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

[stlukesguild]

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.

In other words achievements mean nothing to you.

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.

That proves absolutely nothing. That's not evidence of artistic merit. More people eat at McDonald's in one day than will eat at the finest restaurants in a year. Am I to assume that such is proof of the great cuisine offered under the Golden Arches?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

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.

Why not, exactly? I'll never understand the snobbish attitude some people take against those who are educated. You may not care if Bloom has a professor ship at Yale and it may not impress you, but that doesn't really matter. One doesn't get a professorship at a university, much less Yale, because they aren't well-read in their respective fields. Whether you recognize the accomplishment doesn't change the fact that someone in that position is indeed a better authority than most anyone who isn't.

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.

How can we ascertain your authority? I thought no one had the authority to pass judgements in literature (even though you're doing so).

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.

I think JBI was just pointing out the hypocrisy of some of your statements. For one, you claim no one has the authority to tear down a piece of literature as Bloom does, yet you seem to think you have the authority to build up a piece of literature. So, what, does this authority only apply to those who apply negative criticism?

Also, your main argument that states Harry Potter is a good, valuable piece of literature hinges on the fact that it's a great seller--i.e., what sells is an indicator of worth. You then outright dismiss the opinions of Bloom . . . yet he is the world's most popular critic, one who is consistently taught, read, and one who has sold millions of books. By your own criteria, his opinions should hold a substantial amount of weight. His books sell. The market has spoken. He obviously knows what he's talking about.

[qimissung]

Kudos to all of you for shredding YesNo's argument. *sarcasm* I don't agree with your opinion, YesNo, that millions of copies mark the merit of the series, but it seems to me that if millions of people like something I would look at it to see why they like and what merit it has, which is certainly valid.

As to Harold Bloom, or rather the argument that concerns him, what I take from that argument is that we all have the right to express our opinions on the worth or lack of worth of a piece of literature. I hear what you're saying, Mutatis. I grant that Bloom is educated and erudite in a way that I can only aspire to, but I still disagree with him.

Do I think Harry Potter is a worthwhile piece of literature? Yes. Is it valuable? Hmmm, maybe. Maybe not. I would probably characterize it as a ripping good yarn. You know some other ripping good yarns? The Last of the Mohicans, and Treasure Island, both popular literature of their day, although each is arguably written in a more literary style.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I'm not saying Bloom can't be disagreed with--I frequently do (I think he's way too attached to the Western dead-white-guy canon, to a near-sexist and prejudiced point), and I think his ideas are now quite outdated, and, from what I've heard, he just seems like an unpleasant person. I was just pointing out that YesNo's dismissal of Bloom's authority was hypocritical, by his (sorry if you're not a man, YesNo--I really don't know) own criteria.

[qimissung]

Fair enough, Mutatis. I'm not sure I think his argument is hypocritical, which means the "pretense of having virtues, beliefs, principals one does not actually possess."

I think when YesNo says he has "no authority," or one way this could be interpreted, anyway, he means that he does not have the prestigious backing of degree or university or a publication. Do you think he is saying that by having no authority he has no right to publicly express his opinion? Which would be a curious argument, indeed.

[Aylinn]

Kudos to all of you for shredding YesNo's argument. *sarcasm* I don't agree with your opinion, YesNo, that millions of copies mark the merit of the series, but it seems to me that if millions of people like something I would look at it to see why they like and what merit it has, which is certainly valid.

I suppose that it is so, because they provide people with a simple entertainment. There is a mystery, but it's not very complicated. Let's look at the first book and the Snape & Quirinus Quirrell situation. For a long time Snape is presented as the bad guy and Quirinus Quirrell is shown as the good guy, incapable of plotting any intrigue. However, at the end of the book it turns out that Snape is the good guy while Quirrell is the bad guy.

So we have the bad guy turns out to be good while the good guy turns out to be bad scenario. It's the simplest mystery scenario I know. By the way, Don Brown uses it in his books.



Since I have read all the books, I think I have right to say something about them.

1. There are some things that could have been better. For example the introduction of Ginny through the comments of others, if they were not limited to descriptions like that: She is hot. If the comments had more depth and told us something about the author of the comment, it would be an interesting way to introduce a character and deepen the characterisation of the commenting person.

2. I think it would have been better if Harry ended up with Luna. After the fifth book I thought that he would be with her, especially since it turned out they have similar life experience, loss of a parent/parents, etc. and as a result could understand each other very well.

3. The idea of Deathly Hallows had clearly not occurred to Rowling until she was writing the sixth book. Just think how strange it is that it took Harry, Hermiona, and Ron seven years to realise that Harry's invisible cloak is unique and incomparable to any other. Besides, the events in the fifth book allowed for a great introduction of Deathly Hallows.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Fair enough, Mutatis. I'm not sure I think his argument is hypocritical, which means the "pretense of having virtues, beliefs, principals one does not actually possess."

