Harry Potter

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Do you mean "they're smarter" or "they act smarter"? There's a difference there.

[Dak]

Book selection: I'm confused why any adult would select Harry Potter over the mountainous volume of better books they could be reading [...] Harry Potter is a children's book. If you're an adult reading it, keep that in mind.

 

says someone with a kids tv charector as an avitar.

 

lots of 'kids' books are enjoyable irreguardless of age. NIMH and mockingbird from your list (tho im not sure what makes mokingbird a kids book), the hobbit/lotr (as eco said), all roald dahl, terry pratchette (according to some), etc etc etc; all of these are good.

 

Being popular does not improve its overall quality

 

but it does often decrease it, apparently:

 

I don't read many "popular books". I could care less about the latest Danielle Steele, Tom Clancy, Clive Cussler, or Dean Koontz novels. These novels are probably just as deserving of criticism as Harry Potter. I'm singling Harry Potter out due to the recent publicity.

 

----

 

I've had the same experience with people who read Harry Potter versus those who purposely eschew it. You might class the latter as "literature snobs"

 

I wouldn't be so polite; but i would point out that they're commiting some kind of anti-bandwagon fallicy (it's popular, therefore it's crap), and, like cap'n, i'd assume you're mistaking pretentiousness for intelligence.

 

has it ever occoured to you that the above books (including HP) might be popular because -- bum bum bum -- they're good, and that you might disagree because you have crap tastes?

 

after all, you've not actually given a reason for your dislike of HP in this thread: you've said that there are 'better' books, but you haven't actually said what makes HP inferior -- in fact, you admit to not having read it -- nor justified your assumption that books have to be 'high callibre works of literary greatness' to be worthwhile. you seem, in all honesty, to be dismissing it due to snobbery, which is not what id consider having good tastes.

[Pangloss]

Anything well-crafted and sophisticated enough to enrapture millions of relatively intelligent (if not necessarily super-literate) adults can't possibly be ALL bad for kids, right?

 

If not necessarily super-literate? Oy, again with the presumptions..... These prejudices and preconceptions about Harry Potter fans are really amusing, not to mention incredibly ironic coming from people who consider themselves well-read, and therefore presumably well-educated!

 

Book selection: I'm confused why any adult would select Harry Potter over the mountainous volume of better books they could be reading.

 

If you've never read a book for sheer entertainment value then you're a very different reader from me. But hey, it's a free country. IMO that's one of the great things about modern entertainment -- there's something in it for everybody.

 

Yeah that has its drawbacks (you're not THAT far off the right track with this), but it also has its advantages. I'm glad that I live in a time where books aren't an elite, expensive, rare commodity. You should be kissing the ground Rowling walks on for contributing to that situation, not lamenting a minor (and questionable) side effect.

 

 

Defense of Harry Potter for being something it's not: Harry Potter is a children's book. If you're an adult reading it, keep that in mind. Being popular does not improve its overall quality, which is great for a series targeted at children, but substantially inferior to a massive quantity of other books available.

 

You're really arguing out of ignorance here, and again judging something that you haven't read. Would you let someone judge James Joyce who hadn't read him?

 

I'm going to write a separate post on this (the literary aspect of Rowling's accomplishment), but there's something really fundamental and important that you're not aware of, and I'm going to do something about that right now. See below.

 

 

Trust in books like Harry Potter to solve the reading dilemma: When I see teachers lauding Harry Potter as some sort of universal panacea for the waning national interest in adult literature, I'm annoyed. And the studies I linked show it doesn't work.

 

Fair enough, even if your study turns out to be false IMO you're asking perfectly valid questions. But I still think you're on a pretty obvious ideological mission.

 

 

This really goes back to point #1: there are books which are aimed at adults, just as readable (probably, I'm judging in ignorance here), and of a quality I'd judge to be substantially higher.

