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

[mona amon]

I'm a Harry Potter fan, and I'm starting to get excited about J K Rowling's new book, The Casual Vacancy, which will come out on the 27th. Here's a link to an article about it http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/sep/22/jk-rowling-book-casual-vacancy

I'm a bit aprehensive actually - a non-magical book for adult Muggles? How's that going to work? But I think it's brave of her to write another book when she knows it's not going to be as great as Harry Potter and when she could have just rested on her laurels, and I'm hoping for interesting characters, good plot and humour, and just maybe a little of that quirkiness that made Harry Potter so special.

Good luck to her! :cheers2:

[Charles Darnay]

She sets up a plot that leaves itself open for a series of eccentric characters, and this is where she shines. She does not have much going for her in terms of writing style, but her characters are enjoyable enough that this book may be good.

[Clopin]

"and just maybe a little of that quirkiness that made Harry Potter so special."

Which is present in the first three books (decent books for children) and then fades into the absolute worst four books I've had the displeasure of reading.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

If books 4 and 5 were so horrible, why'd you continue on?

[Charles Darnay]

Book 5 was horrible. I read book 6 hoping the series would redeem itself: it was slightly better but not by much. I considered not reading book 7, but had to know how it ended - also poorly.

[cafolini]

With H P, K R wrote infinite books. That' how I look at it.

[JBI]

Five says it is a generic romance.

[YesNo]

I didn't read any of the Harry Potter books, but I recently saw all 8 of the movies, in order, one per evening, since my daughters have all the movies (as well as at least one copy of each of the books). I found them entertaining and regretted most of all what happened to Dobby, although it looked like something like that was going to happen to him.

So I hope she is equally successful with her new book. An evening will come when I will want something either good to read or good to watch. I glad there are people eager to fulfill that need.

[Clopin]

If books 4 and 5 were so horrible, why'd you continue on?

I like to finish what I start. And the books take one to two days to read so it's not as though I wasted a big chunk of time.

[mona amon]

Five says it is a generic romance.

What is the meaning of generic romance? If it's like Harlequin romances, then no, I'm willing to bet anything she wouldn't try that.


She sets up a plot that leaves itself open for a series of eccentric characters, and this is where she shines. She does not have much going for her in terms of writing style, but her characters are enjoyable enough that this book may be good.

I agree with you about her writing style. But since she has almost everything else going for her (wonderful characters, realistic character interaction, great story telling, humour ranging from childish scatalogical to sophisticated dark humour), I still have hopes for this book.


Book 5 was horrible. I read book 6 hoping the series would redeem itself: it was slightly better but not by much. I considered not reading book 7, but had to know how it ended - also poorly.

For me, I liked books 1 and 2, loved 3 and 4, was a bit disappointed with 5 because the dark evil-ness of Voldemort seemed to be replaced by the unpleasantness of Umbridge's Orwellian regime and I didn't like that at the time. Then came book 6. Its unexpected and horrific ending gave me such a shock that I became an instant Harry Potter fan. You can't be that moved by something and not be a fan! :)

[JBI]

I mean one of those generic ripoffs of Jane Austen that centre around a plot concerning a heterosexual romance that ultimately culminates in marriage.

[Lokasenna]

It is certainly a brave thing to do - let's face it, the chances are it will not match up to the success of the HP books, if only because almost nothing ever could. Even if her new book is merely 'good', people will be disappointed. It's a hell of a lot to re-deliver.

That said, I'm sure her bank account is stable enough! That'll never come under threat. And kudos to her for trying something different - it would have been very easy to write a whole new set of novels based around the universe already created.

[Alexander III]

I mean one of those generic ripoffs of Jane Austen that centre around a plot concerning a heterosexual romance that ultimately culminates in marriage.

You mean a love story?

[hallaig]

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


No me.

[JBI]

You mean a love story?

Yes, but one without anything fresh to offer. And nothing but the love story.

[hallaig]

She's got a big enough fan base to keep the money rolling in no matter how crap it is. As for being brave---people have convinced her, and she's convinced herself, that she's a great writer, so no bravery involved in crossing genres. Scotland's a funny place, our two best known living writers JK and Ian Rankine, are both journeymen.

[Anton Hermes]

It is certainly a brave thing to do - let's face it, the chances are it will not match up to the success of the HP books, if only because almost nothing ever could. Even if her new book is merely 'good', people will be disappointed. It's a hell of a lot to re-deliver.
Just ask Lewis Carroll. After becoming famous with the Alice books, he couldn't give Sylvie & Bruno away.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I'm surprised she's even putting another book out, I thought for she was just going to be a one-trick pony . . . and this new book may still prove me right.

[qimissung]

I agree with Lokasenna. I feel pretty certain people will express disappointment. I'm kind of prepared to be disappointed myself. I wondered if she'd try to write anything else, and if she did how it could compare.

I enjoyed the Harry Potter books. I know she's not a great stylist, but in terms of character and plot she does quite will, I think. And in terms of style, s-o-o-o much better than Twilgiht author Stephenie Meyer.

[Clopin]

All of these people citing good characters must be having a laugh. Which character is well written? None of them is the correct answer.

[mona amon]

She's got a big enough fan base to keep the money rolling in no matter how crap it is. As for being brave---people have convinced her, and she's convinced herself, that she's a great writer, so no bravery involved in crossing genres. Scotland's a funny place, our two best known living writers JK and Ian Rankine, are both journeymen.

While most adult fans of the HP books will go out and buy the book, there's no guarantee that they'll like it or finish it or recommend it to anyone, or that it'll get good reviews, and she knows this. I've heard her saying in some interview that HP was a sort of phenomenon and that she'd never be able to match it.

BTW, I think she's a good writer, so - let's see how it goes.


Which character is well written? None of them is the correct answer.

I'd say all of the characters are well written, even the minor ones. The only exceptions are a couple of Mary Sues, and Voldy himself, who's more or less a cardboard-cutout psychopath villain.

[Varenne Rodin]

How dare anyone write beyond their famous cash cow? Damn the woman to obscurity. Leave off from her. She has had her moment of being special. No need for a second, old lady.

[JBI]

How dare anyone write beyond their famous cash cow? Damn the woman to obscurity. Leave off from her. She has had her moment of being special. No need for a second, old lady.

Relax, we still have ground to criticize, now it is just speculation. If you don't want your work looked at, don't publish it. That's my two sense.

As for damning her to obscurity, she will get her chance in 10 years. I had a professor in China rip on her quite a bit, and he doesn't even read English. It's happening already, people know they are cardboard cut-and-paste novels, there was never any denying it.

The question is, will this card-board cutting remain fresh, in the sense that Dickens' cuttings remained fresh for a century already after his death. Likewise, will we still find the same comical quirkiness in them?

The answer is probably no. The magical world is cute, but it is too eccentric to justify itself altogether. As for the characters, some are cute, but the writing has been clunky, and also the fact that we so associate characters to their movie equivalents is a headache that gives them over to much stronger characterization (for instance, Alan Rickman has in a sense, overacted and overhumanized his character, and it has had an affect on the interpretation of him within the novel).

As for the new book, she is not Dickens, but will need to be, or at least vary her already developed style significantly away from the cartoonage that characterizes such a style. She will ultimately be looked at to do something new and creative that isn't just copy and paste, which is hard. The expectation is high, because everyone in the industry knows, she is marketable as a brand, and a brand is required to deliver.

She is no longer writing for money, she doesn't need it. She is no longer writing for her children fans, they have grown up. She is going to be required to address an adult audience, with a mature text, which is what readers look for in mature books. If she writes a generic romance, which I suspect she did, readers will ask plainly why her and not some other author who perhaps has been writing them for longer, and is more creative with them.

I suspect sales to be ok, but not nowhere as great as the previous books. There has not been any stirring of it on this continent, which means the release will require great acclaim if it will be translate into an international seller (very unlikely, as magical world works, but realism of any sort does not work in a Chinese, or Asian market, reality is too different).


Some will claim this expectation is unfair, but it is completely fair, in that the reason the book is probably published in the first place is that she is an established author - the book wasn't even properly processed and was skipped along in secret, according to the original post. That being true, a product is a product, the question is, does it deserve any recognition based purely on its author's background? I doubt it, but we will need to read to find out.

[TurquoiseSunset]

I don't think HP fans should buy the book just because JK Rowling wrote it. If the story looks interesting to you, then read it. Otherwise a lot of people will buy a book that can never compare to the series they loved. Or maybe, people who would have loved the new novel will never read it, because they didn't like the HP series.

[mona amon]

It's happening already, people know they are cardboard cut-and-paste novels, there was never any denying it.

Rather a sweeping statement! Which people? Cut and pasted from where?



The magical world is cute, but it is too eccentric to justify itself altogether. As for the characters, some are cute, but the writing has been clunky, and also the fact that we so associate characters to their movie equivalents is a headache that gives them over to much stronger characterization (for instance, Alan Rickman has in a sense, overacted and overhumanized his character, and it has had an affect on the interpretation of him within the novel).

Sometimes it's cute, sometimes it's brutal, and mostly it's just a reflection (sometimes a parody) of our own world. The only 'cute' character I can think of is Dobby.

I agree with you that Rickman overhumanized his character, playing him as a strict schoolmaster, but one who has everyone's best interests at heart. But in the books Snape is a far stronger, far more fascinating character, repressed, immmature, petty - with greasy hair, yellow teeth and eyes like cold empty tunnels. Somehow people still find him a ladies man - ah, well...:ladysman:

[Clopin]

She is no longer writing for her children fans, they have grown up. She is going to be required to address an adult audience, with a mature text,

I never understood this. Why did she have to shift to young adult fiction or late teen fiction when her initial batch of readers reached that age? Are there not more children being born in England and America who will want to read more childrens books? Did the works of Beatrix Potter grow up with her radiance?

[Sydneysider]

I enjoyed the HP series. Did not think I would and was surprised.

I may or may not read the next book. It depends what I am into at the time. I am surprised many have strong feelings either way. I don't care enough to bother. Good luck to her.

[Clopin]

I'd say all of the characters are well written, even the minor ones. The only exceptions are a couple of Mary Sues, and Voldy himself, who's more or less a cardboard-cutout psychopath villain.

Harry - Total *******, complains constantly about his incredibly privileged life to his best friend who is comparatively poor, suffers from low stature in the minds of most people and is generally incompetent. Harry only seems to notice this when it prompts Ron to fly into some sort of rage, or tantrum which generally allows harry to fall back on his "MY PARENTS ARE DEEEEEEEEAD" routine that got old on its first utterance. He has a very pigheaded and stupid idea about the "right" thing to do and tends to have very bad, cringe worthy lines of dialogue.

Voldemort - Makes no sense. Supposedly the most powerful evil wizard of all time, never really does anything impressive, loses to Dumbledore repeatedly, he and his entire army can't defeat a school of young adults. Wants to purge muggle borns, is a muggle born (ham fisted reference to Nazi Germany, I guess Hitler wasn't Aryan or something), somehow takes over the ministry and everyone just goes along with it? Despite he and his followers parroting the exact same rhetoric as before, as if Hitler had risen from the dead - but in secret - and had like 6 Neo Nazis take over Germany. Makes perfect sense.

Ron - Actually not too bad, all of the Weaselys are kinda cool.

Malfoy - "WE VILLAIN NOW". A complete **** who acts like a **** because he's a ****! GREAT CHARACTER.

Hermione - She's alright I guess. Bland Archetype.

Dumbledore - Cluster**** of retarded. None of his motivations or ideas make any sense, for some reason doesn't get involved in anything serious despite Cornelius Fudge smoking some serious herb for his entire term.

Snape - He's aight.

[TheFifthElement]

If she writes a generic romance, which I suspect she did, readers will ask plainly why her and not some other author who perhaps has been writing them for longer, and is more creative with them.


It isn't a romance, blurb for the book is as follows:



When Barry Fairbrother dies in his early forties, the town of Pagford is left in shock.

Pagford is, seemingly, an English idyll, with a cobbled market square and an ancient abbey, but what lies behind the pretty facade is a town at war.

Rich at war with poor, teenagers at war with their parents, wives at war with their husbands, teachers at war with their pupils... Pagford is not what it first seems.

And the empty seat left by Barry on the parish council soon becomes the catalyst for the biggest war the town has yet seen. Who will triumph in an election fraught with passion, duplicity and unexpected revelations?

I'm not particularly interested in the book, but I do think the curiosity factor will carry this one. I think the measure of Rowling's 'success' as a writer for adults will be in the next book (assuming there is one).

[Clopin]

Rather a sweeping statement! Which people? Cut and pasted from where?


From her own model? Book 1. The kids arrive at school, attend lessons, face some magical problem related to voldemort or something, solve it. Book 2. Back in school, attend lessons, face some magical problem related to voldemort or somethig, solve it. Book 3. The kids arrive at school, attend lessons, face some magical problem related to voldemort or something, solve it. Book 4, etc etc etc

[Sydneysider]

Hi Clopin.
Please don't forget Harry was an abused child forced to live in a cupboard. Hardly a nice life living with people who resent you.

[Charles Darnay]

Hi Clopin.
Please don't forget Harry was an abused child forced to live in a cupboard. Hardly a nice life living with people who resent you.

But there never was a big deal made of this, was there? At the end of most books, character X says something to the effect of "it's a shame he has to go back to those people, but I guess he must"" with no regard for the fact that he was abused, beaten, starved (probably). And I'm sorry, but if you were an abused child, you don't go rushing headlong into the situations he does.

Edit: of course, I realize analyzing Harry Potter for psychological realism is absurd.

[phoenixtears]

Hmmm.... J K Rowling with a new book. I heard her in an interview sometime ago saying that she was writing a political fairy-tale (don't know what that means) but this seems to be different.It would be interesting to see how the book is taken by the masses. I'm looking forward to reading the book because I liked the Harry Potter series, merely for the magical world created in them.

[mona amon]

I enjoyed the HP series. Did not think I would and was surprised.

I may or may not read the next book. It depends what I am into at the time. I am surprised many have strong feelings either way. I don't care enough to bother. Good luck to her.

I too am surprised by some of the extreme negative reactions this series provokes. I don't see anyone going out on a limb trying to 'prove' just how awful the Dan Brown or Twilight books are, but reputed critic Harold Bloom and excellent author A S Byatt have made fools of themseves with their completely asinine criticisms of HP.

[Sydneysider]

Professional jealousy. :-)

[Sydneysider]

More Harry Potter???

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/books/rowling-not-ruling-out-another-potter-20120926-26ljl.html

[Charles Darnay]

I too am surprised by some of the extreme negative reactions this series provokes. I don't see anyone going out on a limb trying to 'prove' just how awful the Dan Brown or Twilight books are, but reputed critic Harold Bloom and excellent author A S Byatt have made fools of themseves with their completely asinine criticisms of HP.

I think the difference is that popular society has done a great job on its own of tearing apart Dan Brown and Twilight. Harry Potter's place, however, seems to be "this miraculous series that turned a generation onto reading" - and this is what irks critics, I think.

[Calidore]

Here's an early review in the Chicago Tribune.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/books/sns-ap-us-book-review-rowling-20120925,0,1197037.story

[JBI]

I think the difference is that popular society has done a great job on its own of tearing apart Dan Brown and Twilight. Harry Potter's place, however, seems to be "this miraculous series that turned a generation onto reading" - and this is what irks critics, I think.

If Twilight enjoyed anywhere near as close to the size of the market share, it would have. Dan Brown has been ripped into a lot as well.


Here's an early review in the Chicago Tribune.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/books/sns-ap-us-book-review-rowling-20120925,0,1197037.story

I don't know about the book, but the Chicago Tribune should fire her, she is a terrible reviewer. What a prosaic and dull reading, I bet you she didn't even read/finish the book. It seems like something anybody could have cooked up by reading the blurb on the back (the summary seems word for word).

Seriously what a tedious review - the deep emotional complexity? Harry Potter? Even my professor in China knows they are stick-figure heroes, and he reads Chinese stick-figure heroes for a living.

[Sydneysider]

Dreadful review. It read as a press release. Way too much fawning over the author.

[mona amon]

I don't know about the book, but the Chicago Tribune should fire her, she is a terrible reviewer. What a prosaic and dull reading, I bet you she didn't even read/finish the book. It seems like something anybody could have cooked up by reading the blurb on the back (the summary seems word for word).

Seriously what a tedious review - the deep emotional complexity? Harry Potter? Even my professor in China knows they are stick-figure heroes, and he reads Chinese stick-figure heroes for a living.

I don't know about 'deep emotional complexity' of the HP characters or whether it's even necessary since the books are plot driven rather than character driven. Certainly I've never thought of the characters as emotionally complex. But I do know that they are well drawn, multifaceted, convincing, and most important, they're characters whom you can care about.

The most recent book I tried to read was Run by Ann Patchett. I think she's considered a good writer, and her Bel Canto got good reviews here on this forum. I struggled through about half the book, but found that I didn't care what the characters did, or said, or what happened to them, and I gave up. I'm sure Jo Rowling will do better than this.

[TurquoiseSunset]

Here's another review (http://entertainment.time.com/2012/09/27/j-k-rowlings-the-casual-vacancy-weve-read-it-heres-what-we-thought/), by Lev Grossman for Time Entertainment.

[Sydneysider]

I have no opinion. I have not read the novel.

Here is a question: Who thinks the HP movies will be remade in 20 years?

[YesNo]

Here's another review (http://entertainment.time.com/2012/09/27/j-k-rowlings-the-casual-vacancy-weve-read-it-heres-what-we-thought/), by Lev Grossman for Time Entertainment.

That was an excellent review. It gave me enough convincing details and motivation to make me want to read Rowling's new book.

For comparison, here's Harold Bloom's scornful review twelve years ago: http://www.fanpop.com/spots/harry-potter-vs-twilight/articles/96481/title/can-35-million-book-buyers-wrong-yes-harold-bloom

Comparing the two reviews, Grossman is a far better reviewer than Bloom. When reading Grossman, I learn about Rowling's new book. When reading Bloom, I learn about Bloom's ego.

Now I have a soft spot for Bloom. He introduced me to the idea that the original writer of the main stories of Genesis, known as J, was likely someone from Solomon's court, likely a female, and so likely Solomon's mother, Bathsheba. That got me reading more of Bloom's writing which quickly disappointed.

At the moment, I'm under the impression, largely from reading Bloom, that many literary critics are little more than parasites. The goal of these critics is to get their names associated in some way with people who have better known names than their own and then either pass a good judgment or a bad judgment to start sapping some of the celebrity from their betters to themselves. They are not interested in telling their readers anything of value nor even in entertaining their readers.

In the case of Harry Potter, I suspect Harry Bloom calculated that scorning Rowling's writing would make him look superior to her or, if that didn't work, getting his name associated with Rowling's would make it look as if somehow he was at her level. He's neither.

[Lokasenna]

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

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

[JBI]

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

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

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

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

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


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

[Aylinn]

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

[Drkshadow03]

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

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

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

[mona amon]

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

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

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

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

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

This is it, basically -

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


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

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

Love 'Mugglemarch'. :lol:

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

[Lokasenna]

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

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

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

[Pierre Menard]

http://www.wetpaint.com/network/articles/top-5-raunchiest-quotes-from-jk-rowlings-new-book-the-casual-vacancy

Some of those lines are laughable.

"Miraculously unguarded vagina".

[YesNo]

http://www.wetpaint.com/network/articles/top-5-raunchiest-quotes-from-jk-rowlings-new-book-the-casual-vacancy

Some of those lines are laughable.

"Miraculously unguarded vagina".

Actually, I kind of liked that line. :)

[Clopin]

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

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

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

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

[Aylinn]

1. The Harry Potter books lack 'authentic imaginative vision'. (Proved by the fact that Bloom thinks so)
Actually, he has a point. A school where children learn how to use magic is interesting if someone hasn't read a lot of children books. It's not an original idea.

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

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

[JBI]

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

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

[YesNo]

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

[Aylinn]

The first set of books balance the two, but from my understanding the last two completely lose it. As a result, it would seem most of the cute minor characters do not develop in the end,
To me it seemed that Ginny, in the sixth book, becomes a major character. But I admit I haven't read it for years, so I may be mistaken.


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


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

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

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

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

[Drkshadow03]

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

This is it, basically -

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



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

[JBI]

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

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

[Drkshadow03]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[JCamilo]

But he does exactly this. This is the paragraph just after he mentions creative vision:

"The ultimate model for Harry Potter is "Tom Brown's School Days" by Thomas Hughes, published in 1857. The book depicts the Rugby School presided over by the formidable Thomas Arnold, remembered now primarily as the father of Matthew Arnold, the Victorian critic-poet. But Hughes' book, still quite readable, was realism, not fantasy. Rowling has taken "Tom Brown's School Days" and re-seen it in the magical mirror of Tolkein. The resultant blend of a schoolboy ethos with a liberation from the constraints of reality-testing may read oddly to me, but is exactly what millions of children and their parents desire and welcome at this time."

Just like Aylinn did. Later he also compares the obvious Gandalf-Dumbledore model similarity. It is ok to point how vague 7 cliches each page is (even because use of cliche is not exactly a problem) but putting in doubt the critic to market preferences over quality that explains the HP numbers is a bit too much here.

[Drkshadow03]

But he does exactly this. This is the paragraph just after he mentions creative vision:

"The ultimate model for Harry Potter is "Tom Brown's School Days" by Thomas Hughes, published in 1857. The book depicts the Rugby School presided over by the formidable Thomas Arnold, remembered now primarily as the father of Matthew Arnold, the Victorian critic-poet. But Hughes' book, still quite readable, was realism, not fantasy. Rowling has taken "Tom Brown's School Days" and re-seen it in the magical mirror of Tolkein. The resultant blend of a schoolboy ethos with a liberation from the constraints of reality-testing may read oddly to me, but is exactly what millions of children and their parents desire and welcome at this time."

Just like Aylinn did. Later he also compares the obvious Gandalf-Dumbledore model similarity. It is ok to point how vague 7 cliches each page is (even because use of cliche is not exactly a problem) but putting in doubt the critic to market preferences over quality that explains the HP numbers is a bit too much here.

Notice what I wrote in response already:


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

Aylinn's argument is different in that it specifically mentions stories about "magic schools" and pointing out how that exact combination has been done before. Bloom is merely mentioning predecessors of two separate genres that Rowling brings together, which doesn't really tell us why that is unoriginal necessarily and could even be read as a point in favor of her imaginative vision.

I'm putting down the critic because I don't think this is a good example of criticism.

[YesNo]

Although this is something of a side issue, I was wondering what those 7 cliches on page 4 of the Scorcerer's Stone were that bothered Bloom so much.

I did find "stretch his legs", but personally, I don't see anything wrong with it. Is "broad daylight" a cliche? Is "eyed them angrily" a cliche? OK, I suppose "stopped dead" is a cliche, but again, so what? Is "snapped at his secretary" a cliche?

What were those cliches on page 4 anyway?

Bloom starts his own article off with "Taking arms against Harry Potter" which has got to be a cliche, worse than anything on page 4. Or, to put this another way, if "stretching his legs" is a cliche, Bloom doesn't seem to be able to practice what he preaches.

In the Wikipedia article about Bloom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Bloom, under the "Criticism and Controversy" section is this paragraph:


In the early 21st century, Bloom has often found himself at the center of literary controversy after criticizing popular writers such as Adrienne Rich, Maya Angelou, Stephen King, and J. K. Rowling. In the pages of the Paris Review, he criticized the populist-leaning poetry slam, saying, "It is the death of art." When Doris Lessing was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature, he bemoaned the "pure political correctness" of the award to an author of "fourth-rate science fiction."

It looks like his rants go beyond Harry Potter.

[JCamilo]

Really? are you discovering Bloom has done several attacks on genre literature? The very article is filled with Tolkien's attacks and a snide mention to Stephen King, no?




Aylinn's argument is different in that it specifically mentions stories about "magic schools" and pointing out how that exact combination has been done before. Bloom is merely mentioning predecessors of two separate genres that Rowling brings together, which doesn't really tell us why that is unoriginal necessarily and could even be read as a point in favor of her imaginative vision.

I'm putting down the critic because I don't think this is a good example of criticism.

His point about originality is not about who first blended magic and real world and he consider she brings her idea from those books. So, it is far from he not justifying his claims mentioning the "original" books, rather you thinking he is wrong. He does justify, if you agree or not does not matter.

I am sure, anyone can fill a long series of influence over her, perhaps better even than Bloom who seems to ignore anything beyond literature and no book came from life from red clay, so all books have it, but saying HP series lack originality is far from mistake and he addressed the point in the essay.

[mona amon]

Really? are you discovering Bloom has done several attacks on genre literature? The very article is filled with Tolkien's attacks and a snide mention to Stephen King, no?




His point about originality is not about who first blended magic and real world and he consider she brings her idea from those books. So, it is far from he not justifying his claims mentioning the "original" books, rather you thinking he is wrong. He does justify, if you agree or not does not matter.

I am sure, anyone can fill a long series of influence over her, perhaps better even than Bloom who seems to ignore anything beyond literature and no book came from life from red clay, so all books have it, but saying HP series lack originality is far from mistake and he addressed the point in the essay.

Bloom makes a statement that the Harry Potter books, unlike the Wizard of Oz lack an 'authentic imaginative vision'. Nowhere does he say why he thinks they lack this, or why he thinks the Wizard of Oz has this authentic imaginative vision. You, just like Bloom, make a statement that he has justified his statement, but do not demonstrate where or how he does this.

Here is the relevant passage from his article -


I read new children's literature, when I can find some of any value, but had not tried Rowling until now. I have just concluded the 300 pages of the first book in the series, "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone," purportedly the best of the lot. Though the book is not well written, that is not in itself a crucial liability. It is much better to see the movie, "The Wizard of Oz," than to read the book upon which it was based, but even the book possessed an authentic imaginative vision. "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" does not, so that one needs to look elsewhere for the book's (and its sequels') remarkable success. Such speculation should follow an account of how and why Harry Potter asks to be read.

The ultimate model for Harry Potter is "Tom Brown's School Days" by Thomas Hughes, published in 1857. The book depicts the Rugby School presided over by the formidable Thomas Arnold, remembered now primarily as the father of Matthew Arnold, the Victorian critic-poet. But Hughes' book, still quite readable, was realism, not fantasy. Rowling has taken "Tom Brown's School Days" and re-seen it in the magical mirror of Tolkein. The resultant blend of a schoolboy ethos with a liberation from the constraints of reality-testing may read oddly to me, but is exactly what millions of children and their parents desire and welcome at this time.

First he states that Wizard of Oz possessed an authentic imaginative vision. Next he states that the HP books do not. Then he goes on to search for possible reasons for their popularity. There's absolutely no attempt at justifying his statement whatsoever, and the rest of the article is just like this. It's one of the silliest things I've ever read.


Although this is something of a side issue, I was wondering what those 7 cliches on page 4 of the Scorcerer's Stone were that bothered Bloom so much.

I did find "stretch his legs", but personally, I don't see anything wrong with it. Is "broad daylight" a cliche? Is "eyed them angrily" a cliche? OK, I suppose "stopped dead" is a cliche, but again, so what? Is "snapped at his secretary" a cliche?

What were those cliches on page 4 anyway?

Bloom starts his own article off with "Taking arms against Harry Potter" which has got to be a cliche, worse than anything on page 4. Or, to put this another way, if "stretching his legs" is a cliche, Bloom doesn't seem to be able to practice what he preaches.

This is exactly what I was thinking when I read that part of the article. Well said!

[JBI]

It's an introduction, he elaborates bellow why he thinks it lacks imaginative vision ala the Tolkien and Victorian schoolday books and whatnot. He does not need to give a sentence by sentence account, he is writing from an economic perspective on why 35million people could read a book that perhaps is not good, and how a badly written book can have such an influence. He is not writing a report on why Harry Potter is bad, he assumes you already know that.

