Harry Potter

[islandclimber]

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.

but what is to be expected of Baz Luhrman? he is a crap director.. the terrible Romeo and Juliet, Australia and the vastly overrated Moulin Rouge, Strictly Ballroom...

it will be interesting to see if he can destroy The Great Gatsby as I have heard this is his next project?

[JBI]

but what is to be expected of Baz Luhrman? he is a crap director.. the terrible Romeo and Juliet, Australia and the vastly overrated Moulin Rouge, Strictly Ballroom...

it will be interesting to see if he can destroy The Great Gatsby as I have heard this is his next project?

Lets just hope he doesn't cast Mia Farrow.

[stlukesguild]

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.

I can't say I put much store by what literary critics or theorists have to say. Certainly, I have read a bit... and I will even admit that a few... such as Samuel Johnson, Walter Pater, William Hazlitt, etc... are artists in their own right... and worthy of reading... but the vast majority are caught up in their own esoteric and hermetic worlds that have little to do with why I read... which is something far closer to Virginia Woolf's ideal of the not-so-common "common reader".

[islandclimber]

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?

I just noticed this post... but I agree completely.. even in the last 20 years since my early childhood, the media has slowly abandoned references to "high" art.. I remember watching Merry Melodies when I was a little kid and seeing Bugs Bunny interact with Pavarotti and others... the animated movie Fantasia... but I do think the media carry a large responsibility for the dumbing down of the art they promote to the public... oh well... although the literacy rates were vastly lower in Victorian England or Renaissance France and England, I would say the percentage of those who read "good" literature out of the population that read was extremely high.. whereas now this percentage is miniscule.. plus the fact that recent studies show 50 % of American Adults won't read a single novel this year, well how high is literacy now then? or is it just functional literacy that is high?

[JCamilo]

I think most good critics are those who are also good writers. Harold Bloom would be much better if he had the talent of, lets say, Borges. So, Borges can say Shakespeare is the center of the canon writing a short story about his memmory. Instead of writing an essay (and we are talking about a great essay writer) he shows, not tell.
But I doubt there is any sheep that keep reading an author because a critic says so. Most likely the critics just point out some unknow name, forgotten work, etc and the rest the reader will do as he wishes.

[islandclimber]

Lets just hope he doesn't cast Mia Farrow.

or Mira Sorvino!

[Drkshadow03]

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

In what way is anecdotal evidence an oxymoron? I am basing it, of course, on my own experiences as both a librarian in a public school and my own teenage years in which I took that very path. Experiences allow us to make generalizations about the world (read your Aristotle). It is not all that far-fetched to believe that if I went from Star Wars and Wheel of Time to Shakespeare and Faulkner, others did and will as well.

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.

This is a false analogy. You're comparing pornography to Harry Potter, give me a break. Harry Potter could make good educational material if done correctly; that also doesn't mean the students cannot read other books as well.

How is it condescending?

Let’s see what you wrote and what I was responding to:

“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?”

So you’re seriously suggesting that it may be better to read nothing at all than for an adult to only read Dan Brown, Rowling, pulp fiction, and romance novels, thus implying they are wasting their time, and you cannot figure out how that is condescending?

Condescending (from dictionary.com):

showing or implying a usually patronizing descent from dignity or superiority

Your words fit the definition perfectly. Moving on . . .

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.

Funny, I don’t remember calling you or anybody an elitist snob. Thanks for playing the Victomhood card ™. Nevertheless, this is not a red herring because my comments directly relate to your question about whether people who read non-Canonical literature should bother reading. I answered with factors that were relevant, especially since you put it in question form (even though slightly rhetorical); basically, I answered the question by noting that reading “great” Literature and reading only Dan Brownish works hasn’t affected the quality and success in their life, and they take pleasure in those books, so I see no reason that reading nothing is better than reading some kind of novel.

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.

See now a red herring would be going on a long rant about how you define elitism, which bears no relation to the original question of why you think reading nothing might be better than reading Dan Brown or Stephen King, especially when no one has called you an elitist.

[islandclimber]

In what way is anecdotal evidence an oxymoron? I am basing it, of course, on my own experiences as both a librarian in a public school and my own teenage years in which I took that very path. Experiences allow us to make generalizations about the world (read your Aristotle). It is not all that far-fetched to believe that if I went from Star Wars and Wheel of Time to Shakespeare and Faulkner, others did and will as well.

so what? that is a small minority and in my opinion would have progressed into good literature regardless of what they began with.. I started with Twain, Carrol, Dickens, London, Crane, and others... but at the same time I read Wheel of Time and Tom Clancy when I was a kid... they provided a different kind of entertainment for me at that age, but I have no illusions about these books having provided any educational benefit for me...

