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

[JCamilo]

But he does exactly this. This is the paragraph just after he mentions creative vision:

"The ultimate model for Harry Potter is "Tom Brown's School Days" by Thomas Hughes, published in 1857. The book depicts the Rugby School presided over by the formidable Thomas Arnold, remembered now primarily as the father of Matthew Arnold, the Victorian critic-poet. But Hughes' book, still quite readable, was realism, not fantasy. Rowling has taken "Tom Brown's School Days" and re-seen it in the magical mirror of Tolkein. The resultant blend of a schoolboy ethos with a liberation from the constraints of reality-testing may read oddly to me, but is exactly what millions of children and their parents desire and welcome at this time."

Just like Aylinn did. Later he also compares the obvious Gandalf-Dumbledore model similarity. It is ok to point how vague 7 cliches each page is (even because use of cliche is not exactly a problem) but putting in doubt the critic to market preferences over quality that explains the HP numbers is a bit too much here.

[Drkshadow03]

But he does exactly this. This is the paragraph just after he mentions creative vision:

"The ultimate model for Harry Potter is "Tom Brown's School Days" by Thomas Hughes, published in 1857. The book depicts the Rugby School presided over by the formidable Thomas Arnold, remembered now primarily as the father of Matthew Arnold, the Victorian critic-poet. But Hughes' book, still quite readable, was realism, not fantasy. Rowling has taken "Tom Brown's School Days" and re-seen it in the magical mirror of Tolkein. The resultant blend of a schoolboy ethos with a liberation from the constraints of reality-testing may read oddly to me, but is exactly what millions of children and their parents desire and welcome at this time."

Just like Aylinn did. Later he also compares the obvious Gandalf-Dumbledore model similarity. It is ok to point how vague 7 cliches each page is (even because use of cliche is not exactly a problem) but putting in doubt the critic to market preferences over quality that explains the HP numbers is a bit too much here.

Notice what I wrote in response already:

"Instead [Bloom] seems to try to address that particular point by talking about Potter's models, but it's an ineffectual argument. I could name the models for Shakespeare, the Bible, Milton and Dante. Some of our best writers modeled, even ripped off, previous works; it's what they did with it and changed that make their vision's imaginative. So he points to the two models: Tolkien and the British School novels. But by pointing to two different traditions that she is combining, one can flip his "argument" on its head and say that combining these models in the new way is evidence of a unique imaginative vision."

Aylinn's argument is different in that it specifically mentions stories about "magic schools" and pointing out how that exact combination has been done before. Bloom is merely mentioning predecessors of two separate genres that Rowling brings together, which doesn't really tell us why that is unoriginal necessarily and could even be read as a point in favor of her imaginative vision.

I'm putting down the critic because I don't think this is a good example of criticism.

[YesNo]

Although this is something of a side issue, I was wondering what those 7 cliches on page 4 of the Scorcerer's Stone were that bothered Bloom so much.

I did find "stretch his legs", but personally, I don't see anything wrong with it. Is "broad daylight" a cliche? Is "eyed them angrily" a cliche? OK, I suppose "stopped dead" is a cliche, but again, so what? Is "snapped at his secretary" a cliche?

What were those cliches on page 4 anyway?

Bloom starts his own article off with "Taking arms against Harry Potter" which has got to be a cliche, worse than anything on page 4. Or, to put this another way, if "stretching his legs" is a cliche, Bloom doesn't seem to be able to practice what he preaches.

In the Wikipedia article about Bloom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Bloom, under the "Criticism and Controversy" section is this paragraph:

In the early 21st century, Bloom has often found himself at the center of literary controversy after criticizing popular writers such as Adrienne Rich, Maya Angelou, Stephen King, and J. K. Rowling. In the pages of the Paris Review, he criticized the populist-leaning poetry slam, saying, "It is the death of art." When Doris Lessing was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature, he bemoaned the "pure political correctness" of the award to an author of "fourth-rate science fiction."

It looks like his rants go beyond Harry Potter.

[JCamilo]

Really? are you discovering Bloom has done several attacks on genre literature? The very article is filled with Tolkien's attacks and a snide mention to Stephen King, no?

Aylinn's argument is different in that it specifically mentions stories about "magic schools" and pointing out how that exact combination has been done before. Bloom is merely mentioning predecessors of two separate genres that Rowling brings together, which doesn't really tell us why that is unoriginal necessarily and could even be read as a point in favor of her imaginative vision.

I'm putting down the critic because I don't think this is a good example of criticism.