[mona amon]

he elaborates bellow why he thinks it lacks imaginative vision ala the Tolkien and Victorian schoolday books and whatnot. He does not need to give a sentence by sentence account,

No he does not, and no one's asking for a sentence by sentence account. What he does here is claim that Rowling has taken the Tom Brown's schooldays ethos, reseen it in Tolkein's magic mirror, and the resultant combination of school world + fantasy is what children love about Harry Potter. He's looking for the reason for the books' remarkable success, despite the fact that they lack 'authentic imaginative vision' and this is the explanation that he finds.

If he's actually claiming that the HP books are merely and only a combination of school world + fantasy and absolutely nothing else, and that that such a combination lacks imaginative vision, it's still only a statement. Bloom thinks so, therefore it is so. Yawn.


he is writing from an economic perspective on why 35million people could read a book that perhaps is not good, and how a badly written book can have such an influence.

You are quite right, at least about what he's trying to do. That's what makes it such a silly bit of writing, right there. Isn't saying that large sales have absolutely nothing to do with a book's literary merit similar to saying the sky is blue? Everyone knows it is true. We don't need a reputed literary critic to write a whole article to try and convince us of that.

[JCamilo]

You really do not understand that being the copy of two other books is the reason why the book is not authentic? He just justify his claim by pointing exactly from where she - in his opinion - borrowed the ideas, thus HP is not original, not autentic? You may disagree those where JK sources, but it is false to say he didnt provide a reason why he consider them not autentic.

And it is strange, a few pages you said:

4. Huge sales do not prove that a book is good (Who on earth said it did? Sounds like a great big strawman to me)

Now the big strawman is something silly, everyone knows about?

Bloom articlle is not a great deal, but your crtics of it seems to be way off.

[mona amon]

You really do not understand that being the copy of two other books is the reason why the book is not authentic?

He's saying that the HP books are school stories like Tom Brown's Schooldays, but with elements of magic like Tolkien's books, and that's what makes them so popular with kids. He does not say that's the reason for him thinking she lacks imaginative vision. You're the one I think, who doesn't understand.

But if I'm wrong and your understanding of it is correct, he'd be even more silly than I'm accusing him of being. As I said in my earlier post,
If he's actually claiming that the HP books are merely and only a combination of school world + fantasy and absolutely nothing else, and that that such a combination lacks imaginative vision, it's still only a statement. Bloom thinks so, therefore it is so. Yawn. A bald, unsupported statement is not a reason.

[YesNo]

It's an introduction, he elaborates bellow why he thinks it lacks imaginative vision ala the Tolkien and Victorian schoolday books and whatnot. He does not need to give a sentence by sentence account, he is writing from an economic perspective on why 35million people could read a book that perhaps is not good, and how a badly written book can have such an influence. He is not writing a report on why Harry Potter is bad, he assumes you already know that.

The problem, JBI, is that the HP books are not badly written.

So why is Bloom claiming that they are? That is the real mystery here. Why does Bloom himself have any influence at all? And why is anyone defending him?

[Drkshadow03]

You really do not understand that being the copy of two other books is the reason why the book is not authentic? He just justify his claim by pointing exactly from where she - in his opinion - borrowed the ideas, thus HP is not original, not autentic? You may disagree those where JK sources, but it is false to say he didnt provide a reason why he consider them not autentic.



But that isn't a good reason for why it lacks imaginative vision. I could say Milton lacks an imaginative vision. Milton ripped off Genesis 1,2, and 3. I didn't say Bloom doesn't attempt to justify the claim; I pointed that out in my first post. I'm saying it's a crappy argument without further qualifications. Whereas Aylinn's version is more direct and better version of the argument.

[JCamilo]

He's saying that the HP books are school stories like Tom Brown's Schooldays, but with elements of magic like Tolkien's books, and that's what makes them so popular with kids. He does not say that's the reason for him thinking she lacks imaginative vision. You're the one I think, who doesn't understand.

Obviously, he is doing both. When someone claims something lacks originality and then points where the elements of a book are found before, he justifies his claim. He does not need to write "I think they lack..." to make it so.


But if I'm wrong and your understanding of it is correct, he'd be even more silly than I'm accusing him of being. As I said in my earlier post, A bald, unsupported statement is not a reason.

The problem is that if I am right, it is not an unsupported statement. (I hardly doubt anyone can make a case towards orginality for HP. It is pretty much obvious there is not much of it there.) and considering his point is that reading the classic books is better than reading a fashion book, mentioning the originality is just a way to argue the readers of HP could find what they enjoy in other better books. The bold statment that he is silly needs a little more I think.

[JBI]

The problem, JBI, is that the HP books are not badly written.

So why is Bloom claiming that they are? That is the real mystery here. Why does Bloom himself have any influence at all? And why is anyone defending him?

Like or hate the books, they are badly written. You can argue all you want, but I will tell you right now, nobody is going to agree that the writing style is good, or great. Bloom sites the overuse of dry Cliches as evidence, I would say the books themselves read like melodrama.

Writing quality is not Ms. Rowling's specialty, regardless of how much you like the book. Some say it is in her world-building, some in her characterization, but it is definitely not in her prose.

I am trying to be constructive but it is so difficult with Fanboys and fangirls who put their own adoration of a text in front of their critical judgment.


As for why Bloom has influence, it is simple, he has probably been the single biggest literary critic in the American academies in the last 50 years. He is also one of a slim minority that crossed over into the mass public, as a promoter of literacy and of loving reading - the polemics aside, his main argument is that people should read the best of the best, and should discuss the best of the best. Nobody should really dispute that argument, regardless of the particulars.

Why is anybody defending him? Well, I will apply the threads derailed logic in a reverse context. You are criticizing him for saying the books were bad, yet nobody here has proven that they are good. They say they are well written, but are they actually? Can you prove prove it.

I had a conversation the other day with some of my rabid classmates over Jin Yong novels, when I mentioned that all the female characters are virtually the same. One disagreed and called me an idiot, the other called me an ignorant white guy, and then the third told me to ask the professor, who has written on them extensively, so that he could tell me how stupid I am. So I asked him, and he replied, you are absolutely right, that is a fair and true criticism.

You see my point, just because you adore things doesn't mean you can give up your critical judgment and say they are all 100% great. Bloom has not told people to not read Harry Potter, he is responding to a context, a phenomenon, where people are picking up the books, and librarians are calling them God's gift to literacy - 35million people - and we now see people reading, isn't it terrific?. He is responding, in a sense, to Potter Mania, which at the time the article was written, was far stronger than it is now (nobody can deny it, even if the books still sell). He is in a business periodical commenting on can this phenomenon save the world, and has it remade Children's literature - as it changed policy on the the way we review books, as he mentioned.

You can agree or disagree on their classic status, but rates of reading as he was writing the article in the US, and overall literacy were in decline. He had a point that the books weren't God's gift to the literate world, and would not save reading, and would not lead kids on to read better books any more than anything else. That is his point.

His criticism as to the actual text is secondary, it is basically saying, here is the truth, it is just a book, with a rather common plot, a rather unoriginal concept, and a very British sense of itself.

It is the same with this new novel. The book will be determined good or bad based on how it is written, and what is inside it, not based on the fact that its author penned a best seller. The added exposure, mixed with the already mass orders put out for the book, only cloud popular judgment of probably a second or third-rate novel. She is not Umberto Eco.

[JCamilo]

Yes, and the shot against the "reading anything is better than no reading", which is a false proposition as those are not the only options we have.


But that isn't a good reason for why it lacks imaginative vision. I could say Milton lacks an imaginative vision. Milton ripped off Genesis 1,2, and 3. I didn't say Bloom doesn't attempt to justify the claim; I pointed that out in my first post. I'm saying it's a crappy argument without further qualifications. Whereas Aylinn's version is more direct and better version of the argument.

Like I said, yuo may disagree, but not claim he did not gave examples of why HP is not original. And yes, I do agree with you, lacking originality (or watever pompous name Bloom gave) is hardly a big flaw by itself and Bloom is only using it to claim reading the classics (as originals) is better.

I would say Bloom just does not have the proper knowledge to go deeply on pop phenomens like HP. The fact he has no idea about comic books, japanese animation, videogames and RPGs, all that worked with similar elements of HP during the 80's and 90's does not help him to understand the formation of this public. Teens have been moving always from ingenous works like Wind in the Willows and following more the fantastic which is more realistic.

Also, Bloom does not seem to think about book as a product, with all the marketing behind it. All the fan interation bursting the book reading beyond the "aesthetical merits".

But that is far from some of the criticism found here.

[mona amon]

Obviously, he is doing both. When someone claims something lacks originality and then points where the elements of a book are found before, he justifies his claim. He does not need to write "I think they lack..." to make it so.

He's started a new paragraph, and to me it's obvious he's talking about something else. Anyway, let's not waste time on this, since neither can be proved. I understand what you are saying. Just don't agree with it.



The problem is that if I am right, it is not an unsupported statement.

Where is the support? Examples? Arguments? Reasons for such a statement?


The bold statment that he is silly needs a little more I think.

Oh come on, I'm just making an unsupported statement, just like Bloom. I don't expect people to take that particular statement seriously.


You are criticizing him for saying the books were bad, yet nobody here has proven that they are good. They say they are well written, but are they actually? Can you prove prove it.


Speaking for myself, I'm not finding fault with Bloom for calling the books bad. I'm faulting him for writing an inane and uninteresting article, when he's supposed to be a reputed critic.

It's impossible to prove that the books are good, and equally impossible to prove the books are bad. But you can make good points and arguments, and give examples to support the points you are making. Bloom does none of these things.

[Drkshadow03]

Speaking for myself, I'm not finding fault with Bloom for calling the books bad. I'm faulting him for writing an inane and uninteresting article, when he's supposed to be a reputed critic.


Ditto.

[YesNo]

Like or hate the books, they are badly written. You can argue all you want, but I will tell you right now, nobody is going to agree that the writing style is good, or great. Bloom sites the overuse of dry Cliches as evidence, I would say the books themselves read like melodrama.


What were those "dry cliches", JBI? I couldn't find any worth worrying about on page 4 of Sorcercer's Stone, and I certainly didn't find anything "dry" about any of the phrases.

Bloom makes it sound as if the publisher allowed the book to go to press without an editor's review.

Like or hate the books, JBI, they were very well written. Now, how to do I know that? Those books and movies resonated with millions of readers and viewers for over a decade, repeating their successes over and over again. That's right. You read me correctly. My evidence consists of the very millions of readers Bloom doesn't have any respect for and whom he wants to disparage.

I've read some of Bloom's own writings. I would characterize Bloom's style as "vacuous purple prose, full of mindless name dropping". His goal seems to be to see how far can he can fool the reader into accepting his authority without providing any evidence that the reader could reasonably check. Unfortunately for Bloom, I prefer evidence to authority.

So, this makes me wonder not what's wrong with Rowling, but what's wrong with Bloom? Did Snape cast a Confundus Charm on him? He writes as if someone did.

[JCamilo]

The funny thing is even JK Rowling mentioned the need to rewrite the first book (and another) because they are did in a rush and could be better.

But yes, they are very well written. Millions of fans to prove it.

[YesNo]

The funny thing is even JK Rowling mentioned the need to rewrite the first book (and another) because they are did in a rush and could be better.

But yes, they are very well written. Millions of fans to prove it.

Exactly. You are finally seeing a glimmer of the light although it seems still shaded with some sarcasm. (Oops, that part about the light was probably a big, bad cliche.)

Rewriting a book that would benefit from revision is not a fault, but a virtue in writing.

Authority counts for way too much in literary criticism. The slavish parroting of authority discredits the discipline, and makes outsiders think there is no discipline to it. We need to look at evidence in any way that it comes to us. Sales are definitely hard evidence.

Were I a writer of this type of literature, I would want to know why the HP books were so popular. What did they have that other books did not? I would not be wasting any time trying to put down Rowling or her readers. I would want to understand.

[Drkshadow03]

What were those "dry cliches", JBI? I couldn't find any worth worrying about on page 4 of Sorcercer's Stone, and I certainly didn't find anything "dry" about any of the phrases.



Well, Bloom's not entirely wrong about the cliche phrases. However, he misses a lot of good things happening as well. I just read through pages 1 - 5. The first thing I noticed was the tone. The opening on page 1 has a very Austen, Dickens, Dahl feel to it.

On re-reading the first 5 pages, one area that Rowling shines is with her voice, which is still a product of prose to some extent, specifically the narration style. There is a very distinct and engaging voice here.

We are introduced to self-centered British bourgeoisie family who pride themselves on their normalcy, spying, gossiping in a comical way that suggests that Rowling is satirically poking fun at them, while also setting us up for the magical world to come, which will contrast with this normalcy.

On page 4:


"Mr. Dursley, however, had a perfectly normal owl-free morning. He yelled at five different people. He made several important phone calls and shouted a bit more. He was in a very good mood until lunchtime, when he thought he'd stretch his legs and walk across the road to buy himself a bun from the bakery."

I like Rowling's characterization here. She takes a typical action (shouting and screaming) normally associated with anger and stress, and flips our expectations in this paragraph by depicting Dursley as being "in a very good mood" after all this yelling as part of his job, telling us a lot about his character in the process in a fairly clever economical way.

On the other hand, on page 4 we also see some of Rowling's biggest flaws. Her word choices and overuse of adverbs are a weakness. If you have to use an adverb it's usually because you didn't select the correct verb.

Example from page 4: "He eyed them angrily as he passed."

Could easily be: "He glared at them as he passed."

Rowling goes for direct and cliche expressions of emotions (examples underlined):


"He didn't know why, but they made him uneasy"

"Mr. Dursley stopped dead. Fear flooded him."

I also noticed a lot of "was" and "were" throughout the first 5 pages instead of active verbs, which is a reflection of approaching the tale via exposition (telling) versus showing (active).

Essentially on a sentence by sentence level Rowling is mediocre, but servicable; the writing has some cliches, too many adverbs, and lacks active verbs. I can't think of a single sentence worth quoting on its own. However, as Ursula Le Guin points out in her book on writing, the job of a sentence at the end of the day is to move the story forward and get to the next sentence. Rowling is actually pretty good at using most of her sentences effectively to move the story forward and is very good at creating a tone, atmosphere, voice, and interesting characterizations through her paragraphs. In the example paragraph above about Mr. Dursley, I would never claim any single sentence is particularly interesting, but all the sentences taken together are interesting in its overall effect.




Authority counts for way too much in literary criticism. The slavish parroting of authority discredits the discipline, and makes outsiders think there is no discipline to it. We need to look at evidence in any way that it comes to us. Sales are definitely hard evidence.


Well, Bloom is also correct in his assertion that sales aren't evidence for quality. A lot of junk sells in droves. Although sales aren't evidence for lack of quality either. I don't disagree with Bloom on all his points; I just think he made crappy and lazy arguments to support those points.

Typically these conversations unfold the same way every time. We've been having the same argument over Potter for the last four years on LitNet, with the same people involved making pretty much the same exact comments. Heck, I've had this same conversation about literary masterpieces as well such as the Bible. You usually get the same standard lines as Bloom's criticisms of HP:

1) It's poorly written.

2) it's derivative.

3) It's escaping from reality rather than facing it.

4) Can hundreds of millions be wrong? Yes. The only reason people like the Bible is for its cultural status and they don't want to feel left out (Emperor's New Clothes syndrome).

5) As time unfolds and secularism rises, we'll see the Bible relegated to the dustbins of history.

These arguments tend to be just as bad when used against the Bible as they are when Bloom employs them against Potter for exactly the same reasons, which usually involves people taking for granted most of these points and not developing them.

[JBI]

The biggest seller of the cultural revolution, Maos red book is the best selling book in the last 1500 years without a doubt. It resonated over a decade with so many people. Does that make it excellent literature?


Yes/no you are basically proving Blooms argument for him with your zealotry. The books have a toss prose style. Get over yourself please. Any oft with any critical judgment can tell that it is not in style that the book succeeds. Even if they like the books.


As for a mature style, she never achieved it - stylistically as noted the prose mimics many a better author. The style later tends toward melodrama, as the plot takes over the narrative in the last few.

In general the books are not perfect, do get off your high horse and stop feeding this nonsense with zealous proclamations that these semi decent kids books are gospel. Not only are they not, they also are quintessentially English and Christian which also does not resonate with everyone. Preachy potter only gets preachyer. And there will always be those who eat its gospel.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I'm curious, why do they have to be well written? Why can people not accept that what they love may not be that great? It is filled with cliches, just like 99% of literature in the fantasy genre . . . and my question is, so what? People love cliches. I love reading comic books, and a lot of them aren't good, and you know what? I don't really care, and neither do MILLIONS of other people who read comics. But I also have the wherewithal to realize that me loving comic books doesn't mean much when taking into account their quality, I'd estimate about 95% of them are pretty bad. I love them anyways.

So, why do supporters of certain things, in this case HP, after be so insisting that what they love is indeed great . . . when it's obvious it isn't. Is it good? Yes. Does it do what it's supposed to do (provide brainless entertainment)? Yes. Is it great literature? Debatable at best, but definitely not a certain "yes." Drk illustrates the pros and cons wonderfully with actual TEXTUAL evidence (something often lacking around here, not that I'm a huge contributor).


Oh, and btw, Bloom is a dried up old fossil who clings to his own prejudices and narrow views as bad as the masses he talks down to from his pedestal.

[JBI]

I'm curious, why do they have to be well written? Why can people not accept that what they love may not be that great? It is filled with cliches, just like 99% of literature in the fantasy genre . . . and my question is, so what? People love cliches. I love reading comic books, and a lot of them aren't good, and you know what? I don't really care, and neither do MILLIONS of other people who read comics. But I also have the wherewithal to realize that me loving comic books doesn't mean much when taking into account their quality, I'd estimate about 95% of them are pretty bad. I love them anyways.

So, why do supporters of certain things, in this case HP, after be so insisting that what they love is indeed great . . . when it's obvious it isn't. Is it good? Yes. Does it do what it's supposed to do (provide brainless entertainment)? Yes. Is it great literature? Debatable at best, but definitely not a certain "yes." Drk illustrates her pros and cons wonderfully with actual TEXTUAL evidence (something often lacking around here, not that I'm a huge contributor).


Oh, and btw, Bloom is a dried up old fossil who clings to his own prejudices and narrow views as bad as the masses he talks down to from his pedestal.

Meh, you do not give Bloom enough credit. He still has some interesting things to say.

As for why they need to be great, they don't. But the fanboys and girls will not shut up about these books, and keep yelling how great they are, and how by extension we now need to read, or should read this drivel of a follow up novel - it is disgusting how much press we get shoving these books down our face at how Rowling is somehow the world's biggest gift to literature. that's why we argue.

If nobody talked about them, they could simply just be retired to the garbage can of all other toss literature. But people still affirm them, which means people will still dispute how amazing they are, like me. I do not care if people read them, but I dislike when people come on these boards and because they like these books think they are God's gift to literature. The books are flawed, and if one cannot discuss the flaws with someone, one aught not to post.

[Drkshadow03]

I'm curious, why do they have to be well written? Why can people not accept that what they love may not be that great? It is filled with cliches, just like 99% of literature in the fantasy genre . . . and my question is, so what?

Well there is a certain segment of various fandoms that generally take their entertainment (read: obsessions) way too seriously.


Drk illustrates her pros and cons wonderfully with actual TEXTUAL evidence (something often lacking around here, not that I'm a huge contributor).

I'm a dude . . .

Essentially the problem isn't fanboy love of Potter or Bloom's dislike of Potter. It's the constant back-and-forth declarations: it is good, it is bad. It has great prose. It's prose sucks.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I think I screwed up spelling"the" and it autocorrected it to "her" for some reason. You know I know you're a dude. :lol:

[JBI]

Ah, I just thought the pronoun referred to Rowling, not Drkshadow, her as in Rowling's pros and cons.

[qimissung]

I'm curious, why do they have to be well written? Why can people not accept that what they love may not be that great? It is filled with cliches, just like 99% of literature in the fantasy genre . . . and my question is, so what? People love cliches. I love reading comic books, and a lot of them aren't good, and you know what? I don't really care, and neither do MILLIONS of other people who read comics. But I also have the wherewithal to realize that me loving comic books doesn't mean much when taking into account their quality, I'd estimate about 95% of them are pretty bad. I love them anyways.

So, why do supporters of certain things, in this case HP, after be so insisting that what they love is indeed great . . . when it's obvious it isn't. Is it good? Yes. Does it do what it's supposed to do (provide brainless entertainment)? Yes. Is it great literature? Debatable at best, but definitely not a certain "yes." Drk illustrates the pros and cons wonderfully with actual TEXTUAL evidence (something often lacking around here, not that I'm a huge contributor).


Oh, and btw, Bloom is a dried up old fossil who clings to his own prejudices and narrow views as bad as the masses he talks down to from his pedestal.


I don't think I've ever said the Harry Potter books are "great." I believe I have said that I thought her characterizations were good. I think she plotted her books fairly well. I enjoyed reading them quite a bit, as did my children.

I guess I never understood why they had to be "great." They are children's books. I would hope they'd be well-written, but great literature? It isn't necessary for them to be great literature for them to be great reads for kids. If you want great literature for kids you might look at The Mouse and His Child by Russell Hoban which one critic described as "Beckett for children."

What other children's books do you all think fall into the great literature catetgory? Perhaps we'd have better luck with this discussion if we compared them to other literature.

And yes, she does use cliches. Its probably what makes the books easy to read, as cliches act as a kind of shorthand to various elements of a plot; think of a beach read, in other words. Kids probably aren't going to notice that as much as adults will.

[mona amon]

Just finished the Casual Vacancy. It was OK - not bad, not great. Definitely not on par with the wonderful HP books, but I don't think anyone was expecting it to be.

The HP characters are larger than life, cast in the heroic mould, battling it out in extreme situations. This book is about small people in a small town, with their small everyday concerns and predictable peccadilloes and neuroses.

While each chapter had me interested and involved (I was certainly not hovering over the story in a detached way, as happens with some books), I feel it lacked focus or something and don't feel she did a good job of tying up the various threads in the end. I didn't crack a smile. I didn't shed a tear. Maybe I just didn't get it, but I closed the book feeling unsatisfied, though not disatisfied, and that's the reason for my lukewarm review.

My rating - 5.5/10

[JCamilo]

I for once do not think that any critic should be made because of the genre children literature, something JK Rowling does not even follow so strictly. It is more a critic to the industry, many flaws you may find could be corrected had the books a more slow process of production, but the demand pushed the book faster. Plus, the publishing house play more and more with safe bets. If Rowling or any author wanted to fly away, they would probally push her down. Look, even now when she is considerably free, a change of style atracted many question marks even before the book was out. Without risk she cannot even polish her style. This is the same for many authors who are vallued more for the capacity to stay on the same place than move foward.

This does not affect her, even a more versatile writer like Neil Gaiman is getting "dumbed down" (copyright bloom) to be in a safe place on children market. His Graveyard Book is very poor, almost a HP wannabe for emo boys that love gothic stuff. The book has a plot similar to HP and as simplistic. Those books work, but really, it is basic. Paulo Coelho and Dan Brown work too. And they will sell with the appropriate marketing.

[mona amon]

I don't think I've ever said the Harry Potter books are "great." I believe I have said that I thought her characterizations were good. I think she plotted her books fairly well. I enjoyed reading them quite a bit, as did my children.

I guess I never understood why they had to be "great." They are children's books. I would hope they'd be well-written, but great literature? It isn't necessary for them to be great literature for them to be great reads for kids. If you want great literature for kids you might look at The Mouse and His Child by Russell Hoban which one critic described as "Beckett for children."

What other children's books do you all think fall into the great literature catetgory? Perhaps we'd have better luck with this discussion if we compared them to other literature.

Quimmisung, you raise interesting points. I feel children's critical faculties are still in the developing stage, and the important thing is to get them into the reading habit and allow them to decide for themselves what they find interesting, even if it's just Sweet Valley or Goosebumps. Those with a penchant for reading good books will eventually gravitate towards them.

The important thing is to give them plenty of books to choose from. If you just provide them with a few 'great children's literature' or what some critics think is great, they just might find these boring and give up reading altogether.

[cacian]

Just finished the Casual Vacancy. It was OK - not bad, not great. Definitely not on par with the wonderful HP books, but I don't think anyone was expecting it to be.

The HP characters are larger than life, cast in the heroic mould, battling it out in extreme situations. This book is about small people in a small town, with their small everyday concerns and predictable peccadilloes and neuroses.

While each chapter had me interested and involved (I was certainly not hovering over the story in a detached way, as happens with some books), I feel it lacked focus or something and don't feel she did a good job of tying up the various threads in the end. I didn't crack a smile. I didn't shed a tear. Maybe I just didn't get it, but I closed the book feeling unsatisfied, though not disatisfied, and that's the reason for my lukewarm review.

My rating - 5.5/10
Hi mona amon
Just a question did toou get an idea of why the sudden shift of styke?
I am trying to understand the title and how it actually fit in the story.
I had a different conversation somewhere else about but still could not figure it out.
Thank you.

[qimissung]

That's my feeling, too, Mona.

[YesNo]

The biggest seller of the cultural revolution, Maos red book is the best selling book in the last 1500 years without a doubt. It resonated over a decade with so many people. Does that make it excellent literature?


I would place The Quotations of Chairman Mao more with the required reading in a literature class, like Eliot's The Wasteland. It is clear why these are read--for survival, not enjoyment. Neither of these examples, in my view, are great literature.

However, getting a bestseller in a free market place deserves to be acknowledged as an achievement. The most important question is how that happened, not a rant disparaging both the author and her readership that it should not have happened.

[Nevey]

I am into the Potter series & never to review them as they are a special matter to my heart. I shall not enjoy a novel by Rowling for adults. I don't know why!

[Pierre Menard]

I would place The Quotations of Chairman Mao more with the required reading in a literature class, like Eliot's The Wasteland. It is clear why these are read--for survival, not enjoyment. Neither of these examples, in my view, are great literature.




I'm seriously getting sick of this sort of ridiculous statement.

I read The Wasteland for enjoyment. It was an incredibly enjoyable experience for me. I know a ton of others who have also read it for enjoyment.

You're wrong.

[tonywalt]

I am into the Potter series & never to review them as they are a special matter to my heart. I shall not enjoy a novel by Rowling for adults. I don't know why!


Will you read other books for adults? Or just continue on with Children' fantasy books?

[Emil Miller]

Will you read other books for adults? Or just continue on with Children' fantasy books?

I can't believe that anyone over the age of eleven would read HP , with the exception of children's book reviewers, because as far as literature is concerned, the phrase reductio ad absurdum comes to mind. The same goes for films about Batman. When I was about nine-years-old, a friend and I fantasised about being Batman and Robin, but obviously one grows out of such things: or does one? Now I see Batman is not a kid's entertainment but, with a bit of extra violence thrown in and presumably, some sex and a few computer graphics, he is suddenly 'adult' entertainment. Barnum was wrong; there isn't one born every minute, there are dozens.

[Mr.lucifer]

Mostly because the Harry Potter books got more graphic as they went on. People get tortured violently, expletives are used(In book 7, a character gave his brother a middle finger), very expletive references to sex. It wasn't just to pander to older readers either. Rowling planned that from the beginning. I mean, its a series about a kid who is destined to face off against a wizard Hitler who killed thousands of innocents when he was alive, including the main character's parents. Thing was going to get violent eventually.

I'm not trying to defend the quality of the books, but it was clear the series was getting to get too dark for kids later on.

