Harry Potter

[Joreads]

Bloom on Harry Potter:

So I went round to the Yale bookstore and purchased an inexpensive paperback copy of the first volume. I could not believe what was in front of me. What I particularly could not bear was that it was just one cliché after another. In fact, I kept a little checklist on an envelope next to me, and every time any individuals were going, as you or I might say, to take a walk, they were going to "stretch their legs." At the fiftieth or sixtieth stretching of the legs, that was too much for me.

I wrote the piece, and it was published. It is not an exaggeration to say that all hell indeed broke loose. The editor called me ten days later and said, "Harold, we've never seen anything like this before. We have received over four hundred letters denouncing your piece on Harry Potter. We've received one favorable letter, but we think you must have written it." I said, "No, I assure you."

It never stopped. The damn piece was reprinted all over the world, in all languages. I will never hear the end of it. But of course, the Harry Potter series is rubbish. Like all rubbish, it will eventually be rubbed down. Time will obliterate it. What can one say?

and a link to the Wall Street Journal Article

http://wrt-brooke.syr.edu/courses/205.03/bloom.html

I wrote this in another thread but it stands here as well. We wonder why as kids grow they stop reading. Everytime they pick up a book and enjoy it there those around them that cannot wait to tell them that it is rubbish I think I would have stopped reading as well if every time I did someone made fun of my choices.

[TheFifthElement]

... but the point is that Rowling is singled out for acclaim for getting a generation reading (Meyer too) when to be honest I don't think she has..

No, possibly not. But she has had people queuing in their droves at midnight to buy a book. Organised parties have been arranged around the release of the book. When else has that ever happened? Regardless of the merits or demerits of the Potter series, it has shown that reading is not a geeky underground activity but something that you can celebrate and get excited about, and that in itself raises the profile of reading as an activity. If that prompts a few more kids into reading, and if it prompts a few of those kids into reading a bit more then what's the problem?

Of course if you want to improve literacy rates then your route has to be via the parents. But I doubt you'll get more kids reading by sneering at the books they read and enjoy.

[stlukesguild]

Since StLukes brought him up I am a big fan of E.D. Hirsch who I discovered through Camille Paglia.

Hirsch makes some strong arguments about the nature of "progressive" or "liberal" education. His book, The Schools We Need (And Why We Don't Have Them) builds off the thinking of Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Communist philosopher imprisoned by Mussolini:

"The new concept of schooling is in its romantic phase, in which the replacement of “mechanical” by “natural” methods has become unhealthily exaggerated. Previously pupils at least acquired a certain baggage of concrete facts. Now there will no longer be any baggage to put in order. The most paradoxical aspect of it all is that the new type of school is advocated as being democratic, while in fact it is destined not merely to perpetuate social differences but crystallize them in Chinese complexity."

Hirsch argues persuasively that it is not the elitists or conservatives or those who demand a high level of standards of education, but rather the very liberal/progressive educational strategies that are aimed at bringing democracy and egalitarianism to the masses that are the fault of education's failings. Hirsch argues this in spite of being quite the liberal himself. He recognizes that the liberal/progressive attempts at multiculturalism and the refusal to recognize that certain people, certain historical figures, certain artists/writers/musicians, certain ideas, etc... are far more important to the larger culture than others. As a result, there are no set national standards (and I am speaking of American schools, here) and teachers are often left guessing as to just what should be taught and when. Without such standards it is the students who are most at risk... the poor and the minorities and those having yet to have mastered English... who are most penalized.

[stlukesguild]

With Mortal and Stlukes, all the snobish elite of this forum have posted here. The marble tower is just complete.

Ah... and yet where is the real snobbishness to be found. Among those who demand a certain standard... or in those who exhibit a degree of anti-intellectualism and sneer at anything which makes demands upon or challenges the intellect, or achieves a high standard? Hmmm... By the way, JCamilo... I've never really known you to be anti-elitist yourself considering the books you generally discuss.

[Paulclem]

In the UK we have a national qualification - GCSE - which demands a study of Shakespeare by kids at 14-16. This is a clear attempt to keep Shakespeare in the forefront of the literary consciousness of kids. I think this is a laudable attempt, but puts many off Shakespeare. It works both ways.

[Paulclem]

Baz Luhrmann tried to bring the modern audience to Romeo and Juliet by employing modern cinematic techniques alongside the text. I think this example typifies the difficulty faced by youngsters when encountering Shakespeare. It takes time to absorb the language and meaning. It takes time to be trained in reading the text.

The Luhrmann film was difficult to watch with the cinematic pyrotechnics combined, with speech that needs to be savoured and reflected on. The kids are leaning at the speed of knots today - using the internet etc, yet skills for reading Shakespeare and other classics require development that takes time.

[stlukesguild]

You are all talking from the perspective of being willing and able readers. I know from experience as a librarian that not all children want to read. If you can engage their interest in a book, you;re halfway there. I have nothing against what you're saying with regards to good and challenging literature, but there are loads of kids out there who can barely read. If HP grabs their interest, and draws them in, then all the better. I see kids every day who struggle to read and write, and your condecension towards what should be a pleasure, the reading of a book, is staggering. Try giving Twain, Carroll or Dickens to someone who can barely read, and watch them be turned off literature forever.

