I like Harry Potter so much... It's what got me into reading...
Printable View
I like Harry Potter so much... It's what got me into reading...
Thumbs down of Harry Potter! I feel that it is monotonous to read it.There's not enough vocabulary,which it is written in a simplified one.It is solely suitable for 11 years old and below.
i'd say HP was really written for 11-teens, which i am not.
I feel like writing this in Capital Letters, but I will curb my frustration and merely re-iterate: the Harry Potter books were written for young readers and should be enjoyed as such. They were not written to be Literature, they were not written to provide material for Lit Crit, they were written for the entertainment of young readers. The fact they have been enjoyed by thousands and thousands of young (and young-at-heart) readers gladdens my heart - if they encourage those same readers to go on and try reading more books, it delights me even more. If they made JKR a multi-millionaire, good for her and her publisher for spotting a gap in the market and filling it. (I only wish I had sent my apprentice-wizard story to a publisher before she did, it's not a bad story, totally different from HP, but now it's unpublishable!) If you didn't enjoy it, that's a pity and maybe your loss but I'm sure you'll find something you will like; if you did enjoy it, good - now move on to the next book, there are lots out there and now you've discovered the joy of reading, you have so many treats in store, go and get on with them.
End of rant. :)
my level has not yet achieved that imaginary world.....
maybe i should like it~~...
Nah, that people go on after Potter to read better books has, by means of data (ironically biased in her favor), been discredited. I think I posted the link here before.
The point though is, good Children's literature should be enjoyable by people of all ages, without any loss. Carrol does this, Christina Rossetti does this, the point is, it is doable and has been done.
Potter offers something else, a more maturing progression of books, which, as critics have pointed out, seems to mature with the readers. This means, 20 years down the road, a hypothetical child will not be able to have the same affect as the original readers, as the books will be put down as if in one span, instead of divided over many years. He will in fact, be under-mature, or over-mature for the books, simply by having them all available at once.
That being said, the question remains whether those are good children's literature, or have matured out of children's literature, or simply aren't literature, but as Harold Bloom put it (to his great horror, as he still claims to get angry mail on account of it) slush.
The choice is up to the person of course, but lets be honest, if it cannot be studied, if it cannot recreate its affects, if it cannot be anything but enjoyed by kids (which I think I have pointed out, cannot really enjoy them as kids) than I think we may need to listen to Bloom, or perhaps acknowledge that, though these perhaps can be entertaining, they are neither good nor bad. Fashion magazines can be loads of fun, but how much attention should we give them? This perhaps may be a little better than that, but I think, like all books, the decline will occur (it already has started) and the books will flicker into oblivion. The problem with Rowling is that she had too few critics while writing her books, and failed to gain any critical feedback to improve her writing. This is OK of course, if you are Emily Dickinson, but not if you make grammar mistakes and drop clichés constantly. If perhaps she got some feedback, instead of countless praise, she could have fixed her problems by book 7. As it is, I think they got worse, as the haste to make the money, and the hype of the books gave Rowling too much confidence.
::sighs:: Here we go again with the overgeneralizations.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
English 440: Harry Potter's Library: J. K. Rowling, Texts, and Contexts
A Popular Culture Class Syllabus
Harry Potter has been added to the Syllabus of A-Levels in the UK
ENG 470/ENG 504 (Grad): Symbols and Archetypes in Children's Literature
Harry Potter and Philosophy
ENG 305: Literature for Children
ENG 349: Fantasy
That is 7 syllabi from different universities, with the exception of the A-Level one, teaching Harry Potter at a college level in various different contexts and disciplines. Believe me I could have found a lot more. Granted these aren't top-tier Ivy league colleges, but still . . .
A quick search in MLA database reveals there have been at least 57 peer-reviewed essays, 9 scholarly books, and 4 dissertations written about Harry Potter to date all with genuine Ph. D.s, imagine that, and keep in mind MLA doesn't index everything. So I'm sure there are quite a few other essays in anthologies or journals that it missed. In all fairness a few of the dissertations seem more interested in the Harry Potter phenomena, but the majority of the essays are good old genuine look deep at the structures of the text and write about the meaning literary criticism.
My point here isn't Harry Potter = good, or HP = literature with a capital "L." I don't really care about that; I'm not even sure I disagree with you on that point in fact. However, time will decide that one no matter what you or I or Harold Bloom opine. I only wanted to point out that you just claimed above HP cannot be studied; well, apparently someone is studying it and writing about it. So that's fundamentally untrue.
Also, I read the Harry Potter series and enjoyed it in my 20s. I also happen to enjoy more "traditional" literature. Why I even have a Masters degree in English, imagine that! Most of the people I've talked to who I know have read and enjoyed Harry Potter were also in 20s. Ergo, your other thesis about some set readership age is pretty bogus too.
This is a deliciously double-edged statement. I'll devilishly take it to mean that the Harry Potters are children's books, which should be read only by children!Quote:
the Harry Potter books were written for young readers and should be enjoyed as such.
College students are not children, hence they should not be reading Harry Potter. And certainly not in class. I just take this as further evidence of the sad decline of standards in higher education. I'm sure many universities also offer their clients (er, students) the chance to "study" comic books (er, graphic novels) for college credit.Quote:
7 syllabi from different universities, with the exception of the A-Level one, teaching Harry Potter at a college level
Rowling's books seem to have started a trend that is currently being mined by the Stephanie Myers vampire franchise. That is, big fat children's books that adults are not ashamed to read, though perhaps they ought to be.
Oh believe me, I have extremely mixed feelings about what passes for English Lit education these days.Quote:
Originally Posted by curlyqlink
I do disagree with you on graphic novels. Some graphic novels are really good and of a very high quality. "Watchmen" comes to mind to name just one. It's not like they are sitting there and reading Superman or Spiderman after all.
Basically my position on this falls somewhere in the middle. I hate the fact that one doesn't generally get to read a lot of classics by the time your finished with a 4 year undergrad program, and an MA, works that I definitely should have read. On the other hand, I do think it may be valuable and worthwhile studying Children's Literature or fantasy or graphic novels or some other specialized topic, that literary studies should not be limited solely to more traditional works. Part of this is the fact that I think a lot of works that are non-canonical are actually pretty good, original, and do have something to offer the reader. I am actually more concerned with how much time is spent on theory than I am on whether we are reading Chaucer or graphic novels.
One could convincingly argue that many professors are turning to writing about Harry Potter, secondary novels by major Canonical authors, and other genre/pop culture works because it's difficult to find something new to say about the classics which have been written about to death. Some of it is money to fill up classrooms certainly; Harry Potter is no doubt popular. However, I do think a genuine interest exists among certain scholars, particularly those interested in fantasy and Children's lit as their subject area(s) of expertise.
I've never opened a Potter book in my life, but I think this is unfair to Rowling and her achievement. Like me, she was on the dole, but unlike me, she did something, and that something is not so bad. Harry is a young boy who faces daunting obstacles, including the tragedy of losing mother and father, and his journey is that of the hero who grows into actually becoming one. I've read enough about the books to know that Rowling does have thematic intent, and something to say--I'm not going to trash that either through envy or elitism--and I may read the series one day.Quote:
Originally Posted by curlyqlink
Children's literature beloved of adults is nothing new. I still have a place in my heart for Charlotte's Web.
I think what Rowling's detractors are actually reacting to, is the modern distaste for corporate franchise, and that is a separate issue from artistic merit.
Who is saying that is studying Harry Potter the same way one would study Shakespeare. I go to university, you can get degrees in anything. I know a professor with a degree in Star Trek who teaches, that's not the point. the fact remains, that the question we ask ourselves when studying Harry Potter is always too look at the culture significance, and not at the text itself. With Shakespeare we look into the text, with Potter we look into the sales.
