Smart Talk on Harry Potter
How do we read Harry Potter? How does our culture read it? What are the effects of celebrity culture on the experience of Story?
You can subscribe to the Hog’s Head PubCast through iTunes, or Odeo, and VOTE for The Hog’s Head for the month of August at Podcast Alley.
On Tap:
Previous post: Daniel Radcliffe Naked: Who Cares?
Next post: New Poll: The Fate of Daniel Radcliffe
SchoolMarm on The Seer Overheard, by revgeorge
Travis Prinzi on Harry Potter – Great Literature?
Dave the Longwinded on Harry Potter – Great Literature?Travis Prinzi on Harry Potter – Great Literature?Dave the Longwinded on Harry Potter – Great Literature?Travis Prinzi on Harry Potter – Great Literature?
Arabella Figg on Harry Potter – Great Literature?
SPT on Harry Potter – Great Literature?Dave the Longwinded on Harry Potter – Great Literature?SPT on The Seer Overheard, by revgeorge
Loading ...
{ 48 comments… read them below or add one }
I’m not finding it but is there just a feed for the podcasts? I use Linux as an OS so iTunes isn’t the best feed for me, nor is odeo. I’d love to listen to the podcast but I can’t find anyone to download it directly either. Thanks.
Plus, even if I wanted to use odeo, I couldn’t find the feed for the show there either.
It’s up – sorry, forgot to include the link.
Odeo, by the way, is web-based. Just go to Odeo.com, search “Hog’s Head,” and add it to your dashboard.
Thanks, Travis. I found the download link & am downloading the podcast even now.
I searched on odeo though using Hog’s Head & it won’t bring up any results for me. What am I missing?
Strange. It popped right up for me. No idea what you’re missing!
If we could only get in touch with the person in charge of search for odeo…..;)
Anyway, great episode, Travis.
As you know I am not one to sexualize Harry Potter through fanfiction, wizardrock, fanart etc. But I am not sure that what people are doing (and what we have seen at conferences) can be compared to the complete pop culturization of Harry Potter and all things that surround it.
I don’t think millions of news articles about Daniel Radcliffe being naked in Equus is comparable to fanfiction about Harry/Snape. I don’t think creative endeavors that flow out of HP (whether one agrees with the outcomes or not) are negative in any way. Now, whether it is to be considered something related to literature, I don’t know. But I can’t imagine that this is the first time in history that these creative type endeavors are evolving from a piece of literature.
Penny, yes – very good points. That’s exactly what I was referring to when I talked about there being a spectrum, and differences within each little pocket of the spectrum. I think fan fiction and wrock can be a good thing – sometimes they are, sometimes they aren’t. All depends on who’s doing it! “Library Lily,” for example, who comments here regularly, is a wrocker who thinks lots of wrockers take things too far, especially when it comes to sexualizing everything.
I think what we’re mainly distinguishing between is the sort of pop celebrity of the actors as opposed to the pop cultural phenomenon of the HP series. That is to say, I think when things not necessarily related to the books themselves but deriving their creative origin from the series, like wrock or fanfic or fan art, are reported upon, that can be rightfully considered HP news.
But the various activities of the actors? No, I don’t think properly that’s HP news, although currently the actors are so connected to the HP phenomenon that it’s not easily possible to separate out the difference. Maybe in 10 or 20 years not everything Dan Radcliffe et al do will be reported as Potter news.
Penny wrote: “But I can’t imagine that this is the first time in history that these creative type endeavors are evolving from a piece of literature.”
It’s not. I can’t remember much further back in pop culture as the late ’70’s. But going by what I remember, in the late ’70’s through the ’80’s, there were a fair few independent journals or fan magazines devoted to LOTR, publishing poetry & short stories, etc. A lot of them didn’t last long back in those dark ages before the Internet but enough that I had subscriptions to several. I think the Mythopoeic Society is one that is still going. Although I should help them out by renewing my subscription. I think it’s been a decade since I’ve been a member.
And of course there’s tons of fanfic, art, & even movies made by fans of Star Trek & Star Wars.
And then there’s those people who run Harry Potter websites & do HP podcasts. You gotta wonder about them, though.
Some random comments.
I’m caught off guard by the use of the term “great literature” in connection with HP. I know that I’ve expressed my love of the books, and gone on and on about how deeply moved I was – and still am – by chapters 34 and 35 of DH. So I think it has flashes of greatness, which will endure, but great literature?
Also not clear about the promoting injustice thing. Are you saying that a work of art can’t be great if it promotes injustice? Or just that our approach to it has to be different?
I guess I feel very uncomfortable in these post-modern waters. For me, the story is “out there”, unchanging and mostly unchangeable (except through divine – i.e. authorial – revelation or really insightful and inspired analysis). I don’t see how fanfiction, or people dressing up in costumes, or role play games can have any impact. I have argued elsewhere that the movies do have the power to change our perception of the stories. But that’s only our perception. The story remains inviolate.
I think I am missing the post-modern boat.
PS The op art graphics are cool, but they do mess with my mind, especially when I’m wrestling with this post-modern stuff.
I’m caught off guard by the use of the term “great literature” in connection with HP.
I don’t have any hesitation using the term “great literature” in conjunction with HP. It’s at least better than Narnia, which is great literature, and it might be better than LOTR, which is great literature. (I’m still convinced LOTR has the edge, but 30+ year lit scholar James Thomas says the opposite). HP will pass into the Great Books canon; I have no question about that.
Are you saying that a work of art can’t be great if it promotes injustice? Or just that our approach to it has to be different?
Depends on to whom you’re talking. It’s become impossible in some circle to appreciate literature anymore, because every piece of writing is a battleground for justice issues, the perpetuation of unjust norms, etc. Yes, this is, to some extent, the result of the postmodern approach to the series. I’m of the opinion that we have to be aware of those sorts of things, but that it doesn’t disqualify it from being great literature. I’m not interested in throwing entire books out because they have faults.
But that’s only our perception. The story remains inviolate.
You’re definitely not a postmodern on this one! This is the real question, isn’t it? Is the story on the page, objective, there for all to read? Or is it in the space between the reader and the page – there’s nothing there, apart from the author’s experience of the story, until the reader starts to make meaning out of the combinations of letters, words, sentences, paragraphs, chapters. The story might be “out there,” but the question is – does it mean anything until someone picks it up? And if someone else picks it up, and reads something different into or out of the story, who’s right? And if the author is the final arbiter, how can the author be sure she was aware of everything she was writing or intended at the time without perfect knowledge of her own subconscious and cultural context (which I think we can all agree no one has)?
I think it was TJ & I who mentioned HP needing to pass the test of time. Although I do believe it already is great or at least semi-great literature. But I do admit we can’t really know until time passes. There’s a historical perspective that needs to be added that we who are living in the current time can’t really provide. But I’m fairly certain, along with you, Travis, that HP is great literature here & now.
As much as I love the Narniad, HP is definitely better, especially in the sneaking things past sleeping dragons. I certainly wouldn’t give HP the nod over LOTR, though. And probably wouldn’t even consider such a possibility for a long, long time.
Ah, post-modernism. Gotta love it…not! Well, to an extent, post-modernism does give some adequate critiques of modernism. But it’s in its answers that it seems to fall short because it seems to end up as the ultimate skeptic, unable to find meaning or certainty in anything. Everything remains an open question. And it also seems to be the ultimate in individualism. Whatever I want a thing to mean, so it is. What the author wrote or intended doesn’t matter. I, alone, or as part of a metanarrative group, imbue things with meaning.
“I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory,’” Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t — till I tell you. I meant “there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!’”
“But `glory’ doesn’t mean `a nice knock-down argument,’” Alice objected.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master — that’s all.”
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again.
“They’ve a temper, some of them — particularly verbs, they’re the proudest — adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs — however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That’s what I say!”
Rowling said that she wrote the stories completely for herself so I’m tempted to think she has the best interpretation.
I’m also tempted to think that the more fan imput and hoo haa about the movies, and whatever, there is the harder it will be for THE stories to be taken seriously by academia.
The young Harry Potter movie actors are completely type-cast already. No one will ever look at Radcliffe without thinking he was the kid who looked like Harry Potter. The more I go on the more the movies do my head in. I’d reather watch re-runs of You Can’t Say That On Television.
Q: Hey Barf, is it true you put cats in your burgers?
A: Yeeaarrhh…. I heard that! Not true…
Whatever I want a thing to mean, so it is.
But this is more an observation of postmodernism than it is a principle of action. It’s not that postmodernism means, “I can read this however I feel,” but, “I bring a lot of stuff to this text, and it’s inevitable that, to some extent, I’m going to read this however I feel.” The problem postmodernism has is with anyone who takes that reading and thinks they can clear it of all subjectivism and get the “objective, authoritative” view.
Including the author.
What the author wrote or intended doesn’t matter.
Well – what the author wrote absolutely matters. What she intended when she wrote it doesn’t, especially if what she says she intended doesn’t seem to match up with the text itself (as when Rowling says that it was love that brought Dumbledore down in his teenage years. You won’t find that anywhere in the story. The story itself says over and over again that it was temptation to power, not love, that brought young Albus down).
Yeah I know. I think Rolwing’s opinion is right until it conflicts with my own.
So how does a post modernist interpret scripture?
Yeah I know. I think Rolwing’s opinion is right until it conflicts with my own.
Precisely the point, and we all do it. Unless we just decide that anything and everything Rowling says about the story is authoritative – despite her own contradictions – in which case, we might as well shut the site down and just post anything Rowling says.
So how does a post modernist interpret scripture?
Much, much bigger question than, “How does a postmodernist interpret HP?”
Oh Yeah Travis, if you like that show where they get into the story and fiddle with it you would really enjoy the Thursday Next novels by Jasper Fforde.
Check ‘em out.
Korg wrote: “I’m also tempted to think that the more fan imput and hoo haa about the movies, and whatever, there is the harder it will be for THE stories to be taken seriously by academia.”
In the short run, yes, that might be the case. But as the hoopla dies down, I think more people will take the work seriously. Just watching bits of a show a while back on the science of Star Trek. It wasn’t on the entertainment channel; it was on The History Channel.
And at first people didn’t think much of Star Wars as anything but a SciFi shootemup adventure but the way the story was told has become a lot more important. That is, on the surface, a generic SciFi show but underneath a space western with strong elements of a heroic spiritual journey & a struggle between good & evil, both in the world & inside of us. Now, the three prequels are just crap but we can ignore them for academic purposes.
Travis wrote, “But this is more an observation of postmodernism than it is a principle of action. It’s not that postmodernism means, “I can read this however I feel,” but, “I bring a lot of stuff to this text, and it’s inevitable that, to some extent, I’m going to read this however I feel.” The problem postmodernism has is with anyone who takes that reading and thinks they can clear it of all subjectivism and get the “objective, authoritative” view.”
Of course, the postmodern is right in thinking that everyone brings along a bunch of baggage & presuppositions to the text. But they’re not the first ones to think of such a thing. Literary criticism has recognized this for quite a while. It’s one of the first things I learned in hermeneutics & exegetics classes at the seminary.
The trick of interacting with a text is to know what your presuppositions are & letting the text have its way with you, instead of the other way around. And in so wrestling with the text & having one’s presuppositions examined, one can get a fairly objective authoritative reading of the text. A good text, a good work, will help us get outside of ourselves to an extent so that we can examine our presuppositions & prejudices from a more objective point of view. & thus also come to a better, more objective view of the text.
One should approach a text as a student rather than as a master, as Humpty Dumpty seems to think.
So, I wouldn’t make a good postmodern since I do believe it’s possible to get a fairly authoritative view of a text. But not by mastering a text but by dialoging with the text.
I’m not going to tackle my issues with the postmodern approach to interpreting literature until I get things clear in my own head – I’ve started with the fact that postmodern is not hyphenated. In the meantime though, I can tackle the slightly less challenging issue of great literature.
I don’t think comparing HP advantageously to LOTR or Narnia is an adequate test of whether it is great literature – what if neither of the others is great literature? Or what if HP is a different kind of book, and compares disadvantageously to those two?
For myself, I think that great literature requires great writing and JKR is not a great stylist – for the most part she’s competent, she’s sometimes cliched and repetitive, and then she has these flashes of brilliance – occasionally sustained. The main thing about her which makes me sometimes doubt that evaluation is her crafting of names for people and things – she is a match for Dickens, in that. And Dickens is a great writer, imho.
Beyond that, although JKR does deal with themes of universal relevance – and deals with them well, I think – she also throws in a lot of dross and dreck. To wit: the Quidditch matches, the teen-age crushes, the exams, all the school routine stuff. Now of course that’s exactly the stuff that makes the books interesting for children – and the child in the rest of us. But it takes away from the compelling story line. And I challenge anyone to make a strong argument that GoF is great literature.
Am I making the implicit statement that children’t literature can’t be great literature? Of course not. But I don’t think any here want to restrict JKR to the kiddie shelves. And she just doesn’t stand up that well in the adult section.
Now let loose the dogs of war …
Travis wrote: “‘What the author wrote or intended doesn’t matter.’
Well – what the author wrote absolutely matters. What she intended when she wrote it doesn’t, especially if what she says she intended doesn’t seem to match up with the text itself (as when Rowling says that it was love that brought Dumbledore down in his teenage years. You won’t find that anywhere in the story. The story itself says over and over again that it was temptation to power, not love, that brought young Albus down).”
Amen! Preach it, brother!
Not that I’d say what the author says or intends about their work is unimportant. I think we’ve gone over this before. I just don’t think the author’s intended meaning is necessarily the definitive meaning. Mainly for some of the reasons you mentioned, Travis.
Because if the author’s meaning & intention is primary, then I’d better not read the books unless I’ve got Rowling beside me to let me know the meaning of each word, each phrase, each paragraph, & each page of every page of the series.
Red Rocker wrote, “Am I making the implicit statement that children’t literature can’t be great literature? Of course not. But I don’t think any here want to restrict JKR to the kiddie shelves. And she just doesn’t stand up that well in the adult section.”
I was of the opinion she stood up so well in the adult section that the NYT best seller list had to relegate her to the kiddies’ list. And that she stood up so well in the adult section that Bloomsbury had to come up with special adult covers for the books.
And I don’t think great writing is necessarily required for something to be great literature. It certainly helps! It certainly goes a long way towards making something great literature. But I don’t think it’s absolutely necessary.
No dogs here, though; just cats.
revgeorge,
You are not going to argue that mass appeal equals great writing – are you? I wasn’t talking about JKR’s popularity – how could I? I was talking about whether she writes great literature aimed at adults.
But your second comment intrigues me. You don’t think it’s absolutely necessary for great literature to have great writing? I would be pleased to look at some examples.
Red Rocker wrote: “You don’t think it’s absolutely necessary for great literature to have great writing? I would be pleased to look at some examples.”
For my first exhibit I present………. “Joanne Rowling’s Harry Potter series!”
To be honest, I can’t really think of any other examples. Except of course for Lewis’ Narniad. I think it’s literature that’s going to endure & be read & reread. Great literature, though? I suppose it’s debatable.
Perhaps we should define the characteristics of great literature. Tolstoy’s War & Peace? Great literature? I think so. But I’ve read War & Peace a total of one time in my life, which I think puts me pretty high up in the number of times someone’s read War & Peace. It’s great literature but if no one reads it anymore, what’s that say about it?
So, I think popularity & also rereadability plays into a measure of what’s great literature. Was Dickens acknowledged as great literature when he first came out in serialized form? Or did the designation of his works as great literature only come later?
However, I’m still on the fence as to whether or not HP will be great literature. I think it will, but I can’t know for sure. I disagreed with the bit Travis talked about in the pubcast of the guy who said we could know it’s great literature here & now.
At the risk of sounding totally uneducated (and what the hey, I don’t have a degree in English Lit. or any other kind of Lit, so the shoe fits!) anyways, with the certainty of sounding totally uneducated, I expect great literature to rock me, as the Scorpions would say, like a hurricane. I expect it to humble me, and knock me to my knees, and make me shake my head in total, helpless admiration and awe.
Very subjective, I know. Almost postmodern in its reliance upon what happens in the space between the work and the reader for its definition. But go along with me on this for a moment.
War and Peace does not do this to me. Perhaps something gets lost in the translation. But a lot of what I’ve read by Dostoevsky does do that to me. The kiss Christ gives to the Grand Inquisitor transcends language, and place and time. I enjoy Jane Eyre, but Nelly, I am Heathcliff moves me as Reader, I married him does not. I find The Outsider almost unbearably bleak, but Meursault’s No one, no one at all had any right to cry over her in it’s rejection of hope and happiness makes beautifully stark music, matching Maurice Bendix’ O God, You’ve done enough. You’ve robbed me of enough. I’m too tired and old to learn to love, leave me alone for ever. Or try this, one of the most strikingly moody and dramatic beginnings to any novel, ever:
..and that the dark flat wilderness beyond the churchyard, intersected with dykes and mounds and gates, with scattered cattle feeding on it was the marshes; and that the savage distant lair from which the wind was rushing was the sea; and that the small bundle of shivers growing afraid of it all and beginning to cry, was Pip.
‘Hold your noise!” cried a terrible voice, as a man started up from among the graves at the side of the church porch. ‘Keep still, you little devil, or I’ll cut your throat!
Most of HP does not come close to this. DH is the exception, to my mind. There are passages in DH, not just in chapters 34 and 35, but earlier on, Godric’s Hollow and The Wandmaker which have touches of greatness.
What’s my point? If we are to use comparisons, then there are truer standards of greatness than LOTR and Narnia. And by those standards, the saga as a whole is not in the same league.
revgeorge: I disagreed with the bit Travis talked about in the pubcast of the guy who said we could know it’s great literature here & now.
I’ll let James Thomas’s book answer this more clearly, but I don’t get it. If it’s great, why isn’t it great now? Was A Tale of Two Cities not great when it was written? It was. It might not have been recognized as such by all at the time, but those who did recognize it as such were correct, long before anyone else was. The passage of time has absolutely nothing to do with great writing. A book is not a fine cheese.
If we are to use comparisons, then there are truer standards of greatness than LOTR and Narnia.
I might be able to grant Narnia on this point, but I cannot grant LOTR. It’s a brilliant masterpiece of prose and creativity, it’s been the subject of voluminous scholarly work, it was voted in poll after poll after poll as the greatest book of the 20th century, and in one poll as the greatest book ever written.
I don’t think that Rowling occasionally exhibits writing flaws diminishes the absolute genius of the series, nor that a flaw here and there disqualifies the books as great writing.
I expect great literature to rock me, as the Scorpions would say, like a hurricane. I expect it to humble me, and knock me to my knees, and make me shake my head in total, helpless admiration and awe.
And you’re right that this criteria comes down to something very subjective, because Harry Potter did rock me (love the Scorpions reference).
Oh, I think LOTR is in the same league. There are quite a few passages in it that move me to tears. I’ll agree with you on Narnia.
But the whole thing is in a sense a subjective exercise. I don’t necessarily expect great literature to “rock me like a hurricane,” although I appreciate the reference to The Scorpions. But I do expect it to challenge me & possibly even change me.
And by other standards HP does for me what Great Expectations or War & Peace never can do. I’ll reread HP over & over again, despite a noticeable lack of hurricane moments, & I will not reread Dickens or Tolstoy very much, if not at all. As much as I enjoyed Dostoevsky’s Brothers Karamazov, & you are right in that the chapter on the Grand Inquisitor is a masterpiece, I still don’t reread it & haven’t read it in years.
