(I haven't read Harry Potter and neither do I intend to, but I just wanted to say that the thread title cracked me up :lol:)
Printable View
(I haven't read Harry Potter and neither do I intend to, but I just wanted to say that the thread title cracked me up :lol:)
Argh :lol: Actually I feel like I've just been repeating the same thing over and over again, but people just don't seem to be able to understand some not-so-subtle subtleties, and only come to the conclusion - he snobs Harry Potter and it's fans, he thinks reading Harry Potter is wrong, etc. etc. etc. which my posts are absolutely not.Quote:
Originally Posted by mayneverhave
Such misreading strikes me as ironic on a literature forum. (perhaps that's because it comes from Harry Potter readers :D Hey you, don't read my posts for escapism, it just won't do! :p)
I can completely agree with that. However, I do think it has something to do with being challenged as well. Not necessarily being challenged in the sense of having a hard time going through the book, maybe "challenged" is not the right word, actually I think it is but perhaps just not in the usual sense of it.Quote:
One of my professor used an interesting metaphor to describe the reading of classics/literary works versus the reading of genre fiction or popular fiction. He described it in the way of a food critic who, having sampled a larger variety of foods than most people and with a greater developed sense of taste, is able to judge the taste of food better than a person who has no interest in such things. Not only that, but the food critic can then enjoy the greatest of food because of his developed tastes.
To put it bluntly, after encountering the works of Shakespeare, Dante and the like, it is impossible to go back to the level of Harry Potter and Robert Jordan - it would bore me to death. It's not even an issue of a "classic" being more challenging to the reader, but it lies in the simple fact that I can draw a far greater enjoyment out of quality literature than I can popular literature.
Exactly, I can't figure out why people can't see the other side of the coin either. It's the same ridiculous arguement everytime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Etienne
Seriously, why is it always classic verses contemporary. I don't think I used those examples, and quite frankly, my area of study is not in classics, but in modern to contemporary literature (with of course, the course requirements met, meaning I need a literature pre-1800 credit of which I still need to complete).
There are plenty of accessible books out there which are fantastic, and there are plenty of popular books out there which are fantastic. There is terrific contemporary literature out there which is fantastic, and much of it sells decently well.
Countless amounts of people read cheap magazines and tabloids. Are we to praise those periodicals for their benefit of getting people to read? Or perhaps pornographic magazines, or sports articles, or shopping lists. The point is, reading is everywhere, and we cannot say the fact that something is read is grounds for its literary merit, or justifies it as being beneficial to society, which it very well could not be.
I have no problem with people reading the Potter. But I have problems with them screaming of Potters excellence, and people champoining Rowling as the Redcrosse (how cheeky an allusion :))Knight of the literary world, saving literature from the clutches of abandonment. Seriously, she isn't and she hasn't changed anything significantly, except perhaps her socio-economic well being, and that of her publisher.
Except it's perfectly possible to enjoy reading "classical"/literary works and genre fiction just as it's possible to eat a $100 succulent juicy Kobe steak perfecty marinated and cooked, and still consider your local $2 greasy pizza joint a great meal too. I know imagine that! It's interesting that you seem to be not just talking about Potter or King anymore, but ALL genre fiction . . .Quote:
Originally Posted by mayneverhave
I've found in my experience that the professors who were the most critical of genre fiction were the ones who had never read any of it.
Unfortunately my professor did not hand me a list of every single work he has read when he made the comment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
The food analogy is hardly perfect, but the basic gist of it is that as one begins enjoying a higher quality of literature, one begins enjoying lower quality literature even less because our expectations have been utterly destroyed by the literature we have previously read. For example, after reading Hamlet, my understanding is that the limits of poetic imagination are so great that anything I read thereafter is a downgrade and does cannot hope to live up to the standard of Hamlet.
Of course I agree with you regarding food. Taste is extraordinarily subjective and open-ended when compared with literature.
Gasp... that's such a rhetorical argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
Heh. I wouldn't expect your professor to hand out a list of every single work he has read. Certainly I exaggerate. However, when I was looking for a mentor to write my Honors Thesis in undergrad (on Science Fiction about Mars) a lot of the professors who made the distateful or blatant statement "why would you want to waste time on that?" it only took a little probing through conversation about the topic and particular genre-canonical titles for me to figure out that they hadn't read much Sci-fi or fantasy at all. Though, a lot of my professors were open to Tolkien.Quote:
Originally Posted by mayneverhave
I would actually extend the food analogy. Sometimes I want Thai food, sometimes Mexican, sometimes Korean barbecue, sometimes a greasy diner burger, sometimes a slice of pizza, sometimes some italian food, and sometimes a four-star French cuisine. This explains my reading tastes. It's not about better or worse for me; it's about difference. I've already summarized a lot of these points in a more concrete fashion here in answering the "why do I read question?" at this link.
There actually is a lot of room for subjective tastes in literature. Very few American universities teach strictly the Canon anymore for better or worse.
