Yes, and there are undoubtedly hundreds of grammatical errors. You try writing that on a cellphone! and with a headache yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by qimissung
Printable View
Yes, and there are undoubtedly hundreds of grammatical errors. You try writing that on a cellphone! and with a headache yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by qimissung
Great essay, Darkshadow! It actually made me teary at points. :blush:
JBI, I haven't yet read yours, which I'll do later. Just one point which leapt out at me -
Which irish kid betrays Harry? I can't even imagine who you mean.Quote:
There are a few strawmen villains, like the Irish kid who betrays Harry (oh you disloyal Irish, tisk tisk) but Harry himself never questions himself. He never sees Voldemort in himself, and therefore Voldemort is reduced to an embodiment of a non-tangible, rather bland villain. He is all bad, but is apart from those good middle and lower class British folk. Great social realism!
Throughout the books Harry is faced with his forced connection to Voldemort, the possibility of his being tainted by him, as well as seeing certain similarities and even feeling empathy at times. eg "....[cut]...He and Voldemort and Snape, the abandoned boys, had all found home here..." It doesn't need a multi layered villain to make it a multi layered book.
Maybe he is just Irish in the movie, I forget, but in the fifth book he is the one who believes Harry is evil. Edit: after googling, it is his Irish friend Seamus.
Oh, Seamus Finnigan. He's Harry's classmate and dorm mate, and he temporarily (very temporarily) distrusts Harry. No betrayal or anything that dramatic.
No need to get snippy; I was just trying to be helpful.
In the sense that Drkshadow was discussing trust, and friendship, it is a form of betrayal, in that he goes against their 4-year friendship. If we are reading the book as a kid learning to trust his world, then this is a form of betrayal. But as you put it in agreement, it is temporary, and not the consequential. He never is actually betrayed by someone he trusts.Quote:
Originally Posted by mona amon
Wow, I'm impressed with both Drkshadow and JBI - I've only skimread their efforts, but it is clear both of them have a lot of interesting things to say. I will try to make time to read both of them thoroughly.Quote:
Originally Posted by qimissung
I just wanted to address some of Qimi's comments here. Perhaps it does not come across in cold, hard type, but my feelings towards Rowling are mostly of good natured benevolence - I find it very affirming that someone can make money out of writing!
Yes, I am an academic. Yes, my main literary diet consists of stories from 800-1300 years ago - fairly esoteric, even by the standards of those who study literature for a living. But, unlike many academics, I don't take myself at all seriously - it's simply too much effort. I LIKE fantasy literature - I'm currently rereading Raymond Feist's Magician for the first time in about a decade, and reasonably enjoying myself. I read and enjoy Terry Pratchett, Neil Gaiman, Robert Jordan, Fritz Leibner, Lord Dunsaney, Ursula le Guin and (in small doses) George R. R. Martin. Are they GREAT literature? No. I would argue that the only fantasy writers who really deserve a place amongst the classics are William Morris and Tolkien, with C. S. Lewis and Ursula le Guin as possibilities - though I'm sure plenty of people would disagree with those choices as well. Does that stop me, or anyone else, enjoying mainstream fantasy literature? Of course not.
The trouble with books like the Potter series, which I would happily argue are inferior to the works of those listed above, is that their popularity causes them to polarise opinion. Or perhaps I should say that they cause people to polarise other's opinions. Having read the first five books only, I think that Harry Potter is 'alright'. It's not bad, but it's not great either. My 10 year old self thought the first book was incredible, but my 24 year old self would view it as adequete. The trouble is that expressing anything other than an absolute and all-encompassing love of Harry Potter is taken by the fan community as a savage and mean-spirited condemnation built almost entirely on a basis of literary snobbery and elitism. It makes objective literary criticism damn difficult - not unlike when one tries to discuss the literary merits of the Bible with evangelical Christians.
So, to sum up: I don't envy Rowling her wealth or her audience, and I don't think her series is particularly dreadful. I believe it to be somewhat formulaic, somewhat over-reliant on cliché, adequetely expressed and constructed but also rather unoriginal. The books are 'alright', but I believe there are better stories out there in the same genre... and I hope the readers of HP will find them.
The problem with Potter is as soon as you try to level real criticism at it there are a billion fans who come in with a backlash. You cannot discuss the book without being beaten by a barrage of silly statements about how you are bland or whatever.
As it is, I am an esoteric academic person. I read ancient Chinese documents varying from 3000 years ago to around 200 years ago, mostly all the primary sources I deal with are 1500 years old or older. But my critical training and reading is mostly in contemporary literatures. Even in Chinese I can discuss contemporary authors, having studied them to an extent, and read them to an extent. Likewise, in English I have a degree in English literature which gives me a pretty decent foundation (plus I have been an avid reader for almost a decade, averaging 3-500 pages a day in my prime).