 

If you're lamenting the fact that adult-oriented (and I know we both mean normal-adult, not pornographic-adult, but it's a statement about that industry that I have to make this qualification, isn't it?) fantasy and science fiction is not accepted by society, I wholeheartedly agree with that sentiment. But I think this is due in part to your youth, if I may be a bit presumptuous myself. I grew up in the 1970s and 1980s reading hard SF and fantasy, and I don't think you have any idea how unacceptable and non-mainstream these genres used to be, compared with today. We live in a world that knows that those genres exists and at least respects their entertainment value and marketing potential. Tha was not the case in the pre-Star Wars world I grew up in, my young friend.

 

That having been said, I still think you have a valid point -- it would be nice if those genres were more accessible to the unaware. I just don't think that problem has anything to do with Harry Potter. You can't blame Rowling for that, IMO.

 

 

I recently broached this issue with a friend of mine who had been reading the Harry Potter series. I suggested that he read the cyberpunk classic Snow Crash by Neil Stephenson before he reads another Harry Potter book (Snow Crash made the Time 100 list). He's reading it right now in lieu of Harry Potter, and has thanked me a couple times now for suggesting it.

 

Well that was a great suggestion, and I applaud the effort. Where you went wrong is raining on Potter in the process. Why can't both works be terrific for what they are? Snow Crash is one of my favorites. So is Harry Potter. So is The Iliad. Aren't I a contradiction? How do you explain me? Go ahead and be personal (albeit politely) -- I'm inviting the reply. (Though I recommend reading my next post first.)

 

 

Here you're getting my points confused. I'm primarily arguing that there are better books for adults to be reading than Harry Potter. In regard to children my argument is that book selection skills aren't getting taught. After all, why would kids need to learn them when they're happily reading Harry Potter?

 

My reply: There is no fixed number of books that adults are allowed to read. They aren't burning available time slots by wasting their time every now and then on bad literature. They really aren't. And Harry Potter isn't bad literature.

[bascule]

says someone with a kids tv charector as an avitar.

 

That avatar is more a statement on post-9/11 hysteria than it is on ATHF, but interpret as you will.

 

That said, you think ATHF is a children's show? Do you think it'd be a good idea to expose, say, a 13 year old child to the hand banana?

 

Perhaps airing on "Adult Swim" is a signal that the show is not intended for children

 

I wouldn't be so polite; but i would point out that they're commiting some kind of anti-bandwagon fallicy (it's popular, therefore it's crap), and, like cap'n, i'd assume you're mistaking pretentiousness for intelligence.

 

has it ever occoured to you that the above books (including HP) might be popular because -- bum bum bum -- they're good, and that you might disagree because you have crap tastes?

 

I'm trying to judge based on content, and in the case of Harry Potter I'm judging via metadata rather than my personal interpretation.

 

after all, you've not actually given a reason for your dislike of HP in this thread

 

I think "cultural infantalism" summed it up nicely. Or perhaps the "repetitive plots, the static characters, the pedestrian prose, the wit-free tone, the derivative themes"

 

you've said that there are 'better' books, but you haven't actually said what makes HP inferior -- in fact, you admit to not having read it -- nor justified your assumption that books have to be 'high callibre works of literary greatness' to be worthwhile. you seem, in all honesty, to be dismissing it due to snobbery, which is not what id consider having good tastes.

 

I've been drawn into this sort of battle before, and at the behest of the people involved it lead to me reading the book I was attempting to criticize.

 

In the previous case it was Robert Jordan's "The Eye of the World", the first book in the Wheel of Time series. I got perhaps halfway through before deciding I couldn't take anymore, and spent the next several weeks comparing Jordan's writing to the Eye of Argon.

 

I have no desire to attempt this with Harry Potter. I am quite confident to judge from metadata instead of direct interpretation. Call it snobbery if you will. I'll assert my own observations of Harry Potter's cultish status among its fans.

[Pangloss]

(Warning: This post contains spoilers about the 7th book. Beware!)

