Literature has no more value than Mills & Boon

[Etienne]

Hmm.. I did mean that someone with cultivated taste cannot enjoy Harry Potter... and that therefore any person who enjoys Potter is a phillistine or a brute. My point was aimed at aesthetic relativism, and that one cannot claim Harry Potter to be a great work of art, unless he doesn't "get" the true great works of art.

A great chef can enjoy a hot-dog, but he knows that it has nothing to do with great cuisine, it's not even a question. But some "cruder" people will think a hot-dog is so much better than great cuisine. In the same way that taste for wine needs cultivated to appreciate fully the subtleties of different wines, in the same way any taste can be cultivated.

[Jozanny]

Hmm.. I did mean that someone with cultivated taste cannot enjoy Harry Potter... and that therefore any person who enjoys Potter is a phillistine or a brute. My point was aimed at aesthetic relativism, and that one cannot claim Harry Potter to be a great work of art, unless he doesn't "get" the true great works of art.

A great chef can enjoy a hot-dog, but he knows that it has nothing to do with great cuisine, it's not even a question. But some "cruder" people will think a hot-dog is so much better than great cuisine. In the same way that taste for wine needs cultivated to appreciate fully the subtleties of different wines, in the same way any taste can be cultivated.

Yeah, but on the Potter question, I think you and I are approaching it from different premises. I don't think Rowling was ever trying to be canon-worthy. She was a mother with a kid, and she was on the dole, almost like me, not quite, but almost.

Unlike me, what she did at her typewriter helped her beat back the system. I admire that, and as I've posted elsewhere, her work is getting heat it doesn't deserve. She isn't A.S. Byatt, but she wasn't trying to compete with Byatt in the first place.

[Etienne]

Well ok, she is the example of a professional success, but she is artistically worthless. I think that, from the beginning we were discussing her artistic merits, if we were to discuss the professional success, we might as well discuss the founders of Google or something of that kind.

One could say that she didn't write literature, but books. Of course, we could argue about semantics, but the point is getting the idea.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Hmm.. I did mean that someone with cultivated taste cannot enjoy Harry Potter... and that therefore any person who enjoys Potter is a phillistine or a brute. My point was aimed at aesthetic relativism, and that one cannot claim Harry Potter to be a great work of art, unless he doesn't "get" the true great works of art.

Oh I see what you mean sorry. I still stand by the fact (rather crudely) that you need to have read the bad to truly appreciate the good, in some ways at least. I am not suggesting that we all turn to the bad first, but that people seem to find their feet with what they are comfortable and happy with first, before moving on to better things later. I am not insisting that my five year old daughter should read Dante for example, any book is fine. It is probably just a question of development But no one cannot claim Harry Potter as a great work of art at all.


Just to be clear on my position with the Potter thing: anyone who claims Harry Potter to be a great work of art is rather foolish indeed, but at the same time I am sure it was never set out for that purpose. People seem to really enjoy it and defend it with a zeal, rightly or wrongly.

[stlukesguild]

A problem that elitists face in every age is that they have to simultaneously distinguish themselves from everyone else to establish their superiority...

What I term "elitism" has nothing to do with attempting to establish myself as superior. It has nothing to do with class (although politicians have always played it up in that way), and it has nothing to do with intelligence. There are persons who struggle from paycheck to paycheck who have also decided that poetry or painting is important enough to them that they have put forth the effort into learning all they can about it. By the same token there are brilliant lawyers, doctors, and scientists who are certainly not lacking intelligence in any way... and yet their opinions upon art are largely ignorant because they are largely uniformed... inexperienced in the field. Someone puts forth the effort to learn about art by choice. I would assume that there are those for whom such knowledge gives them a sense of superiority... but most, I would assume, make such a choice because of the pleasure they have discovered in grasping the finest that the arts... that humanity has to offer.

...and at the same time find enough common ground with everyone else to keep their superiority relevant.

