That wasn't my proposition. If anything, I think they got worse as they went along.Quote:
Originally Posted by *Classic*Charm*
Printable View
That wasn't my proposition. If anything, I think they got worse as they went along.Quote:
Originally Posted by *Classic*Charm*
My mistake, then, and my apologies. Why then do you think ghost writers were involved?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Not so much that I think they were used, just an impression of inconsistency in the books which made me wonder whether the question had ever come up before.Quote:
Originally Posted by *Classic*Charm*
Trouble is, I'd have to go back and re-read them to decide which passages I thought were involved and I doubt I could stomach that!
Hmm... I don't think she used ghost writers, but I do believe she dragged it out so as to squeeze as much profit from it all as possible. Very clever indeed...
That's true, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by illuminatus
It might just be that the effort of writing a 400-page book on a 50-page plot was too much.
*sigh*
I joined the conversation late so I will get right to the point. I must admit, though, I have trouble separating the books from the movies now. I stopped the books at number 3 or 4 because they all seemed to have the same plot: Something bad happens-everyone blames Harry (no matter how many times he vindicates himself)- Harry fights big battle with unexpected outcome-Harry is vindicated(until the next bad thing.) It gets old after a while.....
Interesting assumption! When Rowling was first discovered she was very poor, and if I'm correct, somewhat uneducated, thus not allowing her to write very much. Maybe her climb to fame and attempts at more sophisticated literature have changed her writing in such a dramatic way that an experienced literary critique might consider the discrepancy between her work to be two different writers, instead of one merely maturing.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
I'm very interested in what others have to say!
Nope, you're incorrect. Rowling has a degree in French and Classics, although I believe you're right that she was poor.Quote:
Originally Posted by SPQR
I was going to reply to this a while ago, but I couldn't find it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodman York
Adventure stories of whatever kind are, almost always, cast from the same mold, and Rowling isn't the only one to make a bundle from the same plot and characters. Edgar Rice Burroughs wrote dozens of novels, and I have only found one in which he veered from his norm. Think of any of the children's serial books, and think about the plots. They were all very similar.
The one in which Burroughs used a different plot, he copied The Prisoner of Zenda, and he did a fairly good job. I wonder whether Rowling will ever venture into a different realm.
The earlier books aren't written nearly as well as the later books, but I think that's because JKR just grew as a writer and learned some new things that made her more eager to try more complex writing styles.
A lot of people on this forum seem to have a problem with the Harry Potter series in a general sort of way and seem to think that it's just a fad; however, I'm pretty sure that HP is here to stay. Sure, it's popularity may decline since the books are all published and the movies are almost done, but they're great books to read over and over again because the themes are timeless.
I'm really sick of all the anti-Harry Potter talk.
I also dislike the comparisons of Harry Potter and Twilight or the when people discuss how Twilight is the new HP. HP considers timeless themes with increasingly better writing style, style that seems to grow along with the characters. In contrast, Twilight is a pop culture phenomenon, and Stephenie Meyer is on the bandwagon and churning out as many novels as she possibly can before the vampire craze is over. Her novels are consistent in their poor writing quality, which is only part of what makes her books very different from J.K. Rowling's.
Harry Potter made a lot of you guys mad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mystery_spell
Concurr'd. People on this forum like to crucify J.K. Rowling for being too simplistic. In reality, these books were marketed to a younger audience. They may not be "great literature" on the scale of the typical literary canon, but they could easily become classics of children's literature, much aligned in the tradition of Carroll, Baum or Dahl. None of these authors utilized stylistically difficult structure or diction (one could argue against a cohesive narrative strand in several of their works), but they are important to children's literature nonetheless.
My personal opinion of the Potter series is that it is a well-wrought story that deals with significant values of current society including wish fulfillment and the Occidental tradition of bravery as an important aspect of the ideal hero.
Twilight, on the other hand, reads like a poorly written self-insertion fanfic taking place in Anne Rice novels.
I prefer to think of it as an overly long safe-sex pamphlet, with vampires.Quote:
Originally Posted by glover7
Nothing to do with Rowling (simplistic is not a minimalistic language, it is simpe as solution) but Lewis Carroll is considerable complex in both structure and diction (if this mean vocabulary). There is nothing simplistic about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by glover7
I think there was an anti-enid blyton period where her books were removed from the shelves, yet she has stood the test of time nevertheless.
I have never had any trouble with Carroll. Not when I was nine, and certainly not now.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
I'm amazed that Rowling's books provoke such controversy on this lit forum. They are good Kid/ teen books.
