Yes, I have a problem. I'm an adult with mature tastes in literature.Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
Printable View
Yes, I have a problem. I'm an adult with mature tastes in literature.Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
Amazon says HP books are written for the 9-12 years age range.
I wonder what the actual average age is for HP readers.
Then why are you concerned about the quality of children's literature?Quote:
Originally Posted by starrwriter
Because some day those children are going to be leading our governments and being influential citizens.Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
Do you think previous generations read higher quality books? I grew up on Judy Blume and the Sweet Valley High series - No Prize winners there......Quote:
Originally Posted by Levenbreech Vor
Young people the same age as the millions (billions?) reading "Potter" could understand and gain important insights from a book like "Jonathan Livingston Seagull" while being entertained. See my point?Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
Also, Rowling's book won't teach any of them how to write well.
Do you see less value in the insights in Harry Potter than in the insights in J.L. Seagull?Quote:
Originally Posted by starrwriter
While reading Harry Potter won't teach anyone how to write well, it exemplifies good character development, plot development, and how to insert theme into a story without appearing to do so. Rowling isn't a truly great writer, but is a very good writer. Her skill in the craft of writing is greater that that of any other writer of children's literature that I have encountered. Some mild changes in the plot and setting would make those very good adult literature.
Papayahed already made a great reply. Ask yourself whether you would rather have a future government leader or influential person who read Harry Potter or one who never read anything and played video games and watched TV.Quote:
Originally Posted by Levenbreech Vor
Personally, I read Kenneth Roberts and C. S. Forester and a huge amount of history when I was in that age bracket.
Starr,
you are a phillistine? Funny I would have never thought by your picture that you were that old. Have you considered that your taste in what the youngsters should read is generational? What I mean by that is with each generation the older folk always, well a lot of the time say that the new generation's music, literature isn't as good as theirs was. Isn't it a matter of taste?
People have been criticizing the younger generation for thousands of years. If the criticisms had merit, then the human race would have destroyed itself a long time ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by rachel
Well said Peter. There is an emotional something that comes to each generation of youth that they claim for their very own against the winds of the older folk's claiming from their own generation. It is just how it is. But one doesn't make the other's preferences more or less.
Yes well put peter.
The importance that some people seem to put into temporary styles of expression that constantly change is something that I just don't understand. Styles change with the seasons, but they have the same content.Quote:
Originally Posted by rachel
I have seen HP get my younger brother reading when nothing else would, my son is fond of them and it is fun to share a series with him. My whole family reads them now, my parents, brother, husband, son, cousins, it's fun for the kids to get together and talk about them and it's nice as adults to understand what they are enjoying so much.
While I don't think that they are great books I do like them and they are a path to good reading habits with the younger kids. It gets them excited about books, reading every night and into the book shop & library, I don't think thats a bad thing and it has allowed me to slip some of my old faves into his basket too. As stated before I don't think books that have got so many kids reading can be a bad thing and it hopefully leads kids into the joy and excitement of books, their taste will mature as they do.
Livingston Seagull's insights and lessons might prove a bit too difficult to grasp fully by children that young. Harry Potter has simpler ones, and they are presented out more effectively, I believe. Livingston Seagull is more philosophical than a real story. I don't think it was meant for 8-year-olds. Harry Potter has an interesting plotline with delightful characters people can relate to with lessons and insights like friendship. What 8-year-old would be concerned about freeing his/her limitations to become master of his consciousness, as is presented in Livingston Seagull?Quote:
Originally Posted by starrwriter
First of all, a previous post said the average age of a "Potter" reader was between 9 and 12, not 8.Quote:
Originally Posted by Apotropaic
I don't think the insights in "Seagull" are beyond the understanding of kids 9 to 12 years old. That's a good age to learn that limits are imposed by society until they become internalized and that most "individuals" behave like herd members. Any kid can understand Jonathan's desire to be free.
good character development? her characters are archetypes, for crying out loud! that wouldn't be so bad, actually, but they even behave like archetypes, they're giving me the impression I already know what they'll do and say. They don't have many dimensions, they're almost flat.Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
good plot development? can you hear me laughing at that? :D She's not good at developing plots, there are too many deus ex machina there, too many situations when handy things and people just, oh, happen :rolleyes: to be there when they're needed.
Rowling isn't a truly great writer, but is a very good writer.
She's not a bad writer, no. But not very good, either. Just good.
Her skill in the craft of writing is greater that that of any other writer of children's literature that I have encountered.