Again... there is little thought of superiority. I don't read Shakespeare or Dante or Homer or Rimbaud or Neruda because I imagine it will give me a sort of authority with the "lower plebes". I don't read Tolstoy to impress (at least I haven't done that since I was a teenager and somehow imagined that it would impress girls). I couldn't care less whether the masses think Dante is relevant.

So, if the elites continually call books "great" that people don't enjoy, and pan as "trash" the books that people do enjoy, the rational thing for non-elites to do is to perform a little bit of simple code-breaking and conclude that they should read the "trash" and skip the "greats".

Again... the "elites" make the choices they do based upon what gives them pleasure. The "non-elites" do the same. The difference in taste is accounted for by the difference in experience and the willingness to put forth a degree of effort... believing that there is sometimes a greater pleasure to be derived from something that challenges than something that is too easy or simplistic.
If the opinion of a given critic never aligns with your own taste... certainly feel free to ignore it. I somehow doubt that the average person cannot discover much that will give him or her great pleasure among the vast range of great literature... but if that were true... ignore it... the fact that you are uninterested in Dickens, Poe, Verlaine, Whitman, Pessoa, etc... has no effect upon me.

It may indeed be the case that, by investing the resources to get initiated into the elite, one will enjoy some of the "greats" that he/she didn't enjoy before. This raises the question, how important is this additional elite ability? If it really is the case that the experience of the masses have no relevance to the standards of the elite, then inevitably the standards of the elite have no benefit for the masses and therefore this additional elite ability isn't very important at all.

I have no problem with suggesting that the opinions of the "elites" may have no relevance and offer no tangible benefit for the masses. Didn't the greatest of the self-acknowledged "elites", Oscar Wilde, admit as much when he declared, "All art is quite useless." Of course Mallarme continued by noting that the most useful room in any home is the toilet. The reality is that the opinions of the 'elites" are the only ones that matter when one is speaking of the survival of a work of art. Every era has its great blockbusters. Almost every last one of them disappears over time as tastes change. The work that survives... that becomes "canonized" (if we wish to use that term) is that which continues to speak to an audience that is comprised of those for whom literature is important and worth the investment of time and effort: scholars, academics, historians, critics, later writers, and the "common readers"... those who simply love great books for the pleasure they bring and are willing to put forth the effort they sometimes demand. This group as a whole do not always agree on everything. In some instances certain portions of the "elite" have differing opinions than the rest. James Joyce, for example, is far more popular with critics, scholars, academics and other writers than he is with the "common reader"... while Poe and Dumas are far more popular with the "common reader" than with the critics and academics. What is common is the fact that the opinions of each is based upon effort and experience.

So, at one swathe, you consigning any child with a defect in hand/eye co-ordination to being called "useless" at art?

At one swipe I make no assumptions about a student's ability or potential... I merely make a judgment of the work at hand.

In sport, we have a rule that merit is based on effort. I've always found it interesting that art works in the opposite direction.

Does it? Art would seem to be the result of both effort and aptitude (talent... natural ability... whatever you wish to call it). There are artists in all walks of life who can create marvelous works beyond the abilities of most... even beyond the abilities of many who have put forth the greatest degree of effort. Others achieve greatness as a result of sheer tenacity... continued effort and the refusal to give up.

Let's play.

In what way are the drawings of some six-year olds better than others?

Let's talk specifics. I can compare MacBeth to Harry Potter because I have specific works to compare/contrast various elements. If you wish for reasons why one student work is better than another you must provide the examples.

[Etienne]

Of course Mallarme continued by noting that the most useful room in any home is the toilet.

Hehe.

[The Atheist]

What a surprisingly divisive subject!

No it doesn't. Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, but there are things any philosophical inquiry or criticism can say about the beauty itself. One of them, in literature or art, is universal appeal.

Isn't this simply an appeal to popularity?

On that basis - universal appeal - J K Rowling would rate more highly than most authors. Harry Potter appeals to kids, teens and adults.

If you mean "universal appeal amongst people with preconceptions about what constitutes literature", then it doesn't have the same weight, in my view.