 

I'm going to try and be brief on this because I have a day-long conference tomorrow and I need to get some sleep. So I apologize for my brevity, which I hope will not be mistaken for lack of interest.

 

I promised above to give a defense of Harry Potter on a literary level. Let me start that by first pointing to a specific criticism that has appeared in the last few days which I believe echos some of bascule's sentiment. The link below is to a literary review of the 7th novel, written by an accomplished freelance writer and children's literary critic:

 

"Missing from Harry Potter -- A Real Moral Struggle"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20070725/cm_csm/ysawyer

 

The gist of her essay is that Harry Potter fails at a literary level specifically because of the lack of moral journey, which the author claims is a necessary component of real literary works. Because, you know, all great works of fiction must follow the exact same formula. We all know that there is never any deviation from that formula, and all great authors must write in exactly the same manner, or their works are, by definition, crap. Yeah, right. I say *that's* crap.

 

Let me quote a brief excerpt that sums up her point:

 

Oh, yeah. And Harry defeated Voldemort. Good prevailed. The problem is, that's not the moral of the story. Good always prevails. It's the hero's struggle – and costly redemption – that matters.

 

Successful storytelling rests on a few basic principles. One of them is this: A story is about someone who changes, who grows through a moral struggle. What is Harry's struggle? Exactly.

 

This reviewer has missed a very important point in the series, which is that while she's absolutely correct in pointing out that Harry never wavered from "good", she somehow ignored the fact that every single adult around him did waver. Rowling is specifically acknowledging the concept of moral journey and using it in a new and interestingly different manner. Isn't that what good literature is supposed to do -- recognize the "rules" and shake them up a bit, showing us something interesting and new?

 

But that's not all she's missed. Check this out:

 

Rowling has publicly expressed mystification over her readers' fascination with Snape, even suggesting that his appeal is simply "the bad boy syndrome." Instead, her readers, whether consciously or not, have tapped into something that Rowling herself may have failed to recognize.

 

This is just amazing. The author is picking up on a character trait that Rowling deliberately wrote into the character (his predicament in having to choose between Voldemort and Dumbledore), and then using it to claim that Rowling doesn't understand that very same character! Hello!

 

But in fact the author of this review was just incorrect about Rowling's feelings about fans towards Snape. Just this morning I saw an interview where a child asked Rowling a question about why Snape had become a hero, and Rowling expressed that in her view Snape isn't a hero. It's more complicated than that.

 

One of the problems here is that the movies have oversimplified the story. The books are far more complex. Snape's predicament is very much akin to (and was very likely inspired by -- she's cited this many times) the dilemma faced by Tolkien and his characters at the end of Lord of the Rings. Frodo *cannot* throw the ring into the fire! If you don't understand that key point, and the fact the entire series has built up to this dilemma, then you cannot understand Lord of the Rings, no matter HOW old you are. How Tolkein resolves this is one of the most exciting moments in all of literary history. He's told you exactly how he's going to do it, given you all the clues ("Smeagol will play some role..." says Gandalf). Yet no matter how good a reader you are, no matter how diligent, intelligent, thoughtful, careful, attentive and enlightened -- you're still surprised! THAT's good writing.

 

Harry Potter is no different. She accomplished that kind of surprise many times. That's what makes it good writing.

 

I wanted to mention another key point in the brief time that I have, which is that I think one of the things that Rowling has done here is actually unique in all of literary history:

 

She's created a work that matures with the reader!

 

When the books begin, Harry is 11, and parents can present the first book to an eleven-year-old child. As the child ages and the parents think he or she can handle it, more books can be presented, with the full understanding that each year is progressively more mature in theme. One year, in fact. Each year the situation grows more serious; the consequences more grave. In book four a boy dies for the first time. By the time Harry turns 17, the situation is absolutely grave -- a situation no 11-year-old should ever be asked to handle. But a 17-year-old, that's different. (After all, we let 17-year-olds into rated-R movies, but not 11-year-olds.)