This is a false analogy. You're comparing pornography to Harry Potter, give me a break. Harry Potter could make good educational material if done correctly; that also doesn't mean the students cannot read other books as well.

pornography could be used as educational material as well, disregarding the offensive content, if we are to include poorly written literature in education... reading Harry Potter in school is basically telling kids that mediocre writing is good...

Let’s see what you wrote and what I was responding to:

“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?”

So you’re seriously suggesting that it may be better to read nothing at all than for an adult or whoever to only read Dan Brown, Rowling, pulp fiction, and romance novels, thus implying they are wasting their time, and you cannot figure out how that is condescending?

Condescending (from dictionary.com):

showing or implying a usually patronizing descent from dignity or superiority

Your words fit the definition perfectly. Moving on . . .




Funny, I don’t remember calling you or anybody an elitist snob. Thanks for playing the Victomhood card ™. Nevertheless, this is not a red herring because my comments directly relate to your question about whether people who read non-Canonical literature should bother reading. I answered with factors that were relevant, especially since you put it in question form (even though slightly rhetorical); basically, I answered the question by noting that reading “great” Literature and reading only Dan Brownish works hasn’t affected the quality and success in their life, and they take pleasure in those books, so I see no reason that reading nothing is better than reading some kind of novel.



See now a red herring would be going on a long rant about how you define elitism, which bears no relation to the original question of why you think reading nothing might be better than reading Dan Brown or Stephen King, especially when no one has called you an elitist.

the point isn't that these people would be better off reading nothing, or that they should read nothing, it is that there is no difference between reading junk, and reading nothing... if they want to read this, that is fine by me, and I'm sure fine to anyone, but when this "mediocrity" is put forward as good literature, pushes better books off the shelf, makes them harder to find in bookstores, well then it is becoming a problem... but I really could care less what people read for pleasure... but it provides no benefit besides entertainment and pleasure, if all adults read is junk. and therefore this is exactly the same as if they read nothing at all, and did something else for entertainment...

lots of people who read nothing at all are "successes" in life too, so I don't see what that has to do with anything...

[JBI]

I don't know - the first things I really recall reading - besides the Bible and my book of children's literature (which is still, surprisingly enough, a pretty darn good collection of Children's literature) were young adult books geared toward girls. Very little stuck of course, but I think some of it leaked onto my reading sensibilities, and definitely helped my understanding of gender in texts - but that isn't the point though, in all honesty, I'm an accidental reader, in the sense that when I just started high school, I wasn't even functionally literate in English (I still don't punctuate properly on the first go, as many of you can see) - I came to it by absolute chance, that I happened to read a copy of Onegin and think, hey, this stuff is pretty damn good.

What would have happened, for instance, if someone gave me that sort of stuff as a kid - well, I come from an immigrant family, so in all honesty I was never really brought up in this "Dickens, Carol, Rossetti, MacDonald" vein - I don't even recall actually being read to as a child, much less in English.

If someone gave me, for instance, a copy of Caitlin Sweet, or Ursula K. Leguin as a child, I probably would have been a better reader for it - the Narnia books that I got as a present when I was a child though, didn't even phase me - perhaps that's an idiosyncracy, and a weird personal taste - who knows - certainly getting exposure to some poetry before high school would have saved me quite a few hours, though, in all honesty, my grade 9 English teacher knew less about Blake's A Poison Tree than I know about Quantum Physics. Everything just sort of happened, and it most certainly would not have happened if I read that Lemony Snickett stuff, or that Dan Brown stuff, or even that Potter (stuff, I know, the Potters didn't phase me) as a kid, and surely that Leonardo di Caprio Romeo and Juliet movie from the 90s (and got is it ever 90s!) film didn't inspire much either when it was shown in class.

[Drkshadow03]

so what? that is a small minority and in my opinion would have progressed into good literature regardless of what they began with.. I started with Twain, Carrol, Dickens, London, Crane, and others... but at the same time I read Wheel of Time and Tom Clancy when I was a kid... they provided a different kind of entertainment for me at that age, but I have no illusions about these books having provided any educational benefit for me...

A small minority is still SOME people. Simple math. Better to attract 1 person or 0 people? What evidence do you have that the same people would have progressed onto good literature regardless? Although you might have started with Twain, Carrol, Dickens, and such, that doesn't mean every reader was ready for them at that age. I definitely wasn't ready for any of those authors.

pornography could be used as educational material as well, disregarding the offensive content, if we are to include poorly written literature in education... reading Harry Potter in school is basically telling kids that mediocre writing is good...

