Why do you NOT consider Harry Potter as literature?

[Nikhar]

On litnet, sometimes, I really do like skimming through posts others make in various threads. And on various occasions, I have found Harry Potter (and novels by Dan Brown sometimes too) to be the target of criticism and on a few occasions, people went as far as to question if its literature at all?

Like, for example, there was this thread about 'What should the forum be named' or something of the sort and someone came up with 'Is-Harry-Potter- Literature-Forum?'

Now, why is it not? How do you define literature and do you or do you not consider Harry Potter as literature? If no, why not?

Sometimes, I just wonder if it's the desire of wanting to stand apart from the crowd. I mean, some people may think, "just because so many people read and like Harry Potter, I should say its not even literature". Maybe I'm exaggerating. But I guess you know what I mean.

Same with Dan Brown. I have seen intensive criticisms on his works on the forum.

Anyways, what is it that you think?

[Pryderi Agni]

I don't know about Dan Brown, but I definitely think Harry Potter is worth classifying as literature. It's one of the best works to come out of the modern stable of writers, and its narrative is powerfully reminiscent of the grand old days of literature. So, for one, I fully support your contention that Harry Potter is literature.

[WuWei]

I find it quite pointless to make such distinction. It obviously depends on what the definition of literature is and how it is applied. But after a few decades of Po-Mo, there really is no need to focus on this. I guess the closest you can get to being honest about literature is to define it as what is sold as such, and in those terms, yes, Harry Potter is literature.

[Lokasenna]

Is it literature? Yes. Is it great literature? No.

Despite its phenomenal success, I don't think Harry Potter is going to have the staying power. C. S. Lewis, Tolkien, Barrie, Lewis Caroll and (I suspect) Philip Pullman will all be read by young'uns for many, many years to come; I suspect Rowling will have faded into obscurity within a generation, simply because it is fitting for the moment, but hardly classic.

[mal4mac]

I'm assuming the original poster assumed 'literature' to mean 'great literature', otherwise we don't have a thread. It is not literature because the gatekeepers of literature do not consider it worthy of the title. For instance, Harold Bloom:

http://1xn.org/softspeakers/PDFs/bloom.pdf

Also, random posters to a group can't decide if something is literature, or not, just as they can't decide if string theory is valid physics or not. The acknowledged experts in literature decide what is literature or not.

You, may, of course, say that you like reading Harry Potter. But, if you haven't read much else, then why should anyone take your view as being a good reading recommendation?

Once you have read the same number of books as Harold Bloom, and, like him, memorised Shakespeare's complete works, then you may get the right to say what is literature or not.

Harry Potter is popular fiction, certainly, because the franchise sells a lot of books. That doesn't mean Harry Potter is worth reading. This might upset people who have read Harry Potter and enjoyed it. All I can say is, I read a lot of penny-dreadful science fantasy when I was a kid, and enjoyed it at the time When I grew up I developed some taste. I wish someone with better taste (e.g., Lokasenna and Harold Bloom) had directed me to better reading when I was a kid...

P.S. I don't think Pullman is very good either. His imagination is lacking. 'Dust' is a bad metaphor for spiritual concepts, and making it something literal just makes things worse.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Is it literature? Yes. Is it great literature? No.


That about sums it up. Obviously if we are taking literature to mean something of a higher artistic merit then HP is just not good enough, which is what it comes down to again and again, the quality is just not good enough, it is not well written. As for Brown, well that stuff is much worse, some of the worst prose I've ever seen - just a silly plot to boot!!!

[ClaesGefvenberg]

Is it literature? Yes. Is it great literature? No.My opinion exactly. Of course it is literature, but I have seen better.


As for Brown, well that stuff is much worse, some of the worst prose I've ever seen - just a silly plot to boot!!!Again I agree. Not exactly a favourite of mine.

/Claes

[MarkBastable]

In the poll, that 'yet' means that there's no option for me to pick.

[TurquoiseSunset]

memorised Shakespeare's complete works

Memorised? Reading the complete works of Shakespeare I understand, but would memorising it make a difference? Whatever...just thinking 'out loud'...

I said yes on the poll, because it's Children's Lit to me (not quite what you meant Nikhar)...but it can't really compete with Tolkien and Lewis and so on.

[Alexander III]

Mal4mac I have to utterly disagree with the concept that there are gate keepers who decide what is literature. Harold Bloom is an accomplished scholar and his opinion should certainly be listened to, but that is it. True great literature should make its presence known without someone else telling you that its great.

As for Harry Potter, my first instinct would be to say YES it is literature, not great literature but surely up there along with some other works. The prose is lacking, yet it is the story which is of great merit in the series. Not all great literature had great prose. Look at Hemingway, is prose is nothing exceptional, yet it is the design of his novels which has earned him his deserved reputation. However as I think about it I realize that I shall never be able to properly judge Harry Potter as the beauty I see in it is colored by the nostalgia that accompanies my reading it.

Yet nonetheless I would classify it as literature, not the best, but by far the greatest children lit of the generation.

[Nikhar]

Well, my question is exactly what it seems. Do you consider Harry Potter literature? I have read a few posts where people deny to even consider it literature and hence, I had put this question forth. And well, look at the results of the poll, its almost even.

Great literature or not? I think that is question of personal choice.

And yeah, I havent voted in the poll because I havent read enough literature to decide. But I have to say, I have enjoyed HP a lot. It got me really involved. I even cried when Dumbledore died. And I can read it again and again without getting bored. So, I guess it seems quite obvious as to why do I feel appalled when I read posts that say HP is not literature.

Edit:- Though coming to think of it, maybe, when people said that they did not consider it literature, they meant it's low class literature. Oh man, I'm confused.

[PeterL]

Anything printed in language is literature. Are there people wgo don't realize what literature is? If it had been intended that the question would determine opinions as to whether Harry Potter is high literature or high quality literature, or refined literature, or something else along those lines, then the question should have been framed differently.

It is my opinion that Dan Brown is not a very good writer, but he is successful anyway. More power to him.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Yes it is true that anything printed is literature by definition, a stop sign is literature, a phone book is literature, etc; but we commonly refer to literature to mean something more than that, a piece of writing that has some sort of higher aesthetic merit. So yes of course Harry Potter is literature by the first definition, the same as a stop sign and a phone book is, but is it a work of a higher aesthetic merit, I think not, hence the reason I gave it a “no” in the appropriate box. I naturally took literature to mean higher aesthetic merit in this poll otherwise the question might well have asked if Harry Potter was a book?

[BienvenuJDC]

Neely, as I asked in the erotica thread (but no one answered), what are some criteria that could be used to ascertain whether a piece of work is literature or not? I don't agree that a Stop sign would be literature based on my research concerning a definition of literature, nor would I agree about the phone book either. But I would like to consider the question (aside from the specific question at hand), what exactly is literature?

[cgrillo]

You have to consider that Harry Potter was J.K. Rowling's first published work, so the writing is not going to be perfect; it is for that reason that I think it is unfair to compare Harry Potter (and especially Rowling's writing) to other children's authors like Tolkien, who had held a number of writing-related jobs before The Hobbit was published. Also worth noting is that, before the Hobbit, Tolkien had published a rare collection of poems, so he would have to have at least some experience with writing, and have mastered it to some degree.

I remember reading somewhere that, before Harry Potter was published, J.K. Rowling worked as a waitress, and later a secretary.

I voted yes, Harry Potter is literature; but like Lokasenna said, it is not great literature. It is very popular with children (and some adults!) for one simple reason: they are good books. It would be going too far to call them great books, because the writing could be better - but does it have to be to still be a good book? Of course not.

[Lulim]

Is it literature? Yes. Is it great literature? No.

Despite its phenomenal success, I don't think Harry Potter is going to have the staying power. C. S. Lewis, Tolkien, Barrie, Lewis Caroll and (I suspect) Philip Pullman will all be read by young'uns for many, many years to come; I suspect Rowling will have faded into obscurity within a generation, simply because it is fitting for the moment, but hardly classic.

I don't think so. I'm quite convinced that my grandchildren are going to read Harry Potter because it deals with universal, lasting motives, just like fairy tales do. Perhaps, the language appears somewhat ancient until that distant day, but so does the language of Brothers Grimm tales, say. It doesn't matter.



As to Dan Browns stuff ... well, as Rita Skeeter puts it so nicely: "I could manure my garden with the contents of that rag."

[Haunted]

I remember reading somewhere that, before Harry Potter was published, J.K. Rowling worked as a waitress, and later a secretary.

What's the point? :confused5:

[cgrillo]

What's the point? :confused5:

The point is that she wouldn't have had very much experience with writing when holding those kinds of jobs, unlike the jobs that Tolkien had. Therefore, if her prose is not as good as that in, say, the Hobbit, than it can at least be somewhat atrributed to her lack of real experience with writing.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Neely, as I asked in the erotica thread (but no one answered), what are some criteria that could be used to ascertain whether a piece of work is literature or not? I don't agree that a Stop sign would be literature based on my research concerning a definition of literature, nor would I agree about the phone book either. But I would like to consider the question (aside from the specific question at hand), what exactly is literature?

Well literature literally means "anything written down" so with that yes a phone book or a stop sign would be "literature" though not of course what we really come to mean when we say "literature" in terms of a higher art.

What exactly is literature?

This is one of those questions which pops up all the time of course – people often put this down to personal enjoyment of a work which in my opinion is quite wrong. I’m not knocking personal response to a work - that is often vital, instincts and all that, but just because someone might have personally enjoyed a work doesn’t make it high art or worthy of the mighty accolade “literature”.

So what or who determines if something is literature or not?

There is no real set definition and these things can get long-winded, but for me the work has to be able to stand up to further critical enquiry, a sort of literary cross-examination if you like. For me this always has to do with quality. Is the text of real quality? Is the text of real literally merit? What is of value here? This for me is vital and I come back to it again and again. Look at the prose (or verse) look at the characterisation, look at the structure, look at the plot if you like, but is this a thing of quality? Importantly though you have to do with dispassionately, as I say just because you may or may not have liked it has little bearing on it in terms of literature. Go over the text again and again if necessary (though it is often not necessary to see flaws) is this a thing of quality or are they huge holes in the text? Really though through experience it is not hard to determine good writing from poor writing, within ten pages or so you can usually tell.