[Emil Miller]

Mostly because the Harry Potter books got more graphic as they went on. People get tortured violently, expletives are used(In book 7, a character gave his brother a middle finger), very expletive references to sex. It wasn't just to pander to older readers either. Rowling planned that from the beginning. I mean, its a series about a kid who is destined to face off against a wizard Hitler who killed thousands of innocents when he was alive, including the main character's parents. Thing was going to get violent eventually.

I'm not trying to defend the quality of the books, but it was clear the series was getting to get too dark for kids later on.

I think this is because her publishers realised that some adults were reading her and asked her to raise the bar to keep the ball rolling. It's instructive to note that she hasn't ruled out yet another Potter book should the attempt at writing serious fiction fail.

[tonywalt]

I can't believe that anyone over the age of eleven would read HP , with the exception of children's book reviewers, because as far as literature is concerned, the phrase reductio ad absurdum comes to mind. The same goes for films about Batman. When I was about nine-years-old, a friend and I fantasised about being Batman and Robin, but obviously one grows out of such things: or does one? Now I see Batman is not a kid's entertainment but, with a bit of extra violence thrown in and presumably, some sex and a few computer graphics, he is suddenly 'adult' entertainment. Barnum was wrong; there isn't one born every minute, there are dozens.

My neices and nephews love any entertainment that is fast, loud, explosive, and with a very formulaic plot. As for reading......

There is hope though, quite a few very young people here-good for them.

[Drkshadow03]

Will you read other books for adults? Or just continue on with Children' fantasy books?

I can't speak for him or her, but I didn't read HP for the first time until I was 20. I read plenty of other stuff.

[JBI]

I would place The Quotations of Chairman Mao more with the required reading in a literature class, like Eliot's The Wasteland. It is clear why these are read--for survival, not enjoyment. Neither of these examples, in my view, are great literature.

However, getting a bestseller in a free market place deserves to be acknowledged as an achievement. The most important question is how that happened, not a rant disparaging both the author and her readership that it should not have happened.

Have you read Mao? He was regarded as a literary genius by the early 30s primarily for his work on Guerrilla warfare. Much of his reception and success rested on his literary and artistic prowess.

I do not know how much comes through in translation, but he wasn't exactly stupid.

As for required reading and whatnot, how much of Rowling's sales do you attribute to advertising, rather formal or informal? If advertising did not work, nobody would do it.

Case and point this book here - the propaganda of the text basically generated its sales - the book from what I gather would have remained unpublished or unread had it not been for the fuel of her advertisement.

Hao Ran would not have been the biggest author of the 70s if it weren't for state backing. Rowling not the biggest of the late 90s early 2000s if not for corporate backing. Do not get delusions that somehow this has something to do with their excellence as authors.

[stlukesguild]

I would place The Quotations of Chairman Mao more with the required reading in a literature class, like Eliot's The Wasteland. It is clear why these are read--for survival, not enjoyment. Neither of these examples, in my view, are great literature.

As opposed to Laura Day's books, no doubt.:rolleyes5:

Personally, I have read The Wasteland dozens of times... and I surely wouldn't have wasted my time if I didn't gain a good deal of pleasure from the experience. Indeed, I would count The Wasteland among the few dozen books that have had the greatest impact on me.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I'm seriously getting sick of this sort of ridiculous statement.

I read The Wasteland for enjoyment. It was an incredibly enjoyable experience for me. I know a ton of others who have also read it for enjoyment.

You're wrong.
You beat me to it with this comment, Pierre.



However, getting a bestseller in a free market place deserves to be acknowledged as an achievement. The most important question is how that happened, not a rant disparaging both the author and her readership that it should not have happened.
It's an achievement, yes, but one must consider what kind of an achievement that is--if you're asserting that any piece of art that gains huge success in a free market is somehow a substantial measure of worth, I guess we can put the "good art" label on Lady Gaga, Kesha, and Justin Bieber. They've all undoubtedly had quite astounding achievements culturally, monetarily, and business-wise, but artistically? Arguable at best.

I can't believe that anyone over the age of eleven would read HP , with the exception of children's book reviewers, because as far as literature is concerned, the phrase reductio ad absurdum comes to mind. The same goes for films about Batman. When I was about nine-years-old, a friend and I fantasised about being Batman and Robin, but obviously one grows out of such things: or does one? Now I see Batman is not a kid's entertainment but, with a bit of extra violence thrown in and presumably, some sex and a few computer graphics, he is suddenly 'adult' entertainment. Barnum was wrong; there isn't one born every minute, there are dozens.
Yes, but let's keep in mind that you find any film made after WWII to be overly stimulative.

Mostly because the Harry Potter books got more graphic as they went on. People get tortured violently, expletives are used(In book 7, a character gave his brother a middle finger), very expletive references to sex. It wasn't just to pander to older readers either. Rowling planned that from the beginning. I mean, its a series about a kid who is destined to face off against a wizard Hitler who killed thousands of innocents when he was alive, including the main character's parents. Thing was going to get violent eventually.

I'm not trying to defend the quality of the books, but it was clear the series was getting to get too dark for kids later on.
I don't buy into this whole "she had it all planned out" crap. I read the first book and seen some of the movies, and I honestly believe she was just making it up as she goes. There're so many things that just come out of nowhere (not to mention magic to help get out of tricky potholes she'd write herself into) and complete irrelevancies to the larger story (I believe I remember a friend of mine telling my about a plot deviation about Hermione wanting equal rights for trolls that worked at Hogwarts or something--wtf?). That isn't anything unique to long fantasy series. The Wheel of Time, A Song of Ice and Fire, hell, even Gerofe Lucas claimed to have all 6 episodes of Star Wars planned out before even making A New Hope, and I don't buy that for a second.


As to evaluating the quality of children's literature, that seems like something very hard for an adult reader (or, at least, this adult reader) to do. How can I judge how good a book for children is? I'm not a child anymore. I can say what children's boom I've enjoyed, sure, but I don't know if that says anything about the quality of the book as it pertains to its genre.

[JBI]

It makes no difference. The bulk of potter readers were adults and the later books were marketed for young adults. This children's lit excuse makes no sense.

[JCamilo]

Plus, "children literature" is published and writen mostly by addults, so addults certainly can tell something (or many things) about it.

[YesNo]

It's an achievement, yes, but one must consider what kind of an achievement that is--if you're asserting that any piece of art that gains huge success in a free market is somehow a substantial measure of worth, I guess we can put the "good art" label on Lady Gaga, Kesha, and Justin Bieber. They've all undoubtedly had quite astounding achievements culturally, monetarily, and business-wise, but artistically? Arguable at best.

From a pragmatic perspective the success of the work of art in a free market is all that matters no matter what one thinks of the art itself. The successful artist, along with the contributions of any support staff, resonated with an audience. They did a good job. They accomplished their goal.

The only appropriate thing for an academic to do is to try to make sense out of it, not whine about the author using too many cliches or put down the readers' competence. That doesn't provide anyone with any benefit except the academics who assert their privileged position with every dogmatic statement they make or parrot.


I don't buy into this whole "she had it all planned out" crap. I read the first book and seen some of the movies, and I honestly believe she was just making it up as she goes.

I agree that it does not look like she had this all planned out from the beginning. Initially Harry was winning all the contests and saving everyone around him. Later, people began saving him. Does it matter that the HP series was not all planned out from the beginning?

[mona amon]

As for required reading and whatnot, how much of Rowling's sales do you attribute to advertising, rather formal or informal? If advertising did not work, nobody would do it.

Case and point this book here - the propaganda of the text basically generated its sales - the book from what I gather would have remained unpublished or unread had it not been for the fuel of her advertisement.

If you're talking about the new book, The Casual Vacancy, you are probably right. The Casual Vacancy is riding on the success of the Harry Potter series, each Harry Potter book rode on the success of its predecessor, and so on. But you've got to keep in mind that the process started somewhere. The publishing industry didn't pull Rowling out of a hat to set her up to be their favourite cash cow.

Rowling wrote the first HP book over a period of 5 years, during which she lost her mother, got married, had a baby, and divorced, and lived on social security with her small daughter. Not much advantage over any other writer, so far.

The first book was rejected by 12 publishers, most of whom felt it was too long and slow for kids, before Bloomsbury agreed to publish it. The book did well on its own merits (for who had heard of Harry then?). They got positive and enthusiastic feedback from kids, parents and teachers, and won a few prizes, and Scholastic bought the American rights for a large sum.

So what I'm saying is, the success of Rowling's books started on their own merits, and then, like any other successful business venture, it fed on and multplied its own success.

None of this proves that the books are 'good'. She could have just got lucky. Their intrinsic merit is for each reader to decide for themselves. And by reader I mean someone who's actually read the books. It's amazing the number of people who are ready to dismiss the whole series as crap without having read them, or after reading a few of the books, or seeing the last movie. :rolleyes:


It makes no difference. The bulk of potter readers were adults and the later books were marketed for young adults. This children's lit excuse makes no sense.

Too sweeping a statement I feel. What do you have to support this? As for the marketing part, no particular age group was targeted, as far as I know. They were marketed on the strength of their name alone.

Also you have to consider seperately

1. Adults who pick up the books thinking they might be a good read, and decide that they like them. Edit: I know of quite a few intelligent, well read adults who belong to this category
2. Adult readers who started reading the books when they were kids but became adults before the series was over
3. Adults who started reading the books because of having kids who were the Harry Potter age (I belong to this category), and who kind of read them from a child's perspective. This includes teachers, librarians and others who work with children.


Hi mona amon
Just a question did toou get an idea of why the sudden shift of styke?
I am trying to understand the title and how it actually fit in the story.
I had a different conversation somewhere else about but still could not figure it out.
Thank you.

Cacian, I don't feel there was any shift in style, which remains functional and not very distinctive. This book is different because she's given the old heave-ho to everything that makes HP so special - magic, larger than life characters, big emotions, heroic actions - and tries out something completely new.

[Emil Miller]

Yes, but let's keep in mind that you find any film made after WWII to be overly stimulative.



If you check out my reviews of films on the appropriate thread you will see that they are virtually all from the post-war period and a number of them are rated 10/10: although I would be the first to admit that many of the most cinematically important films were made pre-war. Admittedly you are are unlikely to find anything post 1960s in my reviews because, to my mind, by that time the cinema was finished as a medium for discriminating entertainment once the studio system gave way to the rag tag and bobtail financial backers and their so-called actors and directors. I suppose another way of putting 'over stimulative' is 'in your face and exaggerated'.

[JCamilo]

From a pragmatic perspective the success of the work of art in a free market is all that matters no matter what one thinks of the art itself. The successful artist, along with the contributions of any support staff, resonated with an audience. They did a good job. They accomplished their goal.

Ah, quite the naive non-sense. Their goal is not to produce a masterwork. Their goal is to produce a product. The process of book production, with the analyse of publishers start answering "It is good enough for our audience", not "It is a masterwork who will keep people talking in 500 years when we either closed the doors, died or the book will be already non-profitable because it is public domain."

That is why sales does not say much about the quality of a book, since sales is not made by the writer, but the marketing department. They analyse the audience, the tendencies on market, their own line of production and distribution, they even see if the book has potential in hollywood before publishing.


The only appropriate thing for an academic to do is to try to make sense out of it, not whine about the author using too many cliches or put down the readers' competence. That doesn't provide anyone with any benefit except the academics who assert their privileged position with every dogmatic statement they make or parrot.

Absolutely. The academic do look if a work has many cliches. That is his job. He is not an employer of the industry. And the benefict it is rather obvious, no? Shakespeare is only popular because a bunch of an academics worked out critical essays after critical essays until his work was recognized and became central.

Your tirade against specialists because they do not guide their taste or analyse by the popular demmand is just one more of sick people who prefer to listen the neighbours about a disease than go to a doctor.

[mona amon]

Shakespeare is only popular because a bunch of an academics worked out critical essays after critical essays until his work was recognized and became central.

Shakespeare? Only popular because of a bunch of academics writing critical essays? OK I don't know a whole lot about it, but what about the performance of his plays which continued from his time to our own? Wouldn't you say the academics were churning out critical essays about an already cannonized playwright and poet?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

From a pragmatic perspective the success of the work of art in a free market is all that matters no matter what one thinks of the art itself.
Nice dodge. Since when has art been judged solely in a pragmatic sense?

The successful artist, along with the contributions of any support staff, resonated with an audience. They did a good job. They accomplished their goal.
Not all artists have the same goal. Some do have the first and foremost goal of making money and becoming famous. A lot don't, and don't measure success in that way. You can't just make blanket statement like these.

The only appropriate thing for an academic to do is to try to make sense out of it, not whine about the author using too many cliches or put down the readers' competence. That doesn't provide anyone with any benefit except the academics who assert their privileged position with every dogmatic statement they make or parrot.
Have you ever heard of criticism? I agree that it's lame to put down readers of certain types of fiction (though, maybe not always), but are you seriously suggesting no one has the authority to criticize a piece of literature? I don't even get the above comment, as there are plenty of casual reader and non-academic who don't enjoy the HP books.

I agree that it does not look like she had this all planned out from the beginning. Initially Harry was winning all the contests and saving everyone around him. Later, people began saving him. Does it matter that the HP series was not all planned out from the beginning?
Since it brought about obvious flaws, yes . . . just as there are obvious flaws in the narratives of A Song of Ice and Fire and Star Wars.

[JCamilo]

Shakespeare? Only popular because of a bunch of academics writing critical essays? OK I don't know a whole lot about it, but what about the performance of his plays which continued from his time to our own? Wouldn't you say the academics were churning out critical essays about an already cannonized playwright and poet?

There is no such notion of already canonized poet as you say back then, specially him, as they had to work hard to define Shakespeare own canon, by of course, critics who analyse which plays are his, recorded the versions, etc. Shakespeare was reproduced here and there, certainly already building his space, but his reading was not as much, specially outside england.

Critics (sorry, I changed the paragraph, but it is the same subject) like Doctor Jonson or Coleridge proposed new readings of the plays, build his popularity among romantics, new editions, children versions of the plays, etc that impulsioned his place as the central name in english canon and with england's dominance on XIX, the central name of western canon.

He is not the only one, obviously, but without the continual work of specialists after his death, there would not even be a body of work of his play to be published and read.

[Jackson Richardson]

Some of Shakespeare's plays have been continually performed since the first production, possibly even when the theatres were banned. The First Folio was re-published for a long time, even after major changes in public taste.

I'm all for defending academic study and literary criticism, but it is ridiculous to suggest Shakespeare was only popular as a result of it.

[Aylinn]

None of this proves that the books are 'good'. She could have just got lucky. Their intrinsic merit is for each reader to decide for themselves. And by reader I mean someone who's actually read the books. It's amazing the number of people who are ready to dismiss the whole series as crap without having read them, or after reading a few of the books, or seeing the last movie.

The first books are the best. After the third book, which I consider to be the best of all, I think Rowling was allowed to do whatever she wanted and the content was not properly edited any more. I doubt that people immune to the charm of the first books would fall in love with the later books, especially since with each book Voldemort and his deatheaters are more and more resembling them. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_adWFrdBDU)

[JCamilo]

Some of Shakespeare's plays have been continually performed since the first production, possibly even when the theatres were banned. The First Folio was re-published for a long time, even after major changes in public taste.

I'm all for defending academic study and literary criticism, but it is ridiculous to suggest Shakespeare was only popular as a result of it.

The first folio is not the plays we read today and even them are subject to scrutinity because of the number of versions and corruptions to the text that existed. I do not believe you people are really comparing his popularity before the romantic age when he was a popular playwriter to be today most famous writer.

[Charles Darnay]

The first folio is not the plays we read today and even them are subject to scrutinity because of the number of versions and corruptions to the text that existed. I do not believe you people are really comparing his popularity before the romantic age when he was a popular playwriter to be today most famous writer.

JCamilo, I think your credibility is going out the window with your grammar.

Look at the first folio (1623 edition), which is readily available: you will find only the most minor discrepancies between it and the major modern texts (Oxford's, Norton's, Arden's &c.).

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I have always though J's grammar wasn't all that bad considering English isn't his first, or even (unless I'm mistaken) his second language.

[JCamilo]

JCamilo, I think your credibility is going out the window with your grammar.

Look at the first folio (1623 edition), which is readily available: you will find only the most minor discrepancies between it and the major modern texts (Oxford's, Norton's, Arden's &c.).

I wonder why, are you telling me that the First Folio was not subject of scrutinity? That there is not several versions of it? And that no play had been "cannonized" based on texts from other sources?

[Charles Darnay]

As far as Shakespeare scholarship (and publication) is concerned, the First Folio is generally taken at face value. There are some editions that will take bits from earlier versions (the quartos) of his plays, but overall, this is the minority.

[JCamilo]

As far as Shakespeare scholarship (and publication) is concerned, the First Folio is generally taken at face value. There are some editions that will take bits from earlier versions (the quartos) of his plays, but overall, this is the minority.

“The first folio does not, to be sure, contain quite all that Shakespeare wrote. It lacks both the nondramatic works and one of the thirty-seven canonical plays, Pericles, Prince of Tyre (though Shakespeare’s sole authorship of this is generally considered very doubtful): nor does it present us with the most satisfactory text of all the remaining plays. For eleven of them a clearly superior version is provided by an earlier printed edition. Yet the Folio remains the principal authority for considerably more than half of the thirty-six it represents; and it is in fact the only authority we have for most of these." - From Norton edition preface on first folio.

So, the scholarship seems to think almost 1/3 of the plays came from better sources and it is "principal authority" (hardly face vallue) for more than half of 36 plays. This is hardly bits and calling it majority is quite exagerated, no?

[Charles Darnay]

Strange that this would be in the Norton's version of the folio considering that Norton's Shakespeare stick very closely to the folio - excepting perhaps King Lear (which is the only play included in the Folio in which an earlier are better.)

And as for the poems and Pericles (as well as Troilus and Cressida, which does not appear in the first folio despite the above quoted preface) - well of course if they are not in the folio we cannot judge them based on anything but the original form they are in.

What I initially thought you were implying - which may be incorrect on my part - was that you were stating that Shakespeare's folio has been re-worked post-1623.

[JCamilo]

Well, the preface is bigger, more details of course.

I never denied the folio is the main source, just that it was not the last version of Shakespeare plays, for 2 centuries there was studies and debates until we have something close ot what we have now, the folio playing a major part in those studies. His popularity now is something completely different as the one he had on XVII century and that is much due the critical interpretations that increased in much the vallue of several plays.

[OrphanPip]

As far as Shakespeare scholarship (and publication) is concerned, the First Folio is generally taken at face value. There are some editions that will take bits from earlier versions (the quartos) of his plays, but overall, this is the minority.

I think the Fourth Folio was the most influential source for the 18th century up until the mid-Victorian period, when people started to try and produce authoritative editions. Of course, there is a great deal of similarity between the First and Fourth.

[YesNo]

Nice dodge. Since when has art been judged solely in a pragmatic sense?

What is a professionally acceptable response to a very successful work of art, whether that is Rowling's HP series or Andy Warhol's graphics? I would like to be able to distinguish valuable criticism from parasitism that views a successful work of art as an opportunity to augment the critic's own reputation at the expense of the successful work or its audience.

I view Bloom's activity as parasitism, not useful literary criticism.



Not all artists have the same goal. Some do have the first and foremost goal of making money and becoming famous. A lot don't, and don't measure success in that way. You can't just make blanket statement like these.


Most authors want an audience that likes what they are doing. One way to measure this audience is to count the number of books they have sold or given away if they do not like to make money.



Have you ever heard of criticism? I agree that it's lame to put down readers of certain types of fiction (though, maybe not always), but are you seriously suggesting no one has the authority to criticize a piece of literature? I don't even get the above comment, as there are plenty of casual reader and non-academic who don't enjoy the HP books.

Anyone has the right to criticize or review any work of art either positively or negatively, but no one has the authority to do so. Bloom was relying on his authority and his expressions of scorn to get people to accept his position. My position is that he has no such authority.



Since it brought about obvious flaws, yes . . . just as there are obvious flaws in the narratives of A Song of Ice and Fire and Star Wars.

How could any author plan a series that stretched over a decade much in advance? Again, because of the acceptance of the books and movies over the years, whatever flaws existed in these works of art, they were not major enough to hurt its popularity.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Okay. I think we're at a stand still.

[Lokasenna]

Perhaps I'm being foolhardy in wading in, but...


How could any author plan a series that stretched over a decade much in advance? Again, because of the acceptance of the books and movies over the years, whatever flaws existed in these works of art, they were not major enough to hurt its popularity.

The Lord of the Rings was composed over a period of 12 years, and is clearly an intellectual whole. Dante's Divina Comedia was composed over a period of 13 years, and again its seperate parts make an intellectical whole. Wagner's Ring, in my opinion the greatest single work of artistic output our species has ever produced, was composed over a period of 26 years, and yet makes an intellectual whole as well.

This isn't to say that it is necessary for great literature to be meticulously planned in advance - Dickens, for example, never planned much beyond the next chapter, never mind the whole book. I'm just challenging your view that detailed forward planning is that unusual.


Anyone has the right to criticize or review any work of art either positively or negatively, but no one has the authority to do so. Bloom was relying on his authority and his expressions of scorn to get people to accept his position. My position is that he has no such authority.

I really don't agree. It's true that Bloom is an arrogant git, but one does have to take some measure of a reviewer's experience in the field. Bloom is, by an objective measure, very well read - this means that he has a lot more to compare HP against than most people do. He also has an impressive 'toolkit' - his experience in dissecting texts. In that regard, I think he is at least better placed to make pronouncements on literary qualities.


Most authors want an audience that likes what they are doing. One way to measure this audience is to count the number of books they have sold or given away if they do not like to make money.

I think one has to make a distinction between works being popular and populist. It is possible to write literature that is both of high quality and very accessible. It is also possible to write dreadful literature that is horribly obscure. Some of our greatest authors, however, have clearly written novels that they would have known to be so inscrutable they would never have much of a popular readership: Joyce's Ulysses, for example, or Proust's À la recherche du temps perdu.

[YesNo]

The Lord of the Rings was composed over a period of 12 years, and is clearly an intellectual whole. Dante's Divina Comedia was composed over a period of 13 years, and again its seperate parts make an intellectical whole. Wagner's Ring, in my opinion the greatest single work of artistic output our species has ever produced, was composed over a period of 26 years, and yet makes an intellectual whole as well.

This isn't to say that it is necessary for great literature to be meticulously planned in advance - Dickens, for example, never planned much beyond the next chapter, never mind the whole book. I'm just challenging your view that detailed forward planning is that unusual.

I consider the HP series to be an "intellectual whole". How is it not?



I really don't agree. It's true that Bloom is an arrogant git, but one does have to take some measure of a reviewer's experience in the field. Bloom is, by an objective measure, very well read - this means that he has a lot more to compare HP against than most people do. He also has an impressive 'toolkit' - his experience in dissecting texts. In that regard, I think he is at least better placed to make pronouncements on literary qualities.

We agree on the "arrogant git" part, but I suspect we agree on even more. We agree that there are people who review better than others. We agree that there are people who have read more than others. We agree that there are people who have a wider experience. I think we also agree that we should expect these people to do a better job reviewing a work of art and provide us with more information that would help us enjoy the art.

Where we disagree is on the authority or the pronouncement part that comes without evidence. I expect someone who is better read to be able to provide better evidence than one who is not. So why is the better evidence missing? Even more so, why do those supporting such authorities not demand better evidence? Why do they let the authority get away with it?

It seems that the current practice of literary criticism, at least as I see it illustrated by Bloom's own behavior and those who defend him, is that one is expected to accept without evidence anything an authority has to say and then parrot that back to whomever might disagree with the authority.



I think one has to make a distinction between works being popular and populist. It is possible to write literature that is both of high quality and very accessible. It is also possible to write dreadful literature that is horribly obscure. Some of our greatest authors, however, have clearly written novels that they would have known to be so inscrutable they would never have much of a popular readership: Joyce's Ulysses, for example, or Proust's À la recherche du temps perdu.

I haven't read Proust, but I have attempted Ulysses a few times. I think you are addressing the core of the problem about authority and evidence with this example. Instead of finding a popular work to scorn, the authority in this case finds an unpopular work to promote.

Andersen's Emporer's New Clothes written in the early 19th century summarizes the problem in a children's tale that has become a cliche to keep referencing even when it is most relevant. Is a work of literature "great" because it is "inscrutable" and some authority has made a pronouncement that any reader who doesn't like it is stupid and incompetent? Does a cloth exist because an authority claims "it is invisible to anyone who is too stupid and incompetent to appreciate its quality." (Translation cited from http://deoxy.org/emperors.htm)

The problem for the reader confronted with Ulysses is whether this text is on order of, say, Einstein's general relativity that will take the reader some time to understand or whether it is an invisible cloth that fraudulent weavers have offered. A literary critic needs to justify those texts with evidence but literary critics like Bloom seem to think that evidence is beneath their dignity.

[JBI]

YesNo, your problem is simple. You are so convinced of the excellence of your beloved series that you consistently are willing to send us as gophers to point out the errors, of which you deny.

Simply put, those of us who are not fanatical over the text do not have the time and energy to go line by line proving you wrong. We did not like the books in the first place.

As for the coherency of a whole, or whatever - basically put, you criticize Bloom on the same grounds anybody here can criticize you. Your authority is limited and compromised, and your knowledge in the field lacking, hence your own obsession with such a text, in that you lack a critical eye - your evaluating criteria is shoddy, and your reading is shallow and prone to fanatical delusions.

As for the Emperor's New Clothes bit - you missed the basic point of the story - the populace is afraid to speak, but the foolish child speaks. The point is simple - Bloom the foolish child is the only one willing to speak against Harry Potter, to which he probably has had quite the headache from annoying fanatics criticizing him. It didn't exactly help his sales or publicity - it basically just reaffirmed his critical sense of right and wrong, that he could speak out against something so popular.

Now, as for Bloom's grounds for criticism, I would say he has more grounds to criticize the book than you, and more of a foundation to say it is mediocre than you do to say it is good. If you disagree, prove it. He is the one with the professorship at Yale, and the numerous award-winning publications and best-sellers in criticism behind him. If we are going to use your logic, as a critique he is the most populist of them all - the best seller, the big boy - and you are without ground to speak.

Now, I do not agree with all Bloom says, but I am just illustrating the silliness of your point.

You are trying to play literary critic. Prove to me Harry Potter is as good as you say it is, and is a coherent whole. Prove it, I dare you to try. If you cannot, well then, stop telling others to prove you wrong. You are like a spoiled child who finds out Santa Claus isn't real and yells at one's parents to prove it.

[mona amon]

It's true that Bloom is an arrogant git, but one does have to take some measure of a reviewer's experience in the field. Bloom is, by an objective measure, very well read - this means that he has a lot more to compare HP against than most people do. He also has an impressive 'toolkit' - his experience in dissecting texts. In that regard, I think he is at least better placed to make pronouncements on literary qualities.

Then it's such a pity he didn't make use of his talents, his impressive toolkit and experience in dissecting texts in this particular piece, because I'd love to have seen an experienced critic take on Harry Potter. I'm not scared of negative reviews of the books I like. They can be just as thought provoking and entertaining as a positive review, as long as the reviewer writes well, and makes good points.

I've read absolutely nothing else of Bloom's other than this piece. But if you people who are springing to his defence here can forget for a moment that it's about Harry Potter, do you honestly feel he did a good job of making his point? Is it up to the mark? Is it what you'd expect of a good critic?

Now I myself can never explain properly why I like or dislike a book, but I just thought an experienced critic would be a lot better at it than me.

[JCamilo]

Yes, it is up the mark, but it is not a big deal he got close. Because it is not a critical review of Harry Potter, rather an inquiry on the effects of reading books determined by the popularity rather "aesthetic" motives. He thinks it will weaken the development of new readers. Hence he takes for granted the reasion why HP would be bad passing by the motives without deepth. Harry Potter just happen to be the example, usually he hits strong on Stephen King.

