraisal of "hard-work ethic" where elitism is frowned upon and yet its main character is one who's fame and ability is completely inherited.

[islandclimber]

Why do we always have these discussions on books with little or no literary merit.. lol.. I mean seriously, Harry Potter.. people don't actually consider this to be good literature.. Maybe entertaining as a light read... but good literature. I think not..

and the comparison previously to how Shakespeare's works took some time to be accepted by the elite and by academia.. are you seriously suggesting Rowling is going to be canonized by academia as a literary genius at some point in the future.. That is an extremely depressing thought..

[SleepyWitch]

I do not like flying blind in defense of any author, but if the movie adaptations were somewhat faithful to the texts, I do not believe either you or luke are being fair to Rowling on the merits. The story about the werewolf instructor wasn't just fantasy for the sake of fantasy JBI. She is teaching lessons about the price of stigma when it is imposed on the minority by the majority, and she seems to have a rather deft hand in doing it. The simple fact that her work created a mass media franchise doesn't mean her talent should be automatically crucified. I have read too many educated people who take her work seriously not to respect what they have to say, even if I have no desire to buy the series myself, or sample them at the library, at least not now.

you are right about the werewolf (Professor Lupin), but then she only takes this issues up sporadically and then drops them again. the "mudblood" issue ("pure blooded" wizards discriminating against those born to none-magical parents) does run through the whole series, but is treated in a superficial way, in my humble opinion.
I don't know about other countries (and my impression is that the UK does not have a tradition of "didactic" children's/ young adults' literature, "children's books" seems to be a synonym for fairy tales/ fantasy/non-realistic writing over there, but maybe I'm mistaken), but over here we have lots of children's books that deal with racism, anti-Semitism, poverty, environmental destruction, war etc. in a much profounder way while at the same being interesting too read. Some of these can be a bit "didactic" (or at least the way they are discussed in schools is very preachy) but most are a gripping read.
I think there are better ways of making children think about these issues than wrapping them up in a fairy tale world, which makes it difficult esp. for younger children to transfer the message to the real world.

[glory]

She also missed the chance in writing about gay relationships, or things of that nature. With the predominant white, christian theme going on, of course that's what's going to happen. Rowling clearly grew up in an area without coloreds and such, so she isn't going to put many of them into her story. Now you can't admit that she didn't try on the rites, as she said dumbledore was gay(after she wrote the books and never mentioned it in the actual book), and there was that one random black kid who played no importance whatsoever. I'll tell you why there are not many colored people. Because this book is about a white kid, with white friends, and since the main character is white, there's no way she can let Harry have a colored kid going on adventures with him. It would spark to many rascist jokes and then ignite into a whole list of problems.

[JBI]

She also missed the chance in writing about gay relationships, or things of that nature. With the predominant white, christian theme going on, of course that's what's going to happen. Rowling clearly grew up in an area without coloreds and such, so she isn't going to put many of them into her story. Now you can't admit that she didn't try on the rites, as she said dumbledore was gay(after she wrote the books and never mentioned it in the actual book), and there was that one random black kid who played no importance whatsoever. I'll tell you why there are not many colored people. Because this book is about a white kid, with white friends, and since the main character is white, there's no way she can let Harry have a colored kid going on adventures with him. It would spark to many rascist jokes and then ignite into a whole list of problems.

Oh, come on. Twain did it over 100 years ago, and he sold well enough.

And Dumbledore being gay has no bearing on the series whatsoever. He clearly lives an unsexual existence, and it is suggested, if we assume that he is a homosexual, that he has never had a physical relationship with a man. It's basically like her saying, he was gay, but he was a good enough Christian not to act. It's hogwash to use her time, and it's irrelevant. She would have been better off not revealing that fact.

To Jozanny, if you want moral children's fiction, you may want to try Judy Bloom, funnily enough, she is the most protest writer in America.

[mayneverhave]

Yes. Dumbledore's homosexuality seems to be a mere attempt at generating an association with a type of Greek intellectual/homosexual relationship between men, instead of being warranted by the story itself. It also appears like a simple attempt to generate controversy, which - again this relates to marketing - generates more book sales, than for artistic purposes.

But then again, JBI, who is left to defend this book series, and who even wanted to in the first place. I feel like a big bully kicking sand in the face of this little children's book.

[JBI]

Yes. Dumbledore's homosexuality seems to be a mere attempt at generating an association with a type of Greek intellectual/homosexual relationship between men, instead of being warranted by the story itself. It also appears like a simple attempt to generate controversy, which - again this relates to marketing - generates more book sales, than for artistic purposes.

But then again, JBI, who is left to defend this book series, and who even wanted to in the first place. I feel like a big bully kicking sand in the face of this little children's book.

Great analogy. Let's kick enough at it to bury it.

[Drkshadow03]

I'd be willing to defend Potter, but I lack the time at the moment to be able to do so properly.

