Who's excited about J K Rowling's new book?

The biggest seller of the cultural revolution, Maos red book is the best selling book in the last 1500 years without a doubt. It resonated over a decade with so many people. Does that make it excellent literature?


Yes/no you are basically proving Blooms argument for him with your zealotry. The books have a toss prose style. Get over yourself please. Any oft with any critical judgment can tell that it is not in style that the book succeeds. Even if they like the books.


As for a mature style, she never achieved it - stylistically as noted the prose mimics many a better author. The style later tends toward melodrama, as the plot takes over the narrative in the last few.

In general the books are not perfect, do get off your high horse and stop feeding this nonsense with zealous proclamations that these semi decent kids books are gospel. Not only are they not, they also are quintessentially English and Christian which also does not resonate with everyone. Preachy potter only gets preachyer. And there will always be those who eat its gospel.

I'm curious, why do they have to be well written? Why can people not accept that what they love may not be that great? It is filled with cliches, just like 99% of literature in the fantasy genre . . . and my question is, so what? People love cliches. I love reading comic books, and a lot of them aren't good, and you know what? I don't really care, and neither do MILLIONS of other people who read comics. But I also have the wherewithal to realize that me loving comic books doesn't mean much when taking into account their quality, I'd estimate about 95% of them are pretty bad. I love them anyways.

So, why do supporters of certain things, in this case HP, after be so insisting that what they love is indeed great . . . when it's obvious it isn't. Is it good? Yes. Does it do what it's supposed to do (provide brainless entertainment)? Yes. Is it great literature? Debatable at best, but definitely not a certain "yes." Drk illustrates the pros and cons wonderfully with actual TEXTUAL evidence (something often lacking around here, not that I'm a huge contributor).


Oh, and btw, Bloom is a dried up old fossil who clings to his own prejudices and narrow views as bad as the masses he talks down to from his pedestal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis

I'm curious, why do they have to be well written? Why can people not accept that what they love may not be that great? It is filled with cliches, just like 99% of literature in the fantasy genre . . . and my question is, so what? People love cliches. I love reading comic books, and a lot of them aren't good, and you know what? I don't really care, and neither do MILLIONS of other people who read comics. But I also have the wherewithal to realize that me loving comic books doesn't mean much when taking into account their quality, I'd estimate about 95% of them are pretty bad. I love them anyways.

So, why do supporters of certain things, in this case HP, after be so insisting that what they love is indeed great . . . when it's obvious it isn't. Is it good? Yes. Does it do what it's supposed to do (provide brainless entertainment)? Yes. Is it great literature? Debatable at best, but definitely not a certain "yes." Drk illustrates her pros and cons wonderfully with actual TEXTUAL evidence (something often lacking around here, not that I'm a huge contributor).


Oh, and btw, Bloom is a dried up old fossil who clings to his own prejudices and narrow views as bad as the masses he talks down to from his pedestal.

---

Meh, you do not give Bloom enough credit. He still has some interesting things to say.

As for why they need to be great, they don't. But the fanboys and girls will not shut up about these books, and keep yelling how great they are, and how by extension we now need to read, or should read this drivel of a follow up novel - it is disgusting how much press we get shoving these books down our face at how Rowling is somehow the world's biggest gift to literature. that's why we argue.

If nobody talked about them, they could simply just be retired to the garbage can of all other toss literature. But people still affirm them, which means people will still dispute how amazing they are, like me. I do not care if people read them, but I dislike when people come on these boards and because they like these books think they are God's gift to literature. The books are flawed, and if one cannot discuss the flaws with someone, one aught not to post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis

I'm curious, why do they have to be well written? Why can people not accept that what they love may not be that great? It is filled with cliches, just like 99% of literature in the fantasy genre . . . and my question is, so what?

---

Well there is a certain segment of various fandoms that generally take their entertainment (read: obsessions) way too seriously.

Quote:

---

Drk illustrates her pros and cons wonderfully with actual TEXTUAL evidence (something often lacking around here, not that I'm a huge contributor).

---

I'm a dude . . .

Essentially the problem isn't fanboy love of Potter or Bloom's dislike of Potter. It's the constant back-and-forth declarations: it is good, it is bad. It has great prose. It's prose sucks.