His point about originality is not about who first blended magic and real world and he consider she brings her idea from those books. So, it is far from he not justifying his claims mentioning the "original" books, rather you thinking he is wrong. He does justify, if you agree or not does not matter.

I am sure, anyone can fill a long series of influence over her, perhaps better even than Bloom who seems to ignore anything beyond literature and no book came from life from red clay, so all books have it, but saying HP series lack originality is far from mistake and he addressed the point in the essay.

[mona amon]

Really? are you discovering Bloom has done several attacks on genre literature? The very article is filled with Tolkien's attacks and a snide mention to Stephen King, no?




His point about originality is not about who first blended magic and real world and he consider she brings her idea from those books. So, it is far from he not justifying his claims mentioning the "original" books, rather you thinking he is wrong. He does justify, if you agree or not does not matter.

I am sure, anyone can fill a long series of influence over her, perhaps better even than Bloom who seems to ignore anything beyond literature and no book came from life from red clay, so all books have it, but saying HP series lack originality is far from mistake and he addressed the point in the essay.

Bloom makes a statement that the Harry Potter books, unlike the Wizard of Oz lack an 'authentic imaginative vision'. Nowhere does he say why he thinks they lack this, or why he thinks the Wizard of Oz has this authentic imaginative vision. You, just like Bloom, make a statement that he has justified his statement, but do not demonstrate where or how he does this.

Here is the relevant passage from his article -

I read new children's literature, when I can find some of any value, but had not tried Rowling until now. I have just concluded the 300 pages of the first book in the series, "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone," purportedly the best of the lot. Though the book is not well written, that is not in itself a crucial liability. It is much better to see the movie, "The Wizard of Oz," than to read the book upon which it was based, but even the book possessed an authentic imaginative vision. "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" does not, so that one needs to look elsewhere for the book's (and its sequels') remarkable success. Such speculation should follow an account of how and why Harry Potter asks to be read.

The ultimate model for Harry Potter is "Tom Brown's School Days" by Thomas Hughes, published in 1857. The book depicts the Rugby School presided over by the formidable Thomas Arnold, remembered now primarily as the father of Matthew Arnold, the Victorian critic-poet. But Hughes' book, still quite readable, was realism, not fantasy. Rowling has taken "Tom Brown's School Days" and re-seen it in the magical mirror of Tolkein. The resultant blend of a schoolboy ethos with a liberation from the constraints of reality-testing may read oddly to me, but is exactly what millions of children and their parents desire and welcome at this time.

First he states that Wizard of Oz possessed an authentic imaginative vision. Next he states that the HP books do not. Then he goes on to search for possible reasons for their popularity. There's absolutely no attempt at justifying his statement whatsoever, and the rest of the article is just like this. It's one of the silliest things I've ever read.

Although this is something of a side issue, I was wondering what those 7 cliches on page 4 of the Scorcerer's Stone were that bothered Bloom so much.

I did find "stretch his legs", but personally, I don't see anything wrong with it. Is "broad daylight" a cliche? Is "eyed them angrily" a cliche? OK, I suppose "stopped dead" is a cliche, but again, so what? Is "snapped at his secretary" a cliche?

What were those cliches on page 4 anyway?

Bloom starts his own article off with "Taking arms against Harry Potter" which has got to be a cliche, worse than anything on page 4. Or, to put this another way, if "stretching his legs" is a cliche, Bloom doesn't seem to be able to practice what he preaches.

This is exactly what I was thinking when I read that part of the article. Well said!

[JBI]

It's an introduction, he elaborates bellow why he thinks it lacks imaginative vision ala the Tolkien and Victorian schoolday books and whatnot. He does not need to give a sentence by sentence account, he is writing from an economic perspective on why 35million people could read a book that perhaps is not good, and how a badly written book can have such an influence. He is not writing a report on why Harry Potter is bad, he assumes you already know that.

[mona amon]

he elaborates bellow why he thinks it lacks imaginative vision ala the Tolkien and Victorian schoolday books and whatnot. He does not need to give a sentence by sentence account,

No he does not, and no one's asking for a sentence by sentence account. What he does here is claim that Rowling has taken the Tom Brown's schooldays ethos, reseen it in Tolkein's magic mirror, and the resultant combination of school world + fantasy is what children love about Harry Potter. He's looking for the reason for the books' remarkable success, despite the fact that they lack 'authentic imaginative vision' and this is the explanation that he finds.