[Whifflingpin]

"But then again, JBI, who is left to defend this book series, and who even wanted to in the first place. I feel like a big bully kicking sand in the face of this little children's book. "

"Great analogy. Let's kick enough at it to bury it."

Oh well - I first picked up one of the series (Prisoner of Askaban) and read it only because there was nothing else available. I'd never heard of JKR until then. I thought it was a brilliant book - fresh, exciting and witty. I was keen to read the Philosopher's Stone, and then the others as they became available.

The books varied in appeal, to me, but when I discussed them I found that other people had different favourites, which implies that Rowling is capable of writing for different audiences.

The books all pass my trivial tests: Could I read them right through? Did they offer something new on second or subsequent reading? Did they have grrr moments and ah moments and aah moments? Yes, Yes & Yes.


They only thing I found discordant was the recurring plot device of "protecting" Harry, in the later books, ignoring the case that he had met and defeated Voldemort in a battle of wills in the Goblet of Fire.

Otherwise, I'll join Jozanny in saying "I think she relates well to what interests children, and I think she does have a talent for it."

[LitNetIsGreat]

The books all pass my trivial tests: Could I read them right through? Did they offer something new on second or subsequent reading? Did they have grrr moments and ah moments and aah moments? Yes, Yes & Yes.


Ah, the old "grrr" "ah" and "aah" evaluation, a most comely form of analysis - :)

[Whifflingpin]

"The books all pass my trivial tests: Could I read them right through? Did they offer something new on second or subsequent reading? Did they have grrr moments and ah moments and aah moments? Yes, Yes & Yes."


"Ah, the old "grrr" "ah" and "aah" evaluation, a most comely form of analysis "

Remember - you heard of it here first - Whiff's intellectual property, hereby donated to the world. :lol:

[LitNetIsGreat]

"Ah, the old "grrr" "ah" and "aah" evaluation, a most comely form of analysis "

Remember - you heard of it here first - Whiff's intellectual property, hereby donated to the world. :lol:

Thank you very much, I swear that I am going to use that in my next essay, I may have one on Milton coming up.

"It is the intention of this paper to examine Milton in terms of the "ah" and the "grr" factor. It will also consider Satan in terms of the "ahh". Due credit must go to Professor Whiff whose thesis on the "ah, ahh and grr" substantially challenged the views on literary criticism in the early period of the twenty-first century."

I ought to get a first on that one for sure.

On the Potter subject we once did a psychoanalytical analysis in a scene from Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets - no really we did, I will leave it to your imagination what the "chamber of secrets" and Harry's sword wielding scene depicted. :lol:

Oh, my own take is that it is a good piece of pulp fiction that was never intended to be, nor should be, taken as serious literature. Generally harmless fun though.

[JBI]

Why bother even taking a scene from the Potter. I would think boys playing with their wands, and making sparks come out is food enough for psychoanalysis.

[Equality72521]

A) What exactly is a Ghost writer? (I know, I know...shameful to ask, but I've never heard that term before.)

B) J.K. Rowling was a terrible author and her books were terrible themselves. They considered good due to the propaganda, at least, that's how I feel.

and...

C) The series was just terrible. It started out okay, and then somewhere, retardation occured and it just became miserably annoying to read.

[Drkshadow03]

A) What exactly is a Ghost writer? (I know, I know...shameful to ask, but I've never heard that term before.)


When you hire a writer to write for you. It's usually done with famous persons because they aren't necessarily writers, so they hire a writer to help write their life story for them.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Why bother even taking a scene from the Potter. I would think boys playing with their wands, and making sparks come out is food enough for psychoanalysis.

:lol:

[Annamariah]

I think people are missing my main point however; what is gained by reading Potter? Sure, people moved on to read other books, but people were reading other books for thousands of years. Sure, it has increased literacy, but couldn't E. B. White do the same? Sure it has inspired people to read, but couldn't Christina Rossetti do the same? sure it has sold millions, but so has the novel She, and I bet many of you haven't even heard of it, despite its 50million copies sold.
What is gained by reading Potter? At least I have spent several pleasant hours reading and re-reading the series. I think that if a book can help me forget my own problems for a while (and not only once, but even on the umpteenth re-reading) it has some merit.

Of course this is just my personal opinion and maybe I have a horrible taste in literature (unless using the word "literature" while talking about the books I enjoy seems blasphemous), but then again, who decides what can be considered "literature"? Mind you, I have read my fair share of books that are usually referred to as "classics". Some of them I enjoyed greatly and some of them I found deadly boring.

I'm not trying to say that Harry Potter books are great literature, but I don't think it's fair to say they have no value whatsoever just because people (the OTHER people, of course, the stupid ones :rolleyes:) prefer them to Shakespeare and Dickens.

[The Atheist]

Nice post, Annamariah - you're a living example of exactly what I'm saying in this thread (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39086); that no book has more value than another.

:D

[JBI]

Nice post, Annamariah - you're a living example of exactly what I'm saying in this thread (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39086); that no book has more value than another.

:D

That isn't what she is saying at all. She is simply saying she enjoys Harry Potter.