JBI... good to see you back... and still is rare form... trashing Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings in virtually one fell swoop. At least I won't be the sole elitist snob here any more.:lol:
I wish people read Aristotle as much as Harry Potter :D
I don't think anyone, not Drk or myself, certainly, is saying Potter is comparative to Shakespeare. Universities don't grow in a vacuum JBI. They want money too, and Potter is, for better or worse, a mega enterprise beyond its author, who must be worth a few billion or more. One looks at cultural and textual issues both.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Uhm, except you're still wrong. A lot of the scholarship on Potter does in fact look at the text; you know, literary criticism just like you would do with Shakespeare's text, looking at the structures, the characters, the symbols, with no mention of Potter's cultural popularity at all. It is, however, true, that there are also plenty of studies that look at its popularity from a cultural studies perspective, perhaps even most of it when you add up the dissertations and the books. However, at least 27 of the 57 peer-reviewed articles are genuine literary criticism. At least 10 of those were in another language so I couldn't tell one way or another, and the rest were about his popularity and sales and audience response.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
So when you write "when studying Harry Potter is always too [sic] look at the culture significance, and not at the text itself" (emphasis mine) you're factually wrong and still making overgeneralizations.
Like I said I have mixed feelings about the place of other literatures in relation to the more traditional canon. I think there is room to study both and there are reasons to study both. I am NOT saying Rowling is better than Shakespeare or even the equivalent of.
On the other hand, having read a little bit of the textual scholarship on Potter I do think there are some interesting things going on in Potter that are worth noting and documenting and thinking about.
I am pleased you and I finally seem to agree about something.;) I actually admire Rowling a great deal, and keep asking myself "if she could do it, why can't I?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
Although I haven't examined that answer too closely. She did get very lucky to have her work promoted just so to catch fire.
I cannot put in words how much I despise Harry Potter as a work of literature and plain reading material but I also have an irrational hate of Shakespeare and Dickens so I am probably not the greatest judge of a good book or author.
Is this an intrinsic dislike of reading for entertainment? I ask out of curiosity, since I enjoy more authors than others, just as anyone, but "irrational hate" is fairly strong language, something I would reserve for only the most vile polemics--but then again I do not read much that is in the vein of the Klu Klux Klan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ovid Reader
I have liked the Harry Potter books very much when I was young, but now I'm seventeen and don't really care about them anymore. I didn't even read the last book, actually.
Now I only cherish the memory of how I once read Harry Potter all night long, dressed up like Hermione Granger and made my Hogwarts housework using a feather and ink. It's part of my childhood - like many other books.
Ha :lol: Very well put.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hayley Zero
It seems to me this is precisely the issue: artistic merit is being confused with commercial success. Harry Potter sold by the ton; therefore, it is part of our culture, and therefore it is significant. That kind of reasoning should set off alarm bells.Quote:
I think what Rowling's detractors are actually reacting to, is the modern distaste for corporate franchise, and that is a separate issue from artistic merit.
Lots of kids liked reading Rowling's series of books. That's great, I'm all in favor of kids having a good time. I have nothing against a writer making lots of money writing potboilers, either. Problem is when all this gets inflated into claims of literary merit, or sociological claims that Potter is ushering in a generation of readers. I wonder: why this need for justification?
The Potter books are (were) popular. Why? Who knows. Hannah Montana is wildly popular too... is it because whatshername is a great singer? Is the franchise expected to usher in a generation of musicians? No, the phenomenon is treated for what it is: a commercial entertainment venture that hit paydirt. Nothin' wrong with that. It's time we saw the Potter phenomenon in the same light. And removed it from the college curriculum.
Call me a snob, but there is a difference between art and commerce.
Try Leopardi, he seems up your alley.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ovid Reader
O natura, o natura,
perché non rendi poi
quel che prometti allor? perché di tanto
inganni i figli tuoi?
I wish you luck with that. Personally I would never turn to writing fantasy, sci-fi, horror, or children's lit in order to make my millions. Most writers are mid-list: they make $30,000 - $50,000 per a book at best. I write it because I can't seem to write realist fiction; the fantastical elements allow me to say what I want to say the way realism wouldn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
Despite the fact that people seem to delude themselves that genre fiction is where all the money and sales happen to be. Maybe Romance, but other than that "mainstream" fiction sells a lot better. Of course there is always the Stephen Kings and J. K. Rowling success stories.
You should do a Harry Potter satire! I bet you that would make a lot of money if pulled off right.