If he's actually claiming that the HP books are merely and only a combination of school world + fantasy and absolutely nothing else, and that that such a combination lacks imaginative vision, it's still only a statement. Bloom thinks so, therefore it is so. Yawn.

he is writing from an economic perspective on why 35million people could read a book that perhaps is not good, and how a badly written book can have such an influence.

You are quite right, at least about what he's trying to do. That's what makes it such a silly bit of writing, right there. Isn't saying that large sales have absolutely nothing to do with a book's literary merit similar to saying the sky is blue? Everyone knows it is true. We don't need a reputed literary critic to write a whole article to try and convince us of that.

[JCamilo]

You really do not understand that being the copy of two other books is the reason why the book is not authentic? He just justify his claim by pointing exactly from where she - in his opinion - borrowed the ideas, thus HP is not original, not autentic? You may disagree those where JK sources, but it is false to say he didnt provide a reason why he consider them not autentic.

And it is strange, a few pages you said:

4. Huge sales do not prove that a book is good (Who on earth said it did? Sounds like a great big strawman to me)

Now the big strawman is something silly, everyone knows about?

Bloom articlle is not a great deal, but your crtics of it seems to be way off.

[mona amon]

You really do not understand that being the copy of two other books is the reason why the book is not authentic?

He's saying that the HP books are school stories like Tom Brown's Schooldays, but with elements of magic like Tolkien's books, and that's what makes them so popular with kids. He does not say that's the reason for him thinking she lacks imaginative vision. You're the one I think, who doesn't understand.

But if I'm wrong and your understanding of it is correct, he'd be even more silly than I'm accusing him of being. As I said in my earlier post,

If he's actually claiming that the HP books are merely and only a combination of school world + fantasy and absolutely nothing else, and that that such a combination lacks imaginative vision, it's still only a statement. Bloom thinks so, therefore it is so. Yawn.

A bald, unsupported statement is not a reason.

[YesNo]

It's an introduction, he elaborates bellow why he thinks it lacks imaginative vision ala the Tolkien and Victorian schoolday books and whatnot. He does not need to give a sentence by sentence account, he is writing from an economic perspective on why 35million people could read a book that perhaps is not good, and how a badly written book can have such an influence. He is not writing a report on why Harry Potter is bad, he assumes you already know that.

The problem, JBI, is that the HP books are not badly written.

So why is Bloom claiming that they are? That is the real mystery here. Why does Bloom himself have any influence at all? And why is anyone defending him?

[Drkshadow03]

You really do not understand that being the copy of two other books is the reason why the book is not authentic? He just justify his claim by pointing exactly from where she - in his opinion - borrowed the ideas, thus HP is not original, not autentic? You may disagree those where JK sources, but it is false to say he didnt provide a reason why he consider them not autentic.

But that isn't a good reason for why it lacks imaginative vision. I could say Milton lacks an imaginative vision. Milton ripped off Genesis 1,2, and 3. I didn't say Bloom doesn't attempt to justify the claim; I pointed that out in my first post. I'm saying it's a crappy argument without further qualifications. Whereas Aylinn's version is more direct and better version of the argument.

[JCamilo]

He's saying that the HP books are school stories like Tom Brown's Schooldays, but with elements of magic like Tolkien's books, and that's what makes them so popular with kids. He does not say that's the reason for him thinking she lacks imaginative vision. You're the one I think, who doesn't understand.

Obviously, he is doing both. When someone claims something lacks originality and then points where the elements of a book are found before, he justifies his claim. He does not need to write "I think they lack..." to make it so.

But if I'm wrong and your understanding of it is correct, he'd be even more silly than I'm accusing him of being. As I said in my earlier post, A bald, unsupported statement is not a reason.

The problem is that if I am right, it is not an unsupported statement. (I hardly doubt anyone can make a case towards orginality for HP. It is pretty much obvious there is not much of it there.) and considering his point is that reading the classic books is better than reading a fashion book, mentioning the originality is just a way to argue the readers of HP could find what they enjoy in other better books. The bold statment that he is silly needs a little more I think.

[JBI]

The problem, JBI, is that the HP books are not badly written.

So why is Bloom claiming that they are? That is the real mystery here. Why does Bloom himself have any influence at all? And why is anyone defending him?

Like or hate the books, they are badly written. You can argue all you want, but I will tell you right now, nobody is going to agree that the writing style is good, or great. Bloom sites the overuse of dry Cliches as evidence, I would say the books themselves read like melodrama.

Writing quality is not Ms. Rowling's specialty, regardless of how much you like the book. Some say it is in her world-building, some in her characterization, but it is definitely not in her prose.

I am trying to be constructive but it is so difficult with Fanboys and fangirls who put their own adoration of a text in front of their critical judgment.


