Harry Potter

Baz Luhrmann tried to bring the modern audience to Romeo and Juliet by employing modern cinematic techniques alongside the text. I think this example typifies the difficulty faced by youngsters when encountering Shakespeare. It takes time to absorb the language and meaning. It takes time to be trained in reading the text.

The Luhrmann film was difficult to watch with the cinematic pyrotechnics combined, with speech that needs to be savoured and reflected on. The kids are leaning at the speed of knots today - using the internet etc, yet skills for reading Shakespeare and other classics require development that takes time.

You are all talking from the perspective of being willing and able readers. I know from experience as a librarian that not all children want to read. If you can engage their interest in a book, you;re halfway there. I have nothing against what you're saying with regards to good and challenging literature, but there are loads of kids out there who can barely read. If HP grabs their interest, and draws them in, then all the better. I see kids every day who struggle to read and write, and your condecension towards what should be a pleasure, the reading of a book, is staggering. Try giving Twain, Carroll or Dickens to someone who can barely read, and watch them be turned off literature forever.

The question, however, is will Harry Potter... or any mediocre bit of childrens' literature really lead to a desire in the child to read more and more challenging works? If the child (and later the adult) ends up never reading anything more than Dan Brown, Rowling, pulp fiction and romance novels is this really better than not reading at all? As an educator I have a problem with the notion that we need to "entertain" the students (the terminology used is "we must engage the child" but it means the same thing. When we are dealing with students who never read at home... whose parents never read... who spend all of their time being bombarded with the instant gratification and sensory input that is afforded by i-pods, the internet, video games, television, DVDs, etc... reading... thinking... learning can all seem a bit boring.

Say what you want about Harry Potter, kids do enjoy it and kids are reaching out for other books because of it. The proof is in the pudding, I was one of them.

From the age of 12/13 I went from Rowling to Faulkner. I'm pretty sure that i'm not the only one.

You can't' adequately critique the series without putting your own personal prejudice about it, aside.

Certainly, it does happen. I read my own share of lite-lit: science fiction and fantasy and ghost stories... but I was also led to Tom Sawyer, Huckleberry Finn, Edgar Allen Poe, Dickens, Emily Dickinson, Homer, Faulkner, Hemingway, Steinbeck, etc... at home and at school. Part of the role of education is to provide continuity, and the structure of standards. Every student will rebel against this to a degree. That is only natural. With time, the motivated students will discover many more possibilities than were first offered in their education... and again, that is fine. One begins, however, with a firm foundation. Without it, one is at a serious disadvantage and there is a lot of catching up to do.

yes, it is a sad state of affairs is it not? that no one reads good contemporary literature... I mean reading of the classics is slowly decreasing and that is bad enough, but reading of quality contemporary literature is virtually non-existent...

But I question just whether the audience for the classics really has shrunk. What percentage of the population of Victorian England or Renaissance France or Italy could even read... let alone read classic literature. The great works of literature are quite often admittedly challenging. For some those challenges are stimulating and the pleasure gained more than worth the effort. For others... well a video game or TV sit-com is far less taxing. I do feel, however, that education and the media have largely abandoned their support of great art. The old cartoons and TV shows frequently featured the music of Beethoven, Liszt, Mozart, and Rossini... even opera... as well as the popular music (jazz) of the day. Contemporary writers such a Hemingway, Steinbeck, Frost, even Faulkner were at one time far more recognized or known to the public before the public were bombarded by the seduction of the mass media. So do the media have no responsibility except to the ledger books?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

oh, I am really sorry. For a second I thought you are talking about a work which opening sentece could even show distintic and original voice (altough the obvious Tim Hunter copy that Harry Potter is, but anyways) and you even showed a few lines that proved beyond doubt all this. But now that you made clear that Jeannie the Geenie and Harry Potter fill the same spot, I can sleep in a more confortable bed.

---

I know somewhere in there you actually had a point. Still searching for it. I'll let you know if I find something besides the obvious red herring fallacy (the fact that Harry bears similarities to Gaiman's Tim Hunter has any bearing on the distinctness and originality of the prose style how exactly?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

The question, however, is will Harry Potter... or any mediocre bit of childrens' literature really lead to a desire in the child to read more and more challenging works? If the child (and later the adult) ends up never reading anything more than Dan Brown, Rowling, pulp fiction and romance novels is this really better than not reading at all? As an educator I have a problem with the notion that we need to "entertain" the students (the terminology used is "we must engage the child" but it means the same thing. When we are dealing with students who never read at home... whose parents never read... who spend all of their time being bombarded with the instant gratification and sensory input that is afforded by i-pods, the internet, video games, television, DVDs, etc... reading... thinking... learning can all seem a bit boring.

---

I think we answered that with anecdotal evidence from multiple members. Harry Potter and other works can lead to people picking up more challenging works. I think it best to think of it like this: if it encourages even one person to continue reading, just one, who might not have otherwise then that's a good thing. I also know a person who went the opposite path now that I think of it. The blogger at OF blog of the Fallen read through most of the major "realist" classics in college, and now reads exclusively speculative fiction (with a few exceptions).

As far as your comments about people continuing to read Rowling or Dan Brown or such instead of reading High Brow Lit, this borders on the condescending. Mostly, who cares? After all, you're talking about my parents and friends and people I know online (I know people who ONLY read genre fiction). They aren't better or worse people for it. They live meaningful lives. They aren't moping around complaining that there is a major void missing because of the lack of literature and high art. They have strong vocabularies. They are a success in their careers, and live a good life. They simply have different reasons for reading or have different interests. It is no coincidence that a lot of higher ED people with science degrees (a Ph. D. in physics, biology, etc.) are often interested in Sci-fi.