I think I screwed up spelling"the" and it autocorrected it to "her" for some reason. You know I know you're a dude. :lol:

Ah, I just thought the pronoun referred to Rowling, not Drkshadow, her as in Rowling's pros and cons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis

I'm curious, why do they have to be well written? Why can people not accept that what they love may not be that great? It is filled with cliches, just like 99% of literature in the fantasy genre . . . and my question is, so what? People love cliches. I love reading comic books, and a lot of them aren't good, and you know what? I don't really care, and neither do MILLIONS of other people who read comics. But I also have the wherewithal to realize that me loving comic books doesn't mean much when taking into account their quality, I'd estimate about 95% of them are pretty bad. I love them anyways.

So, why do supporters of certain things, in this case HP, after be so insisting that what they love is indeed great . . . when it's obvious it isn't. Is it good? Yes. Does it do what it's supposed to do (provide brainless entertainment)? Yes. Is it great literature? Debatable at best, but definitely not a certain "yes." Drk illustrates the pros and cons wonderfully with actual TEXTUAL evidence (something often lacking around here, not that I'm a huge contributor).


Oh, and btw, Bloom is a dried up old fossil who clings to his own prejudices and narrow views as bad as the masses he talks down to from his pedestal.

---

I don't think I've ever said the Harry Potter books are "great." I believe I have said that I thought her characterizations were good. I think she plotted her books fairly well. I enjoyed reading them quite a bit, as did my children.

I guess I never understood why they had to be "great." They are children's books. I would hope they'd be well-written, but great literature? It isn't necessary for them to be great literature for them to be great reads for kids. If you want great literature for kids you might look at The Mouse and His Child by Russell Hoban which one critic described as "Beckett for children."

What other children's books do you all think fall into the great literature catetgory? Perhaps we'd have better luck with this discussion if we compared them to other literature.

And yes, she does use cliches. Its probably what makes the books easy to read, as cliches act as a kind of shorthand to various elements of a plot; think of a beach read, in other words. Kids probably aren't going to notice that as much as adults will.

Just finished the Casual Vacancy. It was OK - not bad, not great. Definitely not on par with the wonderful HP books, but I don't think anyone was expecting it to be.

The HP characters are larger than life, cast in the heroic mould, battling it out in extreme situations. This book is about small people in a small town, with their small everyday concerns and predictable peccadilloes and neuroses.

While each chapter had me interested and involved (I was certainly not hovering over the story in a detached way, as happens with some books), I feel it lacked focus or something and don't feel she did a good job of tying up the various threads in the end. I didn't crack a smile. I didn't shed a tear. Maybe I just didn't get it, but I closed the book feeling unsatisfied, though not disatisfied, and that's the reason for my lukewarm review.

My rating - 5.5/10

I for once do not think that any critic should be made because of the genre children literature, something JK Rowling does not even follow so strictly. It is more a critic to the industry, many flaws you may find could be corrected had the books a more slow process of production, but the demand pushed the book faster. Plus, the publishing house play more and more with safe bets. If Rowling or any author wanted to fly away, they would probally push her down. Look, even now when she is considerably free, a change of style atracted many question marks even before the book was out. Without risk she cannot even polish her style. This is the same for many authors who are vallued more for the capacity to stay on the same place than move foward.

This does not affect her, even a more versatile writer like Neil Gaiman is getting "dumbed down" (copyright bloom) to be in a safe place on children market. His Graveyard Book is very poor, almost a HP wannabe for emo boys that love gothic stuff. The book has a plot similar to HP and as simplistic. Those books work, but really, it is basic. Paulo Coelho and Dan Brown work too. And they will sell with the appropriate marketing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qimissung

I don't think I've ever said the Harry Potter books are "great." I believe I have said that I thought her characterizations were good. I think she plotted her books fairly well. I enjoyed reading them quite a bit, as did my children.

I guess I never understood why they had to be "great." They are children's books. I would hope they'd be well-written, but great literature? It isn't necessary for them to be great literature for them to be great reads for kids. If you want great literature for kids you might look at The Mouse and His Child by Russell Hoban which one critic described as "Beckett for children."

