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

[qimissung]

I guess only time will tell if Harry Potter "saved literacy." I can only agree that it's a B or C level book. That's where I would put it.

But I would leave them on the library shelves. Having worked my butt off for many years trying to get thousands of young people to even want to pick up a book, I cannot decry any book that succeeds in accomplishing just that. I tend to be egalitarian where books and reader taste are concerned, and I also saw first hand the joy those books brought to my own kids.

I mean the Harry Potter books were a publishing phenomenon at a time when reading just wasn't popular. It got kids to read. Why is that not a good thing? Now whether they continue to do so is a matter of question. They're probably not if they don't see their parents reading, or if reading is not prized by the culture they live in.

And one would hope they'd go on to read other things and better things. But not all people are going to do that. Look at the 50 Shades of Gray books. I haven't read it yet, if indeed I ever do. I have a friend who just can't get over all the women at her work who keep gushing over it. So I do kind of understand your concern.

[TheFifthElement]

I mean the Harry Potter books were a publishing phenomenon at a time when reading just wasn't popular. It got kids to read. Why is that not a good thing? Now whether they continue to do so is a matter of question. They're probably not if they don't see their parents reading, or if reading is not prized by the culture they live in.

I think that's a good point Qimi. If they're not reading at all their chances of going on to read 'great' literature are zero. If they're reading something, even if it's whatever B or C grade means (I mean, who grades them?) then there's a chance they will go on to read something better. Or not, it's largely down to personal choice after all. But I think about my own childhood and I grew up reading books about ponies and the Chalet Girls series and now, many years later, I'm reading Middlemarch. So it's possible.

And if they don't, so what? Who does it damage? What's so important about reading novels anyway? Are we caught in a 'dead' idea about the nature of reading and the reading skills that the next generation will need?

[JCamilo]

If only time will tell if HP saved or not literacy, then how you can say It made kids reading?

That is the entire point of the debate: there is no evidence whatsoever it increased the number of young readers or mature. The last decade has been actually a decade of decline.

So, let's be coherent: if only time will say HP saved literacy then wait to say it made kids read.

[qimissung]

I think that's a good point Qimi. If they're not reading at all their chances of going on to read 'great' literature are zero. If they're reading something, even if it's whatever B or C grade means (I mean, who grades them?) then there's a chance they will go on to read something better. Or not, it's largely down to personal choice after all. But I think about my own childhood and I grew up reading books about ponies and the Chalet Girls series and now, many years later, I'm reading Middlemarch. So it's possible.

And if they don't, so what? Who does it damage? What's so important about reading novels anyway? Are we caught in a 'dead' idea about the nature of reading and the reading skills that the next generation will need?

And that is also a good point, Fifth. I refer in particular to your last line. I read almost daily to my kids until they were in middle school at which point it seemed like they dropped reading on their own altogether. So disappointing. But now, many years later, my middle son does read-books, like I do; and my oldest son reads, too-but mostly on the internet. But not just TMZ, although I think he does go to web sites of that nature, but long articles. He reads-although if he just says he's "on the computer" one may not initially realize he's actually reading. It doesn't "look" like what we're used to reading looking like.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

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?

I don't blame him for anything. It could easily be argued that there's nothing wrong with being attached to the western dead-white-guy canon. I'm not anti-western canon. It's there for a reason; it's full of amazing authors and great pieces of literature. I just think more could be included in it. I don't know. I'm not really up to another canon debate.

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.

I have no specific examples, and I have neither the time nor motivation to find any. I was just speaking of his ideas on a larger scale. I could be wrong--it's quite possible

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 )

I'd simply say that some ideas do date and others don't.

[YesNo]

There's a tension between authority and evidence. People too quickly accept authority not only without evidence, but even in the face of solid, contrary evidence.

When Bloom tears down the HP series, the evidence is not on his side. So, what is one to do? Does one accept Bloom on his authority or does one reject Bloom based on the evidence? Those, like myself, who reject him, insist that he must provide adequate evidence to counter the evidence that is already on the table.

What is the evidence that is already on the table? Well, Bloom is no fool. Whether anyone else is willing to acknowledge this evidence or not, he knows that the millions of readers who enjoyed the books is the major evidence against his position. He tries to dismiss this evidence by defaming these readers as "a host...who simply will not read superior fare".

The title of Bloom's piece, "Can 35 Million Book Buyers Be Wrong? Yes", shows that he is focused on this readership evidence. Suppose someone asks, "Can 35 Million Chocolate Buyers Be Wrong?" Does a "Yes" or "No" response even make sense to such a question? It shouldn't.