:eek2:
I see many people feel her latest books in the series are badly written compared to the first one, as the initial novelty was followed by nothing much in the ingeniosity department. Apart from that, I believe it may be also due to the fact that they were written under pressure and that took its toll on J.K.Rowling. She's only human and fame is a double-edged knife. Correct me if I'm wrong, please: has she written/published anything else before HP? She's practically a beginner in the literary field, raised to the status of VIP. And her skills aren't honed yet, they're still very much in the development stage. And there's the pressure I already mentioned. It's like pressuring a child or teenager to haul weights like a grown man - the strain on their not-yet-developed bodies would be too much and the results disappointing. No wonder she's still struggling.
Yes, the idea is good. I'll give her that. Actually, they idea is great.
It's the development that spoiled it. Please, just for the sake of it, imagine this idea would have been developed by your favourite writer (presumably, he/she is indeed a skillful author). Yes, a children's books writer, since I assume you're going to say "these are children's books after all, let's not be too judgmental". Oh, wait, you said she was the greatest, in your opinion; that pretty much make this exercise pointless :D
Nevertheless... how do your think the characters and plot would have been developed by another writer? :)
O sorry, I missed the age limit by 1.Quote:
Originally Posted by starrwriter
Yes, maybe kids 9-12 may be old enough to grasp the insights, as they may already feel the things you said in school. But still, I don't think they will appreciate it as much as the lessons in HP.
Livingston Seagull is too... direct, as opposed to the lessons hidden as undertones in HP. And really, Livingston Seagull's story is just about a bird wanting to fly, going to heaven, then learning to fly. I have to younger siblings, and I know that when they read that type of story, they will only see that story, not the philosophical insights. It won't have a lasting effect on their mind. Kids that age are concerned mainly about having fun, I think you'd agree with that. They don't care much for those things. Unless of course, they're brilliant.
However, HP's lessons and insights are mixed and hidden in a captivating and interesting story. Well, I think you know where I'm going here.
I'm disappointed that you think so little of youth that all 12 year olds think about is fun all day long. Secondly, tell me what HP's lessons and insights are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Apotropaic
I am in entire agreement, couldn't have said it better myself!Quote:
Originally Posted by LightShade
I will agree that the quality of the series has been uneven, and that might be a result of Rowling's inexperience outside of those books. I wouldn't be surprised if she has run out of things to write about. It has been more than a year since I read any of her books, but "Chamber of Secrets" and the "Prisoner of Azkaban" and "The Philosopher's Stone" are good stories. I don't claim that they are great literature, but they are well crafted stories that were written to entertain, and they do entertain.Quote:
Originally Posted by LightShade
The question of how the characters and plot would have been handled by another writer is an interesting exercise in alternate universes. How would Vladimir Nabokov have written The Chamber of Secrets? I'll think about that one. Changing that point of view character would have altered everything, but I think that Ginny as the POV character would have created a great story; although it would have been very juvenile anyway. How would Mark Twain have written it? Or Hemingway? Thinking about that is an interesting game. I wonder if anyone would want to write one of those stories from the POV of Snipe.
Let us be judgmental, but let us judge her in relation to her peers. The kinds of books that I classify HP with are the Hardy Boys and similar collections of stories for children. Within that section of the fiction universe Rowling is a bright star. If I compare her with Joyce, Nabokov, Hemingway, Fitzgerald, etc. she is at the bottom of the barrell. But if I compare her with writers of contemporary "Fantasy", medievalish stories she is also a star.
Hmm, I've read all the HP series, and frankly i don't seem to think they're improving. I enjoyed the world that was created in Harry Potter as a source of inspiration for my own imagination, but as I've been growing older, I'm now labouring through reading them aloud to my little brother, who loves them, but we both agree that Harry Potter is a terribly annoying teenager, and the constant confrontations and conflicts are more than a little exasperating at times. Still, i intend to read the last one as well... can't imagine having read them all and then not knowing how it ends.
May I suggest a healthy alternative in Terry Pratchett? His discworld is a dazzeling source of inspiration itself, and the humour, plot and language are far more advanced.
Or if you're into crazy Sci-fi, find Douglas Adams and fall in love with his abuse of any regular rule of writing. Sheer quality for you... The Hitch Hikers guide is such a blessing... Sigh... :) Yeah, Potter is not great litterature, but so what, there's many others to read if you'd rather do that.
