Reading Harry Potter as one book
to you too, V! It's very good to see you.
Frelga, I don't think that children's books can't have literary value. But I also don't think they should be expected to, or treated as though they were intended to. So I don't think the Harry Potter books really deserve to be critiqued on a literary basis, even if that doesn't preclude them from having literary value. Maybe it's a subtle distinction, though.
Frelga, I don't think that children's books can't have literary value. But I also don't think they should be expected to, or treated as though they were intended to. So I don't think the Harry Potter books really deserve to be critiqued on a literary basis, even if that doesn't preclude them from having literary value. Maybe it's a subtle distinction, though.
"I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived." - HDT
- Ghân-buri-Ghân
- Posts: 602
- Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2010 9:31 pm
- Location: Evading prying eyes
I think some books primarily targeted at children do have literary value, and that all books deserve to be critiqued. Such critique of Harry Potter finds the series wanting, even though they can be immensely enjoyable. Compared to the works of Ursula le Guin or Alan Garner these limitations are marked.elfshadow wrote: to you too, V! It's very good to see you.
Frelga, I don't think that children's books can't have literary value. But I also don't think they should be expected to, or treated as though they were intended to. So I don't think the Harry Potter books really deserve to be critiqued on a literary basis, even if that doesn't preclude them from having literary value. Maybe it's a subtle distinction, though.
tenebris lux
I read the first tow HP books and I thought they were entertaining and fun. I just had this feeling that I was reading something not intended for my eyes. I would have loved to have read them when I was 13. I thought I would have been able to still connect with the story despite my many years beyond 13, but I wasn't.
I am promised to give them another try and will pick up where I left off, but I have my doubts. I can't blame the author for my not being 13 again and for whatever reason I lack the ability others have in being able to read them despite their age.
I am promised to give them another try and will pick up where I left off, but I have my doubts. I can't blame the author for my not being 13 again and for whatever reason I lack the ability others have in being able to read them despite their age.
Good literature is good literature regardless of its "intended" audience.
I was reading very long adult books when I was 8 years old. But I also read whatever "children's literature" that came in my way. I would read the labels on the cornflakes boxes if there was nothing else to read.
Some of those children's stories stayed with me - because they are Great Books. Most of the "Little House" books, for instance. "Anne of Green Gables" but not the other Montgomery books. And so on.
I think that anyone who writes for children and thinks only of children is NOT writing a good book. There are authors writing for little kids now, and I've read 'em all to my grandsons. "Green Wilma" is Literature, for instance.
A good book grows with the child and since I'm still able to read Little House in the Big Woods with joy at the age of 66, I think my argument is valid.
Either that or I've entered lala land.
As for Harry Potter, I have only read the first one so am finding this conversation rather interesting and it may settle my question: should I read the rest?
I was reading very long adult books when I was 8 years old. But I also read whatever "children's literature" that came in my way. I would read the labels on the cornflakes boxes if there was nothing else to read.
Some of those children's stories stayed with me - because they are Great Books. Most of the "Little House" books, for instance. "Anne of Green Gables" but not the other Montgomery books. And so on.
I think that anyone who writes for children and thinks only of children is NOT writing a good book. There are authors writing for little kids now, and I've read 'em all to my grandsons. "Green Wilma" is Literature, for instance.
A good book grows with the child and since I'm still able to read Little House in the Big Woods with joy at the age of 66, I think my argument is valid.
Either that or I've entered lala land.
As for Harry Potter, I have only read the first one so am finding this conversation rather interesting and it may settle my question: should I read the rest?
Dig deeper.
- WampusCat
- Creature of the night
- Posts: 8464
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 2:36 pm
- Location: Where least expected
Should you? Yes!
The stories get deeper and less child-oriented later in the series. By no means should you judge the tone of the whole series by the first book, or even the second. At the very least, read through "Prisoner of Azkhaban" to get a better feel for where it's going.
The stories get deeper and less child-oriented later in the series. By no means should you judge the tone of the whole series by the first book, or even the second. At the very least, read through "Prisoner of Azkhaban" to get a better feel for where it's going.
Take my hand, my friend. We are here to walk one another home.