What other children's books do you all think fall into the great literature catetgory? Perhaps we'd have better luck with this discussion if we compared them to other literature.

---

Quimmisung, you raise interesting points. I feel children's critical faculties are still in the developing stage, and the important thing is to get them into the reading habit and allow them to decide for themselves what they find interesting, even if it's just Sweet Valley or Goosebumps. Those with a penchant for reading good books will eventually gravitate towards them.

The important thing is to give them plenty of books to choose from. If you just provide them with a few 'great children's literature' or what some critics think is great, they just might find these boring and give up reading altogether.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mona amon

Just finished the Casual Vacancy. It was OK - not bad, not great. Definitely not on par with the wonderful HP books, but I don't think anyone was expecting it to be.

The HP characters are larger than life, cast in the heroic mould, battling it out in extreme situations. This book is about small people in a small town, with their small everyday concerns and predictable peccadilloes and neuroses.

While each chapter had me interested and involved (I was certainly not hovering over the story in a detached way, as happens with some books), I feel it lacked focus or something and don't feel she did a good job of tying up the various threads in the end. I didn't crack a smile. I didn't shed a tear. Maybe I just didn't get it, but I closed the book feeling unsatisfied, though not disatisfied, and that's the reason for my lukewarm review.

My rating - 5.5/10

---

Hi mona amon
Just a question did toou get an idea of why the sudden shift of styke?
I am trying to understand the title and how it actually fit in the story.
I had a different conversation somewhere else about but still could not figure it out.
Thank you.

That's my feeling, too, Mona.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

The biggest seller of the cultural revolution, Maos red book is the best selling book in the last 1500 years without a doubt. It resonated over a decade with so many people. Does that make it excellent literature?

---

I would place The Quotations of Chairman Mao more with the required reading in a literature class, like Eliot's The Wasteland. It is clear why these are read--for survival, not enjoyment. Neither of these examples, in my view, are great literature.

However, getting a bestseller in a free market place deserves to be acknowledged as an achievement. The most important question is how that happened, not a rant disparaging both the author and her readership that it should not have happened.

I am into the Potter series & never to review them as they are a special matter to my heart. I shall not enjoy a novel by Rowling for adults. I don't know why!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

I would place The Quotations of Chairman Mao more with the required reading in a literature class, like Eliot's The Wasteland. It is clear why these are read--for survival, not enjoyment. Neither of these examples, in my view, are great literature.

---

I'm seriously getting sick of this sort of ridiculous statement.

I read The Wasteland for enjoyment. It was an incredibly enjoyable experience for me. I know a ton of others who have also read it for enjoyment.

You're wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nevey

I am into the Potter series & never to review them as they are a special matter to my heart. I shall not enjoy a novel by Rowling for adults. I don't know why!

---

Will you read other books for adults? Or just continue on with Children' fantasy books?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tonywalt

Will you read other books for adults? Or just continue on with Children' fantasy books?

---

I can't believe that anyone over the age of eleven would read HP , with the exception of children's book reviewers, because as far as literature is concerned, the phrase reductio ad absurdum comes to mind. The same goes for films about Batman. When I was about nine-years-old, a friend and I fantasised about being Batman and Robin, but obviously one grows out of such things: or does one? Now I see Batman is not a kid's entertainment but, with a bit of extra violence thrown in and presumably, some sex and a few computer graphics, he is suddenly 'adult' entertainment. Barnum was wrong; there isn't one born every minute, there are dozens.

Mostly because the Harry Potter books got more graphic as they went on. People get tortured violently, expletives are used(In book 7, a character gave his brother a middle finger), very expletive references to sex. It wasn't just to pander to older readers either. Rowling planned that from the beginning. I mean, its a series about a kid who is destined to face off against a wizard Hitler who killed thousands of innocents when he was alive, including the main character's parents. Thing was going to get violent eventually.

I'm not trying to defend the quality of the books, but it was clear the series was getting to get too dark for kids later on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr.lucifer

Mostly because the Harry Potter books got more graphic as they went on. People get tortured violently, expletives are used(In book 7, a character gave his brother a middle finger), very expletive references to sex. It wasn't just to pander to older readers either. Rowling planned that from the beginning. I mean, its a series about a kid who is destined to face off against a wizard Hitler who killed thousands of innocents when he was alive, including the main character's parents. Thing was going to get violent eventually.