Also, we need to remember, and this isn't directed specifically at you, that these best-sellers aren't being created by a population of mindless zombies who merely buy what the advertising tells them to rather than also considering their own tastes. After all, the best-sellers don't appeal to the same audiences. I suspect most people who buy and are interested in the kind of fiction Stephen King writes are not necessarily interested in the kind of fiction Danielle Steel writes. So Danielle Steel fans aren't the same as Stephen King fans, though like in everything I'm sure there are some people out there who like both writers. These genres appeal to very different audiences. My dad and mom who love James Patterson and Tom Clancy would never touch Stephen King (because horror doesn't interest them, but high-tech international thrillers and crime fiction does). So there is no one mainstream American audience all buying the SAME popular books; these often come from different segments of the population.

I think Fifth put the argument concerning the merits of reading Harry Pottervery succinctly.

I read recently that reading encourages the development of the brain because it is only in that activity that one pauses to think, to reflect, which does not happen when one watches a movie or television. So it would seem that the very act of reading is beneficial. Of course kids are not going to receive these benefits unless they are actually reading, and this is where reading for enjoyment comes in.

I personally like Harry Potter; I think they are highly imaginative, and probably not very literary. I don't care. I read them all, and was on the proverbial edge of my seat the entire time.

I do find it a little ironic that kids found something they enjoyed reading and adults immediately began to make movies about these books, ensuring they would never again have to bother with reading them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

I know somewhere in there you actually had a point. Still searching for it. I'll let you know if I find something besides the obvious red herring fallacy (the fact that Harry bears similarities to Gaiman's Tim Hunter has any bearing on the distinctness and originality of the prose style how exactly?)

---

There is no point, really. I just find ironic that you managed to combine the argument that HP is a harmless enterteiment and that in a few lines you posted you could find "The opening has a lot of character, a touch of the comical, a well-defined voice, works well with the tone of the world and upcoming story. The opening is even kind of memorable." ...
Well, maybe it is me. When I think with a opening with a lot of chracters, Tales of Two Cities came to my mind, a touch of comical I will think about Voltaire, a well-defined voice, I will consider Dostoievisky, and a memorable opening scene well, maybe I will get Lusiadas.
But really, you maybe playing the devil advocate, but either Harry is so qualificated or just harmless enterteiment...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

With Mortal and Stlukes, all the snobish elite of this forum have posted here. The marble tower is just complete.

Ah... and yet where is the real snobbishness to be found. Among those who demand a certain standard... or in those who exhibit a degree of anti-intellectualism and sneer at anything which makes demands upon or challenges the intellect, or achieves a high standard? Hmmm... By the way, JCamilo... I've never really known you to be anti-elitist yourself considering the books you generally discuss.:confused:

---

:D I was being ironic, after all I am snobbish, elitist, arrogant, etc,etc,etc... It came with the package.

I think the problem in this argument is that posters who are readers are saying that HP is leading to extra reading. My question is if they would not read anything else despite HP? I am sure Little Prince, Narnia, Star War Novels, etc have kept some people active. But there is any evidence that the absence of any of those books would cause damage? Wouldn't the readers of Stephen King live with Anne Rice or Clive Baker anyways?
(Of course that is just dimissing the real factors that lead people to read, education, family influence, access to books, social incentive).
They just assume: People read HP now, so they will read something after this. Of course, in most countries the reading ratio diminish after the "student years", so even if we do not consider HP, we would be lying to say that our cultures are able to keep the reading interest... But no, HP have magic...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joreads

I wrote this in another thread but it stands here as well. We wonder why as kids grow they stop reading. Everytime they pick up a book and enjoy it there those around them that cannot wait to tell them that it is rubbish I think I would have stopped reading as well if every time I did someone made fun of my choices.

---

Quote:

---

No, possibly not. But she has had people queuing in their droves at midnight to buy a book. Organised parties have been arranged around the release of the book. When else has that ever happened? Regardless of the merits or demerits of the Potter series, it has shown that reading is not a geeky underground activity but something that you can celebrate and get excited about, and that in itself raises the profile of reading as an activity. If that prompts a few more kids into reading, and if it prompts a few of those kids into reading a bit more then what's the problem?

Of course if you want to improve literacy rates then your route has to be via the parents. But I doubt you'll get more kids reading by sneering at the books they read and enjoy.

---

But this is just absurd.. where is all this negativity to be found about what kids read? a few random post on an Internet forum with 60,000 members, a literature critic that most Potter readers have never heard of, and probably never will? Most Harry Potter readers, or readers of other such junk, will rarely, maybe even never, hear a negative comment about their beloved series, for even their parents apparently read these books as the latest books sold more copies to adults than to children... where are these kids finding people sneering at their book choices, criticizing the obviously stylistically poor writing they read.. no instead we reinforce them with the belief that writers like Rowling are good, if not great writers, as evidenced by the fact JK Rowling was voted the best living British writer and received more than 3 times the votes of her nearest competitor... and the rare dissenter to the crowning of these mediocre writers is castrated, and sent packing by the vast majority... so tell me, where are all these kids who will quit reading because a few people tell the truth about what is good or bad writing?

maybe though, we should empower a generation to proclaim mediocrity superior...

