Harry Potter and the Half-Baked Plot

Except it's perfectly possible to enjoy reading "classical"/literary works and genre fiction just as it's possible to eat a $100 succulent juicy Kobe steak perfecty marinated and cooked, and still consider your local $2 greasy pizza joint a great meal too.

But is this an apt analogy? I am enamored of Bach, Beethoven, Wagner, Schubert... but I still listen to the Rolling Stones, Johnny Cash, and the Louvin Brothers. I can't listen, however, to Madonna or Britney Spears. My taste has become such that I can enjoy the best of genres that are quite different... but there are still standards. It seems that everyone who suggests that the Harry Potter novels are so much schlock are being branded as elitist snobs. Now while I will heartily admit to being an elitist, my taste in the arts is fairly broad. One may reject the Harry Potter novels as being mediocre (at best) and grossly overrated... and still read and admire more than just the "classics". One may even enjoy the best of certain literary genres.

As mayneverhave put it, "after encountering the works of Shakespeare, Dante and the like, it is impossible to go back to the level of Harry Potter and Robert Jordan - it would bore me to death. It's not even an issue of a "classic" being more challenging to the reader, but it lies in the simple fact that I can draw a far greater enjoyment out of quality literature than I can popular literature." This says it all. After one's taste evolves to a certain level with the experience of having read a good number of great books it is difficult to appreciate mediocre popular fiction. The clichés are too obvious. The language offers nothing special. The characters are not well-developed. Most importantly, I draw a far greater degree of pleasure from the better books.

To answer Niahm's question, the reason I (and others) jump on Harry Potter, and not other mediocre writers, is simply because of the way media responds to them. Nobody actually regards (or at least I hope not) Eragon as quality literature, besides some of its readers. Nobody really gives much credit to, for instance, Terry Goodkind as a literary genius, or takes his work seriously. But Rowling on the other hand, is in a different category. Her mass-success has become problematic; too many people have read her books, and her works are translated into more languages then I personally can name.

Rowling is everywhere - she is impossible to ignore - she is in every continent in every major language, in multiple dialects of some. But the main problem I have, is that she gets too much credit because of her sales. She is heralded as the "making literature cool again" hero, or the gets children to read hero, or the increases children's literary hero. But quite frankly, I think it is all hogwashed rubbish, and nobody stops to criticize the actual books, they only talk about the context - her mass sales - and the benefits of her work - her mass readership. Her mass readership is so big, that it has come to the point where criticizing her is seen as criticizing everyone who likes her, and quite frankly, by doing so you get branded a snob. Meaning, that you cannot criticize her work without attracting attention, yet people can praise her work without the same.

Even classic literature undergoes fire. For instance, even poets as central as John Milton have been under serious attack at one point or another. But Potter on the other hand seems immune to criticism. Everyone who mentions the name negatively is seen as a spoil-sport, an elitist, an ignorant, because the readership is that big, and therefore the amount of complainers are that big. If it was possible to look into the text and discuss the merits of the book, I would be glad to make only a few comments, as I have done with other novels, and poems, and the like. Like I said, I'm studying mostly contemporary fiction and poetry, so that is sort of a given practice. But one simply cannot, because of the Potter fans, finding every justification to praise Rowling as (to use my previous analogy) the quixotic Redcrosse Knight of literature, going out to slay the dragon of illiteracy.

I don't hear people say pornography gets people reading

I don't hear them say tabloids get people reading

But Potter... Potter gets our children reading, so it must be gold! Let's be honest, even if that fallacy was true, over 97% of people are literate in the majority of Western countries - they can read without Potter.

Can i ask why everyone wants to pick on J.K. Rowling and the Harry Potter books when there are books out there that are getting a lot of credit, and are really bad?

That is an easy enough question to answer. It is simply the fact that the harry Potter novels have received a level of recognition and popularity that is grossly disproportionate to their literary/artistic merit. No, they are not the worst thing ever written... far from it. They are, however, not unlike the works of many other "artists" in that they have been put forth in the press, in the marketplace, in schools, etc... as if they were something extraordinary... an artistic achievement worthy of envy by anyone. This is bound to irritate those who certainly recognize that not only are they not Shakespeare, but there are actually far greater works being written by contemporaries or even within the fantasy genre. In my own field of the visual arts there are figures such as Jeff Koons and Damien Hirst whom many would love to see trampled to death by a herd of raving wildebeest. It is not that there are not worse artists... but there are few as bad as they who are held up to the public as something exemplary.

Rowling is everywhere - she is impossible to ignore - she is in every continent in every major language, in multiple dialects of some. But the main problem I have, is that she gets too much credit because of her sales. She is heralded as the "making literature cool again" hero, or the gets children to read hero, or the increases children's literary hero... Her mass readership is so big, that it has come to the point where criticizing her is seen as criticizing everyone who likes her, and quite frankly, by doing so you get branded a snob. Meaning, that you cannot criticize her work without attracting attention, yet people can praise her work without the same.

Even classic literature undergoes fire. For instance, even poets as central as John Milton have been under serious attack at one point or another. But Potter on the other hand seems immune to criticism. Everyone who mentions the name negatively is seen as a spoil-sport, an elitist... ignorant,

Exactly! Here... at a literary site... we have had those who have outright dismissed literary figures as central as Milton or Chaucer or Spenser or Proust or Joyce (the perennial favorite whipping boy)... but to suggest that the hoopla over Harry Potter may be a bit much or that the work as an actual piece of literature may actually be rather mediocre is almost immediately taken as proof positive that one is an elitist snob... a boring pedant who obviously can't ever let themselves go and just have a bit of pleasure. And yet, I say it again, I can't find the pleasure in a work that I find overly laden in clichés, poorly developed characters, mediocre mastery of languages, etc...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hank Stamper

so the critic's reasoning is absolute? rubbish! i am as much entitled to challenge the critic as the critic is entitled to challenge the literary merits of harry potter

---

No, his reasoning is not absolute but just attacking his motivations and not his reasoning is quite annoying. A huge difference from someone that build up critical reasoning towards the merits Harry Potter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

Rowling is everywhere - she is impossible to ignore - she is in every continent in every major language, in multiple dialects of some. But the main problem I have, is that she gets too much credit because of her sales. She is heralded as the "making literature cool again" hero, or the gets children to read hero, or the increases children's literary hero... Her mass readership is so big, that it has come to the point where criticizing her is seen as criticizing everyone who likes her, and quite frankly, by doing so you get branded a snob. Meaning, that you cannot criticize her work without attracting attention, yet people can praise her work without the same.

Even classic literature undergoes fire. For instance, even poets as central as John Milton have been under serious attack at one point or another. But Potter on the other hand seems immune to criticism. Everyone who mentions the name negatively is seen as a spoil-sport, an elitist... ignorant,

Exactly! Here... at a literary site... we have had those who have outright dismissed literary figures as central as Milton or Chaucer or Spenser or Proust or Joyce (the perennial favorite whipping boy)... but to suggest that the hoopla over Harry Potter may be a bit much or that the work as an actual piece of literature may actually be rather mediocre is almost immediately taken as proof positive that one is an elitist snob... a boring pedant who obviously can't ever let themselves go and just have a bit of pleasure. And yet, I say it again, I can't find the pleasure in a work that I find overly laden in clichés, poorly developed characters, mediocre mastery of languages, etc...

---

I for once, think the position of elite and snob is acceptable. Merits can be displayed if one can hold his position. If it ends in personal attacks (and lets be frank, we talk about the best works, we are building an elite.) obviously the loss is not Miltons, Shakespeare, etc. Those guys do not depend on this or any forum considerations.

But to me it is amazing that people forget that this a place where we can only talk and the only subject are books. The most simple reason why one post about this subject is simple because we come here to post. Give a single opening and one will post.

But I must say we can return, otherwise the simple reading of Stevenson would be impossible after the reading of Dante.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

Ironically enough, I think this captures the point I was making. If they haven't READ ANY, how the hell do they know about the literary value of genre fiction one way or the other!

---

Oh come on, the critic of genre fictin is based first and foremost on concrete argument, and the fact that they haven't read much of it does not mean that they haven't read any of it. And do you honestly believe that one absolutely has to read a couple of Forgotten Realm books to know that they have no literary value? No, they could even not read a single one and still be right. What genre fiction exactly do you claim have such literary value as to be worth being studied by a university teacher, other than perhaps some general theme.

For example, your subject was Mars in science-fiction. This is a theme. Is it, first, a rich subject in analysis? I doubt it. Then could you honestly make a thesis based on, say the narrative technique in some genre fiction? Etc.

When a book begins to be viewed as a great work of fiction, generally it stops being considered genre. For instance, Italo Calvino is not read as a fantasy novelist, though by convention if we were to genrize him, many of his works would fall into fantasy or science fiction. By romantic genre definition, any book that has a couple getting married at the end is a romance, yet we wouldn't call every book with a marriage at the end a romance. It would be absurd.

Either way though, the titles of genre verses literary are set up abstractly by publishers, and then writers who seek to meet a publisher's desire. In terms of criticism, such genrization has no real purpose, and one can feel free to say Terry Goodkind is a bad novelist, and not a bad fantasy novelist.

Good books are reappropriated by their best suited audience. Angela Carter can be seen as a writer of fantasy, but who would stick her on a fantasy shelf? no one, we simply call her stuff by some other term, and stick it on the literary shelf, since fantasy readers probably aren't going to buy as many of her books as literary readers. The genre therefore is undercut, and the book is no longer genre fiction, but literary fiction. By that same notion, one could cut almost any good genre book, and deem it literary, and thereby one could consider the bulk of genre fiction mediocre, or unsuited for the literary reader, or unsuited for the reader looking outside of the genre.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

To answer Niahm's question, the reason I (and others) jump on Harry Potter, and not other mediocre writers, is simply because of the way media responds to them. Nobody actually regards (or at least I hope not) Eragon as quality literature, besides some of its readers. Nobody really gives much credit to, for instance, Terry Goodkind as a literary genius, or takes his work seriously. But Rowling on the other hand, is in a different category. Her mass-success has become problematic; too many people have read her books, and her works are translated into more languages then I personally can name.

---

But surely just because the media has responded to them, and because so many people have read the books, shouldn't make some critics place them in the same catagory as mediocre writers and books? (And before you accuse me, i'm not saying you)

Quote:

---

Rowling is everywhere - she is impossible to ignore - she is in every continent in every major language, in multiple dialects of some. But the main problem I have, is that she gets too much credit because of her sales. She is heralded as the "making literature cool again" hero, or the gets children to read hero, or the increases children's literary hero.

---

My argument for Potter encouraging kids to read in this day and age, comes from my personal experiences. I have mentioned that here and elsewhere already.

Quote:

---

But quite frankly, I think it is all hogwashed rubbish, and nobody stops to criticize the actual books, they only talk about the context - her mass sales - and the benefits of her work - her mass readership. Her mass readership is so big, that it has come to the point where criticizing her is seen as criticizing everyone who likes her, and quite frankly, by doing so you get branded a snob. Meaning, that you cannot criticize her work without attracting attention, yet people can praise her work without the same.

---

Ah yes but dont those of us who try to praise the books not get criticised by the critics? ;) Its a two way thing.

Quote:

---

Even classic literature undergoes fire. For instance, even poets as central as John Milton have been under serious attack at one point or another. But Potter on the other hand seems immune to criticism. Everyone who mentions the name negatively is seen as a spoil-sport, an elitist, an ignorant, because the readership is that big, and therefore the amount of complainers are that big. If it was possible to look into the text and discuss the merits of the book, I would be glad to make only a few comments, as I have done with other novels, and poems, and the like.

---

But JBI, as far as i can see, no one has blatantly turned around and said that Potter is great literature, and classics are crap. I myself only pointed out that not everyone likes the same literature. some like classic, and dont like everything else because its not their cup of tea, some like everything and not classics because find them droll and boring and others read and enjoy everything. I didnt realise saying this was an attack on classicists. I was only stating a fact.My point was, if this is not the case, than isnt it only right that people should be allowed to like the Potter series, and see something in them that others who dont will not?

Quote:

---

Like I said, I'm studying mostly contemporary fiction and poetry, so that is sort of a given practice. But one simply cannot, because of the Potter fans, finding every justification to praise Rowling as (to use my previous analogy) the quixotic Redcrosse Knight of literature, going out to slay the dragon of illiteracy.

---

Just as you will get on the defensive of what you enjoy reading, so too will poeple who enjoy the Potter books. this does not make either wrong. We just need to acept that not everyone is going to agree with us. I think the Potter books have merit, especially when it come to getting the computer game era to read, and that comes from my experience in both my neighbourhood and my job as a bookseller and volunteer for a publishing house. You as a student of lit, see things differently. Life would be boring if we all thought, saw and went about our lives similarly.

Like I said before, I have no problem with people enjoying books, the same way I have no problem with people who enjoy watching reality television, or people who read cheap magazines, I just have a problem when these writings are portrayed, and heralded as supreme works of fiction, and integral parts of the literary tradition.

On other threads, for instance, works such as Nabokov's Lolita, a far more controversial work, were criticized. There was significant debate, but overall not much attention was given. Potter on the other hand being criticized, for not inappropriate writing, but for poor writing, all of a sudden is controversy, and judging by the thread's length, a popular topic. Why is it that this work takes so much attention?

Because of the status of the author, and the context of the works, not the works themselves. When discussing Lolita, the discussion was on text, when discussing other authors, on these boards mostly the text, and sometimes the context are discussed. When discussing Potter however, context is always discussed, because quite frankly, the text doesn't have much in it.

I think people are missing my main point however; what is gained by reading Potter? Sure, people moved on to read other books, but people were reading other books for thousands of years. Sure, it has increased literacy, but couldn't E. B. White do the same? Sure it has inspired people to read, but couldn't Christina Rossetti do the same? sure it has sold millions, but so has the novel She, and I bet many of you haven't even heard of it, despite its 50million copies sold.

First to address the OP on this thread: No, I don't think there's a ghostwriter involved. I would be very surprised if there was another person involved, partly because the voice seems so consistent throughout the series, and partly because of the wandering quality of the first part of the final book, which is usually pretty clearly the sign of one writer with writers' block.

As to the brouhaha that has predictably erupted on a Harry Potter thread: I have to say I don't entirely understand getting upset over the popularity of the Potter series. Do I think that Harry Potter is going to wave a magic wand and make the whole population a bunch of bibliophiles? No. Do I think that people enjoying and praising (even overpraising...those yahoo quotes were pretty amusing :lol:) Rowling and the Potter series is going to interfere in any way with the amount of Shakespeare that is or is not read? No. Shakespeare has survived plenty of other popular writers who have come and gone. If some yahoo (sorry, it was just too tempting) enjoys Harry Potter and thinks it's the best thing in the world, and wants to sing its praises, I don't see any reason to rain on his or her parade by going about frowning and saying they're spending their time on worthless trash. I know that isn't the specific point the anti Harry Potter-ites are trying to make, and I'll address their entirely valid points in a moment. Perhaps my problem understanding these responses to the Potter phenomenon is that I actually don't think that in the long run anyone is going to canonize Rowling as the equal of Shakespeare and Dickens. I find the enthusiasm of the people on the Yahoo boards, not threatening but sort of endearingly amusing. They're comparing Potter to Shakespeare because they haven't had the experience of really engaging with something like Shakespeare, and they have had what I imagine is a first brush with entering an imaginative and engaging world via the written word, and they are so excited by that that they compare it to the writer with the greatest reputation they can think of. If a well read critic writing for the New York Times book review were comparing Rowling to Shakespeare then I might worry a bit more, but that isn't the sort of praise critics are giving her. They are, as JBI points out, praising her books for being the books in our time that people are excited to read. I don't see much wrong with that characterization of their contribution.

A response to a few points:

Quote:

---

It's just this problem with the whole "at least there are reading" fallacy. There is a distinction, and people shouldn't get "credit" for reading something of such a low quality. We shouldn't praise Rowling and Stephen King for things like making children read, since they aren't. Reading Rowling and Stephen King isn't the same as real reading. Has society come to the point where we give credit to the successfully published trash as being "beneficial" for getting children, and other lazy people to read a book? Where is the justification in that.

Why not praise all the simpleminded female readers who only read genre romances, for being such avid and zealous readers. Why not praise the people who only read Starwars fiction (god knows there is enough of it) for being avid readers, and so dedicated and intelligent, and well read.

The point is, there is a difference. There is reading, and there is reading. If the book doesn't challenge the reader, I see no justification in reading it as helping society by getting more people to read. Sure, people will read junk, and personally, I couldn't care less, until such time as people start praising the junk, and praising people for reading it, and people for writing it.

---

JBI--I know that the "at least they are reading fallacy" is what you are most upset about. I think that you are partly right in calling it a fallacy. You are right in that just reading anything doesn't mean that you are necessarily doing something productive. On the other hand, I think you are wrong to dismiss the idea that reading Harry Potter might not necessarily be a helpful first step toward exploring more interesting reading. I'm sure this is much less true with adult readers than with children, but in the case of the latter (whom the books are aimed at in any case) I'm sure that reading Harry Potter has led many children to think of reading as an enjoyable thing and go on to read other books. Could other books just as easily fill this purpose? Certainly. They can and have. But at the moment the book that are most commonly filling this role are the Harry Potter series.

There is an aspect of the "at least they are reading" thing that does annoy me, but a response like the one you've given above only intensifies that annoyance. The thing I don't like about all this "at least they're reading" stuff is that it makes reading sound like some onerous duty that one must perform: something difficult that one receives credit for doing like doing your chores or volunteering to pick up litter along the highway, rather than an enjoyable, and often rewarding experience and exploration of ideas and imaginations. A response like the one you give above plays into the annoying aspect of viewing reading as some sort of challenging task, and the most problematic thing about that is the way it will turn people off from wanting to do what you are very passionately suggesting that they ought to do. Talking about not giving people credit for reading Harry Potter, and suggesting that genre reading is not sufficiently "beneficial" will turn people away from more complex reading because it makes it sound like reading is the equivalent of boiled brussel sprouts that you should eat because they're good for you rather than the equivalent of a good wine that you may enjoy acquiring a taste for.