Haven't you thought that maybe it's for this very reason, that there is very little to no literary value in genre literature, that your professors haven't read much of it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
I tend to read either classics or sci-fi. It's true that there is little literary value in most sci-fi, and perhaps that is why English professors wouldn't be that interested, but i would say there is alot of value in it in other ways. Some of the most challenging and philosophical books i've read have been sci-fi. Plus there is alot of overlap, 1984 could be banded sci-fi.
The problem with the "at least they are reading" is that it sounds like a major acomplishment. It is not. People will read, there will be books filling the places of any best-seller writer. And sorry, when people - I will use Paulo Coelho because major markets like America or Europe the damage is minor - read Paulo Coelho, praise him and not go to the original sources or better writers because Paulo Coelho is helped by a major system of marketing then he is Damaging brazilian culture. How many of you people here even know the name of another brazilian writer? Maybe some will say Machado de Assis but how many have read him? Or Vinicius (some may know him as a musicist, but before it he was a hell of poet), or Drummond, or Monteiro Lobato, Manuel Bandeira, Guimaraes Rosa? Those guys are awesome but they are not best-seller writers. Today the market, the model is Paulo Coelho. As result... meh...Even if Brazil achived the highest level of literacy in our story, brazilians read only 3 books a year. We do not have today a writing habit because the writers read do not build a public, a reading love.
Then another point, "First readers, then writers" - The future generations of writers are going to be those "at least they are reading?". Meh, imagine "at least they are writing." If the model is best-seller (Dan Brown style or Self Help like Paulo Coelho) then imagine what they will produce one day. They must move foward. (Harry Potter fanboyism is a major problem I think, but that is a market effect, does not say much about the book). I must say that Stephen King (at least until the time I used to read him, early 90's) at least left signals pointing to the next step. King pointed to the old horror movies and magazine stories (which could lead one to Bradbury) but also to Poe or Lovecraft. At least this function his books could have (plus he was not that nice, his books are big, a bit dense, sometimes life was not easier for his readers). Tolkien pretty much the same. I do not think Dan Brown have lead to anything except more cheap literature and books about his own book. That is the kind of reading that meh. (I always disliked the easy defense : It is just fun, I can read in two hours and put aside, without anything to bug my head. Alas, we are talking about an art, we can not be happy with a book which experience is justified when we forget about it. Books are meant to be remembered).
Finishing, I have nothing against fantasy. I dislike genre definitions but if there was ever a genre in literature is fantasy.
i would rather a world in which the population was literate not illiterate
there might not be any intellectual reward for reading Harry Potter, but to say that it is worse than watching TV is total rubbish... that implies you would rather have a population who can't read, which is quite scary to be honest.
JBI calculated that to read the Harry Potter series would take around 60 hours - i would argue he has spent just as much time moaning about Harry Potter on here. it is clear to me which is the biggest waste of time.
And i agree with you here. I can quite easily finish a classic, and go straight into a fantasy or childrens book, and still get as much enjoyment out of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
***
One of my nephews is a complete brainbox when it comes to maths. when he was in primary school, the school entered him into loads of chess comps and maths comps because he was so good. The problem was they were so focused on his math, logic and science, that they didnt notice his poor quality reading and writing. He was so bad they where considering keeping him back a year so he would be a year later going to secondary school. To prevent that, they gave him extra classes and gave him harry Potter to read which he did quite slowly.
when he finished the first one, rather than wait for the teachers to give him the next one, he came to me and asked me could he borrow the next one, which i gave him. He started to enjoy them so much (now remember he didnt read at all. was computers and chess mad.) that his reading pregressed until he had all five read within a year. (now i know you are all thinking, thats rather slow, but he was a very poor reader, and it took him a long time to read the first one) His teachers were pleased with the improvements and the fact that he was showing an inititive to read. So were all of us at home. I ended up buying him the first five books, which where out at the time, as a christmas present, which he was very happy with. After that, he started coming to me looking for more books. As he liked the themes that ran through Potter, i gave him Garth Nix Sabrael, Lireal and Abhorsen. And he liked these too. When the school decided they werent going to hold him back from secondary school because his reading and writing improved dramaticly withing a year and half period, they gaving him the school reading list for the Secondary school he had chossen to go to. On it Was Artemis Fowl. So my nephew came to me looking for the book as he wanted to read it before he started school. He loved these, and i think he agrees with me they are better than Potter.
Over the last four years, he has gone from being someone who wasnt a reader, and hated the thought of reading to someone who cant get enough of it. He still plays his computer games and his chess, but he also makes his time for reading, which is something i'm very proud of. He is almost fourteen now, and he has said that had it not been for his teachers giving him Potter, he wouldnt have enjoyed reading as much as he does today. I havent given him any classics yet, because i think its important for him to enjoy reading childrens and young adults books before i throw a dickens at him.
This comes from my own personal experience. I've plenty of stories from parents who have been into the shops i supervise also, but i thought this was the better story to tell you all. Now if that doesnt give Potter worth and also show that it can encourage kids to read, then i give up trying to argue the point.