Bloom is apocalyptic (he is as, part of his jewish side) and snob, and a bit outdated, but now his worries may seem a little more than an old man rambling, considering reading statistics are not very positive on last decade in the world as a whole. It may be some inadequacy of studies still unable to cope with a new concept of reading far apart from books, but it is the book world Bloom is talking about.

What is not important is that being truth the claim HP reading lead to other books (because this claim cannot be proved, not matter the book, and seems that reading leads to reading anyways) but that market, and not the book, is leading people to other books (Or to say the main reason). And this is obviously a bad path for literature. Like in this thread, people are making her new book a best-seller even if there was a big effort to make clear it it is not a HP like book. But of course, the HP market is more dominant.

[YesNo]

Now, as for Bloom's grounds for criticism, I would say he has more grounds to criticize the book than you, and more of a foundation to say it is mediocre than you do to say it is good. If you disagree, prove it. He is the one with the professorship at Yale, and the numerous award-winning publications and best-sellers in criticism behind him.

I am beginning to see our cultural differences, JBI. I don't care whether Bloom or anyone else holds positions like some Me-No-Dummy Chair at Dingbat University, or whatever. However, such information seems to impress you. That totally puzzles me.

Regarding my authority, please profile me as one who has no authority. I don't expect to convince you, but I definitely do not want to convince you based on any information about my background. That would defeat the purpose. A reader needs to accept or reject an argument based on evidence not idol worship.

You ask me to "prove" that the HP series is not mediocre. I already have in a previous post. I will repeat it. The series is not mediocre because of the number of people who have been entertained by that series. It goes into the millions. That is hard evidence. It does not rely on anyone's authority. You don't even have to read a single word of the series to understand it.


Bloom is apocalyptic (he is as, part of his jewish side) and snob, and a bit outdated

I want to make sure my position is clear about Bloom. I am aware that he is Jewish, but his religious roots have nothing to do with my opinion of his writing.

My original interest in Bloom goes back some years when I heard he linked the Jahwist source, or J, in Genesis with Bathsheba. I was attracted by this idea and tried to find evidence supporting it in some of his writings. What I found was very little evidence to justify his claim and way too much uncritical praise for what J wrote.

However, I think I found enough evidence in Baruch Halpern's David's Secret Demons to justify that Bathsheba could have been the writer of that source, or at least someone close to her. Although I am not positive, I assume Halpern is also Jewish. Compared to Bloom, Halpern is a relief to read.

Bloom's Jewish background has nothing to do with his inability to present convincing evidence.

[JCamilo]

The jewish trait is not religious, Bloom seems to adopt the culture not the religion while examinating a text and also some of the traits of the Jewish texts after the destruction of the temple. He always searches for a end of circle, a revelation that is not there.

I know, you are the kind of person who think someone is a world wide renowed expert on a field because the stars said so. It is cute.

[stlukesguild]

What is a professionally acceptable response to a very successful work of art, whether that is Rowling's HP series or Andy Warhol's graphics? I would like to be able to distinguish valuable criticism from parasitism that views a successful work of art as an opportunity to augment the critic's own reputation at the expense of the successful work or its audience.

What do sales figures or success in financial terms have to do with the aesthetic merits of a work of art? The best selling record album in 1967 was the Monkee's More of the Monkees. Somehow I doubt that anyone would imagine that this was a greater album than the Beatle's Sgt. Peppers or The Doors' first album. Popularity is only important in terms of measuring aesthetic worth over a long period of time... after fads and the marketing have cleared.

I view Bloom's activity as parasitism, not useful literary criticism.

As if your opinion hold's any merit whatsoever.

Most authors want an audience that likes what they are doing. One way to measure this audience is to count the number of books they have sold or given away if they do not like to make money.

Somehow I suspect you know very little about artists of any ilk whatsoever. Most artists that I know do desire to make money. In most instances, however, they wish to make money doing that which they love and believe in. Most artists create for an audience that they imagine as being not unlike themselves. The effort in "marketing" comes after the fact. The problem that many best-selling artists face is that the "money men" want the cash to keep flowing... and the push the artist to produce more "blockbusters"... to gear the work toward the largest possible demographic.

Anyone has the right to criticize or review any work of art either positively or negatively, but no one has the authority to do so.

All opinions in art are subjective. There is no objective body of rules by which we might measure or construct a good or great work of art. If only it were that simple. While all opinions in art are subjective, some opinions are worth more than others. What you dismiss as "authority" is an earned reputation. The opinions of individuals who have proven themselves well and deeply read, perceptive, discerning... even original are likely to be afforded much more "weight" than the opinions of individuals who haven't. Professional achievements are part of this equation. This is not to say that the professional critic or the professor or other writers are always right and that their opinions are above criticism. If you, however, wish to challenge such educated opinion... those speaking from a position of authority... the onus is on you to prove your position... something you haven't even attempted.

Bloom was relying on his authority and his expressions of scorn to get people to accept his position. My position is that he has no such authority.

Unfortunately... your position is one of no authority... not Bloom's. Few critics waste their time engaging in an in-depth analysis of work that they believe in clearly of mediocre (or less) value. The only reason that Bloom (or any other serious critic) would have stooped to engaging in criticism of the Harry Potter novels is because they feel outraged at the level of popularity afforded to what is deemed mediocre writing... when there is so much finer writing out there. This isn't unusual. One of the most written-about artists over the past decade was Thomas Kinkade. Kinkade was a horrible painter. He works are sentimental, cotton-candy schlock marketed toward a Middle-American public that knows nothing of art. His paintings have all the aesthetic merits of a Hallmark Christmas card...

http://360digest.com/uploads/ThomasKinkade.jpg

The only reason he was so written about is because his paintings and prints sold like hotcakes... in spite of the fact that no serious curator, critic, self-respecting art gallery, museum, etc... would even think to take him seriously. Again... popularity is not a measure of artistic merit... either for or against.

[stlukesguild]

We agree on the "arrogant git" part, but I suspect we agree on even more. We agree that there are people who review better than others. We agree that there are people who have read more than others. We agree that there are people who have a wider experience. I think we also agree that we should expect these people to do a better job reviewing a work of art and provide us with more information that would help us enjoy the art.

This is what critics do... but they don't tend to expend their efforts upon mediocre writing. Serious literary criticism is not like the book or film reviews... where the audience turns to some better read/experienced person as a guide in helping them to make up their decision as to whether to spend their money on a given book/film: "Thumbs up or Thumbs down!"

Where we disagree is on the authority or the pronouncement part that comes without evidence. I expect someone who is better read to be able to provide better evidence than one who is not. So why is the better evidence missing? Even more so, why do those supporting such authorities not demand better evidence? Why do they let the authority get away with it?

In most instances in which a serious critic dismisses a work of art/literature/music as clearly mediocre... or worse... they don't engage in a deep level of analysis is support of their opinion. In the case of the Harry Potter novels, such an analysis is not likely to be necessary to those who are well-read and discerning... and not likely to be of any value to those "fanboys" certain of their man's/woman's genius.

I haven't read Proust, but I have attempted Ulysses a few times. I think you are addressing the core of the problem about authority and evidence with this example. Instead of finding a popular work to scorn, the authority in this case finds an unpopular work to promote.

What again, has popularity to do with aesthetic merit? Ulysses and In Search of Lost Time are now both 100 years old. In spite of this fact, they are both still read and recognized as "classics" not only by "experts" such as college professors, critics, and subsequent writers... but also by a sizable audience of well-informed readers. Some works of art are more difficult... demanding... than others... and as a result they will commonly have a smaller audience. This has nothing to do with artistic value. No one is forcing you to read Ulysses or Proust if you don't wish to... but to presume that because you didn't like something... or because it isn't on the best-seller list it is inherently lacking as art is weak thinking in the extreme.

Andersen's Emporer's New Clothes written in the early 19th century summarizes the problem in a children's tale that has become a cliche to keep referencing even when it is most relevant. Is a work of literature "great" because it is "inscrutable" and some authority has made a pronouncement that any reader who doesn't like it is stupid and incompetent? Does a cloth exist because an authority claims "it is invisible to anyone who is too stupid and incompetent to appreciate its quality.

The problem with employing the tale of The Emperor's New Clothes by way of analogy, is that the analogy has itself become an overused and abused cliche. Obviously it has a certain attraction to those who wish to paint the "experts" as fools... but ultimately, it tends to come off as an expression of reverse snobbishness and pride in one's own ignorance.

[stlukesguild]

I am beginning to see our cultural differences, JBI. I don't care whether Bloom or anyone else holds positions like some Me-No-Dummy Chair at Dingbat University, or whatever. However, such information seems to impress you. That totally puzzles me.

In other words achievements mean nothing to you.

You ask me to "prove" that the HP series is not mediocre. I already have in a previous post. I will repeat it. The series is not mediocre because of the number of people who have been entertained by that series. It goes into the millions. That is hard evidence.

That proves absolutely nothing. That's not evidence of artistic merit. More people eat at McDonald's in one day than will eat at the finest restaurants in a year. Am I to assume that such is proof of the great cuisine offered under the Golden Arches?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I am beginning to see our cultural differences, JBI. I don't care whether Bloom or anyone else holds positions like some Me-No-Dummy Chair at Dingbat University, or whatever. However, such information seems to impress you. That totally puzzles me.
Why not, exactly? I'll never understand the snobbish attitude some people take against those who are educated. You may not care if Bloom has a professor ship at Yale and it may not impress you, but that doesn't really matter. One doesn't get a professorship at a university, much less Yale, because they aren't well-read in their respective fields. Whether you recognize the accomplishment doesn't change the fact that someone in that position is indeed a better authority than most anyone who isn't.


Regarding my authority, please profile me as one who has no authority. I don't expect to convince you, but I definitely do not want to convince you based on any information about my background. That would defeat the purpose. A reader needs to accept or reject an argument based on evidence not idol worship.
How can we ascertain your authority? I thought no one had the authority to pass judgements in literature (even though you're doing so).


You ask me to "prove" that the HP series is not mediocre. I already have in a previous post. I will repeat it. The series is not mediocre because of the number of people who have been entertained by that series. It goes into the millions. That is hard evidence. It does not rely on anyone's authority. You don't even have to read a single word of the series to understand it.

I think JBI was just pointing out the hypocrisy of some of your statements. For one, you claim no one has the authority to tear down a piece of literature as Bloom does, yet you seem to think you have the authority to build up a piece of literature. So, what, does this authority only apply to those who apply negative criticism?

Also, your main argument that states Harry Potter is a good, valuable piece of literature hinges on the fact that it's a great seller--i.e., what sells is an indicator of worth. You then outright dismiss the opinions of Bloom . . . yet he is the world's most popular critic, one who is consistently taught, read, and one who has sold millions of books. By your own criteria, his opinions should hold a substantial amount of weight. His books sell. The market has spoken. He obviously knows what he's talking about.

[qimissung]

Kudos to all of you for shredding YesNo's argument. *sarcasm* I don't agree with your opinion, YesNo, that millions of copies mark the merit of the series, but it seems to me that if millions of people like something I would look at it to see why they like and what merit it has, which is certainly valid.

As to Harold Bloom, or rather the argument that concerns him, what I take from that argument is that we all have the right to express our opinions on the worth or lack of worth of a piece of literature. I hear what you're saying, Mutatis. I grant that Bloom is educated and erudite in a way that I can only aspire to, but I still disagree with him.

Do I think Harry Potter is a worthwhile piece of literature? Yes. Is it valuable? Hmmm, maybe. Maybe not. I would probably characterize it as a ripping good yarn. You know some other ripping good yarns? The Last of the Mohicans, and Treasure Island, both popular literature of their day, although each is arguably written in a more literary style.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I'm not saying Bloom can't be disagreed with--I frequently do (I think he's way too attached to the Western dead-white-guy canon, to a near-sexist and prejudiced point), and I think his ideas are now quite outdated, and, from what I've heard, he just seems like an unpleasant person. I was just pointing out that YesNo's dismissal of Bloom's authority was hypocritical, by his (sorry if you're not a man, YesNo--I really don't know) own criteria.

[qimissung]

Fair enough, Mutatis. I'm not sure I think his argument is hypocritical, which means the "pretense of having virtues, beliefs, principals one does not actually possess."

I think when YesNo says he has "no authority," or one way this could be interpreted, anyway, he means that he does not have the prestigious backing of degree or university or a publication. Do you think he is saying that by having no authority he has no right to publicly express his opinion? Which would be a curious argument, indeed.

[Aylinn]

Kudos to all of you for shredding YesNo's argument. *sarcasm* I don't agree with your opinion, YesNo, that millions of copies mark the merit of the series, but it seems to me that if millions of people like something I would look at it to see why they like and what merit it has, which is certainly valid.

I suppose that it is so, because they provide people with a simple entertainment. There is a mystery, but it's not very complicated. Let's look at the first book and the Snape & Quirinus Quirrell situation. For a long time Snape is presented as the bad guy and Quirinus Quirrell is shown as the good guy, incapable of plotting any intrigue. However, at the end of the book it turns out that Snape is the good guy while Quirrell is the bad guy.

So we have the bad guy turns out to be good while the good guy turns out to be bad scenario. It's the simplest mystery scenario I know. By the way, Don Brown uses it in his books.



Since I have read all the books, I think I have right to say something about them.

1. There are some things that could have been better. For example the introduction of Ginny through the comments of others, if they were not limited to descriptions like that: She is hot. If the comments had more depth and told us something about the author of the comment, it would be an interesting way to introduce a character and deepen the characterisation of the commenting person.

2. I think it would have been better if Harry ended up with Luna. After the fifth book I thought that he would be with her, especially since it turned out they have similar life experience, loss of a parent/parents, etc. and as a result could understand each other very well.

3. The idea of Deathly Hallows had clearly not occurred to Rowling until she was writing the sixth book. Just think how strange it is that it took Harry, Hermiona, and Ron seven years to realise that Harry's invisible cloak is unique and incomparable to any other. Besides, the events in the fifth book allowed for a great introduction of Deathly Hallows.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Fair enough, Mutatis. I'm not sure I think his argument is hypocritical, which means the "pretense of having virtues, beliefs, principals one does not actually possess."

I think when YesNo says he has "no authority," or one way this could be interpreted, anyway, he means that he does not have the prestigious backing of degree or university or a publication. Do you think he is saying that by having no authority he has no right to publicly express his opinion? Which would be a curious argument, indeed.

Honestly, I don't entirely understand his thoughts on authority. From what I understand, he thinks no one, no matter if they have a degree or prestigious accolades, has the authority to pass judgements about literature . . . yet he's doing just that. I also found it hypocritical that he find HP to have an objective amount of worth because of sales, yet he still writes off Bloom, a man who has sold many, many books. I can't be much more clear than that.

[stlukesguild]

Kudos to all of you for shredding YesNo's argument. *sarcasm* I don't agree with your opinion, YesNo, that millions of copies mark the merit of the series, but it seems to me that if millions of people like something I would look at it to see why they like and what merit it has, which is certainly valid.

So in other words... the ideas that popularity is the ultimate measure of artistic merit, and that all opinions are of the same worth (or lack thereof) regardless of achievement or gained/proven reputation should be above question if challenging them also results in questioning the literary merit of a book you enjoyed *more sarcasm*:D.

I don't think anyone has suggested that the opinions of the masses are irrelevant. Certainly not me. I've recently been painted as an "anti-elitist" for suggesting that we should consider the opinions of the audience... as well as the "experts": critics, academics, historians, subsequent artists, etc... I agree that popularity draws your attention. How many other children's books have I never even heard of because they weren't all over the press, in the theaters, marketed to the high hilt in the big book chains, etc...?

As to Harold Bloom, or rather the argument that concerns him, what I take from that argument is that we all have the right to express our opinions on the worth or lack of worth of a piece of literature. I hear what you're saying, Mutatis. I grant that Bloom is educated and erudite in a way that I can only aspire to, but I still disagree with him.

Certainly we all have the "right" to express our opinions. The internet has given everyone the right to be a published critic. All opinions, however, are not created equal. You are free to disagree with Bloom. We all have on occasion. No one has questioned your right to enjoy a work of literature regardless of popularity or critical opinions. If, however, you are arguing that a work of literature that is generally acknowledged as being of questionable value in aesthetic/critical terms is in actuality a great work... a "classic"... then the responsibility is laid upon you to prove your point... and drawing attention to the popularity of the work is no proof for or against.

[mona amon]

JCamilo, thanks for replying to my question.

Well I looked up Bloom, and I'm thinking I might not dislike him after all, if I read some of his proper work.
Much of contemporary criticism takes a novel and holds it up to a series of incongruous and irrelevant sociological magnifying glasses—gender theory, feminism, Marxist analysis, and all sorts of postmodern muck. These critics, whom Bloom has memorably called the School of Resentment,...[cut]...
From this website - http://www.vice.com/read/harold-bloom-431-v15n12"School of Resentment" LOL! :D


We agree on the "arrogant git" part, but I suspect we agree on even more. We agree that there are people who review better than others. We agree that there are people who have read more than others. We agree that there are people who have a wider experience. I think we also agree that we should expect these people to do a better job reviewing a work of art and provide us with more information that would help us enjoy the art.

This is what critics do... but they don't tend to expend their efforts upon mediocre writing. Serious literary criticism is not like the book or film reviews... where the audience turns to some better read/experienced person as a guide in helping them to make up their decision as to whether to spend their money on a given book/film: "Thumbs up or Thumbs down!"

Where we disagree is on the authority or the pronouncement part that comes without evidence. I expect someone who is better read to be able to provide better evidence than one who is not. So why is the better evidence missing? Even more so, why do those supporting such authorities not demand better evidence? Why do they let the authority get away with it?

In most instances in which a serious critic dismisses a work of art/literature/music as clearly mediocre... or worse... they don't engage in a deep level of analysis is support of their opinion. In the case of the Harry Potter novels, such an analysis is not likely to be necessary to those who are well-read and discerning... and not likely to be of any value to those "fanboys" certain of their man's/woman's genius.

I understand your point, and I wouldn't complain if he had just dismissed Harry Potter along with Dan Brown, Stephanie Meyer and others. I'm used to seeing Harry Potter in such company, and even if I feel that they ought not to be there and belong to a class of their own, I understand that it's "mediocre books" they are dismissing, just as I don't have to read every Harlequin romance to dismiss the whole genre as trash.

However, if a critic singles out one particular Harlequin romance (rather than the whole genre) and says it's trash, he'll have to have read it in the first place, and secondly, give some reasons for why he thinks it's bad. He doesn't have to give anything like a deep analysis. It's perfectly possible that the book is too mediocre (or he finds it too mediocre) for a deep analysis. He can even just give direct quotes from the books, to show how laughably bad the book is. I've seen this happen with 50 Shades and Da Vinci Code, and it works.

Unsupported statements about a particular book or series of the "this is bad because I say so" variety are simply annoying, whether it's a schoolboy talking about Shakespeare, or Bloom talking about Harry Potter.

[stlukesguild]

I think when YesNo says he has "no authority," or one way this could be interpreted, anyway, he means that he does not have the prestigious backing of degree or university or a publication. Do you think he is saying that by having no authority he has no right to publicly express his opinion? Which would be a curious argument, indeed.

Yes/No explicitly stated that Bloom had "no authority" to proclaim a given critical opinion. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. Thanks to the internet, everyone now has the right to publicly express their opinion... but contrary to what Yes/No is suggesting, all opinions are not of the same value. Some opinions are afforded more weight than others. My doctor's opinion on what exactly it is that I have got is afforded more worth far more than the opinion of my mother-in-law, my friends, or a poll of the man on the street. Artistic opinions are also afforded a degree of merit based upon the achievements and the reputation of the individual. The critics are not always right... but neither are the doctors... but the fact that the "experts" are sometimes wrong does not invalidate the value of their opinion.

[mal4mac]

I'm not saying Bloom can't be disagreed with--I frequently do (I think he's way too attached to the Western dead-white-guy canon, to a near-sexist and prejudiced point), and I think his ideas are now quite outdated, and, from what I've heard, he just seems like an unpleasant person. I was just pointing out that YesNo's dismissal of Bloom's authority was hypocritical, by his (sorry if you're not a man, YesNo--I really don't know) own criteria.

We're all attached to something. The guy spent his youth reading the Western canon, and enjoyed it. Can you blame him for following his early interests? Would you say that Feynman was too attached to physics?

Have you any examples of him being sexist? The early chapters of his book "The Western Canon" is mostly dead white males because ancient societies were ultra-sexist. Later on he gives much space to Austen, Dickinson, and Woolf.

Do ideas ever date in literature? For instance, Aristotle's idea of catharsis has lasted for a long time. I can't see how Bloom's idea of "agon" will ever date. It might not be trendy today, but who's to say it will not bloom again. ('scuse pun :))

[Drkshadow03]

Some people are good readers, some people inferior ones. Harold Bloom is most certainly a good reader. With that said, that doesn't mean he is always a good arguer or that all his points are correct. After all, there are some critics who have said nice things about Potter. Not to mention there are plenty of examples of other critics taking to task Bloom's critical interpretations of more traditional Canonical works in favor of their own.

[mal4mac]

To fuel this debate I'd recommend watching last Fridays Newsnight Review show on BBC2, which has three interesting reviewers talking about this new book. (With two female reviewers and a female chair they can't easily be accused of sexism at least!)

The reviewers made many of the points that Bloom has made about Rowling - full of cliches, "telling not showing", etc, but it was far from all negative. They pointed out that she is a "magician" at character and situation creation.

Maybe that explains her popularity, and her bad standing with "high literary" critics. Even if a story uses lots of clichés and shortcuts, if the plot and characters are "magic", then who cares?

[JBI]

To fuel this debate I'd recommend watching last Fridays Newsnight Review show on BBC2, which has three interesting reviewers talking about this new book. (With two female reviewers and a female chair they can't easily be accused of sexism at least!)

The reviewers made many of the points that Bloom has made about Rowling - full of cliches, "telling not showing", etc, but it was far from all negative. They pointed out that she is a "magician" at character and situation creation.

Maybe that explains her popularity, and her bad standing with "high literary" critics. Even if a story uses lots of clichés and shortcuts, if the plot and characters are "magic", then who cares?

Bloom's argument would be that this would be considered a B level or C level book. It is not the worst out there, and he has nothing particular against it, other than it is held up as a standard.

We have As out there, he lists a few, and I could list a few of my own - the question then comes down to time. Should people read these books, and should they be praised, and do they contribute to literacy? Bloom's argument is, they do not contribute to anything but their own sales, and to a mediocre sense of fulfillment, they do not lead to life-long readers of great books, and mindful critics.

I tend to agree. I have no problem with people reading those books. But I have a problem with people claiming they are saving literacy, or that they are great literature. They are a light entertainment that serves the needs of entertainment, but they do not lead to anything, and therefore have no actual value outside of their entertainment. They do not increase literacy by anything substantial or lead to more readers finding great books in a way that they wouldn't have found them before.

Some argue they move on from Potter to better books, but I have a hunch if I had given them a better book they could have gone straight into it. Potter is not God, and he didn't really change the world, or change reading, and has little to offer. That is Bloom's argument.

[qimissung]

"The reviewers made many of the points that Bloom has made about Rowling - full of cliches, "telling not showing", etc, but it was far from all negative. They pointed out that she is a "magician" at character and situation creation.

Maybe that explains her popularity, and her bad standing with "high literary" critics. Even if a story uses lots of clichés and shortcuts, if the plot and characters are "magic", then who cares?"

Which is kind of what I was saying.

"I don't think anyone has suggested that the opinions of the masses are irrelevant..." I certainly got the impression that some did not think it was important. I was merely asking us to look at why people liked the story. I wasn't pointing fingers.


"Artistic opinions are also afforded a degree of merit based upon the achievements and the reputation of the..."

Where did you get the idea I was arguing against that? I was just trying to clarify YesNo's position in my own mind. Why is that such a terrible thing? You seem angry. I think debate should be thoughtful and fun, with many ideas expresssed which in turn lead to more ideas. While you seem to want to quash all opinions but your own. "Seem to" being the operative phrase.

[qimissung]

I guess only time will tell if Harry Potter "saved literacy." I can only agree that it's a B or C level book. That's where I would put it.

But I would leave them on the library shelves. Having worked my butt off for many years trying to get thousands of young people to even want to pick up a book, I cannot decry any book that succeeds in accomplishing just that. I tend to be egalitarian where books and reader taste are concerned, and I also saw first hand the joy those books brought to my own kids.

I mean the Harry Potter books were a publishing phenomenon at a time when reading just wasn't popular. It got kids to read. Why is that not a good thing? Now whether they continue to do so is a matter of question. They're probably not if they don't see their parents reading, or if reading is not prized by the culture they live in.

And one would hope they'd go on to read other things and better things. But not all people are going to do that. Look at the 50 Shades of Gray books. I haven't read it yet, if indeed I ever do. I have a friend who just can't get over all the women at her work who keep gushing over it. So I do kind of understand your concern.

[TheFifthElement]

I mean the Harry Potter books were a publishing phenomenon at a time when reading just wasn't popular. It got kids to read. Why is that not a good thing? Now whether they continue to do so is a matter of question. They're probably not if they don't see their parents reading, or if reading is not prized by the culture they live in.

I think that's a good point Qimi. If they're not reading at all their chances of going on to read 'great' literature are zero. If they're reading something, even if it's whatever B or C grade means (I mean, who grades them?) then there's a chance they will go on to read something better. Or not, it's largely down to personal choice after all. But I think about my own childhood and I grew up reading books about ponies and the Chalet Girls series and now, many years later, I'm reading Middlemarch. So it's possible.

And if they don't, so what? Who does it damage? What's so important about reading novels anyway? Are we caught in a 'dead' idea about the nature of reading and the reading skills that the next generation will need?

[JCamilo]

If only time will tell if HP saved or not literacy, then how you can say It made kids reading?

That is the entire point of the debate: there is no evidence whatsoever it increased the number of young readers or mature. The last decade has been actually a decade of decline.

So, let's be coherent: if only time will say HP saved literacy then wait to say it made kids read.

[qimissung]

I think that's a good point Qimi. If they're not reading at all their chances of going on to read 'great' literature are zero. If they're reading something, even if it's whatever B or C grade means (I mean, who grades them?) then there's a chance they will go on to read something better. Or not, it's largely down to personal choice after all. But I think about my own childhood and I grew up reading books about ponies and the Chalet Girls series and now, many years later, I'm reading Middlemarch. So it's possible.

And if they don't, so what? Who does it damage? What's so important about reading novels anyway? Are we caught in a 'dead' idea about the nature of reading and the reading skills that the next generation will need?

And that is also a good point, Fifth. I refer in particular to your last line. I read almost daily to my kids until they were in middle school at which point it seemed like they dropped reading on their own altogether. So disappointing. But now, many years later, my middle son does read-books, like I do; and my oldest son reads, too-but mostly on the internet. But not just TMZ, although I think he does go to web sites of that nature, but long articles. He reads-although if he just says he's "on the computer" one may not initially realize he's actually reading. It doesn't "look" like what we're used to reading looking like.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

We're all attached to something. The guy spent his youth reading the Western canon, and enjoyed it. Can you blame him for following his early interests? Would you say that Feynman was too attached to physics?
I don't blame him for anything. It could easily be argued that there's nothing wrong with being attached to the western dead-white-guy canon. I'm not anti-western canon. It's there for a reason; it's full of amazing authors and great pieces of literature. I just think more could be included in it. I don't know. I'm not really up to another canon debate.


