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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charles Darnay

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

---

“The first folio does not, to be sure, contain quite all that Shakespeare wrote. It lacks both the nondramatic works and one of the thirty-seven canonical plays, Pericles, Prince of Tyre (though Shakespeare’s sole authorship of this is generally considered very doubtful): nor does it present us with the most satisfactory text of all the remaining plays. For eleven of them a clearly superior version is provided by an earlier printed edition. Yet the Folio remains the principal authority for considerably more than half of the thirty-six it represents; and it is in fact the only authority we have for most of these." - From Norton edition preface on first folio.

So, the scholarship seems to think almost 1/3 of the plays came from better sources and it is "principal authority" (hardly face vallue) for more than half of 36 plays. This is hardly bits and calling it majority is quite exagerated, no?

Strange that this would be in the Norton's version of the folio considering that Norton's Shakespeare stick very closely to the folio - excepting perhaps King Lear (which is the only play included in the Folio in which an earlier are better.)

And as for the poems and Pericles (as well as Troilus and Cressida, which does not appear in the first folio despite the above quoted preface) - well of course if they are not in the folio we cannot judge them based on anything but the original form they are in.

What I initially thought you were implying - which may be incorrect on my part - was that you were stating that Shakespeare's folio has been re-worked post-1623.

Well, the preface is bigger, more details of course.

I never denied the folio is the main source, just that it was not the last version of Shakespeare plays, for 2 centuries there was studies and debates until we have something close ot what we have now, the folio playing a major part in those studies. His popularity now is something completely different as the one he had on XVII century and that is much due the critical interpretations that increased in much the vallue of several plays.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charles Darnay

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

---

I think the Fourth Folio was the most influential source for the 18th century up until the mid-Victorian period, when people started to try and produce authoritative editions. Of course, there is a great deal of similarity between the First and Fourth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis

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

---

What is a professionally acceptable response to a very successful work of art, whether that is Rowling's HP series or Andy Warhol's graphics? I would like to be able to distinguish valuable criticism from parasitism that views a successful work of art as an opportunity to augment the critic's own reputation at the expense of the successful work or its audience.

I view Bloom's activity as parasitism, not useful literary criticism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis

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

---

Most authors want an audience that likes what they are doing. One way to measure this audience is to count the number of books they have sold or given away if they do not like to make money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis

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

---

Anyone has the right to criticize or review any work of art either positively or negatively, but no one has the authority to do so. Bloom was relying on his authority and his expressions of scorn to get people to accept his position. My position is that he has no such authority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis

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

---

How could any author plan a series that stretched over a decade much in advance? Again, because of the acceptance of the books and movies over the years, whatever flaws existed in these works of art, they were not major enough to hurt its popularity.

Okay. I think we're at a stand still.

Perhaps I'm being foolhardy in wading in, but...

Quote:

---

How could any author plan a series that stretched over a decade much in advance? Again, because of the acceptance of the books and movies over the years, whatever flaws existed in these works of art, they were not major enough to hurt its popularity.

---

The Lord of the Rings was composed over a period of 12 years, and is clearly an intellectual whole. Dante's Divina Comedia was composed over a period of 13 years, and again its seperate parts make an intellectical whole. Wagner's Ring, in my opinion the greatest single work of artistic output our species has ever produced, was composed over a period of 26 years, and yet makes an intellectual whole as well.

This isn't to say that it is necessary for great literature to be meticulously planned in advance - Dickens, for example, never planned much beyond the next chapter, never mind the whole book. I'm just challenging your view that detailed forward planning is that unusual.

Quote:

---

Anyone has the right to criticize or review any work of art either positively or negatively, but no one has the authority to do so. Bloom was relying on his authority and his expressions of scorn to get people to accept his position. My position is that he has no such authority.

---

I really don't agree. It's true that Bloom is an arrogant git, but one does have to take some measure of a reviewer's experience in the field. Bloom is, by an objective measure, very well read - this means that he has a lot more to compare HP against than most people do. He also has an impressive 'toolkit' - his experience in dissecting texts. In that regard, I think he is at least better placed to make pronouncements on literary qualities.

Quote:

---

Most authors want an audience that likes what they are doing. One way to measure this audience is to count the number of books they have sold or given away if they do not like to make money.

---

I think one has to make a distinction between works being popular and populist. It is possible to write literature that is both of high quality and very accessible. It is also possible to write dreadful literature that is horribly obscure. Some of our greatest authors, however, have clearly written novels that they would have known to be so inscrutable they would never have much of a popular readership: Joyce's Ulysses, for example, or Proust's À la recherche du temps perdu.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lokasenna

The Lord of the Rings was composed over a period of 12 years, and is clearly an intellectual whole. Dante's Divina Comedia was composed over a period of 13 years, and again its seperate parts make an intellectical whole. Wagner's Ring, in my opinion the greatest single work of artistic output our species has ever produced, was composed over a period of 26 years, and yet makes an intellectual whole as well.

This isn't to say that it is necessary for great literature to be meticulously planned in advance - Dickens, for example, never planned much beyond the next chapter, never mind the whole book. I'm just challenging your view that detailed forward planning is that unusual.

---

I consider the HP series to be an "intellectual whole". How is it not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lokasenna

I really don't agree. It's true that Bloom is an arrogant git, but one does have to take some measure of a reviewer's experience in the field. Bloom is, by an objective measure, very well read - this means that he has a lot more to compare HP against than most people do. He also has an impressive 'toolkit' - his experience in dissecting texts. In that regard, I think he is at least better placed to make pronouncements on literary qualities.

---

We agree on the "arrogant git" part, but I suspect we agree on even more. We agree that there are people who review better than others. We agree that there are people who have read more than others. We agree that there are people who have a wider experience. I think we also agree that we should expect these people to do a better job reviewing a work of art and provide us with more information that would help us enjoy the art.