This story can be told with almost any book .There is no reason why to believe Harry Potter have more power to turn people in readers than any other fantasy flick. I would say that freedom your newphew had to pick his books is considerable more important than what he picked. (And I would say Freedom is not complete in a world like ours, where fashion and market give no room to breath).
I have a huge problem with the simplistic reasoning. First reading is quite useless by itself. Whoever thinks reading makes sense without saying what is read is just unable to shake off the notion that several societies existed and exist with almost the same (un)happiness we have today without the predominance of written text. Writing is also a toy for social domination.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Stamper
Another problem is that, we believe in equality, so It is fair to think everyone must have access to all knowledge (or possiblity of access) because it means a way to personal freedom. That is why we try to make everyone read. But accepting just it is ridiculous. It is but a step, the very first, not the final. There is no sense in teaching people how to use keys but telling that a few doors must remain shut. That is why Blue Beard was a villain and curiosity a feeling that only free people can enjoy.
So, peoeple must read, not just to read,but to have access to the knowledge humanity places in books. To have access to reading codes in the books. Obviously, some books are unable to perform such task.
Scary is forgetting that TV is just a media. Akira Kurosawa, Goddard and Kubrick are showed in the television, just a way to show audio-visual products. A media. Just like books. Being a book - a writing text - it is not garantee of superiority over oral tradition, paiting, music, movies, and the other arts. I would say however reads too much but listen to no music is almost like a illiterate. Believing a book is superior to anything just because it is a book is not understand the question.Quote:
there might not be any intellectual reward for reading Harry Potter, but to say that it is worse than watching TV is total rubbish... that implies you would rather have a population who can't read, which is quite scary to be honest.
I do not know JBI much, sometimes reading him I feel he trust in absolutes too much or write them, but this kind of attack - this veiled censorship is funny. Critics are a very relevant part of literature. Thinking is a key. I would not hunt down the Harry Potter fans (because I reckon people may just like something) but thinking it is a waste of time, or that he should not do what he pleases while doing the exactly same JKRowling does (writing) is absurd. She is now a holy woman because she writes?Quote:
JBI calculated that to read the Harry Potter series would take around 60 hours - i would argue he has spent just as much time moaning about Harry Potter on here. it is clear to me which is the biggest waste of time.
Can i ask why everyone wants to pick on J.K. Rowling and the Harry Potter books when there are books out there that are getting a lot of credit, and are really bad? would it not be more worht your while debating the point of book three of the Inheritance trilogy, or some other story? why is it always Potter? Is it because of the fame Rowling got? How much Money she made? Does it really matter if its not shakespeare? I mean they are kids books. Yes alot of adults read them, but alot of adults love reading kids books. i know i do. They are not as bad as you are all making them out to be.
I truly wonder if there has been some kind of a scientific study about the people who have started reading from Harry Potter and then moved on to more challenging literature. Of course, it would be quite problematic how to measure how challenging a book is, but perhaps it would be possible to create study in the style of - if people start reading from Harry Potter, what happens to their reading habits. I am quite curious.
On the other hand, I am not very certain how social sciences studies are made - perhaps it is impossible.
Ironically enough, I think this captures the point I was making. If they haven't READ ANY, how the hell do they know about the literary value of genre fiction one way or the other!Quote:
Originally Posted by Etienne
Besides the story ends with me eventually finding a mentor in the English department who had taught Sci-fi courses to mentor my thesis. For all the short-sighted professors, there are plenty of universities teaching Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror courses, and there are plenty of tenured professors in literature writing positively about genre fiction. My friend even was lucky enough to take a grad course on Science fiction. Much genre fiction does have strong literary values. Here are three genre books I read this year that I thought were excellent and of a pretty high quality.
It's funny I was thinking that exact same thing!Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Stamper
How is this censorship? He's playfully criticizing JBI's point that Harry Potter is a waste of time by pointing out how much time JBI spends on multiple threads criticizing Harry Potter, a book he doesn't think is worth much, with people who probably aren't going to change their minds, when he himself could've been doing something far more productive. It's he just pointing out the irony.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
As for censorship, there is nothing stopping JBI from posting a response. The moderators haven't jumped in and started deleting posts left and right, declaring "Thou Shalt not criticize the Potter" on these boards. I fail to see how he is being censored.
Criticism of criticism is the life-blood of academia and intellectualism. In fact if we look at what just happened JBI criticized people who read Potter (to oversimplify his point a bit), Hank criticized JBI's criticism, you criticized Hank's criticism of JBI's criticism, and I just criticized your criticism of Hank's criticism of JBI's criticism. :D
I love hte Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy, but its on of those series where it starts to loose it with so long and thanks for all the fish. Personally i think it should have ended with life the universe and everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
Not a sci-fi, but have you read the fantasy series Bitterbynde saga by Cecilia Dart Thornton. it is an amazing feat that really brings to life the folklore and mythology of Britain and Ireland. This definitely has a literary quality.
