Yes
No
Do kids not enjoy happy meals? You are throwing out a sophism that implies children have developed acute tastes to the point that they can distinguish between good and bad literature. Either way, the bulk of Potter readers are no longer children. The people who read the first book at publication are now 10 years older. So lets say they were 8, they are now 18.Originally Posted by Hank Stamper
just out of interest where did you see these statistics? and who compiled these statistics / where was the survey taken? America? UK? Global?
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
What's the point? We are supposed to enjoy mediocrity because it is mediocre? The Potter books cost more than any other books at release (I know some of them set the record for most expensive hard-back children's book). Don't you think they should be getting something worth it? Why should people be subject to mediocrity.
If you have not read the greatest books, how do you know what the greatest books are? What judge can rule with out precedents of something that has been done time and time again? You are saying that people who know nothing about literature are not ignorant. I am calling you a) too optimistic, and b) ignorant. Would Manet's Olympia be the same without the Titian Venus of Urbino as its precedent? Can it be viewed the same way without those? Or without knowing what it represented in the development of painting?
You are implying that, essentially, there is no good and bad judge of art. I am implying that you are implying that you are a philistine. Of course there are good and bad critics. Of course there are developed tastes. Of course a person taking his first sip of wine cannot judge the vintage.
The one I saw was from an article in the New York times. I could try and dig for it if you would like.
edit, it took 5 seconds, I unfortunately got the source wrong, it was from the San Fransisco Chronicle, Read it here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGN7R0Q1N1.DTL
Note, the article enjoys a lot of bias, it featuring a different subject than this thread, and does not bring into question the quality of these works. All quotes referring as much can be taken to mean absolutely nothing, since I don't think a spokesperson from Scholastic has any right to comment on the books.
Also, stick this one in there using, I think, the same study. http://www.boston.com/ae/books/artic...s_only_so_far/
In other words, Harry Potter has lead to 325milion odd books being read, and perhaps a couple more, but nothing seriously important to the development of literacy and readership. This is also assuming that people who read Potter would not have read other books, another logical slip made by the Potter-Loving press. Who is to say that the readers who still read of the bunch would not have done so if they had not read Potter?
you like your maccy dees dont you!
I don't think children are capable of distinguishing between good and bad literature in the sense that you are implying, however they are capable of telling a good story from a bad story, and Harry Potter is clearly a good story, well written for children.
The fact that the 'original' readers of Potter are now 18 does not make a difference. Harry Potter is still a children's book, 10 year olds are still reading it. Some of those 'original' readers will have remained loyal to the series but with any luck they will be reading more challenging novels as well
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
Is it a children's book? Perhaps the first 3, but as I hear, they get "darker" as they go, and feature more "complex" relationships and themes. I find that the true indicator of periodpieceness, the fact that the book evolves with its original readers, meaning consecutive readers do not enjoy the same growth feeling. As it has been seen, from my above posts, They are not reading more challenging books, they are simply not reading. You imply that they go on to better stuff, or different stuff as you will put it, but the data gathered by researchers smacks you with a false in your face.
A nice little tid-bit here. I have seen a few of the movies, and I find it rather "bloody brilliant" to use her cliché, that you can literally here the male characters' voices drop an octave in between the films.
The point is THEY ARE CHILDREN'S BOOKS!
This is all I am implying - to judge Harry Potter as anything other than a children's book is completely irrelevant
But you are right I do believe that there is no good and bad judge of art. It is all subjective. I am a philistine
ps thanks for the link
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
Are they Children's Books? Who says? You? The readers who are mostly teens+? The author who said that she made the books mature as they went, or the publishers, who sell them as any other book? They were even released with special adult covers, if you cared to look, implying that they are NOT targeted only for children.
Yes. They are children's books. They have had (to Rowling and the publisher's surprise) cross-over appeal, hence the special adult covers (that is marketing for you - they will never miss an opportunity to cash in) - but they are not written for adults. The books inevitably mature as Harry matures but they are still written for children. But if it makes you feel better, or rather if it makes your argument seem more valid, then you can keep telling yourself otherwise.
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
Right back at you. You self-distructed your argument in your last sentence. Rather than offer proof of anything, you have essentially said, yes they have matured with their readers (who if they were 8 are now 18, no longer children and now teenagers) and b)"But if it makes you feel better, or rather if it makes your argument seem more valid, then you can keep telling yourself otherwise." right back at you son. You have given no proof beyond your word, whereas you acknowledge my statements as being true, and also acknowledge that these books are being marketed at older audiences. Are they still Children's literature, or is it you who are telling yourself a falseness to buff up your already declining argument. You essentially have said nothing beyond "I think children like these books." Why not try to read a little, and perhaps back your argument up, instead of throwing out silly sophisms for the sake of sounding smart (yummy intentional alliteration, just for emphasis.