Have you any examples of him being sexist? The early chapters of his book "The Western Canon" is mostly dead white males because ancient societies were ultra-sexist. Later on he gives much space to Austen, Dickinson, and Woolf.
I have no specific examples, and I have neither the time nor motivation to find any. I was just speaking of his ideas on a larger scale. I could be wrong--it's quite possible

Do ideas ever date in literature? For instance, Aristotle's idea of catharsis has lasted for a long time. I can't see how Bloom's idea of "agon" will ever date. It might not be trendy today, but who's to say it will not bloom again. ('scuse pun :))
I'd simply say that some ideas do date and others don't.

[YesNo]

There's a tension between authority and evidence. People too quickly accept authority not only without evidence, but even in the face of solid, contrary evidence.

When Bloom tears down the HP series, the evidence is not on his side. So, what is one to do? Does one accept Bloom on his authority or does one reject Bloom based on the evidence? Those, like myself, who reject him, insist that he must provide adequate evidence to counter the evidence that is already on the table.

What is the evidence that is already on the table? Well, Bloom is no fool. Whether anyone else is willing to acknowledge this evidence or not, he knows that the millions of readers who enjoyed the books is the major evidence against his position. He tries to dismiss this evidence by defaming these readers as "a host...who simply will not read superior fare".

The title of Bloom's piece, "Can 35 Million Book Buyers Be Wrong? Yes", shows that he is focused on this readership evidence. Suppose someone asks, "Can 35 Million Chocolate Buyers Be Wrong?" Does a "Yes" or "No" response even make sense to such a question? It shouldn't.

Suppose one claims that there is a "right" or "wrong" to what someone likes. What does that imply? It seems it implies that there exists some supernatural Platonic dimension where the truth of this aesthetic statement can be established by comparing the HP series with some ideal children's novel. It could also imply a justification for a censorship program to make sure people read the "superior fare" that Bloom has in mind for us.

To promote his authority Bloom must trash a lot of people. Who are they? With a little imagination, they have faces. They are your neighbors. They are your relatives. They are your family. I would rather stand with them than with Bloom, not simply because they are my family, but because their choice in what they want to read adds up to massive evidence that Bloom has not been able to adequately counter.

[JBI]

There's a tension between authority and evidence. People too quickly accept authority not only without evidence, but even in the face of solid, contrary evidence.

When Bloom tears down the HP series, the evidence is not on his side. So, what is one to do? Does one accept Bloom on his authority or does one reject Bloom based on the evidence? Those, like myself, who reject him, insist that he must provide adequate evidence to counter the evidence that is already on the table.

What is the evidence that is already on the table? Well, Bloom is no fool. Whether anyone else is willing to acknowledge this evidence or not, he knows that the millions of readers who enjoyed the books is the major evidence against his position. He tries to dismiss this evidence by defaming these readers as "a host...who simply will not read superior fare".

The title of Bloom's piece, "Can 35 Million Book Buyers Be Wrong? Yes", shows that he is focused on this readership evidence. Suppose someone asks, "Can 35 Million Chocolate Buyers Be Wrong?" Does a "Yes" or "No" response even make sense to such a question? It shouldn't.

Suppose one claims that there is a "right" or "wrong" to what someone likes. What does that imply? It seems it implies that there exists some supernatural Platonic dimension where the truth of this aesthetic statement can be established by comparing the HP series with some ideal children's novel. It could also imply a justification for a censorship program to make sure people read the "superior fare" that Bloom has in mind for us.

To promote his authority Bloom must trash a lot of people. Who are they? With a little imagination, they have faces. They are your neighbors. They are your relatives. They are your family. I would rather stand with them than with Bloom, not simply because they are my family, but because their choice in what they want to read adds up to massive evidence that Bloom has not been able to adequately counter.

And your evidence is? He has given points why it is bad, and assumes his readership agrees to an extent - he is not out there to prove it crap line by line. The same way someone who is campaigning against drunk driving does not need to list all the bads of drunk driving every time they open their mouth - they assume the audience knows already - or someone lobbying for law against cigarettes - they assume the public knows they can kill you.

Now, this is a book - it is more open to debate, but he assumes people agree with him, which many do. Can 35million be wrong is responding to your presumption, not the text - he knows there will be detractors from his idea, and does not care enough to give them any time, which is the right thing to do.


You on the contrary have shown absolutely nothing of evidence or substance in support of the text other than that you and some other kids love the books. That's hogwash - millions and millions of people love cigarettes - they are one of the world's most popular crops - does that make them somehow good? Good at all? No it does not. So the mass appeal argument has just been shown to mean nothing.

Bloom has a career of supporting obscure authors as well - the was instrumental in many debates to revive and reaccess lost and disfavored poets and authors. You dismiss him as a polemic who is only interested in lashing out at weak authors for the sake of getting sales. Quite to the contrary actually, he was selling better promoting long-held household staples. His biggest sales have come from supporting already popular authors, and writing about them. He hardly has added anything to the sales of Jane Austen, Virginia Woolf, Shakespeare, or whomever else - they are already major players, and that is who he writes about, and that is who sold his books for him - not J.K. Rowling, Stephen King, or that person who wrote Twilight.

[stlukesguild]

To promote his authority Bloom must trash a lot of people. Who are they? With a little imagination, they have faces. They are your neighbors. They are your relatives. They are your family. I would rather stand with them than with Bloom, not simply because they are my family, but because their choice in what they want to read adds up to massive evidence that Bloom has not been able to adequately counter.

Hahahahahaha! :lol: That was seriously the most pathetic attempt to win a debate I have come across in quite some time. Your argument is dissected, and so you make a sad play to the emotions? "Which side are you on? The side of Harold Bloom and those elitist snobs who seek to trash your friends and family? Or are you on the side of the good, morally upstanding folk... your hard-working neighbors, your family, your elderly and disabled grandmother? I know what side I stand on. I stand in solidarity with the "real Americans".

Personally, I love my family (most of them), and my wife... but I'm not about to turn to them for guidance when it comes to art and literature. Valuing art is not a popularity contest. There are any number of individuals among my friends and family who read and greatly enjoyed the Harry Potter novels... and even Dan Brown. One friend bought me a copy of The Davinci Code because he knew I loved art and art history. The fact that I think these works are mediocre at best (OK... the Dan Brown stuff sucks) is in no way an insult to my friends and family. Art and Literature are not an abiding passion to them. They don't have a personal library of some 3000+ books. They spend their recreational time and money on new cars, vacations to Florida, football and baseball games. I spend mine on art, music, books, and trips to the museums and art galleries.

Art is "elitist" in the sense that the opinions that matter most are those of the audience who have invested the most time and effort into the understanding and appreciation of that given art form. When speaking of literature, this audience includes not only the critics, professors and other academics as well as the subsequent writers... but also the wider group of what Virginia Wolfe referred to as the (not so common) "common reader"... in other words, the passionate, well-informed, well-read reader. The attempt to portray this as a conflict between the "everyday man or woman" and those of a given degree of wealth, social status, or formal education is simply a lame attempt to dismiss the value of knowledge and achievement.

[YesNo]

And your evidence is?

My evidence is the large number of people who liked the book. I don't know how to make that any clearer to you.

Perhaps the real problem that is bothering you is that I don't agree with you. Just so that you are not confused about that as well, let me make it clear: I don't agree with you.


Hahahahahaha! :lol: That was seriously the most pathetic attempt to win a debate I have come across in quite some time.

I am glad you enjoyed it, stlukesguild.

[stlukesguild]

JBI-And your evidence is?

Yes/No-My evidence is the large number of people who liked the book. I don't know how to make that any clearer to you.

I think we're all clear on what you have put forth as "evidence" of artistic merit. It is simply that popularity is absolutely no measure of worth whatsoever. But you can certainly keep repeating the idea in the vain hope that it will make it true.

[mortalterror]

That proves absolutely nothing. That's not evidence of artistic merit. More people eat at McDonald's in one day than will eat at the finest restaurants in a year. Am I to assume that such is proof of the great cuisine offered under the Golden Arches?

I've only ever eaten their french fries, chicken mcnuggets, and hamburgers; and those were some of the finest examples of their kind. Admittedly, they aren't the most difficult culinary dishes to produce, but I have to wonder if they don't get more mileage, produce more pleasure, than some of the more finesse and work heavy dishes. I mean, just a regular apple or a pineapple is already pretty good. And sometimes people slave away being inventive, burning endless calories on something that in the end isn't as appetizing as a simple bologna sandwich. I'm not saying that's true of the finest restaurants, where the chefs are artists and know how to get the most flavor out of every apple and pineapple. What I'm saying is that McDonalds shouldn't be despised for being the best at making the most appetizing food that's also simple and cheap to make.

[stlukesguild]

Hey... I eat McDonald's... but it's not like I'm going to suggest that the food is great or anything. I'm hooked on those damn frappes... but Starbuck's are better... and any bar makes better burgers. But sometimes I just gotta eat and run. If there was something faster and comparably priced in the area...

So are you suggesting that McDonalds is on your top-10 list of finest places to eat, and that the Harry Potter novels are going to replace Hemingway among your favorite works of literature?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I can't eat McDonalds, and very rarely eat fast food. The thought of it usually makes me feel a bit queasy. I do love White Castle though, ironically.

[JBI]

I've only ever eaten their french fries, chicken mcnuggets, and hamburgers; and those were some of the finest examples of their kind. Admittedly, they aren't the most difficult culinary dishes to produce, but I have to wonder if they don't get more mileage, produce more pleasure, than some of the more finesse and work heavy dishes. I mean, just a regular apple or a pineapple is already pretty good. And sometimes people slave away being inventive, burning endless calories on something that in the end isn't as appetizing as a simple bologna sandwich. I'm not saying that's true of the finest restaurants, where the chefs are artists and know how to get the most flavor out of every apple and pineapple. What I'm saying is that McDonalds shouldn't be despised for being the best at making the most appetizing food that's also simple and cheap to make.

Still as a gourmet who eats McDonald's, I realize my most memorable meals in terms of food are decidedly not at McDonalds. I can eat a big Mac, but it is not a steak dinner in a French restaurant. The argument is you are happy when you eat Mcd's but you never are left with a lasting impression of something special. For the child who is deprived of extravagant meals, McDonald's is a heaven on earth - it is happiness, but as pallets mature, it is more of a quick convenience.

Now books are virtually free. There is no class divide in terms of the physical book. Education in many countries is also quite reasonable ( Canada and most of Europe) so study is no longer a restriction for the rich. Likewise, online alternative education can do what universities can do to teach one to read, pretty much, as can other books.

From that perspective, I want my books well written. I want them all to be special and memorable. I no longer have the time to read light reading. My light reading is commentary, not primary works. My heavy reading is primary texts. I want all my books to develop my pallet and change me somewhat.

Think of it like drinking a bottle of Italian wine. You can sip the bottle, or eat it with some olives cheese and prosciutto. The effect is different, but somehow you need to learn how to drink it the right way.

I am someone who remembers every good meal he has ever eaten. I remember a steak dinner in Vientiane, or even a fancy chengdu hotpot in a garden in the old alleys of the city. I remember eating lamb and roasted chicken with dozens of deserts and snacks in kashgar, and eating delicious seafood on the beaches of Bali. But I cannot remember a single particular instance of something special from McDonald's. Even though I have eaten it hundreds of times and still do.

[mortalterror]

Hey... I eat McDonald's... but it's not like I'm going to suggest that the food is great or anything. I'm hooked on those damn frappes... but Starbuck's are better... and any bar makes better burgers. But sometimes I just gotta eat and run. If there was something faster and comparably priced in the area...

So are you suggesting that McDonalds is on your top-10 list of finest places to eat, and that the Harry Potter novels are going to replace Hemingway among your favorite works of literature?

I don't know that there is that much variability in terms of hamburgers. I've eaten thousands over decades in dozens of different venues. It's kind of hard to mess up and it's usually about a 7 in terms of flavor. You can make it greasy or burn it or cover it in garbage but for the most part it's still the same animal between two slices of bread whether you get it at McDonalds or a bar. What drink you have with it might make more of a difference than where you get your burger.

*I don't want to seem ignorant about burgers suggesting it's all the same. I do realize that there is a noticeably different taste between grill and barbecue, propane vs charcoal, but the point remains there's not much to it.

**I'll also admit that I've never had a hamburger from either 5 Guys, or In-N-Out-Burger, which are by all accounts outstanding.

Honestly, I don't think I even have a top 10 places to eat. Does home count? There's one or two pizza places I used to eat at in college which were great, but usually when I dine out at glitzy restaurants I'm just annoyed by the prices and feel like I'm paying for ambiance and window dressing more than for the food.

But then, we are sort of comparing apples and oranges. Most people can afford a Hemingway novel but can't buy a $400 bottle of wine to make a comparison with Budweiser.


Still as a gourmet who eats McDonald's, I realize my most memorable meals in terms of food are decidedly not at McDonalds. I can eat a big Mac, but it is not a steak dinner in a French restaurant. The argument is you are happy when you eat Mcd's but you never are left with a lasting impression of something special. For the child who is deprived of extravagant meals, McDonald's is a heaven on earth - it is happiness, but as pallets mature, it is more of a quick convenience.

Now books are virtually free. There is no class divide in terms of the physical book. Education in many countries is also quite reasonable ( Canada and most of Europe) so study is no longer a restriction for the rich. Likewise, online alternative education can do what universities can do to teach one to read, pretty much, as can other books.

From that perspective, I want my books well written. I want them all to be special and memorable. I no longer have the time to read light reading. My light reading is commentary, not primary works. My heavy reading is primary texts. I want all my books to develop my pallet and change me somewhat.

Think of it like drinking a bottle of Italian wine. You can sip the bottle, or eat it with some olives cheese and prosciutto. The effect is different, but somehow you need to learn how to drink it the right way.

I am someone who remembers every good meal he has ever eaten. I remember a steak dinner in Vientiane, or even a fancy chengdu hotpot in a garden in the old alleys of the city. I remember eating lamb and roasted chicken with dozens of deserts and snacks in kashgar, and eating delicious seafood on the beaches of Bali. But I cannot remember a single particular instance of something special from McDonald's. Even though I have eaten it hundreds of times and still do.

I just baked a bunch of chocolate chip cookies. They're pretty good, but not especially memorable.

I can't remember every good meal I've ever had, and not every good meal is memorable. I will say that about fifteen years ago Boston Market had the best corn bread I've ever tasted. It was sweet and the texture was just the right consistency, not crumbly but not stale or mushy either. And it went very well with their slices of honey baked ham. They served very good raviolis every Wednesday in the seventh grade lunch cafeteria, and every Thursday in the sixth grade I had the best cinnamon rolls ever. Other than that, about the only special meal I can think of is the first time I ate cheddar cheese and green apples together and they somehow combined and made each other better.

[mona amon]

:D

Why does it have to be Macburger vs Haute Cusine? What about a delicious home cooked meal, a fabulous fruitcake, a lovely stew made of all kinds of good things skillfully mixed up together?

Edit: Not much to the point, or maybe it is, but for those of you who enjoy a good send-up, here's one of the Da Vinci code. I chanced upon it this morning and it cracked me up. http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/11/27/2507131/the-davinci-code.html

[Lokasenna]

I've only ever eaten their french fries, chicken mcnuggets, and hamburgers; and those were some of the finest examples of their kind. Admittedly, they aren't the most difficult culinary dishes to produce, but I have to wonder if they don't get more mileage, produce more pleasure, than some of the more finesse and work heavy dishes. I mean, just a regular apple or a pineapple is already pretty good. And sometimes people slave away being inventive, burning endless calories on something that in the end isn't as appetizing as a simple bologna sandwich. I'm not saying that's true of the finest restaurants, where the chefs are artists and know how to get the most flavor out of every apple and pineapple. What I'm saying is that McDonalds shouldn't be despised for being the best at making the most appetizing food that's also simple and cheap to make.

I feel like I may be pushing the analogy beyond breaking point, but here it goes...

The main issue for me with fastfood (and particularly that provided by McDonalds) has nothing to do with the taste, but the fact that they are supremely unhealthy. If you've never seen the documentary film Super Size Me (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Size_Me), then I urge you to do so: it is a revelation. The reason I never eat fastfood is because of the sheer amount of damage it can do to you. There is something so insidious about it all: they cram their products full of fat and salt to make it as addictive as possible, but the actual nutritional content is so low that you might as well have eaten the cardboard packet it all comes in.

Now to bring this stilted, tottering analogy back to literature: just because something proves an addictive enjoyment to a very great many people does not mean it is either quality or, more importantly, healthy. 50 Shades of Grey is perhaps the best example of this at the moment: mind-bendingly popular, and yet a shockingly poorly written work of sinister drivel that glamourises violent and oppressive relationships, and overturns half a century of feminism. It is, in a very meaningful sense, poisonous. Now, 50 Shades is a very different beast from HP - I don't think anyone here would disagree that about their relative merits: 50 Shades is to Harry Potter what excrement is to cream. But nevertheless the point I am trying to make is that HP has something of McDonald's about it as well. It is fine taken as it is, but it should not be one's sole diet: the people who read HP and its analogues, but nothing else, will be as unhealthy as those who live on McDonalds alone.

[JBI]

Mortal You are so American in culinary habits.

In the past 5 or so years the burger in Canada has transitioned. We now demand a higher quality of meat, preferably organic, and we want fresher everything.

McDonald's is not the same, and in Canada it is not even cheap like it is in the states. In Russia I hear it is luxury food, and here in china people go on dates to McDonalds

That being said, it still is not part of culinary culture. McDonald's culture is of two kinds, quick and cheap, or alluring to children. Anything greasy is tasty as we have evolved to enjoy the taste of fats. Its part of human biology. That does not make it good though.

We are not reading all the time. Reading a good book aught to be regarded in the same vain as watching good films or going to good restaurants. If you need something quick, you could just as easily watch tv and not bother. Harry potter is that quick junk, but when you start calling it the real deal, you have a problem. Reading is the most affordable way to enjoy art, therefore I see no reason to need to read thevfastfood of literature.

[Emil Miller]

Mortal You are so American in culinary habits.

In the past 5 or so years the burger in Canada has transitioned. We now demand a higher quality of meat, preferably organic, and we want fresher everything.

McDonald's is not the same, and in Canada it is not even cheap like it is in the states. In Russia I hear it is luxury food, and here in china people go on dates to McDonalds

That being said, it still is not part of culinary culture. McDonald's culture is of two kinds, quick and cheap, or alluring to children. Anything greasy is tasty as we have evolved to enjoy the taste of fats. Its part of human biology. That does not make it good though.

We are not reading all the time. Reading a good book aught to be regarded in the same vain as watching good films or going to good restaurants. If you need something quick, you could just as easily watch tv and not bother. Harry potter is that quick junk, but when you start calling it the real deal, you have a problem. Reading is the most affordable way to enjoy art, therefore I see no reason to need to read thevfastfood of literature.

On one occasion I was in China and the people I was staying with suggested that I accompany their young son to a Kentucky Fried Chicken outlet near to a supermarket where I wanted to buy some bottles French wine.
It was National Children's Day and the KFC shop was bulging with kids buying fried chicken. It seems that Colonel Sanders is almost as revered by children as Mao was by their elders; I even have a photo somewhere of a life size model of the colonel standing outside one of his establishments in Hangzhou.

[mortalterror]

I feel like I may be pushing the analogy beyond breaking point, but here it goes...

The main issue for me with fastfood (and particularly that provided by McDonalds) has nothing to do with the taste, but the fact that they are supremely unhealthy. If you've never seen the documentary film Super Size Me (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Size_Me), then I urge you to do so: it is a revelation.

Ah, Super Size Me, just...good...science. Entertaining movie but about as full of facts as McDonalds food is full of nutrition.


The reason I never eat fastfood is because of the sheer amount of damage it can do to you. There is something so insidious about it all: they cram their products full of fat and salt to make it as addictive as possible, but the actual nutritional content is so low that you might as well have eaten the cardboard packet it all comes in.

If eating a hamburger makes you sick, then the problem is with your digestion not the hamburger. And it's not the same as easting cardboard. It has beef which is full of protein. Meat and bread are two of the major food groups and part of most healthy diets.


Now to bring this stilted, tottering analogy back to literature: just because something proves an addictive enjoyment to a very great many people does not mean it is either quality or, more importantly, healthy. 50 Shades of Grey is perhaps the best example of this at the moment: mind-bendingly popular, and yet a shockingly poorly written work of sinister drivel that glamourises violent and oppressive relationships, and overturns half a century of feminism. It is, in a very meaningful sense, poisonous. Now, 50 Shades is a very different beast from HP - I don't think anyone here would disagree that about their relative merits: 50 Shades is to Harry Potter what excrement is to cream. But nevertheless the point I am trying to make is that HP has something of McDonald's about it as well. It is fine taken as it is, but it should not be one's sole diet: the people who read HP and its analogues, but nothing else, will be as unhealthy as those who live on McDonalds alone.

Precisely, it's fine for a treat but should not be your primary diet. And all the hand wringers who demonize it are alarmists and neurotic righteous eaters influenced by current diet fads.


Mortal You are so American in culinary habits.

It would be more accurate to call me conservative. Many Americans are being suckered by weird new age eating fads as we speak.



In the past 5 or so years the burger in Canada has transitioned. We now demand a higher quality of meat, preferably organic, and we want fresher everything.

The organic food business is just another swindle.

http://healthland.time.com/2012/09/04/is-organic-food-more-nutritious-and-healthier-than-conventional-varieties/

You aren't getting better anything. Those organic farms are just taking up space that more efficient modern operations should be using to feed the world and end famine.


McDonald's is not the same, and in Canada it is not even cheap like it is in the states. In Russia I hear it is luxury food, and here in china people go on dates to McDonalds

That being said, it still is not part of culinary culture. McDonald's culture is of two kinds, quick and cheap, or alluring to children. Anything greasy is tasty as we have evolved to enjoy the taste of fats. Its part of human biology. That does not make it good though.

Not necessarily the best but filling, tasty, affordable, and not harmful in small doses. Just like genre fiction.


We are not reading all the time. Reading a good book aught to be regarded in the same vain as watching good films or going to good restaurants. If you need something quick, you could just as easily watch tv and not bother. Harry potter is that quick junk, but when you start calling it the real deal, you have a problem. Reading is the most affordable way to enjoy art, therefore I see no reason to need to read thevfastfood of literature.

Reading is probably the cheapest way to experience high art; so there are no economic reasons to read Rowling instead of Homer. However, the harmful effects of Harry Potter and McDonalds are often overstated.

[Drkshadow03]

Ok, a couple of things. Not all hamburgers are equal. 5 Guy's Burgers are superior to McDonalds for example. The best burger I've ever eaten was at a diner on Long Island. Usually the best burgers can be found at independent restaurants. The same applies to the best food in most cases.

If the Emperor's New Clothes metaphor is tired, so is the fast food/genre literature metaphor. We've literally seen it in every single Harry Potter and Stephen King thread. This is especially true when it's taken in the direction Lokasenna did, which has also happened in other threads. Eating McDonalds will lead to heart attack and fat waists, reading HP or 50 Shades will not give you a heart attack. Presenting it as a health issue is ridiculous. Even the social health issue he brings up is fairly dubious. Anyone who has paid attention to the arguments of various political literary critics for example knows they often say the same thing about various established works on the canon. So a work might negatively set back social issues and be loaded with negative stereotypes or pernicious ideas, but it isn't clear this is a quality found solely in popular genre fiction.

[YesNo]

I can't eat McDonalds, and very rarely eat fast food. The thought of it usually makes me feel a bit queasy. I do love White Castle though, ironically.

To use your situation as an example, Mutatis-Mutandis, suppose you and Bloom are going for lunch. You find a place where there is a McDonald's right next to a White Castle.

Suppose Bloom says that White Castle food disgusts him and he loves McDonald's. He will eat there. You say that McDonald's food makes you sick and you will eat at White Castle.

So far that's fine. You both express your disagreements on what you prefer.

But suppose Bloom plays the authority card and says something like this: "You're wrong to eat at White Castle. I've eaten more meals than you have. I eat better than you do. I'm from Yale. Only people who simply will not consume superior fare eat at White Castle. You eat with me at McDonald's."

You might ask Bloom what his evidence is that McDonald's is better than White Castle. Since he feels he has to provide some sort of evidence, he tells you that they put more pickles on their burgers in McDonald's. You know that's pretty lame. Their burgers are bigger. You want to know what other evidence he has. He says, "You're wrong! I don't have time to give you a bite by bite list of reasons for my choice. You should be smart enough to do that yourself."

What do you do? Do you follow Bloom based on his authority and meager evidence into McDonald's (assume he will not pay for your meal) or do you follow your experience and go to White Castle?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I guess my first thought would be that's a stupid analogy. But that's just me.

[YesNo]

I guess my first thought would be that's a stupid analogy. But that's just me.

I don't think the analogy is all that bad.

Here is what Bloom writes about the alternatives he prefers to HP (http://www.fanpop.com/spots/harry-potter-vs-twilight/articles/96481/title/can-35-million-book-buyers-wrong-yes-harold-bloom)


But I will keep in mind that a host are reading it who simply will not read superior fare, such as Kenneth Grahame's "The Wind in the Willows" or the "Alice" books of Lewis Carroll.

So McDonald's is Alice in Wonderland or The Wind in the Willows and White Castle is the HP series. Bloom's preferences were all written over 100 years ago. I suspect if HP were written 100 years ago and one of these were written today, he would be complaining about a different book and using the HP series as his superior fare that people should be reading instead.

[namenlose]

Bloom likes Philip Roth, Saramago, Pynchon, Cormac McCarthy and Don DeLillo. Underworld for instance was published in 1997, which is far from being one hundred years ago. It may not be a fantasy or children's book, but it is pretty recent. However, even in Carroll's time the Alice books were already recognized as great literature and were read and appreciated by authors as notorious as Oscar Wilde. Comparing The Importance of Being Earnest with Alice's Adventures in Wonderland or Through the Looking-Glass, one may even find some similarities between the styles of both authors.

[tonywalt]

Although I do not eat at McDonalds, the emotive part of the issue arises from some people using it as an Anti American platform, which I do not agree with.

I am in Africa on business I will pick out some African owned and operated fast food chains.

South Africa - Chicken Licken and Nandos(which I have seen in Namibia and Botswana as well).

Nigeria - Mr. Biggs(sort of a burger place with "meat pies" (awful stinky place, and Mr. Biggs is bad too).


PS Get me the hell out of Lagos:sad:

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Although I do not eat at McDonalds, the emotive part of the issue arises from some people using it as an Anti American platform, which I do not agree with.



^ This.

Also, YesNo, you can take this as my concession. I'm not try to be disrespectful or anything, I just think we've said pretty much all that can be said for our respective sides in this little back and forth. I enjoyed it.

[Emil Miller]

Although I do not eat at McDonalds, the emotive part of the issue arises from some people using it as an Anti American platform, which I do not agree with.

I am in Africa on business I will pick out some African owned and operated fast food chains.

South Africa - Chicken Licken and Nandos(which I have seen in Namibia and Botswana as well).

Nigeria - Mr. Biggs(sort of a burger place with "meat pies" (awful stinky place, and Mr. Biggs is bad too).


PS Get me the hell out of Lagos:sad:

Ah yes. The joys of decolonisation.

[stlukesguild]

Mortal You are so American in culinary habits.

In the past 5 or so years the burger in Canada has transitioned. We now demand a higher quality of meat, preferably organic, and we want fresher everything.

Now JBI... please do not assume that Mortal is by any means representative of American culture and turn this into another US vs Canada diatribe. Anyone that cannot discern a distinct difference between McDonalds' burgers (or those of most fast food chains) and a burger from the average sit-down restaurant, the grill at home, or even the usual bar has no sense of taste whatsoever. I cannot ever recall having a desire to eat at McDonalds or a taste for a McDonalds meal. Its simply a necessary evil: I only have a limited amount of time for a meal and it's the most convenient place at the moment.