Anything that encouraged/ encourages kids reading is good with me. The later books had more adult covers too, but I think this was a response to the adult readership they developed.
(Ok - I'm behind the anti-flak settee now waiting for the fire.) :ciappa:
Just so you know, the bulk of Potter's readers even around the release of the last few books was shown to be significantly more adults than Children. The idea of getting kids to read is only half true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
Even so, though originally a hater, I recently decided to take a different stance. There will always be books that people dislike that are popular, Potter just fills the hole right now.
Paul’s illustration exemplifies a similar path toward a passion for reading my son followed, along with a little prodding my his parents. He was captivated by Harry Potter. His reading interests soon branched out beyond Potter into the world of H.G Wells, Jules Verne, Walter Scott (Ivanhoe) and several others.
.
Good literature is not troublesome. It can be understood in many layers, because anyone arguing Caroll is simplistic because they had no trouble with him as a kid must have forgotten that your mommy jumped Jabbewocky while reading to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by glover7
I'm not sure why you've acquired this condescending tone in addressing me, but I'll put that aside for now.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
Your claim is that Carroll is complex with regard to structure and diction (which does indeed mean word choice), which is rather tangential to the discussion at hand. Let's indulge you, though. I'm assuming, and correct me if I'm wrong, that your thoughts on structural complexity rely on the circularity of the narrative and the ambiguity of conflict resolution in the text. As for your opinion of the diction, it very likely is geared towards the use of polysemous words, as indicated by your insistence on "layers" in the text.
I would like to point out that these are the views espoused by "open interpretation" theorists (phenomenological theory), which has taken over the world of literary theory in more recent years. Accordingly, the number of interpretations that can be yielded from a given work is proportionate to the work's likelihood of "greatness." I should probably just redirect you to the True Art Is Incomprehensible page of tvtropes, but that could be likened to condescension, so I won't.
Instead, I'll bring up classics of children's literature/folklore that have stood the proverbial test of time without being referentially ambiguous and have a decidedly more finite set of interpretations. These include various fairy tales ranging from both the folk collections of the Grimm brothers to Hans Christian Anderson's own creations. With that said, these stories are primarily considered didactic, almost never concerned with a discursive definition of morality and show a reliance on formulaic tautology. Yet why are they so important? Oh, that's right. Because the layers that you insist are so important are still present.
Now how this relates to HP is important because Rowling's implementation of certain archetypal situations can be argued as just as heavily layered as you claim Carroll to be.
It is hilarious.
Yes, Carroll vocabulary cannt be classificated as simplistic if he is using a technique of vocabulary construction that increases the complexity of vocabulary, which is basically what James Joyce would do (with more intensity), trying to dismiss it as something recent (It is not, this trait of Carroll was addressed on early XX century already and appropriated by several authors) of a particular form of theory is not going to change it.By the way, the circularity of the text is medieval and so is complexity of structure affecting reading interpretation. Dante wrote about it.
It is a matter of fact. Carroll vocabulary is not simplistic. (Even when He is using basic english, he is not simplistic at all. As I addressed in the first post in this reggard, simplistic text do not means use of simple vocabulary or not, illeterate people could understand Ariosto, yet, he is far from simplistic).
As the theme and interpretations of the text, the existence of different layers of significance have nothing to do with simplistic. It is not saying a simple symbolism, but Carroll text does not resume to the literal interpretation (a girl goes to an adveture, it is dream) but allow several readings. From his joke with paradoxes , mathematical enigmas, psychology (as one of the influences of surrealism), the plaything with chess, the concepts as identidy, time and espace, Carroll complexity is comparable to those he had influence upon, from Chesteron, Borges, Joyce, Cortazar, Breton, Bataile, etc. There is nothing simplistic about him and saying that as a kid (a childish meaningless comment, how you can afirm you have no problem reading Carroll or any text when you first read is beyond me. The text must be awful like the phone list) enjoying Carroll. It is well writen. It works. But that is far from being able to understand it or reducing it to the be something simple. Very far from Rowling (some possibilities exist there, but nowhere as near as inventive or variated as Carroll) which is basically a structure of best-seller. But I did not even compared or argued anything about Rowling - I said it didnt matter, I said Caroll is not simplistic and however argues it is just ignoring the obvious history of Alice. Those works are not similar. And unlike you propose, I wasn't the one who brought Alice and Carroll to the argument.