And this is my last engagement with YOU about aesthetic uselessness. You have my pity.[/COLOR]

Why would you pity me? Because my aesthetic tastes differ from yours? Can't be that, because you have no idea what my tastes are.

Disappointing.

They aren't inspired by the right things. She refurbished things. When I talk about inspiration, I mean it in the Wordsworthian sense, in the channeling of Raw emotions. Rowling I don't think is very inspired - a mere beginners level of Greek mythology, and a boring reading of cliché works isn't inspiration.

Still, I think we're making progress.

Now, your requirement for literary greatness is the amount of passion a writer uses?

I don't think that's going to work for you either.

Are you able to give a more specific rationale as to why a particular work - of your choice - is more important to humankind than a workshop manual for my 1963 Volswagen?

However, if "better" simply means personal taste -- you like Harry Potter, while others didn't -- then no, on this ground all books are chaotically equal.

Just a note; personally, I think Harry Potter is drivel. But I still cannot say with any kind of certainty that it is intrinsically worth less than any other book.

Atheist, I am interested in your points throughout this thread, but for me I have to side with the "elitists," some books are simply better than others.

Look, I'd be the first to agree that some books are better than others, and I've said as much throughout. The only difference between us is that I don't believe my opinion has any more validity than the dummies who write at Yahoo that Harry Potter is the greatest work ever.

*Elitist spoiler* I also think that the person who is better read will seek out more substantial material. It is very difficult (impossible) to go back to reading "Conan the Barbarian" type-of-books, when you have been touched by some of the great works of literature.

Well, I'm sorry to burst your bubble on that, but I've read works of supposed literary genius I've used to light fires with while I've also found gems amongst the remainders.

I certainly don't have any pretensions to reading only "good" books.

The bottom line for me is that some books are better than others, and some books are way better than others, but there is a difference that goes beyond personal taste.

Ok, then can you please try to articulate that?

And there are absolutes in art. Those absolutes are perhaps less clear or fixed, but they are there. That for example, a football player is better than another, does not mean that you do not prefer another one than the best, either, you see?

You've started to get a bit circular in your argument, making the same assertion, and failing to use sports analogies to back it up.

I ask you also to please be specific about why one book is more valuable than another.

And because art is about aesthetic comparison, Harry Potter cannot compete with, say, War and Peace.

Goodo, that's a good starting point. Use W&P as the example to show its inherent value. What message does W&P give us that cannot be obtained from another medium?

Honestly, I find art - specifically literature - to be entirely subjective in its overall quality.

Well, that's what I've been saying...

That being said: certain works of art inspire a greater depth of appreciation, understanding, and emotion.

Unfortunately, even among elitists, there is little consensus, aside from a very few works.

Lesser literature simply does not. We read the story, understand the language, and that is the end. There is no transfer of emotion, there is no, dare I say, spiritual appreciation; there is simply the transferal of a story and the reception of information.

Yep, that's why people write books.

Orwell's essay, Why I Write is a great example of it. Orwell was 100% certain that the whole point of his writing was to be read.

As to transfer of emotion, surely the examples of Yahoos and Harry Potter give the lie to that being a requirement. Potter has touched people's lives and changed them.

Well said. People read for many different reasons and so they should. I have said it before if we all read the same books and agreed on everything this there would be no need for this forum.

If you decide not to read certain types of books because they don't appeal to you then great but don't just decide that the books have no merit because they don't appeal to you.

Not every book that I read needs to be a master piece sometime I just like a good enjoyable read.

Well, we don;t have much to argue about!

Also, one is not born with finished taste, it's cultivated. So one should take take complacency in this but try to cultivate it's taste, if one is really interested. I am not saying this pedantically, as I am myself continually trying cultivating that taste and the more it's cultivated, the more you appreciate.

Ah, this is important.

That cultivation will be encouraged and happen under some form of tutelage. Is there a literary elitist who is self-taught in likes & dislikes, greatness & mundanity?