[mayneverhave]

Nice post, Annamariah - you're a living example of exactly what I'm saying in this thread (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39086); that no book has more value than another.

:D


Define value. If teaching moral lessons is not a requirement to writing good literature (e.g. Paradise Lost is good, not because of its moral message or philosophy, but because of its language and execution of theme), then by "value" you must mean the amount of pleasure one can draw from any given thing. There is, of course, also the issue of educational benefits of reading - of which Shakespeare (although he's becoming a tired example) would be more beneficial than Harry Potter, but I have a feeling this is not what you mean by "value".

In that case, you are correct, there is no objective "value" in any given work other than what we give to it. Drawing from Edmund Burke's "On the Sublime and the Beautiful":

"Certain it is, that the influence of most things on our passions is not so much from the things themselves, as from our opinions concerning them; and these again depend very much on the opinions of other men, conveyable for the most part by words only."

I agree with this. Yet just because art is subjective does not mean that certain art does not posses a greater depth and potential than other art. In Shakespeare, if one were to dive deep in, they would find a wide and deep ocean full of wonderful life and treasure. Searching for life and treasure in a lesser work would be like searching for rarity at the bottom of a shallow puddle.

[The Atheist]

That isn't what she is saying at all. She is simply saying she enjoys Harry Potter.

Mate, are you obsessed with Harry Potter?

Did you see this?

Mind you, I have read my fair share of books that are usually referred to as "classics". Some of them I enjoyed greatly and some of them I found deadly boring.


Define value.

Value beyond the evolutionary requirement to be able to read complex written documents.


In that case, you are correct, there is no objective "value" in any given work other than what we give to it. Drawing from Edmund Burke's "On the Sublime and the Beautiful":

"Certain it is, that the influence of most things on our passions is not so much from the things themselves, as from our opinions concerning them; and these again depend very much on the opinions of other men, conveyable for the most part by words only."

Perfect. That's exactly what I've been saying. Conditioned & cultural human construct.


I agree with this. Yet just because art is subjective does not mean that certain art does not posses a greater depth and potential than other art. In Shakespeare, if one were to dive deep in, they would find a wide and deep ocean full of wonderful life and treasure. Searching for life and treasure in a lesser work would be like searching for rarity at the bottom of a shallow puddle.

That's not too bad, although one man's treasures may be another's trash.

[JCamilo]

I agree with you, to read a book you need to grasp the idiom and that is all. You can read any book alikely. But Reading is not passing eyes by words, is manipulating them, is understanding their connections and Interpretation is far from reading. That is why I once saw a guy claiming Voltaire was saying that ignorance is a bliss after reading Candine. Ok, sure.

[*Classic*Charm*]

I really don't see the point in drawing comparisons between Rowling and authors such as Proust. The Harry Potter books were written as Children's lit. That's all. And if they encouraged more kids to read and they got a kick out of it, what more can you ask for? If an adult happens to enjoy them as well, what harm is there in that? No one is claiming that their literary merit will transcend generations.

As for the proposition that the later books were written by ghost writers because they were so much better, I'll credit that to the fact that Rowling was an inexperienced writer when she started and simply got better the more she wrote.

[The Atheist]

As for the proposition that the later books were written by ghost writers because they were so much better, I'll credit that to the fact that Rowling was an inexperienced writer when she started and simply got better the more she wrote.

That wasn't my proposition. If anything, I think they got worse as they went along.

[*Classic*Charm*]

That wasn't my proposition. If anything, I think they got worse as they went along.

My mistake, then, and my apologies. Why then do you think ghost writers were involved?

[The Atheist]

Why then do you think ghost writers were involved?

Not so much that I think they were used, just an impression of inconsistency in the books which made me wonder whether the question had ever come up before.

Trouble is, I'd have to go back and re-read them to decide which passages I thought were involved and I doubt I could stomach that!

[illuminatus]

Hmm... I don't think she used ghost writers, but I do believe she dragged it out so as to squeeze as much profit from it all as possible. Very clever indeed...

[The Atheist]

Hmm... I don't think she used ghost writers, but I do believe she dragged it out so as to squeeze as much profit from it all as possible. Very clever indeed...

That's true, too.

It might just be that the effort of writing a 400-page book on a 50-page plot was too much.

[eyemaker]

*sigh*

[Goodman York]

I joined the conversation late so I will get right to the point. I must admit, though, I have trouble separating the books from the movies now. I stopped the books at number 3 or 4 because they all seemed to have the same plot: Something bad happens-everyone blames Harry (no matter how many times he vindicates himself)- Harry fights big battle with unexpected outcome-Harry is vindicated(until the next bad thing.) It gets old after a while.....

[SPQR]

Because my kids own books and films, I've been through the Harry Potter experience from go to whoa.

Aside from overwhelming feeling that J K Rowling's success is based upon slick marketing rather than good writing, I have one serious issue with her books:

I get a strong impression that two different writers are involved.