I am, after all, one of the widest readers on this forum, in terms of geography. I am one of the few who reads the biggest body of literature in a single language, Chinese. I do not need to list qualifications, as they are pointless.
My point is, I have a critical framework that I use to evaluate texts. I have torn up Frankenstein before, despite its critical status, and have criticized any number of canonical authors. That does not mean I am dismissive, or rude, it means I am applying a critical judgment based on a critical reading.
Affirming Potter is good is one thing, arguing and demonstrating is another. Drkshadow seems the only one to demonstrate why he believes the text is good so far, and I have rebutted with why I think it is mediocre.
I do not care for the phenomenon, and the 100 year argument is of little importance to us now. I just believe the books are not at all that great in comparison. From that perspective, I feel it necessary only to give voice to a critical judgment against the wave of overpraisers.
I do not care that people read Potter - millions already have done so, including me. I care that people praise it as some bible for Children's literature. I believe Leguin sort of hinted at her own frustration. Rowling is not Judy Blume, she is not particularly original, yet she gets all this press as if she invented the genre. She pays little outright homage to the legions of other authors who paved the way for her, and the critics and children lauding her with overpraise are ignoring the fact that she is just one in a million of children's books, and isn't even the best they have to offer.
I grew up on the 1001 Nights, and on various Folklores. I loved Greek mythology and that really helped get me through childhood. Those are unmistakable classics of the imagination, regardless of age. But those are not as marketable to children, therefore they are pushed to the back of the shelf. That is the thing with which I have a problem.
But why exactly? That's what I'm struggling to understand throughout all of the debate. That the Harry Potter books are not 'great' is not so big a deal. They are, to a large extent, enjoyable and it a true that many, many people have enjoyed them. Some of those people have gone on to read 'better' literature, others haven't. So what?Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Much has been said of the 'greatness' of Alice, but actually as a piece of children's fiction it is not that great. I read both the Alice books to my daughter about 12 months ago - she was 7 at the time. Most of the 'humour' was lost on her and I was surprised at how poorly the books hung together as a story; it felt more like a series of anecdotes and an exercise in cleverness than a story. My daughter found them boring. Equally we tried reading Harry Potter and she found that boring too. On the other hand we read Winnie the Pooh, the Moomintrolls and various Roald Dahl books and she enjoyed them immensely, as did I. They were a joy to read, very much unlike Alice. When she reads to herself, those are the kinds of books she turns to. But in the talk of children's 'classics' of these only Dahl has been mentioned.
Sometimes I think that as adults we get wrapped up in the vague memories of the stories we loved as children, and forget the specifics of how those stories came to us. I, for one, absolutely loved the Chronicles of Narnia, and as an adult I still think that the series is broadly good. But reading The Horse and His Boy to my son was a trial because it is poorly written and full of self-important clap-trap. For a large part of it we had to accompany the reading with a dictionary (every time the Telmarines speak) which not surprisingly impaired the reading of the story. The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe is clearly derived from Christian doctrine and the throwing in of Plato's 'forms' at the end of the final book is clumsy and comes across as a poor afterthought to tie the books together. The series is also chock full of racist and gender stereotypes and cliches, but yet the series is still held up as a 'classic' of children's literature. As a child I loved the Greek myths and I also read Treasure Island, The Swiss Family Robinson, Robinson Crusoe but actually the versions I read were abridged and simplified because it was apparent from when we tried to read Treasure Island to my son that the archaic language was a significant barrier to his understanding, and enjoyment, of the book. This was not a poor reflection of his reading or comprehension skills, but rather an illustration to me that what I read as a child was not the real deal. I'd imagine, JBI, that you didn't read the full, unabridged version of 1001 Nights as a child. It is not exactly children's literature, given its highly sexual content.
I wonder how many people contributing to this thread are actively reading to children, or working with children to help them select books to read and develop a love of, or at least an interest in, reading? I know Qimi teaches, as she has said, and perhaps understands better than most the struggle to encourage reading in children. I would like to see my children develop a love of 'great' literature, but the one thing I have discovered is that trying to force what is deemed to be canonical or 'great' literature onto them is actually most likely to switch them off. And where we're measuring the 'greatness' or otherwise of children's literature, leaving the child part out of it totally misses the point.
Of course this assumes that reading literature is important. I'm yet to be convinced of that. My kids read a lot, but they're more drawn to factual books that fiction.