No, I did not intend an unspoken 'should only be read by children.' :D I did mean that whoever reads it should not treat it as anything other than a book for children. You live, I presume, in a free country and can read whatever you like - do so, and let other people do so. If you wish to indulge in elitism, do so; but please do not deride people who do not feel the need to prove their good taste and maturity by trashing books that were not meant to be raised up on the pinnacle of Literature. I used to feel the need to guide (young) readers towards what I considered to be 'good' books - the debate was about Enid Blyton in those days - but with hindsight I realise that readers, like water, find their own level. By all means, show people the great and the good but the choice ultimately is theirs and should be respected. I've been reading and enjoying children's books all my life ( the excuse used to be professional necessity!) but I know they are children's books and I think I can recognise a good product when I see one, good of its kind, not puffed up to be something it was never intended to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by curlyqlink
Regarding going on to read other books, I can offer only anecdotal evidence: I did find that children who read a book that they perceive to be a challenge (long, difficult to understand, something that ultimately inspires them) then have the confidence to go on and read another book, then another, and think better of themselves for their achievement. There are many authors that young (and I stress young) readers enjoy that make me grit my teeth (back to Enid Blyton again!) but I hope if I were in a position to guide those readers today I'd be able to smile at their enthusiasm, commend them for their achievement and be ready with suggestions for their next foray into the library. No, they are not necessarily going to make a bee-line for Dickens or Shakespeare, but I hope they would be sufficiently encouraged to try another book and come to regard reading as one of the pleasures in their life.
With reference to studying HP at University level - I have to admit that makes me smile: the word 'bandwagon' comes to mind! But - presumably some of the students who take those courses are going to go on and become teachers of the children of an age to enjoy HP. I studied children's books as part of my training for teaching - yes, Alice was there, as was Beatrix Potter, Grahame, Tolkein, Lewis and the other classics - but there were also new writers on the list because children's literature was, and still is, a body of work growing at a phenomenal rate.We were taught to apply the methods of criticism we were applying in English Main studies - for some this was a new and surprising study because not all the people on the course were English Main students - English is a subject taught by all teachers in UK primary schools, not necessarily English specialists - but with the rider that these were books for children and that should be our prime consideration, not the stringent and inappropriate application of Literary Criteria.
Harry Potter were the first books I read, what drove me into the world of reading. By the time I was 6 my mother used to read me one or two chapters of Harry Potter before I went to bed. She read me all the Filosopher Stone and I wanted all the other stories so bad that I learnt how to read as fast as possible so I would be able to read the other books by myself. I still remember shouting out loud because I managed to read a whole page by myself and then, with some effort I would be able to go on without having to rely on my mother.
Harry Potter goes from solid to "EPIC WIN" by the time you get to "Order of the Phoenix".
I'm torn by whether "Order" or "Deathly Hallows" was more epic for me... My vote's on "Deathly Hallows", just because of the intense cinematic flair Rowling put into that stunning conclusion...
"Order of the Phoenix" still had Professor Umbridge taking the cake as the Best Villain in the franchise.
The mistake is in thinking that both are mutually exclusive, (and there is such a thing as bad art.)Quote:
Originally Posted by curlyqlink
So you hated the series until you read the first book? :ack2:Quote:
Originally Posted by jessw
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manuel Cruz
That's fantastic. It's a story you hear again and again - kids wanting to read Harry Potter. It's easy to forget how good that first book was. It was not a case of a cynical publisher's heavy promotion manipulating children's taste, it was a slow burner that grew from the bottom up.
I remember when it beat the heavily promoted Tracy Beaker in the Blue Peter best book competition. Not an award of great international standing, but voted on by kids, it was a suprise winner - I think most grown ups had never heard of it.
They give light to another world, If that offends you then oh well. A lot of people get offended by the thought of God You are not going to get anywhere by posting hateful things on the internet about something you don't understand. They show a fantisy world about good triumphing over evil. They let kids dream and be free for a moment. Growing up I didn't have the best child hood, but my dreams always made me feel better.
I dont think so maybe it is about your mentality. Everyone can't imagine this beautiful world.:out::banghead:Quote:
Originally Posted by Spite