I think it rather ignorant of you to deny that the books are no longer kids books, when, as I hear, the death toll in the last book is quite high, where main characters drop like flies. How many other books feature not only enemies that kill good guys, but also good guys who kill greyish baddies? I've also been told that the term ""bitch" is also used in the last volume. I trust that is within the children's literature bracket.
When half a book is donated to coming of age relationship conflict, and detailing about snogging in the bathroom and whatnot, I cannot see how you can argue for these being children's books.
If people think HP is a great series of books them good on them I say, I will declare my interest I love the books. Books that are termed literature are not for everyone and you should not be made to feel that you are less than for liking any sort of books. I am not sure how many people have read the series but surely we can not all be wrong. And for the record I love a great literary read also
W a r n i n g
Please do not personalise your arguments.
Posts resorting to inflammatory remarks will be deleted without any further notice.
~
"It is not that I am mad; it is only that my head is different from yours.”
~
You have read all seven Harry Potter novels then? Or are you just basing your argument on what other people have said?
I will concede I have not read the last two books and I will concede they have cross-over appeal, but I refuse to accept they are not primarily children's books. The fact that Harry matures is a condition of the series and therefore the content will change to reflect this - however, what you are implying is, that the readership of Harry Potter depends on the age of Harry Potter in each book. Whether the latest two books are teen novels - maybe. But they are not adult books (I'll have to borrow your trick and base this on what other people have told me) and therefore my argument (or 'silly sophism') still stands, to judge them as anything other than children's books is an exercise in irrelevance.
There are so many terrible books out there (see Martin Amis, Melvin Burgess, etc), which I would rather spend my time arguing about! Good debate though JBI
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
harry potter is not just a children's series, it's a damn good children's series! the last book in my opion was a huge anticlimax with many predicatabilites along the way but then again i was reading it as a 21 year old so it is unfair for my to slander a book that is aimed at those of a younger age bracket. the adult covers are only for those who feel ashamed to sit on the train reading a childrens book, i'd be more ashamed to be reading the daily mail or just sat there feeling bored!
''It isn't enough for your heart to break because everybody's heart is broken now.''
- Allen Ginsberg
"The whole dream of democracy is to raise the proletarian to the level of stupidity attained by the bourgeois."
- Gustave Flaubert
I've read a couple of them, The first 2, about half of the third, half of the fourth, most of the 5th, and about 1/3 from each the last two volumes. I tend to skip pages that progress only plot, and not character. Of course, I was not reading with my usual pencil, but I feel I have grasped enough to make fair comments. And no, I did not read the books for enjoyment, or even because I really wanted to; The first two were read to my grade 6 class, out loud, by my teacher to the whole class, right about the time when the second book was published (yes, I know, 10 year olds if you can believe it, though I appreciate my teacher's enthusiasm for literature). The rest was read over the past couple of years, simply for the sake of conversation. I substituted the skipped pages with plot summaries, available in depth on-line.
My personal impression from the works, was that they weren't too bad compared to whats out there (with mediocre literature everywhere, they are better than most) however I will not say they are worthy of their status. I'll try to bring a few more viewpoints into the argument;
Marxist: The book features many complex Marxist components, many unintentional, but nonetheless brought in through the subconscious actions, or accidental actions of the author. The first is the struggle between rich and poor. I find it somewhat despicable how she handles the relationship between the Weasley family, and the Malfoy family. The Weasley family is always surrounded by symbols of lower-classness. For instance, at the beginning of every book, where Ron is announced, as if ceremonially, Rowling feels it is necessary to reinstate that they are poor. Another example of this is the red hair which is always described by them, perhaps alluding to a racial divide, being that many people of Celtic origin have read hair. The Weasley's are, I would argue, a representation of the middle class, siding with the "filthy" lower class. This is seen with their "leftist" politics towards the so called muggles (I would argue, representing the lower class) and their exile from aristocratic circles (I.E the Slytherin bunch). Malfoy's family is portrayed as being extremely aristocratic, enjoying all the luxuries of being wealthy. By default, all the rich people seem to be piled into that house, creating a marxist divide amongst the wizards. But wait, where are all the low class unmagical people placed? Oh, in the dump, for sure, it being clear that their deaths are insignificant in the book. The muggle family, the Dursleys are the worst sort of people. Everywhere they are portrayed as stupid, useless, and often cruel, to the point where the wizard must use magic to keep them in line. There are of course those that get away, the Mud-bloods (an essential synonym for parvenus) who are rejected from the magic world, for being mud-bloods, and must make do with being poor people in Hogwarts, with no friends. Even Hermione, the smartest in her year, is forced to be ridiculed, not for being poor mind you, but rather for being too smart, too over-achieving, too bright. It is as if they old money people (this even includes Harry and Ron by the way) for seeking to achieve more than them.
Now of course, there are more examples, but that is just a basic idea of how one can unwind these books, and find the most trivial situations in a society that is not only snotty and self-righteous, but also racist, featuring only (with the exception of 2 mud-blood black people) all white Christians.