As faerie tales, they are not didact at all. Faeries tales origens are from mythological themes being appropried by rural areas when the religious themes were lost to a new dominating religion and intelectual production. Faeries tales are most likely born from Ovid than anything else as Eros and Psyche (Apulleio) in this case is considered one forefather of it. They were just histories, with the same histories as today. Grimms, aimed didact funtion (Perrault a little too but Gallant did not, and 1001 Nights is a prime example of collection of faery tales) but those two did not invented faery tales.
And they are extremelly ambiguous (if not by the form, variations from popular culture) by interpretation. Red Hidding Hood with all his plot simplicity is ambiguos and allow more interpretations than almost all works of literature. As Andersen (which style is his prime work), His Emperor and the Nightingale is extremelly complex, as the guy is not talking about a single theme, but also the romantic notions of art (Years before the guys from Frankfurt school are talking about mechanical repetiion of art), so I have no idea what you mean about simplicity or finite interpretations.
Obviously, as I have no intention of Rowling comment in my previous post, I am sure she uses several well stabilished symbolic patters of fantasy in her texts. But this wont make Carroll (or Anderson) anywhere near simplistic and they can not be used to defend/attack her texts. The arguement that her books are simple because of children stories is false. Just it. Children literature does not need to be simplistic. Andersen and Carroll are evidences of that. (JBI pointed, her later works were not even children literature).
Quote:
Originally Posted by glover7
"Live with your century but do not be its creature." - Friedrich Schiller
Sometimes there are people creative enough to think of the wide scheme of things and sometimes it is sheer happenstance. Some of the layers we attribute so various authors just happened and some were actually thought of and intended.
So as not to disturb the Rowling/Carroll debate with regard to this point, I'll use a non-literary example, Bugs Bunny cartoons. They were filled with adult humor and propaganda that did not disturb the young viewers as those messages went over their heads while they were still able to enjoy the lesser (if you will) content, but it gave the parents something they might enjoy, as well.
Now to give my two cents on the Rowling/Carroll discussion:
I read both the entire Harry Potter set as well as Carroll's two Alice books and Sylvie's to my children, even though by the end of the Potter series the children might have been considered, by many, too old to read to, but it was a family time beside a fire, even one of my married children would come home for "reading time" when she could. Sadly, that ended with the Harry Potter series because of their ages at the end of the series, so I suppose I have a soft spot for that reason.
My oldest daughter is a Lewis Carroll fan (well perhaps not quite a fanatic, but he is her favorite author). The others have many and varied interests.
Personally, I enjoyed them both. Lewis Carroll offered some thoughts to think and was entertaining, too. Harry Potter was escapism and purely entertaining for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
I have very little interest continuing a discussion with someone who can't help but be pretentious, belittling and rude. Having said, that I will not hesitate to address you the same way that you've been addressing me. I would like to point out that, contrary to your responses, my original post did not imply in any way that Carroll is simplistic. My original post concerning Carroll is this:
People on this forum like to crucify J.K. Rowling for being too simplistic. In reality, these books were marketed to a younger audience. They may not be "great literature" on the scale of the typical literary canon, but they could easily become classics of children's literature, much aligned in the tradition of Carroll, Baum or Dahl. None of these authors utilized stylistically difficult structure or diction (one could argue against a cohesive narrative strand in several of their works), but they are important to children's literature nonetheless.
My original post dealt with difficulty, not complexity. Hence the mention of not encountering difficulty when reading Carroll. My argument is not that Carroll is not complex but that children's literature need not be incredibly complex. Having said that, let me quote the good users of the gamefaqs forums: Learn to read. Your post was irrelevant to what I said and was meant either to incite an argument or to be pedantic. In either case, it's rather disagreeable.
Also, if you're going to mention and embrace the multiple-interpretation theories of literature, then I'd recommend not making such concrete statements as essentializing opinions as facts, which you've consistently done. It's self-contradictory and makes for a poor argument.
Oh, and to assert that fairy and folk tales are not or were not intended as a didactic medium is naive at best, outright ignorant at worst.
Sorry, but I was never rude with you.
You wrote: "None of these authors utilized stylistically difficult structure or diction (one could argue against a cohesive narrative strand in several of their works), but they are important to children's literature nonetheless."
None of those authors were Baum, Caroll, etc. So, unlike you said, You did claimed he was simple (You said Rowling came from the same tradition, first pointing that members like to say she is simplistic) then said they had no difficult structure or diction. I corrected it and you now You are having a fit because unlike you may have intented, you did not argued Children Literature must be not complex, You added one Author that is considerable complex. You should just accept that you are wrong (You provided no argument against Carroll complexity). Instead you are offended and only because you are pointed as wrong (I did not even said anything personal towards you, how offensive can this be?).