Avatar from Fractal_OpenArtGroup
Avatar from Fractal_OpenArtGroup
This would exclude a lot of fabulous literary works, e.g. The Hobbit, for starters.elfshadow wrote:Frelga, I don't think that children's books can't have literary value. But I also don't think they should be expected to, or treated as though they were intended to.
From my own tradition, the British one: I dare anyone to read Edwardian novelist Frances Hodgson Burnett's The Secret Garden, or Philippa Pearce's moving time-travel classic Tom's Midnight Garden, or Alan Garner's haunting Welsh fantasy The Owl Service, with its layers of subtext, and not find these books as well-crafted, sophisticated and profound as any contemporary novel written for adults.
There are countless other writers in the Young Adult genre whose writing is some of the best I have ever encountered.
The HP books are not quite great literature, IMO, but they are very well-written popular fiction, of which I am a great defender.
Yes.vison wrote:As for Harry Potter, I have only read the first one so am finding this conversation rather interesting and it may settle my question: should I read the rest?
And I loved the Little House books, and have always kept them. Laura Ingalls Wilder's amazing ability to fashion her childhood into compelling fiction is a tour de force.
"Frodo undertook his quest out of love - to save the world he knew from disaster at his own expense, if he could ... "
Letter no. 246, The Collected Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien
Avatar by goldlighticons on Live Journal
Letter no. 246, The Collected Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien
Avatar by goldlighticons on Live Journal
V- so pleased you were able to have that experience of reading the series in one go (something I really must try to do with Jordan's "Wheel of Time" one day)
I got into HP by virtue of my s-i-l sending a copy of Philosopher's Stone to my eldest son when he was, I think, about 8 maybe and the next one down would have been 6-7. There had been a lot of publicity in the media about how adults were lapping up the books just as much as the kids, and how the publishers were bringing out editions with "adult" artwork on the covers as well as the standard editions. How I scoffed at the idea of adults reading kids books, back then!!
So the kids asked me to read the story to them at bedtime, chapter by chapter, which I did...and then I found myself not wanting to wait until the next evening, so I would read ahead another chapter when they were asleep. Eventually it got to the stage where I had finished the book, but was still having to go back and read it out loud to the boys! Then we bought the next volume in pbk, and the boys were eager to read for themselves this time so I rushed to read it first and then passed it to the eldest and so on. What grabbed me was not just the exciting storyline and interesting characters but Rowling's style of writing, especially the dialogue, which I found refreshing, and the depth of research and cleverness that had gone into creating her world. I liked spotting, for example, where she had got this word from, or based that idea on. Later in the series I liked the way you could see how she had planned and laid clues from the start for the reader to pick up on - for example, Regulus' locket just casually mentioned as an aside when they were clearing out Grimmold Place...
By the time we read PoA, Goblet of Fire had just been published and we saw the news reports of the queues at midnight to grab a copy as soon as it was released. Again I laughed, and said we would wait for the pbk to come out...which we did. My youngest son had also read the books by now and was a big fan of the films too. However, when OotP was due there was no way I could wait a whole extra year for the pbk, so we duly bought the hardback the day it was published.
Guess Rowling had the last laugh on me!
I got into HP by virtue of my s-i-l sending a copy of Philosopher's Stone to my eldest son when he was, I think, about 8 maybe and the next one down would have been 6-7. There had been a lot of publicity in the media about how adults were lapping up the books just as much as the kids, and how the publishers were bringing out editions with "adult" artwork on the covers as well as the standard editions. How I scoffed at the idea of adults reading kids books, back then!!
So the kids asked me to read the story to them at bedtime, chapter by chapter, which I did...and then I found myself not wanting to wait until the next evening, so I would read ahead another chapter when they were asleep. Eventually it got to the stage where I had finished the book, but was still having to go back and read it out loud to the boys! Then we bought the next volume in pbk, and the boys were eager to read for themselves this time so I rushed to read it first and then passed it to the eldest and so on. What grabbed me was not just the exciting storyline and interesting characters but Rowling's style of writing, especially the dialogue, which I found refreshing, and the depth of research and cleverness that had gone into creating her world. I liked spotting, for example, where she had got this word from, or based that idea on. Later in the series I liked the way you could see how she had planned and laid clues from the start for the reader to pick up on - for example, Regulus' locket just casually mentioned as an aside when they were clearing out Grimmold Place...