Anyway, I also think that some sort of literary consensus is important in determining the overall value of a piece of work. For example many people are going to differ as to the particular merits of this or that piece of work, this is only natural, but I bet every real critic of any merit places the likes of Shakespeare and Milton on a pretty high literary pedestal, with good reason. Of course even they are open to one or two criticism here and there, but overall there is an overwhelming consensus as to the merits of writers such as these. I’m not saying that we should turn to critics to tell us how to think, but neither am I dismissing literary experts because “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” sort of nonsense – the literary establishment does have a role to play to some degree. Though for me it comes back again and again to questions of quality, does the text possess it to a large degree? Are there any high aesthetic values to be gained from the work? If a text is not going to answer to such questions then my guess the work you have before you is not "literature" to any high degree.

[Haunted]

The point is that she wouldn't have had very much experience with writing when holding those kinds of jobs, unlike the jobs that Tolkien had. Therefore, if her prose is not as good as that in, say, the Hobbit, than it can at least be somewhat atrributed to her lack of real experience with writing.

I know what you were implying. It all about class prejudice and elitism, isn't it. One's job is no indication of one's talent. If you are talented, you could be chopping wood for a living to make ends meet, but that doesn't take away your talents.

On the other hand, a person can be studying literature and writing amateurishly for 20 years and still can't come up with a paragraph that can fool anyone.

[JCamilo]

First it must contain a message, second not any language, but any language that represents an idiom. Then it eliminates several signals. And I disagree most people use literature refering to only artistic literature. Most people use and understand foresincs literature, medical literature, etc.

[PeterL]

Please note 6.

lit·er·a·ture
   /ˈlɪtərətʃər, -ˌtʃʊər, ˈlɪtrə-/ Show Spelled[lit-er-uh-cher, -choor, li-truh-] Show IPA
–noun
1. writings in which expression and form, in connection with ideas of permanent and universal interest, are characteristic or essential features, as poetry, novels, history, biography, and essays.
2. the entire body of writings of a specific language, period, people, etc.: the literature of England.
3. the writings dealing with a particular subject: the literature of ornithology.
4. the profession of a writer or author.
5. literary work or production.
6. any kind of printed material, as circulars, leaflets, or handbills: literature describing company products.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/literature

If a particular definition was intended, then that should have been noted.

[cgrillo]

I know what you were implying. It all about class prejudice and elitism, isn't it. One's job is no indication of one's talent. If you are talented, you could be chopping wood for a living to make ends meet, but that doesn't take away your talents.

On the other hand, a person can be studying literature and writing amateurishly for 20 years and still can't come up with a paragraph that can fool anyone.

I was not implying anything about 'class prejudice' or 'elitism' or anything else. I was simply saying that it would be foolish to compare Harry Potter and the Lord of the Rings (about their writing) for several reasons, one of which, I think, is their experience with writing. I think that J.K. Rowling is fully capable of writing something on the same level of the Hobbit, and that comparing one author's first work with another author's second, after a career of jobs involving writing, is not entirely fair to the former.

[Lulim]

(...) I remember reading somewhere that, before Harry Potter was published, J.K. Rowling worked as a waitress, and later a secretary. (...)

She's been working as an English teacher in Portugal. Possibly, she did various odd jobs too.

[cgrillo]

She's been working as an English teacher in Portugal. Possibly, she did various odd jobs too.

Ah, I guess I made an uneducated post, and have been digging my grave deeper and deeper with each of my replies. :p Sorry, everyone.

[Hank Stamper]

Not 'great' literature in the classic sense but I think it will survive the test of time and still be popular years from now.. I don't think it has a short shelf life anyway.. Who wants a wager?

[BienvenuJDC]

Ah, I guess I made an uneducated post, and have been digging my grave deeper and deeper with each of my replies. :p Sorry, everyone.

Shall we revoke your shovel privileges?

[Lokasenna]

The point is that she wouldn't have had very much experience with writing when holding those kinds of jobs, unlike the jobs that Tolkien had. Therefore, if her prose is not as good as that in, say, the Hobbit, than it can at least be somewhat atrributed to her lack of real experience with writing.

I have to respectfully disagree with you on that one. I don't think the life of the author should have any impact on how we critically recieve the novel. There was a time when that was true, I'll grant - Caedmon's Hymn, probably the oldest recorded poem in our language, has been preserved, not because of its literary merit (though it's by no means bad), but beacuse it was composed by an illiterate cow-herd. Nowadays though, I don't think it's an issue: publishers aren't going to care whether you're 18 or 80, or whether you live in a mansion or a bedsit, and it certainly won't affect anyone's critical analysis.

Jobs, at best, provide only an indication of the writer's persona; the fact that Tolkien was Professor of Anglo-Saxon at Oxford University would suggest an immense intellect, and a capacity for analysis, but has little to do with his own artistic abilities.

[edit] - just noticed your last post! Though, I do actually think it an interesting point!

[Haunted]

I was not implying anything about 'class prejudice' or 'elitism' or anything else. I was simply saying that it would be foolish to compare Harry Potter and the Lord of the Rings (about their writing) for several reasons, one of which, I think, is their experience with writing. I think that J.K. Rowling is fully capable of writing something on the same level of the Hobbit, and that comparing one author's first work with another author's second, after a career of jobs involving writing, is not entirely fair to the former.

what's a career involving writing got to do with anything??? That's supposed to make one smarter and be able to automatically produce a work of genius?

Wuthering Heights was Emily Brontë's first novel. She worked as a nanny.

[Basil]

Wuthering Heights was Emily Brontë's first novel.
And her best, IMHO.

[Nikhar]

I don't think the life of the author should have any impact on how we critically recieve the novel.


Yes, even I don't feel that experience of the author decides the worth of his latest venture.

Agatha Christie produced her best works earlier in her writing carrier. At the end, she produced some disasters!

[TurquoiseSunset]

Not all great literature had great prose. Look at Hemingway, is prose is nothing exceptional, yet it is the design of his novels which has earned him his deserved reputation.

Exactly, and to that list I'll add J.D. Salinger. His prose isn't the best really...actually it put me off completely, but it's a classic and loads of people think it's wonderful.


But I have to say, I have enjoyed HP a lot. It got me really involved. I even cried when Dumbledore died. And I can read it again and again without getting bored.

Me too Nik. I love Harry Potter and can read it over and over again. :nod


I don't think so. I'm quite convinced that my grandchildren are going to read Harry Potter...

I think so too. That might be because I love Harry Potter, but I do think children will always be drawn to stories like that. They might not, when grown up, think of it as the best Children's Lit they've ever read, but will probably have enjoyed the story a lot anyway.

@cgrillo - Experience doesn't have anything to do with it...I might get a great idea for a story one day, write it, get it published and it might turn out to be very successful. I've never even written a short story, but it's still possible.
I also think it's wrong to judge someone's experience on the jobs they've done. For many a job is just a way to get the bills paid. Not all good writers are able to sit at home all day and write and do research or teach English, etc. So just because she was a waitress or a secretary doesn't mean she never wrote anything. If she did it just never got published and we don't know about it.

[mal4mac]

Mal4mac I have to utterly disagree with the concept that there are gate keepers who decide what is literature. Harold Bloom is an accomplished scholar and his opinion should certainly be listened to, but that is it. True great literature should make its presence known without someone else telling you that its great.

Books don't just jump up and say "I'm great!" Great critics are needed to point them out to us. Harold Bloom is just one of many critics, of course, and we should seek a consensus. There are far too many books published just to read them at random, hoping to find a good one, especially as the vast majority are awful!

[mal4mac]

The point is that she wouldn't have had very much experience with writing when holding those kinds of jobs, unlike the jobs that Tolkien had. Therefore, if her prose is not as good as that in, say, the Hobbit, than it can at least be somewhat atrributed to her lack of real experience with writing.

Then parents were not thinking straight when they bought her books, surely? Why force feed your kids with bad writing when there are many good writers out there? Thoughtful parents tend not to feed their kids on junk food just because it is popular. Even if the kids scream for it. But you will see them queuing for Harry Potter, even if they know it isn't that good. "At least they're reading something," they say. Why don't they say "at least they're eating something", as their kids live on a diet of Big Macs.

[Revolte]

You know, I really liked Harry Potter. I don't think it would keep my interest now, but still. When I was a child I was a picky reader. The Black Stallion was my favorite book, but I remember Harry Potter getting me through plenty of groundings.

[Alexander III]

Books don't just jump up and say "I'm great!" Great critics are needed to point them out to us. Harold Bloom is just one of many critics, of course, and we should seek a consensus. There are far too many books published just to read them at random, hoping to find a good one, especially as the vast majority are awful!

Ahh that is were we differ in opinion then. A true great form of art in all fields, shall make itself known and distinguished from the rest. Yes there is the argument that there have been works of art in literature that did not gain any credit in the artists life time, but later were recognized as some of the greatest works of artistic merit. To that I answer that during ones lifetime, the work he/she creates shall be judged with a bias. The bias of morality, religion, personal biases against the artists himself. Thus this bias shall impair true judgment. That is why it is only our descendants who can judge the art of today.

It is my belief that if one reads a supposed great work of literature and finds it dull and not enriching in the slightest, that for that person that work is of no merit. That does not mean that the work is of no great merit, but to you its is of none. All art is subjective and personal, you cannot generalize greatness, and form a list of greatness, not in art.

[MarkBastable]

Thoughtful parents tend not to feed their kids on junk food just because it is popular. Even if the kids scream for it. But you will see them queuing for Harry Potter, even if they know it isn't that good. "At least they're reading something," they say. Why don't they say "at least they're eating something", as their kids live on a diet of Big Macs.

I tend to agree with you.

When I was a kid, I read all sorts of crap. I read some good stuff too. In fact, that's probably how I can tell the difference between crap and the good stuff. So I have no objection, to be honest, if my kids choose to read Twilight or Harry Potter as part of a balanced diet, but I don't think I should try to convince either myself or them that it's good writing.

However - regardless of the quality those books - I need convincing of the idea implicit in the 'at least they're reading' argument that it's a good idea for kids to get into the habit of reading crap books because it will lead them on to the high quality stuff, as if the not-so-good stuff were a kind of gateway-read to 'proper literature'.

I'll be more willing to sign up to it when someone who makes that argument also suggests that it's also a good idea for kids to get into the habit of playing crap video games because it will lead them on to the high quality video games, and it's a good idea for them to get into the habit of watching crap cartoons because it will lead them on to the high quality cartoons, and it's a good idea for them to get into the habit of eating crap food because it will lead them on to the high quality food.

In fact, I'd much rather that my son play a well thought out, well crafted, challenging video game than read a badly written, derivative book. Hell - me, I'd rather spend the afternoon playing Spore than reading Dan Brown.

The thing for me, as a parent, is not to encourage reading for its own sake. It's to encourage my kids to get interested in anything that's smart, original, intriguing, involving. If books can offer that in a market that's full of smart, original, intriguing and involving products from several media, then I'll promote the books.

