Unwashed Village
General Discussion => Unwashed Village => Topic started by: AcdQueen89 on October 23, 2007, 05:12:51 PM
-
i'm starting this in a new thread because i dont want the discussion form the other thread to affect this question too much. the ending of TK's post brought up what i am going to bring up here.
is harry potter the next classic?
this is my original question, but to define such classical literature needs to be defined. i dont want you guys doing my homework, i only ask here because you may bring up other ideas that i hadn't thought about and if it is alright with everyone i would like to take a few quotes and use them in my paper. i will message individuals about what i am using exactly and if someone wants to read my finished paper i will pass it on through email when it is completed.
-
I'm not sure I grasp your meaning. Do you mean the style of Harry Potter, or the Harry Potter generation, or are you saying specifically JK Rowling's Harry Potter Books: Will they be considered classic once enough time has passed to kind of them in that way?
-
specifically the harry potter books.
-
Hmm.
It's always possible, but I tend to doubt it. The Harry Potter books are popular, and many would even say excellent. Those criteria tend to often be very low on the list when determining whether something becomes a classic or not though. There's really no hard and fast rule, but it seems to me that most works which are ultimately considered classics weren't typically all that popular in their day. I wouldn't be surprised if what it really came down to was that the artsy-fartsy portion of society picked out really obscure, dry as hell, or otherwise less than notable works so they could lay hands on them and have them in their collections. Then when asked, they could play it off as if anyone who's *anyone* should have those books, and obviously if you needed to ask, you just didn't get it.
Sort of like some of the crap that passes off as modern art. It's not valuable or desirable because it's actually any good, it's just because a small group of snobs say so.
This of course would mean that quite often, there'd be two types of books on everyone's shelves. Ones that were actually popular and well-written, so lots of people bought them in order to actually read them, and then the "classics", which quite often no one in the entire household has picked up in decades, because wading through the thing is more painful than going to the dentist for drilling without novacaine. Still, they're "classics", so you need to have them up there, or they'll make fun of you and call you uncultured.
*Shrug* Ok, that was all perhaps a bit trite, but I guess the point here is that it's really impossible to guess whether something that's currently popular and mainstream will become a classic. Part of what defines a classic is whether or not it transcends the passage of time, and whether or not it will, at least in part, appeal in any way to future generations. At least, those things *should* be part of what determines a classic. Some works that make it on the list leave me seriously wondering at times whether the copies sent out to the people in charge of determining such status were perhaps printed on sheets of acid, since I got little out of them but a stiff neck from constantly falling asleep trying to read the damn things.
(P.S. Boo. Yeah, yeah. It's me again. Didn't feel like posting a "Hey, I'm back" thread, so hey. I'm back. :P)
-Wraith
-
I would say no.
While Wraith has a point that many "classics" are actually not that great themselves, there are also many that truly deserve their position in lists of "classics."
Harry Potter books do not. Rowling's strength is in her characters. She makes complex, yet believable (within the context of the world she created) personas. These characters remain consistent in of themselves. They grow, but in a logical fashion.
However, Rowling's writing style leaves a lot to be desired. She really doesn't break any new ground in plotlines (though, due to the fleshing out of her character's, she can approach them differently.) Her verbiage isn't particularly noteworthy either. There also is a bit of disconnecting feel between the books.
But, she spins a good yarn and has gotten many children interested in reading, and for that she should be commended. But at this point, I would never put her books up with the likes of Roald Dahl, CS Lewis, or Madeline L'Engel.
-
I hope not.
-
I hope not.
This is the first and potentially last time I will ever quote you.
-
I'd say that the Potter books are not a classic - yet.
One of the things about classics is that they're seldom regarded as such at the time. As Owl said in the other thread, a classic is whatever people decide a classic is. This usually happens over time though, because the mood of people is like a wave rolling towards a beach, and any concept it carries with it does take a little time to wash up on the beach.
I've no doubt that one day the Harry Potter books will become a classic, just as other books of sometimes dubious inherent literary merit have been dubbed "classics" over the years. For the time being though, the whole Potter phenomenon is too current to allow the books to slide into their place in history.