No.

Literary elitists grow under the wings of other literary elitists, whose cultural tastes propagate like memes.

I put it to you that if Eng Lit teachers and tutors didn't reinforce their own likes & dislikes, elitism in literature wouldn't even exist.

It is probably just a question of development But no one cannot claim Harry Potter as a great work of art at all.

But people do!

And if they feel it has the qualities of greatness, as above, that they were moved and inspired by the story, then they're right.

Just to be clear on my position with the Potter thing: anyone who claims Harry Potter to be a great work of art is rather foolish indeed, but at the same time I am sure it was never set out for that purpose. People seem to really enjoy it and defend it with a zeal, rightly or wrongly.

That's fine, but maybe you'd like to have a shot at describing what does constitute a great work of literary art?

[LitNetIsGreat]

Great post stlukes. I especially like:

What I term "elitism" has nothing to do with attempting to establish myself as superior. It has nothing to do with class (although politicians have always played it up in that way), and it has nothing to do with intelligence. There are persons who struggle from paycheck to paycheck who have also decided that poetry or painting is important enough to them that they have put forth the effort into learning all they can about it. By the same token there are brilliant lawyers, doctors, and scientists who are certainly not lacking intelligence in any way... and yet their opinions upon art are largely ignorant because they are largely uniformed... inexperienced in the filed. Someone puts forth the effort to learn about art by choice. I would assume that there are those for whom such knowledge gives them a sense of superiority... but most, I would assume, make such a choice because of the pleasure they have discovered in grasping the finest that the arts... that humanity has to offer.

Hell that is part me, I struggle to put decent beer upon the table, (I somehow manage) but I consider myself a rich man due to the art or literature I enjoy and have devoted myself to study, in rejection of the capitalist "go-getter thing." Good stuff, good night.

[Etienne]

You've started to get a bit circular in your argument, making the same assertion, and failing to use sports analogies to back it up.

Failing to use sport analogy? I'm sorry but you haven't shown that my analogy was bad, you simply claimed it was bad.

I ask you also to please be specific about why one book is more valuable than another.

Well you seem to have a hard time figuring the notion of value or worth as we use. We are not talking of money, we are not talking of technology. We are talking about art, some, you might say abstract notion. Well yes.

Goodo, that's a good starting point. Use W&P as the example to show its inherent value. What message does W&P give us that cannot be obtained from another medium?

Where are we talking of message? Message is one thing, but you don't seemto understand the notion of aesthetic. Why do you read books, only for their message? Why would I be interested in visual art, say, painting, when all that is "useful" (according to your notion of useful) can be gotten out of photography?

Also, if you want to continue this discussion, I suggest you drop this little fathering tone and all that rhetoric.

Ah, this is important.

That cultivation will be encouraged and happen under some form of tutelage. Is there a literary elitist who is self-taught in likes & dislikes, greatness & mundanity?

No.

Literary elitists grow under the wings of other literary elitists, whose cultural tastes propagate like memes.

I put it to you that if Eng Lit teachers and tutors didn't reinforce their own likes & dislikes, elitism in literature wouldn't even exist.

This is rhetoric again, if it was so, there would be no factual arguments. You've read 1984 too much.

Let me use your rhetoric again: You read George Orwell only because you were told it was good, you don't honestly like him.

[bluevictim]

What I term "elitism" has nothing to do with attempting to establish myself as superior. ...

Again... there is little thought of superiority.

I'm sorry, I must have misread your earlier post. I thought you were claiming that the opinions of the elite were better than the opinions of others, and that you were using your analogy with doctors and electricians to support that claim.

I reread my post, and I realize it is pretty unclear what the point was that I was trying to make. My point is not that I think the elite is, in fact, completely irrelevant. What I was trying to say is that if it were the case that the judgment of the masses has no correlation with the judgment of the elite, then there is no reason for the masses to consider the opinions of the elite better than their own. As you state, that is not the case. Thus, I would argue, the popularity of a piece of literature is important.