[billl]

Maybe it depends on the age of the kid. I haven't read Harry Potter, but I saw maybe 3 of the movies. It doesn't seem "bad." Maybe the writing is of poor quality, but I usually hear that more about Twilight. Can't say for sure, though.

But I think that comparing reading to eating is a bit tricky. We can eat vegetables and avoid junk food as children and adults. But only the adult would really benefit from read Brothers Karamozov or The Trial.

[PeterL]

Maybe it depends on the age of the kid. I haven't read Harry Potter, but I saw maybe 3 of the movies. It doesn't seem "bad." Maybe the writing is of poor quality, but I usually hear that more about Twilight. Can't say for sure, though.

But I think that comparing reading to eating is a bit tricky. We can eat vegetables and avoid junk food as children and adults. But only the adult would really benefit from read Brothers Karamozov or The Trial.

I think that adults would also appreciate Harry Potter more.

[billl]

Agreed. I know adults who are quite intelligent, and can appreciate "quality" literature, but also enjoy Harry Potter (and, I figure, could probably find something interesting thematically or whatever, moreso than kids would).

Again, I haven't read Harry Potter at all, so maybe there's some poor sentence construction, or 'surprises' are telegraphed too clearly ahead of time, or the dialogue is clunky, or whatever. But I haven't seen any excerpts of bad writing (as I have for Twilight--and Dan Brown, for that matter), and the movies seem OK, certainly interesting enough for kids.

[PeterL]

Agreed. I know adults who are quite intelligent, and can appreciate "quality" literature, but also enjoy Harry Potter (and, I figure, could probably find something interesting thematically or whatever, moreso than kids would).

Again, I haven't read Harry Potter at all, so maybe there's some poor sentence construction, or 'surprises' are telegraphed too clearly ahead of time, or the dialogue is clunky, or whatever. But I haven't seen any excerpts of bad writing (as I have for Twilight--and Dan Brown, for that matter), and the movies seem OK, certainly interesting enough for kids.

Rowling is a better writer than is Dan Brown. Out of the thousands of pages in the series there certainly must be some rough patches, but the writing is generally quite good. The books (and I will confess to having read only five of the books) are much better than the movies.

[teashi]

I think it comes down to: 'Is children's literature considered 'high class' literature?' People who haven't grown up with the Potter books, who don't like the image of it, the popularity, the modernism, the fact that lots of *gasp* adverbs are in it, will probably say it's not literature. I think this whole literature debate comes down to personal opinion and elitism.

Personally, I liked the books, but after the fourth or fifth it got too formulaic, and I guess I was wanting something more. The books are corny at times, but they have suspense and clever plotlines. I do think the writing is good, maybe not brilliant, but how many books for children are considered as such?

[Drkshadow03]

On litnet, sometimes, I really do like skimming through posts others make in various threads. And on various occasions, I have found Harry Potter (and novels by Dan Brown sometimes too) to be the target of criticism and on a few occasions, people went as far as to question if its literature at all?

Like, for example, there was this thread about 'What should the forum be named' or something of the sort and someone came up with 'Is-Harry-Potter- Literature-Forum?'

Now, why is it not? How do you define literature and do you or do you not consider Harry Potter as literature? If no, why not?

Sometimes, I just wonder if it's the desire of wanting to stand apart from the crowd. I mean, some people may think, "just because so many people read and like Harry Potter, I should say its not even literature". Maybe I'm exaggerating. But I guess you know what I mean.

Same with Dan Brown. I have seen intensive criticisms on his works on the forum.

Anyways, what is it that you think?

Because most people don't know what they're talking about. There are plenty of literary critics who enjoy and recommend Harry Potter. Of course there are also plenty who don't like HP too as Mal4mac pointed, although he only mentioned one, and his choice of Harold Bloom and his rants about popularity is ironic given that in academia very few people pay attention to Bloom and his main audience is the popular masses interested in culturing themselves.

One should care less what anyone else has to say really, as the function of any literary work or art work for that matter is how it affects you personally.

[LitNetIsGreat]

It is my belief that if one reads a supposed great work of literature and finds it dull and not enriching in the slightest, that for that person that work is of no merit. That does not mean that the work is of no great merit, but to you its is of none. All art is subjective and personal, you cannot generalize greatness, and form a list of greatness, not in art.

I agree in part, but there can a general consensus of what constitutes a great or good work of art. Art is subjective to a degree, we all naturally have personal likes and dislikes even amongst the great writers but there needs to exist a level of disinterestedness in evaluating work at times. You need to be able to say, whereas I personally don't enjoy this work I can see why it is considered good/great due to x and y and not to allow personal taste to dominate a true and fair judgement of a work. Otherwise it is akin to a science student saying that Newton is of no value because they don't personally like him, which is clearly nonsense. If Barry from Bangor finds no merit in Milton then that is hardly the fault of Milton.

[sixsmith]

I tend to agree with you.

When I was a kid, I read all sorts of crap. I read some good stuff too. In fact, that's probably how I can tell the difference between crap and the good stuff. So I have no objection, to be honest, if my kids choose to read Twilight or Harry Potter as part of a balanced diet, but I don't think I should try to convince either myself or them that it's good writing.

However - regardless of the quality those books - I need convincing of the idea implicit in the 'at least the're reading' argument that it's a good idea for kids to get into the habit of reading crap books because it will lead them on to the high quality stuff, as if the not-so-good stuff were a kind of gateway-read to 'proper literature'.

I'll be more willing to sign up to it when someone who makes that argument also suggests that it's also a good idea for kids to get into the habit of playing crap video games because it will lead them on to the high quality video games, and it's a good idea for them to get into the habit of watching crap cartoons because it will lead them on to the high quality cartoons, and it's a good idea for them to get into the habit of eating of crap food because it will lead them on to the high quality food.

In fact, I'd much rather that my son play a well thought out, well crafted, challenging video game than read a badly written, derivative book. Hell - me, I'd rather spend the afternoon playing Spore than reading Dan Brown.

The thing for me, as a parent, is not to encourage reading for its own sake. It's to encourage my kids to get interested in anything that's smart, original, intriguing, involving. If books can offer that in a market that's full of smart, original, intriguing and involving products from several media, then I'll promote the books.

I couldn't agree more Mark. The one HP book I read appeared to have not only been written for children, but, indeed, by a child. When I pointed this out to my girlfriend (one of the many sane people I know who possess an inexplicable need to promote this tripe) she trotted out the "It's for kids - it starts them on the road to literary discovery" speech. And maybe for some kids it might. But I'd wager that most kids read this stuff for the same reason most kids (or adults for that matter) do anything: because everyone else is doing it. The kids who read Harry Potter will likely grow up to have their reading dictated by the NY Times best seller list or, alternatively, the latest movie adaptation. Having said that, I'd love to see a marketing campaign based on the 'crap to quality' theory. 'Quarter Pounder: You gotta start somewhere.'

[JuniperWoolf]

And her best, IMHO.

:lol: Yeah, her later work was a bit lacking in substance.

[lallison]

I think the Harry Potter books are at about the same level as other children books like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and The Phantom Tollbooth. I don't think they will fade away during our lifetimes, but probably not on par with Alice and Wonderland or The Little Prince. It will be interesting to see.

[JBI]

Meh it is as bound to time as any; the appeal will fade with the coming of new heroes of the genre; the original audience expire, and it will be just another heart-felt moment amongst millions that nobody reads anymore.

[prendrelemick]

The thing for me, as a parent, is not to encourage reading for its own sake. It's to encourage my kids to get interested in anything that's smart, original, intriguing, involving. If books can offer that in a market that's full of smart, original, intriguing and involving products from several media, then I'll promote the books.

I would agree with that- and say that Harry Potter is smart, original, intriguing and definetly involving. Whether it is literature or not, I don't know, are those qualities exclusive to "Literature"?

[MarkBastable]

I would agree with that- and say that Harry Potter is smart, original, intriguing and definetly involving. Whether it is literature or not, I don't know, are those qualities exclusive to "Literature"?

I don't think that's the question to address, really. There's a post here (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?p=890573)that touches on that very issue.

[MrRegular]

NO NO NO, it is NOT literature because I disagree with it. Black magic, sorcery. TO THE STAKE WITH HIM! It should likewise be demoted on the grounds of it being POPULAR, and any literature aficionado will know that anything which is popular in our own time cannot be good because anything that exists in the same period as ourselves is bound to be vulgar, just like ourselves. Also there is the story itself. It is not at all ambiguous, its not even vague for God's sake. What kind of author just says what she wants to say?
Reading Harry Potter does not at all make me feel intellectually superior, so what's the use I ask you?

[Lokasenna]

I don't think we need to think in terms of absolutes. HP is not brilliant, but it's probably above average for the kids' usual fare. To my eleven year old self, the first book was utterly captivating, but the appeal faded with each book until I gave up after reading the fifth (which I did after much dithering) and finding startlingly mediocre. But even during that progession, there where other works that matched/surpassed it - I remember first encountering Ursula Le Guin's Earthsea books, and the superlative Raymond Feist, shortly after reading the second HP book, and even then I believed those to be of better quality.

[mal4mac]

Great literature is smarter, more original, more intriguing than any other literature, otherwise it wouldn't be great. From recent personal reading I think King Lear and Return of the Native are far superior on all these counts to Harry Potter (and Pullman!) - or, if you want a kid's book comparison - I thought Treasure Island was far superior. This personal experience of mine happens to converge with that of good critics, like Harold Bloom. So I tend to trust good critics. As I don't really want to read kids books (they're for kids!) I would use critics like Bloom to guide me on which books to give kids, not some hyped up advertising campaign or 'because all the kids are reading it'.

Someone said that academics to do not rate Bloom as an academic researcher. Assuming this is correct, for the moment, it makes no difference to his status as one of many canonical gatekeepers. His most popular book ("The Western Canon") is not a work of academic research or a personal choice of books - as he states explicitly - it is an overview of the works that all critics think are the best. So it doesn't matter to this thread what the status of Bloom's personal theories are.

[Drkshadow03]

Great literature is smarter, more original, more intriguing than any other literature, otherwise it wouldn't be great. From recent personal reading I think King Lear and Return of the Native are far superior on all these counts to Harry Potter (and Pullman!) - or, if you want a kid's book comparison - I thought Treasure Island was far superior. This personal experience of mine happens to converge with that of good critics, like Harold Bloom. So I tend to trust good critics. As I don't really want to read kids books (they're for kids!) I would use critics like Bloom to guide me on which books to give kids, not some hyped up advertising campaign or 'because all the kids are reading it'.