Maybe it's a deliberate ploy of Rowling's and she's much cleverer than I'm prepared to see?

Has anyone got any comments in this vein? Is it possible that Rowling, like Dick Francis, has her very own Chamber of Secrets?

The subject is obviously out there in some form - there's even a betting market on it here (http://home.inklingmarkets.com/markets/5317)- with odds of 25:1 against her having used ghost writers.

Interesting assumption! When Rowling was first discovered she was very poor, and if I'm correct, somewhat uneducated, thus not allowing her to write very much. Maybe her climb to fame and attempts at more sophisticated literature have changed her writing in such a dramatic way that an experienced literary critique might consider the discrepancy between her work to be two different writers, instead of one merely maturing.

I'm very interested in what others have to say!

[Drkshadow03]

Interesting assumption! When Rowling was first discovered she was very poor, and if I'm correct, somewhat uneducated, thus not allowing her to write very much. Maybe her climb to fame and attempts at more sophisticated literature have changed her writing in such a dramatic way that an experienced literary critique might consider the discrepancy between her work to be two different writers, instead of one merely maturing.

I'm very interested in what others have to say!

Nope, you're incorrect. Rowling has a degree in French and Classics, although I believe you're right that she was poor.

[PeterL]

I joined the conversation late so I will get right to the point. I must admit, though, I have trouble separating the books from the movies now. I stopped the books at number 3 or 4 because they all seemed to have the same plot: Something bad happens-everyone blames Harry (no matter how many times he vindicates himself)- Harry fights big battle with unexpected outcome-Harry is vindicated(until the next bad thing.) It gets old after a while.....

I was going to reply to this a while ago, but I couldn't find it.

Adventure stories of whatever kind are, almost always, cast from the same mold, and Rowling isn't the only one to make a bundle from the same plot and characters. Edgar Rice Burroughs wrote dozens of novels, and I have only found one in which he veered from his norm. Think of any of the children's serial books, and think about the plots. They were all very similar.

The one in which Burroughs used a different plot, he copied The Prisoner of Zenda, and he did a fairly good job. I wonder whether Rowling will ever venture into a different realm.

[mystery_spell]

The earlier books aren't written nearly as well as the later books, but I think that's because JKR just grew as a writer and learned some new things that made her more eager to try more complex writing styles.

A lot of people on this forum seem to have a problem with the Harry Potter series in a general sort of way and seem to think that it's just a fad; however, I'm pretty sure that HP is here to stay. Sure, it's popularity may decline since the books are all published and the movies are almost done, but they're great books to read over and over again because the themes are timeless.

I'm really sick of all the anti-Harry Potter talk.

I also dislike the comparisons of Harry Potter and Twilight or the when people discuss how Twilight is the new HP. HP considers timeless themes with increasingly better writing style, style that seems to grow along with the characters. In contrast, Twilight is a pop culture phenomenon, and Stephenie Meyer is on the bandwagon and churning out as many novels as she possibly can before the vampire craze is over. Her novels are consistent in their poor writing quality, which is only part of what makes her books very different from J.K. Rowling's.

[spookymulder93]

Harry Potter made a lot of you guys mad.

[glover7]

The earlier books aren't written nearly as well as the later books, but I think that's because JKR just grew as a writer and learned some new things that made her more eager to try more complex writing styles.

A lot of people on this forum seem to have a problem with the Harry Potter series in a general sort of way and seem to think that it's just a fad; however, I'm pretty sure that HP is here to stay. Sure, it's popularity may decline since the books are all published and the movies are almost done, but they're great books to read over and over again because the themes are timeless.

I'm really sick of all the anti-Harry Potter talk.

I also dislike the comparisons of Harry Potter and Twilight or the when people discuss how Twilight is the new HP. HP considers timeless themes with increasingly better writing style, style that seems to grow along with the characters. In contrast, Twilight is a pop culture phenomenon, and Stephenie Meyer is on the bandwagon and churning out as many novels as she possibly can before the vampire craze is over. Her novels are consistent in their poor writing quality, which is only part of what makes her books very different from J.K. Rowling's.


Concurr'd. People on this forum like to crucify J.K. Rowling for being too simplistic. In reality, these books were marketed to a younger audience. They may not be "great literature" on the scale of the typical literary canon, but they could easily become classics of children's literature, much aligned in the tradition of Carroll, Baum or Dahl. None of these authors utilized stylistically difficult structure or diction (one could argue against a cohesive narrative strand in several of their works), but they are important to children's literature nonetheless.

My personal opinion of the Potter series is that it is a well-wrought story that deals with significant values of current society including wish fulfillment and the Occidental tradition of bravery as an important aspect of the ideal hero.

Twilight, on the other hand, reads like a poorly written self-insertion fanfic taking place in Anne Rice novels.

[OrphanPip]

Twilight, on the other hand, reads like a poorly written self-insertion fanfic taking place in Anne Rice novels.

I prefer to think of it as an overly long safe-sex pamphlet, with vampires.