By the way, anyone vaguelly familiar with the multiple interpretations of texts know it does not imply in any lack of objective argumentation or even of concrete statments. Quite otherwise - the awareness of those traits pass by most simple concrete statment: each reading experience is different from another.
And Faery tales are not didact. That is like arguing art is didact. Before calling me ignorant or naive, argue what is didact nature of Eros and Psyche or even of 1001 Nights. (The variation of use and forms of faery tales would be strong argument enough to dismiss anyone who thinks faery tales is only the form given by Grimm) or try to work with oral storytellers, from societies where writting is not present and see if stories there were more than Hamlet is too us: an aesthetic experience.
Now, Children Literature does not need to be complex (I have no idea how something will be difficult without causing the impression of complexity), just like any literature does not. Children Literature is exactly like any literature. What happens is that good literature is complex. That simple.
With regard to any writing and it's didactic intent; only the author knows for certain, the intent to teach, unless one is reading a text book, in my opinion.
This should not be confused with what a reader can learn, whether a reader does learn and what tools are used for learning. For this I hope there is no limit, exclusion or obstacle that prevents one from the ability to learn from any and everything.
None of those authors were Baum, Caroll, etc. So, unlike you said, You did claimed he was simple
Again, you're confusing difficult with complex. I never said that they were not complex. I said that complaints AGAINST ROWLING involve her being simplistic.
(You said Rowling came from the same tradition, first pointing that members like to say she is simplistic)
Saying that they come from the same tradition does not mean that they have identical merits. What I meant is that the actual events of the story are not all that complicated. They all follow the monomythic tradition. Person goes to other world. Person conquers trials. Person returns. Joseph Campbell. That simple.
then said they had no difficult structure or diction.
They don't. Recall that "difficult" and "complex" are different terms.
I corrected it and you now You are having a fit
We'll come to this in a moment.
because unlike you may have intented, you did not argued Children Literature must be not complex,
I DID NOT USE THE TERM "COMPLEX" IN MY INITIAL POST. Seriously, I do not want this to become an issue of semantics, but you have fastened yourself to the idea that I said something I did not.
You added one Author that is considerable complex. You should just accept that you are wrong (You provided no argument against Carroll complexity).
I don't have to address an argument that I didn't make in the first place.
Instead you are offended and only because you are pointed as wrong
Your argument is based on something I didn't even say.
(I did not even said anything personal towards you, how offensive can this be?).
Let's start with the infantilizing tone of these statements:
It can be understood in many layers, because anyone arguing Caroll is simplistic because they had no trouble with him as a kid must have forgotten that your mommy jumped Jabbewocky while reading to you.
There is nothing simplistic about him and saying that as a kid (a childish meaningless comment, how you can afirm you have no problem reading Carroll or any text when you first read is beyond me.
Then there's the above trivializing of my end of the discussion by calling it "a fit." So thanks for dishonesty, but always remember that practically anything you post on the internet is universally available.
By the way, anyone vaguelly familiar with the multiple interpretations of texts know it does not imply in any lack of objective argumentation or even of concrete statments.
Yet nowhere does phenomenological theory say that any singular opinion is correct. You happen to posit your own feelings about an author as factual, which is an arrogant fallacy.
And Faery tales are not didact. That is like arguing art is didact. Before calling me ignorant or naive, argue what is didact nature of Eros and Psyche or even of 1001 Nights.
I understand that mythology and Scheherezade form a basis for fairy tales, but you're asking me to prove that the foundational tales have a didactic tilt. Those tales, although foundational, are not necessarily the same as fairy tales. Your request is in itself an illogical attempt to disprove my points by forcing me into an impossible discourse.
And fairy tales have a didactic element to them. As anyone who has studied elementary oral lit can tell you, these types of formulaic folktales had an educational purpose. That makes it a didactic.
Why does "good" literature have to be "complex"?
I am glad, because either example, none was rude or personal insulting towards you. You are overacting (hence having a fit) because apparently you think Rowling must belong to the same place as guys like Carroll.Quote:
Originally Posted by glover7
As again: you had a childish comment (not something personal) because like a spoiled kid you mentioned a falsehood (yes, because you had no problem with Carroll when you were 9 and not now is a falsehood. I had no problem wih Dante when I was 9, does it means Dante is easy? And of course, it would suggest that your experience at 9 and now are the same. Which is ridiculous.) about your own experience. Yet, I did not even mention you, because anyone with 9 years who decoded Jabbewocky alone is obviously a genius. You seem to seem so upset that in the last post you answered again about Carroll not difficulty language, which is a falsehood - Not my opinion - kids do not understand him without interference of an addult or by auxiliar notes simple because he did used a stylish difficulty technique to build his vocabulary (unlike your very first claim), adding the complexity of his text, and any kid know: something complex can not be called simplistic.