That isn't all of it of course, but I must leave that for now, there are other angles.
Religious. It can be determined that Harry Potter is in many ways a religious allegory. The ending is the most definite clue, it being a direct biblical allusion. But why should a reader, who, not being a Christian, like many people aren't, be taught Christian morality at such a despicable level. Why should I get a biblical lesson, when all I want is to read a book? Why should one suffer another C.S. Lewis (nice use of biblical language there)? The answer is, these books are written for the simple, to act the same way Lewis's work does. To opiate the population. This again ties back in with the Marxist angle. If one is to be a true Harry fan, as is deemed "cool" by many, one must, therefore, be a believer in this sort of allegory, a sort of quasi bible by someone who doesn't understand a 10th part of the book. It is insufferable, it is cruel almost, and it is preaching a value system that should not be taught in this manner.
Part 2, Gender Studies.
The book features, in many ways, a conflict between boys and girls. It is clear, without even drawing many comparisons, that Mrs. Rowling's work is not what we may call Feminist literature. The work features women submitting to men everywhere. The ideal woman, Mrs. Weasley, is a stay at home mom, who is nervy, and frets over the most trivial things. She breaks down constantly. The fourth novel features a scene of direct anti-feminist, the ball, which forces the female characters to await the gratuitously accepted invitation from their male friends, in order to have the privilege to attend a ball, where they will be gocked at by their peers for being the most attractive, or ridiculed for not being attractive. The whole society of the wizards employs a pre-second-wave-feminism mentality, involving women, who are smarter than their peers mind you, giving over on the side lines, facilitating but gaining no credit, achieving, but being ridiculed for it, and basically being forced to become a Mrs. Weasley. The ugliness of a female character is always pointed out thoroughly. The ugliness of a male character is always made sympathetic, especially in the case of one Neville Longbottom (who by name is supposed to be laughed at) who is deemed a tragic hero by many definitions contrasted with Hermione, who until the ball-room scene in the fourth novel, is always surrounded with ugliness imagery with regard to her appearance (there are others, I use her out of necessity of memory). It is without a doubt clear, with characters like Professor McGonagall (sp?) who are imbued with the characteristics of Margret Thatcher, and characters like Fleur Delacour (sp?) who are failures though very pretty, that Mrs. Rowling's perception of females is not only way out of wack, but at times even offensive. It would appear that she is a product of a mentality driven by the class system in Britain, combined with personal experience as a single mother, and experience as a proletariat, and that these feelings create a sympathetic Mrs. Weasley as the alfa-female, an unjust bias in the scheme of social impact. These views are not only out-dated, but also harmful. They set the world in a time bubble back to around 1950 or so, where it was the womans "job" to have dinner waiting on the table, and a clean house for her husband to walk into. Why should females be subject from such a young age, as you, my critics argue, to such conditioning. Would it not be better to teach a child about achievement, about feminism, about the fact that there are more options than to dress up nicely and perhaps be asked to the ball? After all, we don't need any Ginny Weasleys walking around waiting for whatever will take them, despite the fact that they, as Rowling points out, have the potential to be even greater than their male counterparts. It is clear to me at least that the arch female-villain is one Bellatrix Lestrange, a basic sado-masochistic slave to one Lord Voldemort, who, like every female in the book, simply rides along in the shadows of men.
Another angle I would like to stab at is the femininity of male characters. To me at least, Harry, seems to be a girl trapped in a male body. It is obviously clear that Rowling doesn't know much about being an adolescent boy, her never having experienced such things, but unlike other authors (such as the Emily Bronte) she is unable to interpret or pretend. Her character is imbued with female stereotypical emotions, and experiences none of the male emotions associated with growing up. His romantic exploits are those of Rowling herself, transferred over to a melodramatic male character, who unlike other boys in that situation, acts the way a stereotypical female character would. I would love to see a psychoanalytical critic's take on this book, especially surrounding male characters.
Now, there are far more arguments, and a lot more points I can add. I am just going through my memory bank and digging up chapters in my head of the book, and trying to apply them. Had I re-read, or not skipped many parts of the series, I am sure I could name more. But the point remains, that these books, from these angles, all seem quite hurtful. I am not the only person who has thought of these things, so I know it isn't the fancy of my mind nitpicking, but rather valid observations picked through the phrases and chapters I remember.
JBI, That was a great example of the deficiencies of Marxist literary analysis; although your admitted lack of familiarity also came into play.
I wonder though, you mentioned in your mention of the religious reading that you thought that the values should not be presented not be presented in that manner? Why?
The gender analysis has the most potential, and I think that is what Rowling was thinking about most of the time. After reading whichever one Ginny was held prisoner in that she and Harry would end up together.
I think that the easiest way to regard the series is as a modern set of myths. I see a great deal of parallel between Potter and any of the ancient innitiation myths. Compare it with The Odessey for one.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote