Plus, "children literature" is published and writen mostly by addults, so addults certainly can tell something (or many things) about it.
Plus, "children literature" is published and writen mostly by addults, so addults certainly can tell something (or many things) about it.
From a pragmatic perspective the success of the work of art in a free market is all that matters no matter what one thinks of the art itself. The successful artist, along with the contributions of any support staff, resonated with an audience. They did a good job. They accomplished their goal.Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis
The only appropriate thing for an academic to do is to try to make sense out of it, not whine about the author using too many cliches or put down the readers' competence. That doesn't provide anyone with any benefit except the academics who assert their privileged position with every dogmatic statement they make or parrot.
I agree that it does not look like she had this all planned out from the beginning. Initially Harry was winning all the contests and saving everyone around him. Later, people began saving him. Does it matter that the HP series was not all planned out from the beginning?
My blog: https://frankhubeny.blog/
If you're talking about the new book, The Casual Vacancy, you are probably right. The Casual Vacancy is riding on the success of the Harry Potter series, each Harry Potter book rode on the success of its predecessor, and so on. But you've got to keep in mind that the process started somewhere. The publishing industry didn't pull Rowling out of a hat to set her up to be their favourite cash cow.
Rowling wrote the first HP book over a period of 5 years, during which she lost her mother, got married, had a baby, and divorced, and lived on social security with her small daughter. Not much advantage over any other writer, so far.
The first book was rejected by 12 publishers, most of whom felt it was too long and slow for kids, before Bloomsbury agreed to publish it. The book did well on its own merits (for who had heard of Harry then?). They got positive and enthusiastic feedback from kids, parents and teachers, and won a few prizes, and Scholastic bought the American rights for a large sum.
So what I'm saying is, the success of Rowling's books started on their own merits, and then, like any other successful business venture, it fed on and multplied its own success.
None of this proves that the books are 'good'. She could have just got lucky. Their intrinsic merit is for each reader to decide for themselves. And by reader I mean someone who's actually read the books. It's amazing the number of people who are ready to dismiss the whole series as crap without having read them, or after reading a few of the books, or seeing the last movie.
Too sweeping a statement I feel. What do you have to support this? As for the marketing part, no particular age group was targeted, as far as I know. They were marketed on the strength of their name alone.
Also you have to consider seperately
1. Adults who pick up the books thinking they might be a good read, and decide that they like them. Edit: I know of quite a few intelligent, well read adults who belong to this category
2. Adult readers who started reading the books when they were kids but became adults before the series was over
3. Adults who started reading the books because of having kids who were the Harry Potter age (I belong to this category), and who kind of read them from a child's perspective. This includes teachers, librarians and others who work with children.
Cacian, I don't feel there was any shift in style, which remains functional and not very distinctive. This book is different because she's given the old heave-ho to everything that makes HP so special - magic, larger than life characters, big emotions, heroic actions - and tries out something completely new.
Exit, pursued by a bear.
If you check out my reviews of films on the appropriate thread you will see that they are virtually all from the post-war period and a number of them are rated 10/10: although I would be the first to admit that many of the most cinematically important films were made pre-war. Admittedly you are are unlikely to find anything post 1960s in my reviews because, to my mind, by that time the cinema was finished as a medium for discriminating entertainment once the studio system gave way to the rag tag and bobtail financial backers and their so-called actors and directors. I suppose another way of putting 'over stimulative' is 'in your face and exaggerated'.
"L'art de la statistique est de tirer des conclusions erronèes a partir de chiffres exacts." Napoléon Bonaparte.
"Je crois que beaucoup de gens sont dans cet état d’esprit: au fond, ils ne sentent pas concernés par l’Histoire. Mais pourtant, de temps à autre, l’Histoire pose sa main sur eux." Michel Houellebecq.
Ah, quite the naive non-sense. Their goal is not to produce a masterwork. Their goal is to produce a product. The process of book production, with the analyse of publishers start answering "It is good enough for our audience", not "It is a masterwork who will keep people talking in 500 years when we either closed the doors, died or the book will be already non-profitable because it is public domain."