Chava, Pratchett also wrote some children's books :)
PeterL, pray fantasy fans out there don't read what you wrote about her being a star in the fantasy writing field :D
I've spoken honestly about our youth today. Only a few kids are really into those things. Well, at least that's what I believe. That's just based on my observations. And the insights of HP are too obvious, you really want me to list them down? It's the usual stuff like friendship, courage, standing up for what you believe in and pure-heartedness (shame on you Levenbreech Vor!).Quote:
Originally Posted by Levenbreech Vor
Anyway, you may be right that HP isn't as good as a whole lot of other books out there. But I'd just like to correct you on something. Based on your previous statements like:
--it seems to me you're under the impression that HP is supposed to be some great piece of literature. HP is a book for young adults. I don't think even JK Rowling would expect HP to be on the same level as Shakespeare. It's not her fault that something clicked with her story with both young and old readers alike and her book ended up becoming a massive bestseller. You say that it's overrated. It is if you consider it a literature masterpiece. But HP is just a book for young adults, like the hundred others out there. It just happened to be more popular.Quote:
Harry Potter is the bestselling book in history, better then great literary classics, suspenseful mystery novels, and in-depth sci-fi and fantasy worlds....[Harry Potter] is incredibly overrated.
...but it not like someone that reads Harry Potter is next going to read Great Expectations.
...I definitely don't think that Harry Potter changed the statues of the well-read.
Why do you think HP is so popular? It could be because it was able to touch an extremely large audience, both young and old, globally. Don't you think that would somewhat qualify it as a great book?
And besides, what is your description of a well-written story? Complex sentences? Big words? Figures of speech? Who made up that rule anyway? HP was able to accomplish something only a few books do. Don't you think there's something in the writing that perhaps others thought was great?
Anyway, you are free to have your own opinions of the book, of course. But just remember what HP is really is. It's like your expecting so much out of it.
There! That's what I'm talking about! Judge her fairly, please!Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
i think that, as others have said above me, HP is a book for young adults. it cannot be put up against Jane Austen, or Dickens, or any one of the great authors that have put pen to paper. do not judge it in their fields.
JK has done what so many others have not acheived, she has made reading 'cool' and enjoyable. it has drawn them from the TV. someone earlier said, "So? What is the difference, they are not learning anything from HP."
i have to disagree.
reading puts vocabulary into young minds much more efficiently than TV. also, tv is bad for the eyes. reading a book is completely what nature intended our eyes to do, rather than stare a a series of flashing lights.
Then you agree that she is a very good writer. OKQuote:
Originally Posted by Apotropaic
It wouldn't bother a bit if they read it. Those "fantasy" books are only literature by virtue of being words on paper. They are without plot or theme, mere;y massive collections of characterizations and events that go no where.Quote:
Originally Posted by LightShade
PeterL, the fantasy genre is HUGE. There are great writings there, and even some of the bad ones that I have read had "plot" or "theme". I don't understand your position.
Are you sure you didn't mean "fairy tales"? :D
I certainly didn't mean "fairy tales". I meant the multivolume medaevalish sword, sorcery, and romance things. There is also a huge amount of good 'fantasy' from Dunsany to Tolkein to de Camp and LeGuin. I contrast that George R.R. Martin, Tad and others.Quote:
Originally Posted by LightShade
I just looked at a list of "fantasy" writers and found many authors listed who are very good writers, who know when a story has ended. An endless series of episodes do not make good literature.
yes, i know that, but i find that his discworrld series has a wonderful ploy when it concerns being child friendly or utterly mature. It's lovely! has anyone read his "Soul Music"??Quote:
Chava, Pratchett also wrote some children's books
Umm... I don't understand what you're talking about. You keep jumping from anti-fantasy books to pro-fantasy, then back to anti. Are you critcizing the books and praising the authors??Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
I agree, the series can be read at many levels and every person will understand (or not) the various subtleties based on his/her previous experience. And even if you don't get most of them, the stories are still thoroughly enjoyable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chava
I read all his Discworld books up to Night Watch and I am currently re-reading them for what would be the third or fourth time in some cases. And sometimes, as it happens when you re-read a book after some time, I see things and characters in a new light. I love that.
Definitely. One has to know when to stop, otherwise it becomes rather boring and possibly too thinly stretched.Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
I see you have reconsidered your position as to the fantasy genre in general. I'm glad we finally agree on the subject. :)
Now, not to be totally off-topic: has anybody read the latest HP book? how did you find it? (I am looking for opinions as to plot, character development and general writing style. Please have good arguments to back up your opinion :D ).
ps - I haven't read it yet, I'm waiting for the paperback and I wish she'd stop writing such big books, they cost a lot :p
Okay, here's my crack at this.