Deleting, editing, etc are not the only form of censorship. If everytime someone (Ok, JBI seems to be a lot this someone) open critics to HP or J.K Rowling he is attacked because of his motives (jealousy or watever) or how meaningless is the critical exercise he does (as if you should only do critics about things you like) and not by what he is saying, this is a form of censorship. Subbtle and all, but it is rather annoying to see every discussion be 1 - ignored the critics , 2 - attack the critic reasons. Maybe that is why he is so adamant in his critics. (Maybe not, maybe he feels it is his obligation to do it, I dunno, but it does not matter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Niamh
I must point I did not considered the initial topic of this thred that worth and I would ignore it if the subject didn't move to something more interesting which is the reading habits.
Now, HP gets more bashing because it gets more praising. (Not saying it is right, but that is why). A simple matter of action and reaction. I am sure during the Da Vinci fever, Dan Brown was the usual cullprint.
Being Kids books is not excuse, it must be even a matter of responsability. We had another thread recently and I think it was pointed 1 - HP is not just a kids book, aiming for a mature audience as well 2 - Among the Kids books we have Alice books or Treasure Island, both complex and very well written books, meaning being a kids books does not mean being a plain simple book.
so the critic's reasoning is absolute? rubbish! i am as much entitled to challenge the critic as the critic is entitled to challenge the literary merits of harry potterQuote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
Except it's perfectly possible to enjoy reading "classical"/literary works and genre fiction just as it's possible to eat a $100 succulent juicy Kobe steak perfecty marinated and cooked, and still consider your local $2 greasy pizza joint a great meal too.
But is this an apt analogy? I am enamored of Bach, Beethoven, Wagner, Schubert... but I still listen to the Rolling Stones, Johnny Cash, and the Louvin Brothers. I can't listen, however, to Madonna or Britney Spears. My taste has become such that I can enjoy the best of genres that are quite different... but there are still standards. It seems that everyone who suggests that the Harry Potter novels are so much schlock are being branded as elitist snobs. Now while I will heartily admit to being an elitist, my taste in the arts is fairly broad. One may reject the Harry Potter novels as being mediocre (at best) and grossly overrated... and still read and admire more than just the "classics". One may even enjoy the best of certain literary genres.
As mayneverhave put it, "after encountering the works of Shakespeare, Dante and the like, it is impossible to go back to the level of Harry Potter and Robert Jordan - it would bore me to death. It's not even an issue of a "classic" being more challenging to the reader, but it lies in the simple fact that I can draw a far greater enjoyment out of quality literature than I can popular literature." This says it all. After one's taste evolves to a certain level with the experience of having read a good number of great books it is difficult to appreciate mediocre popular fiction. The clichés are too obvious. The language offers nothing special. The characters are not well-developed. Most importantly, I draw a far greater degree of pleasure from the better books.
To answer Niahm's question, the reason I (and others) jump on Harry Potter, and not other mediocre writers, is simply because of the way media responds to them. Nobody actually regards (or at least I hope not) Eragon as quality literature, besides some of its readers. Nobody really gives much credit to, for instance, Terry Goodkind as a literary genius, or takes his work seriously. But Rowling on the other hand, is in a different category. Her mass-success has become problematic; too many people have read her books, and her works are translated into more languages then I personally can name.
Rowling is everywhere - she is impossible to ignore - she is in every continent in every major language, in multiple dialects of some. But the main problem I have, is that she gets too much credit because of her sales. She is heralded as the "making literature cool again" hero, or the gets children to read hero, or the increases children's literary hero. But quite frankly, I think it is all hogwashed rubbish, and nobody stops to criticize the actual books, they only talk about the context - her mass sales - and the benefits of her work - her mass readership. Her mass readership is so big, that it has come to the point where criticizing her is seen as criticizing everyone who likes her, and quite frankly, by doing so you get branded a snob. Meaning, that you cannot criticize her work without attracting attention, yet people can praise her work without the same.
Even classic literature undergoes fire. For instance, even poets as central as John Milton have been under serious attack at one point or another. But Potter on the other hand seems immune to criticism. Everyone who mentions the name negatively is seen as a spoil-sport, an elitist, an ignorant, because the readership is that big, and therefore the amount of complainers are that big. If it was possible to look into the text and discuss the merits of the book, I would be glad to make only a few comments, as I have done with other novels, and poems, and the like. Like I said, I'm studying mostly contemporary fiction and poetry, so that is sort of a given practice. But one simply cannot, because of the Potter fans, finding every justification to praise Rowling as (to use my previous analogy) the quixotic Redcrosse Knight of literature, going out to slay the dragon of illiteracy.
I don't hear people say pornography gets people reading
I don't hear them say tabloids get people reading
But Potter... Potter gets our children reading, so it must be gold! Let's be honest, even if that fallacy was true, over 97% of people are literate in the majority of Western countries - they can read without Potter.
Can i ask why everyone wants to pick on J.K. Rowling and the Harry Potter books when there are books out there that are getting a lot of credit, and are really bad?
That is an easy enough question to answer. It is simply the fact that the harry Potter novels have received a level of recognition and popularity that is grossly disproportionate to their literary/artistic merit. No, they are not the worst thing ever written... far from it. They are, however, not unlike the works of many other "artists" in that they have been put forth in the press, in the marketplace, in schools, etc... as if they were something extraordinary... an artistic achievement worthy of envy by anyone. This is bound to irritate those who certainly recognize that not only are they not Shakespeare, but there are actually far greater works being written by contemporaries or even within the fantasy genre. In my own field of the visual arts there are figures such as Jeff Koons and Damien Hirst whom many would love to see trampled to death by a herd of raving wildebeest. It is not that there are not worse artists... but there are few as bad as they who are held up to the public as something exemplary.
Rowling is everywhere - she is impossible to ignore - she is in every continent in every major language, in multiple dialects of some. But the main problem I have, is that she gets too much credit because of her sales. She is heralded as the "making literature cool again" hero, or the gets children to read hero, or the increases children's literary hero... Her mass readership is so big, that it has come to the point where criticizing her is seen as criticizing everyone who likes her, and quite frankly, by doing so you get branded a snob. Meaning, that you cannot criticize her work without attracting attention, yet people can praise her work without the same.
Even classic literature undergoes fire. For instance, even poets as central as John Milton have been under serious attack at one point or another. But Potter on the other hand seems immune to criticism. Everyone who mentions the name negatively is seen as a spoil-sport, an elitist... ignorant,
Exactly! Here... at a literary site... we have had those who have outright dismissed literary figures as central as Milton or Chaucer or Spenser or Proust or Joyce (the perennial favorite whipping boy)... but to suggest that the hoopla over Harry Potter may be a bit much or that the work as an actual piece of literature may actually be rather mediocre is almost immediately taken as proof positive that one is an elitist snob... a boring pedant who obviously can't ever let themselves go and just have a bit of pleasure. And yet, I say it again, I can't find the pleasure in a work that I find overly laden in clichés, poorly developed characters, mediocre mastery of languages, etc...
No, his reasoning is not absolute but just attacking his motivations and not his reasoning is quite annoying. A huge difference from someone that build up critical reasoning towards the merits Harry Potter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Stamper
Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
I for once, think the position of elite and snob is acceptable. Merits can be displayed if one can hold his position. If it ends in personal attacks (and lets be frank, we talk about the best works, we are building an elite.) obviously the loss is not Miltons, Shakespeare, etc. Those guys do not depend on this or any forum considerations.
But to me it is amazing that people forget that this a place where we can only talk and the only subject are books. The most simple reason why one post about this subject is simple because we come here to post. Give a single opening and one will post.
But I must say we can return, otherwise the simple reading of Stevenson would be impossible after the reading of Dante.
Oh come on, the critic of genre fictin is based first and foremost on concrete argument, and the fact that they haven't read much of it does not mean that they haven't read any of it. And do you honestly believe that one absolutely has to read a couple of Forgotten Realm books to know that they have no literary value? No, they could even not read a single one and still be right. What genre fiction exactly do you claim have such literary value as to be worth being studied by a university teacher, other than perhaps some general theme.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
For example, your subject was Mars in science-fiction. This is a theme. Is it, first, a rich subject in analysis? I doubt it. Then could you honestly make a thesis based on, say the narrative technique in some genre fiction? Etc.
When a book begins to be viewed as a great work of fiction, generally it stops being considered genre. For instance, Italo Calvino is not read as a fantasy novelist, though by convention if we were to genrize him, many of his works would fall into fantasy or science fiction. By romantic genre definition, any book that has a couple getting married at the end is a romance, yet we wouldn't call every book with a marriage at the end a romance. It would be absurd.
Either way though, the titles of genre verses literary are set up abstractly by publishers, and then writers who seek to meet a publisher's desire. In terms of criticism, such genrization has no real purpose, and one can feel free to say Terry Goodkind is a bad novelist, and not a bad fantasy novelist.
Good books are reappropriated by their best suited audience. Angela Carter can be seen as a writer of fantasy, but who would stick her on a fantasy shelf? no one, we simply call her stuff by some other term, and stick it on the literary shelf, since fantasy readers probably aren't going to buy as many of her books as literary readers. The genre therefore is undercut, and the book is no longer genre fiction, but literary fiction. By that same notion, one could cut almost any good genre book, and deem it literary, and thereby one could consider the bulk of genre fiction mediocre, or unsuited for the literary reader, or unsuited for the reader looking outside of the genre.
But surely just because the media has responded to them, and because so many people have read the books, shouldn't make some critics place them in the same catagory as mediocre writers and books? (And before you accuse me, i'm not saying you)Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
My argument for Potter encouraging kids to read in this day and age, comes from my personal experiences. I have mentioned that here and elsewhere already.Quote:
Rowling is everywhere - she is impossible to ignore - she is in every continent in every major language, in multiple dialects of some. But the main problem I have, is that she gets too much credit because of her sales. She is heralded as the "making literature cool again" hero, or the gets children to read hero, or the increases children's literary hero.
Ah yes but dont those of us who try to praise the books not get criticised by the critics? ;) Its a two way thing.Quote:
But quite frankly, I think it is all hogwashed rubbish, and nobody stops to criticize the actual books, they only talk about the context - her mass sales - and the benefits of her work - her mass readership. Her mass readership is so big, that it has come to the point where criticizing her is seen as criticizing everyone who likes her, and quite frankly, by doing so you get branded a snob. Meaning, that you cannot criticize her work without attracting attention, yet people can praise her work without the same.
But JBI, as far as i can see, no one has blatantly turned around and said that Potter is great literature, and classics are crap. I myself only pointed out that not everyone likes the same literature. some like classic, and dont like everything else because its not their cup of tea, some like everything and not classics because find them droll and boring and others read and enjoy everything. I didnt realise saying this was an attack on classicists. I was only stating a fact.My point was, if this is not the case, than isnt it only right that people should be allowed to like the Potter series, and see something in them that others who dont will not?Quote:
Even classic literature undergoes fire. For instance, even poets as central as John Milton have been under serious attack at one point or another. But Potter on the other hand seems immune to criticism. Everyone who mentions the name negatively is seen as a spoil-sport, an elitist, an ignorant, because the readership is that big, and therefore the amount of complainers are that big. If it was possible to look into the text and discuss the merits of the book, I would be glad to make only a few comments, as I have done with other novels, and poems, and the like.
Just as you will get on the defensive of what you enjoy reading, so too will poeple who enjoy the Potter books. this does not make either wrong. We just need to acept that not everyone is going to agree with us. I think the Potter books have merit, especially when it come to getting the computer game era to read, and that comes from my experience in both my neighbourhood and my job as a bookseller and volunteer for a publishing house. You as a student of lit, see things differently. Life would be boring if we all thought, saw and went about our lives similarly.Quote:
Like I said, I'm studying mostly contemporary fiction and poetry, so that is sort of a given practice. But one simply cannot, because of the Potter fans, finding every justification to praise Rowling as (to use my previous analogy) the quixotic Redcrosse Knight of literature, going out to slay the dragon of illiteracy.
Like I said before, I have no problem with people enjoying books, the same way I have no problem with people who enjoy watching reality television, or people who read cheap magazines, I just have a problem when these writings are portrayed, and heralded as supreme works of fiction, and integral parts of the literary tradition.
On other threads, for instance, works such as Nabokov's Lolita, a far more controversial work, were criticized. There was significant debate, but overall not much attention was given. Potter on the other hand being criticized, for not inappropriate writing, but for poor writing, all of a sudden is controversy, and judging by the thread's length, a popular topic. Why is it that this work takes so much attention?
Because of the status of the author, and the context of the works, not the works themselves. When discussing Lolita, the discussion was on text, when discussing other authors, on these boards mostly the text, and sometimes the context are discussed. When discussing Potter however, context is always discussed, because quite frankly, the text doesn't have much in it.
I think people are missing my main point however; what is gained by reading Potter? Sure, people moved on to read other books, but people were reading other books for thousands of years. Sure, it has increased literacy, but couldn't E. B. White do the same? Sure it has inspired people to read, but couldn't Christina Rossetti do the same? sure it has sold millions, but so has the novel She, and I bet many of you haven't even heard of it, despite its 50million copies sold.
First to address the OP on this thread: No, I don't think there's a ghostwriter involved. I would be very surprised if there was another person involved, partly because the voice seems so consistent throughout the series, and partly because of the wandering quality of the first part of the final book, which is usually pretty clearly the sign of one writer with writers' block.
As to the brouhaha that has predictably erupted on a Harry Potter thread: I have to say I don't entirely understand getting upset over the popularity of the Potter series. Do I think that Harry Potter is going to wave a magic wand and make the whole population a bunch of bibliophiles? No. Do I think that people enjoying and praising (even overpraising...those yahoo quotes were pretty amusing :lol:) Rowling and the Potter series is going to interfere in any way with the amount of Shakespeare that is or is not read? No. Shakespeare has survived plenty of other popular writers who have come and gone. If some yahoo (sorry, it was just too tempting) enjoys Harry Potter and thinks it's the best thing in the world, and wants to sing its praises, I don't see any reason to rain on his or her parade by going about frowning and saying they're spending their time on worthless trash. I know that isn't the specific point the anti Harry Potter-ites are trying to make, and I'll address their entirely valid points in a moment. Perhaps my problem understanding these responses to the Potter phenomenon is that I actually don't think that in the long run anyone is going to canonize Rowling as the equal of Shakespeare and Dickens. I find the enthusiasm of the people on the Yahoo boards, not threatening but sort of endearingly amusing. They're comparing Potter to Shakespeare because they haven't had the experience of really engaging with something like Shakespeare, and they have had what I imagine is a first brush with entering an imaginative and engaging world via the written word, and they are so excited by that that they compare it to the writer with the greatest reputation they can think of. If a well read critic writing for the New York Times book review were comparing Rowling to Shakespeare then I might worry a bit more, but that isn't the sort of praise critics are giving her. They are, as JBI points out, praising her books for being the books in our time that people are excited to read. I don't see much wrong with that characterization of their contribution.