By the time we read PoA, Goblet of Fire had just been published and we saw the news reports of the queues at midnight to grab a copy as soon as it was released. Again I laughed, and said we would wait for the pbk to come out...which we did. My youngest son had also read the books by now and was a big fan of the films too. However, when OotP was due there was no way I could wait a whole extra year for the pbk, so we duly bought the hardback the day it was published.
Guess Rowling had the last laugh on me!
There is magic in long-distance friendships. They let you relate to other human beings in a way that goes beyond being physically together and is often more profound.
~Diana Cortes
~Diana Cortes
Basically, I agree with you.Maria wrote:I don't see where the good literature/bad literature divide is. If I like a book, it's good literature. If I don't, it's worthless to me.
There are books that have been held up to me as Great Literature and I couldn't finish them. And heaven knows I've read so many "not great" books I lost count 50 years ago.
Dig deeper.
- axordil
- Pleasantly Twisted
- Posts: 8999
- Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 7:35 pm
- Location: Black Creek Bottoms
- Contact:
I usually willing to give translated literature the benefit of the doubt and assume it Really Worked in its native tongue, for its native-speaking audience.
I read a short story collection from Georgia (the one in the Caucasus, not the South) recently. Some of the older ones were basically written-down folk tales, or had the appearance of such, and had the same feel as most folk tales from Europe. The later ones, from the Soviet and post-Soviet periods, were...harder. The most recent one in particular had me scratching my head in a sort of "so...that's it, huh" way.
OTOH, Tolstoy slapped an epilogue on W&P, because he thought it could go longer.
I read a short story collection from Georgia (the one in the Caucasus, not the South) recently. Some of the older ones were basically written-down folk tales, or had the appearance of such, and had the same feel as most folk tales from Europe. The later ones, from the Soviet and post-Soviet periods, were...harder. The most recent one in particular had me scratching my head in a sort of "so...that's it, huh" way.
OTOH, Tolstoy slapped an epilogue on W&P, because he thought it could go longer.
- BrianIsSmilingAtYou
- Posts: 1233
- Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 6:01 am
- Location: Philadelphia
I have not read the Potter books, except the very beginning (1st chapter) of the first, which I glanced at while at my brother's house. I enjoyed the little I read very much, but I have not had the chance to get back to them.
Voronwë's experience is very encouraging, and it reminds me of the first time I read the Lord of the Rings, and finished Fellowship in 2 days, and then had to wait to go to the library again to get the Two Towers! Ugh!
BrianIs AtYou
Voronwë's experience is very encouraging, and it reminds me of the first time I read the Lord of the Rings, and finished Fellowship in 2 days, and then had to wait to go to the library again to get the Two Towers! Ugh!
BrianIs AtYou
All of my nieces and nephews at my godson/nephew Nicholas's Medical School graduation. Now a neurosurgical resident at University of Arizona, Tucson.
Not all great works of litterature are great stories and vicaversa.
I love Kafka, I worship Kafka, I could read Kafka like a drug. But it's not so much the story as the language. Beautiful, crystal clear, icy language.
Harry Potter is a great story and Rowling is a wonderful storyteller - but that's different from being a great writer. I can read Harry Potter on a beach or in a bus (even in English!), I can do the same with LoTR, but only because I know it well, but it's impossible with Kafka or some other great authors. Both of the works are art, but a different type.
And I stronlgy dislike (and I watch my words not to be harder) the hobbit. I read LOTR first, and then, when I read the hobbit was so disappointed - it seemd so childish, so little, so "unepic". It's clearly written for another audience. I still don't like the hobbit at all. Children's books can be wonderful (I am reading a German Youth classic with my students right now, "Das doppelte Lottchen" and it makes me cry like a baby....), but often in tone and choice of narrative perspective, it is obvious that they have been written for a young public. I don't think it diminuishes their value to state that clearly.
If I don't have a book with me and a bus trip of 30 minutes to work ahead, I'm able to run and buy a book just to be sure that I won't be without something to read...
I love Kafka, I worship Kafka, I could read Kafka like a drug. But it's not so much the story as the language. Beautiful, crystal clear, icy language.
Harry Potter is a great story and Rowling is a wonderful storyteller - but that's different from being a great writer. I can read Harry Potter on a beach or in a bus (even in English!), I can do the same with LoTR, but only because I know it well, but it's impossible with Kafka or some other great authors. Both of the works are art, but a different type.
And I stronlgy dislike (and I watch my words not to be harder) the hobbit. I read LOTR first, and then, when I read the hobbit was so disappointed - it seemd so childish, so little, so "unepic". It's clearly written for another audience. I still don't like the hobbit at all. Children's books can be wonderful (I am reading a German Youth classic with my students right now, "Das doppelte Lottchen" and it makes me cry like a baby....), but often in tone and choice of narrative perspective, it is obvious that they have been written for a young public. I don't think it diminuishes their value to state that clearly.
I'm like that , vison and call myself a compulsive reader.vison wrote: I would read the labels on the cornflakes boxes if there was nothing else to read.
If I don't have a book with me and a bus trip of 30 minutes to work ahead, I'm able to run and buy a book just to be sure that I won't be without something to read...
Last edited by Nin on Thu Oct 14, 2010 1:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"nolite te bastardes carborundorum".
I agree, Nin.Nin wrote:Harry Potter is a great story and Rowling is a wonderful storyteller - but that's different from being a great writer.
Which proves what I have long believed: it's so much better to read The Hobbit before reading LotR.And I stronlgy dislike (and I watch my words not to be harder) the hobbit. I read LOTR first, and then, when I read the hobbit was so disappointed - it seemd so childish, so little, so "unepic". It's clearly written for another audience. I still don't like the hobbit at all.
I had The Hobbit read to me when I was eight, and I was utterly enthralled by it. It's adult enough for an adult to enjoy ... but it's very much for people who have not yet discovered the epic glories of LotR.
We are soul sisters.If I don't have a book with me and a bus trip of 30 minutes to work ahead, I'm able to run and buy a book just to be sure that I won't be without something to read...
"Frodo undertook his quest out of love - to save the world he knew from disaster at his own expense, if he could ... "
Letter no. 246, The Collected Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien
Avatar by goldlighticons on Live Journal
Letter no. 246, The Collected Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien
Avatar by goldlighticons on Live Journal
I feel the same. Had I read The Hobbit first, I would never have read LOTR. I would have seen the author's name and passed it by.Nin wrote:
And I stronlgy dislike (and I watch my words not to be harder) the hobbit. I read LOTR first, and then, when I read the hobbit was so disappointed - it seemd so childish, so little, so "unepic". It's clearly written for another audience. I still don't like the hobbit at all.
I'm so glad I didn't!
Dig deeper.
I don't know, I read The Hobbit after LOTR and loved it. Frodo knew something of what he got into, being raised by Bilbo and friended by Gandalf, but Bilbo was thrown into the adventure blindly. It's a story of an innocent blundering through the great and dangerous world, and slowly discovering just how dangerous it is, told in a way that children enjoy and that shows adults glimpses of the epic beyond the fairytale. I think I would have sought out LOTR even after The Hobbit.
And Rowling can write. Her language is simple but she can convey setting and mood with it just fine. It's not a feast of words that Kim is, for instance, but it works.
And Rowling can write. Her language is simple but she can convey setting and mood with it just fine. It's not a feast of words that Kim is, for instance, but it works.
If there was anything that depressed him more than his own cynicism, it was that quite often it still wasn't as cynical as real life.
Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!
Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!
- Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 46575
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact:
Here is a link to the review of The Law and Harry Potter that I wrote for Mythlore, which was published in Mythlore 113/114 back in March:
The Law and Harry Potter, reviewed by Douglas C. Kane
The Law and Harry Potter, reviewed by Douglas C. Kane
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
- Primula Baggins
- Living in hope
- Posts: 40005
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
- Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
- Contact:
It took me all day to read the whole thing (our daughter's third and final high school graduation ceremony was tonight), but I wanted to thank you for posting that. It was really interesting. And I'm glad it led you to discover Harry Potter.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
- Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 46575
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact:
Glad you liked. It was interesting to read the book, and fun to review it. It also inspired my paper that I will be presenting at Mythcon, which is tentatively entitled "Law and Customs in Middle-earth."
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."