After reading 7 pages of this thread, I come to 2 interesting conclusions. First, it appears that all the English majors (including myself) are in support of the HP books. Second, I was shocked that no one has brought up the fact that much of the inspiration has come from Mythology and classic literary themes.
Like Logos, if something is wildly popular, I'm likely not to be interested either. Early on while persuing my degree, I established the fact that the closer I get to the 20th century, the less likely I am to enjoy a piece. But I've also found that if I can make comparisons to older classics, I tend to like them (hence my thorough enjoyment of Tolkein). Initially, I condemned the books for religious reasons but then decided that wasn't fair, as I hadn't read them yet. I began reading them after the fourth one came out and found that they were no more harmful than Lord of the Rings or Narnia. Then I began my degree. I was happy to discover numerous parallels between the HP series and classic works of lit, and this was only enhanced by mythology classes.
THEN! At Cambridge this past summer, I took a class on Dickens and another on the Bronte sisters, both taught by the same professor. She expressed the same observations that I had on the HP books (at the time she was comparing the orphan state of Oliver Twist to Harry), and she said that the only reason that she hadn't read the new one was because her daughter hadn't finished it yet. She felt the same as myself that Rowling was quite brilliant for introducing these themes and ideas to children in such an entertaining way that they can more easily identify them later in life while they read more challenging works. I even experienced this for myself. I had never heard of a Basilisk until reading The Chamber of Secrets. For a while I thought she just made up the creature. Then I ran across it while reading for one of my classes. I read the footnote for curiosities sake, but really it wasn't necessary. I already thoroughly knew what a Basilisk was because of Rowling.
Lightshade, perhaps this is why the characters seem so archetypal to you. But even so, I don't think any of the HP characters are nearly as flat as the classic character of Oliver Twist.
About the writing, what I've said above I think must be taken into consideration. Also in agreement to what Apotropaic said about not comparing to Dickens because it's from a different time period I wanted to add: while taking those classes in England, I discovered that a good knowledge of the history of society at that time (Dickens' or Brontes') is necessary in order to fully understand the meaning behind the ideas presented in a novel or even the language. Children (and most adults) don't generally know what happened during Dickens lifetime. They obviously know our own societal issues better and so can adhere to the HP books better. I also believe that the series follows the Dickens and Bronte example of trying to identify and change problems in our society. This leads me to an interesting example.
I found it ironic that many of the people complaining about the books also complained about kids being glued to the TV. Look at Dudley! Rowling has recognized the very issue brought up here, and personified it in one of her more rotten characters that no normal child would want to emulate!
Anyway, as a soon-to-be English teacher, I'm quite glad the books have been so poplular as I'll be refering to them from time to time during my classes for the reasons stated above.
sorry it's so long.
Shea, I read many, MANY fairy tales and mythological tales when I was a kid. So I approached the HP books with that knowledge already installed :) but no, that's not the reason for my seeing the characters as archetypal - I wasn't referring to dragons and suchlike. I was referring to Harry & his buddies & his enemies.
It's been some time since I read Oliver Twist. To make a fair judgment now, I'd have to read it again and I don't really feel like it. I wasn't saying classics didn't use archetypes - when I was at the University we studied flat characters in literary theory class using examples from classic English writers :D And I remember an exam where I had to write an essay concerning D.H.Lawrence's use of archetypes :) it was pretty obvious he did use such characters. (btw, I got mark 10 (an A, for US students) :D )Quote:
I don't think any of the HP characters are nearly as flat as the classic character of Oliver Twist.
In any case, you may start with an archetypal character, but you have to work towards giving it more dimensions than the archetypal flat one. I fail to see that in Harry.
exactly on the dubloons! there is no real inbetween ground with ol HP (the books, not the barbecue suce, but I suppose you either love it or hate it too)Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
Personally I think that they aren't so hot, and they don't teach kids some great moral lesson but ohvell.
Personally I think children shouldn't read untill they really have a need to, when they are 12ish, and then they should only read Robinson crusoe! (joke)...(Rousseaue)...:D
I just think it's sad that the classics aren't given to kids and that they aren't encouraged to read higher level literature, like Lem, Sienkewicz, Assimov,Jordan, Clavel.
So was I..Quote:
Originally Posted by LightShade
BBQ sauce? you've never had marmite have you :lol: it's truely `unique'!Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanislaw
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
OMG :goof:
actually, I've never heard of it. What's it taste like?