I'm not trying to defend the quality of the books, but it was clear the series was getting to get too dark for kids later on.

---

I think this is because her publishers realised that some adults were reading her and asked her to raise the bar to keep the ball rolling. It's instructive to note that she hasn't ruled out yet another Potter book should the attempt at writing serious fiction fail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emil Miller

I can't believe that anyone over the age of eleven would read HP , with the exception of children's book reviewers, because as far as literature is concerned, the phrase reductio ad absurdum comes to mind. The same goes for films about Batman. When I was about nine-years-old, a friend and I fantasised about being Batman and Robin, but obviously one grows out of such things: or does one? Now I see Batman is not a kid's entertainment but, with a bit of extra violence thrown in and presumably, some sex and a few computer graphics, he is suddenly 'adult' entertainment. Barnum was wrong; there isn't one born every minute, there are dozens.

---

My neices and nephews love any entertainment that is fast, loud, explosive, and with a very formulaic plot. As for reading......

There is hope though, quite a few very young people here-good for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tonywalt

Will you read other books for adults? Or just continue on with Children' fantasy books?

---

I can't speak for him or her, but I didn't read HP for the first time until I was 20. I read plenty of other stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

I would place The Quotations of Chairman Mao more with the required reading in a literature class, like Eliot's The Wasteland. It is clear why these are read--for survival, not enjoyment. Neither of these examples, in my view, are great literature.

However, getting a bestseller in a free market place deserves to be acknowledged as an achievement. The most important question is how that happened, not a rant disparaging both the author and her readership that it should not have happened.

---

Have you read Mao? He was regarded as a literary genius by the early 30s primarily for his work on Guerrilla warfare. Much of his reception and success rested on his literary and artistic prowess.

I do not know how much comes through in translation, but he wasn't exactly stupid.

As for required reading and whatnot, how much of Rowling's sales do you attribute to advertising, rather formal or informal? If advertising did not work, nobody would do it.

Case and point this book here - the propaganda of the text basically generated its sales - the book from what I gather would have remained unpublished or unread had it not been for the fuel of her advertisement.

Hao Ran would not have been the biggest author of the 70s if it weren't for state backing. Rowling not the biggest of the late 90s early 2000s if not for corporate backing. Do not get delusions that somehow this has something to do with their excellence as authors.

I would place The Quotations of Chairman Mao more with the required reading in a literature class, like Eliot's The Wasteland. It is clear why these are read--for survival, not enjoyment. Neither of these examples, in my view, are great literature.

As opposed to Laura Day's books, no doubt.:rolleyes5:

Personally, I have read The Wasteland dozens of times... and I surely wouldn't have wasted my time if I didn't gain a good deal of pleasure from the experience. Indeed, I would count The Wasteland among the few dozen books that have had the greatest impact on me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pierre Menard

I'm seriously getting sick of this sort of ridiculous statement.

I read The Wasteland for enjoyment. It was an incredibly enjoyable experience for me. I know a ton of others who have also read it for enjoyment.

You're wrong.

---

You beat me to it with this comment, Pierre.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

However, getting a bestseller in a free market place deserves to be acknowledged as an achievement. The most important question is how that happened, not a rant disparaging both the author and her readership that it should not have happened.

---

It's an achievement, yes, but one must consider what kind of an achievement that is--if you're asserting that any piece of art that gains huge success in a free market is somehow a substantial measure of worth, I guess we can put the "good art" label on Lady Gaga, Kesha, and Justin Bieber. They've all undoubtedly had quite astounding achievements culturally, monetarily, and business-wise, but artistically? Arguable at best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emil Miller

I can't believe that anyone over the age of eleven would read HP , with the exception of children's book reviewers, because as far as literature is concerned, the phrase reductio ad absurdum comes to mind. The same goes for films about Batman. When I was about nine-years-old, a friend and I fantasised about being Batman and Robin, but obviously one grows out of such things: or does one? Now I see Batman is not a kid's entertainment but, with a bit of extra violence thrown in and presumably, some sex and a few computer graphics, he is suddenly 'adult' entertainment. Barnum was wrong; there isn't one born every minute, there are dozens.