Suppose one claims that there is a "right" or "wrong" to what someone likes. What does that imply? It seems it implies that there exists some supernatural Platonic dimension where the truth of this aesthetic statement can be established by comparing the HP series with some ideal children's novel. It could also imply a justification for a censorship program to make sure people read the "superior fare" that Bloom has in mind for us.

To promote his authority Bloom must trash a lot of people. Who are they? With a little imagination, they have faces. They are your neighbors. They are your relatives. They are your family. I would rather stand with them than with Bloom, not simply because they are my family, but because their choice in what they want to read adds up to massive evidence that Bloom has not been able to adequately counter.

[JBI]

There's a tension between authority and evidence. People too quickly accept authority not only without evidence, but even in the face of solid, contrary evidence.

When Bloom tears down the HP series, the evidence is not on his side. So, what is one to do? Does one accept Bloom on his authority or does one reject Bloom based on the evidence? Those, like myself, who reject him, insist that he must provide adequate evidence to counter the evidence that is already on the table.

What is the evidence that is already on the table? Well, Bloom is no fool. Whether anyone else is willing to acknowledge this evidence or not, he knows that the millions of readers who enjoyed the books is the major evidence against his position. He tries to dismiss this evidence by defaming these readers as "a host...who simply will not read superior fare".

The title of Bloom's piece, "Can 35 Million Book Buyers Be Wrong? Yes", shows that he is focused on this readership evidence. Suppose someone asks, "Can 35 Million Chocolate Buyers Be Wrong?" Does a "Yes" or "No" response even make sense to such a question? It shouldn't.

Suppose one claims that there is a "right" or "wrong" to what someone likes. What does that imply? It seems it implies that there exists some supernatural Platonic dimension where the truth of this aesthetic statement can be established by comparing the HP series with some ideal children's novel. It could also imply a justification for a censorship program to make sure people read the "superior fare" that Bloom has in mind for us.

To promote his authority Bloom must trash a lot of people. Who are they? With a little imagination, they have faces. They are your neighbors. They are your relatives. They are your family. I would rather stand with them than with Bloom, not simply because they are my family, but because their choice in what they want to read adds up to massive evidence that Bloom has not been able to adequately counter.

And your evidence is? He has given points why it is bad, and assumes his readership agrees to an extent - he is not out there to prove it crap line by line. The same way someone who is campaigning against drunk driving does not need to list all the bads of drunk driving every time they open their mouth - they assume the audience knows already - or someone lobbying for law against cigarettes - they assume the public knows they can kill you.

Now, this is a book - it is more open to debate, but he assumes people agree with him, which many do. Can 35million be wrong is responding to your presumption, not the text - he knows there will be detractors from his idea, and does not care enough to give them any time, which is the right thing to do.


You on the contrary have shown absolutely nothing of evidence or substance in support of the text other than that you and some other kids love the books. That's hogwash - millions and millions of people love cigarettes - they are one of the world's most popular crops - does that make them somehow good? Good at all? No it does not. So the mass appeal argument has just been shown to mean nothing.

Bloom has a career of supporting obscure authors as well - the was instrumental in many debates to revive and reaccess lost and disfavored poets and authors. You dismiss him as a polemic who is only interested in lashing out at weak authors for the sake of getting sales. Quite to the contrary actually, he was selling better promoting long-held household staples. His biggest sales have come from supporting already popular authors, and writing about them. He hardly has added anything to the sales of Jane Austen, Virginia Woolf, Shakespeare, or whomever else - they are already major players, and that is who he writes about, and that is who sold his books for him - not J.K. Rowling, Stephen King, or that person who wrote Twilight.

[stlukesguild]

To promote his authority Bloom must trash a lot of people. Who are they? With a little imagination, they have faces. They are your neighbors. They are your relatives. They are your family. I would rather stand with them than with Bloom, not simply because they are my family, but because their choice in what they want to read adds up to massive evidence that Bloom has not been able to adequately counter.

Hahahahahaha! That was seriously the most pathetic attempt to win a debate I have come across in quite some time. Your argument is dissected, and so you make a sad play to the emotions? "Which side are you on? The side of Harold Bloom and those elitist snobs who seek to trash your friends and family? Or are you on the side of the good, morally upstanding folk... your hard-working neighbors, your family, your elderly and disabled grandmother? I know what side I stand on. I stand in solidarity with the "real Americans".