The question, however, is will Harry Potter... or any mediocre bit of childrens' literature really lead to a desire in the child to read more and more challenging works? If the child (and later the adult) ends up never reading anything more than Dan Brown, Rowling, pulp fiction and romance novels is this really better than not reading at all? As an educator I have a problem with the notion that we need to "entertain" the students (the terminology used is "we must engage the child" but it means the same thing. When we are dealing with students who never read at home... whose parents never read... who spend all of their time being bombarded with the instant gratification and sensory input that is afforded by i-pods, the internet, video games, television, DVDs, etc... reading... thinking... learning can all seem a bit boring.

[stlukesguild]

Say what you want about Harry Potter, kids do enjoy it and kids are reaching out for other books because of it. The proof is in the pudding, I was one of them.

From the age of 12/13 I went from Rowling to Faulkner. I'm pretty sure that i'm not the only one.

You can't' adequately critique the series without putting your own personal prejudice about it, aside.

Certainly, it does happen. I read my own share of lite-lit: science fiction and fantasy and ghost stories... but I was also led to Tom Sawyer, Huckleberry Finn, Edgar Allen Poe, Dickens, Emily Dickinson, Homer, Faulkner, Hemingway, Steinbeck, etc... at home and at school. Part of the role of education is to provide continuity, and the structure of standards. Every student will rebel against this to a degree. That is only natural. With time, the motivated students will discover many more possibilities than were first offered in their education... and again, that is fine. One begins, however, with a firm foundation. Without it, one is at a serious disadvantage and there is a lot of catching up to do.

[stlukesguild]

yes, it is a sad state of affairs is it not? that no one reads good contemporary literature... I mean reading of the classics is slowly decreasing and that is bad enough, but reading of quality contemporary literature is virtually non-existent...

But I question just whether the audience for the classics really has shrunk. What percentage of the population of Victorian England or Renaissance France or Italy could even read... let alone read classic literature. The great works of literature are quite often admittedly challenging. For some those challenges are stimulating and the pleasure gained more than worth the effort. For others... well a video game or TV sit-com is far less taxing. I do feel, however, that education and the media have largely abandoned their support of great art. The old cartoons and TV shows frequently featured the music of Beethoven, Liszt, Mozart, and Rossini... even opera... as well as the popular music (jazz) of the day. Contemporary writers such a Hemingway, Steinbeck, Frost, even Faulkner were at one time far more recognized or known to the public before the public were bombarded by the seduction of the mass media. So do the media have no responsibility except to the ledger books?

[Drkshadow03]

oh, I am really sorry. For a second I thought you are talking about a work which opening sentece could even show distintic and original voice (altough the obvious Tim Hunter copy that Harry Potter is, but anyways) and you even showed a few lines that proved beyond doubt all this. But now that you made clear that Jeannie the Geenie and Harry Potter fill the same spot, I can sleep in a more confortable bed.

I know somewhere in there you actually had a point. Still searching for it. I'll let you know if I find something besides the obvious red herring fallacy (the fact that Harry bears similarities to Gaiman's Tim Hunter has any bearing on the distinctness and originality of the prose style how exactly?)

The question, however, is will Harry Potter... or any mediocre bit of childrens' literature really lead to a desire in the child to read more and more challenging works? If the child (and later the adult) ends up never reading anything more than Dan Brown, Rowling, pulp fiction and romance novels is this really better than not reading at all? As an educator I have a problem with the notion that we need to "entertain" the students (the terminology used is "we must engage the child" but it means the same thing. When we are dealing with students who never read at home... whose parents never read... who spend all of their time being bombarded with the instant gratification and sensory input that is afforded by i-pods, the internet, video games, television, DVDs, etc... reading... thinking... learning can all seem a bit boring.

I think we answered that with anecdotal evidence from multiple members. Harry Potter and other works can lead to people picking up more challenging works. I think it best to think of it like this: if it encourages even one person to continue reading, just one, who might not have otherwise then that's a good thing. I also know a person who went the opposite path now that I think of it. The blogger at OF blog of the Fallen read through most of the major "realist" classics in college, and now reads exclusively speculative fiction (with a few exceptions).

As far as your comments about people continuing to read Rowling or Dan Brown or such instead of reading High Brow Lit, this borders on the condescending. Mostly, who cares? After all, you're talking about my parents and friends and people I know online (I know people who ONLY read genre fiction). They aren't better or worse people for it. They live meaningful lives. They aren't moping around complaining that there is a major void missing because of the lack of literature and high art. They have strong vocabularies. They are a success in their careers, and live a good life. They simply have different reasons for reading or have different interests. It is no coincidence that a lot of higher ED people with science degrees (a Ph. D. in physics, biology, etc.) are often interested in Sci-fi.

Also, we need to remember, and this isn't directed specifically at you, that these best-sellers aren't being created by a population of mindless zombies who merely buy what the advertising tells them to rather than also considering their own tastes. After all, the best-sellers don't appeal to the same audiences. I suspect most people who buy and are interested in the kind of fiction Stephen King writes are not necessarily interested in the kind of fiction Danielle Steel writes. So Danielle Steel fans aren't the same as Stephen King fans, though like in everything I'm sure there are some people out there who like both writers. These genres appeal to very different audiences. My dad and mom who love James Patterson and Tom Clancy would never touch Stephen King (because horror doesn't interest them, but high-tech international thrillers and crime fiction does). So there is no one mainstream American audience all buying the SAME popular books; these often come from different segments of the population.

[qimissung]

I think Fifth put the argument concerning the merits of reading Harry Pottervery succinctly.

I read recently that reading encourages the development of the brain because it is only in that activity that one pauses to think, to reflect, which does not happen when one watches a movie or television. So it would seem that the very act of reading is beneficial. Of course kids are not going to receive these benefits unless they are actually reading, and this is where reading for enjoyment comes in.

I personally like Harry Potter; I think they are highly imaginative, and probably not very literary. I don't care. I read them all, and was on the proverbial edge of my seat the entire time.

I do find it a little ironic that kids found something they enjoyed reading and adults immediately began to make movies about these books, ensuring they would never again have to bother with reading them.

[JCamilo]

I know somewhere in there you actually had a point. Still searching for it. I'll let you know if I find something besides the obvious red herring fallacy (the fact that Harry bears similarities to Gaiman's Tim Hunter has any bearing on the distinctness and originality of the prose style how exactly?)

There is no point, really. I just find ironic that you managed to combine the argument that HP is a harmless enterteiment and that in a few lines you posted you could find "The opening has a lot of character, a touch of the comical, a well-defined voice, works well with the tone of the world and upcoming story. The opening is even kind of memorable." ...
Well, maybe it is me. When I think with a opening with a lot of chracters, Tales of Two Cities came to my mind, a touch of comical I will think about Voltaire, a well-defined voice, I will consider Dostoievisky, and a memorable opening scene well, maybe I will get Lusiadas.
But really, you maybe playing the devil advocate, but either Harry is so qualificated or just harmless enterteiment...

[JCamilo]

With Mortal and Stlukes, all the snobish elite of this forum have posted here. The marble tower is just complete.

Ah... and yet where is the real snobbishness to be found. Among those who demand a certain standard... or in those who exhibit a degree of anti-intellectualism and sneer at anything which makes demands upon or challenges the intellect, or achieves a high standard? Hmmm... By the way, JCamilo... I've never really known you to be anti-elitist yourself considering the books you generally discuss.

I was being ironic, after all I am snobbish, elitist, arrogant, etc,etc,etc... It came with the package.

I think the problem in this argument is that posters who are readers are saying that HP is leading to extra reading. My question is if they would not read anything else despite HP? I am sure Little Prince, Narnia, Star War Novels, etc have kept some people active. But there is any evidence that the absence of any of those books would cause damage? Wouldn't the readers of Stephen King live with Anne Rice or Clive Baker anyways?
(Of course that is just dimissing the real factors that lead people to read, education, family influence, access to books, social incentive).
They just assume: People read HP now, so they will read something after this. Of course, in most countries the reading ratio diminish after the "student years", so even if we do not consider HP, we would be lying to say that our cultures are able to keep the reading interest... But no, HP have magic...

[islandclimber]

I wrote this in another thread but it stands here as well. We wonder why as kids grow they stop reading. Everytime they pick up a book and enjoy it there those around them that cannot wait to tell them that it is rubbish I think I would have stopped reading as well if every time I did someone made fun of my choices.

No, possibly not. But she has had people queuing in their droves at midnight to buy a book. Organised parties have been arranged around the release of the book. When else has that ever happened? Regardless of the merits or demerits of the Potter series, it has shown that reading is not a geeky underground activity but something that you can celebrate and get excited about, and that in itself raises the profile of reading as an activity. If that prompts a few more kids into reading, and if it prompts a few of those kids into reading a bit more then what's the problem?

Of course if you want to improve literacy rates then your route has to be via the parents. But I doubt you'll get more kids reading by sneering at the books they read and enjoy.

But this is just absurd.. where is all this negativity to be found about what kids read? a few random post on an Internet forum with 60,000 members, a literature critic that most Potter readers have never heard of, and probably never will? Most Harry Potter readers, or readers of other such junk, will rarely, maybe even never, hear a negative comment about their beloved series, for even their parents apparently read these books as the latest books sold more copies to adults than to children... where are these kids finding people sneering at their book choices, criticizing the obviously stylistically poor writing they read.. no instead we reinforce them with the belief that writers like Rowling are good, if not great writers, as evidenced by the fact JK Rowling was voted the best living British writer and received more than 3 times the votes of her nearest competitor... and the rare dissenter to the crowning of these mediocre writers is castrated, and sent packing by the vast majority... so tell me, where are all these kids who will quit reading because a few people tell the truth about what is good or bad writing?

maybe though, we should empower a generation to proclaim mediocrity superior...

[JCamilo]

Yeah, because the youth will always do as some elders tell them to do, after all, they are mindless drones.
And of course, Never before a book or author was sucessful among a certain group and bashed by the critics; so ,it is new. We are destroying culture.