 

That's unique. Nobody's ever done that before. Not in fantasy, not in science fiction, not in any other kind of fiction. Not ever.

 

Whether that approach is entirely successful is another question, but think of the inspiration that will cause. Which brings me to my last point, which is that inspiration. You can quote all the studies you want about children reading Harry Potter and then turning away from literature (surely an incomplete study at the very least -- how can they say that they'll never return?). But one thing you cannot deny is the number of people who will be inspired by these books, and go on to produce other works, building and exceeding the past.

 

That's what literature is supposed to be. And by the way, I'll bet you dollars to donuts James Joyce (who broke all the rules and wrote for the common man!) would have not only LOVED Harry Potter, he would have beaten you roughly about the head and shoulders for suggesting that it's not a perfectly legitimate read, and time well spent in reading it.

[bascule]

The gist of her essay is that Harry Potter fails at a literary level specifically because of the lack of moral journey, which the author claims is a necessary component of real literary works.

 

A moral, thematic, or allegorical journey are typical components of literature, yes. This is the typical means by which a literary work communicates an ineffible message.

 

She's created a work that matures with the reader!

 

When the books begin, Harry is 11, and parents can present the first book to an eleven-year-old child. As the child ages and the parents think he or she can handle it, more books can be presented, with the full understanding that each year is progressively more mature in theme. One year, in fact. Each year the situation grows more serious; the consequences more grave. In book four a boy dies for the first time. By the time Harry turns 17, the situation is absolutely grave -- a situation no 11-year-old should ever be asked to handle. But a 17-year-old, that's different. (After all, we let 17-year-olds into rated-R movies, but not 11-year-olds.)

 

That's unique. Nobody's ever done that before. Not in fantasy, not in science fiction, not in any other kind of fiction. Not ever.

 

I've seen several works of that nature.

 

Perhaps the foremost in my mind is Arthur C. Clarke's Rama series. The effect was perhaps inadvertent: after the introduction of Gentry Lee as the series coauthor, the themes grew increasingly more mature.

 

But yes, in its own way, that is brilliant. Rowling has created what is essentially a Bildungsroman authored in such a way that the character ages with the reader. It's certainly better than other exhaustive fantasy series I read as a child, such as Redwall or Dragonlance, which turned into a bland mush after so long.

 

So great! Except for it to work you must start reading Harry potter at age 11.

 

Want a better, more adult-oriented Bildungsroman? Consider A Remembrance of Things Past. I will challenge ANY Harry Potter fan to produce a single scene from the series which remotely rival's Proust's description of Madelines.

 

That's what literature is supposed to be. And by the way, I'll bet you dollars to donuts James Joyce (who broke all the rules and wrote for the common man!) would have not only LOVED Harry Potter, he would have beaten you roughly about the head and shoulders for suggesting that it's not a perfectly legitimate read, and time well spent in reading it.

 

Having been beseiged by Harry Potter fans loitering outside my local pub, I think had I enlisted James Joyce to help me kick their asses he would've gladly obliged.

[ecoli]

Want a better, more adult-oriented Bildungsroman? Consider A Remembrance of Things Past. I will challenge ANY Harry Potter fan to produce a single scene from the series which remotely rival's Proust's description of Madelines.

 

Why are you still so intent on comparing books, on some imaginary scale of "goodness"? Why can't each book both contain elements that make them good, unique from each other?

 

You're so insistent on proving that Harry Potter isn't "good literature," you've completely missed the point of the books... and even why fictional literature exists in the first place!

[Dak]

I'm trying to judge based on content, and in the case of Harry Potter I'm judging via metadata rather than my personal interpretation.

 

you're judging based on what others say without having read it, in other words.

 

so how, given how popular it is and how many people like it, are you reaching the conclusion that it's not actually good? based on the small number of people who don't like it? what makes them right and the majority wrong? if most of the many, many people who read the book whos sole purpose was to entertain enjoyed it, and a few who read the book didn't and complained that is wasn't entertaining in a sufficiently intellegent and pompus way, then why latch onto what they say whilst ignoring the majority, who said it was good?