Someone said that academics to do not rate Bloom as an academic researcher. Assuming this is correct, for the moment, it makes no difference to his status as one of many canonical gatekeepers. His most popular book ("The Western Canon") is not a work of academic research or a personal choice of books - as he states explicitly - it is an overview of the works that all critics think are the best. So it doesn't matter to this thread what the status of Bloom's personal theories are.

Does anyone really think they should stop reading once they have finished all of the works Bloom covers in The Western Canon?

I tend to think the Big Mac and Filet Mignon metaphor that gets overused in these conversations (apparently reading a lot of Great Literature doesn't prevent litnet members from developing their own cliches) to be unrealistic to actual literature as it exists and fallacious reasoning in general. It's fallacious because it provides a false either/or scenario (a literary work can either be a Big Mac or a top quality steak). When of course one should extend the food metaphor beyond this simplistic dichotomy. Feel like a delicious Mexican enchilada, why not try some science fiction. Feel like French ratatouille, why there's Romance. Feel like German Schnitzel, why there's fantasy. Not only that, but anyone who has ever gone out to a restaurant with some frequency knows there is a huge difference between a big mac, a good Lasagna at a three star Italian restaurant, and an aged prime rib steak at a five star Steakhouse. Hell, most people even know that there is a difference between a Big Mac and a decent high-quality burger at your local burger joint.

I would suggest my extended metaphor is a far more accurate depiction of literature as it is. If Shakespeare, Faulkner, and other major canonical figures are the five star restaurant dishes, then there is all sort of "above average" or "pretty good" literature that falls in between. While I would agree that HP is not in the five star category, I hardly think it falls in the Big Mac category either.

Of course, even this rating system is a bit silly as I think rating itself is silly. What I like about a food metaphor is its versatility. Not only do I like to sometimes dine in the "lesser" three star restaurant, but sometimes I like getting different dishes. At the end of the day part of the fun of exploring writing is to discover new voices, find new stories, be entertained, have your breath stolen by a moment, find new characters to befriend, be in awe at a sentence's beauty, be taken through the world in such a way that you view it new again, but most of all to have a personal reaction of some sort to the work.

[Wilde woman]

Though I enjoyed and finished the HP series, I don't think it's 'great literature' because 'great literature' (for me) possesses some artistic merit in its language. One can direct a critical eye towards that language and dissect it, analyze it, find in it multiple interpretations. Now, I know that there are plenty of websites that analyze the text of HP, but I would argue that the vast majority of that analysis is not literary or artistic; it is plot-based, trying to determine from context and coincidence and characterization what the next Horcrux is or how Voldemort is planning his next attack or who has a crush on whom. I think if one were to analyze HP text for its aesthetic merits, one wouldn't find much to work with. Of course, that's subjective, but there it is.

I don't think HP is bad literature; in fact, it's quite above average for children's literature. Is there a separate set of criteria for children's literature?


All art is subjective and personal, you cannot generalize greatness, and form a list of greatness, not in art.

I disagree. As some have already argued here, society has indeed created a widely-accepted canon of what constitutes art, and what does not. Of course everyone has an opinion on the merits of whatever he/she reads, but ultimately it is the opinion of the majority (and sometimes this majority is mostly academic) that decides whether or not a certain text keeps appearing not only in bookstores and libraries, but also on academic reading lists. And, to some extent, that decides whether or not future generations will even encounter the text, much less judge it 'great' or otherwise.

An individual has his own list of what he likes or dislikes, but I don't think this says anything about what's literary and what's not. I believe literature is decided by the consensus of the reading community, which includes the academics and professors (and yes, even Harold Bloom).

[mal4mac]

Does anyone really think they should stop reading once they have finished all of the works Bloom covers in The Western Canon?

I tend to think the Big Mac and Filet Mignon metaphor that gets overused in these conversations (apparently reading a lot of Great Literature doesn't prevent litnet members from developing their own cliches) to be unrealistic to actual literature as it exists and fallacious reasoning in general. It's fallacious because it provides a false either/or scenario (a literary work can either be a Big Mac or a top quality steak). When of course one should extend the food metaphor beyond this simplistic dichotomy. Feel like a delicious Mexican enchilada, why not try some science fiction. Feel like French ratatouille, why there's Romance. Feel like German Schnitzel, why there's fantasy. Not only that, but anyone who has ever gone out to a restaurant with some frequency knows there is a huge difference between a big mac, a good Lasagna at a three star Italian restaurant, and an aged prime rib steak at a five star Steakhouse. Hell, most people even know that there is a difference between a Big Mac and a decent high-quality burger at your local burger joint.



The works Bloom mentions could easily keep anyone occupied for a lifetime, especially as he stresses the importance re-reading! If you are a really fast reader, and do nothing else but read, and you finish every canonical book Bloom has mentioned in ten years, then what should you do? You could read books that other gatekeeper critics recommend. And you can start re-reading!

Just because someone reads great literature doesn't mean that they can write great literature or poduce great metaphors at the drop of a hat. So your request for better metaphors, while being a resonable request, is not likely to be satisfied. I don't think others should be put off writing on Litnet by the demand for great metaphors. The internet is a free for all where good and bad writers can have their say. I think this is a useful thing for readers. I spend most of my time reading, and scratch a (very small) writing itch by writing in groups. But I don't put pressure on myself to produce great writing! No one's paying me so why should I :)

If you want to read great writing then read great literature, not LitNet!

I like your extensions of the food metaphors. The 'delicious Mexican enchilada' is a good metaphor for *good* science fiction, but that comes under the banner of 'great literature' as well - think H.G. Wells. So that still leaves HP as a BM.

[LitNetIsGreat]

The works Bloom mentions could easily keep anyone occupied for a lifetime, especially as he stresses the importance re-reading!


Cetainly. For me the importance of re-reading is fundamental for further understanding and appreciation of a work. Of course it depends on what is being re-read, but with some deeper works you cannot expect to do more than to scratch the surface with a single read. The danger of the list approach is that you could fall into the trap of "ticking off" the works you have read - as if you can ever really read a great work like that!

[Drkshadow03]

Cetainly. For me the importance of re-reading is fundamental for further understanding and appreciation of a work. Of course it depends on what is being re-read, but with some deeper works you cannot expect to do more than to scratch the surface with a single read. The danger of the list approach is that you could fall into the trap of "ticking off" the works you have read - as if you can ever really read a great work like that!

Neely, I should also mention that I don't disagree with your idea that there is such a thing as a general consensus between experts that you mentioned earlier in this thread. What I do disagree with is Mal4mac's suggestion that we need to be slavishly bound to those opinions and nothing else is worth reading.

Despite agreeing partially with you, I still think the central question of any art is:

What is my reaction to this work and why?

Reaction can be emotional, enjoyment, feelings while viewing a work, intellectual, etc. And this a very subjective thing at the end of day.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Neely, I should also mention that I don't disagree with your idea that there is such a thing as a general consensus between experts that you mentioned earlier in this thread. What I do disagree with is Mal4mac's suggestion that we need to be slavishly bound to those opinions and nothing else is worth reading.

Despite agreeing partially with you, I still think the central question of any art is:

What is my reaction to this work and why?

Reaction can be emotional, enjoyment, feelings while viewing a work, intellectual, etc. And this a very subjective thing at the end of day.

Yes in a way it is the only thing that really matters - the feeling you get from reading a certain text or listening to a piece of music - it is extremely important. Art is subjective in the sense that we are all going to vary as to what we like and dislike, I can't support that enough, indeed it is only natural. However, I think the problem for me comes when someone takes a personal like and then tries to promote that like above its true value in the real sense. For example when one of my daughters writes me a story it means as much to me (if not more) than that of Dante, but I would be a fool to then try and promote that story above Dante based upon my personal experience.

There needs to still exist a level of common sense, a level of disinterestedness in the approach to literature or the arts in general, which can be very hard because the arts are a passionate subject, but for me it needs to be done and people need to try and accept that just because someone really likes a work doesn't necessarily mean that it is of any particular merit. Art is subjective but for me there is still something of a pecking order however loosely defined and arguable it is.

[JBI]

Seriously, I used to argue on these things, now I have come to the conclusion that if it is great art, which it probably isn't, it will live on in some scholar's discourse. If it isn't, it will more or less die out - either way the debate is pointless - what is literature is what is written - what is good literature is subjective. By this point, Potter is less discussed, and is starting to disappear. My stance now is just let time take its course.

The book can be read as a book - as can Dan Brown, or whomever. Literature doesn't mean Shakespeare - anything that can be read and studied is literature of some sort (in the academic sense of the word). Shopping lists can be studied and discussed.

The only way to really know if Potter is good or not, is to read it, around it, and make a subjective decision. Either way time is the only judge, and my impression is the ebb is coming, with the original audience now in their late teens or twenties.

[kasie]

The original audience will, in a few years, in all probability be parents and may at some stage find themselves looking for books for their own children to read. I suspect many will look back to their own childhood, remember the books they enjoyed and recommend them to the next generation. I'm not talking about introducing the youngsters to The Great Classics, more about inducting them into the pleasure of reading and, I feel certain, the next generation of parents will remember HP with pleasure and put the books, maybe their own treasured copies, into the hands of the new generation of readers. That was how I came to read Anne of Green Gables, Little Women, stories by Angela Brazil, etc, etc, because my mother had enjoyed them and pointed them out to me in the library. That's why Enid Blyton books still sell so well, because parents remember them. Whether HP, (or Enid Blyton or Angela Brazil) have any Literary Merit may still be a moot point but I believe they will still be read because of personal recommendation - and isn't that how a Classic is made? The professors may try to define merit but readers decide for themselves whether a book is worth reading.

[JBI]

The original audience will, in a few years, in all probability be parents and may at some stage find themselves looking for books for their own children to read. I suspect many will look back to their own childhood, remember the books they enjoyed and recommend them to the next generation. I'm not talking about introducing the youngsters to The Great Classics, more about inducting them into the pleasure of reading and, I feel certain, the next generation of parents will remember HP with pleasure and put the books, maybe their own treasured copies, into the hands of the new generation of readers. That was how I came to read Anne of Green Gables, Little Women, stories by Angela Brazil, etc, etc, because my mother had enjoyed them and pointed them out to me in the library. That's why Enid Blyton books still sell so well, because parents remember them. Whether HP, (or Enid Blyton or Angela Brazil) have any Literary Merit may still be a moot point but I believe they will still be read because of personal recommendation - and isn't that how a Classic is made? The professors may try to define merit but readers decide for themselves whether a book is worth reading.