One part of your post that is still unclear to me is your inclusion of "common readers" in your definition of elite. At first, I read that as a fudge factor to account for readers that essentially follow the judgment of the professors (for example), except they don't happen to have an advanced degree in literature. Now, it sounds like you are just referring to people who enjoy reading. But these are the same people who have high opinions of popular books, so their inclusion seems to undermine your point that popularity is completely irrelevant.

[stlukesguild]

SLG (quote)- As JoZ pointed out even the choice of your wife... girlfriend... etc... is an aesthetic choice. I think most of us would have a problem with the notion that any woman/man would have been just as good.
As you can see above, I agree with you 100%.

But on your basis, because she's an outstanding and most beautiful woman, that she must therefore be as good a wife for anyone else! You know that's not right, which means that, like Jo, you've just made my argument for me.

The question, with regard to literature, isn't what is better or worse for you. If you cannot grasp the language of Chaucer or Shakespeare they are obviously not good for you (at that given moment). What we are discussing is whether some literary works are better than others. My guess is that even your idealized "masses" would have no problem with answering that question in the positive. Anyone of us who has made any attempt at virtually anything realizes that there are times when we are on our game... and times when we are not. If all is but relative why make any attempt even as an individual at improvement. The slightest scribble of the rank beginner, after all, is no less than the greatest masterwork. All is relative... it is but thinking that makes it so. By the way... does that work in sports as well?

Neither do we have a problem admitting that a certain baseball team or football team is better than another.

Nah, leave the sports analogies to me.

Ah!! There we have it!! The sound of the elitist. Because of your experience in a given field you would suggest that you are better equipped to offer judgment. Is that not what an elitist in literature... art... music suggests?

Shocking analogy, by the way. In sport, we have a thing called a scoreboard. Each match, the scoreboard shows a winner and a loser. These are indisputable facts, which cannot be subject to any opinion at all.

Does the scoreboard tell all? How often have I heard sports fans arguing the merits of two athletes: Micheal Jordan vs Larry Bird vs LeBron James... Babe Ruth vs Barry Bonds. I would assume that some opinions hold more weight than others based upon knowledge and experience. Admittedly art is more subjective than some other disciplines, but the reality is that opinions based upon experience and knowledge are what hold the most weight in nearly any field.

But to suggest that some works of art are better than others is immediately taken as a snobbish position... because it suggests (gasp!) that some opinions are better than others. Guess what? That would be right.

Well, you're talking to someone who is an elitist intellectually, so I can understand you position.

I don't agree with it at all, though.

You may disagree with it... but it is a fact. The opinion of a physicist is going to hold far more weight upon discussions of theories relating to physics than those of the average person. The opinion of the doctor is going to hold far more value than that of the polled masses when it comes to medical treatments. I assume, at least, that when you are ill you turn to someone with experience in the field rather than holding a poll among your friends. The opinion of the persons who have invested a great deal of their time in understanding art or literature simply holds far more weight in discussion of those topics than the opinions of others. Certainly, they do not always agree... and certainly there are times when their opinions prove wrong (hell... even doctors were sometimes wrong!!) but the fact that an educated opinion is still subjective to a degree does not make it equal to worth to every last uniformed opinion.

Since you can state why one piece of art or literature is better than another, go ahead. Don't just tell me it happens, show me how you arrive at the assessment of greatness objectively.

Again... to do so demands specifics. Without such I can easily turn the question upon you: you suggest that all works of art are of equal merit... then prove it.

The standards of art are largely based upon the communal opinions of those who have invested the greatest degree of time... effort... study... etc... into the study and appreciation of the same. Here we are speaking of art critics, historians, collectors, subsequent artists and (like most of us here) art lovers... or in literary terms, "the common readers" (in Virginia Woolf's sense of the word). The opinion of doctors holds far more weight when I am seeking out treatment for an ailment. The opinion of an electrician is far more valued than that of the population as a whole when it comes to my breaker box sparking and all the lights in my home going off.

