Harry Potter

[Drkshadow03]

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...

Wait, so most Potter fans will never hear about dissenting critical opinions, but somehow will castrate these dissenting critics they've never heard of . . .

@JCamillo: Not all critics bashed Potter. Only some. Others have had favorable opinions of Potter. There is no such thing as critical consensus, and well, shouldn't be. For example take your whining about the LOTR movie in the other thread. Most critics gave favorable reviews to LOTR. People shouldn't be bound by critical opinion one way or the other.

[islandclimber]

Wait, so most Potter fans will never hear about dissenting critical opinions, but somehow will castrate these dissenting critics they've never heard of . . .

@JCamillo: Not all critics bashed Potter. Only some. Others have had favorable opinions of Potter. There is no such thing as critical consensus, and well, shouldn't be. For example take your whining about the LOTR movie in the other thread. Most critics gave favorable reviews to LOTR. People shouldn't be bound by critical opinion one way or the other.

well actually I said rarely, but you seem to not have noticed...and regardless on the rare occasions Potter fans hear the truth about the books, that however entertaining the storyline may be they are very poorly written, they act outraged as though no one should criticize their modern bible, and proclaim Rowling a very skilful writer, a prose master.. hahahahahah..

and actually almost all critics bashed the latest Potter books... only the first couple (aimed at younger children and not at the young adult audience of the last ones) received generally favorable criticism...

[Drkshadow03]

well actually I said rarely, but you seem to not have noticed...and regardless on the rare occasions Potter fans hear the truth about the books, that however entertaining the storyline may be they are very poorly written, they act outraged as though no one should criticize their modern bible, and proclaim Rowling a very skilful writer, a prose master.. hahahahahah..

and actually almost all critics bashed the latest Potter books... only the first couple (aimed at younger children and not at the young adult audience of the last ones) received generally favorable criticism...

That's true you did. My mistake. I would point out that there is a difference between critics who write for popular magazines (newspapers, New Yorker, The Atlantic Monthly, etc.), and academic critics who write for scholarly journals. Though there is some overlap like in the case of Harold Bloom.

There have been many academic critics who have had favorable reviews of Potter and written genuine literary criticism analyzing the deeper issues to be found in Harry Potter. Of course, one needs to take this with a grain of salt as Popular Culture criticism is big these days and a legit form of academic inquiry. Is is also necessary to write about the next big thing simply for the sake of treading on unplowed ground instead of trying to find something new to say about a well-established classic that has been written about hundreds of thousands of times. So we shouldn't forget that as well. Nevertheless, I have read some of this criticism and some of the arguments are convincing and treat Harry Potter in a serious critical light as they would Shakespeare. This doesn't mean they are arguing that it is as good or equal to Shakespeare; it merely means they are treating it as a serious work and analyzing themes, motifs, genre, settings, characters, etc.

I could see Harry Potter lingering as a Children's Lit classic. But we'll see.

[Mathor]

Well all I know for sure, is that the Harry Potter movies have had generally outstanding reviews, and if you would like me to back this up i can show you where my research comes from. I tend to follow film critics, and have never really known of many places that compiles the criticism of recent books (other than obviously going to one or two critics you like, the most biased way)

I do not think J.K Rowling is an amazing author, and I do not think that the Harry Potter books are great works of literature, but they are certainly entertaining, they are certainly charming, and they are certainly not 'trash'. Just as many people consider Dickens' novels to be trash, I think it is certainly just a matter of opinion. I enjoy Austen, the majority of the males on this forum can't really get into Austen. I enjoy Steinbeck, I have heard many on this forum who enjoy good literature but hate Steinbeck. I think it is certainly a matter of taste. I do not think that there is a way to define what is good and what is not good, except on the matter of taste. I know everyone agrees with me, but their bias intercepts their judgement.

[islandclimber]

and to be honest, whatever Bloom says or any other more academic critic, I see Harry Potter lasting as a children's lit classic, although I don't agree with this...

But this is a two edged sword, for if we decide to treat Harry Potter in a serious critical work then we have to discuss it's obvious poverty of style, the fact it's extremely cliche-ridden, and many other negative features of Rowling's writing, regardless of how entertaining the stories may be at first appearance.. if we were to actually hold Harry Potter up to the same magnifying glass that we have held great works of literature up to, it would not stand up, it would be torn apart as vastly inferior and mediocre work.. sorry, but this really can't be argued, for even in the category of young adult literature it fails to even come close to the greats of that category... maybe the first book or two, written for 6-9 year olds still learning to read better, and more critically in that age group Rowling's writing is suitable to receive somewhat favourable criticism, to maybe last.. but the later books written for a much older audience are vastly inferior to so many works already there, and so many contemporary works that go no light shed upon them...