---

Yes, but let's keep in mind that you find any film made after WWII to be overly stimulative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr.lucifer

Mostly because the Harry Potter books got more graphic as they went on. People get tortured violently, expletives are used(In book 7, a character gave his brother a middle finger), very expletive references to sex. It wasn't just to pander to older readers either. Rowling planned that from the beginning. I mean, its a series about a kid who is destined to face off against a wizard Hitler who killed thousands of innocents when he was alive, including the main character's parents. Thing was going to get violent eventually.

I'm not trying to defend the quality of the books, but it was clear the series was getting to get too dark for kids later on.

---

I don't buy into this whole "she had it all planned out" crap. I read the first book and seen some of the movies, and I honestly believe she was just making it up as she goes. There're so many things that just come out of nowhere (not to mention magic to help get out of tricky potholes she'd write herself into) and complete irrelevancies to the larger story (I believe I remember a friend of mine telling my about a plot deviation about Hermione wanting equal rights for trolls that worked at Hogwarts or something--wtf?). That isn't anything unique to long fantasy series. The Wheel of Time, A Song of Ice and Fire, hell, even Gerofe Lucas claimed to have all 6 episodes of Star Wars planned out before even making A New Hope, and I don't buy that for a second.


As to evaluating the quality of children's literature, that seems like something very hard for an adult reader (or, at least, this adult reader) to do. How can I judge how good a book for children is? I'm not a child anymore. I can say what children's boom I've enjoyed, sure, but I don't know if that says anything about the quality of the book as it pertains to its genre.

It makes no difference. The bulk of potter readers were adults and the later books were marketed for young adults. This children's lit excuse makes no sense.

Plus, "children literature" is published and writen mostly by addults, so addults certainly can tell something (or many things) about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis

It's an achievement, yes, but one must consider what kind of an achievement that is--if you're asserting that any piece of art that gains huge success in a free market is somehow a substantial measure of worth, I guess we can put the "good art" label on Lady Gaga, Kesha, and Justin Bieber. They've all undoubtedly had quite astounding achievements culturally, monetarily, and business-wise, but artistically? Arguable at best.

---

From a pragmatic perspective the success of the work of art in a free market is all that matters no matter what one thinks of the art itself. The successful artist, along with the contributions of any support staff, resonated with an audience. They did a good job. They accomplished their goal.

The only appropriate thing for an academic to do is to try to make sense out of it, not whine about the author using too many cliches or put down the readers' competence. That doesn't provide anyone with any benefit except the academics who assert their privileged position with every dogmatic statement they make or parrot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis

I don't buy into this whole "she had it all planned out" crap. I read the first book and seen some of the movies, and I honestly believe she was just making it up as she goes.

---

I agree that it does not look like she had this all planned out from the beginning. Initially Harry was winning all the contests and saving everyone around him. Later, people began saving him. Does it matter that the HP series was not all planned out from the beginning?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

As for required reading and whatnot, how much of Rowling's sales do you attribute to advertising, rather formal or informal? If advertising did not work, nobody would do it.

Case and point this book here - the propaganda of the text basically generated its sales - the book from what I gather would have remained unpublished or unread had it not been for the fuel of her advertisement.

---

If you're talking about the new book, The Casual Vacancy, you are probably right. The Casual Vacancy is riding on the success of the Harry Potter series, each Harry Potter book rode on the success of its predecessor, and so on. But you've got to keep in mind that the process started somewhere. The publishing industry didn't pull Rowling out of a hat to set her up to be their favourite cash cow.

Rowling wrote the first HP book over a period of 5 years, during which she lost her mother, got married, had a baby, and divorced, and lived on social security with her small daughter. Not much advantage over any other writer, so far.

The first book was rejected by 12 publishers, most of whom felt it was too long and slow for kids, before Bloomsbury agreed to publish it. The book did well on its own merits (for who had heard of Harry then?). They got positive and enthusiastic feedback from kids, parents and teachers, and won a few prizes, and Scholastic bought the American rights for a large sum.

So what I'm saying is, the success of Rowling's books started on their own merits, and then, like any other successful business venture, it fed on and multplied its own success.