How many of your parent's childhood favorites did you read? I found my mother's one book she brought quite dated, the text The Ship that Flew which is rather dry. The odds of a book making it into a Children's canon are rather slim. Beyond that too, why is it that Potter, rather than older classics popular in the first place - I tend to think there is a desire of teachers, parents and children to read current children's books over classic ones - beyond that too, there is a decrease in book reading culture in some countries - like the US for example - but in most of the English speaking world in general, and series of books tend to be harder to support (Narnia, despite its popularity seems more popular as The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe than as all 7, and is really the exception rather than the rule) and the nature of the beast - a few thousand pages - does not make for easy exchange.

[kasie]

I mentioned one LM Montgomery title - that led to many of her other books too; the same with the Alcott books and the Brazils - those were 'dated' in my eyes but I still read and enjoyed them. I couldn't read the actual texts my mother had read - they had been passed around the family during the book famine of '39 to '45. That paucity of reading matter continued well into my childhood so it was on trips to the library that she pointed out titles and authors that she had enjoyed. we went on sharing books until she died.

You are right that there is a tendency to read new titles in shiny bright covers - Blyton is constantly being re-printed in new formats. You may also be right that there is a decline in book reading - for every study showing there is a decline there seems to be one showing the reverse to be true. I have, in my own experience of teaching children at the age at which choice of reading matter is just becoming independent, found that children do turn to adults - parents, teachers, even older siblings - for advice as to what to choose and, given the extent of the HP phenomenon, I can't help feeling that the books will be read for a few years yet.

[Cygnus X-2112]

Is it literature? Yes. Is it great literature? No.

Despite its phenomenal success, I don't think Harry Potter is going to have the staying power. C. S. Lewis, Tolkien, Barrie, Lewis Caroll and (I suspect) Philip Pullman will all be read by young'uns for many, many years to come; I suspect Rowling will have faded into obscurity within a generation, simply because it is fitting for the moment, but hardly classic.

I agree with this 100 percent.

[Drkshadow03]

I'm always amused by the unsubstantiated "feelings" people get about the death knoll of HP or whatever book. I just started a long-term library sub position in an elementary school in an urban school district and the books are still pretty popular.

[mal4mac]

I'm always amused by the unsubstantiated "feelings" people get about the death knoll of HP or whatever book. I just started a long-term library sub position in an elementary school in an urban school district and the books are still pretty popular.

[I apologise in advance for the rant - I'm upset after having recently perused my local libraries' "just acquired" shelf. Your library may be better...]

Libraries don't help the situation, they are as much in thrall to popular culture as the dumbest of readers. If you stop stocking the shelves with HP, then, perhaps, better books will have a chance to shine. Librarians fill the shelves with stuff they think the barely literate "just might" borrow rather than with good books. This seems to be a combination of cynicism and political correctness - "we need to stock the shelves with books that have a chance of being borrowed", "why shouldn't the illiterate have as much say on book purchases as the literate". (A librarian actually said something like the first statement to me when I asked him why not one book by Goethe was available on the open shelves... They only have Montaigne 'cause I asked for him, and hadn't requested anything before... from experience I think we only get one book request each... so everyone gets a book request... all shall have prizes...)

[Drkshadow03]

[I apologise in advance for the rant - I'm upset after having recently perused my local libraries' "just acquired" shelf. Your library may be better...]

Libraries don't help the situation, they are as much in thrall to popular culture as the dumbest of readers. If you stop stocking the shelves with HP, then, perhaps, better books will have a chance to shine. Librarians fill the shelves with stuff they think the barely literate "just might" borrow rather than with good books. This seems to be a combination of cynicism and political correctness - "we need to stock the shelves with books that have a chance of being borrowed", "why shouldn't the illiterate have as much say on book purchases as the literate". (A librarian actually said something like the first statement to me when I asked him why not one book by Goethe was available on the open shelves... They only have Montaigne 'cause I asked for him, and hadn't requested anything before... from experience I think we only get one book request each... so everyone gets a book request... all shall have prizes...)

Ignoring the fact that your entire argument is a red herring as my response was directed toward JBI's idea that HP will fizzle with time and I only brought the school library I'm working at up to suggest that isn't what I'm seeing on the ground so far, let's look at some of your "points."

I'm assuming by illiterate you mean "uncultured" or "lack of knowledge of a particular field" rather than the more standard "unable to read" because then your argument would be completely nonsensical. Although when you write, "[l]ibrarians fill the shelves with stuff they think the barely literate 'just might' borrow" it sounds more like you mean the standard meaning.

The fact is there are plenty of well-educated people who simply aren't interested in literature. My parents for example. They don't want to read Goethe, but rather want to read James Patterson and David Baldacci. So librarians fill the shelves NOT with books people might borrow, but books they know people WILL borrow. Public libraries are paid by tax dollars. If you don't carry books people want, then people don't come in and you lose funding.

More simply librarians owe it to their communities to reflect their demographics and populations' interests. Anyone who thinks that if they just filled the libraries with classics the people would come is out of their head. Most of the library patrons would go home and watch TV instead or buy the same books at B&N. Of course, there is also the issue that even some people who read the so-called classics often want to read other books, such as myself. Of course, there's plenty of good books that aren't classics, HP being one of them.

[JCamilo]

Its not a red herring at all. If people are lead to libraries, they will have to deal with the books they find there. If all libraries in the world are motivated by the popular lists to renew they books, then they will reflect it. In bibliothecas the interest wanes slowly than selling, because you wont have 3000 copies of a given book at sametime, so 3000 readers will have to wait longer...

Of course, nothing indicates the library you refer works this way, but as you said, its somehow a pattern.

[Drkshadow03]

If people are lead to libraries, they will have to deal with the books they find there. If all libraries in the world are motivated by the popular lists to renew they books, then they will reflect it.

JCamilo, it's not like you can't find any classics in a library. The fact that Mal4mac couldn't find Goethe in his presumably American library could just as easily be an issue of other factors such as American egocentrism. I bet he would've found a Hawthorne novel or Dickinson poetry if he had looked.

[JCamilo]

Obviously, not all libraries are the same. But having 1 copy of lets say, Moby Dick, wont be the same if there is 3 copies of Lost Symbol. Or how they are organized,where the books can be found, how the librarians work, the´physical conditions of books are all factors of which books are picked.
Its probally hard to find certain kind of classics or older books, more obscure since they wont be sought by the general public but certain classics will always be there, even if nobody reads them.

[mal4mac]

The fact is there are plenty of well-educated people who simply aren't interested in literature.


That's an oxymoron...



So librarians fill the shelves NOT with books people might borrow, but books they know people WILL borrow.


People will borrow Goethe! I would have borrowed Goethe if Goethe had been there. Public libraries should provide an alternative to bookshops, which are full of soccer star biographies, crass new age drivel, and Dan Brown. Looking at the "new books" shelves of my public library I could see little difference from it and the best seller shelves at Waterstones. It was different when I was growing up. I didn't see "penny dreadful detective novels" at the library, so I had to take out Heisenberg and Dostoevsky. That's "all" that was on offer. I kept going in. I want today's kids to have the same chance of picking up some good stuff...

(Note, the classics in my current library are the saddest, most dog-eared, smelly collection you could think of - the library I grew up with had marvellous durable hardbacks in abundance...)

My boyhood library was filled with classics - people came. If many, even most of the current library patrons, go home and watch TV instead, who cares. Libraries should provide a public service, not provide free access to X factor spin-offs and and Dan Brown.


The fact that Mal4mac couldn't find Goethe in his presumably American library could just as easily be an issue of other factors such as American egocentrism. I bet he would've found a Hawthorne novel or Dickinson poetry if he had looked.

It's a UK library. I have looked for Dickinson - no joy...

I recently visited a library in a similar sized city in Finland and it had a better collection of classics *in English* than the dump in my city...

P.S. Sorry for hijacking this thread, but I just heard they cut library funding by half this year so I tend to react badly to any mention of libraries. It was either vent my spleen or start building a barricade outside city hall... hmmm... I still might...

[LitNetIsGreat]

I have to agree about the state of libraries in the UK regarding the classics. The central library in my home town is pretty poor in that regard; with a very small (and dog eared looking) literature and poetry section. I understand that funding is an issue and all the rest of it and I'm sure that they do their best with what they have got, but at the same time it can be quite frustrating. I don't expect to find anything there, I have come to see anything I do find as a bonus.

[Emil Miller]

It's a UK library. I have looked for Dickinson - no joy...

I recently visited a library in a similar sized city in Finland and it had a better collection of classics *in English* than the dump in my city...

P.S. Sorry for hijacking this thread, but I just heard they cut library funding by half this year so I tend to react badly to any mention of libraries. It was either vent my spleen or start building a barricade outside city hall... hmmm... I still might...

I agree that libraries should be better funded but with public sector debt currently standing in excess of £800 billion, the situation isn't likely to improve for years to come.

[Dark Lady]

I apologise in advance for the rant. For various reasons, I've been in a somewhat antagonistic mood recently.

For those using the food analogy: ever heard of an APT analogy? You're saying 'you wouldn't feed your kids on junk food so why would you let them read Harry Potter'. Are you serious? You know why I wouldn't let my (future) kids eat nothing but junk food? Because of the serious health risks! High consumption of junk food and low consumption of healthy food results in all sorts of health problems that you'll all be aware of without me having to go into them. How is this the same as letting your kids read mediocre literature? Is it going to kill them? Of course not.

I love literature as much as the rest of you. It's what my degree's in and what both the careers I'm trying to start involve. But, unless you're a critic etc, reading is a HOBBY. It is not a basic requirement for us to stay healthy and living. Some of you are saying you wouldn't 'let' your kids read Harry Potter? Are you serious? What kind of tyrant-parent are you?

Also, it's all very well going on about better children's literature that is out there but is it as easy to read, as accessible? Have you ever had to work with a dyslexic child? One who doesn't choose not to read because they're lazy but because it is an absolute excrutiating and humiliating experience for them? And, then, have you experienced the joy of managing to find a simple, accessible text that they read and enjoy and watched their appetite for literature start to grow and mature? Some of you scoff at the idea of mediocre, accessible literature paving the way for greater works? Well, you've never had to deal with the people I have. Yes, I could read and enjoy Shakespeare at eleven but that doesn't mean I'm so blind as to think everyone can.

<End rant/>

[Yvain]

The body of written works of a language, period, or culture.

This is the definition of literature, so Harry Potter is literature.