Personally, I love my family (most of them), and my wife... but I'm not about to turn to them for guidance when it comes to art and literature. Valuing art is not a popularity contest. There are any number of individuals among my friends and family who read and greatly enjoyed the Harry Potter novels... and even Dan Brown. One friend bought me a copy of The Davinci Code because he knew I loved art and art history. The fact that I think these works are mediocre at best (OK... the Dan Brown stuff sucks) is in no way an insult to my friends and family. Art and Literature are not an abiding passion to them. They don't have a personal library of some 3000+ books. They spend their recreational time and money on new cars, vacations to Florida, football and baseball games. I spend mine on art, music, books, and trips to the museums and art galleries.

Art is "elitist" in the sense that the opinions that matter most are those of the audience who have invested the most time and effort into the understanding and appreciation of that given art form. When speaking of literature, this audience includes not only the critics, professors and other academics as well as the subsequent writers... but also the wider group of what Virginia Wolfe referred to as the (not so common) "common reader"... in other words, the passionate, well-informed, well-read reader. The attempt to portray this as a conflict between the "everyday man or woman" and those of a given degree of wealth, social status, or formal education is simply a lame attempt to dismiss the value of knowledge and achievement.

[YesNo]

And your evidence is?

My evidence is the large number of people who liked the book. I don't know how to make that any clearer to you.

Perhaps the real problem that is bothering you is that I don't agree with you. Just so that you are not confused about that as well, let me make it clear: I don't agree with you.

Hahahahahaha! That was seriously the most pathetic attempt to win a debate I have come across in quite some time.

I am glad you enjoyed it, stlukesguild.

[stlukesguild]

JBI-And your evidence is?

Yes/No-My evidence is the large number of people who liked the book. I don't know how to make that any clearer to you.

I think we're all clear on what you have put forth as "evidence" of artistic merit. It is simply that popularity is absolutely no measure of worth whatsoever. But you can certainly keep repeating the idea in the vain hope that it will make it true.

[mortalterror]

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?

I've only ever eaten their french fries, chicken mcnuggets, and hamburgers; and those were some of the finest examples of their kind. Admittedly, they aren't the most difficult culinary dishes to produce, but I have to wonder if they don't get more mileage, produce more pleasure, than some of the more finesse and work heavy dishes. I mean, just a regular apple or a pineapple is already pretty good. And sometimes people slave away being inventive, burning endless calories on something that in the end isn't as appetizing as a simple bologna sandwich. I'm not saying that's true of the finest restaurants, where the chefs are artists and know how to get the most flavor out of every apple and pineapple. What I'm saying is that McDonalds shouldn't be despised for being the best at making the most appetizing food that's also simple and cheap to make.

[stlukesguild]

Hey... I eat McDonald's... but it's not like I'm going to suggest that the food is great or anything. I'm hooked on those damn frappes... but Starbuck's are better... and any bar makes better burgers. But sometimes I just gotta eat and run. If there was something faster and comparably priced in the area...

So are you suggesting that McDonalds is on your top-10 list of finest places to eat, and that the Harry Potter novels are going to replace Hemingway among your favorite works of literature?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I can't eat McDonalds, and very rarely eat fast food. The thought of it usually makes me feel a bit queasy. I do love White Castle though, ironically.

[JBI]

I've only ever eaten their french fries, chicken mcnuggets, and hamburgers; and those were some of the finest examples of their kind. Admittedly, they aren't the most difficult culinary dishes to produce, but I have to wonder if they don't get more mileage, produce more pleasure, than some of the more finesse and work heavy dishes. I mean, just a regular apple or a pineapple is already pretty good. And sometimes people slave away being inventive, burning endless calories on something that in the end isn't as appetizing as a simple bologna sandwich. I'm not saying that's true of the finest restaurants, where the chefs are artists and know how to get the most flavor out of every apple and pineapple. What I'm saying is that McDonalds shouldn't be despised for being the best at making the most appetizing food that's also simple and cheap to make.

Still as a gourmet who eats McDonald's, I realize my most memorable meals in terms of food are decidedly not at McDonalds. I can eat a big Mac, but it is not a steak dinner in a French restaurant. The argument is you are happy when you eat Mcd's but you never are left with a lasting impression of something special. For the child who is deprived of extravagant meals, McDonald's is a heaven on earth - it is happiness, but as pallets mature, it is more of a quick convenience.

Now books are virtually free. There is no class divide in terms of the physical book. Education in many countries is also quite reasonable ( Canada and most of Europe) so study is no longer a restriction for the rich. Likewise, online alternative education can do what universities can do to teach one to read, pretty much, as can other books.