Honestly... I can only think of two places where the burgers were less appetizing than McDonalds. The first was in Hoboken, New Jersey... where I was working while living in NYC. I broke for lunch at a dive that featured Latin-American cuisine. I stupidly ordered a burger rather than getting what the locals got. It tasted as if it had been frozen since before I was born. From then on I got the daily special which was always some sort of stew with rice and beans. Cheap, hearty, and quite tasty... if nothing memorable. The other time was at a restaurant called Chuck's... and known by the locals as "Upchucks". It was the only place open at 3 AM and I was drunk... and the burger was still so bad that I couldn't eat more than a few bites.

[stlukesguild]

To use your situation as an example, Mutatis-Mutandis, suppose you and Bloom are going for lunch. You find a place where there is a McDonald's right next to a White Castle.

Suppose Bloom says that White Castle food disgusts him and he loves McDonald's. He will eat there. You say that McDonald's food makes you sick and you will eat at White Castle.

So far that's fine. You both express your disagreements on what you prefer.

But suppose Bloom plays the authority card and says something like this: "You're wrong to eat at White Castle. I've eaten more meals than you have. I eat better than you do. I'm from Yale. Only people who simply will not consume superior fare eat at White Castle. You eat with me at McDonald's."

You analogy is not at all related to the debate over reading the Harry Potter novels vs reading some far better literature. Rather, what you are suggesting is akin to a fantasy in which Bloom says, "Mutatis, why are you wasting your time reading that Harry Potter crap when you could be reading Dan Brown or the Twilight series?" Obviously, such is not going to happen. If we expound on your analogy, Bloom is more likely to say, "Mutatis, do you really like this fast food crap?* There's a lovely little Chinese restaurant around the corner that isn't really well-known, but they serve the most delicious dim-sum. I also know this great little Italian bistro, and if you have the time I assure you the most exquisite dining experience."

(*And Bloom will not need to expound on a point by point analysis of why he thinks fast food is crap because he recognizes that his audience... Mutatis... is fully aware that fast food is crap)

[Mr.lucifer]

I don't like comparing food to books. Books can be bought by anyone. But gourmet is a luxury. Plus, a lot of people don't live in cities where one can fine 4 star restaurants. Some people are lucky if they can go to a chain restaurant like Logan's or apple-bee's more than once a week. I'm a lower middle class dude myself.

[YesNo]

You analogy is not at all related to the debate over reading the Harry Potter novels vs reading some far better literature. Rather, what you are suggesting is akin to a fantasy in which Bloom says, "Mutatis, why are you wasting your time reading that Harry Potter crap when you could be reading Dan Brown or the Twilight series?"

OK. I'm curious. What specific works are you referring to when you say "far better literature"?

Bloom is referring to The Wind in the Willows or Alice in Wonderland, but I wonder what you have in mind.

[Mr.lucifer]

Specifically fantasy. Listing the hundreds of major works is too easy.

[mortalterror]

You analogy is not at all related to the debate over reading the Harry Potter novels vs reading some far better literature. Rather, what you are suggesting is akin to a fantasy in which Bloom says, "Mutatis, why are you wasting your time reading that Harry Potter crap when you could be reading Dan Brown or the Twilight series?" Obviously, such is not going to happen. If we expound on your analogy, Bloom is more likely to say, "Mutatis, do you really like this fast food crap?* There's a lovely little Chinese restaurant around the corner that isn't really well-known, but they serve the most delicious dim-sum. I also know this great little Italian bistro, and if you have the time I assure you the most exquisite dining experience."

(*And Bloom will not need to expound on a point by point analysis of why he thinks fast food is crap because he recognizes that his audience... Mutatis... is fully aware that fast food is crap)

I really don't see fast food as crap. I see it as fast. You seem to look down on it because it's common and prefer any Italian or Chinese restaurant regardless of their quality for the sheer novelty. There is nothing wrong with American food. If you must inject some sort of foreign experience into your meals just remember that pizza comes from Italy and Hamburgers come from Germany and whenever you sample that fare you are being oh so sophisticated and European. Dim sum is full of saturated fat and salt and is a Chinese peasant dish invented as a snack for farmers. It's their equivalent of the doughnut. And what is so special about your Italian bistro? Are you going to have some spaghetti? How is that better for you than a bowl of chili? One is foreign peasant food and the other is local peasant food. How is Teriyaki better than regular deli meat? Ramen is no better than our native chicken noodle soup, and pho was originally sold on street corners the same as our hot dogs. There are so many stuck up people who would never dream of eating American fast food but routinely sample the fast food of other cultures and feel so superior for doing so.

When I talk about gourmet cuisine, I'm not talking about traditional foreign peasant food. I'm talking about foie gras pates, lobster, escargot, truffles, caviar, filet mignon, and pinot noire. And for all the people saying that fast food is unhealthy, do you think these fine cuisine's aren't full of calories and fats?

[Sancho]

Also, McDonald's* is a darn fine equity, which has made El Sancho beaucoup bucks over the years.

*Disclaimer: El Sancho is long on MCD.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

OK. I'm curious. What specific works are you referring to when you say "far better literature"?

Bloom is referring to The Wind in the Willows or Alice in Wonderland, but I wonder what you have in mind.

That wasn't even the point of his post. You did notice the part where he showed how silly your analogy was, yes?

Also, what's "Confunded"? Is that an HP word, or a misspelling of "confounded"?

[JCamilo]

I made up the word. It means "Boy who died because eat a poisoned frog despite the advice of the authorities to not do so."

[stlukesguild]

I really don't see fast food as crap. I see it as fast. You seem to look down on it because it's common and prefer any Italian or Chinese restaurant regardless of their quality for the sheer novelty.

No... I recognize that for the most part fast food tastes like crap. It's a fast and cheap alternative to food that is much better. McDonalds burgers don't taste anywhere near as good as burgers from any number of bars, most sit-down restaurants, or the backyard grill. Taco Bell's cuisine is no where near the same as what I can get in a real Mexican restaurant. Domino's or Marco's or Cici's pizza tastes like cardboard compared to what I can get at a better Italian restaurant or pizza-shop. The Chinese take out at one of those ubiquitous China King shops falls far short of what I can get in the local restaurants in Chinatown. hell... you probably going to tell me that Budweiser and Lite taste as good as Samuel Smith, Chimay, Duvel, or Aventinus or that suggesting that Budweiser is pi**-water is somehow un-American.

[stlukesguild]

I would suggest that Alice in Wonderland most certainly is an example of "far better literature".

[mona amon]

I think Alice in Wonderland is a lot of whimsical crap. When I read it as a kid I liked it at first, till about the mad hatter's tea party, and then gave up because it was just one damn bizzare thing after the other. The Harry potter books, for all their Confundo charms and invisibility cloaks and other flights of fancy, are still firmly rooted in reality.

Of course, this is only me. I'm sure there are lots of kids out there who like Alice (though I haven't met any), and it's been around for more than a hundred years. Well, I'm pretty sure the HP books will also be around for that long - just give it enough time. Owners of first editions - hold on to your copies!

[YesNo]

I would suggest that Alice in Wonderland most certainly is an example of "far better literature".

I've enjoyed Alice in Wonderland, stlukesguild, and I am re-reading it now because of this thread. It is different, but I don't think it is any better than Harry Potter. I know we will disagree on that and that is fine. Uniformity of tastes is very boring. I have no authority to force you to accept my position and I do not want any such authority. Luckily for me, I try my best not to accept anyone's authority to force my tastes either.

After reading Carroll, what else should the young person read? Or should they just keep re-reading it?

[JCamilo]

Alice is deeply rooted on reality. Dreams are real and mathematics too.

The burton movie is not so far away, even with the weird reading, it is undeniable that it is quite fresh for a book written 100 years ago. As Italo Calvino would say, a classic that still has things to say.

And maybe yes, maybe not in 100 years HP will still be there, but that is not the only card of Alice. It is undenyable original language-wise and has be direct influence for heavy weights like Joyce, Borges or Guimaraes Rosa.

Alice's books can be talked in the same breath as Moby Dick, Quixote, Bovary, etc. You do not need to like it - but really, that is why Bloom does not say much about, the credentials of those books are too impressive.

[mona amon]

Alice's books can be talked in the same breath as Moby Dick, Quixote, Bovary, etc.

Oh please! :rolleyes5: I've read Moby Dick, Quixote and Bovary, all absolutely magnificent books, and Alice is simply not in the same league, either in language, complexity or scope or stature. It isn't even fair to compare them, or any other children's book with some literary giant.

To me it seems like you'll say anything, however ridiculous, just to try and prove the HP books are trash.

[YesNo]

That wasn't even the point of his post. You did notice the part where he showed how silly your analogy was, yes?

Also, what's "Confunded"? Is that an HP word, or a misspelling of "confounded"?

The word "silly" is silly. It doesn't describe what you did not like about the analogy which I would be interested to hear.

I understand that McDonald's and White Castle are too similar. I should have picked some more expensive, fancier place that serves other cultures' peasant foods at jacked up prices for Bloom to promote. I think I got the point, but I was using your restaurant choices, Mutatis-Mutandis, not mine. You said you did not like McDonald's but you did like White Castle. Pick another restaurant, as fancy as you want, that you do not like and replace that with McDonald's. When Bloom plays the authority card, the point of the analogy still works since by assumption you do not like that fancy restaurant.

Regarding the Confunded Charm referenced in my signature, I liked the way Rowling made Snape summarize very briefly what happens when people are most confused--they become most certain. I thought it was a good line from the book.

[Mr.lucifer]

Actually, thanks to the internet, and who knows how advanced it will be in the future, I think Harry potter has a good chance of surviving 100 years from now.

[Lokasenna]

Oh please! :rolleyes5: I've read Moby Dick, Quixote and Bovary, all absolutely magnificent books, and Alice is simply not in the same league, either in language, complexity or scope or stature. It isn't even fair to compare them, or any other children's book with some literary giant.

To me it seems like you'll say anything, however ridiculous, just to try and prove the HP books are trash.

I'll have to disagree with you here as well - the Alice books are excellent pieces of literature, and worthy of serious study. We've got two PhD students here in the department whose theses both engage Alice to a certain degree, and they've got some really interesting things to say about the books - there is a lot of serious study concerning Lewis Carroll.

For the record, we don't have anyone doing a PhD that touches on HP. And my university is the only one in the whole country that offers an entire module based on Rowling's work, so I imagine we would be a prime location for anyone wanting to study in that direction. I myself am probably the closest, given how my thesis to some extent engages with the literary history of magic, but I'm firmly rooted in the medieval.

[mona amon]

Oh I'm sure there's some student somewhere, right now, doing a thesis on Poststructuralist Gender Treatments in Harry Potter or something. A few months back I borrowed from the library a book of literary criticism dealing with Harry Potter. I don't remember the title, or the name of the author, and I didn't read it because it was boring and pedantic, but she had a PhD after her name and was professor of some university in the UK, and evidently had a lot to say.

I'm not trying to be dismissive of your friends' theses, just pointing out that these things don't really prove the literary value of anything.

I actually never said Alice was without literary value. I said I didn't like it, and I also feel the HP books are better than Alice, on the whole.

And anyway, whatever the literary merits of Alice, there are degrees of literary merit, and it's just ridiculous to put it in the same league as works like Madame Bovary, Moby Dick and Don Quixote.

[JBI]

Oh I'm sure there's some student somewhere, right now, doing a thesis on Poststructuralist Gender Treatments in Harry Potter or something. A few months back I borrowed from the library a book of literary criticism dealing with Harry Potter. I don't remember the title, or the name of the author, and I didn't read it because it was boring and pedantic, but she had a PhD after her name and was professor of some university in the UK, and evidently had a lot to say.

I'm not trying to be dismissive of your friends' theses, just pointing out that these things don't really prove the literary value of anything.

I actually never said Alice was without literary value. I said I didn't like it, and I also feel the HP books are better than Alice, on the whole.

And anyway, whatever the literary merits of Alice, there are degrees of literary merit, and it's just ridiculous to put it in the same league as works like Madame Bovary, Moby Dick and Don Quixote.

Why is it ridiculous? Because you didn't like it?

Either way, Don Quixote is probably the West's best single novel, Madame Bovary is probably the best of the French language novels. Very few works indeed are in those leagues.

That being said, Alice is still a well received good book, with much to say and write about.

[mona amon]

Why is it ridiculous? Because you didn't like it?

Either way, Don Quixote is probably the West's best single novel, Madame Bovary is probably the best of the French language novels. Very few works indeed are in those leagues.

Then why are you asking me why it's ridiculous to put Alice in the same league with them? :confused:

And by the way, I wasn't the one who made that ridiculous comparison.

[JCamilo]

Nobody is assuming. Alice books are on the same league as those books (Madame Bovary is not as good as Quixote, yet, we can talk in the breath as Quixote). Just like Flaubert has influence on Joyce, so does Alice. Just like Quixote has on Borges, so does Alice. Lewis Carroll influence on language is considerable, not a small "children literature". I am not even using my words, I am using Virginia Woolf. It is not only literature, Jung mentions the book, Withehead, Bertrand Russell mention the books. The book is often mentioned by physiciists and mathematicians because what you call out of reality are Carroll's paradoxes descriptions. In music it goes as fas as The Beatles and Jefferson Airplane.

It is easily mentioned among the best books of all time, Alice as one of the most uniques characters of all time and has stabilished itself as a classic just like those books. There is nothing ridiculous on that: it is an extreme respect work and if someone says "Just a children book" it will receive a big laugh. (By the way, it is not the only work that has the label children literature and yet is extremelly respected. Stevenson and Andersen are like Lewis Carroll ranked and studied with the same critical eye of Flaubert, Melville, etc).

I am not worried to rank novels, etc. But Alice impact is way beyond children literature (which is also imense, even the children go from real world to magic world that is in Potter was popular thanks to Alice) to compare it negativellly with Harry Potter is like trying to equate Stephen King to Poe just because they are in the same genre.

And isnt deeply rooted in reality, really, great reading Mona.

[stlukesguild]

Oh please! I've read Moby Dick, Quixote and Bovary, all absolutely magnificent books, and Alice is simply not in the same league, either in language, complexity or scope or stature. It isn't even fair to compare them, or any other children's book with some literary giant.

To me it seems like you'll say anything, however ridiculous, just to try and prove the HP books are trash.

The goal wasn't to prove that Harry Potter was "trash" but rather that Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass are (unlike the Harry Potter novels) unquestionably "classics". There in probably a reason that you have four of the most well-read members at this site in agreement on this matter... as well as Bloom.

Lewis Carroll's novels are over 100 years old. Close to 150 years old. Not only have they not ever slipped out of the canon of "classic literature", they have had (as JCamilo pointed out) a clear impact or influence on writers ranging from other books written for children such as The Wizard of Oz, C.S. Lewis' Narnia, Neil Gaiman's Coraline, and J.M. Barrie's Peter Pan; to science-fiction such as Philip José Farmer's Riverworld series; on through serious literature by writers such as James Joyce, Christian Morgenstern, Paul Auster, J.L. Borges, Vladimir Nabokov, etc... There are also quite literally hundreds of adaptions, parodies, or works influenced/inspired by the Lewis Carroll novels to be found in comic books, animations, film, television, theatrical productions, erotica and pornography, video games, painting, sculpture, pop music (the Jefferson Airplane's White Rabbit and the Beatles' Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds and I am the Walrus to name just a few), music videos, and even opera. When there is this kind of interest and influence 150 years after the fact... after the PR machinery and the marketing and the fads have all dissipated... there is more than a good chance that what you are looking at is a "classic" whether you personally like the work or not.

Are the Alice books as great as The Brothers Karamazov, Madame Bovary, Moby Dick, and Don Quixote? Probably not... but few "classics" are on that level. There are literally thousands of "classics" of varying degrees of originality, genius, and influence. There are only a few artists that are recognized on the level of Shakespeare, Milton, Homer, Tolstoy, Dante, Dostoevsky, or Cervantes. This is not to undervalue the merits of Edgar Allen Poe, Paul Verlaine, Hermann Hesse, Daniel Defoe, Jean Genet, or Lewis Carroll... nor does it mean that J.K. Rowling is likely to ever even enter the lower echelon of those books recognized as "classics".

[mona amon]

And isnt deeply rooted in reality, really, great reading Mona.

How do you know if you havent read them?


Oh please! I've read Moby Dick, Quixote and Bovary, all absolutely magnificent books, and Alice is simply not in the same league, either in language, complexity or scope or stature. It isn't even fair to compare them, or any other children's book with some literary giant.

To me it seems like you'll say anything, however ridiculous, just to try and prove the HP books are trash.

The goal wasn't to prove that Harry Potter was "trash" but rather that Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass are (unlike the Harry Potter novels) unquestionably "classics". There in probably a reason that you have four of the most well-read members at this site in agreement on this matter... as well as Bloom.


Who disputed the fact that it's a classic? Not me.


Oh please! I've read Moby Dick, Quixote and Bovary, all absolutely magnificent books, and Alice is simply not in the same league, either in language, complexity or scope or stature. It isn't even fair to compare them, or any other children's book with some literary giant.

To me it seems like you'll say anything, however ridiculous, just to try and prove the HP books are trash.

Are the Alice books as great as The Brothers Karamazov, Madame Bovary, Moby Dick, and Don Quixote? Probably not... but few "classics" are on that level.

That's more or less what I've been saying in the post you quoted, except that I feel the difference is much much wider than you do. I'll elaborate tomorrow. Out here it's time to go to bed.

[JCamilo]

How do you know if you havent read them?

I have not read Alice? Or Harry Potter? Why it is your base to assume what I have read or not?

And I was obviously refering to your comment that Harry Potter book are rooted in reality while Alice may not be. This is a ridiculous statment (to use your word), as the strategy to shift from real to fantasy world is the same on both.

Of course the world ridiculous can be used for someone that called Alice "crap" or dismissed its qualities for being just children literature as if serious criticism should not be applied to a book and if Alice merits does not survive this kind of criticism.


Who disputed the fact that it's a classic? Not me.

Because it was probally only you who understood that i was claiming Alice is a better book than Quixote, Bovary, etc. , even when I mean credentials in sequence, which may suggest it is about the fact it is an undeniable classic like those books. Specially considering the original question would be being remembered in 100 years, which is being a classic.

But then you see it as an attack to HP and need to defend it at all costs. :nopity:

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

The word "silly" is silly. It doesn't describe what you did not like about the analogy which I would be interested to hear.
I was merely pointing our how you ignored the main points of StLuke's post and decided to be pedantic and choose one little phrase to pick at. StLuke's explanation of why I think it's a silly (I have no clue what your objection to the word "silly" is, btw) analogy sums up my thoughts exactly.

I understand that McDonald's and White Castle are too similar. I should have picked some more expensive, fancier place that serves other cultures' peasant foods at jacked up prices for Bloom to promote. I think I got the point, but I was using your restaurant choices, Mutatis-Mutandis, not mine. You said you did not like McDonald's but you did like White Castle. Pick another restaurant, as fancy as you want, that you do not like and replace that with McDonald's. When Bloom plays the authority card, the point of the analogy still works since by assumption you do not like that fancy restaurant.
I so not know what qualifies as a "fancy" restaurant. In any case, I haven't been to many, and the few I have been to I've all enjoyed. So, no, the analogy doesn't work, for me at least.

But I'll play devil's advocate just for the hell of it. If I did dislike a fancy restaurant that Bloom likes, and Bloom somehow knew I'd rather eat at White Castle, and Bloom went on to tell me why I should like the fancy restaurant, and since he did have a larger knowledge of restaurants than me, I'd take his points into consideration.

The problem with your analogy is two. First, you are simply discarding any reasons Bloom puts forth as to why he dislikes the HP series because you disagree with him, and further (and for a reason I still do not understand) discard any authority he has earned and established over the years. You haven't given any evidence as to him not having good reasons to find HP subpar aside from reading the first few pages of his book. Second, and as already mentioned, Bloom knows his audience. He knows who's reading the book probably doesn't like HP, so he doesn't even have to posit that many reasons (I haven't read the book, so maybe he has, maybe he hasn't--you haven't clarified either way, while others, who've read the book, have said he has given reasons). So, if I liked White Castle and not some fancy restaurant, why would I even seek out the advice of Bloom in the first place? I wouldn't.

[qimissung]

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

"The goal wasn't to prove that Harry Potter was "trash" but rather that Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass are (unlike the Harry Potter novels) unquestionably "classics"." Stlukesguild

Actually, the goal of the thread was to discuss J.K. Rowlings new book. I'm not sure what the goal of this discussion is. I think Alice in Wonderland is a classic. The Harry Potter Books could be, too, Harold Boom's opinion notwithstanding.

Here's a list of classic children's books from Wikipedia. It lists such disparate books as Ivanhoe to Little Lord Fauntleroy and The Cat in the Hat. I think the Harry Potter books would fit on that list just fine.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_children's_classic_books

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I'm not sure what the goal of this discussion is.
I think any discernible goal fluttered away pages ago. :nod:

[stlukesguild]

Robinson Crusoe
Gulliver's Travels
The Tales of E.T.A. Hoffmann
The Tales of Washington Irving
The Grimm Brother's Fairy Tales
A Christmas Carol
The Three Musketeers
Hans Chritian Andersen's Tales
Dvid Copperfield
A Tale of Two Cities
Alice in Wonderland
Through the Looking Glass
The Adventures of Tom Sawyer
Treasure Island
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
King Solomon's Mines
The Jungle Book
Just So Stories
The Call of the Wild
White Fang
The Hobbit
To Kill a Mockingbird

While I can see that many of these works have been popular with younger readers, I can't imagine any of them being reduced to being seen merely as "children's books". Hell, if were going to categorize The Arabian Nights, A Tale of Two Cities, and Huckleberry Finn as "children's literature" then we might as well include The Bible, the Mahabharata, Dante's Comedia, Les Miserables, Don Quixote, and Italo Calvino under that term.

[YesNo]

I think Alice in Wonderland is a lot of whimsical crap. When I read it as a kid I liked it at first, till about the mad hatter's tea party, and then gave up because it was just one damn bizzare thing after the other. The Harry potter books, for all their Confundo charms and invisibility cloaks and other flights of fancy, are still firmly rooted in reality.


I'm re-reading Alice in Wonderland now just to make it fresh in my mind and I think you are basically right about the book. I started getting tired of it around the tea party. There are some entertaining lines, but it is a light comedy that doesn't hold together well. It is far less challenging to read than Harry Potter.

I am beginning to think that it is inappropriate to order these works because they are so different. It certainly makes no sense for Bloom to claim that Alice in Wonderland is "superior fare" to HP.

[YesNo]

Robinson Crusoe
Gulliver's Travels
The Tales of E.T.A. Hoffmann
The Tales of Washington Irving
The Grimm Brother's Fairy Tales
A Christmas Carol
The Three Musketeers
Hans Chritian Andersen's Tales
Dvid Copperfield
A Tale of Two Cities
Alice in Wonderland
Through the Looking Glass
The Adventures of Tom Sawyer
Treasure Island
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
King Solomon's Mines
The Jungle Book
Just So Stories
The Call of the Wild
White Fang
The Hobbit
To Kill a Mockingbird


Are you saying these are "superior fare" to the HP series?

[JCamilo]

Ok, so next time we have this debate, we can use this thread to exemplify why reading Harry Potter is going in the "dumbing down" line that Bloom claims?

[YesNo]

I was merely pointing our how you ignored the main points of StLuke's post and decided to be pedantic and choose one little phrase to pick at. StLuke's explanation of why I think it's a silly (I have no clue what your objection to the word "silly" is, btw) analogy sums up my thoughts exactly.

The word "silly" says nothing of value. It is a cliche.

I'm trying to make a point about following authority with meager evidence compared with following evidence in spite of what the authority has to say. That may sound "pedantic", but the issue rests on how critical one is.



I so not know what qualifies as a "fancy" restaurant. In any case, I haven't been to many, and the few I have been to I've all enjoyed. So, no, the analogy doesn't work, for me at least.

Then continue using McDonald's in the analogy.



But I'll play devil's advocate just for the hell of it. If I did dislike a fancy restaurant that Bloom likes, and Bloom somehow knew I'd rather eat at White Castle, and Bloom went on to tell me why I should like the fancy restaurant, and since he did have a larger knowledge of restaurants than me, I'd take his points into consideration.

The opinions of authorities should be considered. However, if there is evidence that conflicts with their opinions, the evidence should be given higher weight.



The problem with your analogy is two. First, you are simply discarding any reasons Bloom puts forth as to why he dislikes the HP series because you disagree with him, and further (and for a reason I still do not understand) discard any authority he has earned and established over the years. You haven't given any evidence as to him not having good reasons to find HP subpar aside from reading the first few pages of his book. Second, and as already mentioned, Bloom knows his audience. He knows who's reading the book probably doesn't like HP, so he doesn't even have to posit that many reasons (I haven't read the book, so maybe he has, maybe he hasn't--you haven't clarified either way, while others, who've read the book, have said he has given reasons). So, if I liked White Castle and not some fancy restaurant, why would I even seek out the advice of Bloom in the first place? I wouldn't.

Here are my comments for each section marked in bold above.

1) What evidence did Bloom give for disliking HP? Maybe we should go over that in detail.

2) If an authority is telling me to accept something when the evidence shows me the authority is wrong, I go with the evidence. Basically that means, anything that an authority says must be backed up with evidence. I don't care whether he went to Yale or not. If he even mentions Yale without providing more evidence, I discredit him for that alone. I want to see the evidence. The evidence Bloom has to counter is the large popularity of the HP books.

3) I think he wrote the article for the Wall Street Journal: http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=71363&page=9 I don't know whether their readership is overall for or against HP. This is one of the few paper publications I look through, so not all of its readership would be anti-HP.

4) I agree. You wouldn't. I'm putting you in a hypothetical situation with the hamburger franchises to illustrate how conflicted one could be when authority tells you something that is against your own experience or known evidence. The conflict is then which do you choose: follow the authority or follow the evidence?

[qimissung]

Robinson Crusoe
Gulliver's Travels
The Tales of E.T.A. Hoffmann
The Tales of Washington Irving
The Grimm Brother's Fairy Tales
A Christmas Carol
The Three Musketeers
Hans Chritian Andersen's Tales
Dvid Copperfield
A Tale of Two Cities
Alice in Wonderland
Through the Looking Glass
The Adventures of Tom Sawyer
Treasure Island
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
King Solomon's Mines
The Jungle Book
Just So Stories
The Call of the Wild
White Fang
The Hobbit
To Kill a Mockingbird

While I can see that many of these works have been popular with younger readers, I can't imagine any of them being reduced to being seen merely as "children's books". Hell, if were going to categorize The Arabian Nights, A Tale of Two Cities, and Huckleberry Finn as "children's literature" then we might as well include The Bible, the Mahabharata, Dante's Comedia, Les Miserables, Don Quixote, and Italo Calvino under that term.


Well, the list is called Children's classic books, not just children's books.

And in addition to the one's you pulled out, there is also:

Pollyanna
Heidi
Five Children and It
Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm
Little Women
The Blue Fairy Book
Peter Pan
The Secret Garden
A Little Princess
Anne of Green Gables
Johnny Tremain
Pippi Longstocking
The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe
James and the Giant Peach
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
A Wizard of Earthsea
Are You There, God? It's Me, Margaret



All books that Harry Potter would fit in very comfortably with.


Here's a list of Newberry Award winning books for sixth graders:

http://www.hobbyhorsebooks.com/newberylist6.html


Again, books that I think are on par with the Harry Potter books. This is just the list for sixth grade. There are lists for second, third, fourth and fifth grades, too.


