Harry Potter

[JCamilo]

No it is frustrating, because there are only two arguments that are being presented here.

1. It is for children, don't criticize it.
2. I do not think this book is worth reading and therefore you should not read it.

I also think the people here are judging this work differently then they would judge other works that are similar to it, for the simple fact that it is very popular. It's not a life-changing work, but it's not any worse than the majority of teen literature out there.

Of course, it was only necessary two following posters to show what really happens here, right?

[Zee.]

God this argument is so boring...

I don't understand what half of you are trying to prove? are you trying to somehow, make the point that kids don't REALLY like Harry Potter? I just don't get the point you're trying to make?

[Mathor]

God this argument is so boring...

I don't understand what half of you are trying to prove? are you trying to somehow, make the point that kids don't REALLY like Harry Potter? I just don't get the point you're trying to make?

Yeah. I've decided to ditch this argument and jump of the nearest bridge..

[Paulclem]

im trying to find the emoticon that represents me doing a giant turd over this thread



Yeah. I've decided to ditch this argument and jump of the nearest bridge..

What shall we talk about now? Who's best? HP or Stephen King? No no....

I'm done too.

[Zee.]

I don't mean to be rude, and i' don't mean to attack certain posters or anything - i mean to "attack" this topic as a whole. There's no progression.

[Paulclem]

I don't mean to be rude, and i' don't mean to attack certain posters or anything - i mean to "attack" this topic as a whole. There's no progression.

I know what you mean. Some of the posts can seem a bit terse, and it's difficult to know how to respond. I'm afraid I've been a bit annoyed and sarcastic at times on this thread. I'm going to try to be more chilled in future.

I didn't think you were being rude though.

[Drkshadow03]

I agree the thread is frustating. But rather because it seems like any criticism of Harry Potter is answered with "It is for children, they like it."

Funny, I remember writing an entire mini-essay at post #200 explaining why I think Harry Potter is good, or at least what I and other more skilled critics get out of the books that certainly transcends merely claiming, "it is for children."

Let’s review the entire thread from the essay at post # 200:

Most people seemed to like the essay. Then JCamillo makes some flyby comment at #203:

“’Urban Fantasy’ is something done by Robert Louis Stevenson and Kafka. Magic Realism is basically "urban fantasy". 1001 Nights is "urban fantasy". The problem of Harry Potter is not what it is as genre, but as literature (or the solution is). However quoted Chesterton did not understand the joke...”

I think this was meant as some sort of criticism of my post, I wasn’t really sure. I didn’t respond to it because it didn’t rebut anything in my essay since what I actually did was explain how Rowling takes advantage of the sub-genre to produce its themes in a new and fresh way-- not just identified the sub-genre and said it was good because it was that sub-genre, which is how JCamillo seemed to interpret it--and then went on to discuss other sophisticated elements within the text (characterization, structure, parallels within the text, other important themes), leading me to believe he misread the entire essay.

The problem he identifies in this post of course is the argument equivalent of simply saying, “But, but, Harry Potter is still bad.” Without any form of textual support for this claim it is ironically the intellectual equivalent of arguing, “but, it is for children.”

Then mortalterror gave an anecdotal response to one of the movies. JBI then went on to talk about the most recent film, adding that Alan Rickman would be an awesome Shakespearean actor (ignoring that he has in fact done Shakespeare and so has many other members within the cast who are also talented actors).

Paul then challenged Mortalterror’s personal response to the film, leading to the mention of the time-turner. JBI and JCamillo go into the reasons they dislike the time-turner stuff. I own JBI and show him why his argument about this is silly. He claims he was mostly joking. JCamillo and Paul go at it for awhile, Paul wrongly accuses JCamillo of not reading the books.

JCamillo then goes on to compare HP to Rambo IV in response to Paul’s argument that anything goes if it matches the author’s intention or will, and if it matches the writer’s vision it therefore cannot be bad. JCamillo is correct to criticize this point in and of itself. Paul scratches his head about the Rambo reference. Jcamillo in post # 229 continues to compare it to Rambo IV. Then he commits a slippery slope fallacy going on a tangent about how the logical conclusion of all these arguments is that we should replace Shakespeare in school with Hannah Barbera cartoons, even though in post #279 Jcamillo admits in sarcastic fashion that “You know that Alice in Wonderlands do lead to James Joyce, right? And Robert Louis Stevenson to Jorge Luis Borges? Because they are direct influence to both? Ah, of course, I forget we live in a world of absolutes, If there is no Harry Potter no other book is left in this world but the Unread volumes of snobery [sic]...”, thus contradicting his own slippery slope argument in post # 229. Just because there is no HP doesn’t mean people only have left the “Unread volumes of snobbery”; likewise, just because someone is arguing for the merits of Harry Potter doesn’t necessarily mean they want to remove Shakespeare and replace it with Hannah Barbera.