Which brings me to the second point I wanted to address:

Quote:

---

One of my professor used an interesting metaphor to describe the reading of classics/literary works versus the reading of genre fiction or popular fiction. He described it in the way of a food critic who, having sampled a larger variety of foods than most people and with a greater developed sense of taste, is able to judge the taste of food better than a person who has no interest in such things. Not only that, but the food critic can then enjoy the greatest of food because of his developed tastes.

To put it bluntly, after encountering the works of Shakespeare, Dante and the like, it is impossible to go back to the level of Harry Potter and Robert Jordan - it would bore me to death. It's not even an issue of a "classic" being more challenging to the reader, but it lies in the simple fact that I can draw a far greater enjoyment out of quality literature than I can popular literature.

---

Yes, and the comparison between dining tastes and reading tastes is certainly an old and an apt one. Certainly the writing of the Renaissance humanists is peppered with references to digesting reading material as though it were food. Along with this metaphor there is usually a caution against giving too strong meat too fast, or the person will be unable to stomach it. You must start by digesting simple foods, and then move gradually to greater foods. When you have once learned to digest that better food, however, the dishes that are less well cooked and seasoned will seem bland by comparison. As someone who, I think, qualifies as a literary gourmand, I completely agree that I could never possibly look at the Harry Potter books and be thrilled by them the way someone who has tasted very little written "food" might be. At the same time, I have to quibble slightly with what I think is a suggestion that it is impossible to enjoy lesser authors once you have sampled the heights. I've read all the Harry Potter books and found them pleasantly entertaining. I read each of them in about a night, so I hardly thought the time invested was that shocking a waste, and they are so popular that having read them served a social purpose in the same way that watching a reasonably enjoyable television program might. It's something many people were enjoying talking about, and I figured I might as well join in the fun (and occasionally use it as an opportunity to put in a successful plug for some of that "stronger meat" by giving a few suggestions about other books that Potter readers might enjoy exploring). So, though I really do agree with your point in the main, I would just qualify your "impossible." I don't think it's "impossible" to enjoy reading that level of work, just something that those with more experienced tastes aren't apt to do as often.

**The Atheist makes mental note not to try to start a thread on Rowling/Potter ever again!**

Anyway, since the argument "Literature vs Pulp Fiction" has begun, I'll join in, and I'll explain why I think Literature is a clear loser....

...but I'm going to start a new thread on the subject right now as the discussion will otherwise be relegated to those who are already in this thread, and I think it deserves wide participation.

Entitled:

Literature has no more value than Mills & Boon

Please carry the rest of this discussion on there.

Thanks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petrarch's Love

First to address the OP on this thread: No, I don't think there's a ghostwriter involved. I would be very surprised if there was another person involved, partly because the voice seems so consistent throughout the series, and partly because of the wandering quality of the first part of the final book, which is usually pretty clearly the sign of one writer with writers' block.

---

Funnily enough, it's because I thought the voice & style were inconsistent that made me wonder in the first place.

And it's books 3 or 4 to the end which seemed to have the problem, so it isn't just #7.

And apologies, but I've shifted the good vs bad literature subject as above - feel free to copy the relevant bits to the thread I've linked above.

Cheers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

It is simply the fact that the harry Potter novels have received a level of recognition and popularity that is grossly disproportionate to their literary/artistic merit. No, they are not the worst thing ever written... far from it. They are, however, not unlike the works of many other "artists" in that they have been put forth in the press, in the marketplace, in schools, etc... as if they were something extraordinary... an artistic achievement worthy of envy by anyone. This is bound to irritate those who certainly recognize that not only are they not Shakespeare, but there are actually far greater works being written by contemporaries or even within the fantasy genre. In my own field of the visual arts there are figures such as Jeff Koons and Damien Hirst whom many would love to see trampled to death by a herd of raving wildebeest. It is not that there are not worse artists... but there are few as bad as they who are held up to the public as something exemplary.

---

Cough. Joyce. Cough. Cough.

It does my heart no small measure of good to see you and JBI railing away at Rowling and Tolkien in this manner and if indeed there is no next life, there is justice enough in this one. Oh, the world is fair girls and boys, and it's a beautiful thing.

I'm moving my comments over to The Atheist's other thread. I have responses to Stluke, Etiene, and JBI in them.