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

[JCamilo]

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?

[Charles Darnay]

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.

[JCamilo]

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.

[OrphanPip]

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.

[YesNo]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

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

[Lokasenna]

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

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.

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.

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.

[YesNo]

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?

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.

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.

[JBI]

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.

[mona amon]

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.

[JCamilo]

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.

[YesNo]

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.

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.

[JCamilo]

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.

[stlukesguild]

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...



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.

[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 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.