(P.S. Boo. Yeah, yeah. It's me again. Didn't feel like posting a "Hey, I'm back" thread, so hey. I'm back. :P)
-Wraith
You! :inquisitive:
What are you doing back here? I thought we'd got rid of you last time...guards! Guards! :rifle: :policeman: :bobby:
:laugh:
Nice to have you back fella, fanfare or not ;D
-
(P.S. Boo. Yeah, yeah. It's me again. Didn't feel like posting a "Hey, I'm back" thread, so hey. I'm back. :P)
-Wraith
You! :inquisitive:
What are you doing back here? I thought we'd got rid of you last time...guards! Guards! :rifle: :policeman: :bobby:
:laugh:
Nice to have you back fella, fanfare or not ;D
Guards? We have guards now? :inquisitive:
I mean, I walked right by Shiny sleeping in a sunbeam, and I think that guy who dashed past me chasing some damsel or another was BlueCross. Unless that's what you mean though, I've seen no evidence of these guards of which you speak.
And don't *even* try to sick that Owl guy on me --I come bearing ale. ;D
And yeah, trumpets or no, it's always good to be back. Sorry for the minor derailing here, AcdQueen. If someone really wants to, or if the antics get too out of hand, feel free to split this non-classicy stuff out to some random yarn of silliness of its very own.
Or don't, but just remember, we insubstantial beings are kinda hard to hit with tangerines and pointy sticks. Doubly so when we brought beer. The village defense corps never could hit a damn thing when they got good and snockered. <Insert cheers icon here>
...Wtf. We've got no bloody :cheers: icon, and you guys are wasting valuable resources on *guards*?! I protest!
-Wraith
-
Hey Wraith!! Good to see you. And you brought ale!!
I've never read a Potter book, but I *do* think they will become classics. Here's why:
The most important part of becoming a classic is time. The story must survive, say, 100 years. Due to the sheer number of copies out there, and the fact that most people won't ever throw them away due to nostalgia (today's 15 y/o's will be saying "I want my kids to read these" when they are 30), these books have an excellent chance of still being printed 100 years from now. Which gives them an excellent chance to be reegarded as classics.
-
It's hard to say, but I'd say that the Harry Potter series has a good amount of strikes going against it as far as what statistics show end up being classics.
1. Fantasy books are very rarely considered classics. Why? Well as someone's already pointed out (was it TK?) in the other forum, they're very self-referential, and that makes it hard for them to be socially relevant. Ironically, people often state that clasics are timeless, but a majority of the time the books quickest to become classics are the ones that most closely reflect the author's relevant events or philosophies. That's not to say fantasies can't become classics, and some people consider a lot of books geared towards children to be acceptable fantasy classics (CS Lewis, Lloyd Alexander, Susan Cooper). Although I think the adult and general fantasy is slowly becoming accepted as well (JRR Tolkien and TH White for example).
2. As a lot of people have already said, it's very popular right now, which grants it more of a pop-culture status. Academia is becoming more and more close-minded. The interesting part about it is that a hundred years ago, academia avoided folk stories and so forth, and now folk stories are more accepted but if something has any scent of commercialism (movie versions, merchandizing (yeah that's right, it's a z you crazy Brits)). It's not that the ivory tower folks have to lecture using JK Rowling as a topic for 30 years for it to be considered a classic, really. So if academia doesn't like it, I think that enough people can claim it as a classic, especially if they pass it down to their kids.
3. Aside from her ability as a raconteur, she doesn't display a lot of technical prowess in her style. What's additionally relevant lately is that as Thanatos pointed out, her intricate plotlines and complex character correlations are being destroyed by her own strict control over the interpretation of the characters. As a great novelist (was it JD Salinger?) once said, "My work is done as soon as I've signed off on the final draft. If I have to make any changes or explanations off the page, I failed on the page."
4. Not only did she publish the book geared specifically towards children, she published them in a fantasy world, completely of her own design and very strictly determined by way of her contracts (in film for example) that it was for a British audience. While this may or may not affect the way we view it in twenty years, narrowing the appeal of a book can't be helpful on the world stage. Obviously, this book has exploded worldwide, but different countries think about in very different ways because of the target audience of the original version.