In response to the dyslexic children argument. Yes it is accessible and good for some children, but that does not make it GOOD LITERATURE. Some children do need help reading, but there is nothing wrong with having children try hard literature. Saying that it is too hard or they are too young limits intellectual and artistic growth. Some people are just lazy about it. I know I have been guilty of it too.

People throw words like "Elitist" around, but is there anything wrong with having standards? Sure, let dyslexic children read easier stuff if it helps them. People without learning disabilities can enjoy mediocre stuff too, but it IS mediocre and it should be recognized.

Some people stay with mediocrity and don't ever move up to classics. People should not perpetuate that good literature is for "the exceptional." Treating it like some impossible task probably would not help a child with a learning disability. It will seem like something else that they just cannot do. I say let them try and fail at it, and let them know that it is okay to try and fail. Avoiding it entirely is not the way.

BTW: Does dyslexia affect understanding a story, or just reading the actual words? I was confused about that.

[Vautrin]

One can make the argument that Harry potter is literature, but it's definitely not litchratchure.

The existence of this thread alone is reason enough to count Harry Potter out of the race. Would we be having this discussion if the book in question was say, The Brothers Karamazov? Nah.

HP is a children's book that adults happen to also enjoy. There's nothing wrong with that. Let's leave it at that? Or does everything have to be considered highbrow nowadays?

In the hope of preventing society from crumbling, let's keep the Woody Allen films on one side and the Adam Sandler movies on the other. Sure they're both comedies, but are they on the same level intellectually, stylistically, etc? Let's not kid ourselves.

[mal4mac]

I tend to think there is a desire of teachers, parents and children to read current children's books over classic ones...

Jonathan Ross said that his children will not watch films more than a few years old, and not just because they inherited his warped genes. He reckons that it's a general tendency, and the main reason there are so many remakes of good films only a few decades old. If this is correct, then it perhaps explains the fixation on HP - the films are new, and books still fairly new. So HP may die *very* soon :)


I agree that libraries should be better funded but with public sector debt currently standing in excess of £800 billion, the situation isn't likely to improve for years to come.

{edit} It would be no problem funding libraries if we followed the Scandinavian model. If you increase taxes on those earning more than average then it would be no problem. There might be fewer porsches rumbling down the roads, but I, for one, will not cry about that...

[JCamilo]

I have to agree about the state of libraries in the UK regarding the classics. The central library in my home town is pretty poor in that regard; with a very small (and dog eared looking) literature and poetry section. I understand that funding is an issue and all the rest of it and I'm sure that they do their best with what they have got, but at the same time it can be quite frustrating. I don't expect to find anything there, I have come to see anything I do find as a bonus.

I think public libraries are the wrong target. They are usually a reflex of the market or the sponsour. They usually depends on funding, donations, they must react objectivelly to the public within. Some organization, direction or events may direct the HP reader to fantasy classics but they will have to remember, once out of the library, this "alien world", he will have to deal with school, parents, marketing and all. I found much more disturbing when I enter in a library to seek books, dodge all, to go to the poetry section, which is usually considerable smaller. Las Christmass, when I entered to shop in one of major (and with an identidy of high-cultured coffe, with jazz shows) I discovered their already small poetry section (only 2 shelves) was moved to the bottom, in other words, facing my feet, in a place that was not central. So, I had to sit in the ground to seek book, obviously, with more dust, without direct illumination. Of course, the selling of poetry in that place would never be very considerable. (Good thing, I found a Ovid, with so much dust that they did not updated the price and had to sell to me for that.)

[Drkshadow03]

That's an oxymoron...


Now you're just being silly. Someone with a Ph. D in Physics who isn't interested in literature besides the Hard Sci-fi stories of Analog Magazine isn't well-educated?



For those using the food analogy: ever heard of an APT analogy? You're saying 'you wouldn't feed your kids on junk food so why would you let them read Harry Potter'. Are you serious? You know why I wouldn't let my (future) kids eat nothing but junk food? Because of the serious health risks! High consumption of junk food and low consumption of healthy food results in all sorts of health problems that you'll all be aware of without me having to go into them. How is this the same as letting your kids read mediocre literature? Is it going to kill them? Of course not.


Yeah, that's yet another weakness of the metaphor. A Big Mac isn't just bad because it is somehow lower quality food, but it can literally kill you if you eat too much of it. Clearly reading mediocre literature or bad literature won't kill you. Also, as I already pointed out the metaphor is deceptive in that there are more choices than just the Big Mac on the one hand and a five-star cuisine on the other hand produced by a top chef in a top restaurant, there is of course plenty of high quality three star restaurants in between.

[Paulclem]

Now you're just be silly. Someone with a Ph. Ds in Physics who isn't interested in literature besides the Hard Sci-fi stories of Analog Magazine isn't well-educated?

Hi Drk.

Is this thread a continuation or a wholly new beast?

[Drkshadow03]

That's an oxymoron...



People will borrow Goethe! I would have borrowed Goethe if Goethe had been there. Public libraries should provide an alternative to bookshops, which are full of soccer star biographies, crass new age drivel, and Dan Brown. Looking at the "new books" shelves of my public library I could see little difference from it and the best seller shelves at Waterstones. It was different when I was growing up. I didn't see "penny dreadful detective novels" at the library, so I had to take out Heisenberg and Dostoevsky. That's "all" that was on offer. I kept going in. I want today's kids to have the same chance of picking up some good stuff...


They still can. For the most part the books are still there.

However, I think you're basing your decisions for everyone else way too much on your own experiences. When I went to the library as a child my books consisted mostly of Choose Your Own Adventures, R. L. Stine's Goosebumps, Alvin Schwartz's horror folk tales, Matt Christopher's baseball novels, etc. Lo and behold when I went to college I majored in English and started to appreciate the Classics. I simply wasn't ready when I was younger.

[Emil Miller]

{edit} It would be no problem funding libraries if we followed the Scandinavian model. If you increase taxes on those earning more than average then it would be no problem. There might be fewer porsches rumbling down the roads, but I, for one, will not cry about that...

I don't think you understand the nature of the problem. We are talking about a sum of money that would completely wipe out Scandinavia's economy, because they have a population roughly one third of the UK. It is not a question of a handful of people driving Porsche's being highly taxed, although I have no problem with that, but a realisation that, in order to prevent a complete collapse of the banking system with all that would entail, the government has had to borrow vast amounts of money from the Middle East and China to ensure that that the entire economy doesn't collapse. In this scenario, libraries feature very low on the list of priorities.

[TurquoiseSunset]

{edit} It would be no problem funding libraries if we followed the Scandinavian model. If you increase taxes on those earning more than average then it would be no problem. There might be fewer porsches rumbling down the roads, but I, for one, will not cry about that...

That's how we pay tax in South Africa with higher earners (not millionaires mind, middleclass people like my dad) paying 40% of their salary in tax. It's still not helping our libraries much because there's a long list of things that need doing, so libraries are at the bottom of a list that contains items like housing development, creating jobs, basic education for all, the AIDS crisis, etc.

I think if people are so concerned about it it wouldn't hurt if they did something about it themselves. Next time you see a few cheap classics in fairly good condition buy them and donate them to your library. When you've read a book that you don't want for keeps, donate it instead of taking it to a second hand shop. The amount of money you get back is negligible anyway. This way you also know the library will have that book if you ever decide to read it again :D

[Scheherazade]

From OP:
How do you define literature and do you or do you not consider Harry Potter as literature? If no, why not? Off-topic posts will be removed without further warning.

[Babak Movahed]

I personally don't consider it literature for both its simplistic writing style and how commercial it is. I think for a work to be called a piece of literature it has to have a literary quality to it; poetic prose, complex theme, utilization of literary devices, etc. Harry Potter is far too simple for that, I mean any series of novels that's over like 2000 pages long and can be read by kids under 14, quite frankly can't be considered as literature. Also how commercial its become definitely makes it more of a work of pop culture than of literature, consider how much the movies have made in comparison to the books. Not to mention that there are countless of Harry Potter products, everything you could possibly think of from clothing to Legos. I'm not completely trashing Harry Potter, I mean its great to get kids into reading but it shouldn't be called literature.

[Annamariah]

I would be surprised if Harry Potter would just disappear quickly. I think it will be there for a few decades at the very least.

[BienvenuJDC]

I personally don't consider it literature for both its simplistic writing style and how commercial it is. I think for a work to be called a piece of literature it has to have a literary quality to it; poetic prose, complex theme, utilization of literary devices, etc. Harry Potter is far too simple for that, I mean any series of novels that's over like 2000 pages long and can be read by kids under 14, quite frankly can't be considered as literature. Also how commercial its become definitely makes it more of a work of pop culture than of literature, consider how much the movies have made in comparison to the books. Not to mention that there are countless of Harry Potter products, everything you could possibly think of from clothing to Legos. I'm not completely trashing Harry Potter, I mean its great to get kids into reading but it shouldn't be called literature.

By your description, basing literary definition on commercialism, The Lord of the Rings trilogy cannot be considered literature either. Your reasoning doesn't justify your conclusion.

[PeterL]

I would be surprised if Harry Potter would just disappear quickly. I think it will be there for a few decades at the very least.

I agree. At least a few of those may become classics of children's literature. Similarly, there are those who think that The Lord of the Rings couldn't be classic literature, but it is already more than half a century old and still going strong.

[rabid reader]

I agree. At least a few of those may become classics of children's literature. Similarly, there are those who think that The Lord of the Rings couldn't be classic literature, but it is already more than half a century old and still going strong.

I think that is really the point. What does it mean to be "literature?" If you take into account what the word means when applied to topics out side of creative writing, literature can be used to refer to a pamphlet on the use of condoms, or the risk of anorexia. When taken in regards of other topics, literature is referred to as written authority.

Now if one was to consider literature in the context of written authority and then apply it creative writing, what exactly does that entail? Its not like any novelist is used as the example of what a novel must be, but when you consider what it is to be an authority it is nothing more then influence. Not just influence on your ideas, but influence regarding your own personal creation. Thus in my opinion for something to be literature, it must have influence, and if that is the case then I see no book series that was more influential on this generation then Harry Potter, and in roughly 5-10 years when the children who grew up reading these books mature I would not be surprised to see a brand of writers who drew strong influence from these books. (Hell if you look at some fan fiction sites there are already 15 year olds who are better writers the JK Rowlings outright who draw obvious inspiration from her work.)

But that is just my subjective understanding of the word literature. I of course am not a English major, or someone who has even studied literature outright (outside of Philosophy)

[TurquoiseSunset]

By your description, basing literary definition on commercialism, The Lord of the Rings trilogy cannot be considered literature either. Your reasoning doesn't justify your conclusion.

I totally agree. There are a number of holes in Babak's argument...

