Harry Potter and the Half-Baked Plot

I wasn't going to join in here (once again) over The Network's Potter complex, but I rather agree almost entirely with Petrarch's Love, with one more caveat: Knowing a bit of Rowling's story in creating Potter, she achieved what any writer can only admire, even if solely on a marketing level. This is the 21st century, and franchise is the name of the game. You can whine or study it and respect it and or offer warnings about it, and again, Shakespeare was disparaged in his day by the academic aesthete, even while his work was popular with all classes, and I've read that he is what he is today because of the Romantic Movement--in this sense it is too soon to canonize or trash Harry Potter. Stop being so eager to settle the score, and let the baby boomers die off, and we will see what her staying power is in the market.

So, Jozanny, you are joining the bandwagon of comparing Rowling to Shakespeare?

I have a question: What was Shakespeare criticized for? What is Rowling criticized for?

If anything, criticism to Nabokov is closer to the criticism of Shakespeare, than the criticism pointed out at Rowling. They are in fact, completely different. But can you not see the irony?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petrarch's Love

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.

---

The first chapter of Tom Jones immediately springs to mind, starting:

An author ought to consider himself, not as a gentleman who gives a private or eleemosynary treat, but rather as one who keeps a public ordinary, at which all persons are welcome for their money. In the former case, it is well known that the entertainer provides what fare he pleases; and though this should be very indifferent, and utterly disagreeable to the taste of his company, they must not find any fault; nay, on the contrary, good breeding forces them outwardly to approve and to commend whatever is set before them. Now the contrary of this happens to the master of an ordinary. Men who pay for what they eat will insist on gratifying their palates, however nice and whimsical these may prove; and if everything is not agreeable to their taste, will challenge a right to censure, to abuse, and to d—n their dinner without controul.

To prevent, therefore, giving offence to their customers by any such disappointment, it hath been usual with the honest and well-meaning host to provide a bill of fare which all persons may peruse at their first entrance into the house; and having thence acquainted themselves with the entertainment which they may expect, may either stay and regale with what is provided for them, or may depart to some other ordinary better accommodated to their taste.
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~rbear/jones/jones1.html

I know what you mean about reading or watching certain things just to have a common frame of reference with the rest of society. Upon occasion, I've run up against someone who had never seen Star Wars or an episode of the Simpsons and people stared at them as if they were some kind of alien bug. This sort of thing happens frequently with homeschooled children. They may be smart as a whip and educated as all get out but they often lack the shared cultural narrative points which lend color and commonality to our small talk and conversation.

If history is a group of lies agreed upon, as Napoleon claims, then you could say as much for a dialogue of any type. One must make an effort to understand where one's fellow men are coming from. I know that StLukes has marked this phenomenon himself, since he takes note of it in one of the teaching threads we have here, some months back. He mentions that in the absence of directed inheritable culture children crave structure and will create it out of their surroundings. I think this is what has happened with Tolkein and Rowling, but we also do it with baseball scores, popular tunes, graffiti, and advertising. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Etienne

So, Jozanny, you are joining the bandwagon of comparing Rowling to Shakespeare?

---

Comparing respective contexts is not a claim to equivalency of merit.

Quote:

---

I have a question: What was Shakespeare criticized for? What is Rowling criticized for?

---

Jonson whined about Shakespeare's violation of the unities. Petrarch can probably discourse on this at greater length than I, as I've been in exile from academia for a long time. Can't help you over the anti-Potter faction. I've read very positive reviews of Rowling's work, and even Cal Montgomery finds themes therein for the disability movement. Cal is a critic in disability publications in which I too occasionally appear.

Quote:

---

But can you not see the irony?

---

No.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

Comparing respective contexts is not a claim to equivalency of merit.

---

But the contexts are completely different.

Quote:

---

Jonson whined about Shakespeare's violation of the unities.

---

Which has nothing to do with saying that Rowling is just a popular writer with no literary merits other than it's sales. Shakespeare violated (which is in a way the reproach that you articulated to Nabokov). That's certainly not the reproach to Rowling.

Quote:

---

No.

---

No?

is there any evidence that the Potter books have made children read more than they used to? maybe children have been reading all along, but since they all read different books that went unnoticed. now that they are all reading the same book their reading is more visible and it's easier to ascertain that they are reading because their all reading the same series? it would be interesting to see whether the combined sales of pre-Potter children's and young adult books amount to significantly less than the sales of the Potter series.

Sleepy, I complained about the same thing.
I want to see what Science says about this so that it would be nice and clear what exactly the impact of Rowling on reading is and people couldn't make a fuss over "It seems to me that people who read Potter move on to more advanced literature" versus "No, it seems to me that they stay on the same level and just read HP-level things." - which is just a question of impressions.

If this thread and the others on Harry Potter are anything to go by I am not so sure the books are on the way out, we are still talking about them!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joreads

If this thread and the others on Harry Potter are anything to go by I am not so sure the books are on the way out, we are still talking about them!!!

---

here here!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niamh

here here!!

---

Meh, no one is really talking about Harry Potter, we are talking about Harry Potter's context - there is a difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

Meh, no one is really talking about Harry Potter, we are talking about Harry Potter's context - there is a difference.

---

thats still talking about it JBI. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niamh

thats still talking about it JBI. :)

---

Nah, I haven't seen one quote from the text here; we merely are quibbling over context. I am almost tempted to start a thread on the text itself, in order to perhaps quench these sort of context threads, by proving with concrete examples from the text the true merit and quality of the book, outside of its context.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

I am almost tempted to start a thread on the text itself, in order to perhaps quench these sort of context threads, by proving with concrete examples from the text the true merit and quality of the book, outside of its context.

---

I do not like flying blind in defense of any author, but if the movie adaptations were somewhat faithful to the texts, I do not believe either you or luke are being fair to Rowling on the merits. The story about the werewolf instructor wasn't just fantasy for the sake of fantasy JBI. She is teaching lessons about the price of stigma when it is imposed on the minority by the majority, and she seems to have a rather deft hand in doing it. The simple fact that her work created a mass media franchise doesn't mean her talent should be automatically crucified. I have read too many educated people who take her work seriously not to respect what they have to say, even if I have no desire to buy the series myself, or sample them at the library, at least not now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

I do not like flying blind in defense of any author, but if the movie adaptations were somewhat faithful to the texts, I do not believe either you or luke are being fair to Rowling on the merits. The story about the werewolf instructor wasn't just fantasy for the sake of fantasy JBI. She is teaching lessons about the price of stigma when it is imposed on the minority by the majority, and she seems to have a rather deft hand in doing it. The simple fact that her work created a mass media franchise doesn't mean her talent should be automatically crucified. I have read too many educated people who take her work seriously not to respect what they have to say, even if I have no desire to buy the series myself, or sample them at the library, at least not now.

---

But such commonplace morality does not make a book good or great. I could create a little tale, the worse I could do on purpose, with a moral conclusion to it, that does not change the fact that it would be utter crap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

I do not like flying blind in defense of any author, but if the movie adaptations were somewhat faithful to the texts, I do not believe either you or luke are being fair to Rowling on the merits. The story about the werewolf instructor wasn't just fantasy for the sake of fantasy JBI. She is teaching lessons about the price of stigma when it is imposed on the minority by the majority, and she seems to have a rather deft hand in doing it. The simple fact that her work created a mass media franchise doesn't mean her talent should be automatically crucified. I have read too many educated people who take her work seriously not to respect what they have to say, even if I have no desire to buy the series myself, or sample them at the library, at least not now.

---

Sorry Dr. Johnson, but I care not if my literature teaches moral lessons.