[JCamilo]

Concurr'd. People on this forum like to crucify J.K. Rowling for being too simplistic. In reality, these books were marketed to a younger audience. They may not be "great literature" on the scale of the typical literary canon, but they could easily become classics of children's literature, much aligned in the tradition of Carroll, Baum or Dahl. None of these authors utilized stylistically difficult structure or diction (one could argue against a cohesive narrative strand in several of their works), but they are important to children's literature nonetheless.



Nothing to do with Rowling (simplistic is not a minimalistic language, it is simpe as solution) but Lewis Carroll is considerable complex in both structure and diction (if this mean vocabulary). There is nothing simplistic about it.

[Delta40]

I think there was an anti-enid blyton period where her books were removed from the shelves, yet she has stood the test of time nevertheless.

[glover7]

Nothing to do with Rowling (simplistic is not a minimalistic language, it is simpe as solution) but Lewis Carroll is considerable complex in both structure and diction (if this mean vocabulary). There is nothing simplistic about it.

I have never had any trouble with Carroll. Not when I was nine, and certainly not now.

[Paulclem]

I'm amazed that Rowling's books provoke such controversy on this lit forum. They are good Kid/ teen books.

Anything that encouraged/ encourages kids reading is good with me. The later books had more adult covers too, but I think this was a response to the adult readership they developed.

(Ok - I'm behind the anti-flak settee now waiting for the fire.) :ciappa:

[JBI]

I'm amazed that Rowling's books provoke such controversy on this lit forum. They are good Kid/ teen books.

Anything that encouraged/ encourages kids reading is good with me. The later books had more adult covers too, but I think this was a response to the adult readership they developed.

(Ok - I'm behind the anti-flak settee now waiting for the fire.) :ciappa:

Just so you know, the bulk of Potter's readers even around the release of the last few books was shown to be significantly more adults than Children. The idea of getting kids to read is only half true.

Even so, though originally a hater, I recently decided to take a different stance. There will always be books that people dislike that are popular, Potter just fills the hole right now.

[Gilliatt Gurgle]

Paul’s illustration exemplifies a similar path toward a passion for reading my son followed, along with a little prodding my his parents. He was captivated by Harry Potter. His reading interests soon branched out beyond Potter into the world of H.G Wells, Jules Verne, Walter Scott (Ivanhoe) and several others.

.

[JCamilo]

I have never had any trouble with Carroll. Not when I was nine, and certainly not now.

Good literature is not troublesome. It can be understood in many layers, because anyone arguing Caroll is simplistic because they had no trouble with him as a kid must have forgotten that your mommy jumped Jabbewocky while reading to you.

[glover7]

Good literature is not troublesome. It can be understood in many layers, because anyone arguing Caroll is simplistic because they had no trouble with him as a kid must have forgotten that your mommy jumped Jabbewocky while reading to you.

I'm not sure why you've acquired this condescending tone in addressing me, but I'll put that aside for now.

Your claim is that Carroll is complex with regard to structure and diction (which does indeed mean word choice), which is rather tangential to the discussion at hand. Let's indulge you, though. I'm assuming, and correct me if I'm wrong, that your thoughts on structural complexity rely on the circularity of the narrative and the ambiguity of conflict resolution in the text. As for your opinion of the diction, it very likely is geared towards the use of polysemous words, as indicated by your insistence on "layers" in the text.

I would like to point out that these are the views espoused by "open interpretation" theorists (phenomenological theory), which has taken over the world of literary theory in more recent years. Accordingly, the number of interpretations that can be yielded from a given work is proportionate to the work's likelihood of "greatness." I should probably just redirect you to the True Art Is Incomprehensible page of tvtropes, but that could be likened to condescension, so I won't.

Instead, I'll bring up classics of children's literature/folklore that have stood the proverbial test of time without being referentially ambiguous and have a decidedly more finite set of interpretations. These include various fairy tales ranging from both the folk collections of the Grimm brothers to Hans Christian Anderson's own creations. With that said, these stories are primarily considered didactic, almost never concerned with a discursive definition of morality and show a reliance on formulaic tautology. Yet why are they so important? Oh, that's right. Because the layers that you insist are so important are still present.

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

[JCamilo]

It is hilarious.
Yes, Carroll vocabulary cannt be classificated as simplistic if he is using a technique of vocabulary construction that increases the complexity of vocabulary, which is basically what James Joyce would do (with more intensity), trying to dismiss it as something recent (It is not, this trait of Carroll was addressed on early XX century already and appropriated by several authors) of a particular form of theory is not going to change it.By the way, the circularity of the text is medieval and so is complexity of structure affecting reading interpretation. Dante wrote about it.
It is a matter of fact. Carroll vocabulary is not simplistic. (Even when He is using basic english, he is not simplistic at all. As I addressed in the first post in this reggard, simplistic text do not means use of simple vocabulary or not, illeterate people could understand Ariosto, yet, he is far from simplistic).