[PeterL]

I think that is really the point. What does it mean to be "literature?" If you take into account what the word means when applied to topics out side of creative writing, literature can be used to refer to a pamphlet on the use of condoms, or the risk of anorexia. When taken in regards of other topics, literature is referred to as written authority.

Now if one was to consider literature in the context of written authority and then apply it creative writing, what exactly does that entail? Its not like any novelist is used as the example of what a novel must be, but when you consider what it is to be an authority it is nothing more then influence. Not just influence on your ideas, but influence regarding your own personal creation. Thus in my opinion for something to be literature, it must have influence, and if that is the case then I see no book series that was more influential on this generation then Harry Potter, and in roughly 5-10 years when the children who grew up reading these books mature I would not be surprised to see a brand of writers who drew strong influence from these books. (Hell if you look at some fan fiction sites there are already 15 year olds who are better writers the JK Rowlings outright who draw obvious inspiration from her work.)

But that is just my subjective understanding of the word literature. I of course am not a English major, or someone who has even studied literature outright (outside of Philosophy)

I think that you are restricting the definition of literature. Literature is anything written.

If you don't like Rowlings writing, then you should not read it.

[TurquoiseSunset]

If you don't like Rowlings writing, then you should not read it.

Heh, nice :D

[keilj]

Literature is anything written.




this is incorrect




even though it is in bold, it is incorrect

[rabid reader]

this is incorrect




even though it is in bold, it is incorrect

not to sound rude, but explain

[keilj]

not to sound rude, but explain

It's probably been hashed over in this thread - but not every book written is literature. To use the word literature implies that it has literary merit. Some books just do not merit that - some books are just works of fiction. Sometimes those books are petty good, and even well-written, but they are still just yarns or page-turners - they do not innately have literary merit just becasue they are written and printed

[rabid reader]

It's probably been hashed over in this thread - but not every book written is literature. To use the word literature implies that it has literary merit. Some books just do not merit that - some books are just works of fiction. Sometimes those books are petty good, and even well-written, but they are still just yarns or page-turners - they do not innately have literary merit just becasue they are written and printed

so what is literary merit?

[PeterL]

this is incorrect


You are mistaken. That is correct. If you don't believe me,then look it up.

[JCamilo]

It's probably been hashed over in this thread - but not every book written is literature. To use the word literature implies that it has literary merit. Some books just do not merit that - some books are just works of fiction. Sometimes those books are petty good, and even well-written, but they are still just yarns or page-turners - they do not innately have literary merit just becasue they are written and printed

Really? Then Moby Dick was not literature when released, then became literature? Because when it was released, Melville was a madman.
hey, Nabokov thinks Dostoievisky have no literary merit, so it is not literature?
And what is most funny... When I see a book of forensics literature, I am imagining things?
The funny part is claiming a book is well-written but somehow lacks literary merit...

[keilj]

Really? Then Moby Dick was not literature when released, then became literature? Because when it was released, Melville was a madman.
hey, Nabokov thinks Dostoievisky have no literary merit, so it is not literature?
And what is most funny... When I see a book of forensics literature, I am imagining things?
The funny part is claiming a book is well-written but somehow lacks literary merit...

if you think that every single book ever written is literature - simply becasue it is a book - then god speed to you

[rabid reader]

if you think that every single book ever written is literature - simply becasue it is a book - then god speed to you

There is still no explanation to the contrary though, you said that not everything is literature because literature must have literary merit (defining the word with the same word really) but what is literary merit?

[keilj]

not to sound rude, but explain

ah - so when you asked me this, you weren't sincerely interested in my answer - you just wanted to bait me into a debate

now I see it

[rabid reader]

ah - so when you asked me this, you weren't sincerely interested in my answer - you just wanted to bait me into a debate

now I see it

no its just that your explanation didn't explain anything. What is egglomatizing?

The act of becoming egglomatized

Does that definition lead one to understand what egglomatizing is?


All I asked was what literary merit was,

[PeterL]

if you think that every single book ever written is literature - simply becasue it is a book - then god speed to you

Apparently you have changed your mind and simply wish good to those who know wht literature is, and you are included among us.

[JCamilo]

TBH, I did not used the word book, because book is a relativelly new invention, and literature is older than that. However, a definition that is easily dismissed like yours is not useful. So, good writings.

[TurquoiseSunset]

this is incorrect

Well actually neither of you are wrong...

[Mr.lucifer]

lit·er·a·ture   /ˈlɪtərətʃər, -ˌtʃʊər, ˈlɪtrə-/ Show Spelled[lit-er-uh-cher, -choor, li-truh-] Show IPA
–noun
1.writings in which expression and form, in connection with ideas of permanent and universal interest, are characteristic or essential features, as poetry, novels, history, biography, and essays.
2.the entire body of writings of a specific language, period, people, etc.: the literature of England.
3.the writings dealing with a particular subject: the literature of ornithology.
4.the profession of a writer or author.
5.literary work or production.
6.any kind of printed material, as circulars, leaflets, or handbills: literature describing company products.
7.Archaic. polite learning; literary culture; appreciation of letters and books.

I don't understand why some people are acting like harry otter is contributing to the downfall of society. literature has always been more of an entertainment than an art form.

[PeterL]

I odn't understand why some people are acting like harry otter is contributing to the downfall of society. literature has always been more of an entertainment than an art form.

I strongly agree. Perhaps some people think that literature is literature only if they give it permission.

[JCamilo]

Well actually neither of you are wrong...


Actually,he is wrong. His definition excluses PeterL definition, both cannt be right. Peter is right of course... And Literature have not been more enterteiment than art. It was first and foremost art, then information was added.

[Mr.lucifer]

Actually,he is wrong. His definition excluses PeterL definition, both cannt be right. Peter is right of course... And Literature have not been more enterteiment than art. It was first and foremost art, then information was added.

If you define lit as including all prose ficiton, thaen yes, it is more entertainment than art. The same goes for all mediums. I actually think harry potter will last. Its just too popular of a series to fade into obscurity.

[TurquoiseSunset]

Actually,he is wrong. His definition excluses PeterL definition, both cannt be right.

If you consider the dictionary definition of 'literature' neither are wrong. It could be either. PeterL and KeilJ just use it differently.

Anyway, let's agree to disagree...

[Whifflingpin]

"And Literature have not been more enterteiment than art. It was first and foremost art, then information was added."

Literature was probably first and foremost propaganda

[JCamilo]

If you consider the dictionary definition of 'literature' neither are wrong. It could be either. PeterL and KeilJ just use it differently.

Anyway, let's agree to disagree...

None of the single defitions in the dictionary implies the work must have literary merit, which is a judgment and not a defintion. It just implies form and expression are in conection ideas of permanent interest.
Sonnet is a form, a love sonnet deals with an idea of permanent interest, it may have no merit, but it do works with the first entry, which is the only one remotelly suggested by "merit".
As I said, both definitions are exclusive, PeterL is the only who actually matches the dictionary, the other is just judgmental.

[TurquoiseSunset]

None of the single defitions in the dictionary implies the work must have literary merit, which is a judgment and not a defintion. It just implies form and expression are in conection ideas of permanent interest.
Sonnet is a form, a love sonnet deals with an idea of permanent interest, it may have no merit, but it do works with the first entry, which is the only one remotelly suggested by "merit".
As I said, both definitions are exclusive, PeterL is the only who actually matches the dictionary, the other is just judgmental.

Sorry, I obviously misunderstood what you were saying. See I personally think whether or not something has literary merit is a question of personal taste...but like you've seen some think Harold Bloom and the like have the last say, which is something I do not agree with whole-heartedly.

There is a thread for this kind of discussion, and if we don't cease and desist this kind of chat here, Sche will delete our posts :D

[Nikhar]

I just completed reading the seventh part again few minutes ago. I don't know if the way she writes is of enough merit or not but one thing I do feel is that the plot she fabricated is complex and ingenious and as I would like to call it , awesum! It's such a cleverly crafted puzzle where slowly and steadily pieces fit by so perfectly.

Another thing, I really felt for the characters. Even with me being a guy, there were about 3-4 chapters where I cried when some of the characters died (whoa, it's so easier to admit online that you cried ... but I guess, thats because people can't make all those sniggering faces on net :p). When dobby died for instance or when we hear Snape's version of the story, those parts really moved me.

[TurquoiseSunset]

I just completed reading the seventh part again few minutes ago. I don't know if the way she writes is of enough merit or not but one thing I do feel is that the plot she fabricated is complex and ingenious and as I would like to call it , awesum! It's such a cleverly crafted puzzle where slowly and steadily pieces fit by so perfectly.

I totally agree :D

[JCamilo]

Sorry, I obviously misunderstood what you were saying. See I personally think whether or not something has literary merit is a question of personal taste...but like you've seen some think Harold Bloom and the like have the last say, which is something I do not agree with whole-heartedly.

There is a thread for this kind of discussion, and if we don't cease and desist this kind of chat here, Sche will delete our posts :D

Well, only if she is mad for having to be awake for 1001 straight nights :D
After all, the topic of this thread is why a given book is literature or not, so the definition of literature is on topic. One of the reasons why the literary merit is not a good definition is because it is circular: You can only find literary merit on something you already consider literary.
If I judge HP by literary merit and I think it is not literature, I am crazy. Like looking a painting and saying "It lacks a better dialogue, no literary merit"...

[kocker]

Once you have read the same number of books as Harold Bloom, and, like him, memorised Shakespeare's complete works, then you may get the right to say what is literature or not.

You don't necessarily need to be a book-worm to be a poet, although to study the classics is a must if someone pretends to categorize Potter as great literature or not. I think, HP is just a fad. The majority of people are awed by the phenomenon, but that doesn't make it immortal literature.

On the other hand, memorizing Shakespeare Perhaps is not the question: The question would be:

"A truly good book teaches me better than to read it. I must soon lay it down, and commence living on its hint. What I began by reading, I must finish by acting."
Henry David Thoreau

Just memorising the text and the beauty of the prose does not necessarily mean that you've digested the meaning, the depth of it. Although I don't know Harold Bloom in his case I may be mistaken.

:yesnod:

[kocker]

Nikhar wrote:

I just completed reading the seventh part again few minutes ago. I don't know if the way she writes is of enough merit or not but one thing I do feel is that the plot she fabricated is complex and ingenious and as I would like to call it , awesum! It's such a cleverly crafted puzzle where slowly and steadily pieces fit by so perfectly.

ME: That's it, the writing is clever, but, that doesn't make it a classic.