Where we disagree is on the authority or the pronouncement part that comes without evidence. I expect someone who is better read to be able to provide better evidence than one who is not. So why is the better evidence missing? Even more so, why do those supporting such authorities not demand better evidence? Why do they let the authority get away with it?

It seems that the current practice of literary criticism, at least as I see it illustrated by Bloom's own behavior and those who defend him, is that one is expected to accept without evidence anything an authority has to say and then parrot that back to whomever might disagree with the authority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lokasenna

I think one has to make a distinction between works being popular and populist. It is possible to write literature that is both of high quality and very accessible. It is also possible to write dreadful literature that is horribly obscure. Some of our greatest authors, however, have clearly written novels that they would have known to be so inscrutable they would never have much of a popular readership: Joyce's Ulysses, for example, or Proust's À la recherche du temps perdu.

---

I haven't read Proust, but I have attempted Ulysses a few times. I think you are addressing the core of the problem about authority and evidence with this example. Instead of finding a popular work to scorn, the authority in this case finds an unpopular work to promote.

Andersen's Emporer's New Clothes written in the early 19th century summarizes the problem in a children's tale that has become a cliche to keep referencing even when it is most relevant. Is a work of literature "great" because it is "inscrutable" and some authority has made a pronouncement that any reader who doesn't like it is stupid and incompetent? Does a cloth exist because an authority claims "it is invisible to anyone who is too stupid and incompetent to appreciate its quality." (Translation cited from http://deoxy.org/emperors.htm)

The problem for the reader confronted with Ulysses is whether this text is on order of, say, Einstein's general relativity that will take the reader some time to understand or whether it is an invisible cloth that fraudulent weavers have offered. A literary critic needs to justify those texts with evidence but literary critics like Bloom seem to think that evidence is beneath their dignity.

YesNo, your problem is simple. You are so convinced of the excellence of your beloved series that you consistently are willing to send us as gophers to point out the errors, of which you deny.

Simply put, those of us who are not fanatical over the text do not have the time and energy to go line by line proving you wrong. We did not like the books in the first place.

As for the coherency of a whole, or whatever - basically put, you criticize Bloom on the same grounds anybody here can criticize you. Your authority is limited and compromised, and your knowledge in the field lacking, hence your own obsession with such a text, in that you lack a critical eye - your evaluating criteria is shoddy, and your reading is shallow and prone to fanatical delusions.

As for the Emperor's New Clothes bit - you missed the basic point of the story - the populace is afraid to speak, but the foolish child speaks. The point is simple - Bloom the foolish child is the only one willing to speak against Harry Potter, to which he probably has had quite the headache from annoying fanatics criticizing him. It didn't exactly help his sales or publicity - it basically just reaffirmed his critical sense of right and wrong, that he could speak out against something so popular.

Now, as for Bloom's grounds for criticism, I would say he has more grounds to criticize the book than you, and more of a foundation to say it is mediocre than you do to say it is good. If you disagree, prove it. He is the one with the professorship at Yale, and the numerous award-winning publications and best-sellers in criticism behind him. If we are going to use your logic, as a critique he is the most populist of them all - the best seller, the big boy - and you are without ground to speak.

Now, I do not agree with all Bloom says, but I am just illustrating the silliness of your point.

You are trying to play literary critic. Prove to me Harry Potter is as good as you say it is, and is a coherent whole. Prove it, I dare you to try. If you cannot, well then, stop telling others to prove you wrong. You are like a spoiled child who finds out Santa Claus isn't real and yells at one's parents to prove it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lokasenna

It's true that Bloom is an arrogant git, but one does have to take some measure of a reviewer's experience in the field. Bloom is, by an objective measure, very well read - this means that he has a lot more to compare HP against than most people do. He also has an impressive 'toolkit' - his experience in dissecting texts. In that regard, I think he is at least better placed to make pronouncements on literary qualities.

---

Then it's such a pity he didn't make use of his talents, his impressive toolkit and experience in dissecting texts in this particular piece, because I'd love to have seen an experienced critic take on Harry Potter. I'm not scared of negative reviews of the books I like. They can be just as thought provoking and entertaining as a positive review, as long as the reviewer writes well, and makes good points.

I've read absolutely nothing else of Bloom's other than this piece. But if you people who are springing to his defence here can forget for a moment that it's about Harry Potter, do you honestly feel he did a good job of making his point? Is it up to the mark? Is it what you'd expect of a good critic?

Now I myself can never explain properly why I like or dislike a book, but I just thought an experienced critic would be a lot better at it than me.

Yes, it is up the mark, but it is not a big deal he got close. Because it is not a critical review of Harry Potter, rather an inquiry on the effects of reading books determined by the popularity rather "aesthetic" motives. He thinks it will weaken the development of new readers. Hence he takes for granted the reasion why HP would be bad passing by the motives without deepth. Harry Potter just happen to be the example, usually he hits strong on Stephen King.

Bloom is apocalyptic (he is as, part of his jewish side) and snob, and a bit outdated, but now his worries may seem a little more than an old man rambling, considering reading statistics are not very positive on last decade in the world as a whole. It may be some inadequacy of studies still unable to cope with a new concept of reading far apart from books, but it is the book world Bloom is talking about.

What is not important is that being truth the claim HP reading lead to other books (because this claim cannot be proved, not matter the book, and seems that reading leads to reading anyways) but that market, and not the book, is leading people to other books (Or to say the main reason). And this is obviously a bad path for literature. Like in this thread, people are making her new book a best-seller even if there was a big effort to make clear it it is not a HP like book. But of course, the HP market is more dominant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

Now, as for Bloom's grounds for criticism, I would say he has more grounds to criticize the book than you, and more of a foundation to say it is mediocre than you do to say it is good. If you disagree, prove it. He is the one with the professorship at Yale, and the numerous award-winning publications and best-sellers in criticism behind him.

---

I am beginning to see our cultural differences, JBI. I don't care whether Bloom or anyone else holds positions like some Me-No-Dummy Chair at Dingbat University, or whatever. However, such information seems to impress you. That totally puzzles me.

Regarding my authority, please profile me as one who has no authority. I don't expect to convince you, but I definitely do not want to convince you based on any information about my background. That would defeat the purpose. A reader needs to accept or reject an argument based on evidence not idol worship.

You ask me to "prove" that the HP series is not mediocre. I already have in a previous post. I will repeat it. The series is not mediocre because of the number of people who have been entertained by that series. It goes into the millions. That is hard evidence. It does not rely on anyone's authority. You don't even have to read a single word of the series to understand it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

Bloom is apocalyptic (he is as, part of his jewish side) and snob, and a bit outdated

---

I want to make sure my position is clear about Bloom. I am aware that he is Jewish, but his religious roots have nothing to do with my opinion of his writing.

My original interest in Bloom goes back some years when I heard he linked the Jahwist source, or J, in Genesis with Bathsheba. I was attracted by this idea and tried to find evidence supporting it in some of his writings. What I found was very little evidence to justify his claim and way too much uncritical praise for what J wrote.

However, I think I found enough evidence in Baruch Halpern's David's Secret Demons to justify that Bathsheba could have been the writer of that source, or at least someone close to her. Although I am not positive, I assume Halpern is also Jewish. Compared to Bloom, Halpern is a relief to read.

Bloom's Jewish background has nothing to do with his inability to present convincing evidence.

The jewish trait is not religious, Bloom seems to adopt the culture not the religion while examinating a text and also some of the traits of the Jewish texts after the destruction of the temple. He always searches for a end of circle, a revelation that is not there.

I know, you are the kind of person who think someone is a world wide renowed expert on a field because the stars said so. It is cute.

What is a professionally acceptable response to a very successful work of art, whether that is Rowling's HP series or Andy Warhol's graphics? I would like to be able to distinguish valuable criticism from parasitism that views a successful work of art as an opportunity to augment the critic's own reputation at the expense of the successful work or its audience.

What do sales figures or success in financial terms have to do with the aesthetic merits of a work of art? The best selling record album in 1967 was the Monkee's More of the Monkees. Somehow I doubt that anyone would imagine that this was a greater album than the Beatle's Sgt. Peppers or The Doors' first album. Popularity is only important in terms of measuring aesthetic worth over a long period of time... after fads and the marketing have cleared.

I view Bloom's activity as parasitism, not useful literary criticism.

As if your opinion hold's any merit whatsoever.

Most authors want an audience that likes what they are doing. One way to measure this audience is to count the number of books they have sold or given away if they do not like to make money.

Somehow I suspect you know very little about artists of any ilk whatsoever. Most artists that I know do desire to make money. In most instances, however, they wish to make money doing that which they love and believe in. Most artists create for an audience that they imagine as being not unlike themselves. The effort in "marketing" comes after the fact. The problem that many best-selling artists face is that the "money men" want the cash to keep flowing... and the push the artist to produce more "blockbusters"... to gear the work toward the largest possible demographic.

Anyone has the right to criticize or review any work of art either positively or negatively, but no one has the authority to do so.

All opinions in art are subjective. There is no objective body of rules by which we might measure or construct a good or great work of art. If only it were that simple. While all opinions in art are subjective, some opinions are worth more than others. What you dismiss as "authority" is an earned reputation. The opinions of individuals who have proven themselves well and deeply read, perceptive, discerning... even original are likely to be afforded much more "weight" than the opinions of individuals who haven't. Professional achievements are part of this equation. This is not to say that the professional critic or the professor or other writers are always right and that their opinions are above criticism. If you, however, wish to challenge such educated opinion... those speaking from a position of authority... the onus is on you to prove your position... something you haven't even attempted.

Bloom was relying on his authority and his expressions of scorn to get people to accept his position. My position is that he has no such authority.

Unfortunately... your position is one of no authority... not Bloom's. Few critics waste their time engaging in an in-depth analysis of work that they believe in clearly of mediocre (or less) value. The only reason that Bloom (or any other serious critic) would have stooped to engaging in criticism of the Harry Potter novels is because they feel outraged at the level of popularity afforded to what is deemed mediocre writing... when there is so much finer writing out there. This isn't unusual. One of the most written-about artists over the past decade was Thomas Kinkade. Kinkade was a horrible painter. He works are sentimental, cotton-candy schlock marketed toward a Middle-American public that knows nothing of art. His paintings have all the aesthetic merits of a Hallmark Christmas card...

http://360digest.com/uploads/ThomasKinkade.jpg

The only reason he was so written about is because his paintings and prints sold like hotcakes... in spite of the fact that no serious curator, critic, self-respecting art gallery, museum, etc... would even think to take him seriously. Again... popularity is not a measure of artistic merit... either for or against.

We agree on the "arrogant git" part, but I suspect we agree on even more. We agree that there are people who review better than others. We agree that there are people who have read more than others. We agree that there are people who have a wider experience. I think we also agree that we should expect these people to do a better job reviewing a work of art and provide us with more information that would help us enjoy the art.

This is what critics do... but they don't tend to expend their efforts upon mediocre writing. Serious literary criticism is not like the book or film reviews... where the audience turns to some better read/experienced person as a guide in helping them to make up their decision as to whether to spend their money on a given book/film: "Thumbs up or Thumbs down!"

Where we disagree is on the authority or the pronouncement part that comes without evidence. I expect someone who is better read to be able to provide better evidence than one who is not. So why is the better evidence missing? Even more so, why do those supporting such authorities not demand better evidence? Why do they let the authority get away with it?

In most instances in which a serious critic dismisses a work of art/literature/music as clearly mediocre... or worse... they don't engage in a deep level of analysis is support of their opinion. In the case of the Harry Potter novels, such an analysis is not likely to be necessary to those who are well-read and discerning... and not likely to be of any value to those "fanboys" certain of their man's/woman's genius.

I haven't read Proust, but I have attempted Ulysses a few times. I think you are addressing the core of the problem about authority and evidence with this example. Instead of finding a popular work to scorn, the authority in this case finds an unpopular work to promote.

What again, has popularity to do with aesthetic merit? Ulysses and In Search of Lost Time are now both 100 years old. In spite of this fact, they are both still read and recognized as "classics" not only by "experts" such as college professors, critics, and subsequent writers... but also by a sizable audience of well-informed readers. Some works of art are more difficult... demanding... than others... and as a result they will commonly have a smaller audience. This has nothing to do with artistic value. No one is forcing you to read Ulysses or Proust if you don't wish to... but to presume that because you didn't like something... or because it isn't on the best-seller list it is inherently lacking as art is weak thinking in the extreme.

Andersen's Emporer's New Clothes written in the early 19th century summarizes the problem in a children's tale that has become a cliche to keep referencing even when it is most relevant. Is a work of literature "great" because it is "inscrutable" and some authority has made a pronouncement that any reader who doesn't like it is stupid and incompetent? Does a cloth exist because an authority claims "it is invisible to anyone who is too stupid and incompetent to appreciate its quality.

The problem with employing the tale of The Emperor's New Clothes by way of analogy, is that the analogy has itself become an overused and abused cliche. Obviously it has a certain attraction to those who wish to paint the "experts" as fools... but ultimately, it tends to come off as an expression of reverse snobbishness and pride in one's own ignorance.

I am beginning to see our cultural differences, JBI. I don't care whether Bloom or anyone else holds positions like some Me-No-Dummy Chair at Dingbat University, or whatever. However, such information seems to impress you. That totally puzzles me.

In other words achievements mean nothing to you.

You ask me to "prove" that the HP series is not mediocre. I already have in a previous post. I will repeat it. The series is not mediocre because of the number of people who have been entertained by that series. It goes into the millions. That is hard evidence.

That proves absolutely nothing. That's not evidence of artistic merit. More people eat at McDonald's in one day than will eat at the finest restaurants in a year. Am I to assume that such is proof of the great cuisine offered under the Golden Arches?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

I am beginning to see our cultural differences, JBI. I don't care whether Bloom or anyone else holds positions like some Me-No-Dummy Chair at Dingbat University, or whatever. However, such information seems to impress you. That totally puzzles me.

---

Why not, exactly? I'll never understand the snobbish attitude some people take against those who are educated. You may not care if Bloom has a professor ship at Yale and it may not impress you, but that doesn't really matter. One doesn't get a professorship at a university, much less Yale, because they aren't well-read in their respective fields. Whether you recognize the accomplishment doesn't change the fact that someone in that position is indeed a better authority than most anyone who isn't.

Quote:

---

Regarding my authority, please profile me as one who has no authority. I don't expect to convince you, but I definitely do not want to convince you based on any information about my background. That would defeat the purpose. A reader needs to accept or reject an argument based on evidence not idol worship.

---

How can we ascertain your authority? I thought no one had the authority to pass judgements in literature (even though you're doing so).

Quote:

---

You ask me to "prove" that the HP series is not mediocre. I already have in a previous post. I will repeat it. The series is not mediocre because of the number of people who have been entertained by that series. It goes into the millions. That is hard evidence. It does not rely on anyone's authority. You don't even have to read a single word of the series to understand it.

---

I think JBI was just pointing out the hypocrisy of some of your statements. For one, you claim no one has the authority to tear down a piece of literature as Bloom does, yet you seem to think you have the authority to build up a piece of literature. So, what, does this authority only apply to those who apply negative criticism?

Also, your main argument that states Harry Potter is a good, valuable piece of literature hinges on the fact that it's a great seller--i.e., what sells is an indicator of worth. You then outright dismiss the opinions of Bloom . . . yet he is the world's most popular critic, one who is consistently taught, read, and one who has sold millions of books. By your own criteria, his opinions should hold a substantial amount of weight. His books sell. The market has spoken. He obviously knows what he's talking about.

Kudos to all of you for shredding YesNo's argument. *sarcasm* I don't agree with your opinion, YesNo, that millions of copies mark the merit of the series, but it seems to me that if millions of people like something I would look at it to see why they like and what merit it has, which is certainly valid.

As to Harold Bloom, or rather the argument that concerns him, what I take from that argument is that we all have the right to express our opinions on the worth or lack of worth of a piece of literature. I hear what you're saying, Mutatis. I grant that Bloom is educated and erudite in a way that I can only aspire to, but I still disagree with him.

Do I think Harry Potter is a worthwhile piece of literature? Yes. Is it valuable? Hmmm, maybe. Maybe not. I would probably characterize it as a ripping good yarn. You know some other ripping good yarns? The Last of the Mohicans, and Treasure Island, both popular literature of their day, although each is arguably written in a more literary style.

I'm not saying Bloom can't be disagreed with--I frequently do (I think he's way too attached to the Western dead-white-guy canon, to a near-sexist and prejudiced point), and I think his ideas are now quite outdated, and, from what I've heard, he just seems like an unpleasant person. I was just pointing out that YesNo's dismissal of Bloom's authority was hypocritical, by his (sorry if you're not a man, YesNo--I really don't know) own criteria.

Fair enough, Mutatis. I'm not sure I think his argument is hypocritical, which means the "pretense of having virtues, beliefs, principals one does not actually possess."

I think when YesNo says he has "no authority," or one way this could be interpreted, anyway, he means that he does not have the prestigious backing of degree or university or a publication. Do you think he is saying that by having no authority he has no right to publicly express his opinion? Which would be a curious argument, indeed.

Quote:

---

Kudos to all of you for shredding YesNo's argument. *sarcasm* I don't agree with your opinion, YesNo, that millions of copies mark the merit of the series, but it seems to me that if millions of people like something I would look at it to see why they like and what merit it has, which is certainly valid.

---

I suppose that it is so, because they provide people with a simple entertainment. There is a mystery, but it's not very complicated. Let's look at the first book and the Snape & Quirinus Quirrell situation. For a long time Snape is presented as the bad guy and Quirinus Quirrell is shown as the good guy, incapable of plotting any intrigue. However, at the end of the book it turns out that Snape is the good guy while Quirrell is the bad guy.

So we have the bad guy turns out to be good while the good guy turns out to be bad scenario. It's the simplest mystery scenario I know. By the way, Don Brown uses it in his books.



Since I have read all the books, I think I have right to say something about them.

1. There are some things that could have been better. For example the introduction of Ginny through the comments of others, if they were not limited to descriptions like that: She is hot. If the comments had more depth and told us something about the author of the comment, it would be an interesting way to introduce a character and deepen the characterisation of the commenting person.

2. I think it would have been better if Harry ended up with Luna. After the fifth book I thought that he would be with her, especially since it turned out they have similar life experience, loss of a parent/parents, etc. and as a result could understand each other very well.

3. The idea of Deathly Hallows had clearly not occurred to Rowling until she was writing the sixth book. Just think how strange it is that it took Harry, Hermiona, and Ron seven years to realise that Harry's invisible cloak is unique and incomparable to any other. Besides, the events in the fifth book allowed for a great introduction of Deathly Hallows.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qimissung

Fair enough, Mutatis. I'm not sure I think his argument is hypocritical, which means the "pretense of having virtues, beliefs, principals one does not actually possess."

I think when YesNo says he has "no authority," or one way this could be interpreted, anyway, he means that he does not have the prestigious backing of degree or university or a publication. Do you think he is saying that by having no authority he has no right to publicly express his opinion? Which would be a curious argument, indeed.

---

Honestly, I don't entirely understand his thoughts on authority. From what I understand, he thinks no one, no matter if they have a degree or prestigious accolades, has the authority to pass judgements about literature . . . yet he's doing just that. I also found it hypocritical that he find HP to have an objective amount of worth because of sales, yet he still writes off Bloom, a man who has sold many, many books. I can't be much more clear than that.

Kudos to all of you for shredding YesNo's argument. *sarcasm* I don't agree with your opinion, YesNo, that millions of copies mark the merit of the series, but it seems to me that if millions of people like something I would look at it to see why they like and what merit it has, which is certainly valid.

So in other words... the ideas that popularity is the ultimate measure of artistic merit, and that all opinions are of the same worth (or lack thereof) regardless of achievement or gained/proven reputation should be above question if challenging them also results in questioning the literary merit of a book you enjoyed *more sarcasm*:D.

I don't think anyone has suggested that the opinions of the masses are irrelevant. Certainly not me. I've recently been painted as an "anti-elitist" for suggesting that we should consider the opinions of the audience... as well as the "experts": critics, academics, historians, subsequent artists, etc... I agree that popularity draws your attention. How many other children's books have I never even heard of because they weren't all over the press, in the theaters, marketed to the high hilt in the big book chains, etc...?

As to Harold Bloom, or rather the argument that concerns him, what I take from that argument is that we all have the right to express our opinions on the worth or lack of worth of a piece of literature. I hear what you're saying, Mutatis. I grant that Bloom is educated and erudite in a way that I can only aspire to, but I still disagree with him.

Certainly we all have the "right" to express our opinions. The internet has given everyone the right to be a published critic. All opinions, however, are not created equal. You are free to disagree with Bloom. We all have on occasion. No one has questioned your right to enjoy a work of literature regardless of popularity or critical opinions. If, however, you are arguing that a work of literature that is generally acknowledged as being of questionable value in aesthetic/critical terms is in actuality a great work... a "classic"... then the responsibility is laid upon you to prove your point... and drawing attention to the popularity of the work is no proof for or against.

JCamilo, thanks for replying to my question.

Well I looked up Bloom, and I'm thinking I might not dislike him after all, if I read some of his proper work.

Quote:

---

Much of contemporary criticism takes a novel and holds it up to a series of incongruous and irrelevant sociological magnifying glasses—gender theory, feminism, Marxist analysis, and all sorts of postmodern muck. These critics, whom Bloom has memorably called the School of Resentment,...[cut]...
From this website - http://www.vice.com/read/harold-bloom-431-v15n12

---

"School of Resentment" LOL! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

We agree on the "arrogant git" part, but I suspect we agree on even more. We agree that there are people who review better than others. We agree that there are people who have read more than others. We agree that there are people who have a wider experience. I think we also agree that we should expect these people to do a better job reviewing a work of art and provide us with more information that would help us enjoy the art.

This is what critics do... but they don't tend to expend their efforts upon mediocre writing. Serious literary criticism is not like the book or film reviews... where the audience turns to some better read/experienced person as a guide in helping them to make up their decision as to whether to spend their money on a given book/film: "Thumbs up or Thumbs down!"

Where we disagree is on the authority or the pronouncement part that comes without evidence. I expect someone who is better read to be able to provide better evidence than one who is not. So why is the better evidence missing? Even more so, why do those supporting such authorities not demand better evidence? Why do they let the authority get away with it?

In most instances in which a serious critic dismisses a work of art/literature/music as clearly mediocre... or worse... they don't engage in a deep level of analysis is support of their opinion. In the case of the Harry Potter novels, such an analysis is not likely to be necessary to those who are well-read and discerning... and not likely to be of any value to those "fanboys" certain of their man's/woman's genius.