A response to a few points:
JBI--I know that the "at least they are reading fallacy" is what you are most upset about. I think that you are partly right in calling it a fallacy. You are right in that just reading anything doesn't mean that you are necessarily doing something productive. On the other hand, I think you are wrong to dismiss the idea that reading Harry Potter might not necessarily be a helpful first step toward exploring more interesting reading. I'm sure this is much less true with adult readers than with children, but in the case of the latter (whom the books are aimed at in any case) I'm sure that reading Harry Potter has led many children to think of reading as an enjoyable thing and go on to read other books. Could other books just as easily fill this purpose? Certainly. They can and have. But at the moment the book that are most commonly filling this role are the Harry Potter series.Quote:
It's just this problem with the whole "at least there are reading" fallacy. There is a distinction, and people shouldn't get "credit" for reading something of such a low quality. We shouldn't praise Rowling and Stephen King for things like making children read, since they aren't. Reading Rowling and Stephen King isn't the same as real reading. Has society come to the point where we give credit to the successfully published trash as being "beneficial" for getting children, and other lazy people to read a book? Where is the justification in that.
Why not praise all the simpleminded female readers who only read genre romances, for being such avid and zealous readers. Why not praise the people who only read Starwars fiction (god knows there is enough of it) for being avid readers, and so dedicated and intelligent, and well read.
The point is, there is a difference. There is reading, and there is reading. If the book doesn't challenge the reader, I see no justification in reading it as helping society by getting more people to read. Sure, people will read junk, and personally, I couldn't care less, until such time as people start praising the junk, and praising people for reading it, and people for writing it.
There is an aspect of the "at least they are reading" thing that does annoy me, but a response like the one you've given above only intensifies that annoyance. The thing I don't like about all this "at least they're reading" stuff is that it makes reading sound like some onerous duty that one must perform: something difficult that one receives credit for doing like doing your chores or volunteering to pick up litter along the highway, rather than an enjoyable, and often rewarding experience and exploration of ideas and imaginations. A response like the one you give above plays into the annoying aspect of viewing reading as some sort of challenging task, and the most problematic thing about that is the way it will turn people off from wanting to do what you are very passionately suggesting that they ought to do. Talking about not giving people credit for reading Harry Potter, and suggesting that genre reading is not sufficiently "beneficial" will turn people away from more complex reading because it makes it sound like reading is the equivalent of boiled brussel sprouts that you should eat because they're good for you rather than the equivalent of a good wine that you may enjoy acquiring a taste for.
Which brings me to the second point I wanted to address:
Yes, and the comparison between dining tastes and reading tastes is certainly an old and an apt one. Certainly the writing of the Renaissance humanists is peppered with references to digesting reading material as though it were food. Along with this metaphor there is usually a caution against giving too strong meat too fast, or the person will be unable to stomach it. You must start by digesting simple foods, and then move gradually to greater foods. When you have once learned to digest that better food, however, the dishes that are less well cooked and seasoned will seem bland by comparison. As someone who, I think, qualifies as a literary gourmand, I completely agree that I could never possibly look at the Harry Potter books and be thrilled by them the way someone who has tasted very little written "food" might be. At the same time, I have to quibble slightly with what I think is a suggestion that it is impossible to enjoy lesser authors once you have sampled the heights. I've read all the Harry Potter books and found them pleasantly entertaining. I read each of them in about a night, so I hardly thought the time invested was that shocking a waste, and they are so popular that having read them served a social purpose in the same way that watching a reasonably enjoyable television program might. It's something many people were enjoying talking about, and I figured I might as well join in the fun (and occasionally use it as an opportunity to put in a successful plug for some of that "stronger meat" by giving a few suggestions about other books that Potter readers might enjoy exploring). So, though I really do agree with your point in the main, I would just qualify your "impossible." I don't think it's "impossible" to enjoy reading that level of work, just something that those with more experienced tastes aren't apt to do as often.Quote:
One of my professor used an interesting metaphor to describe the reading of classics/literary works versus the reading of genre fiction or popular fiction. He described it in the way of a food critic who, having sampled a larger variety of foods than most people and with a greater developed sense of taste, is able to judge the taste of food better than a person who has no interest in such things. Not only that, but the food critic can then enjoy the greatest of food because of his developed tastes.
To put it bluntly, after encountering the works of Shakespeare, Dante and the like, it is impossible to go back to the level of Harry Potter and Robert Jordan - it would bore me to death. It's not even an issue of a "classic" being more challenging to the reader, but it lies in the simple fact that I can draw a far greater enjoyment out of quality literature than I can popular literature.