Yeah, because the youth will always do as some elders tell them to do, after all, they are mindless drones.
And of course, Never before a book or author was sucessful among a certain group and bashed by the critics; so ,it is new. We are destroying culture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by islandclimber

But this is just absurd.. where is all this negativity to be found about what kids read? a few random post on an Internet forum with 60,000 members, a literature critic that most Potter readers have never heard of, and probably never will? Most Harry Potter readers, or readers of other such junk, will rarely, maybe even never, hear a negative comment about their beloved series, for even their parents apparently read these books as the latest books sold more copies to adults than to children... where are these kids finding people sneering at their book choices, criticizing the obviously stylistically poor writing they read.. no instead we reinforce them with the belief that writers like Rowling are good, if not great writers, as evidenced by the fact JK Rowling was voted the best living British writer and received more than 3 times the votes of her nearest competitor... and the rare dissenter to the crowning of these mediocre writers is castrated, and sent packing by the vast majority... so tell me, where are all these kids who will quit reading because a few people tell the truth about what is good or bad writing?

maybe though, we should empower a generation to proclaim mediocrity superior...

---

Wait, so most Potter fans will never hear about dissenting critical opinions, but somehow will castrate these dissenting critics they've never heard of . . .

@JCamillo: Not all critics bashed Potter. Only some. Others have had favorable opinions of Potter. There is no such thing as critical consensus, and well, shouldn't be. For example take your whining about the LOTR movie in the other thread. Most critics gave favorable reviews to LOTR. People shouldn't be bound by critical opinion one way or the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

Wait, so most Potter fans will never hear about dissenting critical opinions, but somehow will castrate these dissenting critics they've never heard of . . .

@JCamillo: Not all critics bashed Potter. Only some. Others have had favorable opinions of Potter. There is no such thing as critical consensus, and well, shouldn't be. For example take your whining about the LOTR movie in the other thread. Most critics gave favorable reviews to LOTR. People shouldn't be bound by critical opinion one way or the other.

---

well actually I said rarely, but you seem to not have noticed...and regardless on the rare occasions Potter fans hear the truth about the books, that however entertaining the storyline may be they are very poorly written, they act outraged as though no one should criticize their modern bible, and proclaim Rowling a very skilful writer, a prose master.. hahahahahah..

and actually almost all critics bashed the latest Potter books... only the first couple (aimed at younger children and not at the young adult audience of the last ones) received generally favorable criticism...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by islandclimber

well actually I said rarely, but you seem to not have noticed...and regardless on the rare occasions Potter fans hear the truth about the books, that however entertaining the storyline may be they are very poorly written, they act outraged as though no one should criticize their modern bible, and proclaim Rowling a very skilful writer, a prose master.. hahahahahah..

and actually almost all critics bashed the latest Potter books... only the first couple (aimed at younger children and not at the young adult audience of the last ones) received generally favorable criticism...

---

That's true you did. My mistake. I would point out that there is a difference between critics who write for popular magazines (newspapers, New Yorker, The Atlantic Monthly, etc.), and academic critics who write for scholarly journals. Though there is some overlap like in the case of Harold Bloom.

There have been many academic critics who have had favorable reviews of Potter and written genuine literary criticism analyzing the deeper issues to be found in Harry Potter. Of course, one needs to take this with a grain of salt as Popular Culture criticism is big these days and a legit form of academic inquiry. Is is also necessary to write about the next big thing simply for the sake of treading on unplowed ground instead of trying to find something new to say about a well-established classic that has been written about hundreds of thousands of times. So we shouldn't forget that as well. Nevertheless, I have read some of this criticism and some of the arguments are convincing and treat Harry Potter in a serious critical light as they would Shakespeare. This doesn't mean they are arguing that it is as good or equal to Shakespeare; it merely means they are treating it as a serious work and analyzing themes, motifs, genre, settings, characters, etc.

I could see Harry Potter lingering as a Children's Lit classic. But we'll see.

Well all I know for sure, is that the Harry Potter movies have had generally outstanding reviews, and if you would like me to back this up i can show you where my research comes from. I tend to follow film critics, and have never really known of many places that compiles the criticism of recent books (other than obviously going to one or two critics you like, the most biased way)

I do not think J.K Rowling is an amazing author, and I do not think that the Harry Potter books are great works of literature, but they are certainly entertaining, they are certainly charming, and they are certainly not 'trash'. Just as many people consider Dickens' novels to be trash, I think it is certainly just a matter of opinion. I enjoy Austen, the majority of the males on this forum can't really get into Austen. I enjoy Steinbeck, I have heard many on this forum who enjoy good literature but hate Steinbeck. I think it is certainly a matter of taste. I do not think that there is a way to define what is good and what is not good, except on the matter of taste. I know everyone agrees with me, but their bias intercepts their judgement.

and to be honest, whatever Bloom says or any other more academic critic, I see Harry Potter lasting as a children's lit classic, although I don't agree with this...

But this is a two edged sword, for if we decide to treat Harry Potter in a serious critical work then we have to discuss it's obvious poverty of style, the fact it's extremely cliche-ridden, and many other negative features of Rowling's writing, regardless of how entertaining the stories may be at first appearance.. if we were to actually hold Harry Potter up to the same magnifying glass that we have held great works of literature up to, it would not stand up, it would be torn apart as vastly inferior and mediocre work.. sorry, but this really can't be argued, for even in the category of young adult literature it fails to even come close to the greats of that category... maybe the first book or two, written for 6-9 year olds still learning to read better, and more critically in that age group Rowling's writing is suitable to receive somewhat favourable criticism, to maybe last.. but the later books written for a much older audience are vastly inferior to so many works already there, and so many contemporary works that go no light shed upon them...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by islandclimber

and to be honest, whatever Bloom says or any other more academic critic, I see Harry Potter lasting as a children's lit classic, although I don't agree with this...