As for why Bloom has influence, it is simple, he has probably been the single biggest literary critic in the American academies in the last 50 years. He is also one of a slim minority that crossed over into the mass public, as a promoter of literacy and of loving reading - the polemics aside, his main argument is that people should read the best of the best, and should discuss the best of the best. Nobody should really dispute that argument, regardless of the particulars.

Why is anybody defending him? Well, I will apply the threads derailed logic in a reverse context. You are criticizing him for saying the books were bad, yet nobody here has proven that they are good. They say they are well written, but are they actually? Can you prove prove it.

I had a conversation the other day with some of my rabid classmates over Jin Yong novels, when I mentioned that all the female characters are virtually the same. One disagreed and called me an idiot, the other called me an ignorant white guy, and then the third told me to ask the professor, who has written on them extensively, so that he could tell me how stupid I am. So I asked him, and he replied, you are absolutely right, that is a fair and true criticism.

You see my point, just because you adore things doesn't mean you can give up your critical judgment and say they are all 100% great. Bloom has not told people to not read Harry Potter, he is responding to a context, a phenomenon, where people are picking up the books, and librarians are calling them God's gift to literacy - 35million people - and we now see people reading, isn't it terrific?. He is responding, in a sense, to Potter Mania, which at the time the article was written, was far stronger than it is now (nobody can deny it, even if the books still sell). He is in a business periodical commenting on can this phenomenon save the world, and has it remade Children's literature - as it changed policy on the the way we review books, as he mentioned.

You can agree or disagree on their classic status, but rates of reading as he was writing the article in the US, and overall literacy were in decline. He had a point that the books weren't God's gift to the literate world, and would not save reading, and would not lead kids on to read better books any more than anything else. That is his point.

His criticism as to the actual text is secondary, it is basically saying, here is the truth, it is just a book, with a rather common plot, a rather unoriginal concept, and a very British sense of itself.

It is the same with this new novel. The book will be determined good or bad based on how it is written, and what is inside it, not based on the fact that its author penned a best seller. The added exposure, mixed with the already mass orders put out for the book, only cloud popular judgment of probably a second or third-rate novel. She is not Umberto Eco.

[JCamilo]

Yes, and the shot against the "reading anything is better than no reading", which is a false proposition as those are not the only options we have.

But that isn't a good reason for why it lacks imaginative vision. I could say Milton lacks an imaginative vision. Milton ripped off Genesis 1,2, and 3. I didn't say Bloom doesn't attempt to justify the claim; I pointed that out in my first post. I'm saying it's a crappy argument without further qualifications. Whereas Aylinn's version is more direct and better version of the argument.

Like I said, yuo may disagree, but not claim he did not gave examples of why HP is not original. And yes, I do agree with you, lacking originality (or watever pompous name Bloom gave) is hardly a big flaw by itself and Bloom is only using it to claim reading the classics (as originals) is better.

I would say Bloom just does not have the proper knowledge to go deeply on pop phenomens like HP. The fact he has no idea about comic books, japanese animation, videogames and RPGs, all that worked with similar elements of HP during the 80's and 90's does not help him to understand the formation of this public. Teens have been moving always from ingenous works like Wind in the Willows and following more the fantastic which is more realistic.

Also, Bloom does not seem to think about book as a product, with all the marketing behind it. All the fan interation bursting the book reading beyond the "aesthetical merits".

But that is far from some of the criticism found here.

[mona amon]

Obviously, he is doing both. When someone claims something lacks originality and then points where the elements of a book are found before, he justifies his claim. He does not need to write "I think they lack..." to make it so.

He's started a new paragraph, and to me it's obvious he's talking about something else. Anyway, let's not waste time on this, since neither can be proved. I understand what you are saying. Just don't agree with it.

The problem is that if I am right, it is not an unsupported statement.

Where is the support? Examples? Arguments? Reasons for such a statement?

The bold statment that he is silly needs a little more I think.

Oh come on, I'm just making an unsupported statement, just like Bloom. I don't expect people to take that particular statement seriously.

You are criticizing him for saying the books were bad, yet nobody here has proven that they are good. They say they are well written, but are they actually? Can you prove prove it.

Speaking for myself, I'm not finding fault with Bloom for calling the books bad. I'm faulting him for writing an inane and uninteresting article, when he's supposed to be a reputed critic.

It's impossible to prove that the books are good, and equally impossible to prove the books are bad. But you can make good points and arguments, and give examples to support the points you are making. Bloom does none of these things.