No, since you don't teach kids aesthetics at a young age, but rather focus on teaching them vocabulary, reading strategies, a love/enjoyment of reading, parts of a story (plot, setting, characters, protagonists), and maybe start getting them to think about the deeper issues found in a book. Of course, it also depends what age group you're talking about: huge difference between how you would approach a third grader compared to a ninth grader.

the point isn't that these people would be better off reading nothing, or that they should read nothing, it is that there is no difference between reading junk, and reading nothing... if they want to read this, that is fine by me, and I'm sure fine to anyone, but when this "mediocrity" is put forward as good literature, pushes better books off the shelf, makes them harder to find in bookstores, well then it is becoming a problem... but I really could care less what people read for pleasure... but it provides no benefit besides entertainment and pleasure, if all adults read is junk. and therefore this is exactly the same as if they read nothing at all, and did something else for entertainment...

I rarely see anyone put forward mediocre books as good literature since the moment they put forward a book as good literature they are making the claim that it isn't mediocre, now aren't they? By "mediocre" you really mean books YOU personally consider mediocre, which is fine. Entertainment and pleasure has value in itself. If you think they should go play a video game or watch a movie to be entertained, then you at least recognize entertainment and pleasure has some value, even if lesser value than education. Still, we could continue with your logic: why would you watch a movie rather than play a video game? Based off what we already said about entertaining books it doesn't matter which you do. Why eat pizza over Mexican food? Hell, if you're going to read "crap" books why read Science Fiction instead of Romance? Why play basketball instead of baseball, they are both sports aren't they? Answer those questions and figure out what they have in common and you have your answer why one might choose to read for entertainment than just playing a video game. Besides, I am pretty sure reading Dan Brown keeps your vocabulary sharper than most video games.

Still we can easily figure out if entertainment has any value. Which would you prefer: a) a book that is boring and deep or b) a book that is entertaining and deep. They have the same level of depth in this hypothetical.

lots of people who read nothing at all are "successes" in life too, so I don't see what that has to do with anything...

But I'm sure most of them read something at some point, even if it was Harry Potter or Stephen King, which allowed them to maintain a certain level of literacy, since most "successful" jobs requires one to be functionally literate. The point being that reading Great literature or not reading it really does nothing to support or work against the quality of someone's life, unless of course they already have a passion for that type of literature. Also, Stluke situated his argument in a rant about methods of education and the difficulty of teaching kids brainwashed on video games and the internet.

He wrote: “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.”

It’s not clear what he means to do with the last lines. Still, he does pretty much equate reading, thinking, and learning. The point is adults who spend their time reading so-called candy can still learn fine and dandy. Literature just ain’t their thang.

[TheFifthElement]

But this is just absurd.. where is all this negativity to be found about what kids read?

I think you're spreading it. The discussion is hardly nurturing is it? Have you heard yourself?

Most Harry Potter readers, or readers of other such junk,

where are these kids finding people sneering at their book choices, criticizing the obviously stylistically poor writing they read..

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

Wow. No sneering or negativity there. Why don't you try this out? Direct that diatribe in person to the next 13 year old you see reading one of the Harry Potter books and see how it encourages them to read Alice in Wonderland.

And you're nowhere near as unique as you think you are. How many other Harry Potter threads have been hijacked by the Potter haters on this forum alone. Do you really think that isn't replicated elsewhere? And just look back to post 5 on this thread:

Please no more of these Harry Potter threads. Didn't we put the last one to rest?

The thread hadn't even got going before someone came in championing thread censorship. What a wonderful, positive, all inclusive world we live in. Surely, if you don't want to discuss it it's easy enough to stay out of the threads?

And isn't it funny how these Potter threads are most heavily frequented by those who claim it's not worth talking about?

[Paulclem]

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

But did it fulfil the remit of bringing Shakespeare to a more visually orientated youth market? I think it was an interesting experiment which on the whole doesn't work because of the disparity of the script and film conventions. Crap or not, you're missing the point. How are modern teens to be encouraged into a deeper reading of classics like Shakespeare? How is the dumbing down to be addressed?

[Zee.]

It is news to me that Harry Potter is being studied in schools. I find it a little bit odd if this is the case..

to my knowledge, most schools cover a pretty good standard of literature

To Kill a Mockingbird
The Great Gatsby
Animal Farm
Of Mice and Men
Hard Times
Great Expectations
Washington Square
D.H Lawrence - The Fox, The Ladybird, The Captain's Doll
Jane Eyre
Romeo and Juliet
Macbeth
Twelfth Night
Hamlet
Pride and Prejudice
Sense and Sensibility

^ plus a few more that i've forgotten, were all covered at school for me

[Zee.]

edit - .

[Zee.]

Geez, reading through some of my posts, I sounded like a dumb cracker