But this is a two edged sword, for if we decide to treat Harry Potter in a serious critical work then we have to discuss it's obvious poverty of style, the fact it's extremely cliche-ridden, and many other negative features of Rowling's writing, regardless of how entertaining the stories may be at first appearance.. if we were to actually hold Harry Potter up to the same magnifying glass that we have held great works of literature up to, it would not stand up, it would be torn apart as vastly inferior and mediocre work.. sorry, but this really can't be argued, for even in the category of young adult literature it fails to even come close to the greats of that category... maybe the first book or two, written for 6-9 year olds still learning to read better, and more critically in that age group Rowling's writing is suitable to receive somewhat favourable criticism, to maybe last.. but the later books written for a much older audience are vastly inferior to so many works already there, and so many contemporary works that go no light shed upon them...

---

I'd like you to present me with one serious journalist who has described Harry Potter as a 'serious literary work' or a 'classic' or one that should be taught in classrooms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mathor

Well all I know for sure, is that the Harry Potter movies have had generally outstanding reviews, and if you would like me to back this up i can show you where my research comes from. I tend to follow film critics, and have never really known of many places that compiles the criticism of recent books (other than obviously going to one or two critics you like, the most biased way)

---

Rotten Tomato? :lol:

Here is the thing though. At the end of the day the viewpoints of critics are just an educated opinion, but opinion is still the keyword. They've been trained to look for certain elements (techniques, innovation, cinematography in the case of movies or prose style in the case of literature), have seen a lot of the particular medium to help make comparisons with other films, books, etc. and judge how the particular work in question stacks up, and have read other critical views of older works giving them a sense of history of the medium. Nevertheless, no one is bound by the critical opinion of any individual critic. I think people sometimes forget that critics are not speaking from on high delivering the verdict of G-d. Not to mention many times critics don't agree with each other's assessments.

People should judge the arguments themselves, not the authority of the individual speaking. They also shouldn't be afraid to stand by their own critical judgements and tastes, even when it goes against certain mainstream critics' views.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

Rotten Tomato? :lol:

Here is the thing though. At the end of the day the viewpoints of critics are just an educated opinion, but opinion is still the keyword. They've been trained to look for certain elements (techniques, innovation, cinematography in the case of movies or prose style in the case of literature), have seen a lot of the particular medium to help make comparisons with other films, books, etc. and judge how the particular work in question stacks up, and have read other critical views of older works giving them a sense of history of the medium. Nevertheless, no one is bound by the critical opinion of any individual critic. I think people sometimes forget that critics are not speaking from on high delivering the verdict of G-d. Not to mention many times critics don't agree with each other's assessments.

People should judge the arguments themselves, not the authority of the individual speaking. They also shouldn't be afraid to stand by their own critical judgements and tastes, even when it goes against certain mainstream critics' views.

---

Well exactly, I think all mainstream critics are becoming pretty terrible these days, but I was simply refuting the argument that somehow Harry Potter is frowned upon by serious critics, this is not the case. If you do not like Harry Potter, you should look not at Harry Potter or Twilight, but the people who are giving these books/movies perfect scores.

I do not follow critics to make my decision, but I know that many people on here do, which is why that has been the main structure of all the arguments on here.

I've certainly never once tried to stand up for Harry Potter. I do however stand up against bias and people shoveling their opinions as fact, to try to find some 'moral' reason why people should see their opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mathor

I'd like you to present me with one serious journalist who has described Harry Potter as a 'serious literary work' or a 'classic' or one that should be taught in classrooms.

---

umm read drkshadow's post above mine, I was responding to it.. and the suggestion in it that Harry Potter needed to be looked at as a "serious work" and in the same "serious critical light" as we would look at Shakespeare...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by islandclimber

umm read drkshadow's post above mine, I was responding to it.. and the suggestion in it that Harry Potter needed to be looked at as a "serious work" and in the same "serious critical light" as we would look at Shakespeare...

---

I just feel that whether or not critics like Harry Potter, none of them see it as something that will withstand 50-100 years. It's a good read for a summer day, but it certainly wont be remembered many many many years from now. I don't think any critics think it is a work that has that kind of literary significance, and i've not heard one critic who suggested it so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mathor

I just feel that whether or not critics like Harry Potter, none of them see it as something that will withstand 50-100 years. It's a good read for a summer day, but it certainly wont be remembered many many many years from now. I don't think any critics think it is a work that has that kind of literary significance, and i've not heard one critic who suggested it so.

---

"I side with those who believe that the Harry Potter series not only deserves the attention it is getting because of its imaginative qualities and compelling storyline, but also because of its "adult" literary merits. I will argue here that the Harry Potter series fits well into "the great tradition" of British novels that is still taught in college classrooms, beginning with Samuel Richardson, continued by Jane Austen, and culminating in the efforts of Charlotte Brontë and Charles Dickens." - Paige Byam, from "Children's Literature or Adult Classic? The Harry Potter series and the British Novel Tradition." The Washington and Jefferson Review, Issue 54 (Fall 2004).

"The aggressive marketing . . . also describes a critical problem: the novels and the hype become intertwined, resulting in analyses that fail to take into account the full complexity of either. Because Harry Potter is both a marketing phenomenon and a literary phenomenon, critical conflation of the two does not really advance the understanding of the marketing apparatus or the books themselves. . . . First of all, conflating the books with the marketing fails to produce a sufficiently sophisticated analysis of the latter. Second, such critical conflation leads some critics to overlook the novels' considerable literary achievements." - Philip Nel, "Is There a Text in this Advertising Campaign?: Literature, Marketing, and Harry Potter." The Lion and the Unicorn 29.2 (2005). (emphasis mine).