None of this proves that the books are 'good'. She could have just got lucky. Their intrinsic merit is for each reader to decide for themselves. And by reader I mean someone who's actually read the books. It's amazing the number of people who are ready to dismiss the whole series as crap without having read them, or after reading a few of the books, or seeing the last movie. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

It makes no difference. The bulk of potter readers were adults and the later books were marketed for young adults. This children's lit excuse makes no sense.

---

Too sweeping a statement I feel. What do you have to support this? As for the marketing part, no particular age group was targeted, as far as I know. They were marketed on the strength of their name alone.

Also you have to consider seperately

1. Adults who pick up the books thinking they might be a good read, and decide that they like them. Edit: I know of quite a few intelligent, well read adults who belong to this category
2. Adult readers who started reading the books when they were kids but became adults before the series was over
3. Adults who started reading the books because of having kids who were the Harry Potter age (I belong to this category), and who kind of read them from a child's perspective. This includes teachers, librarians and others who work with children.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

Hi mona amon
Just a question did toou get an idea of why the sudden shift of styke?
I am trying to understand the title and how it actually fit in the story.
I had a different conversation somewhere else about but still could not figure it out.
Thank you.

---

Cacian, I don't feel there was any shift in style, which remains functional and not very distinctive. This book is different because she's given the old heave-ho to everything that makes HP so special - magic, larger than life characters, big emotions, heroic actions - and tries out something completely new.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis

Yes, but let's keep in mind that you find any film made after WWII to be overly stimulative.

---

If you check out my reviews of films on the appropriate thread you will see that they are virtually all from the post-war period and a number of them are rated 10/10: although I would be the first to admit that many of the most cinematically important films were made pre-war. Admittedly you are are unlikely to find anything post 1960s in my reviews because, to my mind, by that time the cinema was finished as a medium for discriminating entertainment once the studio system gave way to the rag tag and bobtail financial backers and their so-called actors and directors. I suppose another way of putting 'over stimulative' is 'in your face and exaggerated'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

From a pragmatic perspective the success of the work of art in a free market is all that matters no matter what one thinks of the art itself. The successful artist, along with the contributions of any support staff, resonated with an audience. They did a good job. They accomplished their goal.

---

Ah, quite the naive non-sense. Their goal is not to produce a masterwork. Their goal is to produce a product. The process of book production, with the analyse of publishers start answering "It is good enough for our audience", not "It is a masterwork who will keep people talking in 500 years when we either closed the doors, died or the book will be already non-profitable because it is public domain."

That is why sales does not say much about the quality of a book, since sales is not made by the writer, but the marketing department. They analyse the audience, the tendencies on market, their own line of production and distribution, they even see if the book has potential in hollywood before publishing.

Quote:

---

The only appropriate thing for an academic to do is to try to make sense out of it, not whine about the author using too many cliches or put down the readers' competence. That doesn't provide anyone with any benefit except the academics who assert their privileged position with every dogmatic statement they make or parrot.

---

Absolutely. The academic do look if a work has many cliches. That is his job. He is not an employer of the industry. And the benefict it is rather obvious, no? Shakespeare is only popular because a bunch of an academics worked out critical essays after critical essays until his work was recognized and became central.

Your tirade against specialists because they do not guide their taste or analyse by the popular demmand is just one more of sick people who prefer to listen the neighbours about a disease than go to a doctor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

Shakespeare is only popular because a bunch of an academics worked out critical essays after critical essays until his work was recognized and became central.

---

Shakespeare? Only popular because of a bunch of academics writing critical essays? OK I don't know a whole lot about it, but what about the performance of his plays which continued from his time to our own? Wouldn't you say the academics were churning out critical essays about an already cannonized playwright and poet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

From a pragmatic perspective the success of the work of art in a free market is all that matters no matter what one thinks of the art itself.

---

Nice dodge. Since when has art been judged solely in a pragmatic sense?

Quote:

---

The successful artist, along with the contributions of any support staff, resonated with an audience. They did a good job. They accomplished their goal.

---

Not all artists have the same goal. Some do have the first and foremost goal of making money and becoming famous. A lot don't, and don't measure success in that way. You can't just make blanket statement like these.