**The Atheist makes mental note not to try to start a thread on Rowling/Potter ever again!**
Anyway, since the argument "Literature vs Pulp Fiction" has begun, I'll join in, and I'll explain why I think Literature is a clear loser....
...but I'm going to start a new thread on the subject right now as the discussion will otherwise be relegated to those who are already in this thread, and I think it deserves wide participation.
Entitled:
Literature has no more value than Mills & Boon
Please carry the rest of this discussion on there.
Thanks!
Funnily enough, it's because I thought the voice & style were inconsistent that made me wonder in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Petrarch's Love
And it's books 3 or 4 to the end which seemed to have the problem, so it isn't just #7.
And apologies, but I've shifted the good vs bad literature subject as above - feel free to copy the relevant bits to the thread I've linked above.
Cheers
Cough. Joyce. Cough. Cough.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
It does my heart no small measure of good to see you and JBI railing away at Rowling and Tolkien in this manner and if indeed there is no next life, there is justice enough in this one. Oh, the world is fair girls and boys, and it's a beautiful thing.
I'm moving my comments over to The Atheist's other thread. I have responses to Stluke, Etiene, and JBI in them.
I wasn't going to join in here (once again) over The Network's Potter complex, but I rather agree almost entirely with Petrarch's Love, with one more caveat: Knowing a bit of Rowling's story in creating Potter, she achieved what any writer can only admire, even if solely on a marketing level. This is the 21st century, and franchise is the name of the game. You can whine or study it and respect it and or offer warnings about it, and again, Shakespeare was disparaged in his day by the academic aesthete, even while his work was popular with all classes, and I've read that he is what he is today because of the Romantic Movement--in this sense it is too soon to canonize or trash Harry Potter. Stop being so eager to settle the score, and let the baby boomers die off, and we will see what her staying power is in the market.
So, Jozanny, you are joining the bandwagon of comparing Rowling to Shakespeare?
I have a question: What was Shakespeare criticized for? What is Rowling criticized for?
If anything, criticism to Nabokov is closer to the criticism of Shakespeare, than the criticism pointed out at Rowling. They are in fact, completely different. But can you not see the irony?
The first chapter of Tom Jones immediately springs to mind, starting:Quote:
Originally Posted by Petrarch's Love
An author ought to consider himself, not as a gentleman who gives a private or eleemosynary treat, but rather as one who keeps a public ordinary, at which all persons are welcome for their money. In the former case, it is well known that the entertainer provides what fare he pleases; and though this should be very indifferent, and utterly disagreeable to the taste of his company, they must not find any fault; nay, on the contrary, good breeding forces them outwardly to approve and to commend whatever is set before them. Now the contrary of this happens to the master of an ordinary. Men who pay for what they eat will insist on gratifying their palates, however nice and whimsical these may prove; and if everything is not agreeable to their taste, will challenge a right to censure, to abuse, and to d—n their dinner without controul.
To prevent, therefore, giving offence to their customers by any such disappointment, it hath been usual with the honest and well-meaning host to provide a bill of fare which all persons may peruse at their first entrance into the house; and having thence acquainted themselves with the entertainment which they may expect, may either stay and regale with what is provided for them, or may depart to some other ordinary better accommodated to their taste.
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~rbear/jones/jones1.html
I know what you mean about reading or watching certain things just to have a common frame of reference with the rest of society. Upon occasion, I've run up against someone who had never seen Star Wars or an episode of the Simpsons and people stared at them as if they were some kind of alien bug. This sort of thing happens frequently with homeschooled children. They may be smart as a whip and educated as all get out but they often lack the shared cultural narrative points which lend color and commonality to our small talk and conversation.
If history is a group of lies agreed upon, as Napoleon claims, then you could say as much for a dialogue of any type. One must make an effort to understand where one's fellow men are coming from. I know that StLukes has marked this phenomenon himself, since he takes note of it in one of the teaching threads we have here, some months back. He mentions that in the absence of directed inheritable culture children crave structure and will create it out of their surroundings. I think this is what has happened with Tolkein and Rowling, but we also do it with baseball scores, popular tunes, graffiti, and advertising. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with it.
Comparing respective contexts is not a claim to equivalency of merit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Etienne
Jonson whined about Shakespeare's violation of the unities. Petrarch can probably discourse on this at greater length than I, as I've been in exile from academia for a long time. Can't help you over the anti-Potter faction. I've read very positive reviews of Rowling's work, and even Cal Montgomery finds themes therein for the disability movement. Cal is a critic in disability publications in which I too occasionally appear.Quote:
I have a question: What was Shakespeare criticized for? What is Rowling criticized for?
No.Quote:
But can you not see the irony?
But the contexts are completely different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
Which has nothing to do with saying that Rowling is just a popular writer with no literary merits other than it's sales. Shakespeare violated (which is in a way the reproach that you articulated to Nabokov). That's certainly not the reproach to Rowling.Quote:
Jonson whined about Shakespeare's violation of the unities.
No?Quote:
No.