As matter of fact, more you try to argue, more ridiculous is. You added 3 sentences in a row. Those 3 sentences are linked. And you do start accusing that 'being simplistic" is not a "flaw". You may think that adding sentences one after another, when they have no relation, loose comments make up for good writing, but it only leads to bad communication. And anyways, you do not need to use the word complex (the english vocabulary is big, something complex is something not simple or difficult, I can use it as you used by simplistic and difficult).
But quite as simple: If you think accusations of Simplicity is a mistake, you just should argue it. Because for what you claim, you have not. The entire sentences that followed it were not related (albeit wrong, Carroll is "Great Literature", overall, great children literature is great literature and this is not my opinion, just the simple fact that greatness ignores genres), so you may wish to add something about it.
As Lewis Carroll, i repeat, he is neither simplistic or not difficult. He is complex (and complexity does add difficulty to a text, so your attempt to argue both words are different is in vain. They are, but obviously related) and used difficult techniques in all levels you claimed he did not. That is what I corrected you and it is not my opinion. I listed many of those and you are dismissing it as a personal attack or some literary theory school nonsense. Does not work.
And you get wrong, no theory accepts opinions as right. It is not relativism. I am not. Accepting multiple interpretations of texts is not a idea born from relativism neither from modern theories of literature. It is much older. It does not imply either that there is not a single correct interpretation, it just accepts that all interpreation are valid as possibility. It is considerable more advanced than what you are trying to argue. Yet, I gave not my opinion about any author. Lewis Carroll did used all that I said to you and Lewis Carroll is great literature because his considerable influence over great literature. It is not my opinion that Carroll use of words was influential for modernist writers, it happened. You need only to read Joyce to see it. It is not my opinion.
As faery tales, 1001 Nights are not fundational tales and they are called faery tales. 1001 is considerable recent to be any fundational. They have no didact purpose - or rather, some may have - just like I can use Shakespeare to teach in the school which wont make Shakespeare didatic. They are used for experience, only this, like any art. Much of Grimms uniqueness is exactly because they sought it for didact purpose (children literature as a genre is basically appropriation of texts with this purpose, from Fenelon and the XIX century creators, such as Grimm and Carroll, who infused on Alice teaching of mathematic and logic. Not without coincidence, pedagody as science was also developed in XIX century), but that was not Perrault idea, who added morals who did not existed on the tales, and his purpose was critical, not didatic. If you call them for teaching, I will call Odissey as Fenelon adapted it to educated his royal pupil.
W a r n i n g
Please do not personalise your arguments.
Posts containing off-topic/personal remarks will be deleted without further notice.
It does not have to be. It is. Good literature must survive time, different societies, traditions, translatiions, philosophies. A, simplistic tale does not have this capacity, it is flat. You use once and when the next generation try to use, it already lose some "elastic", and this will go on. When this same literature is found then by a diffirent society, no only about time, but geography and language -or even ideals, religion - it will remain the same. The other society wont have use with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by spookymulder93
As you can see, great literature is exactly the one who is never old, dated, rigid. It can be used by several people, like we still read Homer, how distant are we? It is their complexity (and I would add, this same process add more complexity) that allows it.
We can makes critics to Rowling or Meyer or Brown or Cormac McCarthy or Roth or Murakami, we can talk about our perception, about the actual reaction. It will be the years who will give us the correct perspective of their quality. If in 200 years they are all forgotten except as a historical mark, they all were bad literature. If 1 person still under its influence, then, they are good, because they are elastic enough to survive in a new world.
I think I get what you're saying. So what about nursery tales like the story about the boy who cried wolf, would that be complex too? I mean it's still relevant today and will probably always be relevant.
That makes me wonder if it's possible in this age to actually say something that hasn't already been said.
The book crying wolf is not a nursery tales (most of those are lost, some remain) it is Aesop. And Aesop and fables are very complex. Not simple. They have the capacity to be used under a hundred sittuations, not to mention the minimalism implied on their construction, the economy and efficient language. Boy crying wolf is not even one of the best, but under this apparent simplicity, fables manage to have found the exact symbols and languages that can be understood by anyone. The building of such corpus is the complexity of Aesop and yes, they will remain.