 

and the 'point' of harry potter wasn't to be literrarily showy, just to be an enjoyable story (which, imo, it succeded at).

 

I think "cultural infantalism" summed it up nicely.

 

iow, you think that the fact that loads of adults read a childs book makes those adults childish?

 

why not: loads of adults and childeren read the book, ergo it's not a childs book? the author apparently didn't aim the books at adult or child, and enough adults read them that you can't really call them kids books.

 

Or perhaps the "repetitive plots, the static characters, the pedestrian prose, the wit-free tone, the derivative themes"

 

and which matters how?

 

anyway, given that you're going on others oppinions, again i have to wonder why, exactly, you're accepting the minority of people who critisise the above and assuming that they're right, whilst the majority (who enjoyed it) are infantile and wrong; why not: the majority enjoyed the books (ergo they're good), and those who critisised it don't know what they're talking about. or even a synthesys: 'from a literary pov, it's got somewhat repetetive plots and the prose is somewhat pedestrian, but the books are -- overall -- still good'? why the determination to fob the popular book off as crap?

 

btw, don't you think that "static charectors" is almost definately wrong, given that half the main charectors change from 11 to 17 during the course of the books? you've allready touched upon the fact that the seriez has elements of a comming of age story; you can't do that without charector development, y'know.

 

Call it snobbery if you will. I'll assert my own observations of Harry Potter's cultish status among its fans.

 

so because some people who read the books are basically geeks, the storys must be crap? surely then, the works of shakespear and homer must be pretentiouse crap because of their fans?

[ParanoiA]

Bascule - aren't you a writer? I might be wrong, but I was thinking you mentioned something to that effect at one point, a long time ago.

 

If so, I think your attitude is to be expected to some degree.

 

I'm a musician, and I tend to frown upon radio music - popular music. I call it fast food music, because it's so predictable, contrived, cheap, unthoughtful and basically repeated over and over again. Most of these bands sound like they were put together in the studio, with songs written for them already - which are little more than cheesy choruses with parts thrown around them to call them songs. Everything's 4 minutes or less and follows the commercial structure standard...........boring...

 

But they're popular because most people aren't in to music like I am. They don't want to put forth the effort to get into the bands I like, that aren't on the radio and don't write 4 minute love songs and cry about their sorry life and call it "art". And I can't blame them, really, because they're not music geeks - I am.

 

I might be drawing a silly corrollation here, but it seems like those in the business or trying to be in the business have a tendency to brow beat the competition, so to speak. I don't think that's necessarily bad, although it might be taken offensively by others. And competition, even amongst artists, is a good thing in my opinion.

 

Of course, if you're not an aspiring writer, then this post is even more off the mark....

[Pangloss]

But yes, in its own way, that is brilliant. Rowling has created what is essentially a Bildungsroman authored in such a way that the character ages with the reader. It's certainly better than other exhaustive fantasy series I read as a child, such as Redwall or Dragonlance, which turned into a bland mush after so long.

 

So great! Except for it to work you must start reading Harry potter at age 11.

 

Well I've read the Rama books and I can't agree with the comparison, but I admit to bias here -- I think Gentry Lee is an awful hack.

 

Anyway, I don't think you have to start Harry Potter at age 11, but yes I agree that the point I made only applies to that specific situation. But is that a bad thing? Given all the literary opportunities out there, isn't it a GOOD thing that somebody tried that approach, and was successful at it? Doesn't this improve the literary world, even if only in a small way? But I guess you've already agreed to this point, we just disagree on the significance of it. Fair enough.

 

 

Want a better, more adult-oriented Bildungsroman? Consider A Remembrance of Things Past. I will challenge ANY Harry Potter fan to produce a single scene from the series which remotely rival's Proust's description of Madelines.

 

Finally you mention a work I'm not familiar with. I guess there's some benefit to this thread after all. (chuckle) I can't comment with the comparison, because I haven't read it. But it's going straight onto my reading list. Hint, hint.