Quote:

---

The only appropriate thing for an academic to do is to try to make sense out of it, not whine about the author using too many cliches or put down the readers' competence. That doesn't provide anyone with any benefit except the academics who assert their privileged position with every dogmatic statement they make or parrot.

---

Have you ever heard of criticism? I agree that it's lame to put down readers of certain types of fiction (though, maybe not always), but are you seriously suggesting no one has the authority to criticize a piece of literature? I don't even get the above comment, as there are plenty of casual reader and non-academic who don't enjoy the HP books.

Quote:

---

I agree that it does not look like she had this all planned out from the beginning. Initially Harry was winning all the contests and saving everyone around him. Later, people began saving him. Does it matter that the HP series was not all planned out from the beginning?

---

Since it brought about obvious flaws, yes . . . just as there are obvious flaws in the narratives of A Song of Ice and Fire and Star Wars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mona amon

Shakespeare? Only popular because of a bunch of academics writing critical essays? OK I don't know a whole lot about it, but what about the performance of his plays which continued from his time to our own? Wouldn't you say the academics were churning out critical essays about an already cannonized playwright and poet?

---

There is no such notion of already canonized poet as you say back then, specially him, as they had to work hard to define Shakespeare own canon, by of course, critics who analyse which plays are his, recorded the versions, etc. Shakespeare was reproduced here and there, certainly already building his space, but his reading was not as much, specially outside england.

Critics (sorry, I changed the paragraph, but it is the same subject) like Doctor Jonson or Coleridge proposed new readings of the plays, build his popularity among romantics, new editions, children versions of the plays, etc that impulsioned his place as the central name in english canon and with england's dominance on XIX, the central name of western canon.

He is not the only one, obviously, but without the continual work of specialists after his death, there would not even be a body of work of his play to be published and read.

Some of Shakespeare's plays have been continually performed since the first production, possibly even when the theatres were banned. The First Folio was re-published for a long time, even after major changes in public taste.

I'm all for defending academic study and literary criticism, but it is ridiculous to suggest Shakespeare was only popular as a result of it.

Quote:

---

None of this proves that the books are 'good'. She could have just got lucky. Their intrinsic merit is for each reader to decide for themselves. And by reader I mean someone who's actually read the books. It's amazing the number of people who are ready to dismiss the whole series as crap without having read them, or after reading a few of the books, or seeing the last movie.

---

The first books are the best. After the third book, which I consider to be the best of all, I think Rowling was allowed to do whatever she wanted and the content was not properly edited any more. I doubt that people immune to the charm of the first books would fall in love with the later books, especially since with each book Voldemort and his deatheaters are more and more resembling them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ruggerlad

Some of Shakespeare's plays have been continually performed since the first production, possibly even when the theatres were banned. The First Folio was re-published for a long time, even after major changes in public taste.

I'm all for defending academic study and literary criticism, but it is ridiculous to suggest Shakespeare was only popular as a result of it.

---

The first folio is not the plays we read today and even them are subject to scrutinity because of the number of versions and corruptions to the text that existed. I do not believe you people are really comparing his popularity before the romantic age when he was a popular playwriter to be today most famous writer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

The first folio is not the plays we read today and even them are subject to scrutinity because of the number of versions and corruptions to the text that existed. I do not believe you people are really comparing his popularity before the romantic age when he was a popular playwriter to be today most famous writer.

---

JCamilo, I think your credibility is going out the window with your grammar.

Look at the first folio (1623 edition), which is readily available: you will find only the most minor discrepancies between it and the major modern texts (Oxford's, Norton's, Arden's &c.).

I have always though J's grammar wasn't all that bad considering English isn't his first, or even (unless I'm mistaken) his second language.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charles Darnay

JCamilo, I think your credibility is going out the window with your grammar.

Look at the first folio (1623 edition), which is readily available: you will find only the most minor discrepancies between it and the major modern texts (Oxford's, Norton's, Arden's &c.).

---

I wonder why, are you telling me that the First Folio was not subject of scrutinity? That there is not several versions of it? And that no play had been "cannonized" based on texts from other sources?

As far as Shakespeare scholarship (and publication) is concerned, the First Folio is generally taken at face value. There are some editions that will take bits from earlier versions (the quartos) of his plays, but overall, this is the minority.