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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mona amon

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

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.

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.

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".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

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

---

How do you know if you havent read them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mona amon

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.

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

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.

Quote:

---

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.

"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..._classic_books

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qimissung

I'm not sure what the goal of this discussion is.

---

I think any discernible goal fluttered away pages ago. :nod:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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

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?