 

But I can say this: Comparisons of quality are invariably tainted by opinion. I have no problem with someone reading Harry Potter and deciding that they don't like it. I just think you're way off track and being unfair in saying that it sucks and trying to prove it objectively when you haven't read it yourself and by quoting other subjective sources. No matter how qualified they are, the point is moot. It's like trying to say Star Wars sucks because Roger Ebert didn't like it. Isn't this obvious? And aren't literate people supposed to be more intelligent than this?

 

But even if it is objectively lesser in quality, again I ask so what? Nobody ever said it was James Joyce. Why does it have to be? I just don't think you've made that case at all, and you haven't responded to my counter points.

 

 

Having been beseiged by Harry Potter fans loitering outside my local pub, I think had I enlisted James Joyce to help me kick their asses he would've gladly obliged.

 

LOL!

[ecoli]

I know what you're getting at ParanioA. I'm a fellow musician as well, and a lot of the pop crap on the radio, I can't stand.

 

However, I believe there's a demonstratively difference between that stuff and HP. While, the majority of people who listen to that type of music are kids and young people, HP appeals to people of all ages and walks of life. The only type of music that I can think have that has such universal appeal, is music that I would probably consider good.

 

for example, I know people of all ages that listen to music like the Beatles or Michael Jackson or Frank Sinatra.

These artists all have universal appeal, in the sense that no one age group seems to favor them over another, and that they will probably stand the test of time.

 

I think that Harry Potter will be around for a long time... but will people still be reading "Snow Crash" in 20 years?

[bascule]

Well, is it about time we agree to disagree? You can call me a pretentious snob, I'll call you all members of the cult of Potter and we can leave it at that :-D

[Pangloss]

Fair enough. I'll happily wear that moniker, but to be fair I'd probably have to wear the "pretentious snob" label as well.

[mike90]

The thing you have to realize bascule is that in a lot of cases the adults reading Harry potter books aren't missing out on any of your great literature, simply because they have no interest in reading that type of book.

 

Indeed a lot of these people if not reading Harry potter would be reading something like Dean Koontz. I haven't read any of the books on your list of great works, and have no intention of doing so. (also not a harry potter fan btw) What you are failing to accept I think is a large portion of the population does not read for their intellect, they read purely for entertainment.

 

I would like to learn something new or be made to see something in a different light every time I read, but ultimately I do it for entertainment, and I'm not going to force myself to slog through something like shakespeare simply because its "brainier" then what I currently read.

 

Personally 9 out of 10 times I try to force myself to read a " great work" I'll get maybe 40 pages into it before I decide to stop punishing myself. Honestly I think it is a good thing if you can get people to read anything, as it might get them started as a regular reader. Hell I've met people that have only read one book in there entire lives, which I find mind boggling. Wether or not its a permanent trend, If it takes Harry potter to get a 30 year old to go to the library I dont see how its a bad thing

[Pre4edgc]

Well, I'm fourteen, going on fifteen, so I've had plenty of time to read those Harry Potter books, but I'll admit something: I wasn't interested in them at all at first. I got the first one for my birthday or christmas or something, but I didn't want to read it. It didn't interest me. But I read like crazy. I read so much, I had a personal library in my house. But about three years later, I decided to pick it up again (the same copy) and read it. I didn't really understand the last chapter, but it had me hooked like so many of the books I read before it. I think it's good, but lacking somewhat in other aspects that other books like 1984 and To Kill a Mockingbird have. I finished the book this morning, and immediately picked up The Alchemist by Paulo Coelho. Good book so far, but also very deep in a philosophical sense.

 

I read for entertainment most of the time. I also read sometimes to learn. For example, I read a lot of medical books about diseases, and were particularly interested in them. However, after such a while of reading them, I had to read something that gave me entertainment. Because these two book genres can't last (partially) without the other, you can't call the other crap while the other exists. They compliment each other. I like both fiction and non-fiction. I've read children's books, and I've read adult humor. Christopher Moore, actually. Great author. To me.

 

But no one here can not say that at their adult age that they haven't picked up a small children's book just to read it for it's deeper meaning? Dr. Seuss for example, and his book Oh! The Places You'll Go! That can be applied to ANYONE, but stands at a kindergarten reading level.

[the tree]

I'm fairly sure that even the hardened anti-snobs of this forum would have to admit that implying Harry Potter is in the same league as the Seuss books is just plain incorrect.

 

That said Harry Potter isn't a terrible book, there's a whole genre known as airplane fiction which is much worse. In terms of children's books, if you want to read something truly awful then you need venture no further than the Animorphs series and Goosebumps. There really are much worse things than Harry Potter.

[insane_alien]

i don't see whats wrong with harry potter as a book. i've read some books that have been praised for their genius and writing skill and that but i could never get into them enough to enjoy them. basically, the story sucked ass. they might have been good examples of writing style but jeez they were boring. and some books i've read from the bottom of the literary critics pile of crap and really enjoyed them because the story is good.

 

harry potter has a good story. it is interesting enough to keep you reading. the structure may be simplistic but if you're reading a book for the story does that really matter?as long as it conveys enough information to spark off your imagination to fill in the gaps then its good.

 

also in response to thetree, i used to read the goosebumps books. i was only 6 but i thought they were pretty cool.

[ParanoiA]

i don't see whats wrong with harry potter as a book. i've read some books that have been praised for their genius and writing skill and that but i could never get into them enough to enjoy them. basically, the story sucked ass. they might have been good examples of writing style but jeez they were boring.

 

How can their writing skill be good if they're boring? Always been a pet peeve of mine. Anyone can color their language and write descriptively, or introduce some kind of style - but if it's boring and feels like punishment to read, then it's a crap style. I don't buy this idea that certain writers are worthy of praise when no one can read their books without yawning. That's crappy writing, not genius. And if it is genius, then maybe it's for geniuses to read, not me.

 

Harry Potter books are good books. People love reading them, young and old. It's a long story, well thought out and executed. Introduces themes and dynamics that rival great storytelling. Thank god it wasn't written by some literary "genius", rather was spared the punishment of vain, diarrhetic drivel.

[bascule]

The thing you have to realize bascule is that in a lot of cases the adults reading Harry potter books aren't missing out on any of your great literature, simply because they have no interest in reading that type of book.

 

That's the real tragedy. I think everyone should make an effort to try to read Proust. Many (including myself) regard him as the greatest author of all time, and it's not as if his writing is horribly inaccessible, although not many are likely to finish his masterpiece.

 

Indeed a lot of these people if not reading Harry potter would be reading something like Dean Koontz. I haven't read any of the books on your list of great works, and have no intention of doing so. (also not a harry potter fan btw) What you are failing to accept I think is a large portion of the population does not read for their intellect, they read purely for entertainment.

 

As someone who reads almost exclusively to better my own intellect, I just can't relate.

 

I would like to learn something new or be made to see something in a different light every time I read, but ultimately I do it for entertainment, and I'm not going to force myself to slog through something like shakespeare simply because its "brainier" then what I currently read.

 

Shakespeare is harder to read than Proust. Shakespeare's writing is not only archaic (translations of Proust use easily readable modern day English), but littered with an assortment of puns which are long since defunct in modern language.

 

The difficulty in understanding Proust doesn't come from actually reading his writing (at least in the way it does Shakespeare). It has entirely to do with understanding his ideas, particularly those surrounding the idea of perception and memory.

 

If you're not prepared to read in order to develop complex ideas... the complex message ineffably expressed through written language, then I guess you should stick to Harry Potter. Just don't go around saying that Harry Potter had a profound impact upon your perception of reality the way an author like Proust can elicit.