Here's the National Book Awards Children's Book of the Year awards. This is a British literary award given annually to works of children's literature. Notice in particular the winners for 1998 and 1999.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Book_Awards_Children's_Book_of_the_Year

[stlukesguild]

Ok, so next time we have this debate, we can use this thread to exemplify why reading Harry Potter is going in the "dumbing down" line that Bloom claims?

Contrary to Bloom, I think reading Harry Potter is more of a symptom than a cause.

[qimissung]

I think any discernible goal fluttered away pages ago. :nod:

:lol:

[JBI]

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

"The goal wasn't to prove that Harry Potter was "trash" but rather that Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass are (unlike the Harry Potter novels) unquestionably "classics"." Stlukesguild

Actually, the goal of the thread was to discuss J.K. Rowlings new book. I'm not sure what the goal of this discussion is. I think Alice in Wonderland is a classic. The Harry Potter Books could be, too, Harold Boom's opinion notwithstanding.

Here's a list of classic children's books from Wikipedia. It lists such disparate books as Ivanhoe to Little Lord Fauntleroy and The Cat in the Hat. I think the Harry Potter books would fit on that list just fine.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_children's_classic_books

I was talking about Bloom's article in response, but sure.

Either way I think we have all already agreed the new book is mediocre at best, and isn't particularly worth reading, even if you loved Harry Potter. That seems to be the general critical consensus too.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I'm finished. You win, YesNo. I don't have enough stamina for this SILLY debate.

[mortalterror]

I really don't see fast food as crap. I see it as fast. You seem to look down on it because it's common and prefer any Italian or Chinese restaurant regardless of their quality for the sheer novelty.

No... I recognize that for the most part fast food tastes like crap. It's a fast and cheap alternative to food that is much better. McDonalds burgers don't taste anywhere near as good as burgers from any number of bars, most sit-down restaurants, or the backyard grill. Taco Bell's cuisine is no where near the same as what I can get in a real Mexican restaurant. Domino's or Marco's or Cici's pizza tastes like cardboard compared to what I can get at a better Italian restaurant or pizza-shop. The Chinese take out at one of those ubiquitous China King shops falls far short of what I can get in the local restaurants in Chinatown. hell... you probably going to tell me that Budweiser and Lite taste as good as Samuel Smith, Chimay, Duvel, or Aventinus or that suggesting that Budweiser is pi**-water is somehow un-American.

Well, I guess we can take your word for it. You are a four star chef who's run a number of restaurants, and you're not known to ever overstate or exaggerate anything. And kick Budweiser all you want. They are a Belgian-Brazilian company. I'm a Jack Daniel's man.

[JCamilo]

please, do not blame Brazil for budweiser. They were bad already before us.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Well, I guess we can take your word for it. You are a four star chef who's run a number of restaurants.

Yeah, because you have to be a four star chef to know that there are places that make better burgers than McDonald's and better Mexican food than Taco Bell.

[mortalterror]

Robinson Crusoe
Gulliver's Travels
The Tales of E.T.A. Hoffmann
The Tales of Washington Irving
The Grimm Brother's Fairy Tales
A Christmas Carol
The Three Musketeers
Hans Chritian Andersen's Tales
Dvid Copperfield
A Tale of Two Cities
Alice in Wonderland
Through the Looking Glass
The Adventures of Tom Sawyer
Treasure Island
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
King Solomon's Mines
The Jungle Book
Just So Stories
The Call of the Wild
White Fang
The Hobbit
To Kill a Mockingbird

While I can see that many of these works have been popular with younger readers, I can't imagine any of them being reduced to being seen merely as "children's books". Hell, if were going to categorize The Arabian Nights, A Tale of Two Cities, and Huckleberry Finn as "children's literature" then we might as well include The Bible, the Mahabharata, Dante's Comedia, Les Miserables, Don Quixote, and Italo Calvino under that term.

For the most part a good selection, with one exception. King Solomon's Mines isn't even as well written as Harry Potter. It's shocking that it sold something like 50 million copies back in the 19th century. It's also an adventure novel for adults, though I guess you could read it to children as it's not terribly difficult.

[JCamilo]

In portuguese, it was translated by Eça de Queiroz. I didn't read in english, but as flawed it is, Eça de Queiroz, even just translating, is too much for Rowling to match.

[mortalterror]

Yeah, because you have to be a four star chef to know that there are places that make better burgers than McDonald's and better Mexican food than Taco Bell.

You don't but I thought it would be cogent to point out that Stluke pretends to be an expert in every subject be it art, literature, music, and now cuisine. I'll give him the art, and he knows more than most about literature even without a formal degree. Music, he's kind of old and has a lot of experience on his side. But when it comes to food the extent of his bona fides so far extends only to his preference for German lagers and thinking McDonalds is "crap." He's a teacher in an inner city school who spends all of his money on art supplies, cds, and books. I don't think he's going out to four star restaurants every day to develop a world class palette. He might sample cheeses from France or go to the occasional wine tasting but like he said, he frequently eats at McDonalds, a place he claims to despise.

I don't dispute that there are better places to eat than McDonalds (and there are better books to read than Harry Potter). What I dispute is that McDonalds is one of the worst places (or that Harry Potter is one of the worst books out there). Even in terms of fast food McDonalds isn't the worst offender. Their food still tastes better than Arby's, Taco Bell, Jack in the Box, Carl's Jr., Wendy's, KFC, Dairy Queen, Long John Silvers, Tim Horton's, Taco Del Mar, Taco Time, White Castle, Dicks Drive In, El Pollo Loco, Chick-fil-A, Hardee's, or Orange Julius. McDonald's (and Harry Potter) gets unfairly singled out for being the best and most popular of it's genre, and for being a cheap alternative to better more expensive/intellectually difficult fare.

When someone says that Dominos Pizza tastes like cardboard I would like to know what cardboard they are eating. Dominos Pizza tastes like pizza which is baked dough, tomato sauce, cheese and a topping. It's mass produced and isn't going to be as good as something from a really good local place in Chicago, New York, or Italy, but it's better than Pizza Hut pizza or frozen pizza, and if people didn't like it Dominos would go out of business. There are many examples of it's kind which are greater and lesser and we do a disservice to the truth when we fail to acknowledge that fact. J.K. Rowling is not as great a writer as Shakespeare, but she's not as bad as a lot of Harlequin Romance writers and a lot of the pulp writers of science fiction and fantasy.

There's a lot of 5s out there in the world. It's not just 2s and 10s.

[mona amon]

I have not read Alice? Or Harry Potter? Why it is your base to assume what I have read or not? - JCamillo

I was under the impression that you hadn't read HP. Sorry if I was wrong. But if you are saying that having read the books or not is irrelevant to the question, then I have to disagree, because only a person who's read a book is qualified to make comments about whether that book is rooted in reality or not.


And I was obviously refering to your comment that Harry Potter book are rooted in reality while Alice may not be. This is a ridiculous statment (to use your word), as the strategy to shift from real to fantasy world is the same on both. - JCamillo

This is what I said -


I think Alice in Wonderland is a lot of whimsical crap. When I read it as a kid I liked it at first, till about the mad hatter's tea party, and then gave up because it was just one damn bizzare thing after the other. The Harry potter books, for all their Confundo charms and invisibility cloaks and other flights of fancy, are still firmly rooted in reality.

Of course, this is only me. I'm sure there are lots of kids out there who like Alice (though I haven't met any), and it's been around for more than a hundred years. Well, I'm pretty sure the HP books will also be around for that long - just give it enough time. - mona amon

I haven't read Alice since the time I was a kid, about 40 years ago. I was actually parodying the anti-Potter posts on this thread - people who haven't even read the series making ridiculously extreme negative statements about them. (Sorry, I'm very fond of this word.)

Anyway, based on what I read then and remember, the world of Alice is a bizzarre dream world, something like a drug induced trip, where weird things keep happening one after the other. I got tired of it after a while, and I'm only explaining why I didn't like it. The HP books are nothing like a drug induced trip. Even with the shifting staircases and Whomping Willow, screaming books, talking portraits, magical mirrors, ghosts, trolls and house-elves, Hogwarts is still a school, and people there have to deal with homework, exams, friendships and rivalries, bullying, fear of getting expelled, alienation, prejudice...I could go on and on. I liked the reality of the HP world better than the completely whimsical world of Alice. That's all there is to it. It was not meant as a general statement about the merits of whimsicality vs reality.


Of course the world ridiculous can be used for someone that called Alice "crap" or dismissed its qualities for being just children literature as if serious criticism should not be applied to a book and if Alice merits does not survive this kind of criticism. - JCamillo

Sure. :)



Lewis Carroll's novels are over 100 years old. Close to 150 years old. Not only have they not ever slipped out of the canon of "classic literature", they have had (as JCamilo pointed out) a clear impact or influence on writers ranging from other books written for children such as The Wizard of Oz, C.S. Lewis' Narnia, Neil Gaiman's Coraline, and J.M. Barrie's Peter Pan; to science-fiction such as Philip José Farmer's Riverworld series; on through serious literature by writers such as James Joyce, Christian Morgenstern, Paul Auster, J.L. Borges, Vladimir Nabokov, etc... There are also quite literally hundreds of adaptions, parodies, or works influenced/inspired by the Lewis Carroll novels to be found in comic books, animations, film, television, theatrical productions, erotica and pornography, video games, painting, sculpture, pop music (the Jefferson Airplane's White Rabbit and the Beatles' Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds and I am the Walrus to name just a few), music videos, and even opera. When there is this kind of interest and influence 150 years after the fact... after the PR machinery and the marketing and the fads have all dissipated... there is more than a good chance that what you are looking at is a "classic" whether you personally like the work or not. - Stlukesguild

Well, influence only proves that the work was influential. It really does not say anything about its intrinsic literary merit. Genius has this capacity to rip off or absorb lesser works that have some appealing or innovative idea and make it into something of its own, and the same process applies to popular culture.

And just to nitpick one of your points, doesn't practically everything on earth have an impact on erotica and pornography, including Harry Potter?

[Mr.lucifer]

Not say it was well-executed, but a major reason why Harry potter was popular was because it was character-driven. Are there character driven fantasies that you guys would recommend?

[JBI]

I agree with you Mortal, though I would put McDonalds beneath Wendy's (in Canada, Wendy's is crappier in the States for various reasons). As well, I haven't heard of many of those chains, as they do not exist in Canada.

That being said, to enjoy world class food, in the sense of the top of the top, you need the biggest wallet around. To go to one of these places, and drop a few hundred bucks on the meal, and then twice to three times that on the wine, you really need to be a celebrity, a multi-millionaire, or have a very specific occasion in mind. Usually these restaurants are attached to the top hotels, or near the top venues of the top cities like Paris, New York, etc. Still, there are good popular eats. For instance, there are any number of affordable burger joints in Canada that rank higher than McDonalds in their cooking measurements. Likewise, there are tons of affordable bistros and the such all over the world that offer the best home-style cooking around, at super affordable prices.

That being said, there are also books that perform these functions on the same level. Dickens is the classic example - though he is decidedly middle class in outlook and audience, he is still a populist author with the mass popularity behind him. He is not a snobbish author in the sense that James Joyce or T. S. Eliot are, yet he is as great as they are, in some of his works at least.

Food works the same way, and that is why the allusion is fitting to an extent. There is popular food that is affordable and marketable for the masses. I do not know about American chains, since I do not like American-style fast food, but virtually all over Central Asia you can buy skewers of lamb for dirt cheap almost anywhere which are delicious and perfectly cooked. Even Starbucks is an affordable coffee, that though isn't some fine Italian high end coffee, is still quite a reasonable and wholesome beverage, and is almost the same price as the hideously overpraised Tim Hortons junk, which is actually the worst beans around.

Of the past 20 or so years, the documentation and analysis of what is called Street Food has taken off, showing that food can be popular and good, as it can be expensive and good. North America and to an extent most of Europe do not have these traditions, but that does not mean they do not exist elsewhere (as I am no longer living in North America, I do not see myself as foreign-biased, and as I am from Toronto, where East-Asian style and South-Asian style restaurants are numerous beyond belief, I do not particularly consider myself biased for focusing on these foods).

As you put it Pho, or even a wholesome Hotdog are not bad foods (though the hotdogs is an iffy one). North-American culture is still rooted in the 50s mentalities of the homecooked meal, so it has yet to develop, or will not develop these cultures (New York, and other cities, however, have developed these things, I am talking about the masses), but popular foods that are cheap, yet tasty, and sometimes even healthy, exist elsewhere.

That being said, I don't count McDonalds as one of them, and I certainly will not count Pizza Hut, or Taco Bel amongst them. The same way I will not count Dan Brown in the same league as Umberto Eco - both Bestselling authors, with populist followings.

The problem with comparing literature to other art forms is that generally you need money to appreciate other forms directly. For instance, beautiful scenery requires you to leave your home, beautiful artwork in general requires you to go to a museum (you can read it in books as pictures, but it is completely different). Great food, in a sense, may demand a sort of money to experience in full. Great Wine certainly does. Live music requires tickets. High fashion requires dollars.

That being said, 200 years ago a book cost more than most people made in 2 months. Even subscribing to lending libraries was a think for the wealthy, and the top end of the new emerging middle classes. 100 years ago an education was a think restricted to the wealthy, with book learning limited only to those who could afford it - in parts of the world that is still the case, where here in China up until 40 years ago a person from the countryside would probably not be able to read - even today here many people finish education at age 10, with limited literacy.

That being said, in North America, in particular in the United States and Canada, and in almost all of Europe, literacy is virtually universal, and education, especially up until the end of high school, is generally free. University education in these countries, for many, is no longer just a privilege of the wealthy. In Canada we are better off in terms of education than the US, but in continental Europe in many ways education is completely free.

Now, with that in mind, we can say that almost everybody has the tools necessary to read good books at their disposal. We are not talking about the Faerie Queene or Ulysses which are undoubtedly hard books which require more specialised educational backgrounds, but we are talking about the Dickenses and the Philip Roths (another best seller) and even the Michael Chabons of this world. We are talking about Eco, and about Saramago and about even Jin Yong, or Amos Oz, or even a Haruki Murakami.


Now, the question is, does Harry Potter belong in those categories? I don't personally think so. I think, from general consensus, the first book had something, but the style of it never really developed into something more tangible. It probably would have been better if Rowling only wrote three books set at Hogwurts, and actually showed some maturity being developed throughout the series. I do not feel Harry as a character ever learned anything, or developed, and his actions in the last book, from what I can gather from the film, seem completely in keeping with his actions in the first novel.

As such, there is a terrible flaw there in the narratology - it is a bildungsroman without the coming of age - and it is played out in a sequence of year by year.

The problems with subcharacters like Ginny as mentioned are that she herself makes no sense - if the 10 year old Potter is the same as the 20 year old Potter (or whatever), then the romantic development is always going to be flat. It is worse when the little girl Ginny becomes the older-little undeveloped Ginny, who is written through affirmations rather than demonstrations.

As such, the book is like a Dan Brown novel - there is a cliff hanger at the end of every word forcing you to read what is coming next to know how it ends. When the ending does not live up to the expectation though, the text itself becomes a failure.

As such, for me to positively review the books, I would need to see a more mature, more self-reflexive, more interesting Potter at the end of the series, which I don't. Voldemort could have been a more rounded character, as could have the Dumbledore guy, but they too are rather flat, and do not develop.

In certain side-plots you think you will see developments, but ultimately nothing actually changes - Harry has a fling with that Korean? girl, but it doesn't lead to any maturity in regard to relationships and teenage hormones. Hermione never gets out of her self-proud braininess, and the subplots in that regard are neither popular, nor interesting, and still lead to no development.

Ron in book 1 is the same in all of the texts - worships his best friend's fame and money, tries to rebel against it by fighting, later reconciles and acts nobly in defense of right and his friends.

As for Hogwurts itself, well, it never actually matures either. The setting seems rather undeveloping, so that most of the revelations are done in the first book - the world does not develop, so there is no sense of revelation in the sense that we see development in the worlds of Alice, or The Jungle Book. The setting is static, even with the introduction of new concepts - new characters do very little to phase the vision of the school either, so we are left with a rather bland vision of setting to.

Which leaves style - simple literary devices which work to keep people reading - red herrings, suspense, cliff-hanger endings, serialized installments, and overly basic prose. Mass marketing helped too, but lets ignore that. She never sends a person to the dictionary, and never challenges a reader's expectations or thoughts, so in general, she is offering nothing in terms of educational development, but is also finding no real detractors based on difficulty. The prose is no challenging, nor is it beautiful - it is a mix of what we call clear wholesome prose, and mediocre writing which can be sloppy, redundant, cliche, or downright bland.

So we have basically a rather bland book that is super accessible, and super-marketed.

Now, with that in mind, there will always be these books around. This is the first real children's book of globalization keep in mind, so we can see that the sales in terms of scale are at the top of the lists - she is the second largest author I can think of living today. Jin Yong would be a bigger author, who has sold hundreds of millions, despite not writing anything new since the 70s, and despite being virtually impossible to find in translation, and despite being unknown in the West.

There is a difference though - Jin Yong is an author whose sales are consistent, and when his novels slowed down, his adaptations increased. Rowling's sales are slowing, but her adaptations are finished. She is out of steam basically, and is still feeding on the previous sales and reputation as fuel. Which basically means, evaluation is becoming more crucial.

Does Harry Potter have the same allure as it did 15 or even 5 years ago? Does it still have a power in itself to attract, in this age where print culture has been quickly disappearing, and text has become virtually free?

This is the question - does this book have the power to remain fresh. And if it doesn't, that is not wrong, but it basically means we are bored right now. Rowling has put out a disappointment. Her reputation is basically one of a youngish author finished - never to write another work of mass appeal again. She will still maybe get sales for a followup, but she is like the fallout fiction of Star Wars now - still a cult following, but nothing like the hype surrounding the originals.

The difference between Star Wars and Rowling is Star Wars was a newish idea, Rowling is relatively replaceable I would argue, and the capitalist forces of publishing will find a way to create the next Rowling, leaving her behind.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Plus Star Wars has Lightsabers, which are so much cooler than wands.

[Mr.lucifer]

I have to say that JBI's detailed dissection of Harry Potter is more entertaining than just saying the generic "HP is populist drivel" comment.

[Pierre Menard]

Heck of a post JBI. Detailed and well argued.



Plus Star Wars has Lightsabers, which are so much cooler than wands.

This is true, although the coolness factor dimmed a little when Lucas decided to have them in frame every 10 minutes in the prequels.

[stlukesguild]

For the most part a good selection, with one exception. King Solomon's Mines isn't even as well written as Harry Potter. It's shocking that it sold something like 50 million copies back in the 19th century. It's also an adventure novel for adults, though I guess you could read it to children as it's not terribly difficult.

I'll agree with you there. I only included it because I don't think it was written as a work of "children's literature".

[Emil Miller]

For the most part a good selection, with one exception. King Solomon's Mines isn't even as well written as Harry Potter. It's shocking that it sold something like 50 million copies back in the 19th century. It's also an adventure novel for adults, though I guess you could read it to children as it's not terribly difficult.

I'll agree with you there. I only included it because I don't think it was written as a work of "children's literature".

It may not have been intended as children's literature but I read it when I was about ten-years-old and I thought it was great.

[JCamilo]

I was under the impression that you hadn't read HP. Sorry if I was wrong. But if you are saying that having read the books or not is irrelevant to the question, then I have to disagree, because only a person who's read a book is qualified to make comments about whether that book is rooted in reality or not.

Well, I have read 3 first books. But there is no book not rooted on reality.



I haven't read Alice since the time I was a kid, about 40 years ago. I was actually parodying the anti-Potter posts on this thread - people who haven't even read the series making ridiculously extreme negative statements about them. (Sorry, I'm very fond of this word.)

Who exactly? JBI read them, I didn't. Has anyone called it flat out crap?


Anyway, based on what I read then and remember, the world of Alice is a bizzarre dream world, something like a drug induced trip, where weird things keep happening one after the other. I got tired of it after a while, and I'm only explaining why I didn't like it. The HP books are nothing like a drug induced trip. Even with the shifting staircases and Whomping Willow, screaming books, talking portraits, magical mirrors, ghosts, trolls and house-elves, Hogwarts is still a school, and people there have to deal with homework, exams, friendships and rivalries, bullying, fear of getting expelled, alienation, prejudice...I could go on and on. I liked the reality of the HP world better than the completely whimsical world of Alice. That's all there is to it. It was not meant as a general statement about the merits of whimsicality vs reality.

Hence why Bloom mentions a teen book about schools while talking about HP influences. Anyways, that is like scratching the surface of Alice. The book is rooted on philosophy and mathematic. Alice is even based on a real children (some characters) on real teachers. It is oniric indeed, no wonder the surrealist movement loved it, but it was an unique way to portrait a dream, because the chaos was just the surface. No wonder a few decades and people would be arguing the roots of all language are in the subconcious and dreams as a form of expression, which our reality can understand. No wonder Joyce liked it, after all Finnegans Wake is all that oniric experience.

Of course, HP is more simple, it is traditional realism.



Well, influence only proves that the work was influential. It really does not say anything about its intrinsic literary merit.

Works with little literary merity are forgotten. The influence is certainly an evidence that work has a lot of merits. And that is what makes a classic.



Genius has this capacity to rip off or absorb lesser works that have some appealing or innovative idea and make it into something of its own, and the same process applies to popular culture.

Yes, Lewis Carroll, genius.

[Drkshadow03]

Who exactly? JBI read them, I didn't. Has anyone called it flat out crap?



Actually I think JBI implied in his "well-argued" post that he only read the first couple of books as well, then watched the movies, but I could be wrong.

[JBI]

Actually I think JBI implied in his "well-argued" post that he only read the first couple of books as well, then watched the movies, but I could be wrong.

I read in some form books 1-4, part of book 5 and part of book6, then none of book 7. Books 1-3 were literally read to me by more schoolroom teacher when I was a child.

That being said, much of the reading was not done in English. Book 4 was done in a mix of English and Italian, book 5 in parts English, parts Italian, parts French, book 6 mostly English, with Italian mixed in.

The books have the convenience of being so basic and available in so many languages that you can use them as basic textbooks for language learning. I was going to read the Chinese copy of book 7 when I started until I found that it was just too dreadful to read in any language. Dry and overly melodramatic, the things you skim over when you read in English surface harder in other languages. The text makes no sense in Chinese, as far as I am concerned.

As for my post being well-argued, I do not edit my posts usually, and I wrote that straight without pausing, hence why it is a mix of oratory and stream of consciousness (I use the same set phrases at the beginning of every paragraph). The post is very me, and I meant it to be a constructive summary of a sort to try to steer this thread into a more mature debate.

As it is, the original topic is exhausted - simply put, even the most devoted Potterites did not like the new book. Nobody is anticipating it, I bet many wish she had just not written it.

[JCamilo]

Yes and I recall JBI saying he read the books before, not from this topic. He had to say it before, the "you didnt read the book to talk about it" is a commun argument since they assume "anti-potter" are snobs who would not read popular literature.

Nothing new here. Calling Alice crap was just a uncalled attack on the book which was not similar to any of supposed attacks done against HP.

[mona amon]

Nothing new here. Calling Alice crap was just a uncalled attack on the book which was not similar to any of supposed attacks done against HP.

:nopity:

[qimissung]

We weren't the ones who added Alice to the argument, though.

[qimissung]

Why it's good-because the books ARE good:

The Harry Potter series is comprised of seven books in which the central character, Harry Potter, discovers he’s a wizard, and attends a wizarding school where he makes friends and fights the dark lord Voldemort who killed his parents, and who, in an altered form, is trying to take over the wizarding world.

In each book of the series, Harry not only advances a year, but faces a new and daunting task in his battle against Lord Voldemort. In the first book Harry faces down Professor Quirrell and is able to keep Quirrell from stealing the Philosopher’s Stone and thus keeps Voldemort from making the elixir of life. In the second book he fights a basilisk and is saved by a phoenix; in the third he returns to the past where he saves the endangered hippogriff, Buckbeak, and later watches himself call his patronus, a stag, to save himself from being killed by the dementors. In The Goblet of Fire, Harry participates in the triwizard tournament, although he is technically too young to do so. He is forced to witness the death of a schoolmate, and risks his life returning Cedric Diggory to his father for burial. Harry endures the physical and emotional abuse (above and beyond that of his aunt and uncle who raised him) of Delores Umbridge in The Order of the Phoenix, when she forces him to submit to having “I must not tell lies” written with a special quill in the back of his hand. His scar burns when Voldemort experiences a strong emotion. Harry must endure his belief that Snape is guilty of killing his beloved Dumbeldore in The Half Blood Prince, and in The Deathly Hallows Harry willingly sacrifices himself to death at Voldemort’s hand.

All of this is well-known to anyone who has read the books. I put it here, both to refresh my memory , and to show the breadth of both Rowling’s imagination, and the seemingly impossible tasks that Harry was faced with each year that he returned to Hogwarts. In this, Harry could be compared to Hecules or Arthur, particularly the Arthur of the Welsh prose tale Culhwch and Olwen. Harry is very much an archetypal hero as delineated by Jungian tradition:

• Unusual circumstances of birth; may be born in dangerous circumstance
• Leaves family or land and lives with others
• An event, sometimes traumatic, leads to adventure or quest
• The hero has a special weapon only he can wield
• The hero has supernatural help
• The hero must prove himself many times while on the quest
• The journey and the unhealable wound
• Hero experiences atonement with father
• When the hero dies he is rewarded spriritually
http://tatsbox.com/hero/

Harry fits all of these categories. His special weapon is the love of his parents, in particular his mother. His “unhealable” wound is the loss of his parents; his “atonement, I think, is that he is able to vanquish Voldemort, and so gain some peace of mind for their loss. Harry, in the last book of the series, does die, although he is revived, and finds that Voldemort is dead: he is thus, rewarded spiritually.

And Harry, like Arthur and like Jesus, suffers. In The prisoner of Azkaban, “whenever Harry is near (a dementor), he is forced to relive his worst memory: hearing the last moments of his parents' lives before they are murdered by Voldemort, which begins with Harry hearing his mother screaming.” (Wikipedia)

In The Goblet of Fire he is forced to watch as Voldemort’s minions kill Cedric Diggory.

In the next book Harry is able to see the Thestrals, as a result of having seen Cedric’s death.

Harry has a mark on his forehead that marks him as “special” but which also brings him much negative attention and some bullying.

Harry is also connected in a mysterious way to Voldemort. When Voldemort experiences a strong emotion, Harry’s scar begins to hurt.

Harry breaks down at the end of The Order of the Phoenix, “screaming that he’s had enough of all the pain and anguish and death and destruction.”

There are also elements of Christianity in the book in the recurring themes of death ,rebirth, love and sacrifice, as well as numerous references to mythological creatures, including but not limited to Centaurs, hippogriffs, and unicorns . For a more complete list you can look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_creatures_in_Harry_Potter

Of all of Rowling’s characters, the most interesting are probably Harry himself, Dumbledore and Snape, all of whom are enmeshed psychologically. Snape is particularly a tragic and ambiguous figure, having despised Harry’s father when he was at school, and having loved his mother, and who was, like Harry, an outcast. Harry is always uncomfortable around him and never trusts him. It is not until Snape’s death that the truth of his actions is revealed. In this respect, he and Harry are more alike than they could ever have known.

Are they books for children or adults? According to Ernie Bond of Salisbury University: “Personally I would consider the whole series to be for "all ages."”

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/college-inc/2010/11/harry_potter_and_the_universit.html


Like Arthur, Harry must face and overcome a series of obstacles and it is to Rowling’s credit that while the outcome is not ever really in doubt, she is able to maintain a level of suspense to the end of each story. Rowling isn’t a great writer , stylistically, but her books are well-plotted, her characters are warm and engaging, the stories have heart and soul and imagination. What more could a kid-of any age-ask for?