Originally JCamillo was using his comparison with Rambo IV simply to point out that no text is so sacred that it automatically gets a pass on the grounds of author’s intentions. This is a good argument and valid point. Then in post # 232 he screws that all up. He tells us actually he was comparing HP III to Rambo IV because it was a crap movie. Rambo IV is full of clichés, rubbish characterization, as is Harry Potter, according to him. He presents them in a non-falsifiable way without delving into the text at all to back-up these claims (at best he has his one example with Hermione from earlier posts that makes up one character of one small section of one of the books, therefore all the characters must be bad). This is an example of “flow” logic where broad conclusions apparently flows from only slightly relevant points and hasty generalizations (another logical fallacy!) can be drawn about all characters based off the debate about one character in one minor scene. Also apparently the books suffer from this “flow” logic too. He then demonstrates the method of this “flow” logic by going on a tangent about Dungeon and Dragons. He demands that books need to do something more than simply work as a story. He demands that defenses of HP needs to do more than that, completely ignoring the essay I wrote at # 200 which did just that.

Mathor claims he is not speaking of the book, but the movie. More debate about how the events actually occurred in the film and whether this is a character flaw or narrative flaw, and people trying to figure out what actually happened in the film and books in the first place.

JCamillo confuses himself for an aging Jewish literary critic, and talks about those halcyon days when literature and films were good before the Dark Times, before the Empire of Mediocrity.

A lot more debating about the Hermione scene. People still cannot agree on the facts or how to interpret them. Mathor notes that nothing Jcamillo says makes any sense, but that’s because he simply doesn’t understand the fine intricacies of “flow” logic. People still aren’t sure whether they are debating the film or the book.

Paul claims that the only thing people have said is that HP wrote good teen/children’s book. I contradict him in post # 253 and say, actually I did defend the merits of HP, not just as a fun little children’s book. I then note the irony of Bloom’s whining about King since it was through King that I first heard of and read Wallace Stevens when I was younger. Paul then talks briefly about King and Horses for some reason.

The time-travel argument seems to finally have come to an end by post # 256. Jcamillo wants to know if anyone’s kids only read Harry Potter? This is a loaded and trick question. Answer, yes, they only read HP and it proves that HP only leads kids to read HP and nothing else. Answer, no, they read other books, too, and it proves that HP doesn’t encourage kids to read anymore than any other book. Paul answers.

Joebob at #260 compares HP to the Twilight series in a flyby comment with little substance and no textual analysis to support this contention. Brian Bean makes a snobbish flyby comment belittling children and adults who read Harry Potter, again no real substance to his point other than to be nasty and condescending. I call Joebob on his post and note that it is a casebook example of Guilt by Association.

The argument slips back into the “Does Harry Potter get kids to read?” Limajean who has been absent from this conversation decides to drop-by and note how the conversation that she has not been participating in is driving her nuts! She assumes everyone posting in the thread must be older and has never read HP, imitating Mathor’s claims earlier about JCamillo.

Wessexgirl drops by to yell at the HP detractors for picking on small children (mostly absent from this conversation), adds that she doesn’t think HP is good literature and nobody is defending it as such (completely ignoring my post at # 200, which is what resurrected this dead thread in the first place).

Mollie asks, what should children be reading then? I recommend classics such as “See Spot Run” to be immediately followed up with Chaucer and James Joyce. Three Sparrows talks about his homeschooling experiences and how he learned Harry Potter is really the spawn of the devil. He doubts that I could get kids reading Chaucer (oh ye of such little faith . . .)

JCamillo wants to explore this idea further of Harry Potter getting people reading because apparently it hasn’t been explored enough over 278 posts. He explains that any book could get kids to enjoy reading, even the Encyclopedia, because you know, obviously librarians and teachers only bother to shove HP into the hands of reluctant readers. All the other YA and children’s books in the library are apparently for show. Jcamillo then goes on to talk about his sisters reading HP and other good books.