[the tree]

Seriously now, Shakespeare isn't that hard to read. (I haven't tried to read Proust yet.) You should check out Chaucer that is archaic language, foreign concepts, obscure metaphors and fortunately a sense of humour so very much better than Shakespere's.

 

Bascule, surely you occasionally read just for fun?

[bascule]

Seriously now, Shakespeare isn't that hard to read. (I haven't tried to read Proust yet.) You should check out Chaucer that is archaic language, foreign concepts, obscure metaphors and fortunately a sense of humour so very much better than Shakespere's.

 

I've read several of the Canterbury Tales, but with Chaucer's spellings ditched for modern ones.

 

Yes, reading Shakespeare isn't that bad, but it isn't that fun. I'd much rather see it performed. Reading it is pretty boring.

 

Bascule, surely you occasionally read just for fun?

 

Who says reading works which aren't intellectually vacuous isn't fun?

[Royston]

How can their writing skill be good if they're boring?

 

Simple...it's a matter of taste.

 

I'm just about to read Gormenghast, where the environment i.e the castle and the landscape act as a metaphor rather than just a setting, and the book relies heavily on descriptive poetry. That clearly requires a high amount of skill to write, but that doesn't mean the reader wouldn't find it boring, even if they did appreciate the use of language. I appreciate most classical music, but I grow bored of listening to one particular style of music quite quickly.

 

Unfortunately my English teacher was so obsessed with Shakespeare, that I feel mentally drained even before I start reading any, so the odd sonnet now and again, although I just see the structure of iambic pentameters leaping off the page, rather than just enjoying the language.

 

As for Harry Potter...I started reading the first book, and tossed it aside after the first couple of chapters, just didn't do anything for me at all.

[the tree]

Who says reading works which aren't intellectually vacuous isn't fun?

I was responding to:

As someone who reads almost exclusively to better my own intellect, I just can't relate.

Also, HP isn't vacuous, it's just not all that challenging, there's quite a difference.

[bascule]

I was responding to:

 

I'm just saying fun and intellectual stimulation aren't mutually exclusive.

 

Also, HP isn't vacuous, it's just not all that challenging, there's quite a difference.

 

As far as I can tell, it's largely plot-driven yet episodic, there are few (two, from what I've heard, HP and Snape) characters of any real complexity, each of the books follows a recurring theme of a gradual buildup resulting in a confrontation between HP and Voldemort, and this approach is repeated throughout the series ad nauseam. The length of the series seems more indicative of a profit grab than what is necessary to relate the story.

 

And thus we're back to ""repetitive plots, the static characters, the pedestrian prose, the wit-free tone, the derivative themes"

 

If you want I can keep comparing HP to Proust, but in Proust the evolution of the characters takes place in the narrator's changing perceptions of them. Virtually everything you learn about the narrator takes place through the evocation of his memories of others, and being a Bildungsroman, we get to see how the narrator's memories/perceptions of people evolve with time (which is, shall we say, quite drastically). His writing is not plot driven in the least, but uses a stream of consciousness relation of intense imagery, mostly centered around how certain experiences evoke memory (and a continuous succession of cascading reflections upon memories the narrator develops throughout the course of the book). Reading Proust is a combination of visualizing what he's expressing and synthesizing the non-linear imagery into the greater picture. The length of the work is indicative of the complex ideas it contains, which is why it's treated as a single, multi-volume book. None of the volumes stand independently, whereas every book in HP contains the canonical, linear buildup to climax followed by denouement. I don't think anyone could ever look at the HP series and conclude it should be treated as a single book, yet at some 3,500 pages it rivals Proust.

 

If you don't want me to proclaim HP to be vacuous unilaterally, let's just say it's vacuous compared to Proust.

[Pangloss]

People who read Harry Potter should be lined up and shot. Whether it's because it's making them devil worshipers or because it's stopping them from reading superior literature isn't important. The important thing is that they're shot.

 

BTW, Harry Potter books burn at the same temperature as Proust books: 451 degrees Fahrenheit. No need for special fuel.