As the theme and interpretations of the text, the existence of different layers of significance have nothing to do with simplistic. It is not saying a simple symbolism, but Carroll text does not resume to the literal interpretation (a girl goes to an adveture, it is dream) but allow several readings. From his joke with paradoxes , mathematical enigmas, psychology (as one of the influences of surrealism), the plaything with chess, the concepts as identidy, time and espace, Carroll complexity is comparable to those he had influence upon, from Chesteron, Borges, Joyce, Cortazar, Breton, Bataile, etc. There is nothing simplistic about him and saying that as a kid (a childish meaningless comment, how you can afirm you have no problem reading Carroll or any text when you first read is beyond me. The text must be awful like the phone list) enjoying Carroll. It is well writen. It works. But that is far from being able to understand it or reducing it to the be something simple. Very far from Rowling (some possibilities exist there, but nowhere as near as inventive or variated as Carroll) which is basically a structure of best-seller. But I did not even compared or argued anything about Rowling - I said it didnt matter, I said Caroll is not simplistic and however argues it is just ignoring the obvious history of Alice. Those works are not similar. And unlike you propose, I wasn't the one who brought Alice and Carroll to the argument.

As faerie tales, they are not didact at all. Faeries tales origens are from mythological themes being appropried by rural areas when the religious themes were lost to a new dominating religion and intelectual production. Faeries tales are most likely born from Ovid than anything else as Eros and Psyche (Apulleio) in this case is considered one forefather of it. They were just histories, with the same histories as today. Grimms, aimed didact funtion (Perrault a little too but Gallant did not, and 1001 Nights is a prime example of collection of faery tales) but those two did not invented faery tales.
And they are extremelly ambiguous (if not by the form, variations from popular culture) by interpretation. Red Hidding Hood with all his plot simplicity is ambiguos and allow more interpretations than almost all works of literature. As Andersen (which style is his prime work), His Emperor and the Nightingale is extremelly complex, as the guy is not talking about a single theme, but also the romantic notions of art (Years before the guys from Frankfurt school are talking about mechanical repetiion of art), so I have no idea what you mean about simplicity or finite interpretations.

Obviously, as I have no intention of Rowling comment in my previous post, I am sure she uses several well stabilished symbolic patters of fantasy in her texts. But this wont make Carroll (or Anderson) anywhere near simplistic and they can not be used to defend/attack her texts. The arguement that her books are simple because of children stories is false. Just it. Children literature does not need to be simplistic. Andersen and Carroll are evidences of that. (JBI pointed, her later works were not even children literature).

[Alexander III]

I'm not sure why you've acquired this condescending tone in addressing me, but I'll put that aside for now.

Your claim is that Carroll is complex with regard to structure and diction (which does indeed mean word choice), which is rather tangential to the discussion at hand. Let's indulge you, though. I'm assuming, and correct me if I'm wrong, that your thoughts on structural complexity rely on the circularity of the narrative and the ambiguity of conflict resolution in the text. As for your opinion of the diction, it very likely is geared towards the use of polysemous words, as indicated by your insistence on "layers" in the text.

I would like to point out that these are the views espoused by "open interpretation" theorists (phenomenological theory), which has taken over the world of literary theory in more recent years. Accordingly, the number of interpretations that can be yielded from a given work is proportionate to the work's likelihood of "greatness." I should probably just redirect you to the True Art Is Incomprehensible page of tvtropes, but that could be likened to condescension, so I won't.

Instead, I'll bring up classics of children's literature/folklore that have stood the proverbial test of time without being referentially ambiguous and have a decidedly more finite set of interpretations. These include various fairy tales ranging from both the folk collections of the Grimm brothers to Hans Christian Anderson's own creations. With that said, these stories are primarily considered didactic, almost never concerned with a discursive definition of morality and show a reliance on formulaic tautology. Yet why are they so important? Oh, that's right. Because the layers that you insist are so important are still present.

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



"Live with your century but do not be its creature." - Friedrich Schiller

[LMK]

Sometimes there are people creative enough to think of the wide scheme of things and sometimes it is sheer happenstance. Some of the layers we attribute so various authors just happened and some were actually thought of and intended.

So as not to disturb the Rowling/Carroll debate with regard to this point, I'll use a non-literary example, Bugs Bunny cartoons. They were filled with adult humor and propaganda that did not disturb the young viewers as those messages went over their heads while they were still able to enjoy the lesser (if you will) content, but it gave the parents something they might enjoy, as well.

Now to give my two cents on the Rowling/Carroll discussion:

I read both the entire Harry Potter set as well as Carroll's two Alice books and Sylvie's to my children, even though by the end of the Potter series the children might have been considered, by many, too old to read to, but it was a family time beside a fire, even one of my married children would come home for "reading time" when she could. Sadly, that ended with the Harry Potter series because of their ages at the end of the series, so I suppose I have a soft spot for that reason.

My oldest daughter is a Lewis Carroll fan (well perhaps not quite a fanatic, but he is her favorite author). The others have many and varied interests.