JBI, not everyone can express their reasons for liking a book (or disliking a book) as well as you and darkshadow did. And did you really write that all from your cellphone? :crazy:
Just one thing - I feel you are criticizing them for not being a certain type of book, instead of criticizing them for the books that they are. Even if it's true that Harry is very much the same character at the end of book 7 as he is at the beginning of book 1, I don't see why that's an objection. It is not a single novel of the bildungsroman type. It is a series of 7 adventure + school stories for kids. From a convincing 11 year old boy at the beginning of Philosopher's Stone, he grows into a convincing 17 year old at the end of the series, so there must have been some changes along the way. True he didn't have to overcome his own demons. The main interest of the book lies in his overcoming external obstacles, and I really don't see anything wrong with that.
I've haven't read Le Guinn or any of the authors mentioned recently as being superior to the HP books. I hate the fantasy genre, except for the LOTR movies, and of course HP, but I really fail to see what all the fuss is about. Why does it have to be HP vs all these other books, and not HP and all these other books? There are only 7 HP books after all. Rowling did not flood the market the way Enid Blyton did, with her 800 odd books. When I was a kid I read fairy tales, folk tales, arabian nights, Arthurian legends and greek myths retold for kids, comics, Indian mythology in comic book form, etc and Enid Blyton, Enid Blyton and more Enid Blyton. Now as an adult, I feel I've got good literary taste, so they certainly didn't do me any harm.
EDIT: Good post, FifthElement! :iagree:
I don't see "a billion fans" opposing your comments, JBI. Now, if you are truly engaged in "real criticism", why do you not speak truthfully? Or, is this, perhaps, the standards of your discipline?Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
If truthfulness is not part of your "critical framework", I don't see it as valuable and I can dismiss it right now. Of course, I am aware that you are exaggerating, but if you are claiming to do something more than engaging in polemics, you should never exaggerate. It discredits any valid point you might have to make.
Thank you, Lokasenna. Thank you, JBI.
Actually, I think you said it very well, Mona. And I agree: way to go, FifthElement! Discerning and insightful, as usual.
Concerning Fifth's remarks, that's kind of where I'm coming from concerning the books overall. Kids should have a wide range of literature to choose from, than we adults need to get out of the way and let them read.
We all love reading and we came to it a long time ago. Do any of you remember what brought you to that first encounter? I imagine you do, precisely because it made an impression on you.
Last year I had my students-made them, really-read for the first ten minutes of class. They could read whatever they wanted, but it had to be a book, and it couldn't be anime. The first time we went to the library they did not know how to choose a book that they liked. It was something they learned fairly quickly, because if they didn't like it they were stuck with it for awhile. It was interesting to watch them fumble through that. Mostly the girls liked the 'princess' books, or books of that ilk. The boys would pick up anything, initially, as long as it was short. :D
In a theoretical world, we would all prefer books that aim higher; but in the real world, as long as people are reading, I think that's the good thing.
MM-I look forward to people picking out one sentence to pick on!
SLG-Somehow I would assume that such an approach would beneath JBI, JCamilo, and others that might disagree.
qimissung- Excuse me, but the word "stalk" should be "stock"-the phrase is 'stock characters.'
I guess such an approach isn't beneath qimi either.:rolleyes5:
Excuse me, it's qimi, not quimi. :D
Wow.Quote:
Originally Posted by qimissung
Anyways, there're a lot of people asking JBI stuff like, "Why is it such a big deal that the HP series is so popular and other stuff is being read?" I'm so sick of questions like these--asking people why they have opinions on a damn MESSAGE BOARD. Why is it so important to you all that HP isn't criticized and recognized as a great piece of literature? It's the same question, and just as irrelevant, especially in the context of a forum.
I don't really get the viewpoint of some of the HP supporters. At one point they admit to what HP really is--light and entertaining reading aimed at kids and young adults. But then, when someone criticizes the books because of that (and yes, that's a legitimate criticism), you're all up in arms about it. From this viewpoint, HP naysayers can't win, because it's just a never-ending circle. We criticize it, and you just answer, "so?"
Seriously, when will people learn that what they like isn't necessarily good, and that the very act of liking it somehow gives that something an objective worth? It's a juvenile mindset.
So, how long did it take you to find one ultra-flimsy excuse to dismiss all of what JBI said? Part of criticism, or any writing, is the aspect of rhetoric. JBI uses several rhetorical statute goes to make his points, just as EVERYONE (including you) does on here. Seriously, if the best example you can find of JBI being dishonest is him saying "1 billion fans," that's pretty pathetic. But, it serves its purpose: you don't have to bother attempting to refute anything JBI says anymore, do you?Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Thank for making me look like a psychic by picking out one little thing JBI said to pick on, though. Bravo!
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild