Is Harry Potter Literature?
Jul. 26th, 2007 06:26 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
highlyeccentricMr Stuart Thompson informed me, disparagingly, that Harry Potter was not literature. People keep telling me that it's "not well written", and I just don't understand it- ok, you never find yourself wordless at the beauty of JK's prose, but I, for one, am reduced to a giggling mess by her turns of phrase, and isn't that just as good? *IN TWO WEEKS TIME I will complete this paragraph with an example from HP7, but for now, i dare not put so much as a word into the public domain*
Moreover, I just have this feeling that "literature" isn't the point. Something fun and inspiring and captivating is. It's not, as Stuart impugns, about "popularism". The difference between HP and Dan Brown isn't that HP has more readers. How many people, after reading Dan Brown, feel inspired? Feel that their lives are somehow improved? Feel in any way moved to make their world a better place?
Here, I will quote from "Old English in New York":
One final note: As I was getting ready to head to bed Saturday evening, my younger sister, GMH, who had been reading the book all day too, knocked on my door.
"I'm glad we've been expelled from Hogwarts, Kate."
I was confused, and asked her why.
"Because now we can stop worrying about Harry's world, and start fixing our own."
The only thing Dan Brown moves anyone to is hatred of the Church- and I don't think that is in fact the majority of his readers, or even his intention.
So, without further ado, I beg you to read "Old English In New York's" analysis of the social value of Harry Potter. I quote again: But it seems to me they're part of a tradition of narratives written that argue there is still hope. And maybe it's the childish part of me -- but when such distinctions are made, I hope the lessons of Harry Potter do remain: That choices matter more than talents. That every living thing deserves respect. That people can change, and are often more than what they seem. That sacrifices made for love -- real love, whatever that is -- are worth something. That that same love can "save" people, help them become more humane, help them recognize that we have so much to love each other for.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-07-27 12:49 am (UTC)I think he's right, she's not God, although I don't agree with his disparagement of her writing.
I think I read that TP article, not sure where or when. And the snitchseeker people seem, like Carl's cousins, to have a misguided view of Rowling as Untouchable. Which really isn't doing her, or anyone else, any favours.
As for "there are tons of other fantasy authors out there just as good or better", that line of argument gets me. Of course there are, but fantasy authors have always been disparaged and ignored, they knew it when they went into the business. And secondly, most fantasy authors are writing for adults. I can't think of anything which was around ten years ago which could go near filling Rowling's place. There's some great books, but none which are
- simple enough. Yep, Rowling isn't very dense. Yipee! It's a fun book with rollicking humour and what I personally think are great characters, that you don't have to be the nerd of the class to enjoy.
- in a long enough series to become a social phenomenom. Most kids sci/fi fantasy is in one book or trilogies
- appeals equally to boys and girls. Tamora Pierce rocks my socks (although I wouldn't say she's better than Rowling, just different), but few guys would get into it.
- fantasy, with the right touch of "normality". When HP was first out, before I discovered him, i read a lot of kids sci fi but not so much fantasy; both of them were sufficiently divorced from reality that few people were actually going to get into it. HP is a school story, a tried and tested kids book format, combined with adventure fantasy.