I think when YesNo says he has "no authority," or one way this could be interpreted, anyway, he means that he does not have the prestigious backing of degree or university or a publication. Do you think he is saying that by having no authority he has no right to publicly express his opinion? Which would be a curious argument, indeed.

Honestly, I don't entirely understand his thoughts on authority. From what I understand, he thinks no one, no matter if they have a degree or prestigious accolades, has the authority to pass judgements about literature . . . yet he's doing just that. I also found it hypocritical that he find HP to have an objective amount of worth because of sales, yet he still writes off Bloom, a man who has sold many, many books. I can't be much more clear than that.

[stlukesguild]

Kudos to all of you for shredding YesNo's argument. *sarcasm* I don't agree with your opinion, YesNo, that millions of copies mark the merit of the series, but it seems to me that if millions of people like something I would look at it to see why they like and what merit it has, which is certainly valid.

So in other words... the ideas that popularity is the ultimate measure of artistic merit, and that all opinions are of the same worth (or lack thereof) regardless of achievement or gained/proven reputation should be above question if challenging them also results in questioning the literary merit of a book you enjoyed *more sarcasm*.

I don't think anyone has suggested that the opinions of the masses are irrelevant. Certainly not me. I've recently been painted as an "anti-elitist" for suggesting that we should consider the opinions of the audience... as well as the "experts": critics, academics, historians, subsequent artists, etc... I agree that popularity draws your attention. How many other children's books have I never even heard of because they weren't all over the press, in the theaters, marketed to the high hilt in the big book chains, etc...?

As to Harold Bloom, or rather the argument that concerns him, what I take from that argument is that we all have the right to express our opinions on the worth or lack of worth of a piece of literature. I hear what you're saying, Mutatis. I grant that Bloom is educated and erudite in a way that I can only aspire to, but I still disagree with him.

Certainly we all have the "right" to express our opinions. The internet has given everyone the right to be a published critic. All opinions, however, are not created equal. You are free to disagree with Bloom. We all have on occasion. No one has questioned your right to enjoy a work of literature regardless of popularity or critical opinions. If, however, you are arguing that a work of literature that is generally acknowledged as being of questionable value in aesthetic/critical terms is in actuality a great work... a "classic"... then the responsibility is laid upon you to prove your point... and drawing attention to the popularity of the work is no proof for or against.

[mona amon]

JCamilo, thanks for replying to my question.

Well I looked up Bloom, and I'm thinking I might not dislike him after all, if I read some of his proper work.

Much of contemporary criticism takes a novel and holds it up to a series of incongruous and irrelevant sociological magnifying glasses—gender theory, feminism, Marxist analysis, and all sorts of postmodern muck. These critics, whom Bloom has memorably called the School of Resentment,...[cut]...
From this website - http://www.vice.com/read/harold-bloom-431-v15n12

"School of Resentment" LOL!

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 understand your point, and I wouldn't complain if he had just dismissed Harry Potter along with Dan Brown, Stephanie Meyer and others. I'm used to seeing Harry Potter in such company, and even if I feel that they ought not to be there and belong to a class of their own, I understand that it's "mediocre books" they are dismissing, just as I don't have to read every Harlequin romance to dismiss the whole genre as trash.

However, if a critic singles out one particular Harlequin romance (rather than the whole genre) and says it's trash, he'll have to have read it in the first place, and secondly, give some reasons for why he thinks it's bad. He doesn't have to give anything like a deep analysis. It's perfectly possible that the book is too mediocre (or he finds it too mediocre) for a deep analysis. He can even just give direct quotes from the books, to show how laughably bad the book is. I've seen this happen with 50 Shades and Da Vinci Code, and it works.

Unsupported statements about a particular book or series of the "this is bad because I say so" variety are simply annoying, whether it's a schoolboy talking about Shakespeare, or Bloom talking about Harry Potter.

[stlukesguild]

I think when YesNo says he has "no authority," or one way this could be interpreted, anyway, he means that he does not have the prestigious backing of degree or university or a publication. Do you think he is saying that by having no authority he has no right to publicly express his opinion? Which would be a curious argument, indeed.

Yes/No explicitly stated that Bloom had "no authority" to proclaim a given critical opinion. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. Thanks to the internet, everyone now has the right to publicly express their opinion... but contrary to what Yes/No is suggesting, all opinions are not of the same value. Some opinions are afforded more weight than others. My doctor's opinion on what exactly it is that I have got is afforded more worth far more than the opinion of my mother-in-law, my friends, or a poll of the man on the street. Artistic opinions are also afforded a degree of merit based upon the achievements and the reputation of the individual. The critics are not always right... but neither are the doctors... but the fact that the "experts" are sometimes wrong does not invalidate the value of their opinion.