That is why sales does not say much about the quality of a book, since sales is not made by the writer, but the marketing department. They analyse the audience, the tendencies on market, their own line of production and distribution, they even see if the book has potential in hollywood before publishing.
Absolutely. The academic do look if a work has many cliches. That is his job. He is not an employer of the industry. And the benefict it is rather obvious, no? Shakespeare is only popular because a bunch of an academics worked out critical essays after critical essays until his work was recognized and became central.The only appropriate thing for an academic to do is to try to make sense out of it, not whine about the author using too many cliches or put down the readers' competence. That doesn't provide anyone with any benefit except the academics who assert their privileged position with every dogmatic statement they make or parrot.
Your tirade against specialists because they do not guide their taste or analyse by the popular demmand is just one more of sick people who prefer to listen the neighbours about a disease than go to a doctor.
Shakespeare? Only popular because of a bunch of academics writing critical essays? OK I don't know a whole lot about it, but what about the performance of his plays which continued from his time to our own? Wouldn't you say the academics were churning out critical essays about an already cannonized playwright and poet?
Exit, pursued by a bear.
Nice dodge. Since when has art been judged solely in a pragmatic sense?
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.The successful artist, along with the contributions of any support staff, resonated with an audience. They did a good job. They accomplished their goal.
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.The only appropriate thing for an academic to do is to try to make sense out of it, not whine about the author using too many cliches or put down the readers' competence. That doesn't provide anyone with any benefit except the academics who assert their privileged position with every dogmatic statement they make or parrot.
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.I agree that it does not look like she had this all planned out from the beginning. Initially Harry was winning all the contests and saving everyone around him. Later, people began saving him. Does it matter that the HP series was not all planned out from the beginning?
There is no such notion of already canonized poet as you say back then, specially him, as they had to work hard to define Shakespeare own canon, by of course, critics who analyse which plays are his, recorded the versions, etc. Shakespeare was reproduced here and there, certainly already building his space, but his reading was not as much, specially outside england.
Critics (sorry, I changed the paragraph, but it is the same subject) like Doctor Jonson or Coleridge proposed new readings of the plays, build his popularity among romantics, new editions, children versions of the plays, etc that impulsioned his place as the central name in english canon and with england's dominance on XIX, the central name of western canon.
He is not the only one, obviously, but without the continual work of specialists after his death, there would not even be a body of work of his play to be published and read.
Some of Shakespeare's plays have been continually performed since the first production, possibly even when the theatres were banned. The First Folio was re-published for a long time, even after major changes in public taste.
I'm all for defending academic study and literary criticism, but it is ridiculous to suggest Shakespeare was only popular as a result of it.
Previously JonathanB
The more I read, the more I shall covet to read. Robert Burton The Anatomy of Melancholy Partion3, Section 1, Member 1, Subsection 1
The first books are the best. After the third book, which I consider to be the best of all, I think Rowling was allowed to do whatever she wanted and the content was not properly edited any more. I doubt that people immune to the charm of the first books would fall in love with the later books, especially since with each book Voldemort and his deatheaters are more and more resembling them.None of this proves that the books are 'good'. She could have just got lucky. Their intrinsic merit is for each reader to decide for themselves. And by reader I mean someone who's actually read the books. It's amazing the number of people who are ready to dismiss the whole series as crap without having read them, or after reading a few of the books, or seeing the last movie.
Last edited by Aylinn; 10-03-2012 at 02:14 PM.
The first folio is not the plays we read today and even them are subject to scrutinity because of the number of versions and corruptions to the text that existed. I do not believe you people are really comparing his popularity before the romantic age when he was a popular playwriter to be today most famous writer.
JCamilo, I think your credibility is going out the window with your grammar.
Look at the first folio (1623 edition), which is readily available: you will find only the most minor discrepancies between it and the major modern texts (Oxford's, Norton's, Arden's &c.).
I wrote a poem on a leaf and it blew away...
I have always though J's grammar wasn't all that bad considering English isn't his first, or even (unless I'm mistaken) his second language.
I wonder why, are you telling me that the First Folio was not subject of scrutinity? That there is not several versions of it? And that no play had been "cannonized" based on texts from other sources?
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 wrote a poem on a leaf and it blew away...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