Personally, I enjoyed them both. Lewis Carroll offered some thoughts to think and was entertaining, too. Harry Potter was escapism and purely entertaining for me.

[glover7]

It is hilarious.
Yes, Carroll vocabulary cannt be classificated as simplistic if he is using a technique of vocabulary construction that increases the complexity of vocabulary, which is basically what James Joyce would do (with more intensity), trying to dismiss it as something recent (It is not, this trait of Carroll was addressed on early XX century already and appropriated by several authors) of a particular form of theory is not going to change it.By the way, the circularity of the text is medieval and so is complexity of structure affecting reading interpretation. Dante wrote about it.
It is a matter of fact. Carroll vocabulary is not simplistic. (Even when He is using basic english, he is not simplistic at all. As I addressed in the first post in this reggard, simplistic text do not means use of simple vocabulary or not, illeterate people could understand Ariosto, yet, he is far from simplistic).

As the theme and interpretations of the text, the existence of different layers of significance have nothing to do with simplistic. It is not saying a simple symbolism, but Carroll text does not resume to the literal interpretation (a girl goes to an adveture, it is dream) but allow several readings. From his joke with paradoxes , mathematical enigmas, psychology (as one of the influences of surrealism), the plaything with chess, the concepts as identidy, time and espace, Carroll complexity is comparable to those he had influence upon, from Chesteron, Borges, Joyce, Cortazar, Breton, Bataile, etc. There is nothing simplistic about him and saying that as a kid (a childish meaningless comment, how you can afirm you have no problem reading Carroll or any text when you first read is beyond me. The text must be awful like the phone list) enjoying Carroll. It is well writen. It works. But that is far from being able to understand it or reducing it to the be something simple. Very far from Rowling (some possibilities exist there, but nowhere as near as inventive or variated as Carroll) which is basically a structure of best-seller. But I did not even compared or argued anything about Rowling - I said it didnt matter, I said Caroll is not simplistic and however argues it is just ignoring the obvious history of Alice. Those works are not similar. And unlike you propose, I wasn't the one who brought Alice and Carroll to the argument.

As faerie tales, they are not didact at all. Faeries tales origens are from mythological themes being appropried by rural areas when the religious themes were lost to a new dominating religion and intelectual production. Faeries tales are most likely born from Ovid than anything else as Eros and Psyche (Apulleio) in this case is considered one forefather of it. They were just histories, with the same histories as today. Grimms, aimed didact funtion (Perrault a little too but Gallant did not, and 1001 Nights is a prime example of collection of faery tales) but those two did not invented faery tales.
And they are extremelly ambiguous (if not by the form, variations from popular culture) by interpretation. Red Hidding Hood with all his plot simplicity is ambiguos and allow more interpretations than almost all works of literature. As Andersen (which style is his prime work), His Emperor and the Nightingale is extremelly complex, as the guy is not talking about a single theme, but also the romantic notions of art (Years before the guys from Frankfurt school are talking about mechanical repetiion of art), so I have no idea what you mean about simplicity or finite interpretations.

Obviously, as I have no intention of Rowling comment in my previous post, I am sure she uses several well stabilished symbolic patters of fantasy in her texts. But this wont make Carroll (or Anderson) anywhere near simplistic and they can not be used to defend/attack her texts. The arguement that her books are simple because of children stories is false. Just it. Children literature does not need to be simplistic. Andersen and Carroll are evidences of that. (JBI pointed, her later works were not even children literature).


I have very little interest continuing a discussion with someone who can't help but be pretentious, belittling and rude. Having said, that I will not hesitate to address you the same way that you've been addressing me. I would like to point out that, contrary to your responses, my original post did not imply in any way that Carroll is simplistic. My original post concerning Carroll is this:

People on this forum like to crucify J.K. Rowling for being too simplistic. In reality, these books were marketed to a younger audience. They may not be "great literature" on the scale of the typical literary canon, but they could easily become classics of children's literature, much aligned in the tradition of Carroll, Baum or Dahl. None of these authors utilized stylistically difficult structure or diction (one could argue against a cohesive narrative strand in several of their works), but they are important to children's literature nonetheless.

My original post dealt with difficulty, not complexity. Hence the mention of not encountering difficulty when reading Carroll. My argument is not that Carroll is not complex but that children's literature need not be incredibly complex. Having said that, let me quote the good users of the gamefaqs forums: Learn to read. Your post was irrelevant to what I said and was meant either to incite an argument or to be pedantic. In either case, it's rather disagreeable.

Also, if you're going to mention and embrace the multiple-interpretation theories of literature, then I'd recommend not making such concrete statements as essentializing opinions as facts, which you've consistently done. It's self-contradictory and makes for a poor argument.

Oh, and to assert that fairy and folk tales are not or were not intended as a didactic medium is naive at best, outright ignorant at worst.

[JCamilo]

Sorry, but I was never rude with you.

You wrote: "None of these authors utilized stylistically difficult structure or diction (one could argue against a cohesive narrative strand in several of their works), but they are important to children's literature nonetheless."