Mollie comes in and name drops other Children’s authors, also doesn’t think HP is that good as literature, but just a fun read, and claims nobody is arguing that (completely ignoring my essay at post # 200.) I scratch my head and think she might be British looking at the particular names she is dropping. I move on.

JCamillo in post # 282 argues that he finds the thread frustrating because nobody understands his “flow” logic. This prompts me to write this post (how meta of me). If we look back from post # 200, most the arguments have not been, “it’s for the children” and it was only when JCamillo himself turned the argument in that direction with his loaded question about children reading HP that we saw people responding in this way, not before. So this is once again extremely deceptive because the topic has changed slightly from the merits and flaws of HP to reading HP in relation to other books.

He then notes there are many Children’s books that can sustain the same level of criticism as Joyce and Proust would, implying that Harry Potter could not, even though if one were to look objectively at the amount of HP criticism that exists one would find hundreds upon hundreds of critical arguments about HP all from genuine Literary Critics. So there is a large body of critical work written about HP, most of it positive. JCamillo adds that entertainment will not teach kids the skills they need to read Great Literature, completely ignoring that some here disagree that HP is simply entertainment and nothing more, and ignoring my essay at # 200 which shows exactly some of the literary structures and themes of Harry Potter, and by extension shows how one could teach the skills of reading literature through Harry Potter if they actually know what they are doing.

Mathor in post # 283 notes that the argument is frustrating because both sides of the debate are pretty much repeating themselves.

Limajean claims the argument is still boring, but instead of leaving, she continues to post about it. She doesn’t understand the arguments people are making. That’s because she doesn’t understand “flow” logic obviously!
Mathor informs us he is going to commit suicide. Paul bows out. And I post this and pray the moderators don’t ban me!

[Hank Stamper]

:lol excellent summary!

[mollie]

Drkshadow, I mentioned other authors, not name dropped them, as part of the point that a balance may be struck between acknowledged classics and Harry Potter books.

I said that Harry Potters were not the best books in the world. I read over the thread quite briefly and the impression I got overall was that nobody was making the claim that Harry Potters were the best books in the world. If you feel I have been disrespectful to you and your essay, then I am sorry for that.

And I am not British.

[Drkshadow03]

Drkshadow, I mentioned other authors, not name dropped them, as part of the point that a balance may be struck between acknowledged classics and Harry Potter books, whose literary merit was still being debated.

I originally intended to say that Harry Potters were not the best and only books in the world, and edited my post incorrectly. I read over the thread quite briefly and the impression I got overall was that nobody was making the claim that Harry Potters were the only books in the world.

If you feel I have been disrespectful to you and your essay, then I am sorry for that.

And I am not British.

Only a British person would say that!

Heh. I'm just kidding. I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek. I was just trying to summarize the thread in an amusing way so we could have slightly more objective look at how the thread actually progressed.

[Veho]

I scratch my head and think she might be British looking at the particular names she is dropping. I move on..

What's wrong with being British?

This thread reminds me of this:

How many forum members does it take to change a light bulb?

1 to change the light bulb and to post that the light bulb has been changed
14 to share similar experiences of changing light bulbs and how the light
bulb could have been changed differently
7 to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs
1 to move it to the Lighting section
2 to argue then move it to the Electricals section
7 to point out spelling/grammar errors in posts about changing light bulbs
5 to flame the spell checkers
3 to correct spelling/grammar flames
6 to argue over whether it's "lightbulb" or "light bulb" ... another 6 to
condemn those 6 as stupid
2 industry professionals to inform the group that the proper term is "lamp"
15 know-it-alls who claim they were in the industry, and that "light bulb"
is perfectly correct
19 to post that this forum is not about light bulbs and to please take this
discussion to a lightbulb forum
11 to defend the posting to this forum saying that we all use light bulbs
and therefore the posts are relevant to this forum
36 to debate which method of changing light bulbs is superior, where to buy
the best light bulbs, what brand of light bulbs work best for this technique
and what brands are faulty
7 to post URL's where one can see examples of different light bulbs
4 to post that the URL's were posted incorrectly and then post the corrected
URL's
3 to post about links they found from the URL's that are relevant to this
group which makes light bulbs relevant to this group
13 to link all posts to date, quote them in their entirety including all
headers and signatures, and add "Me too"
5 to post to the group that they will no longer post because they cannot
handle the light bulb controversy
4 to say "didn't we go through this already a short time ago?"
13 to say "do a search on light bulbs before posting questions about light
bulbs"
1 to hijack the thread and ask how to change the horn
1 forum lurker to respond to the original post 6 months from now and start
it all over again.

[mollie]

I agree the thread is frustating. But rather because it seems like any criticism of Harry Potter is answered with "It is for children, they like it."
So what? I can go to a store right now and point a hundred books that were for children and meant to please them and tell why they may be worst than HP. But if someone points flaws on HP in a internet forum, where the public is hardly the poor children then it is a dire crime. It is like someone placing critics on Shakespeare and other answering: It is for addults, they enjoy it!
That is very frustating, because it is false argumentantion: enjoyment is not measurable at all, someone may enjoy today and hate tomorrow (or vice-versa).




Alice in wonderlands was written for younger children (If children can be applied at all with Harry Potter) and they can sustain the same level of criticism applied to HP. And the question is always what they are learning is rather important.



And nobody ever suggested that people do not enjoy HP.



Well, for a high perfomance athlete this is a good thing to talk isnt? But what surprise me is the notion that addults should not analyse material meant for younglings. Just le be. It is funny since children hardly produce they own material? And more, why one book should be spared from criticism just for being written for children? I could list several "children books" that sustain the same level of criticism that Joyce or Proust would, is that special that they should be spared, specially when genre classifications are rather insignificant to criticism? Rather, is that surprising that we should not do it in a internet forum where the objective is talking about literature? Should anyone else be censored because they see negative things and do not come in how original,loving, special, life changing Harry Potter is?



Yet, they can read what is enterteiment and what is substancial. All by themselves.



I would just say that Fairy tales are rather meant to addults and that the only step is own experience. Reading is a skill developed with conflit that demands more than the previous experience. So, I really doubt that reading a work that is just enterteiment and nothing else will give anyone the skills to understand the deeper and multiple meanings behind better works. They may devleop stamina for long texts, but really that is just limited and they will have to find it somewhere else.

I just don't see the point in nitpicking so strenuously.

And I don't see the point in saying that children should not be reading something they enjoy, on the grounds that they're not learning enough from it. Aside from the fact that they may be getting a good deal more from it than you realise, it is still enjoyable, and that is a good thing.

[mal4mac]

When a person is new to something, like reading, they just enjoy the first thing that connects to them, and go from there. If that is Harry Potter, so be it.

It wasn't for me, for me it was Robert Louis Stevenson's "Treasure Island". I can look back and see why that novel is VASTLY imperfect, but I didn't realize that growing up. I just knew that I liked the story. And from there I just wanted to keep reading. So whether or not I can ever bring myself down to the level to re-read it, Treasure Island will always be important to me.

I didn't read this in childhood, in fact I read it last month as light relief between "Don Quixote" and "The Tempest". It was a good read, definitely not "VASTLY imperfect". I didn't feel I was "bringing myself down". I'd recommend it to a kid of any age. (Harold Bloom includes it in his "Canon"!)

[Paulclem]

I post this and pray the moderators don’t ban me!

A funny summary Drkshadow. Part of the problem is time - dropping in and out. Still learning stuff though. I'm not re-engaging, I just thought I'd appreciate your posts.

[JCamilo]

Would be a waste to quote your resume. Nicely done, I notice that you still see and use only what is suited for you argument. I love how I am guilty from bringing the "It is for kids" for asking about kids when the very first line of this thread already asks this and Mathor is, the third post already saying that it is for kids... Of course, It was before your essay, but sorry, it is not that important, not a gospel for us to reset the calendar.
I really bother very little to discuss the literary merit of HP and rather the effects of HP (And other works) on readers (since it seems rather unlikely that you or anyone seems able to counter the argument I made) and really, listing fallacies is really amateurish, a bad writing habit. It does not help you to deal with irony. Hannah Barbara and shakespeare is irony. Not an argument, but saying something obviously oustrageous to apply the theory presented (In this case, that if the kids enjoy it is good and helping in the formation of readers)... It is obviously wrong. It is intended to be wrong. Not even subtle to mention another book,but something is not even written. Really my advice, a text grows stronger when you do not fail pray to listing debating champion tourney rules. It is for kids.