Harry Potter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

As far as criticism sub-discussion goes: fair enough!

As for the quoted comment, I am pretty sure Harry Potter has been translated internationally. As have King and Jordan. So I'm not sure why you are presenting the scenario as something that may happen in the future as it has already occurred, unless I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to get at.

---

Well it definitely has been translated. can even buy it in Irish Gaelic! :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bitterfly

That said, I also was disappointed that Rowlings didn't have the guts to choose a female hero. There have been good heroines in the past - Pippi Longstocking, Nancy Drew... - but apparently they do appeal more to girls than to both sexes.

---

And that is a fair point. But, as someone who writes herself, its some times the character that are the ones to stir in you mind before you start to unravel the story. I have plenty of stories where the main character/ hero is a man. but i also do have stories with main heroines. Just because she is female, doesnt mean her characters have to be dominantly
I dont know any guy who grew up reading nancy drew.

Just a general question to all those who think that Harry Potter is not worth analysis and/or is a waste of space: why are you spending so much time criticizing it? Surely that is countering your argument.

And also, this seems to have been blown out of proportion. Harry Potter has never pretended to be something that it's not; JK Rowling has never claimed that it is great literary work. It may have been claimed by the media, but that is hardly her fault. And taken in context, Harry Potter is, in my opinion, a really good series: there's something about it that appeals to so many people. For me, it was the total all-encompassing sense of magic that was parallel to our world - it was something that you could almost believe was real, rather than purely confined within the imagination.

And as for abbreviating her name, while in principle I disagree, from a business standpoint it was the sensible thing to do. If it was a choice between being published or not, or even mediocre sales against huge ones, then it was the reasonable, rational thing to do. If she had taken offense and stormed off into the sunset, would JK Rowling not have just been falling into the stereotype of a hysterical woman?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

Back on the subject of criticism - I think there is a clear distinction between theorist and critic. Theory is rarely useful, with the exception of the starters of the trends, such as Derrida, who is one of the greatest literary theorist of the modern age, yet still theory has its limits. It it used as a backdrop for criticism, and how that is applied can be quite strange.
.

---

Theory is very enlightening, when the theorist is good. Have you read any apart from Derrida? Bahktine (can never get the spelling right), Foucault, Deleuze and Guattari, even Ricoeur... and I'm forgetting tons of others. I would consider Frye to be a theorist as well, and Kermode, who's wonderful! The French one I cited are often half-way between literature and philosophy (like Derrida) and I find this enrichening.

It's "strange" only when it's applied badly, when it becomes a research tool that yields the same results whatever book you use it on. I've seen enough critics and teachers doing this to know that it's a threat even to critical integrity. But when theory helps you understand a text better, it's extremely useful.

Quote:

---

For me, it was the total all-encompassing sense of magic that was parallel to our world - it was something that you could almost believe was real, rather than purely confined within the imagination.

---

Yes, that's why I like it as well. Just like I liked other books with wizards in them when I was younger (Ursula Leguin and other authors).

OK a few points...
1)Did you know there is an American english and a British english version of Harry potter?
2)I really object to the use loose of the term Undergraduate to define an age group, my undergraduate course group ranges from a majority of people in their forties ( and one in his 50s) down to someone who has yet to turn 20. A more efficient way of defining your self would be a 90's baby or a late 80's baby or hey a baby boomer or flower child.
3)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Serenity5815

. And the craze isn't occurring now because all the books have been written, so there's nothing else to go crazy over.

---

Ok this is where harry potter falls down IMO a true classic still has people going 'crazy' over it over 100 years later that is the whole point! However it hasnt had this test yet and for all we know it will be hailed as a loved classic for ever, I dont think it will personally mainly because I think there are too many current cultural specific referances in it that will get lost with time.

4) When all is said and done harry potter made a massive impact on the childrens book industry one that in many ways changed alot of things and more importantly than anything else it got the tv/computer generation reading!! do we actually care what started them reading? We do not in fact I would argue we should not... just be happy for small graces, the book is still alive!

:nod:

And if nothing else harry potter will go down in history as a pivotal work in the history of the childrens novel- a bit like Richardson's pamela which is also a rubbish piece of work but whose true importance lies in its reception and overwhelming popularity at the time it was publish and its effects on the writing and works of other authors of the time such as Henry Fielding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nightshade

4) When all is said and done harry potter made a massive impact on the childrens book industry one that in many ways changed alot of things and more importantly than anything else it got the tv/computer generation reading!! do we actually care what started them reading? We do not in fact I would argue we should not... just be happy for small graces, the book is still alive!

---

my sentiments exactly!

It didn't get them reading. I have posted on other discussion threads proof that the rates are still going down, and lets be honest, how many of the T.V. computer generation kids are reading good books? All I can see is that they read Harry Potter, not Austen, not Hardy, and not poetry. I don't see any difference between reading Robert Jordan, and playing World of Warcraft.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

It didn't get them reading. I have posted on other discussion threads proof that the rates are still going down, and lets be honest, how many of the T.V. computer generation kids are reading good books? All I can see is that they read Harry Potter, not Austen, not Hardy, and not poetry. I don't see any difference between reading Robert Jordan, and playing World of Warcraft.