[JBI]

That does not clarify why the books are good, or show he has any development as a character. Everyone knows he faces new adventures, but that doesn't mean he learns anything.

[Lokasenna]

All of this is well-known to anyone who has read the books. I put it here, both to refresh my memory , and to show the breadth of both Rowling’s imagination, and the seemingly impossible tasks that Harry was faced with each year that he returned to Hogwarts. In this, Harry could be compared to Hecules or Arthur, particularly the Arthur of the Welsh prose tale Culhwch and Olwen. Harry is very much an archetypal hero as delineated by Jungian tradition:

• Unusual circumstances of birth; may be born in dangerous circumstance
• Leaves family or land and lives with others
• An event, sometimes traumatic, leads to adventure or quest
• The hero has a special weapon only he can wield
• The hero has supernatural help
• The hero must prove himself many times while on the quest
• The journey and the unhealable wound
• Hero experiences atonement with father
• When the hero dies he is rewarded spriritually

But is this not evidence of just how derivative HP is? True, it's always difficult to escape the fundamental plots and archetypes that characterise most of world literature, but Rowling's seems less adventurous than it might have been.

Just out of interest, and perhaps as a better point of comparison than the Alice books, has anyone read Ursula le Guin's Earthsea books? As a young teenager, it was those that first made me realise that Harry Potter was not the revelation I thought it was. The first book, A Wizard of Earthsea has many similarities thematically with Potter - a young, gifted boy uncomfortable in his community discovers his huge talent for magic and is dispatched to a school for wizards. I felt, however, that le Guin's work was much more compelling - her charcters underwent deep and meaningful development, the underlying exoticism of magic was somehow more profound, and the threat was not from some arbitrary dark lord but rather borne out of the characters' own actions and weaknesses.

Oh, having just check wiki to find the date of publication (1968), I found a link to page about influences of Potter, which I'll link to here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_influences_and_analogues). Le Guin's reaction is interesting:


The basic premise of Ursula K. Le Guin's A Wizard of Earthsea (1968), in which a boy with unusual aptitude for magic is recognised, and sent to a special school for wizards, resembles that of Harry Potter. Le Guin has claimed that she doesn't feel Rowling "ripped her off", but that she felt that Rowling's books were overpraised for supposed originality, and that Rowling "could have been more gracious about her predecessors. My incredulity was at the critics who found the first book wonderfully original. She has many virtues, but originality isn't one of them. That hurt."

[JBI]

I personally loved The Wizard of the Earthsea. The sequels were good, some of them had members better than the first.

Leguin though is already an established adult author who has been recognized by the establishment for her novels, particularly The Left Hand of Darkness.

[Pierre Menard]

The books are derivative, which, in of itself isn't necessarily a flaw. But when you do nothing all that impressive to make up for it, or don't have a new or interesting take on the same old story well then...the books look average in my eyes.

I mean, a number of great authors are derivative, but they might approach it through a great style, or excellent characterisation and development or in the post-modern world, some may twist it on it's head and parody it, so on, etc, etc.

Harry Potter in my eyes is fairly derivative, Rowling is a mediocre stylist, her characters are fairly weak, they don't really have any psychological depth, or at least, nothing to separate them from 100's of other fantasy characters. She can plot a novel alright, but again, she's not an expert.

She's not a terrible author, just a mediocre and fairly average one.

[JCamilo]

But is this not evidence of just how derivative HP is? True, it's always difficult to escape the fundamental plots and archetypes that characterise most of world literature, but Rowling's seems less adventurous than it might have been.

That is limitation of the formula of HP. Usually heroic characters like him do not have true development, nor need, they go from feats after feats. So, HP was all he would be since book one, no much room for great changes. That would be fine, works with batman, superman, etc., but the formula is showing him year after year. But time passing is not really what matters. Maybe all subplots JBI pointed that underdeveloped shows Rowling wanted to go futher, but the formula - which is the success and what the publishers wanted - called back. Hence why the book is plot driven and needs a very original plot to be different. Hence why the first book seems to receive a better praise: superheroes origem is cool because it is one of the few seconds where they grow up.



Just out of interest, and perhaps as a better point of comparison than the Alice books, has anyone read Ursula le Guin's Earthsea books? As a young teenager, it was those that first made me realise that Harry Potter was not the revelation I thought it was. The first book, A Wizard of Earthsea has many similarities thematically with Potter - a young, gifted boy uncomfortable in his community discovers his huge talent for magic and is dispatched to a school for wizards. I felt, however, that le Guin's work was much more compelling - her charcters underwent deep and meaningful development, the underlying exoticism of magic was somehow more profound, and the threat was not from some arbitrary dark lord but rather borne out of the characters' own actions and weaknesses.

I like Diana Wynnie Jones How Series. It was Alice elements but also some of Elements of HP (a side fantasy world, a mage who was a great student, except addult). But it is the way magic is overwhelming and yet small, the way to create a narrative playing with Donne poem, all that could be a blast, had it been written a few years latter.

[JBI]

I also liked Thamora Pierce's novels - though I read them by chance in my late teens, so I was a bit old for the audience. I think as novels they offer a more creative approach than Rowling.

Then again, we can see fantasy as trapped in a sort of 3rd age "Asianism". That is, Le Guin is clearly playing with Eastern Religion, particularly Buddhism (I am not going to delve deep as I read the books years ago), Starwars is decidedly Eastern in its construction of fantasy (the "force" etc.), Thamora Pierce plays a lot with Japanese forms of religion and Buddhism, and the list goes on. It seems that there is a great deal of potential there and unexplored territory, which is even better since it is given to kids. It's like the success of the Walley Translation, Monkey, which in itself can be called children's literature, and fantasy (it is seen as such in China, for instance).

Charlotte's Web is another classic, as are Dahl's stories, such as the BFG, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, etc. Those are all established modern classics of the form of children's literature.

[JCamilo]

Interesting, this year the agent of Tamora Pierce approached us (us as the small publishing house where I work) with the lioness books series. So, they were given to me to read it and see if they were good (There is a idea to shift to teen books and not just children and also find fantasy books to explore. Albeit the expectation to find a new Game of Thrones is exagerated).

While I did not found the books dreadful and even some obvious work with the teen-female market, since they try to work with the leading female girl development, I found they pretty much normal. Could be a AD&D book. Cliches, the references to other cultures to build exactly similar cultures (there was some sort of arab caravan masters, an oriental monk guy, etc) typical of genre when the guy does not want to spend the life going tolkien. I saw the book had some popularity, I said would be fine as first attempt but it would be unlikely to find a best seller here. The price they charged for the contract was not high, but I think it wont be done.

[Aylinn]

Just out of interest, and perhaps as a better point of comparison than the Alice books, has anyone read Ursula le Guin's Earthsea books?
Sure, they has impressed me few years ago. I loved it and I have been meaning to get back to these book and read them in English this time, though I'm not in a hurry as they were translated into Polish by the best translators.


The books have the convenience of being so basic and available in so many languages that you can use them as basic textbooks for language learning. I was going to read the Chinese copy of book 7 when I started until I found that it was just too dreadful to read in any language. Dry and overly melodramatic, the things you skim over when you read in English surface harder in other languages. The text makes no sense in Chinese, as far as I am concerned.
Something very similar happened to me. The sixth book is the first book I have read in English and you reminded me that when I was reading it, I sometimes asked myself if these books were always so dry.

Maybe there is the hidden value of Harry Potter and its simple style. To help children learn another language, which will allow them to discover that these books are far from being great. :lol:


Then again, we can see fantasy as trapped in a sort of 3rd age "Asianism".
There is an exchange of ideas on both sides. While Westerners are borrowing ideas from Easterners, Easterners are borrowing ideas from Westerners. At least, that's what I have noticed after being a fan of anime for almost ten years. Japanese seem to like a lot western 19th century literature and are often clearly inspired by stories from western culture. Is it the same for people in China?

[Drkshadow03]

Harry Potter is a work worthy of being considered a classic of children’s literature. Some critics wishing to stack the odds in favor of arguments against Potter’s literary value attempt to employ ridiculous comparisons with works of other popular literary authors. However, the question isn't if Potter can match up with popular celebrated authors like Dickens, Roth, Chabon, Murakami, and their ilk. It is far-fetched to suggest any of these authors’ primary audience is children or even young adults. The real question is if Potter belongs in the same category as C. S. Lewis, Roald Dahl, Louis Lowry, L. Frank Baum, Kenneth Grahame, Judy Blume, and other respected children and young adult authors. Many critics who study Children’s Literature as their primary focus have already proposed Potter as a prime candidate for canonization in Children’s Literature and defended its literary merits.

Harry Potter functions in a fantastical sub-genre known as Wainscot, which is a subgenre of Urban fantasy. The power of fantasy is in its ability to restore objectivity by divorcing itself even further from reality than Realist fiction is capable of doing, and allowing us to see important issues that affect our everyday lives in a new direction, new angle, new slant. In an interview I did with up-and-coming fantasy writer, Kameron Hurley, on my blog, she stated these points more succinctly:

“As for the remove that takes place in epic, heroic, or just plain fantasy works, I’d argue that it’s the remove from the real world than comes closest to examining issues objectively. When you’re mired in your own world, familiar surroundings, you’re more numb to what you’d see as the everyday routines of life, the “normal,” the “expected,” the “natural.” When you remove these things from their settings you can often see the absurdities of them, the injustice. Fantasy – good fantasy – can do that without feeling didactic.”

Urban fantasy in particular allows for direct parallels between the real world and the fantastical milieu. In Epic fantasy or Sword-and-Sorcery the world is further divorced from modern reality. Unfortunately many fantasies are content with simply creating an entertaining adventure story rather than taking advantage of this unique ability of fantasy.

The world of Harry Potter is our world, but transformed through the lens of magic. The two worlds exist alongside each other within the story, encouraging us to read into these parallels. In the hidden magical world we have shops, banks, sporting events, boarding schools, government, but twisted around into new forms through the magical milieu. The attraction at first for the reader is the whimsical charm this familiarity brings, a strange world that is both alien and familiar at the same time. Harry Potter, while possessing a serious story at times, is almost playful with its world and characters and in the actual prose itself. Even in its opening lines we get this sense of playful whimsy:

“Mr. and Mrs. Dursley, of number four, Privert Drive, were proud to say that they were perfectly normal, thank you very much. They were the last people you’d expect to be involved in anything strange or mysterious, because they just didn’t hold with such nonsense.” – Opening of HP and the Sorcerer’s Stone (Book 1).

One thing that most critics and proponents of the series can agree on is that the story on some level is about racism; disagreement, of course, exists over the amount of depth it deals with this issue. The racial theme centers on an inter-wizarding ideological conflict between mudbloods (wizards with human parents) and pure bloods (the term is self-explanatory). The ideology of wizarding “racism” takes different forms throughout the novel: we have petty harassment, name-calling, and disdain (exemplified by Draco Malfoy and Slytherins), we have those who advocate for outright exclusion of mudbloods, along with torture and slavery of Muggles (the deatheaters), those with elitist racial attitudes who would rule over Muggles as benevolent philosopher-king/dictators for their own good (Dumbledore in his youth and the dark wizard Grindenwald), and even those who show a slight aversion towards Mudbloods if not verbalized hatred or actions of blatant discrimination (Slughorn who like the typical white person caught saying something stereotypically racist will deny that they are racist). The book doesn’t paint a simplistic portrait of racism, but shows it in its many different forms and expressions, some being more extreme than others, much like racism in real life. The story further complicates this reading through its parallels of the Muggle and Wizarding worlds; the real difference between these two worlds is that the members of one can do magic and the members of the other cannot. This is where the fantasy divide allows for objectivity. All the readers of the books are by definition muggles since magic doesn’t exist in the real world. Therefore, the divide between Muggle and Wizard only matters in the story’s logic and not in any thematic sense. However, by creating a difference between the inhabitants of the two worlds, it allows the reader to see the arbitrariness of the mudblood/pure blood division so important to the racial politics of the Wizarding World. For the reader who knows there is no such thing as Wizards, this fictional logic and imaginary rules forces them to view racism in a new light; as far as we’re concerned all wizards are essentially the same, able to perform magic with equal ability whether they are mudblood or pure blood. By divorcing it from the real world into an imaginary setting we see firsthand in an objective light just how arbitrary racism is as Rowling literally designs her own made-up form of racism in the Wizarding World. It allows children and young adults to think about this arbitrary quality inherent in racism in a way that could never be achieved by just showing them a realistic story about it. It is precisely through the divorcing quality of fantasy, by creating an ideology that exists only in a different world, yet bearing similarities to our own ideologies, that allows us to see the extent of racism’s arbitrary nature.


Some might see parallels to LeGuin’s Wizard of Earthsea. There are a number of obvious and important differences: 1) LeGuin’s novel is firmly an epic fantasy in a secondary world rather than an Urban Fantasy Wainscot. 2) Only one section of the first novel takes place in a magic school and it’s an utterly serious school, lacking all the whimsical playfulness that makes Potter so enjoyable 3) the main character is meant to be one of the most talented Wizards ever to exist, much like Tom Riddle, whose own pride is his undoing (creating a very different character from Potter and a very different theme that LeGuin is exploring). These important differences end up creating very different stories, with different feels, characters, tones, purposes, etc.
Harry Potter is meant to be portrayed as a clever but mediocre Wizard who relies heavily on his friends for survival. Rowling continually emphasizes his average ability as a wizard. He cannot solve his problems merely by turning to his awesome powers, but needs help from outsiders, thus twisting the long tradition of fantasy archetypes and stereotypes of super powerful chosen ones exemplified by characters such as Rand Al'Thor in The Wheel of Time of series where the Chosen One is super powerful and its through his immense power that he can save the world from the Dark One. Harry Potter subverts this trope numerous times by continually emphasizing Potter’s average ability as a wizard. As book 5 makes clear, with the prophecy, Potter was not Chosen because of his supreme ability in Wizarding, but Voldemort chose him because he believed the prophecy meant Potter (thus making it a self-fulfilling prophecy); the book says it could just as easily have been Neville Longbottom who the prophecy referred to, and had Voldemort read the prophecy that way he would’ve been the Chosen One and not Potter.
One of the most dynamic aspects of the text is the characters. In the beginning of the series, we have a scared, hapless, neglected orphan protagonist named Harry Potter, reviled by his uncle and aunt for his strangeness and clearly out of place in the normal world. He soon discovers that he is a wizard and ends up at a school where he develops new friendships that functions as his replacement family. These friendships are not set in stone; indeed, there many points in the later novels where the core friendship of Ron, Hermione, and Harry almost shatters, but ultimately by the end they, too, come to realize they’re a family and need each other. There are a lot of tangible developments of Harry’s character by the end of the series:

1) One of the most obvious changes from the earlier books is Harry’s desire to play down his celebrity status; he seems embarrassed by it, wanting to blend in with the crowd, and be like any normal kid, but by the final book he embraces his role and fate as the savior of the Wizarding World, even allowing himself to be sacrificed for the sake of everyone else. His choice of name is no accident.

2) However, even more microscopic changes in his character and his relationships are evident as the series progresses; by the final book, Harry’s relationship with the Dursleys has transformed radically, with both sides expressing feelings for each other. The Dursleys, far from being merely a comical interlude and parody of bourgeoisie foibles, plays a crucial part in the development of Harry’s character. Due to past neglect and lack of parental figures, Harry struggles to trust his friends and adults at first. Ultimately, trust in others is what Potter must accept.

3) By the final book, in order to win he must trust in his friends to fight back, he must trust in Dumbledore who he learns isn’t the perfect saintly man he believed him to be during the final book; Harry might play a large part in defeating Voldemort, but he cannot defeat his forces alone.

4) In the end, Harry goes from an orphan who lost his family to building a new family through his experiences at Hogwarts and by literally starting his own as the final sequence of the novel.

5) Harry ends up facing his fears (developed and reexplored throughout the novels) and learns that death is an inevitable part of life; something, Voldemort who functions as a parallel to him, never learns or accepts. Harry learns to accept death as an inevitable part of life, which allows him to be sacrificed to save everyone else. He needs to overcome his parent’s death and his “foster” parents death: Sirius Black and Dumbledore.
Now granted from the very first books we witness a character who is brave and courageous and who cares about his friends. Rowling doesn’t change the central qualities of her character, but I do believe she develops them over the course of the books so that these innate qualities mature. He switches from others sacrificing themselves for him to him sacrificing himself for others.


The so-called red herring elements in her plot can best be explained by understanding one of the major themes of the work. One of her themes in the book is adolescent misjudgment of people. The characters continually misjudged characters personalities and motivations. Not to mention Harry himself is naturally mistrustful of adults and friendship because of his upbringing with the Dursleys. A red herring shifting between possible villains makes perfect sense with a theme that centers on mistrusting adults, especially new ones to appear in your life, and misjudging people because of that mistrust, thus overturning expectations and assumptions of the characters. Harry doesn’t just misjudge Snape, but also Malfoy and a whole slew of characters—he even misjudges Dumbledore who it turns out has a darker side as revealed in the final book.

Larry from OF Blog at the Fallen adroitly links this theme of misjudgment with Harry’s maturity through the novels, “The HP of the first book is 11 years old, with the world-view of an 11 year-old boy. He cannot readily see the goodness that lurks within the tortured frame of a Snape or within the spoiled shaping of a Draco Malfoy. They are enemies to overcome - perhaps not capital E Evil like Voldemort, but still just that, "evil." But as the series progresses and we witness things through Harry's PoV, things subtly change, until we too are forced to change our preconceptions of a Snape or a Draco to see that they are not static characters, but that they too are as dynamic as Harry or any of his friends. We end up seeing Harry's world through the eyes of one who is ready to leave his childhood shell to become an adult who will be wise enough to remember the lessons learned during that childhood apprenticeship stage.”

Still, all the themes such as friendship, the power of love, learning to trust others after abuse and having no one to love you, learning to trust adults through an adolescent’s eyes in a world where adults lie and tell half-truths are all subservient to the larger moral theme of Harry Potter, the crux of the series so to speak: Choice. In Harry Potter it is the choices we make that define us.

The story’s true center is the connected background of Voldemort and Harry Potter. The longish looks into Voldemort's "origins," which play out throughout all the novels, but especially the middle ones, reveal that Voldemort and Harry Potter are mirror reflections of each other. Both orphans, both living among Muggles who mistreat them, and despite these similar backgrounds both choose to take different paths in their lives. Voldemort is terrified of dying, seeking immortality, while Harry is willing to sacrifice his life so that his friends might live. Voldemort inspires the loyalty of his followers through fear, torture, and his unmatched talent as a wizard, while Harry inspires his friends through his courage, even though he is a mediocre wizard as far as talent and skill go. In the earlier novels, the sorting hat suggests Harry would be a good fit in Slytherin before placing him in Gryffindor. Harry asks Dumbledore why the sorting head almost placed him in Slytherin. Dumbledore explains that the sorting hat looks at the qualities within us, but also pays attention to our own choices; Harry, of course, repeatedly told the hat that he didn't want to end up in Slytherin. We see here an important point made in this moment. Harry could've ended up in Slythern like Voldemort, but likewise Voldemort could've ended up in Griffindor had his choices been different. This theme and central parallel of the novel provides the main moral point of the novel: there is no such thing as immutable essences called good and evil, but it is our choices that make us good or evil. This is a world of difference from the million Tolkien copies where there are Lucifers, Devils, and Dark Ones who are evil Dark Lords in their core essence. Not only are Harry Potter and Voldemort linked by destiny to face each other and magical scars wounds that allow Harry to gain Voldemort’s abilities (ability to speak to snakes called Parsel tongue), but they really have many of the same experiences; however, they react to those experiences differently. Harry Potter chooses love and sacrifice, while Voldemort chooses fear and selfishness. Dumbledore continually tells his protégé that what separates Harry from voldemort is his loyalty to his friends and that most precious of emotions, love.

However, like most the themes in Harry Potter, even love is not an uncomplicated emotion. Like the anti-racial themes it too is treated in a fairly sophisticated way. As critic Karin Westman writes, “[w]hile the earlier books in the series depict love as a generative and protective force, Half-Blood Prince and Deathly Hallows remind us that love can wound as well as shield. In these last two books Rowling locates love's damaging consequences not only within secondary characters like Voldemort's mother Merope and Bellatrix but also within the seemingly unassailable, all-powerful character of Dumbledore, thereby forging unlikely connections between disparate characters. Such parallels diminish easy distinctions between good and bad people and foreground the paradox of love's power. By the end of Rowling's series, love is indeed a weapon, as Dumbledore often explains to Harry, but that weapon is dangerously double-edged, placing the lover and the beloved at risk if it is improperly handled.” Even characters like Ron fall prey to this double-edged sword, temporarily abandoning Harry and Hermione in the final book because he thinks Potter is making moves on the woman he loves (Hermione) and jealousy over Harry’s fame (a personal character flaw that continually rears its ugly head from the earlier books). However, Ron does make the right moral choice and returns to his friends, winning the adoration of Hermione.

Individual moral choice is everywhere in the Potter books. Another obvious example is when Draco Malfoy cannot kill Dumbledore. He makes the wrong moral choices in the sixth book, Half-Blood Prince, by helping the Death Eaters to break into Hogwarts, while under duress over the threats to his father’s life. However, he too, must face a real moral choice. Dumbledore tells him he has a choice--he need not proceed down this path. Draco Malfoy in the final book makes the right choice, despite being inclined towards the path of pure-blooded racial politics of Slythern--we see a further complication of simplistic morality in that even racists, which the novel depicts Malfoy engaging in numerous times more than any other character--can sometimes make the right moral choices.

Often critics who call out Rowling’s style have a rather myopic understanding of the term. They will point to a single sentence or two that employs a cliché way of expressing a character’s emotion and shout cliché until their face turns blue. On a sentence by sentence level, indeed, Rowling is nothing special. However, when looked at from a larger paragraph by paragraph basis, Rowling’s work brims with style. In fact, it’s precisely the style that Rowling shines in many occasions. As I pointed out earlier in this thread the opening of Potter exhibits a playfulness in tone reminiscent of Dickens and Austen, while lacking their superior diction and syntax. In an early paragraph about Mr. Dursley, Rowling cleverly characterizes him by deconstructing typical associations of emotions and mood. She takes a typical action (shouting and screaming) normally associated with anger and stress, and flips our expectations in this paragraph by depicting Dursley as being "in a very good mood" after all this yelling as part of his job, telling us a lot about his character in the process in a fairly clever economical way. The playfulness of the tone enlivens the magic world to make the story so much more than a typical romp through a fantasy environment. Even minor details like candy, magical to most children already, is made more magical: strange Jellybean flavors, animated chocolate frogs, etc. These little details show an author thinking through the minor stuff and imbuing even the tiniest fragment of her world with originality. Throughout the work there is an evident playfulness with archetypes and characters that challenge our expectations and re-imagines familiar tropes in new light. The playfulness isn’t just in the reworking of the fantasy tropes themselves, but can be found in the prose and the way she narrates the story.


One who is performing a careful reading of Potter and who is familiar with lots of other children’s books being published today will recognize that is fairly complicated literature for a children's book. The appeal of Harry Potter as a child of abuse learning to negotiate a dark and sometimes cruel world that can be loveless and it where it is uncertain on whom you can trust, while not succumbing down the path of hatred, fear, and sadism, by not becoming a Voldemort, is obvious. As critic Roni Natov puts it, “Harry embodies this state of injustice frequently experienced by children, often as inchoate fear and anger--and its other side, desire to possess extraordinary powers that will overcome such early and deep exile from the child's birthright of love and protection.” As Larry notes when he quotes G. K. Chesterton, Harry Potter teaches us that we all face dragons, but sometimes we can beat the dragons.

Work Cited

Beyond Assumptions Blog.

OF Blog of the Fallen.

Natov, Roni. “Harry Potter and the Extraordinariness of the Ordinary.” The Lion and the Unicorn. 25.1

Westman, Karen. “The Weapon we Have is Love.” Children’s Literature Association Quarterly. 33 (2).

[qimissung]

Beautifully done, Drkshadow!

Your whole argument is cogent, astute, and well-crafted, but this is my favorite part:



" Harry asks Dumbledore why the sorting head almost placed him in Slytherin. Dumbledore explains that the sorting hat looks at the qualities within us, but also pays attention to our own choices; Harry, of course, repeatedly told the hat that he didn't want to end up in Slytherin. We see here an important point made in this moment. Harry could've ended up in Slythern like Voldemort, but likewise Voldemort could've ended up in Griffindor had his choices been different. This theme and central parallel of the novel provides the main moral point of the novel: there is no such thing as immutable essences called good and evil, but it is our choices that make us good or evil. This is a world of difference from the million Tolkien copies where there are Lucifers, Devils, and Dark Ones who are evil Dark Lords in their core essence."


I always found the connection between Harry and Voldemort fascinating. What was that supposed to mean? Harry obviously wondered about that, too. It frightened him, and this obvious fear, I think, keeps him from being, shall I say, boring?Voldemort thought he was weak, although he had reason to know otherwise. In fact, Harry reminds me of the little boy in Searching for Bobby Fischer, of whom his mother said "He's not weak, He's decent."

I don't often find good characters boring if they're noble-think Atticus Finch, here-but that is often a complaint. Rather Harry struggles to find meaning in his rather overwhelming circumstances, as we all do when we are faced with hard times, and when making the "right" decision is profoundly complex.

It's kind of a wonderful paradox that in this whimsical tale of magic there resides such a penetrating truth about the nature of good and evil.


"But is this not evidence of just how derivative HP is? True, it's always difficult to escape the fundamental plots and archetypes that characterise most of world literature, but Rowling's seems less adventurous than it might have been."

Hmmm. You say 'derivitive,' Lokasenna, and I say 'building on centuries of work that has gone before.'

I always like the archetypes because they are like a basic black dress. You can do anything to them and with them and each creation is completely different than all the other ones. It's true that it is difficult to write something that does not use these elements-and that we love authors who are able to do so. On the other hand, I didn't write what I wrote to prove that she was not derivative, but to show that her work had some depth. You work at a university, Lokasenna; JBI is a graduate student. Your taste is somewhat esoteric, and you seem to think that everyone's should be. Or are you all annoyed at all the people who liked the books and made them huge bestsellers? It might be, in fact, that it's their accessibility that made them so popular. I still fail to see why that's so bad.

Last year I gave my students a writing assignment. I had them write a story using a main character that had the qualities of the hero archetype. They struggled with it, but finally came up with something. We read "The Odyssey" in the spring. Let me rephrase that. We read a passage of "The Odyssey" in the spring. We read it three or four times and they were still struggling to write summary sentences about it. But they recognized the hero archetype-although I did point out the qualities that Odysseus had that made him one, then asked them if any of those sounded familiar. Some of them knew the answer. It gave them some prior knowledge.

So in my opinion, there is some depth to the stories, should an individual child be so inclined to do any thinking about what he or she is reading. :D

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Goddamn, Drkshadow! I hope people take the time to read that. I don't have it right now. Awesome job, though, from what I've skimmed. I look forward to people picking out one sentence to pick on!

[stlukesguild]

I look forward to people picking out one sentence to pick on!

Somehow I would assume that such an approach would beneath JBI, JCamilo, and others that might disagree. That seems more the strategy Yes/No.

Personally I've had far too much Tequilla tonight to even begin to think of reading such a lengthy post.

But perhaps just enough to make Harry Potter palatable.:D

[YesNo]

Harry Potter is a work worthy of being considered a classic of children’s literature.

Excellent review, Drkshadow03!

From the discussion of racism to individual choice, you provided more than enough evidence to justify the first sentence of your post which I quoted above.