Nikhar wrote:

Another thing, I really felt for the characters. Even with me being a guy, there were about 3-4 chapters where I cried when some of the characters died (whoa, it's so easier to admit online that you cried ... but I guess, thats because people can't make all those sniggering faces on net :p). When dobby died for instance or when we hear Snape's version of the story, those parts really moved me.

There are people who find rap, and all that kind of music "moving". I'm not comparing your situation to that but that is just a personal and relative reaction of yours regarding HP. Again, I cried when I went to see a dinousaurs movie with my dad and a T-rex devoured a Brontosaurus...:brow:

[kelby_lake]

I don't consider Harry Potter literature in the sense that I would study it at university (unless it was a creative writing course).

[stlukesguild]

I don't understand why some people are acting like harry otter is contributing to the downfall of society. literature has always been more of an entertainment than an art form.

So what defines a work of literature as "art" as opposed to "entertainment"?

I actually think harry potter will last. Its just too popular of a series to fade into obscurity.

And this is based upon what? How many works of literature from the past were incredibly popular in their day... and now are completely forgotten? The popularity of a work of art at the time it is first released to the public has absolutely no bearing upon its aesthetic merit or whether it will or will not last.

I personally think whether or not something has literary merit is a question of personal taste...

And you would be wrong. There are books, and works of music, and works of art that I don't particularly like. Does this mean they have no merit? I'm not self-centered enough to believe that my personal taste is the last word upon what does or does not have artistic merit. Artistic merit is decided upon by the larger body of those who invest the most in the particular art form. In the case of literature, this means not only the critics and academics and university professors but also the subsequent writers and subsequent generations of informed readers... or as Virginia Wolf termed them, the not-so-common "common readers".

Whether you or I agree of not, Shakespeare holds a towering position within the realm of literature. His literary merit is not a matter of personal opinion; it is fact. He has had a profound impact upon generations of critics, academics, writers, and readers. Again, you or I may personally find nothing in his his work that interests us, but that in no way undermines his literary merit.

[Ecurb]

There was a time, not long ago, when NO novels were considered "literature". Unlike poetry, plays, biographies and histories, they were too light and frivolous.

[G L Wilson]

I think that Harry Potter is not a fad and that it is here to stay. I have never read even one of the books, therefore my opinion counts for nought. But I always have an opinion no matter its worth.

[dwdean]

i have read none of the Potter series. i have HEARD however, that the literary style of the first book is superb. once it went big time, however, quality was traded for cash in the subsequent books...
again, that is only what i've heard. like G L, my opinion counts for nought, though i still like to voice it.

[Red-Headed]

There was a time, not long ago, when NO novels were considered "literature". Unlike poetry, plays, biographies and histories, they were too light and frivolous.

It's worth pointing out that in the Elizabethan/Jacobean era even plays weren't considered 'literature'.

[JeanWill]

I'm assuming the original poster assumed 'literature' to mean 'great literature', otherwise we don't have a thread. It is not literature because the gatekeepers of literature do not consider it worthy of the title. For instance, Harold Bloom:

http://1xn.org/softspeakers/PDFs/bloom.pdf

Also, random posters to a group can't decide if something is literature, or not, just as they can't decide if string theory is valid physics or not. The acknowledged experts in literature decide what is literature or not.

You, may, of course, say that you like reading Harry Potter. But, if you haven't read much else, then why should anyone take your view as being a good reading recommendation?

Once you have read the same number of books as Harold Bloom, and, like him, memorised Shakespeare's complete works, then you may get the right to say what is literature or not.

Harry Potter is popular fiction, certainly, because the franchise sells a lot of books. That doesn't mean Harry Potter is worth reading. This might upset people who have read Harry Potter and enjoyed it. All I can say is, I read a lot of penny-dreadful science fantasy when I was a kid, and enjoyed it at the time When I grew up I developed some taste. I wish someone with better taste (e.g., Lokasenna and Harold Bloom) had directed me to better reading when I was a kid...

P.S. I don't think Pullman is very good either. His imagination is lacking. 'Dust' is a bad metaphor for spiritual concepts, and making it something literal just makes things worse.
Only pretentious snobs with too much time on their hands would claim to have memorized the entire works of Shakespeare. Read and appreciate, but good lord, move on to another book, or go for a walk and experience life.

[Drkshadow03]

Only pretentious snobs with too much time on their hands would claim to have memorized the entire works of Shakespeare. Read and appreciate, but good lord, move on to another book, or go for a walk and experience life.

Eh, don't pay attention to Mal4mac when he opines on topics like these. He hasn't had a single thought about literature that Harold Bloom didn't put in there. Not to mention he is factually wrong in this instance. The scholarly literature and reviews that I have read suggest if anything most professors are split on Harry Potter or indifferent, with a bunch dismissing it outright and others arguing that it is good literature (at least, good Children's Literature). To rely on the opinions of one or two critics, even well-regarded ones, would be like me claiming 2001: A Space Odyssey directed by Kubrick is bad movie because critic Stephen Hunter of the Washington Post slammed it, while ignoring every other critic that doesn't share his opinion (in this case, pretty much all of them).

[JCamilo]

Obviously, Bloom, who may have decorated Shakespeare (and by what I heard from people who saw him in class, Proust, Emily Dickinson, Wordsworth, etc) did it with a long life dedicated to his job, which is studying literature.

Asking him to get a walk, have a life, read other books is the true snobbery.

[kelby_lake]

I sincerely doubt Bloom 'memorised' the whole of Shakespeare's works. If his memory is this good, maybe he should be on the stage!

[YesNo]

For what it's worth, my daughters both liked the Harry Potter books, and all of the movies, and would likely consider the books "literature". I know this doesn't count as a Harold Bloom endorsement.

I haven't specifically asked them whether they think Harry Potter is "literature" because I don't want them to think I'm an idiot for even doubting it.

[kelby_lake]

Just because the HP series isn't literature (in the sense of being a classic), it doesn't mean that they are awful pieces of trash that only the uneducated would even dare to pick up. 'Literature' is simply literature that is considered worthy of academic study.

[Aylinn]

It depends what is understood by the word 'literature'.

I voted 'yes', because whether I like it or not Harry Potter matches my definition.

It is not great literature. I have definitely read better books in my life, but I have no reason to say that Harry Potter isn't literature.

Furthermore, I don't think that these books are as bad as many people make them out to be. There are not so great ideas there or ideas that could have been done better cough the idea of deathly hallows cough. Nevertheless, this series has some things that are done properly.

[bookclover]

First of all I want to say that I love Harry Potter. I think JK Rowling did a fab job and I enjoy(ed) reading all books, even more than I loved watching the movies.

Is Harry potter great literature? Well, it might not and it is not if compared to 'big names' such as Shakespeare, Fielding, V. Woolf...but having said that I think HP succeeded in something no many others, 'classics', managed in achieving: people/kids reading. I know people who do not like reading, at all. Still, when HP books came out they went to their local bookshop, bought it and read it. Most of them did so all in one go. That's fab!

Therefore, HP might not be the best book ever written, nor the best. But it helped people learning what it feels like to read a book and that's its real magic. Reading is a fantastic experience, enriching and relaxing. But so many people just never tried it. And if a book, any book, can turn these ones into readers than the book must be special somehow.

[Alexander III]

First of all I want to say that I love Harry Potter. I think JK Rowling did a fab job and I enjoy(ed) reading all books, even more than I loved watching the movies.

Is Harry potter great literature? Well, it might not and it is not if compared to 'big names' such as Shakespeare, Fielding, V. Woolf...but having said that I think HP succeeded in something no many others, 'classics', managed in achieving: people/kids reading. I know people who do not like reading, at all. Still, when HP books came out they went to their local bookshop, bought it and read it. Most of them did so all in one go. That's fab!

Therefore, HP might not be the best book ever written, nor the best. But it helped people learning what it feels like to read a book and that's its real magic. Reading is a fantastic experience, enriching and relaxing. But so many people just never tried it. And if a book, any book, can turn these ones into readers than the book must be special somehow.


Very well said, and I completely agree.

Most of the people on these forums are voracious readers, so it is hard for us to think of a time when we did not enjoy the company of books; but I remember how my mind was blown the first time I became engrossed with a book. That Harry Potter shows this world to many new people is great.

[cl154576]

When I was younger I liked Harry Potter more. Now that I've started reading more classical literature, I find that it isn't as impressive in comparison. I don't think Harry Potter will disappear immediately; I just think modern tastes have changed overall. Lighter reads sometimes have more appeal, especially to children.

[Heteronym]

Therefore, HP might not be the best book ever written, nor the best. But it helped people learning what it feels like to read a book and that's its real magic. Reading is a fantastic experience, enriching and relaxing. But so many people just never tried it. And if a book, any book, can turn these ones into readers than the book must be special somehow.

I've always been curious to know how many people remained regular readers after Harry Potter? Did they become readers of just fans of Harry Potter? Have they ventured into other books, or are they just re-reading the novels ad nauseam? Did the fans read other books while waiting for the new volumes to come out? Have their tastes changed, matured? I've always been curious about it.

[bookclover]

I've always been curious to know how many people remained regular readers after Harry Potter? Did they become readers of just fans of Harry Potter? Have they ventured into other books, or are they just re-reading the novels ad nauseam? Did the fans read other books while waiting for the new volumes to come out? Have their tastes changed, matured? I've always been curious about it.

I don't think it is about going on reading. I think it is more about getting the habit of doing it. As others said before me I prefer classics, but I am a reader, there's always a book in my bag or next to my bed - and the house is filled up with books. But what about people who do not reader, never? I met a girl - daughter of someone I know - who hated books and schools and all that until she came across HP. She watched the second movie I think and her best friend told her the books were far away better than that. So she began reading and from that moment on she didn't stop. And okay, until now, as far as I know, she only read all HP books and other magic-related titles for kids but at least she now knows books exist and they can change people's lives. So hope is...she will continue and will soon get to know classics too.

And about changing tastes...well...they inevitably change, don't they? I confess I've always been into classics and I tend to re-read books (Little Women, I think I know it by heart) but as years passed I moved from someone who only wanted to read some kind of books to someone who wants to learn, in general. Therefore I even read a few titles by S. King and believe me, it's not my cup of tea! But I tried. I still have my favourite authors and all that but I think I'm more open now.

[JCamilo]

I sincerely doubt Bloom 'memorised' the whole of Shakespeare's works. If his memory is this good, maybe he should be on the stage!


Well, that is part of Mal4mac exageration, which I did not mention. But well, you just mentioned another class of professional who memorize the "whole" shakespeare and watever else and that has nothing to do with having a life. But having a good memory is not exactly the main trait for acting, much less the only one :D