Breaking this down, using your own analogy, you're saying that people who study hard are the ones of value - like elctricians. If they are able to complete the intrinsic technical elements of the job, then that person is of great value.

A great artist then, will be one who makes no technical mistakes and a great novelist will be one with a PhD in English Literature and perfect grammar. The bad news is, from a literary sense, that Steven King is the Lit Prof, while Orwell was essentially a drop-out.

I'm glad you prefer King to Orwell. I have it the other way around myself, but hey, either/either.

The ability to create art and the ability to judge art are in no means one and the same. Even if they were, I have never suggested that what we call "elites" (which includes artists as well) is limited to persons of a single class or a single academic walk in life. That is always the tired argument of those who would attempt to undermine aesthetic values... usually a rather sophomoric act put on by those who are themselves just as much a part of the "elites" as the "old guard" in an attempt to make themselves seem more down with the folk... Elitism, as we have been discussing it, is an elective affinity... a choice. It has nothing to do with whether one is an academic or a plumber.

Greatness is achieved through hard work, not talent. He who works hardest is best. Very Boxer-like in the end.

Sometimes... sometimes not. The opinion of the person who has put forth a great deal of effort in a given field is commonly going to bear far more weight than that which is uniformed and inexperienced.

It's true that some books are better than other, but simply because such a truth is valid doesn't necessarily mean personal tastes still aren't a huge factor in deciding which books deserve more merit and also that "good books" exist that may not quite be the "best books."

I fully agree. The opinions of those with the greatest experience are still subjective. Perhaps the way around this is to recognize that personal preferences are not the same as facts. To declare that James Joyce sucks, or that Harry Potter is greater than Joyce is a statement of fact. Personally, I have struggled to appreciate Joyce (although I greatly admired parts of Ulysses). I far prefer Kafka, Borges, Proust, Calvino, and many others, but I recognize that the fact that I prefer Calvino to Joyce is not enough to declare him to be the greater writer.

The problems I think with the "elitist" position whatever the heck that is as I've seen a variety of positions is:

The underlying assumption that just because you read Shakespeare and Dante and Faulkner and the best of the best that suddenly you can no longer enjoy, appreciate, or find wonderful things in Harry Potter or Stephen King, despite the fact that many people on this board who have done so are saying that they do still enjoy those things and some of us even say we find them to be interesting works of art.

Again... I don't think this needs to be true. I love Wagner and Puccini and still listen to the Louvin Brothers and Johnny Cash. There are many works, however, that do become unpalatable as one gains experience.

It also assumes that because you did X, everyone will come to the exact same conclusions you did. If they aren't spouting the exact same conclusions than they must not have read X. Yet I am pretty sure everyone here has had a healthy dose of the classics...

Are you certain of that? Is there a requirement for joining LitNet that one have read a certain amount of "classics"? I have gotten the opinion that there is a wide range of literary experience here.

...we all are fairly articulate and have wonderful contributions to make about literature in general, but heaven forbid if someone happens to rank Harry Potter too highly.

Noted. It becomes irritating when we are repeatedly confronted with declarations of the literary brilliance of Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Steven King, etc... and I usually try to avoid such threads. When such declarations escalate into statements about how boring all those big words and descriptive passages are in Tolstoy or Dickens... or nonsense about how the "classics" have become irrelevant because they don't speak to us here and now... as if we read solely to reinforce our own perceptions and our own prejudices rather than to open ourselves up to other possibilities... other experiences... other cultures... then I end up getting drawn into the fray... although I should know better.

[JBI]

Meh, this elitist titling is rather pointless. I like good literature, and don't like much of what is popular. I am not an elitist for not liking mediocrity, I am a humanist, and try to encourage other people to like the same. My goal, as a would-be-critic is to shed light upon, and perhaps the odd time, value works. I am not valuing works based on how small their readership is - I would like everyone who hasn't to read, for instance, Alice Munro.