[Mathor]

and to be honest, whatever Bloom says or any other more academic critic, I see Harry Potter lasting as a children's lit classic, although I don't agree with this...

But this is a two edged sword, for if we decide to treat Harry Potter in a serious critical work then we have to discuss it's obvious poverty of style, the fact it's extremely cliche-ridden, and many other negative features of Rowling's writing, regardless of how entertaining the stories may be at first appearance.. if we were to actually hold Harry Potter up to the same magnifying glass that we have held great works of literature up to, it would not stand up, it would be torn apart as vastly inferior and mediocre work.. sorry, but this really can't be argued, for even in the category of young adult literature it fails to even come close to the greats of that category... maybe the first book or two, written for 6-9 year olds still learning to read better, and more critically in that age group Rowling's writing is suitable to receive somewhat favourable criticism, to maybe last.. but the later books written for a much older audience are vastly inferior to so many works already there, and so many contemporary works that go no light shed upon them...

I'd like you to present me with one serious journalist who has described Harry Potter as a 'serious literary work' or a 'classic' or one that should be taught in classrooms.

[Drkshadow03]

Well all I know for sure, is that the Harry Potter movies have had generally outstanding reviews, and if you would like me to back this up i can show you where my research comes from. I tend to follow film critics, and have never really known of many places that compiles the criticism of recent books (other than obviously going to one or two critics you like, the most biased way)

Rotten Tomato?

Here is the thing though. At the end of the day the viewpoints of critics are just an educated opinion, but opinion is still the keyword. They've been trained to look for certain elements (techniques, innovation, cinematography in the case of movies or prose style in the case of literature), have seen a lot of the particular medium to help make comparisons with other films, books, etc. and judge how the particular work in question stacks up, and have read other critical views of older works giving them a sense of history of the medium. Nevertheless, no one is bound by the critical opinion of any individual critic. I think people sometimes forget that critics are not speaking from on high delivering the verdict of G-d. Not to mention many times critics don't agree with each other's assessments.

People should judge the arguments themselves, not the authority of the individual speaking. They also shouldn't be afraid to stand by their own critical judgements and tastes, even when it goes against certain mainstream critics' views.

[Mathor]

Rotten Tomato?

Here is the thing though. At the end of the day the viewpoints of critics are just an educated opinion, but opinion is still the keyword. They've been trained to look for certain elements (techniques, innovation, cinematography in the case of movies or prose style in the case of literature), have seen a lot of the particular medium to help make comparisons with other films, books, etc. and judge how the particular work in question stacks up, and have read other critical views of older works giving them a sense of history of the medium. Nevertheless, no one is bound by the critical opinion of any individual critic. I think people sometimes forget that critics are not speaking from on high delivering the verdict of G-d. Not to mention many times critics don't agree with each other's assessments.

People should judge the arguments themselves, not the authority of the individual speaking. They also shouldn't be afraid to stand by their own critical judgements and tastes, even when it goes against certain mainstream critics' views.

Well exactly, I think all mainstream critics are becoming pretty terrible these days, but I was simply refuting the argument that somehow Harry Potter is frowned upon by serious critics, this is not the case. If you do not like Harry Potter, you should look not at Harry Potter or Twilight, but the people who are giving these books/movies perfect scores.

I do not follow critics to make my decision, but I know that many people on here do, which is why that has been the main structure of all the arguments on here.

I've certainly never once tried to stand up for Harry Potter. I do however stand up against bias and people shoveling their opinions as fact, to try to find some 'moral' reason why people should see their opinion.

[islandclimber]

I'd like you to present me with one serious journalist who has described Harry Potter as a 'serious literary work' or a 'classic' or one that should be taught in classrooms.

umm read drkshadow's post above mine, I was responding to it.. and the suggestion in it that Harry Potter needed to be looked at as a "serious work" and in the same "serious critical light" as we would look at Shakespeare...

[Mathor]

umm read drkshadow's post above mine, I was responding to it.. and the suggestion in it that Harry Potter needed to be looked at as a "serious work" and in the same "serious critical light" as we would look at Shakespeare...

I just feel that whether or not critics like Harry Potter, none of them see it as something that will withstand 50-100 years. It's a good read for a summer day, but it certainly wont be remembered many many many years from now. I don't think any critics think it is a work that has that kind of literary significance, and i've not heard one critic who suggested it so.