[mal4mac]

I'm not saying Bloom can't be disagreed with--I frequently do (I think he's way too attached to the Western dead-white-guy canon, to a near-sexist and prejudiced point), and I think his ideas are now quite outdated, and, from what I've heard, he just seems like an unpleasant person. I was just pointing out that YesNo's dismissal of Bloom's authority was hypocritical, by his (sorry if you're not a man, YesNo--I really don't know) own criteria.

We're all attached to something. The guy spent his youth reading the Western canon, and enjoyed it. Can you blame him for following his early interests? Would you say that Feynman was too attached to physics?

Have you any examples of him being sexist? The early chapters of his book "The Western Canon" is mostly dead white males because ancient societies were ultra-sexist. Later on he gives much space to Austen, Dickinson, and Woolf.

Do ideas ever date in literature? For instance, Aristotle's idea of catharsis has lasted for a long time. I can't see how Bloom's idea of "agon" will ever date. It might not be trendy today, but who's to say it will not bloom again. ('scuse pun )

[Drkshadow03]

Some people are good readers, some people inferior ones. Harold Bloom is most certainly a good reader. With that said, that doesn't mean he is always a good arguer or that all his points are correct. After all, there are some critics who have said nice things about Potter. Not to mention there are plenty of examples of other critics taking to task Bloom's critical interpretations of more traditional Canonical works in favor of their own.

[mal4mac]

To fuel this debate I'd recommend watching last Fridays Newsnight Review show on BBC2, which has three interesting reviewers talking about this new book. (With two female reviewers and a female chair they can't easily be accused of sexism at least!)

The reviewers made many of the points that Bloom has made about Rowling - full of cliches, "telling not showing", etc, but it was far from all negative. They pointed out that she is a "magician" at character and situation creation.

Maybe that explains her popularity, and her bad standing with "high literary" critics. Even if a story uses lots of clichés and shortcuts, if the plot and characters are "magic", then who cares?

[JBI]

To fuel this debate I'd recommend watching last Fridays Newsnight Review show on BBC2, which has three interesting reviewers talking about this new book. (With two female reviewers and a female chair they can't easily be accused of sexism at least!)

The reviewers made many of the points that Bloom has made about Rowling - full of cliches, "telling not showing", etc, but it was far from all negative. They pointed out that she is a "magician" at character and situation creation.

Maybe that explains her popularity, and her bad standing with "high literary" critics. Even if a story uses lots of clichés and shortcuts, if the plot and characters are "magic", then who cares?

Bloom's argument would be that this would be considered a B level or C level book. It is not the worst out there, and he has nothing particular against it, other than it is held up as a standard.

We have As out there, he lists a few, and I could list a few of my own - the question then comes down to time. Should people read these books, and should they be praised, and do they contribute to literacy? Bloom's argument is, they do not contribute to anything but their own sales, and to a mediocre sense of fulfillment, they do not lead to life-long readers of great books, and mindful critics.

I tend to agree. I have no problem with people reading those books. But I have a problem with people claiming they are saving literacy, or that they are great literature. They are a light entertainment that serves the needs of entertainment, but they do not lead to anything, and therefore have no actual value outside of their entertainment. They do not increase literacy by anything substantial or lead to more readers finding great books in a way that they wouldn't have found them before.

Some argue they move on from Potter to better books, but I have a hunch if I had given them a better book they could have gone straight into it. Potter is not God, and he didn't really change the world, or change reading, and has little to offer. That is Bloom's argument.

[qimissung]

"The reviewers made many of the points that Bloom has made about Rowling - full of cliches, "telling not showing", etc, but it was far from all negative. They pointed out that she is a "magician" at character and situation creation.

Maybe that explains her popularity, and her bad standing with "high literary" critics. Even if a story uses lots of clichés and shortcuts, if the plot and characters are "magic", then who cares?"

Which is kind of what I was saying.

"I don't think anyone has suggested that the opinions of the masses are irrelevant..." I certainly got the impression that some did not think it was important. I was merely asking us to look at why people liked the story. I wasn't pointing fingers.


"Artistic opinions are also afforded a degree of merit based upon the achievements and the reputation of the..."

Where did you get the idea I was arguing against that? I was just trying to clarify YesNo's position in my own mind. Why is that such a terrible thing? You seem angry. I think debate should be thoughtful and fun, with many ideas expresssed which in turn lead to more ideas. While you seem to want to quash all opinions but your own. "Seem to" being the operative phrase.