That's about enough ranting for me. I don't know how I feel about it becoming a classic. If it does or doesn't, we likely will be too old to care by the time it is declared as such. I think of them more along the lines of other fantasy novels, like Dragonlance or the Wheel of Time series. It's well-written and fun, but if it never evolves beyond the realm of subculture it wouldn't be a crime.
-
just as an fyi, i'm printing this topic and the other one right now so that i can start getting my outline and info together so that i can begin writing. more discussion is greatly appreciated. my official thesis is going to go along the lines of 'harry potter will probably become a classic but should not due to rowling's lack of solid writing.' but of course that will be worded much better.
-
No no no.
You should seriously write:
"Harry Potter is in danger of becoming a classic. If it does, it will completely destroy my faith in humanity because it's crap."
XD
And then cellotape 5 dollars to the thesis so the teacher knows what to do >.>
-
i might use that first bit as a thesis. that would make for an interesting paper.
but i'm in college in the states, i have no money.
-
if it never evolves beyond the realm of subculture it wouldn't be a crime.
Din't yer teacher not tell youse bout double-negativisms?
-
But my favorite authors use them. Including JRR Tolkien.
-
so remember that paper that i was writing....
it's posted here (http://sliceofmymind.com/modules/AMS/article.php?storyid=1) if anyone wanted to read it. i'll probably be posting most of my stuff on that site from now on for the two or three of you that actually read it.
-
Sweet I got cited.
Now I can make up outlandish credentials and demand that irrelevant places take them on faith.
"You will give me this taco gratis, because I am quoted in a scholarly paper... that's now online! It's about Harry Potter!"
-
can i take that as an invitation to use you more often?
-
AcdQueen89 is now banned for not citing me.
-
i love you too.
i go home next week, should i buy you a pint?
-
One slight nitpick with your article.
In a 2001 article listing reprinted children’s classics the Harry Potter series is listed along with L. Frank Baum’s The Wizard of Oz and J. R. R. Tolkien’s The Hobbit (Merina). The Wizard of Oz is a loveable story that many remember from childhood in the form of a bright colorful movie starring Judy Garland. The Hobbit, however, is not as easy of a read and though there have been several film adaptations, the book does not seem one to easily capture a child’s attention.
There's only been one film adaptation of The Hobbit (not including the 2010 prequel release http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0903624/ (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0903624/)) which I'm aware of, that being the 1977 animated film by Rankin/Bass Productions. The other films were adaptations of other books, not The Hobbit, you lump everything together there as The Hobbit. Other than that, not too shabby (though its 4am so I didn't quite read all of it. Well, that and The Wizard of Oz movie was black & white first! :P )
-
I doubt anyone would consider Harry Potter a literary classic. But it greatly depends on who defines the word 'classic' and who defines which books fulfill the criteria. I might even take it is as far as to saying: "who cares?". A 'classic' is wholly an arbitrary thing. Some will certainly perceive Harry Potter a classic; others will not. How do you objectively determine who is right? That group which has the most members?
I belong to the latter group. The Harry Potter series is a great series because it reaches the imaginations of both adult and child, but in it's quest to do so, it takes the safest possible path. Harry Potter is mainstream, and not in any way provocative (ignored the few ultra right-wing Christians, who think it promotes witchcraft) or groundbreaking. Therefore it deserves the popularity it has received, but not a spot on the shelf alongside Ulysses, War and Peace, 1984 - or even the Lord of Rings for that matter.
-
The Harry Potter series is a great series because it reaches the imaginations of both adult and child, but in it's quest to do so, it takes the safest possible path. Harry Potter is mainstream, and not in any way provocative (ignored the few ultra right-wing Christians, who think it promotes witchcraft) or groundbreaking. Therefore it deserves the popularity it has received, but not a spot on the shelf alongside Ulysses, War and Peace, 1984 - or even the Lord of Rings for that matter.
if you had said that four months ago.....
-
i love you too.
i go home next week, should i buy you a pint?
I'd be tempted to take you up on the offer, but things are a bit hectic in my life right now. I'm working on getting the upstairs of my house all organized so I can start painting.
Besides, you're not 21 yet, and what bar in Chicago area do they let underagers in anymore?
-
last i heard i could have gotten into a bar a year ago and as long as i didnt get anyting alcoholic i would be fine.
-
can i take that as an invitation to use you more often?