---

I understand your point, and I wouldn't complain if he had just dismissed Harry Potter along with Dan Brown, Stephanie Meyer and others. I'm used to seeing Harry Potter in such company, and even if I feel that they ought not to be there and belong to a class of their own, I understand that it's "mediocre books" they are dismissing, just as I don't have to read every Harlequin romance to dismiss the whole genre as trash.

However, if a critic singles out one particular Harlequin romance (rather than the whole genre) and says it's trash, he'll have to have read it in the first place, and secondly, give some reasons for why he thinks it's bad. He doesn't have to give anything like a deep analysis. It's perfectly possible that the book is too mediocre (or he finds it too mediocre) for a deep analysis. He can even just give direct quotes from the books, to show how laughably bad the book is. I've seen this happen with 50 Shades and Da Vinci Code, and it works.

Unsupported statements about a particular book or series of the "this is bad because I say so" variety are simply annoying, whether it's a schoolboy talking about Shakespeare, or Bloom talking about Harry Potter.

I think when YesNo says he has "no authority," or one way this could be interpreted, anyway, he means that he does not have the prestigious backing of degree or university or a publication. Do you think he is saying that by having no authority he has no right to publicly express his opinion? Which would be a curious argument, indeed.

Yes/No explicitly stated that Bloom had "no authority" to proclaim a given critical opinion. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. Thanks to the internet, everyone now has the right to publicly express their opinion... but contrary to what Yes/No is suggesting, all opinions are not of the same value. Some opinions are afforded more weight than others. My doctor's opinion on what exactly it is that I have got is afforded more worth far more than the opinion of my mother-in-law, my friends, or a poll of the man on the street. Artistic opinions are also afforded a degree of merit based upon the achievements and the reputation of the individual. The critics are not always right... but neither are the doctors... but the fact that the "experts" are sometimes wrong does not invalidate the value of their opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis

I'm not saying Bloom can't be disagreed with--I frequently do (I think he's way too attached to the Western dead-white-guy canon, to a near-sexist and prejudiced point), and I think his ideas are now quite outdated, and, from what I've heard, he just seems like an unpleasant person. I was just pointing out that YesNo's dismissal of Bloom's authority was hypocritical, by his (sorry if you're not a man, YesNo--I really don't know) own criteria.

---

We're all attached to something. The guy spent his youth reading the Western canon, and enjoyed it. Can you blame him for following his early interests? Would you say that Feynman was too attached to physics?

Have you any examples of him being sexist? The early chapters of his book "The Western Canon" is mostly dead white males because ancient societies were ultra-sexist. Later on he gives much space to Austen, Dickinson, and Woolf.

Do ideas ever date in literature? For instance, Aristotle's idea of catharsis has lasted for a long time. I can't see how Bloom's idea of "agon" will ever date. It might not be trendy today, but who's to say it will not bloom again. ('scuse pun :))

Some people are good readers, some people inferior ones. Harold Bloom is most certainly a good reader. With that said, that doesn't mean he is always a good arguer or that all his points are correct. After all, there are some critics who have said nice things about Potter. Not to mention there are plenty of examples of other critics taking to task Bloom's critical interpretations of more traditional Canonical works in favor of their own.

To fuel this debate I'd recommend watching last Fridays Newsnight Review show on BBC2, which has three interesting reviewers talking about this new book. (With two female reviewers and a female chair they can't easily be accused of sexism at least!)

The reviewers made many of the points that Bloom has made about Rowling - full of cliches, "telling not showing", etc, but it was far from all negative. They pointed out that she is a "magician" at character and situation creation.

Maybe that explains her popularity, and her bad standing with "high literary" critics. Even if a story uses lots of clichés and shortcuts, if the plot and characters are "magic", then who cares?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

To fuel this debate I'd recommend watching last Fridays Newsnight Review show on BBC2, which has three interesting reviewers talking about this new book. (With two female reviewers and a female chair they can't easily be accused of sexism at least!)

The reviewers made many of the points that Bloom has made about Rowling - full of cliches, "telling not showing", etc, but it was far from all negative. They pointed out that she is a "magician" at character and situation creation.

Maybe that explains her popularity, and her bad standing with "high literary" critics. Even if a story uses lots of clichés and shortcuts, if the plot and characters are "magic", then who cares?

---

Bloom's argument would be that this would be considered a B level or C level book. It is not the worst out there, and he has nothing particular against it, other than it is held up as a standard.

We have As out there, he lists a few, and I could list a few of my own - the question then comes down to time. Should people read these books, and should they be praised, and do they contribute to literacy? Bloom's argument is, they do not contribute to anything but their own sales, and to a mediocre sense of fulfillment, they do not lead to life-long readers of great books, and mindful critics.

I tend to agree. I have no problem with people reading those books. But I have a problem with people claiming they are saving literacy, or that they are great literature. They are a light entertainment that serves the needs of entertainment, but they do not lead to anything, and therefore have no actual value outside of their entertainment. They do not increase literacy by anything substantial or lead to more readers finding great books in a way that they wouldn't have found them before.

Some argue they move on from Potter to better books, but I have a hunch if I had given them a better book they could have gone straight into it. Potter is not God, and he didn't really change the world, or change reading, and has little to offer. That is Bloom's argument.

"The reviewers made many of the points that Bloom has made about Rowling - full of cliches, "telling not showing", etc, but it was far from all negative. They pointed out that she is a "magician" at character and situation creation.

Maybe that explains her popularity, and her bad standing with "high literary" critics. Even if a story uses lots of clichés and shortcuts, if the plot and characters are "magic", then who cares?"

Which is kind of what I was saying.

"I don't think anyone has suggested that the opinions of the masses are irrelevant..." I certainly got the impression that some did not think it was important. I was merely asking us to look at why people liked the story. I wasn't pointing fingers.


"Artistic opinions are also afforded a degree of merit based upon the achievements and the reputation of the..."