[Drkshadow03]

I just feel that whether or not critics like Harry Potter, none of them see it as something that will withstand 50-100 years. It's a good read for a summer day, but it certainly wont be remembered many many many years from now. I don't think any critics think it is a work that has that kind of literary significance, and i've not heard one critic who suggested it so.

"I side with those who believe that the Harry Potter series not only deserves the attention it is getting because of its imaginative qualities and compelling storyline, but also because of its "adult" literary merits. I will argue here that the Harry Potter series fits well into "the great tradition" of British novels that is still taught in college classrooms, beginning with Samuel Richardson, continued by Jane Austen, and culminating in the efforts of Charlotte Brontë and Charles Dickens." - Paige Byam, from "Children's Literature or Adult Classic? The Harry Potter series and the British Novel Tradition." The Washington and Jefferson Review, Issue 54 (Fall 2004).

"The aggressive marketing . . . also describes a critical problem: the novels and the hype become intertwined, resulting in analyses that fail to take into account the full complexity of either. Because Harry Potter is both a marketing phenomenon and a literary phenomenon, critical conflation of the two does not really advance the understanding of the marketing apparatus or the books themselves. . . . First of all, conflating the books with the marketing fails to produce a sufficiently sophisticated analysis of the latter. Second, such critical conflation leads some critics to overlook the novels' considerable literary achievements." - Philip Nel, "Is There a Text in this Advertising Campaign?: Literature, Marketing, and Harry Potter." The Lion and the Unicorn 29.2 (2005). (emphasis mine).

Now that's not exactly them saying it will last 100 years from now, but there are critics who will argue that Potter has literary merits. To be honest I have no idea if Potter will stand the test of time or even twenty years from now. Then again I don't believe you or anyone else on this board really knows either. Only time will tell.

[stlukesguild]

The Luhrmann film was difficult to watch with the cinematic pyrotechnics combined, with speech that needs to be savoured and reflected on...

The Baz Luhrman film was difficult to watch because it was crap.

[JCamilo]

And really, I am not saying anything about the critics. I am laughing the idea that critical attacks will affect the reading habits to the point people would stop reading because of them. If they are under such influence, the logic was not they will stop reading - they will stop reading HP and read what the critic offer.
Yes, I expect people to stop reading HP and start reading Proust, Joyce and Shakespeare because of Harold Bloom.

[islandclimber]

And really, I am not saying anything about the critics. I am laughing the idea that critical attacks will affect the reading habits to the point people would stop reading because of them. If they are under such influence, the logic was not they will stop reading - they will stop reading HP and read what the critic offer.
Yes, I expect people to stop reading HP and start reading Proust, Joyce and Shakespeare because of Harold Bloom.

this was my point too!!! and the fact that children and most of the adults reading Harry potter are never going to read a little article by Harold Bloom in the Wall Street Journal..

you put it much better though...

[stlukesguild]

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.

C'mon. You know that anecdotal evidence is an oxymoron.

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.

Undoubtedly there are more than a few who reading habits began with the dirty bits written in porno mags. So we should promote this as well? I am not questioning whether a child... or even an adult... should be encouraged to read Harry Potter if that is what he or she desires. I do question, however, the merit of promoting such in an educational setting.

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.

How is it condescending? Great literature is an elective affinity. You choose to read it or you don't. It has nothing whatsoever to do with your intellect or your likelihood of success in life. That is but a red herring typically employed as a means of undermining the opinions of those who have made the choice and the effort to explore literature. Just dismiss us as elitist snobs. Yet the same notion of elitism applies to each and every field of human endeavor. "Elitism", as I employ the word, denotes "those whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight..." Those who have engaged in a "rigorous study of, or great accomplishment within, a particular field... display a long track record of competence in a demanding field; or a high degree of accomplishment, training or wisdom within a given field." There are those who are elitists/experts (use whatever term you will) in math, science, sports, art, history, film, cars, rock and roll, bluegrass, jazz, opera, etc... etc... You, yourself, present yourself as something of an expert on science fiction. I have little doubt that you would be quick to point out cliches of a particularly mediocre or poor work of science fiction and probably would be equally quick to question the opinions of someone (like myself) who is a novice is the field (at best). At least I suspect such would be your response were I or someone else to come upon a science fiction writing discussion board and begin making statements about the imagined merits of some less than brilliant science fiction writers.