Whenever you like. In or out of context. It makes my life more interesting when people inevitably call me on thing I said while either drunk or high on my own sense of self-satisfaction.
-
i have another paper due friday, wanna give me a quote?
-
Sure, what's the paper about? Or am I just going blind this time? If so, "Pants are over-rated. Ask the trolley, he knows. But seriously, who wants cheddar?"
If not, shoot me some info and I'll shoot you some quotage.
-
the statement i am replying to is as such: some feminist theory defines women (and their writing) as fluid, multiple, elusive, obscure. is this confirmed or denied by what you have read? is this a creative or demeaning image?
(irish lit class)
edit:
if any one has a comment please feel free to share.
-
Besides, you're not 21 yet
Bwahahha! I laff at this law XD
I've been able to drink since I was 18 :P
Mwaha!
Anyways... Yay! Quotage!
-
the statement i am replying to is as such: some feminist theory defines women (and their writing) as fluid, multiple, elusive, obscure. is this confirmed or denied by what you have read? is this a creative or demeaning image?
I think that labels and stereotypes tend to be demeaning. The label "feminist" itself implies superiority of a gender (specifically the female), but when taken into account the "status quo," its aims of equality seem more obvious. So to be fair, starting out from this perspective is complex and potentially destructive to any objective critical analysis.
To be fair, though, I think that stereotypes, generalizations, and even prejudice have their use in the world of literature and the analysis thereof. Women and their writing CAN be obscure, fluid, and elusive, just as any man's writing can be. But to be realistic, I have seen that a man and woman writing on the same topic tend to have incredibly different methods of telling the same details.
For example, Bram Stoker, in his novel Dracula, states: "No man knows till he has suffered from the night how sweet and dear to his heart and eye the morning can be." Anne Rice, in her novel Interview with the Vampire, states:"I remember it completely; yet I do not remember any other sunrise before it. I remember the light came first to the tops of the French windows, a paling behind the lace curtains, and then a gleam growing brighter and brighter in patches among the leaves of the trees. Finally, the sun came through the windows themselves and the lace lay in shadows on the stone floor, and all over the form of my sister, who was still sleeping, shadows of lace on the shawl over her shoulders and head. As soon as she was warm, she pushed the shawl away without awakening, and then the sun shone full on her eyes and she tightened her eyelids. Then it was gleaming on the table where she rested her head in her arms, and gleaming, blazing, in the water in the pitcher. And I could feel it on my hands on the counterpane and then on my face. I lay in the bed thinking about all the things the vampire had told me, and then it was that I said good-bye to the sunrise and went out to become a vampire. It was... the last sunrise."
Now granted a comparison of these two quotes is not exact or direct, as they are in different styles, from different periods, and even in completely different perspectives. But the fact remains that Stoker chose to relay the philosophical concept in a terse and direct manner, and that Rice chose to relay the entire experience as a direct translation of interpretations and experiences. When probed after this long and melancholy memory as to whether he misses the sunrise he says "No, there are so many other things." To Rice, and to the main character (Louis), this is a short description of a less than fully important experience. Some might argue this is both elusive and obscure, especially since the impressions of Louis' sister end up having nothing to do with the story, and can only be interpreted as a psychological or at least subconscious imprint on the character's last view of mortality, granting a "fluid" interpretation of good versus evil. Stoker, on the other hand, draws a stark and obvious line between night and day, good and evil.
I realize this isn't really a quote, but I have insomnia and I'm bored. So use whatever you want there, if you wanna throw that in as research go for it (Stoker's Irish, so that might help).
For a short(er), (slightly) more to the point quote...
Women in literature are often accused of many things:failing to write men without seeming overly austere or far too sensitive, failing to appropriately alternate between formal and casual diction when the situation calls for it (Jane Austen Syndrome, some call it), and struggling to imprint a motive to every casual occurrence in a story. But I think men and women look for these things in women's writing, and since they're formed a bias, it inevitably shows up. That's not to say that women and men aren't likely to write in ways that reflect their social standing: but I think that's more about the individual than the groups to which they belong. I'm fairly certain transgender individuals would be accused of writing "too much" like the opposite gender, since that's with whom they identify socially.
Hope that's at least a little helpful. : )