"That makes me wonder if it's possible in this age to actually say something that hasn't already been said."
In my opinion in the last 2000 years, nothing new has been said, rather it is the mingling and reintegration of old ideas, in an creative and beautiful style which has created great literature.
Nay, Rowling's implementation of the archetypes are much deeper than Lewis Carroll's.Quote:
Originally Posted by glover7
In my opinion it does not. The questions that will be debated throughout time are:Quote:
Originally Posted by spookymulder93
- Which writings constitute literature?
- Then, which of those constitute good literature?
The answers to BOTH are subjective and a matter strictly of personal opinion. The 'rub' is, that there are those in certain positions (say teachers, professors, essayists, etc.) who, taken by many, as authority figures are in a position to promote their opinions and so it goes...through time.
This thread is specifically about Harry Potter, and I believe that many will not read, like, or respect much of this series and unfortunately, by association, the author, simply because they became popular, in my opinion.
Oh, the opinions may be dressed up as other arguments, but looking at the merit of those points of view in good light, they seem, as one might say in some of the southern United States, "like putting lipstick on a pig."
I'll not step into the mire that is the last three words of the above quote; however, with regard to saying new things and if that is even possible, it comes down to the basic formula that there are only three stories to be told;Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III
- Man vs. Man (inclusive of wo-man)
- Man vs. self
- Man vs. nature
The Harry Potter series takes on all of those in an entertaining way, in my opinion. Is it new completely, no, but it's fresh.
Harry Potter vs. self in The Order of the Phoenix as well as Harry Potter vs. Voldemort and his nasty minions.
Voldemort vs. nature in all, but specifically mentioned in The Half-Blood Prince as murder being a crime against nature, for example.
That is unrealistic at beast. Literature is a universal word, there is a meaning. The fact people may debate his use is not a indicative that the word have not an objetive definition: the body of written text of a given culture with capacity to pass information. That simple. If you use this to every defition of literature, you will see it answers the question quite well.Quote:
Originally Posted by LMK
As what is good literature, the capacity to discern it is subjetive. But we know for a fact, good literature ignore time and space. I know objectvelly that Homer is good literature. Shakespeare, etc. Authorities does not mean anything: Shakespeare was attacked by Voltaire, Virgil by Ezra Pound, Joyce by Woolf, etc. The best defense good literature may have is themselves. The best form to show why Goethe was great is reading Goethe. It is not however the best argument of why you should like Goethe. That is subjetive part of art. People do not exactly like of what is good and this wont kill them. Art is not food. If eat too much candy, you may develop diabetis, but if you read too much Sidney Sheldon you may just have hours spent in peace.
What is right about your question is that we can not talk about an specific work of literature without addressing related issues, exactly like what is good literature, its effects, etc. But the assumption that Rowling receives critics because its popularity is not a good argument (just like the argument she could be "forgiven" by simplicity since it is just children literature) because Rowling dreams to be as popular as Shakespeare. Or in the long run as Lewis Carroll or many other authors which popularity is also impressive. And like anything, the reverse could be true: she have only such passionate defense because of her popularity. Both ideas are misleading.Quote:
This thread is specifically about Harry Potter, and I believe that many will not read, like, or respect much of this series and unfortunately, by association, the author, simply because they became popular, in my opinion.
Opinions are arguments, and <->. There is no much difference. What you may accept is the absence of support for the argument.Quote:
Oh, the opinions may be dressed up as other arguments, but looking at the merit of those points of view in good light, they seem, as one might say in some of the southern United States, "like putting lipstick on a pig."
Various books will be written through the ages some will promulgate others will not.
Some will have been well thought out and multi-layered; others may turn out that way to some without the author having thought of it.
Some will open eyes and broaden minds, with or without intention, others might simply allow a reader to drift away for a bit, while still others may be slammed shut after only a few pages out of frustration, disagreement or other opinion.
With regard to all books and all liturature, I maintain, it is opinion that makes it literature, it is opinion that makes it read or set aside, it is opinion that makes it recommended, it is opinion that gets it published, it is opinion that drives any discussion.
Anyone making declarative statements as though they hold the answers may pretend (to ONLY him/herself) that it is the spirit of debate, but fools only him/herself in that delusion.
I recommend Harry Potter books to parents who read to their children, children who are old enough to read, teens, and adults; anyone who cares to pass some time escaping.