Now that's not exactly them saying it will last 100 years from now, but there are critics who will argue that Potter has literary merits. To be honest I have no idea if Potter will stand the test of time or even twenty years from now. Then again I don't believe you or anyone else on this board really knows either. Only time will tell.

The Luhrmann film was difficult to watch with the cinematic pyrotechnics combined, with speech that needs to be savoured and reflected on...

The Baz Luhrman film was difficult to watch because it was crap.:sick:

And really, I am not saying anything about the critics. I am laughing the idea that critical attacks will affect the reading habits to the point people would stop reading because of them. If they are under such influence, the logic was not they will stop reading - they will stop reading HP and read what the critic offer.
Yes, I expect people to stop reading HP and start reading Proust, Joyce and Shakespeare because of Harold Bloom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

And really, I am not saying anything about the critics. I am laughing the idea that critical attacks will affect the reading habits to the point people would stop reading because of them. If they are under such influence, the logic was not they will stop reading - they will stop reading HP and read what the critic offer.
Yes, I expect people to stop reading HP and start reading Proust, Joyce and Shakespeare because of Harold Bloom.

---

this was my point too!!! ;) and the fact that children and most of the adults reading Harry potter are never going to read a little article by Harold Bloom in the Wall Street Journal..

you put it much better though... :)

The question, however, is will Harry Potter... or any mediocre bit of childrens' literature really lead to a desire in the child to read more and more challenging works? If the child (and later the adult) ends up never reading anything more than Dan Brown, Rowling, pulp fiction and romance novels is this really better than not reading at all? As an educator I have a problem with the notion that we need to "entertain" the students (the terminology used is "we must engage the child" but it means the same thing. When we are dealing with students who never read at home... whose parents never read... who spend all of their time being bombarded with the instant gratification and sensory input that is afforded by i-pods, the internet, video games, television, DVDs, etc... reading... thinking... learning can all seem a bit boring.

I think we answered that with anecdotal evidence from multiple members.

C'mon. You know that anecdotal evidence is an oxymoron.

Harry Potter and other works can lead to people picking up more challenging works. I think it best to think of it like this: if it encourages even one person to continue reading, just one, who might not have otherwise then that's a good thing.

Undoubtedly there are more than a few who reading habits began with the dirty bits written in porno mags. So we should promote this as well? I am not questioning whether a child... or even an adult... should be encouraged to read Harry Potter if that is what he or she desires. I do question, however, the merit of promoting such in an educational setting.

I also know a person who went the opposite path now that I think of it. The blogger at OF blog of the Fallen read through most of the major "realist" classics in college, and now reads exclusively speculative fiction (with a few exceptions).

As far as your comments about people continuing to read Rowling or Dan Brown or such instead of reading High Brow Lit, this borders on the condescending. Mostly, who cares? After all, you're talking about my parents and friends and people I know online (I know people who ONLY read genre fiction). They aren't better or worse people for it. They live meaningful lives. They aren't moping around complaining that there is a major void missing because of the lack of literature and high art. They have strong vocabularies. They are a success in their careers, and live a good life. They simply have different reasons for reading or have different interests.

How is it condescending? Great literature is an elective affinity. You choose to read it or you don't. It has nothing whatsoever to do with your intellect or your likelihood of success in life. That is but a red herring typically employed as a means of undermining the opinions of those who have made the choice and the effort to explore literature. Just dismiss us as elitist snobs. Yet the same notion of elitism applies to each and every field of human endeavor. "Elitism", as I employ the word, denotes "those whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight..." Those who have engaged in a "rigorous study of, or great accomplishment within, a particular field... display a long track record of competence in a demanding field; or a high degree of accomplishment, training or wisdom within a given field." There are those who are elitists/experts (use whatever term you will) in math, science, sports, art, history, film, cars, rock and roll, bluegrass, jazz, opera, etc... etc... You, yourself, present yourself as something of an expert on science fiction. I have little doubt that you would be quick to point out cliches of a particularly mediocre or poor work of science fiction and probably would be equally quick to question the opinions of someone (like myself) who is a novice is the field (at best). At least I suspect such would be your response were I or someone else to come upon a science fiction writing discussion board and begin making statements about the imagined merits of some less than brilliant science fiction writers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

The Luhrmann film was difficult to watch with the cinematic pyrotechnics combined, with speech that needs to be savoured and reflected on...

The Baz Luhrman film was difficult to watch because it was crap.:sick:

---

but what is to be expected of Baz Luhrman? he is a crap director.. the terrible Romeo and Juliet, Australia and the vastly overrated Moulin Rouge, Strictly Ballroom...

it will be interesting to see if he can destroy The Great Gatsby as I have heard this is his next project?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by islandclimber

but what is to be expected of Baz Luhrman? he is a crap director.. the terrible Romeo and Juliet, Australia and the vastly overrated Moulin Rouge, Strictly Ballroom...

it will be interesting to see if he can destroy The Great Gatsby as I have heard this is his next project?

---

Lets just hope he doesn't cast Mia Farrow.

And really, I am not saying anything about the critics. I am laughing the idea that critical attacks will affect the reading habits to the point people would stop reading because of them. If they are under such influence, the logic was not they will stop reading - they will stop reading HP and read what the critic offer. Yes, I expect people to stop reading HP and start reading Proust, Joyce and Shakespeare because of Harold Bloom.