None of those authors were Baum, Caroll, etc. So, unlike you said, You did claimed he was simple (You said Rowling came from the same tradition, first pointing that members like to say she is simplistic) then said they had no difficult structure or diction. I corrected it and you now You are having a fit because unlike you may have intented, you did not argued Children Literature must be not complex, You added one Author that is considerable complex. You should just accept that you are wrong (You provided no argument against Carroll complexity). Instead you are offended and only because you are pointed as wrong (I did not even said anything personal towards you, how offensive can this be?).

By the way, anyone vaguelly familiar with the multiple interpretations of texts know it does not imply in any lack of objective argumentation or even of concrete statments. Quite otherwise - the awareness of those traits pass by most simple concrete statment: each reading experience is different from another.

And Faery tales are not didact. That is like arguing art is didact. Before calling me ignorant or naive, argue what is didact nature of Eros and Psyche or even of 1001 Nights. (The variation of use and forms of faery tales would be strong argument enough to dismiss anyone who thinks faery tales is only the form given by Grimm) or try to work with oral storytellers, from societies where writting is not present and see if stories there were more than Hamlet is too us: an aesthetic experience.

Now, Children Literature does not need to be complex (I have no idea how something will be difficult without causing the impression of complexity), just like any literature does not. Children Literature is exactly like any literature. What happens is that good literature is complex. That simple.

[LMK]

With regard to any writing and it's didactic intent; only the author knows for certain, the intent to teach, unless one is reading a text book, in my opinion.

This should not be confused with what a reader can learn, whether a reader does learn and what tools are used for learning. For this I hope there is no limit, exclusion or obstacle that prevents one from the ability to learn from any and everything.

[glover7]

None of those authors were Baum, Caroll, etc. So, unlike you said, You did claimed he was simple

Again, you're confusing difficult with complex. I never said that they were not complex. I said that complaints AGAINST ROWLING involve her being simplistic.

(You said Rowling came from the same tradition, first pointing that members like to say she is simplistic)

Saying that they come from the same tradition does not mean that they have identical merits. What I meant is that the actual events of the story are not all that complicated. They all follow the monomythic tradition. Person goes to other world. Person conquers trials. Person returns. Joseph Campbell. That simple.

then said they had no difficult structure or diction.

They don't. Recall that "difficult" and "complex" are different terms.

I corrected it and you now You are having a fit

We'll come to this in a moment.

because unlike you may have intented, you did not argued Children Literature must be not complex,

I DID NOT USE THE TERM "COMPLEX" IN MY INITIAL POST. Seriously, I do not want this to become an issue of semantics, but you have fastened yourself to the idea that I said something I did not.

You added one Author that is considerable complex. You should just accept that you are wrong (You provided no argument against Carroll complexity).

I don't have to address an argument that I didn't make in the first place.

Instead you are offended and only because you are pointed as wrong

Your argument is based on something I didn't even say.

(I did not even said anything personal towards you, how offensive can this be?).

Let's start with the infantilizing tone of these statements:

It can be understood in many layers, because anyone arguing Caroll is simplistic because they had no trouble with him as a kid must have forgotten that your mommy jumped Jabbewocky while reading to you.

There is nothing simplistic about him and saying that as a kid (a childish meaningless comment, how you can afirm you have no problem reading Carroll or any text when you first read is beyond me.

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

By the way, anyone vaguelly familiar with the multiple interpretations of texts know it does not imply in any lack of objective argumentation or even of concrete statments.

Yet nowhere does phenomenological theory say that any singular opinion is correct. You happen to posit your own feelings about an author as factual, which is an arrogant fallacy.

And Faery tales are not didact. That is like arguing art is didact. Before calling me ignorant or naive, argue what is didact nature of Eros and Psyche or even of 1001 Nights.

I understand that mythology and Scheherezade form a basis for fairy tales, but you're asking me to prove that the foundational tales have a didactic tilt. Those tales, although foundational, are not necessarily the same as fairy tales. Your request is in itself an illogical attempt to disprove my points by forcing me into an impossible discourse.

And fairy tales have a didactic element to them. As anyone who has studied elementary oral lit can tell you, these types of formulaic folktales had an educational purpose. That makes it a didactic.

[spookymulder93]

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

[JCamilo]

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

[Scheherazade]

W a r n i n g

Please do not personalise your arguments.

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

[JCamilo]

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

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

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

[spookymulder93]

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

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

[JCamilo]

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

[Alexander III]

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

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

[PeterL]

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

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

[LMK]

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

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

Which writings constitute literature?
Then, which of those constitute good literature?


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

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

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


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

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

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


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


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

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

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

[JCamilo]

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

Which writings constitute literature?
Then, which of those constitute good literature?


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

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

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


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

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


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

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

[LMK]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[breathtest]

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


what about self vs. nature? :lol:

[Drkshadow03]

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

[Scheherazade]

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

[Paulclem]

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

:lol:

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

[JCamilo]

So, now Darkshadow also like zoombies...