Lim you sound find to me. Here is something to get everyone going. Twilight is also being studied in schools now.Quote:
Originally Posted by limajean
Printable View
Lim you sound find to me. Here is something to get everyone going. Twilight is also being studied in schools now.Quote:
Originally Posted by limajean
I wish to see this hypothetical 1 people and see if he reads only because of HP. I doubt so, but I would not waste my time thinking in millions and using 1 person for statistics. I know a guy who drives drunk and never hit his car, but that does not not encourage me to say that 1 drunk driver proves that alchool and wheels work together.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
I see you like to use the guideline text for internet debate: red herring, strawman,etc (Found it mostly in the sci-fic forums, very usual when Trekkies are debating with Warsies. Pointless of course) but arguments are not going to be helpful, not ours, if there is not an evidence of how Harry Potter impact in literature is helping to increase the number of readers while compared to other decades. The number of HP fans only show that they are already readers, not that became or will stay reading after HP.
And yes, I do not care about schools using HP. I am aware worst books were used before. But I care little for what others tell me to read, so bleh to the lists provided by schools. Yet, the main function of schools should be presenting options and Harry Potter is already supported by a massive cultural industry. Instead of adding one option, those schools are just going by what is popular and that is very negative.
Okay, i will defend Harry Potter to a point..
it's great fluff, good entertainment, good story lines etc
but the thought of it being studied in schools makes me worried...
TWILIGHT TOO? WHAT THE HELL?
Artemis Fowl is on the Junior Cert Curriculum here in Ireland along side, To Kill a Mocking Bird, Lord of the Flies, Goodnight Mr Tom, The Silver Sword, The Hobbit, Under the Hawthorn Tree, The Iron Man, Huckleberry Finn, Catch 22 and that other book i always forget, and plenty others... I think its all about show a broad spectrum of genres and finding works to appeal to all students.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joreads
English 440: Harry Potter's Library: J. K. Rowling, Texts and Context. (Kansas State University)Quote:
Originally Posted by limajean
English 444: Harry Potter and the Curse of International Fame. (Ball State University)
English 349: Fantasy (online course at University of Washington)
English 2991: Harry Potter and Folk Tale Patterns (Gordon College)
Lit 137: Harry Potter: Literary Allusion, Children's Literature, and Popular Culture (Eastern Michigan University)
Special Topics Grad Course: LITR 592: Harry Potter and Cultural Studies (Eastern Michigan University)
Introduction to Children's Literature. (Eastern Michigan University)
* Apparently Eastern Michigan has a Children's Literature program.
Symbols and Archetypes in Children's Literature. (Arizona State University).
ENG 2004: Exploring Fantasy Worlds. (Manhattenville College)
There are plenty of others. I make no judgement one way or the other in this particular post about whether they should or shouldn't be taught at the university. All I am demonstrating here is that they are being studied.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Funny I thought it was called basic logic 101. Logical Fallacies do not end an argument. People are more than welcome to restate their arguments in a non-fallacious way and continue. Why should I waste my time arguing with faulty reasoning? Your line of reasoning itself is a red herring and even has a touch of guilt by association. Oh no those unwashed unsophisticated nerds on Star Trek sites use logic not like us literary people! And how does pointing out that I am calling out fallacious reasoning of others when necessary, especially when I still am clearly rebutting their actual points, progress this conversation in any way?Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
Besides, this really hasn't been much of a debate, more like a one-sided massacre.
As for your first point it may be true that 1 person (although this was an exaggeration for the sake of comparing a negative to a positive) is statistically insignificant. Nevertheless, that's one more person who will be reading and eventually reading so-called "good" literature that wasn't doing so before. Again, which is better 1 or 0? A Positive or a negative? Who cares if we are talking about 100 new readers, 1,000 new reader, a 1,000,000 new readers, or 1 new reader. You're certainly not arguing Harry Potter stops people from reading, are you? So even 1 new reader is just that 1 new person who might not have been reading otherwise. For people who are so concerned about Americans not reading, you'd think you would be happy about anyone you could get. Your argument doesn't work because I was never making a statistical argument.
It is also true that Harry Potter alone doesn't make some one a reader. Again never made that specific argument. I've said books for entertainment can be a kind of "gateway drug" to reading "better" stuff. Of course, they need to enjoy the next book and then the next. There is no real reason to think otherwise.
If I had not read Star Wars, Goosebumps, etc. my vocabulary and reading speed and sense of following narrative and such would've gone to crap. I also never would've developed a love for reading (as I enjoyed those books and it encouraged me to read more). If someone had forced me to read "good" novels I clearly wasn't ready for then there is a good chance I would've found reading to be just another chore and been turned off by the whole venture. It's precisely that I got to read Star Wars, Goosebumps, and such that tickled my imagination, extended stories I was already interested in, that I continued reading and exploring newer stuff. Why anyone thinks I would magically have decided to pick up Shakespeare at the age of 21 if I hadn't been reading all along, even so-called crap, is beyond me. This is pretty much commonsense. It's also commonsense or inductive reasoning if you prefer that others must have taken a similar path as me into literature.
There is a considerable difference between being studyied at some university (or several) or being used in schools while teaching literature to young people.
In what way is anecdotal evidence an oxymoron?
Its a bit like "military intelligence, isn't it? OK... perhaps its closer to JCamilo's anecdote of the alcoholic who frequently drives drunk but has never had an accident. Such is not PROOF of anything... certainly not PROOF that driving drunk is not dangerous or irresponsible. A personal anecdote or two about how Harry Potter turned you on to reading (or how the porno stories turned someone else on... in more ways than one) to reading is certainly not PROOF that Harry Potter (or porno) promotes reading. I doubt that any school curriculum designer would insist that we add Harry Potter to the curriculum based upon hearsay that one or two kids admit that the novels turned them on to reading... but then again... school curriculum designers have been known to do stupider stuff than that.
This is a false analogy. You're comparing pornography to Harry Potter...
No... its not a false analogy... its just taken to a logical/illogical extreme. Certainly there is someone out there who will suggest that almost any book turned him or her on to reading. We don't base decisions for what should be taught in school upon such anecdotes. Going to the opposite extreme Harold Bloom declares that he became enthralled with poetry at age 12 by continually reading Hart Crane. I doubt that would be a good basis upon which to select what is read or taught in school. Most college kids struggle with Crane.
Quote SLG-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?
Quote SLG- 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 ™.
OK... let me get this straight. I ask how reading Dan Brown, Harry Potter, Twilight, or some other commercial schlock is better than not reading at all and that immediately makes me "condescending" and obviously insulting to your mother, Aunt Bea and cousin who never read classics but have successful and fulfilled lives. In other words it is OK to suggest that reading great literature may not be necessary... but it is somehow condescending to ask whether reading at all is necessary or whether reading schlock is inherently better than reading nothing at all? As for victimization and calling someone an "elitist snob" it would seem that the ploy of suggesting that by merely asking whether reading only schlock was better than not reading at all is somehow akin to insulting your mother and other friends and family who never read the classics pretty much succeeds at both of those at once... although I'll admit that it was not you who used the exact term "elitist snob".
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.
What you call negativity may just be criticism based upon experience. On a sight frequented by any number of posters who do take literature seriously it is only to be expected that not every comment is going to be "Gee, great! I loved it too." This applies to the "classics" and to challenging Modern and Contemporary literature, as well. There have been arguments over the merits of the Bible, Hemingway, and James Joyce, among others. I might also point out that negativity is a two-way street. I can't tell you the number of disparaging comments made about the Bible, James Joyce, Moby Dick, William Faulkner, John Milton, etc... without the least bit of intelligent argument offered to suggest why we should consider the opinions. Just a lot of "I didn't like it," and "It sucks." Then JBI gets attacked when he offers up a well thought out analysis of what he perceives as the weaknesses of harry Potter and he is immediately an elitist snob?
Yes, because my anecdote shows direct evidence of an individual who continued reading because they read whatever non-Canonical literature, thus it promoted reading for a single individual. Since individuals make up any given population, it is reasonable to believe others have followed a similar path based on observation. Basic inductive reasoning. As for your Bloom comment, it is also reasonable to believe others have gone on to read good literature by reading dense poetry. This part of my argument has nothing to do with whether we should teach Potter in school or not, but rather whether Harry Potter encourages some readers to keep on reading and develop a love of books.
I've elaborated on this three posts up:
"It is also true that Harry Potter alone doesn't make some one a reader. Again never made that specific argument. I've said books for entertainment can be a kind of "gateway drug" to reading "better" stuff. Of course, they need to enjoy the next book and then the next. There is no real reason to think otherwise.
If I had not read Star Wars, Goosebumps, etc. my vocabulary and reading speed and sense of following narrative and such would've gone to crap. I also never would've developed a love for reading (as I enjoyed those books and it encouraged me to read more). If someone had forced me to read "good" novels I clearly wasn't ready for then there is a good chance I would've found reading to be just another chore and been turned off by the whole venture. It's precisely that I got to read Star Wars, Goosebumps, and such that tickled my imagination, extended stories I was already interested in, that I continued reading and exploring newer stuff. Why anyone thinks I would magically have decided to pick up Shakespeare at the age of 21 if I hadn't been reading all along, even so-called crap, is beyond me. This is pretty much commonsense"
This hits on why JCamillo's false analogy of a drunk driver showing an individual creating a false correlation in their mind that just because they haven't gotten into an accident must mean drinking and driving is safe provides only a superficial correlation. Clearly, drunk driving is dangerous because statistically if you drink you're more likely to get into an accident.
I would agree statistics would suggest that Harry Potter is not the panacea to reading for the overall population that everyone was hoping for, but neither is any book for that matter. The real question is simple: is Harry Potter more likely to stop you from reading than it is to encourage you to read more? This is a simple question with one right answer.
Porn depicts women in a misogynist light that encourages men to beat, rape, and abuse women if we are to believe the most extreme feminist arguments on the topic (this differs a bit from my own perspectives on porno). While Harry Potter might not be the perfect book gender-role wise and at times encourages domesticity, I don't see anything in it that would necessarily promote someone to abuse, dominate and humiliate women. Harry Potter also deals with themes of friendship, love, racism, and rebellion against authority. All themes I hope people can get behind as good. You're against racism right? Porno can often encourage racism (white man brutally dominates black woman in hardcore sex, etc.) World of difference between these two concepts in what they do and promote. If you're incapable of distinguishing the obvious differences between porno and Harry Potter you aren't intelligent enough to engage in a debate with me or differentiate between one work of art from another.
Also reading your comments in this post, I think you're also misunderstanding what I mean by teaching Harry Potter in school. Not to mention you're conflating teaching Potter in school with Harry Potter helps some kids keep on reading. Two different arguments are being discussed in this thread, which are starting to get mixed up.
In school, I envision it more as part of free-reading where the kid still needs to respond to it on the appropriate intellectual level to learn the fundamentals of literature (plot, characters, setting). Or as a title on a summer list of books that they have to read and need to pick multiple titles anyway, which by the way already occurs at a Middle School level.
However, it could be used in a classroom successfully to teach the basics of narrative: character, plot, setting, etc. And get them talking about deeper issues in a way that is far more accessible to the average kid than Mark Twain. Maybe for a fourth or fifth grade class. It could be part of a library book club where the focus is still discussing Potter on a deeper level.
Basically your showing a lack of imagination about the possibilities for employing the book in a school setting. I am certainly not saying we should replace every book with Harry Potter and each year the students should progress by reading the next Harry Potter book, nor does it necessarily need to be used as a part of the curriculum. Though, it could be an optional text for teachers to use from a list of other books.
I haven't tried it out yet, but I suspect I could do wonderful things with Harry Potter to increase student's learning and understanding of literature.
I'm not addressing the rest of your post because it's more victimhood whining and has nothing to do with anything really.
With books like Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings and Twilight, I begin to suspect that Critics of Mr Bloom's ilk have missed a trick. Why are these books so popular? What do people find in them? Not rhetorical questions, I really want to know. The critics "blame" society for just about every publishing phenomenon. This really isn't good enough.
No, if I was a nitpicker I would Falacy of Style over substance because in most arguments you just say it is "Red herring" to dismiss without any explanation. But that is just silly, as Logic 101 is. And I found funny (maybe you are being ironic) to dismiss trekkies and etc while defending Potters. Evidently, my line of reasoning was not even on topic, it was a matter on form.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
Yes, I agree. So far there is no Evidences of the beneficial changes caused by J.K.Rowling.Quote:
Besides, this really hasn't been much of a debate, more like a one-sided massacre.
See, you are too worried with Logic 101, that you do not apply basical logical. Where is the evidence that Harry Potters fans did not read before? In fact, the audience for those books shows that they aim teenagers, meaning those kids are all exposed to book in their schools. So, in fact, you are asking 1 or 1. And God bless the teachers not Harry Potter.Quote:
As for your first point it may be true that 1 person (although this was an exaggeration for the sake of comparing a negative to a positive) is statistically insignificant. Nevertheless, that's one more person who will be reading and eventually reading so-called "good" literature that wasn't doing so before. Again, which is better 1 or 0?
Them you have no argument. Logic asks for a good support, for example...Quote:
A Positive or a negative? Who cares if we are talking about 100 new readers, 1,000 new reader, a 1,000,000 new readers, or 1 new reader. You're certainly not arguing Harry Potter stops people from reading, are you? So even 1 new reader is just that 1 new person who might not have been reading otherwise. For people who are so concerned about Americans not reading, you'd think you would be happy about anyone you could get. Your argument doesn't work because I was never making a statistical argument.
When I was 10 years, I read Dante's Comedy. What guided me to Divine Comedy was a Comic Book of this guy:
http://blogs.gamefilia.com/files/imce/u390906/kazar.gif
Obviously, I would argue that what leads People to read Dante is Kazar, the a Tarzan wannabe from Marvel comics. I would suggest, since we may agree that getting everyone reading Dante is caused by Kazar. Italian schools should change all their system of education and enforce the reading of Kazar.
But I know, while I care less for people reading Kazar, I know the reason I am a reader of Dante is not Kazar. I will not argue that. I will not pretend I have strong evidences because of this guy:
http://blogs.gamefilia.com/files/imce/u390906/kazar.gif
Harry Potter does not stop anyone from reading. (Neither critics). But the reffutal here is the almost certainly argument that it helps. We need evidence for that. And if we are talking about developing the necessary traits to deal with most complicated texts, the guy will need something else. Harry Potter is quite simple. It intends to be. As you said it is just fun. So I hope people read HP and something else.
I must point out that I read Divine Comedy for fun. If we consider that a certain work is just enterteiment, then it is so basic that should not be praised. Even Don Quixote will not make someone a reader. Imagine HP.Quote:
It is also true that Harry Potter alone doesn't make some one a reader. Again never made that specific argument. I've said books for entertainment can be a kind of "gateway drug" to reading "better" stuff. Of course, they need to enjoy the next book and then the next. There is no real reason to think otherwise.
Actually I Would say if wasnt for Star Wars it would be something else. You had freedom, found your path, did your mistakes, developed by yourself, had access to the material, received a proper education. I am sure the fact that I was allowed to enter in my greatfather library and being him a important regional writer had more to do with my pleasure with books than Kazar. But since not everyone have a greatfather that wrote books, I will avoid saying that is the path.Quote:
If I had not read Star Wars, Goosebumps, etc. my vocabulary and reading speed and sense of following narrative and such would've gone to crap. I also never would've developed a love for reading (as I enjoyed those books and it encouraged me to read more). If someone had forced me to read "good" novels I clearly wasn't ready for then there is a good chance I would've found reading to be just another chore and been turned off by the whole venture. It's precisely that I got to read Star Wars, Goosebumps, and such that tickled my imagination, extended stories I was already interested in, that I continued reading and exploring newer stuff. Why anyone thinks I would magically have decided to pick up Shakespeare at the age of 21 if I hadn't been reading all along, even so-called crap, is beyond me. This is pretty much commonsense. It's also commonsense or inductive reasoning if you prefer that others must have taken a similar path as me into literature.
They should not answer this because a literary critic do not analyse Marketing or Mass Communication. Bloom does not argue the merits of Shakespeare lies on his sales either.Quote:
Originally Posted by prendrelemick
No, I get yelled at because I discuss something other than the text's popularity - the actual text - every time Harry Potter comes up, the best excuse for the text's quality seem to come from outside the text itself - when I talk about the faults I find inside the text, ultimately, my judgment is taken out of context, and is used as a judgment on Harry Potter as seen outside of the text - Harry Potter the brand, if you will - I don't judge the book on its popularity - Marquez is one of the most popular living writers, and I would go as far as to say he deserves an even bigger reputation, and to be brought into the classroom more, in areas other than Latin American Studies, or Latin American literature or whatever.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
I would rather people disagree with me and actually read my posts, then just agree with them, because they feel they suit the agenda of "Potter sucks" or "Popular Schlock" or whatever, or even worse just dismiss me for insulting the brand that gets kids reading. All my judgments, ultimately, come from a close reading - though, I will profess, a close reading of Dan Brown is one chapter of one book - there is no reason to go any further there.
Seriously, how much is lost because we can only discuss whether the popularity of Potter is justified, or whether its social utility at getting semi-literate lazy kids to pick up a novel is any worth - why not give some evidence of the texts value from within the text, and not within the brand - I wouldn't, for instance, say T. S. Eliot is a good poet because he got people reading, I would say T. S. Eliot is a good poet, because he wrote good poems, and then I would go into them to explain why - how then, can it be justified that Potter's quality is there, without actually looking into the text, and yes, saying they are entertaining is not really saying anything - porn is entertaining, T. V. is entertaining, that doesn't mean I should discuss the latest new video releases.
As for porn disrespecting women, that is a construct of the genre - they easily could portray men as submissive, and woman is dominant, but the argument against that would be that would make less money, and be less entertaining, and isn't what we want entertainment, not some high brow politically correct... you get the point.
Just because the Potter may have gotten some kids interested in literature does not mean it is a good text, or worthy of literary discussion, or time. In the same way, reading Eliot in highschool may detract some people from reading poetry in the future - does that mean that Eliot is a bad poet?
The popularity of the text does not justify the text. You say you learned to love reading reading things most people cannot consider loveable - does that justify those texts as great works? You cannot prove you wouldn't have learned to love reading reading something more worth loving, so really, such anecdotes hold no ground, as they do not say anything about the text, or about what the effect ways.
The truth is, less people are reading now then ever in certain countries. Whether some kids learned to love Harry Potter is irrelavent, as, quite simply, we cannot say that any more or less people would be reading classics with Harry Potter never having been published - the text did reshape children's literature, and I'd say Children's cinema to an extent, by making it a more lucrative industry, so there is that, but does that mean it helped reading? Did Power Rangers, for instance, lead to American children loving television more, or what about The Brady Bunch, or any other such toss. Should we praise and discuss Pokemon for making kids love TV and Videogames more? Those things are, supposedly, entertaining at any rate, why not praise them.
Quote from an earlier post: "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."
I explain exactly why his comments are a red herring. I explained exactly why your comments were both a red herring and a guilt by association. I always explain why a piece of reasoning is fallacious. Try again! One of these days you'll actually make a coherent argument that sticks!
Your Kazar point does not contradict what I actually said:
Since the crux of my argument is: "It is also true that Harry Potter alone doesn't make some one a reader. Again never made that specific argument. I've said books for entertainment can be a kind of "gateway drug" to reading "better" stuff. Of course, they need to enjoy the next book and then the next. There is no real reason to think otherwise."
It doesn't matter if it is Kazar, Spiderman, Harry Potter, or Goosebumps. The point is to keep kids reading. The fact that you bizarrely believe your actually rebutting what I said by raising that point further indicates you're not even reading what I'm actually writing. Of course people need to read books before Harry Potter, how else would they have developed a strong enough vocabulary to read Harry Potter?
At this point you're merely rehashing the same old arguments that were demolished 50 posts ago. To be honest, it's hard for me to even take you or most the people in this thread seriously anymore other than JBI so unless someone has something new to say I will only be addressing him.
The problem of translating young readers from children's books to classics is not a new one. The Victorians came up with the children's genre and Charles and Mary Lamb rewrote Shakespeare for children in order to bridge the difficult language transition that Shakespeare poses for the novice. I don't think we can say that more will read the classics because they read Harry Potter - only that they are more likely to. They are given the tools of reading, but I think classics need study and guidance. It needs good teaching to show the merits of a book beyond an interesting and exciting narrative. I dislike Austin, but a teacher of mine with his enthusiasm and interpretive skills taught me to appreciate Emma, and be in a position to critically judge. First you have to get the kids reading - to understand the basics. To look beyond the text to the influences perhaps, and the tradition that have come together in the book. HP is a simple narrative with good imaginative touches. It does the job it is intended for.
I would gladly do a deeper text analysis to explain why I like Harry Potter, think it is worth studying, reading, etc. Unfortunately various arguments got conflated as this thread progressed: Does Harry Potter encourage kids to read?, Is Harry Potter good literature in its own right?, Should Harry Potter be taught in school?, What is appropriate for what kids at what age?Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
As far as the anecdotes, they do have ground because well I am pretty sure I know myself as a reader at that age and what makes you think I didn't give some of those texts a try. I didn't like Mark Twain in 11th grade, what makes you think I would've liked it in 4th? Now certainly I didn't try every possible text available as that would be impossible, but I have a good sense of what appealed to me and what didn't at that age. I've accepted multiple times in this thread that other kids were more high brow and other kids less so. My attitude as a librarian is you adjust the book to the kid's interest and ability, especially when we are talking about private reading, not force Mark Twain down their throat if they can't handle it and clearly aren't interested. With that said, if a kid could handle Mark Twain, of course you give that particular kid Twain over Rowling.
I am not claiming causation, but rather correlation. If I had stopped reading Goosebumps, Fear Street, Wheel of Time, Cam Jansen, Star Wars, Choose Your Own Adventures, and such, I certainly wouldn't have decided to pick up Mark Twain and Lewis Carrol instead. I would've just spent more time playing video games. It was by reading Goosebumps, Fear Street, etc. that I stayed interested in reading in general, and eventually branched out into those other works. Even your own story of how you eventually came to pick up Eugene Onegin doesn't contradict anything I've said. Again, it's common sense that getting kids to read whatever, especially something they find interesting and entertaining, has a better chance of eventually leading them to read "better" stuff. I am NOT saying it absolutely will. Just that it has a better chance. Why is this basic principle so hard to understand? I am not saying it CAUSED them to start reading, I said there is correlation as it led them to keep exploring more books where they just as easily could've stopped reading altogether.
You do act like Trekies and Warsies, you even think you are "winning". You waste your time arguing about the elitism stuff (which we are attacked, not exactly by you) and misses the key points of anything, such the absurd lack of evidence to claim that HP produce more writers, and think you ate doing well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
I had no intention to contradict it. Albeit true, I was using irony, because you defended yourself with "comparing Potter to pornography (altough Sade, Bataile are pornographic and are superior writers than Rowling)" instead of going to the main point raised by Stukles, that your experience does not prove that HP (or any book) can be seriously taken as anything that improve reading. I mocked it with a comic book because I am not jumping to illogical conclusions: the reasons I am a reader are not explained by one experience. Neither yours.Quote:
Your Kazar point does not contradict what I actually said:
Yeah, therefore, like I said, it was very easy. It does not matter. Thus it is irrelevant. Any reading will do. If any reading will do, HP is just a fashion of the momment. Will be replaced just like replaced other books. So Stukles have his point: if it is any, why not the better option possible? I am aware the Elit is happy to hear it.Quote:
It doesn't matter if it is Kazar, Spiderman, Harry Potter, or Goosebumps.
Then why you wrote this?Quote:
The point is to keep kids reading. The fact that you bizarrely believe your actually rebutting what I said by raising that point further indicates you're not even reading what I'm actually writing. Of course people need to read books before Harry Potter, how else would they have developed a strong enough vocabulary to read Harry Potter?
"Nevertheless, that's one more person who will be reading and eventually reading so-called "good" literature that wasn't doing so before. Again, which is better 1 or 0?"
You know, 0 means nothing? No doing so before, does not mean they are"of course doing" Are you reading what you are writing?
Meh, so you are a trekie or a warsie?Quote:
At this point you're merely rehashing the same old arguments that were demolished 50 posts ago. To be honest, it's hard for me to even take you or most the people in this thread seriously anymore other than JBI so unless someone has something new to say I will only be addressing him.
I'm spreading negativity about the quality of JK Rowling's writing? well, the problem is there is very little positive to be found when one actually holds the actual texts of Rowling's work up to critical analyses... it is poor writing.. sorry but this is just true... why should I tell people that it is great they are reading when they read trash and then come around to proclaim it to be good, if not great literature... but as to my comments and the few other Harry Potter critics around...Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFifthElement
Quote:
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:
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?
again, you suggest I am not so unique, well I make and made no claims on being unique, but I am within a rather small minority in this instance.. maybe not on this particular forum as this is a literature forum and therefore I am not surprised that many have a negative opinion of Potter (I still would argue many more even on here view it in a positive light as shown by the majority of posters being somewhat favourable)... the chances of most Harry Potter fanatics, children or adult ever seeing and taking seriously any criticism of Harry Potter is most likely quite slim, the books are far too popular for that... and far too supported by the Western Media Machine... my diatribes are not aimed at the children reading these books for entertainment, but the adults supporting this as reading for education, for good literature, for being challenged, provoked, etc... good writing does this, not garbage..
And i have stated multiple times I could care less what people read for entertainment, but when i see Harry Potter and other such fluff sneaking into the education system, well then, I do believe there is a problem, when I see the reading public being so uneducated, adult and child, as to vote Ms Rowling the greatest living British writer by 3 times the votes of her nearest competitor well then I worry... and i think it is safe to assume this thought that JK Rowling is the greatest living writer is not limited to just the UK... this makes me think why would any of the children reading Potter ever progress to greater works if they have already read the greatest, for won't everything be quite the disappointment then.. this is overstatement but in a sense it is true...
but you know what.. nevermind, I can live and some day die and enjoy my life doing whatever I want to do, I don't want to have kids, I don't want to participate in the education system in anyway currently, so I could really care less if the education system degrades itself to include such mediocrity in english class... I could really care less if reading all but dies out in young people and the next generation only has "functional" literacy and no feeling for "high" literature... in a hundred years maybe it will be JK Rowling who is glorified as the greatest writer of all time, because all that matters is how popular a novelist was, regardless of how terrible a writer... I don't really care... I'll enjoy my life all the same, and if people want their children and the next generation to be one that overwhelmingly declares the superiority of mediocrity, that crushes the last vestiges of elitism (or I would say intellectualism) well then that is fine by me.. so be it. it really won't bother me...
Paul, you hit everything right on the head! Great post!Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
my diatribes are not aimed at the children reading these books for entertainment, but the adults supporting this as reading for education Islandclimber
You are too general. I could use HP to demonstrate the mechanics of the novel, narrative etc. Why not use a popular book to do this that stimulates. You could then look at more complex novels - the kind of intellectualism you want people to have needs the right steps to get there. You may have read and appreciated classic books from a young age, but I can remember reading LOTR in class with my peers - and discovering a mate who had never read a book in his life including the one we were supposed to be doing. We were in the then top stream in the comprehensive we attended. My friend wasn't a fool either. How could he be encouraged? He certainly didn't like LOTRs.
Well I will get more specific if needed.. and I will say one thing Rowling is a master of.. well two... using cliches...
and the literary technique of "deus ex machina"... Rowling is most definitely the goddess of overusing this technique.. is that a good thing? you tell me...
Stlukes, I don't disagree with you. I’m more than happy for the text to be discussed, opinions to be raised and debate to wage based on a review of the text. What I was challenging was the intense negativity and use of immoderate language which seems to me to be inappropriate whether the debate is around Harry Potter, the Bible or Faulkner. I agree that comments like the ‘gee, great! I loved it too’ add nothing to the debate but neither do terms like ‘junk’ and ‘mediocre’ (or ‘schlock’ for that matter ;) ) which, as well as adding no value, inflame emotional reaction. Maybe I’m way off the mark but it seems particularly unsuitable, to me, in a thread for which the target audience, one would assume, is likely to be 8-14 year olds.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
If the concern here is how you get children to read beyond Harry Potter, I doubt very much that trashing Harry Potter is the answer. If children are led to believe that the books that they enjoy are not worthwhile then this does not encourage further reading but leaves them with a choice: to attempt literature which they may or may not enjoy but which is considered ‘worthwhile’, regardless of their aptitude, personal taste or interest, or not to read at all. I’m all in favour of encouraging children to read a wide range of literature, how else are they to find that which most suits them? But in order to do so a wide range of literature must be available. This includes HP. Whilst I don’t think it can be said that the success of HP has directly encouraged more children to read, this would seem impossible to measure, it is likely true that some children have learned a love of literature through HP, some of those will have gone on to read more challenging literature. Whether this is more or less than would have occurred with another book is impossible to know. However, the overwhelming success of HP has raised the profile of reading as an activity in the media, which in itself may have encouraged a few more kids to give reading a try, and may have encouraged a few more parents to take their kids to the bookshop or the library. I can’t see how these things in themselves can be considered unworthy of some recognition.
Well, that attack didn’t come from me and neither did I accuse JBI of being an ‘elitist snob’. Neither have I noted JBI being 'attacked' in the thread either though there has been some discussion between JBI and DrkShadow03 over the merits and demerits of the book. Both put forward well thought through arguments in a non-destructive manner without resorting to derogatory language. If you read back through the thread it is JCamilo who raises the 'elitist snob' point and if I'm reading correctly Camilo is one of the people arguing against the value of HP. It was also a point which was later clarified as being 'ironic'.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
In general, I’d rather see a more disciplined debate, personally, without the derogatory or inflammatory language and name calling whether aimed at HP lovers or those who would criticise it.
I don’t think I can agree with this suggestion that it’d be better to read nothing than books like Harry Potter or Angels and Demons or the latest Jackie Collins or whatever. To me that’s almost like saying ‘is it better to eat no food at all rather than food with low nutritional value’. And it also begs the question: if the availability of what is considered ‘worthwhile’ literature is so narrow and appeals to so few, whether due to aptitude, personal taste or interest, does literature have any ‘value’ at all? When you talk about literature as having ‘value’ or ‘no value’ what exactly is it that you mean? What can be learned from ‘worthwhile’ literature that can’t be learned through observation, experimentation and relevant non-fiction study? Does literature, whether ‘good’ literature or otherwise have any intrinsic ‘value’?Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
and the literary technique of "deus ex machina"... Rowling is most definitely the goddess of overusing this technique.. is that a good thing? you tell me...
The Phoenix in the Chamber of Secrets is introduced earlier on. It is less clear in the Philosopher's Stone as to why HP is able to resist Quirrell, and this is only given an explanation later. It doesn't detract from my point that this can be critically reflected upon in education. Children can be taught by good and bad examples. The critical reader can appreciate what a book does whilst recognising and learning from its shortcomings.
I don't know - to me here most favored technique seems the red herring - the first 5 books certainly use that as the main structuring - first one, the Snape guy is the villain, then boom - he is not. The second, the Malfoy kid is the villain, then snap - he is not. The third, the Black guy is the villain, then snap - he is not. The fourth, the Russian guy is a villain, and then, snap - he is not the villain. I mean, the whole plot is built around that exact structure over and over again, with melodramatic Harry having to go save the day, to find out the villain is not actually the villain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
I guess by the third one though, you know to not actually expect the villain to be who we think it is, and alas, the Deus Ex Machina ending comes and makes the red herring fit - in truth, being saved by a Phoenix, or a Dumbledore or whatever is clearly a cheap ending.
But either way, the characters aren't believable anyway, so who cares. The only really good character in the whole series is Alan Rickman, because Alan Rickman is such a good actor that his presence in the movies reshapes the character in the book to be a better character - the voice in one's head, when corresponding to that slow, evil, menacing tone of Rickman is made 100x more effective - that tone can make a Shakespeare out of the most mediocre of dialog.
I agree that Alan Rickman is brilliant as Snape - apparently he's really good in the last one - and the Snape factor is one of the things that make the books good. There is a sense of uncertainty about Snape the whole way through that really adds to the tension.
As for the turnaround of the perceived villain - perhaps the technique is overused, but there is plenty going on in the books to absorb this.
First, I would like to say that I totally agree with what DarkShadows and Paul have said. They both seem to have a better understanding of the 'inner workings of youth today.' Children want to be part of a group, to share a commarderie (sp), and to be part of an in group. They can not be faulted because of what is the 'classic of the day'. They want to read what they think is relevant to them, not a stuffy, 'old' novel, that is yellowing with age on the library shelf. And it is entirely correct to assume that some children are not mature enough to handle some of the harder texts. Do you want them reading the Cliff Notes, because that's what would happen.?
In time, when they are ready themselves, without any pressure from other people, they will, IMO, realize that HP wasn't the greatest novel in the world. It will only be after they read alot of junk, that they discover what makes a great novel. You can't rush children to grow up too fast. What's the point?
In my own case, my father was extremely well read. He took me to the library and to used bookstores all the time. But, I grew up very sheltered and was very immature for my age. Did he force me to read any 'great' novel? No. One of my deepest regrets,however, was not being able to finish the book he loved Green Mansions. He wanted me to read it. I tried many times but could not finish it. Now that I'm old, I still have it sitting on my shelf. It calls my name from time to time, but I can't bring myself to open it. I'm not sure why.
Let me finish by saying that, even now, one of the reasons I joined Litnet was because I knew I didn't read as many classics as I should have in my youth and I'm trying to make up for lost time. I'm so envious of all the Litnetters that are younger than myself and who have such a good foundation of literature, but I'm telling everyone, that I would not have been ready for them earlier. My motto, better late than never.
It was ironic, since this discussion spawned other thread which was an obviously attack to JBI style of posting. But much earlier Mathor suggested the majority attacking HP are doing so because they did not read HP, since "it is beneath them".Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFifthElement
Also, I am hardly making critical arguments against HP. I focused my opinions in countering ideas such "any reading is better tha none" (obviously false, A good reading is better, we do have the option), "harry potter is leading people to read more" (it is the educational system, access to book, family support, etc that cause it), "It is only enterteiment" (so what, everything can be enterteiment, even critical reading), to which kind of reading HP is leading the public to and the problems of marketing that damage the freedom of options.
And Frankly, I have very much doubts that anyone but JBI did any critical reading of HP in this thread. He pretty much remained unsawered. As Dkrshadow, his attemp to say that HP have great qualities (a contraditory factor, since he also argues that it is entertemeint only) was posting a part of HP, claiming it have those vallues, not explaining why at all and being answered by MortalTerror which just showed that there is considerable better options and anything he claimed was just basical in writing a romance.
And obviously, it is not the first time (and not just with HP) that the snob card was used. Lets not pretend it is not the first time that JBI reduces the magic of HP to a static, uninsteresting thing.
Well, anyone should be worried with reading texts that will develop the skills of the reader,but that argument is false. The option is not reading Harry Potter or nothing. It is reading something else or better. We have such option and of course, when Teachers offer a book in school what good they are doing? Most of time either they will train those skills (so HP is hardly a challenge) or open doors to unknow book (HP needs it? They already domain the market, instead of giving HP, teachers should be giving an option. It is not just HP, it is any book which access is already easy). Also, goes why HP? As Dkrshadow confessed, it does not matter which work, goosebumps, comics, etc. It could be anything, so lets make use of the freedom of choice and not be guided by popularity.Quote:
I don’t think I can agree with this suggestion that it’d be better to read nothing than books like Harry Potter or Angels and Demons or the latest Jackie Collins or whatever.
Many good literature are accessible. Alice is not the most unacessible book in the world. Neither is Don Quixote. Or 1001 Nights. Obviously, I doubt anyone wants to make kids starts with James Joyce, but there is options that add complexity, demand more intelectual work, etc. I suppose is that the argument for him. For me, the argument should be "How to walk among shelves without searching anything specific", but obviously, schools can not do that with dozens of kids at sametime. But the family obviously can...Quote:
To me that’s almost like saying ‘is it better to eat no food at all rather than food with low nutritional value’. And it also begs the question: if the availability of what is considered ‘worthwhile’ literature is so narrow and appeals to so few, whether due to aptitude, personal taste or interest, does literature have any ‘value’ at all? When you talk about literature as having ‘value’ or ‘no value’ what exactly is it that you mean? What can be learned from ‘worthwhile’ literature that can’t be learned through observation, experimentation and relevant non-fiction study? Does literature, whether ‘good’ literature or otherwise have any intrinsic ‘value’?
Many good literature are accessible
Yes it is, but the skillful teacher will use whatever motive force, be it peers or the full marketing machine of the publishing companies through paraphernalia, games and films, to develop the skill of reading.
I agree that HP doesn't stand up to close critical scrutiny as a classic- it is full of cliched ideas - the series was perhaps too long - some of the characters are simply drawn - but you would not get the reading response and commitment from children if you were not on the bandwagon, but trying to convince them that they shouldn't read this "garbage" but some other classic.
I don't want to come across as someone defending HP against all odds. I can see it's worth to children - and I still disagree with Islandclimber that it is a primarily children's book- despite the marketing opportunities that it spawned with adults.
What other book has been able to stimulate book talk between the generations. It wsn't a case of you should read this by parent to child, you got both parties sharing it. The series was passed around my own family, and we will be all going to see the movie.
I won't be reading the series again - I'l let you know if I do - but I can see the value.
I do not think I would classify a teacher that picks the easy route (it is popular this summer, kids will love it!) as skillful. Again, they have 383834747 options, they should give the kids the options.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
Of course not. As I said when someone suggested that negative critics would make kids stop reading, it is not usual that teenagers will just do what an adult tell them to do. But the point is: Harry Potter is already know and accessible. It does not need to be promoted by teachers. Teachers should be giving options, opening doors and not going a door that the students can find own their own.Quote:
I agree that HP doesn't stand up to close critical scrutiny as a classic- it is full of cliched ideas - the series was perhaps too long - some of the characters are simply drawn - but you would not get the reading response and commitment from children if you were not on the bandwagon, but trying to convince them that they shouldn't read this "garbage" but some other classic.
Which other book? Alice in the Wonderlands? Treasure Island? The tales of Hans Christian Andersen? Anyways, until the XVIII century, there is not a specific production of literature for kids (hence La Fontaine or Perrault or 1001 Nights), so many books worked for several age groups.Quote:
I don't want to come across as someone defending HP against all odds. I can see it's worth to children - and I still disagree with Islandclimber that it is a primarily children's book- despite the marketing opportunities that it spawned with adults.
What other book has been able to stimulate book talk between the generations. It wsn't a case of you should read this by parent to child, you got both parties sharing it. The series was passed around my own family, and we will be all going to see the movie.
I do not think I would classify a teacher that picks the easy route (it is popular this summer, kids will love it!) as skillful.
I would classify a skillful teacher one that can take kids from where they are to somewhere else in their learning. I'm not sure what you mean about this easy route. I presume you mean easy to teach. A teacher of anyone has to start where the student/ pupil is and move them on. How are they supposed to make the leap from comics to classics? There is plenty of mileage in HP - from all the good bits - story, tension, imaginative development - to the bits that could be done better - which there undoubtedly are. We both appreciate that the skill of reading is crucial. I don't think you appreciate the competition it has these days with all the technology available. HP couldbe a vehicle to where you want them to be. All the stories you mentioned are fine, but will they have the same pull as a currently popular book? You know the answer is no, but it doesn't mean that they can't be further along the journey.
Which other book? Alice in the Wonderlands? Treasure Island? The tales of Hans Christian Andersen? Anyways, until the XVIII century, there is not a specific production of literature for kids (hence La Fontaine or Perrault or 1001 Nights), so many books worked for several age groups.
Yes, but when has there been a published book that has stimulated 6 year olds to adults at the same time. I think it has been a great sharing experience.
The easy route was described by you. It does not take kids to somewhere else, it takes where they already are: They already are into Harry Potter and all the good bits you mention, they do got it. They need not an addult to mediate the reading of Harry Potter, they already do it. So, it is very easy to just go with what the kid knows and not take the responsability to show the kid the options, to create the passion for all literature instead of one book, and use even HP positivelly, as "since you like already reading..."
And no story will have a pull a currently popular book. Specially if the popular book domains every aspect and is actually endangering the freedom of choice, which is a negative point of the cultural industry.
And Yes, Alice was written for a 7 years old (HP is not, I am saying kids but HP is a teen-young addult book), and Alice is doing this for more than a century.
I think you are mistaking reading the book with teaching through the book, which is what I'm describing. As I have said in earlier posts, it is an opportunity to explore a narrative and its shortcomings too. That could lead kids on to being more critically minded readers.
Not really, as I said teaching is not very useful for a critical analyse because it does not demand much and those who like to read it are just going to be upset because it will be like JBI coming to their class. Then it will be negative, not positive.
Most of the techniques in HP are simple, easy to grasp to the point that is unecessary to place an addult and meddle with the enjoyment of HP. And you could use better examples (why would you show a technique if not when it is best employed?).
The other function and main of teaching literature is incentive and HP being so popular, hardly call for incentive. So, all in all, the teacher will be more effective using the many other options, even those related to HP (after all, fans of HP may have interest to see other stories from where the characters originated. For example, why not using Dumbledore to show the archetypical wise old man or the fantasy bestiary to take them to other fantastical histories? Then, HP would be helping the teaching of the literature).
Easy for you but not children. These things have to be taught.
I hear what you're saying, but the comment was prompted by this earlier comment by stlukesguild:Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
so read something 'worthwhile' or don't read at all because reading 'pulp' fiction is just like not reading anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
But I think this is a step too far and I think that before answering whether one novel has greater value than another we need to understand whether literature in itself has value and, if so, what that value is. I'd be very interested in views on those points.
I wholeheartedly agree with your comments here:
andQuote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
andQuote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
I can see where you're coming from. I still think the curriculum needs a range of literature and that shouldn't exclude popular literature. If all kids took to reading then perhaps there is no incentive in studying HP, but at the same time I wonder if critically reading something which children may have already encountered may encourage them or elucidate how the critical reading process differs from reading for pleasure, and that critical reading skills can be applied regardless of whether the book is a 'classic' or otherwise. In so doing there's a link created between the literature they read in the classroom and the literature they encounter outside so they no longer see literature as a discipline split in two: the books they enjoy reading and those which they're forced to read in the classroom.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
JCamilo, I don't know what you're copy of 1001 Nights is like but mine is 2600 pages long!! I'm not sure that equates to an 'accessible' read for an 8 year old :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
I love the Harry Potter series They are like a modern day Charles Dickens tales. Magic exist in many more literary creations Should we just throw away a great story in order to satisfy the "understandings" of a bunch of fanatics that cannot see past the tips of their noses Literature=Freedom AND I am a Christian - Eastern Orthodox To believe in God means to believe in something that cannot be touched or explained Would it be so bad if magic existed A little bit? I know Harry Potter made me read and that is good enough for me.:)
I do not think Stlukes advocate lack of reading. I think he refers what kind of effect this reading may have or not, where it is leading and the special importance of a given work. And it seems like he does not see it on Harry Potter, so the effects could means as almost not reading, or like Darkshadow ended: it did not matter the work, it must be any work... Anyways, Stlukesguild writtes better than I do...Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFifthElement
Well, yes. I do not know how it works in United States, but I suppose they search for specialists to define what is good or not. Anyways, last year I helped the national selection for schools (public schools) and there was several criteries that are applied. I do not agree with all of them and I think the system is flawed. There is the pedagogical parameters, then You receive the book and must judge it. Since some were for 9 olders onwards, there was illustrations, so there is a judgment from illustrations. The books cannt contain typographic mistakes. The quality of the biding must be good enough (since it is public money that will buy it and it must last). There can not be idealogical messagens. There was not a single poetry book, but I am sure they have some. You must explain why you would approve or not, from the artistic point of view as well. Then you give a note (from 1 to 10, but the person who hired me told me to give from 7 to 10, since 7, 8 is basically an elimination, and if you send something bellow than that and the book does not have blatant mistakes or racism, etc, they will ask the person to review the reasons the books are eliminated, and lets say, if JBI uses his reasons, they will not consider). So, the best graded books are offered to the schools and each made the list of which books the teachers want to use.Quote:
But I think this is a step too far and I think that before answering whether one novel has greater value than another we need to understand whether literature in itself has value and, if so, what that value is. I'd be very interested in views on those points.
I analysed 8 books, gave one 10 (a surprisingly teen book, funny, that the main character used Inner Monologue all the time) and gave a few 7's. One was to for example to a minor russian author, but the text had blatant flaws of translation (the translator talks about russian revolution, altough the author is from XIX century, so it was a clear interference) and another it was to a version of Iliad, done by a famous children writer here. But the translation was awful, almost like reading a newspaper, no poetry, no resource, just the list of battles and names. I would give less, but what they did? They returned the book because the critics that I aimed to a prestigious author could not be right. They wanted me to raise the grade and eliminate a few bits of the text. So I am sure the system is flawed.
Yes, I do not think we should eliminate modern books, or popular books. I think however it is dangerous to pick those in the best-sellers tops, because it is an easy way. I think people can use Harry Potter, or at least work with elements of Harry Potter to show the other options. Who knows, showing Dumbledore is a Merlin or shorts, may lead to a new interest on Arturian stories (without focus on the feminism, holy grail misteries, real artur) that we have today.Quote:
I can see where you're coming from. I still think the curriculum needs a range of literature and that shouldn't exclude popular literature. If all kids took to reading then perhaps there is no incentive in studying HP, but at the same time I wonder if critically reading something which children may have already encountered may encourage them or elucidate how the critical reading process differs from reading for pleasure, and that critical reading skills can be applied regardless of whether the book is a 'classic' or otherwise. In so doing there's a link created between the literature they read in the classroom and the literature they encounter outside so they no longer see literature as a discipline split in two: the books they enjoy reading and those which they're forced to read in the classroom.
Quote:
JCamilo, I don't know what you're copy of 1001 Nights is like but mine is 2600 pages long!! I'm not sure that equates to an 'accessible' read for an 8 year old :lol:
Well, I have more than one, but HP isnt supposed to be around 12 and not 8? Anyways, 1001 Nights is a book that does not need to be read from begining to the end, maybe read from 11 to 14 years :D (not to mention the oral storytelling of 1001 Nights fables can be used in classrooms) and I have seen people getting interessed in reading the Nights if someone tell about the translations...
I think a choice of book for a curriculum is an impotant decision, but I ont see you're reasoning JCamillo. If everyone knows it - then there is no point? You can look deeper into the text. But the fact is that not all the kids will know it. It is a much more complex situation than you decribe. I was at school in the 70s, but my peers didn't take kindly to having unfamiliar classic stuff. I'm talking Tolkien and TH White, (another post remindedm of this). Few read them. We really needed popular novels just to get some of us started.
I've heard that too, but then I reckon most reasonably competent 8-9 year old readers could manage it. Certainly the first 3 books anyway, after that the length probably becomes more off-putting.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
It's interesting to see how books are selected. I suppose a panel approach makes sense. I'm not sure how this works in UK or the US for that matter. From what I've been able to glean from the internet HP doesn't appear in the UK curriculum, though I do know my son's class used it last year (he would have been 7-8 then) as a study comparing literature to a movie, but it was not a serious study of the text.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
But what I was more curious about, and perhaps I have not expressed overly well, is the question of what is it that study of literature teaches which can't be learned by any other means? Is the study of fictional literature critical to intellectual, spiritual, or social development?