From that perspective, I want my books well written. I want them all to be special and memorable. I no longer have the time to read light reading. My light reading is commentary, not primary works. My heavy reading is primary texts. I want all my books to develop my pallet and change me somewhat.

Think of it like drinking a bottle of Italian wine. You can sip the bottle, or eat it with some olives cheese and prosciutto. The effect is different, but somehow you need to learn how to drink it the right way.

I am someone who remembers every good meal he has ever eaten. I remember a steak dinner in Vientiane, or even a fancy chengdu hotpot in a garden in the old alleys of the city. I remember eating lamb and roasted chicken with dozens of deserts and snacks in kashgar, and eating delicious seafood on the beaches of Bali. But I cannot remember a single particular instance of something special from McDonald's. Even though I have eaten it hundreds of times and still do.

[mortalterror]

Hey... I eat McDonald's... but it's not like I'm going to suggest that the food is great or anything. I'm hooked on those damn frappes... but Starbuck's are better... and any bar makes better burgers. But sometimes I just gotta eat and run. If there was something faster and comparably priced in the area...

So are you suggesting that McDonalds is on your top-10 list of finest places to eat, and that the Harry Potter novels are going to replace Hemingway among your favorite works of literature?

I don't know that there is that much variability in terms of hamburgers. I've eaten thousands over decades in dozens of different venues. It's kind of hard to mess up and it's usually about a 7 in terms of flavor. You can make it greasy or burn it or cover it in garbage but for the most part it's still the same animal between two slices of bread whether you get it at McDonalds or a bar. What drink you have with it might make more of a difference than where you get your burger.

*I don't want to seem ignorant about burgers suggesting it's all the same. I do realize that there is a noticeably different taste between grill and barbecue, propane vs charcoal, but the point remains there's not much to it.

**I'll also admit that I've never had a hamburger from either 5 Guys, or In-N-Out-Burger, which are by all accounts outstanding.

Honestly, I don't think I even have a top 10 places to eat. Does home count? There's one or two pizza places I used to eat at in college which were great, but usually when I dine out at glitzy restaurants I'm just annoyed by the prices and feel like I'm paying for ambiance and window dressing more than for the food.

But then, we are sort of comparing apples and oranges. Most people can afford a Hemingway novel but can't buy a $400 bottle of wine to make a comparison with Budweiser.

Still as a gourmet who eats McDonald's, I realize my most memorable meals in terms of food are decidedly not at McDonalds. I can eat a big Mac, but it is not a steak dinner in a French restaurant. The argument is you are happy when you eat Mcd's but you never are left with a lasting impression of something special. For the child who is deprived of extravagant meals, McDonald's is a heaven on earth - it is happiness, but as pallets mature, it is more of a quick convenience.

Now books are virtually free. There is no class divide in terms of the physical book. Education in many countries is also quite reasonable ( Canada and most of Europe) so study is no longer a restriction for the rich. Likewise, online alternative education can do what universities can do to teach one to read, pretty much, as can other books.

From that perspective, I want my books well written. I want them all to be special and memorable. I no longer have the time to read light reading. My light reading is commentary, not primary works. My heavy reading is primary texts. I want all my books to develop my pallet and change me somewhat.

Think of it like drinking a bottle of Italian wine. You can sip the bottle, or eat it with some olives cheese and prosciutto. The effect is different, but somehow you need to learn how to drink it the right way.

I am someone who remembers every good meal he has ever eaten. I remember a steak dinner in Vientiane, or even a fancy chengdu hotpot in a garden in the old alleys of the city. I remember eating lamb and roasted chicken with dozens of deserts and snacks in kashgar, and eating delicious seafood on the beaches of Bali. But I cannot remember a single particular instance of something special from McDonald's. Even though I have eaten it hundreds of times and still do.

I just baked a bunch of chocolate chip cookies. They're pretty good, but not especially memorable.

I can't remember every good meal I've ever had, and not every good meal is memorable. I will say that about fifteen years ago Boston Market had the best corn bread I've ever tasted. It was sweet and the texture was just the right consistency, not crumbly but not stale or mushy either. And it went very well with their slices of honey baked ham. They served very good raviolis every Wednesday in the seventh grade lunch cafeteria, and every Thursday in the sixth grade I had the best cinnamon rolls ever. Other than that, about the only special meal I can think of is the first time I ate cheddar cheese and green apples together and they somehow combined and made each other better.