---

Ratings are going down yes, but not as much as they would be if the harry potter frenzy hadnt happened.
But as for that generation not reading classics and poetry, you are wrong. There are still plenty of young people from that generation buying austens, hardy etc. I see it on a daily bases because i work in that industry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niamh

Ratings are going down yes, but not as much as they would be if the harry potter frenzy hadnt happened.
But as for that generation not reading classics and poetry, you are wrong. There are still plenty of young people from that generation buying austens, hardy etc. I see it on a daily bases because i work in that industry.

---

And how many would have had they not read Harry Potter. The point is, I have seen no evidence that shows Harry Potter readers are more likely to go on to read mature, and excellent novels, and until such a study has been done, with conclusive evidence, and been challenged to the point of no doubt, than I can basically say that such claims as "Harry Potter makes kids read" is a fallacy. As it is reading rates in America and Britain seem to be going down. And Since the release of Harry Potter, in the States at least, the have gone down more. Where is the conclusive evidence.

OK as I also work in the industry and am currently doing an indepth study of the subject of children literature and am surrounded by textbooks and manuals on the subject as I type this. I can assure kids are still reading, I had a couple of preteens ask me the other day for the original unabridged versions of the swiss family robinson and Treasure island, and they only got to the stage that they were comfortable enough to attempt those books because of reading so called 'junk' books, the important thing is to foster a love of reading whatever it takes before you get them trying other tings, my sister who is 11 has just started to read Austin for the joy of it and she started off with the Harry Potter!

Where is the conclusive evidence to the contrary? There hasnt been a study that proved otherwise while there has been studies that have proven that getting a child interested in reading anything at a relativity early age is likely to increase their receptiveness to books and reading through life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

And how many would have had they not read Harry Potter. The point is, I have seen no evidence that shows Harry Potter readers are more likely to go on to read mature, and excellent novels, and until such a study has been done, with conclusive evidence, and been challenged to the point of no doubt, than I can basically say that such claims as "Harry Potter makes kids read" is a fallacy. As it is reading rates in America and Britain seem to be going down. And Since the release of Harry Potter, in the States at least, the have gone down more. Where is the conclusive evidence.

---

The Harry potter books came out when i was about 16, and i had been reading classics for years by then. I also knew plenty of people younger then me that where reading classics around the time the first potter came out and they where at that 11 year old age. Where Harry Potter did incourage a large quantity of children to read and helped them to move on to the more popular contemporary novels and classics, there where still plenty that where reading classics, before picking up Potter. Its not just an influence from society, but from families also.
Do you work in a bookshop JBI? I see it everyday i go to work, and that is enough evidence for me. I dont need statistics to prove something to me especially seeing as where statistics are concerned, they usually only take in the info gathered from a small minority, and it might be that that minority are of an opinion other than what the case may truely be. It is a biased, nonvalid example of gaining evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nightshade

Where is the conclusive evidence to the contrary? There hasnt been a study that proved otherwise while there has been studies that have proven that getting a child interested in reading anything at a relativity early age is likely to increase their receptiveness to books and reading through life.

---

Which Books? I personally couldn't care less if more romance novels were sold, or cheap paperback thrillers, or any such doorstops. At to put it bluntly, I don't think Harry Potter, in terms of in the long run, really effects anything. I'm not trying to put down, and say people may not be inspired, but for the most part, they aren't. They may go on to read Eragon, but quite frankly, I would prefer that they didn't.

Of course, one child may be inspired, but perhaps they could have been with Le Guin, or E. B. White, or what I started on, Roald Dahl. The point is, people say Harry Potter justifies itself with its inspiration to kids, and quite frankly, I don't think that inspiration exists, or is significant in the majority of readers. Quite frankly, I don't think Harry Potter does anything, but make people read Harry Potter, and perhaps books like Harry Potter, of lesser merit than even it, with of course, the odd exception. Your cousin was it? who went on to read Austen quite possibly would have gone there without reading Potter, and perhaps it is a mark of good parenting that she did go there, rather than a statement to the power of Rowling.

Do you have to read the classics to be considered a serious reader? I don't think so but that is just me. Anyone who picks up a book and takes the time to read it gets points from me. It would be a very quite forum if we all agreed an everything would it not?

The other important point here is we do not know if Harry Potter will stand the test of time who knows what people will be reading in 100 years time.

I have read all of the books and I loved them all. In fact I can't wait for the next movie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joreads

Do you have to read the classics to be considered a serious reader? I don't think so but that is just me. Anyone who picks up a book and takes the time to read it gets points from me. It would be a very quite forum if we all agreed an everything would it not?

The other important point here is we do not know if Harry Potter will stand the test of time who knows what people will be reading in 100 years time.

I have read all of the books and I loved them all. In fact I can't wait for the next movie.

---

I agree with you. It shouldnt just be people who read classics, but just people who read in general regardless.
I read everything and anything. even napkins! :p

and ceral packet and the small print ! :p