And Again, what's with the appeal to the classics. It always seems to flip back to them - why can't we discuss contemporary literature - can someone perhaps be an enthusiast with a fine taste for that? Aesthetic reading isn't "reading the classics."

Never trust anyone who only reads classics (I think I'm paraphrasing on Eco). They can't be held to have a strong opinion on literature, since theirs is based primarily on other scholars.

[stlukesguild]

JBI... I like the term "humanist". Of course "elitist" is used by me somewhat tongue-in-cheek. Perhaps not unlike many of the artists who proudly wore the term of the various "isms" that were thrown at them in a derogatory manner, I have embraced the notion of an "elitist" as accepting the fact that some achievements are better than others... that there are standards... and rejecting the sort of anti-intellectualism, which sneers at anything which
requires intellect, or expects high standards... not unlike certain politicians.

[Drkshadow03]

Stlukes, I am only going to comment on two of your responses to me:

Are you certain of that? Is there a requirement for joining LitNet that one have read a certain amount of "classics"? I have gotten the opinion that there is a wide range of literary experience here.

I was mostly referring to the people participating in this conversation who seem to be taking the "other side" and I hesitate to use that term because I don't think this is really an argument with clear-cut sides necessarily.

Noted. It becomes irritating when we are repeatedly confronted with declarations of the literary brilliance of Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Steven King, etc... and I usually try to avoid such threads. When such declarations escalate into statements about how boring all those big words and descriptive passages are in Tolstoy or Dickens... or nonsense about how the "classics" have become irrelevant because they don't speak to us here and now... as if we read solely to reinforce our own perceptions and our own prejudices rather than to open ourselves up to other possibilities... other experiences... other cultures... then I end up getting drawn into the fray... although I should know better.

I think this nails it. With all the forums I've posted on, especially fantasy forums which tend to have "a literature/academia is keeping us down complex" that can more than one up LitNet's "Harry Potter complex" as Jozanny put it, I can't tell you how many times I have had this argument. Probably hundreds, and I'm really not exaggerating. Plus I've done this one from both angles. On the fantasy boards, I would sometimes defend the values of Great Literature in comparison to fantasy to those deriding the Tolstoys and Dickens of the world. These conversations get old really quickly, and they usually end up being fairly circular.

I personally do think Potter has some literary value, that there are interesting themes going on dealing with racism, academic freedom, the importance of friendship, and the primacy of choices in moral development, that the way she refurbishes and recombines old motifs of various world mythologies is actually rather sophisticated, and that her world is in fact magical so to speak with the proper amount of strangeness and wonder, while still maintaining a familiarity that allows her themes to have real world relevancy. Not to mention she provides us with characters we can care about and readers relate to.

As they say in internet lingo you're milage may vary; I realize from the bagillion threads before this one a lot of people don't agree with my assessment, which is perfectly fine by me. I am not saying you have to love Potter, I'm not saying you or anyone else need consider the books worthy of literary analysis, and I am certainly NOT saying the books are anywhere near the level of Shakespeare or Dante, but for me I do think there is more going on beneath the surface of those novels that increased my enjoyment of them. Because as I pointed out again and again, the first and only real purpose of reading literature is for entertainment. Though, of course, my definition (or I should probably say Michael Chabon's definition) is fairly broad.

[JBI]

Meh, people just need to start more text-analysis threads, rather than the continuous context-driven threads. We tried to, of course, start one on the Poetry board, but for the most part, the discussion is rather minimal (as few people really joined in, and quite frankly, even I didn't join in as much as I would have hoped to).

Here, for a literature discussion board, I think we simply don't talk the text enough, and are too busy detracting, or criticizing the contexts of works, or others' opinions on the contexts of works.

Quite frankly, if someone really wants to discuss Potter, or any such author, they should start a thread about the books themselves, and go from there. But of course, that doesn't seem to happen. All we get is comments on the sales of books, the popularity of books, or the concept of reading in general. Or the value of the author (which of course, I know I contribute to as well)

Oh wow, I'm starting to sound like a New Critic, I better slow down.