Where did you get the idea I was arguing against that? I was just trying to clarify YesNo's position in my own mind. Why is that such a terrible thing? You seem angry. I think debate should be thoughtful and fun, with many ideas expresssed which in turn lead to more ideas. While you seem to want to quash all opinions but your own. "Seem to" being the operative phrase.

I guess only time will tell if Harry Potter "saved literacy." I can only agree that it's a B or C level book. That's where I would put it.

But I would leave them on the library shelves. Having worked my butt off for many years trying to get thousands of young people to even want to pick up a book, I cannot decry any book that succeeds in accomplishing just that. I tend to be egalitarian where books and reader taste are concerned, and I also saw first hand the joy those books brought to my own kids.

I mean the Harry Potter books were a publishing phenomenon at a time when reading just wasn't popular. It got kids to read. Why is that not a good thing? Now whether they continue to do so is a matter of question. They're probably not if they don't see their parents reading, or if reading is not prized by the culture they live in.

And one would hope they'd go on to read other things and better things. But not all people are going to do that. Look at the 50 Shades of Gray books. I haven't read it yet, if indeed I ever do. I have a friend who just can't get over all the women at her work who keep gushing over it. So I do kind of understand your concern.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qimissung

I mean the Harry Potter books were a publishing phenomenon at a time when reading just wasn't popular. It got kids to read. Why is that not a good thing? Now whether they continue to do so is a matter of question. They're probably not if they don't see their parents reading, or if reading is not prized by the culture they live in.

---

I think that's a good point Qimi. If they're not reading at all their chances of going on to read 'great' literature are zero. If they're reading something, even if it's whatever B or C grade means (I mean, who grades them?) then there's a chance they will go on to read something better. Or not, it's largely down to personal choice after all. But I think about my own childhood and I grew up reading books about ponies and the Chalet Girls series and now, many years later, I'm reading Middlemarch. So it's possible.

And if they don't, so what? Who does it damage? What's so important about reading novels anyway? Are we caught in a 'dead' idea about the nature of reading and the reading skills that the next generation will need?

If only time will tell if HP saved or not literacy, then how you can say It made kids reading?

That is the entire point of the debate: there is no evidence whatsoever it increased the number of young readers or mature. The last decade has been actually a decade of decline.

So, let's be coherent: if only time will say HP saved literacy then wait to say it made kids read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFifthElement

I think that's a good point Qimi. If they're not reading at all their chances of going on to read 'great' literature are zero. If they're reading something, even if it's whatever B or C grade means (I mean, who grades them?) then there's a chance they will go on to read something better. Or not, it's largely down to personal choice after all. But I think about my own childhood and I grew up reading books about ponies and the Chalet Girls series and now, many years later, I'm reading Middlemarch. So it's possible.

And if they don't, so what? Who does it damage? What's so important about reading novels anyway? Are we caught in a 'dead' idea about the nature of reading and the reading skills that the next generation will need?

---

And that is also a good point, Fifth. I refer in particular to your last line. I read almost daily to my kids until they were in middle school at which point it seemed like they dropped reading on their own altogether. So disappointing. But now, many years later, my middle son does read-books, like I do; and my oldest son reads, too-but mostly on the internet. But not just TMZ, although I think he does go to web sites of that nature, but long articles. He reads-although if he just says he's "on the computer" one may not initially realize he's actually reading. It doesn't "look" like what we're used to reading looking like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

We're all attached to something. The guy spent his youth reading the Western canon, and enjoyed it. Can you blame him for following his early interests? Would you say that Feynman was too attached to physics?

---

I don't blame him for anything. It could easily be argued that there's nothing wrong with being attached to the western dead-white-guy canon. I'm not anti-western canon. It's there for a reason; it's full of amazing authors and great pieces of literature. I just think more could be included in it. I don't know. I'm not really up to another canon debate.

Quote:

---

Have you any examples of him being sexist? The early chapters of his book "The Western Canon" is mostly dead white males because ancient societies were ultra-sexist. Later on he gives much space to Austen, Dickinson, and Woolf.

---

I have no specific examples, and I have neither the time nor motivation to find any. I was just speaking of his ideas on a larger scale. I could be wrong--it's quite possible

Quote:

---

Do ideas ever date in literature? For instance, Aristotle's idea of catharsis has lasted for a long time. I can't see how Bloom's idea of "agon" will ever date. It might not be trendy today, but who's to say it will not bloom again. ('scuse pun :))

---

I'd simply say that some ideas do date and others don't.

There's a tension between authority and evidence. People too quickly accept authority not only without evidence, but even in the face of solid, contrary evidence.

When Bloom tears down the HP series, the evidence is not on his side. So, what is one to do? Does one accept Bloom on his authority or does one reject Bloom based on the evidence? Those, like myself, who reject him, insist that he must provide adequate evidence to counter the evidence that is already on the table.

What is the evidence that is already on the table? Well, Bloom is no fool. Whether anyone else is willing to acknowledge this evidence or not, he knows that the millions of readers who enjoyed the books is the major evidence against his position. He tries to dismiss this evidence by defaming these readers as "a host...who simply will not read superior fare".

The title of Bloom's piece, "Can 35 Million Book Buyers Be Wrong? Yes", shows that he is focused on this readership evidence. Suppose someone asks, "Can 35 Million Chocolate Buyers Be Wrong?" Does a "Yes" or "No" response even make sense to such a question? It shouldn't.

Suppose one claims that there is a "right" or "wrong" to what someone likes. What does that imply? It seems it implies that there exists some supernatural Platonic dimension where the truth of this aesthetic statement can be established by comparing the HP series with some ideal children's novel. It could also imply a justification for a censorship program to make sure people read the "superior fare" that Bloom has in mind for us.

To promote his authority Bloom must trash a lot of people. Who are they? With a little imagination, they have faces. They are your neighbors. They are your relatives. They are your family. I would rather stand with them than with Bloom, not simply because they are my family, but because their choice in what they want to read adds up to massive evidence that Bloom has not been able to adequately counter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

There's a tension between authority and evidence. People too quickly accept authority not only without evidence, but even in the face of solid, contrary evidence.

When Bloom tears down the HP series, the evidence is not on his side. So, what is one to do? Does one accept Bloom on his authority or does one reject Bloom based on the evidence? Those, like myself, who reject him, insist that he must provide adequate evidence to counter the evidence that is already on the table.

What is the evidence that is already on the table? Well, Bloom is no fool. Whether anyone else is willing to acknowledge this evidence or not, he knows that the millions of readers who enjoyed the books is the major evidence against his position. He tries to dismiss this evidence by defaming these readers as "a host...who simply will not read superior fare".

The title of Bloom's piece, "Can 35 Million Book Buyers Be Wrong? Yes", shows that he is focused on this readership evidence. Suppose someone asks, "Can 35 Million Chocolate Buyers Be Wrong?" Does a "Yes" or "No" response even make sense to such a question? It shouldn't.

Suppose one claims that there is a "right" or "wrong" to what someone likes. What does that imply? It seems it implies that there exists some supernatural Platonic dimension where the truth of this aesthetic statement can be established by comparing the HP series with some ideal children's novel. It could also imply a justification for a censorship program to make sure people read the "superior fare" that Bloom has in mind for us.

To promote his authority Bloom must trash a lot of people. Who are they? With a little imagination, they have faces. They are your neighbors. They are your relatives. They are your family. I would rather stand with them than with Bloom, not simply because they are my family, but because their choice in what they want to read adds up to massive evidence that Bloom has not been able to adequately counter.

---

And your evidence is? He has given points why it is bad, and assumes his readership agrees to an extent - he is not out there to prove it crap line by line. The same way someone who is campaigning against drunk driving does not need to list all the bads of drunk driving every time they open their mouth - they assume the audience knows already - or someone lobbying for law against cigarettes - they assume the public knows they can kill you.

Now, this is a book - it is more open to debate, but he assumes people agree with him, which many do. Can 35million be wrong is responding to your presumption, not the text - he knows there will be detractors from his idea, and does not care enough to give them any time, which is the right thing to do.


You on the contrary have shown absolutely nothing of evidence or substance in support of the text other than that you and some other kids love the books. That's hogwash - millions and millions of people love cigarettes - they are one of the world's most popular crops - does that make them somehow good? Good at all? No it does not. So the mass appeal argument has just been shown to mean nothing.

Bloom has a career of supporting obscure authors as well - the was instrumental in many debates to revive and reaccess lost and disfavored poets and authors. You dismiss him as a polemic who is only interested in lashing out at weak authors for the sake of getting sales. Quite to the contrary actually, he was selling better promoting long-held household staples. His biggest sales have come from supporting already popular authors, and writing about them. He hardly has added anything to the sales of Jane Austen, Virginia Woolf, Shakespeare, or whomever else - they are already major players, and that is who he writes about, and that is who sold his books for him - not J.K. Rowling, Stephen King, or that person who wrote Twilight.

To promote his authority Bloom must trash a lot of people. Who are they? With a little imagination, they have faces. They are your neighbors. They are your relatives. They are your family. I would rather stand with them than with Bloom, not simply because they are my family, but because their choice in what they want to read adds up to massive evidence that Bloom has not been able to adequately counter.

Hahahahahaha! :lol: That was seriously the most pathetic attempt to win a debate I have come across in quite some time. Your argument is dissected, and so you make a sad play to the emotions? "Which side are you on? The side of Harold Bloom and those elitist snobs who seek to trash your friends and family? Or are you on the side of the good, morally upstanding folk... your hard-working neighbors, your family, your elderly and disabled grandmother? I know what side I stand on. I stand in solidarity with the "real Americans".

Personally, I love my family (most of them), and my wife... but I'm not about to turn to them for guidance when it comes to art and literature. Valuing art is not a popularity contest. There are any number of individuals among my friends and family who read and greatly enjoyed the Harry Potter novels... and even Dan Brown. One friend bought me a copy of The Davinci Code because he knew I loved art and art history. The fact that I think these works are mediocre at best (OK... the Dan Brown stuff sucks) is in no way an insult to my friends and family. Art and Literature are not an abiding passion to them. They don't have a personal library of some 3000+ books. They spend their recreational time and money on new cars, vacations to Florida, football and baseball games. I spend mine on art, music, books, and trips to the museums and art galleries.

Art is "elitist" in the sense that the opinions that matter most are those of the audience who have invested the most time and effort into the understanding and appreciation of that given art form. When speaking of literature, this audience includes not only the critics, professors and other academics as well as the subsequent writers... but also the wider group of what Virginia Wolfe referred to as the (not so common) "common reader"... in other words, the passionate, well-informed, well-read reader. The attempt to portray this as a conflict between the "everyday man or woman" and those of a given degree of wealth, social status, or formal education is simply a lame attempt to dismiss the value of knowledge and achievement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

And your evidence is?

---

My evidence is the large number of people who liked the book. I don't know how to make that any clearer to you.

Perhaps the real problem that is bothering you is that I don't agree with you. Just so that you are not confused about that as well, let me make it clear: I don't agree with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

Hahahahahaha! :lol: That was seriously the most pathetic attempt to win a debate I have come across in quite some time.

---

I am glad you enjoyed it, stlukesguild.

JBI-And your evidence is?

Yes/No-My evidence is the large number of people who liked the book. I don't know how to make that any clearer to you.

I think we're all clear on what you have put forth as "evidence" of artistic merit. It is simply that popularity is absolutely no measure of worth whatsoever. But you can certainly keep repeating the idea in the vain hope that it will make it true.