I can't say I put much store by what literary critics or theorists have to say. Certainly, I have read a bit... and I will even admit that a few... such as Samuel Johnson, Walter Pater, William Hazlitt, etc... are artists in their own right... and worthy of reading... but the vast majority are caught up in their own esoteric and hermetic worlds that have little to do with why I read... which is something far closer to Virginia Woolf's ideal of the not-so-common "common reader".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

yes, it is a sad state of affairs is it not? that no one reads good contemporary literature... I mean reading of the classics is slowly decreasing and that is bad enough, but reading of quality contemporary literature is virtually non-existent...

But I question just whether the audience for the classics really has shrunk. What percentage of the population of Victorian England or Renaissance France or Italy could even read... let alone read classic literature. The great works of literature are quite often admittedly challenging. For some those challenges are stimulating and the pleasure gained more than worth the effort. For others... well a video game or TV sit-com is far less taxing. I do feel, however, that education and the media have largely abandoned their support of great art. The old cartoons and TV shows frequently featured the music of Beethoven, Liszt, Mozart, and Rossini... even opera... as well as the popular music (jazz) of the day. Contemporary writers such a Hemingway, Steinbeck, Frost, even Faulkner were at one time far more recognized or known to the public before the public were bombarded by the seduction of the mass media. So do the media have no responsibility except to the ledger books?

---

I just noticed this post... but I agree completely.. even in the last 20 years since my early childhood, the media has slowly abandoned references to "high" art.. I remember watching Merry Melodies when I was a little kid and seeing Bugs Bunny interact with Pavarotti and others... the animated movie Fantasia... but I do think the media carry a large responsibility for the dumbing down of the art they promote to the public... oh well... although the literacy rates were vastly lower in Victorian England or Renaissance France and England, I would say the percentage of those who read "good" literature out of the population that read was extremely high.. whereas now this percentage is miniscule.. plus the fact that recent studies show 50 % of American Adults won't read a single novel this year, well how high is literacy now then? or is it just functional literacy that is high?

I think most good critics are those who are also good writers. Harold Bloom would be much better if he had the talent of, lets say, Borges. So, Borges can say Shakespeare is the center of the canon writing a short story about his memmory. Instead of writing an essay (and we are talking about a great essay writer) he shows, not tell.
But I doubt there is any sheep that keep reading an author because a critic says so. Most likely the critics just point out some unknow name, forgotten work, etc and the rest the reader will do as he wishes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

Lets just hope he doesn't cast Mia Farrow.

---

or Mira Sorvino!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

C'mon. You know that anecdotal evidence is an oxymoron.

---

In what way is anecdotal evidence an oxymoron? I am basing it, of course, on my own experiences as both a librarian in a public school and my own teenage years in which I took that very path. Experiences allow us to make generalizations about the world (read your Aristotle). It is not all that far-fetched to believe that if I went from Star Wars and Wheel of Time to Shakespeare and Faulkner, others did and will as well.

Quote:

---

Undoubtedly there are more than a few who reading habits began with the dirty bits written in porno mags. So we should promote this as well? I am not questioning whether a child... or even an adult... should be encouraged to read Harry Potter if that is what he or she desires. I do question, however, the merit of promoting such in an educational setting.

---

This is a false analogy. You're comparing pornography to Harry Potter, give me a break. Harry Potter could make good educational material if done correctly; that also doesn't mean the students cannot read other books as well.

Quote:

---

How is it condescending?

---

Let’s see what you wrote and what I was responding to:

“If the child (and later the adult) ends up never reading anything more than Dan Brown, Rowling, pulp fiction and romance novels is this really better than not reading at all?”

So you’re seriously suggesting that it may be better to read nothing at all than for an adult to only read Dan Brown, Rowling, pulp fiction, and romance novels, thus implying they are wasting their time, and you cannot figure out how that is condescending?

Condescending (from dictionary.com):

showing or implying a usually patronizing descent from dignity or superiority

Your words fit the definition perfectly. Moving on . . .

Quote:

---

Great literature is an elective affinity. You choose to read it or you don't. It has nothing whatsoever to do with your intellect or your likelihood of success in life. That is but a red herring typically employed as a means of undermining the opinions of those who have made the choice and the effort to explore literature. Just dismiss us as elitist snobs.

---

Funny, I don’t remember calling you or anybody an elitist snob. Thanks for playing the Victomhood card ™. Nevertheless, this is not a red herring because my comments directly relate to your question about whether people who read non-Canonical literature should bother reading. I answered with factors that were relevant, especially since you put it in question form (even though slightly rhetorical); basically, I answered the question by noting that reading “great” Literature and reading only Dan Brownish works hasn’t affected the quality and success in their life, and they take pleasure in those books, so I see no reason that reading nothing is better than reading some kind of novel.

Quote:

---

Yet the same notion of elitism applies to each and every field of human endeavor. "Elitism", as I employ the word, denotes "those whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight..." Those who have engaged in a "rigorous study of, or great accomplishment within, a particular field... display a long track record of competence in a demanding field; or a high degree of accomplishment, training or wisdom within a given field." There are those who are elitists/experts (use whatever term you will) in math, science, sports, art, history, film, cars, rock and roll, bluegrass, jazz, opera, etc... etc... You, yourself, present yourself as something of an expert on science fiction. I have little doubt that you would be quick to point out cliches of a particularly mediocre or poor work of science fiction and probably would be equally quick to question the opinions of someone (like myself) who is a novice is the field (at best). At least I suspect such would be your response were I or someone else to come upon a science fiction writing discussion board and begin making statements about the imagined merits of some less than brilliant science fiction writers.

---

See now a red herring would be going on a long rant about how you define elitism, which bears no relation to the original question of why you think reading nothing might be better than reading Dan Brown or Stephen King, especially when no one has called you an elitist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

In what way is anecdotal evidence an oxymoron? I am basing it, of course, on my own experiences as both a librarian in a public school and my own teenage years in which I took that very path. Experiences allow us to make generalizations about the world (read your Aristotle). It is not all that far-fetched to believe that if I went from Star Wars and Wheel of Time to Shakespeare and Faulkner, others did and will as well.

---

so what? that is a small minority and in my opinion would have progressed into good literature regardless of what they began with.. I started with Twain, Carrol, Dickens, London, Crane, and others... but at the same time I read Wheel of Time and Tom Clancy when I was a kid... they provided a different kind of entertainment for me at that age, but I have no illusions about these books having provided any educational benefit for me...

Quote:

---

This is a false analogy. You're comparing pornography to Harry Potter, give me a break. Harry Potter could make good educational material if done correctly; that also doesn't mean the students cannot read other books as well.

---

pornography could be used as educational material as well, disregarding the offensive content, if we are to include poorly written literature in education... reading Harry Potter in school is basically telling kids that mediocre writing is good...

Quote:

---

Let’s see what you wrote and what I was responding to:

“If the child (and later the adult) ends up never reading anything more than Dan Brown, Rowling, pulp fiction and romance novels is this really better than not reading at all?”

So you’re seriously suggesting that it may be better to read nothing at all than for an adult or whoever to only read Dan Brown, Rowling, pulp fiction, and romance novels, thus implying they are wasting their time, and you cannot figure out how that is condescending?

Condescending (from dictionary.com):

showing or implying a usually patronizing descent from dignity or superiority

Your words fit the definition perfectly. Moving on . . .




Funny, I don’t remember calling you or anybody an elitist snob. Thanks for playing the Victomhood card ™. Nevertheless, this is not a red herring because my comments directly relate to your question about whether people who read non-Canonical literature should bother reading. I answered with factors that were relevant, especially since you put it in question form (even though slightly rhetorical); basically, I answered the question by noting that reading “great” Literature and reading only Dan Brownish works hasn’t affected the quality and success in their life, and they take pleasure in those books, so I see no reason that reading nothing is better than reading some kind of novel.



See now a red herring would be going on a long rant about how you define elitism, which bears no relation to the original question of why you think reading nothing might be better than reading Dan Brown or Stephen King, especially when no one has called you an elitist.

---

the point isn't that these people would be better off reading nothing, or that they should read nothing, it is that there is no difference between reading junk, and reading nothing... if they want to read this, that is fine by me, and I'm sure fine to anyone, but when this "mediocrity" is put forward as good literature, pushes better books off the shelf, makes them harder to find in bookstores, well then it is becoming a problem... but I really could care less what people read for pleasure... but it provides no benefit besides entertainment and pleasure, if all adults read is junk. and therefore this is exactly the same as if they read nothing at all, and did something else for entertainment...

lots of people who read nothing at all are "successes" in life too, so I don't see what that has to do with anything...

I don't know - the first things I really recall reading - besides the Bible and my book of children's literature (which is still, surprisingly enough, a pretty darn good collection of Children's literature) were young adult books geared toward girls. Very little stuck of course, but I think some of it leaked onto my reading sensibilities, and definitely helped my understanding of gender in texts - but that isn't the point though, in all honesty, I'm an accidental reader, in the sense that when I just started high school, I wasn't even functionally literate in English (I still don't punctuate properly on the first go, as many of you can see) - I came to it by absolute chance, that I happened to read a copy of Onegin and think, hey, this stuff is pretty damn good.

What would have happened, for instance, if someone gave me that sort of stuff as a kid - well, I come from an immigrant family, so in all honesty I was never really brought up in this "Dickens, Carol, Rossetti, MacDonald" vein - I don't even recall actually being read to as a child, much less in English.

If someone gave me, for instance, a copy of Caitlin Sweet, or Ursula K. Leguin as a child, I probably would have been a better reader for it - the Narnia books that I got as a present when I was a child though, didn't even phase me - perhaps that's an idiosyncracy, and a weird personal taste - who knows - certainly getting exposure to some poetry before high school would have saved me quite a few hours, though, in all honesty, my grade 9 English teacher knew less about Blake's A Poison Tree than I know about Quantum Physics. Everything just sort of happened, and it most certainly would not have happened if I read that Lemony Snickett stuff, or that Dan Brown stuff, or even that Potter (stuff, I know, the Potters didn't phase me) as a kid, and surely that Leonardo di Caprio Romeo and Juliet movie from the 90s (and got is it ever 90s!) film didn't inspire much either when it was shown in class.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by islandclimber

so what? that is a small minority and in my opinion would have progressed into good literature regardless of what they began with.. I started with Twain, Carrol, Dickens, London, Crane, and others... but at the same time I read Wheel of Time and Tom Clancy when I was a kid... they provided a different kind of entertainment for me at that age, but I have no illusions about these books having provided any educational benefit for me...

---

A small minority is still SOME people. Simple math. Better to attract 1 person or 0 people? What evidence do you have that the same people would have progressed onto good literature regardless? Although you might have started with Twain, Carrol, Dickens, and such, that doesn't mean every reader was ready for them at that age. I definitely wasn't ready for any of those authors.

Quote:

---

pornography could be used as educational material as well, disregarding the offensive content, if we are to include poorly written literature in education... reading Harry Potter in school is basically telling kids that mediocre writing is good...

---

No, since you don't teach kids aesthetics at a young age, but rather focus on teaching them vocabulary, reading strategies, a love/enjoyment of reading, parts of a story (plot, setting, characters, protagonists), and maybe start getting them to think about the deeper issues found in a book. Of course, it also depends what age group you're talking about: huge difference between how you would approach a third grader compared to a ninth grader.

Quote:

---

the point isn't that these people would be better off reading nothing, or that they should read nothing, it is that there is no difference between reading junk, and reading nothing... if they want to read this, that is fine by me, and I'm sure fine to anyone, but when this "mediocrity" is put forward as good literature, pushes better books off the shelf, makes them harder to find in bookstores, well then it is becoming a problem... but I really could care less what people read for pleasure... but it provides no benefit besides entertainment and pleasure, if all adults read is junk. and therefore this is exactly the same as if they read nothing at all, and did something else for entertainment...

---

I rarely see anyone put forward mediocre books as good literature since the moment they put forward a book as good literature they are making the claim that it isn't mediocre, now aren't they? By "mediocre" you really mean books YOU personally consider mediocre, which is fine. Entertainment and pleasure has value in itself. If you think they should go play a video game or watch a movie to be entertained, then you at least recognize entertainment and pleasure has some value, even if lesser value than education. Still, we could continue with your logic: why would you watch a movie rather than play a video game? Based off what we already said about entertaining books it doesn't matter which you do. Why eat pizza over Mexican food? Hell, if you're going to read "crap" books why read Science Fiction instead of Romance? Why play basketball instead of baseball, they are both sports aren't they? Answer those questions and figure out what they have in common and you have your answer why one might choose to read for entertainment than just playing a video game. Besides, I am pretty sure reading Dan Brown keeps your vocabulary sharper than most video games.

Still we can easily figure out if entertainment has any value. Which would you prefer: a) a book that is boring and deep or b) a book that is entertaining and deep. They have the same level of depth in this hypothetical.

Quote:

---

lots of people who read nothing at all are "successes" in life too, so I don't see what that has to do with anything...

---

But I'm sure most of them read something at some point, even if it was Harry Potter or Stephen King, which allowed them to maintain a certain level of literacy, since most "successful" jobs requires one to be functionally literate. The point being that reading Great literature or not reading it really does nothing to support or work against the quality of someone's life, unless of course they already have a passion for that type of literature. Also, Stluke situated his argument in a rant about methods of education and the difficulty of teaching kids brainwashed on video games and the internet.

He wrote: “The question, however, is will Harry Potter... or any mediocre bit of childrens' literature really lead to a desire in the child to read more and more challenging works? If the child (and later the adult) ends up never reading anything more than Dan Brown, Rowling, pulp fiction and romance novels is this really better than not reading at all? As an educator I have a problem with the notion that we need to "entertain" the students (the terminology used is "we must engage the child" but it means the same thing. When we are dealing with students who never read at home... whose parents never read... who spend all of their time being bombarded with the instant gratification and sensory input that is afforded by i-pods, the internet, video games, television, DVDs, etc... reading... thinking... learning can all seem a bit boring.”

It’s not clear what he means to do with the last lines. Still, he does pretty much equate reading, thinking, and learning. The point is adults who spend their time reading so-called candy can still learn fine and dandy. Literature just ain’t their thang.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by islandclimber

But this is just absurd.. where is all this negativity to be found about what kids read?

---

I think you're spreading it. The discussion is hardly nurturing is it? Have you heard yourself?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by islandclimber

Most Harry Potter readers, or readers of other such junk,

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by islandclimber

where are these kids finding people sneering at their book choices, criticizing the obviously stylistically poor writing they read..

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by islandclimber

maybe though, we should empower a generation to proclaim mediocrity superior...

---

Wow. No sneering or negativity there. Why don't you try this out? Direct that diatribe in person to the next 13 year old you see reading one of the Harry Potter books and see how it encourages them to read Alice in Wonderland.

And you're nowhere near as unique as you think you are. How many other Harry Potter threads have been hijacked by the Potter haters on this forum alone. Do you really think that isn't replicated elsewhere? And just look back to post 5 on this thread:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mayneverhave

Please no more of these Harry Potter threads. Didn't we put the last one to rest?

---

The thread hadn't even got going before someone came in championing thread censorship. What a wonderful, positive, all inclusive world we live in. Surely, if you don't want to discuss it it's easy enough to stay out of the threads?

And isn't it funny how these Potter threads are most heavily frequented by those who claim it's not worth talking about?

"The Baz Luhrman film was difficult to watch because it was crap."

But did it fulfil the remit of bringing Shakespeare to a more visually orientated youth market? I think it was an interesting experiment which on the whole doesn't work because of the disparity of the script and film conventions. Crap or not, you're missing the point. How are modern teens to be encouraged into a deeper reading of classics like Shakespeare? How is the dumbing down to be addressed?

It is news to me that Harry Potter is being studied in schools. I find it a little bit odd if this is the case..

to my knowledge, most schools cover a pretty good standard of literature

To Kill a Mockingbird
The Great Gatsby
Animal Farm
Of Mice and Men
Hard Times
Great Expectations
Washington Square
D.H Lawrence - The Fox, The Ladybird, The Captain's Doll
Jane Eyre
Romeo and Juliet
Macbeth
Twelfth Night
Hamlet
Pride and Prejudice
Sense and Sensibility

^ plus a few more that i've forgotten, were all covered at school for me

edit - .

Geez, reading through some of my posts, I sounded like a dumb cracker