Harry Potter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mayneverhave

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aBIGsheep

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aBIGsheep

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

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

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

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

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


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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aBIGsheep

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

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

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

---

Well said.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I win.

General Mod Note To All:

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

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

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

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