Although perhaps the failing is in me rather than in the works themselves.
I’ll leave it up to Travis to prove that HP is great literature. I think it might be or is, or at least aspires to greatness based on some qualities. But I’m also willing to withhold judgment until some time has passed.
Travis,
You took up my challenge even before I finished posting it!
I’ll wait till I read Thomas’ book to more firmly fall into your camp. I’m already most of the way there but I still have some qualms.
I’ll leave it up to Travis to prove that HP is great literature.
Neah, I’ll just wait for 50 years, stick my tongue out then, and say, “I told you so.”
Actually, the first place I’ll want to point y’all if John Granger’s new book, which will be released soon. And actually, The Hog’s Head PubCast will play a big role in that release. Stay tuned.
I’ll also then work on getting James Thomas here. I’m editing a volume of essays on HP, and I’m hoping to get many, if not all of the authors here to the blog for a bit. Dr. Thomas is one of them.
If you’re talking about The Deathly Hallows Lectures, it’s already out. I received my copy from Amazon about two weeks ago. Sadly, because of having to prepare for a wedding, I’ve only gotten the essay on Dumbledore & Jo’s revelation read.
Or is it John’s book for 2009, “Harry Meets Hamlet & Scrooge?”
What a strange situation…. DHL is actually NOT out. What you’ve ordered and received is something of a rough draft of the book. The book in its final version is on its way. The essay on Dumbledore & Jo’s revelation actually won’t even be in the final version (but will probably be in my book of essays instead).
And the book in its final version is very, very different from what you have.
revgeorge,
Going back to your comment about re-reading: for me the greatness of a book is not in the re-reading, but in how much the story and the writing and the dialogue resonates with me, how vividly I remember it, and how the words make me feel. I don’t often go back to The Grand Inquisitor and thank God that I’ve never seen a movie of the Brothers Karamazov but I can see that scene as vividly as if I had seen it in a movie. And while it could be due to some kind of subjective experience, I attribute it entirely to the power of the words.
Which also means, that everytime I do go back to the words, I am struck again by their ability to evoke these feelings in me.
How about this as a totally subjective measure of greatness: reading a book when you’re young, being moved by it, returning to it later in life, and discovering that it still has the power to move you? As though all you have learned about life and humanity and yourself in the intervening years was encapsulated in some way by the author’s words?
Or maybe – going off on a postmodern riff – maybe the words you read earlier in your life did change you, or changed how you looked at life, so returning to them later on was like returning to yourself – the self that you had become because of those words.
Which goes back to what revgeorge is saying, above, about his expectation that great literature might change him.
Travis wrote, “What a strange situation…. DHL is actually NOT out. What you’ve ordered and received is something of a rough draft of the book. The book in its final version is on its way. The essay on Dumbledore & Jo’s revelation actually won’t even be in the final version (but will probably be in my book of essays instead).
And the book in its final version is very, very different from what you have.”
So I’m going to have to buy another copy of DH Lectures?
And which will be the definitive version?
Red Rocker wrote, “Going back to your comment about re-reading: for me the greatness of a book is not in the re-reading, but in how much the story and the writing and the dialogue resonates with me, how vividly I remember it, and how the words make me feel.”
But I go back to HP for exactly the reasons you mention, something in the story resonates with me. The reading of the story, in 7 parts, have a profound effect on me. And I feel like I do after reading LOTR, like Sam coming home from a long journey. It’s hard to put into words but reading HP does move me & satisfy me in some way. Satisfies me in a way that wants more but still is satisfied with what I have. I think part of a great book is that it leaves you longing for more but yet not feeling cheated with what you have.
A great book also doesn’t necessarily have to change you, either, but can also reaffirm what you already know & believe but it just drives it home in a deeper way.
It’s been over twenty years, probably 25, since I read The Brothers Karamazov but the chapter that stands out the most & that I remember the most is The Grand Inquisitor.
“The kiss glows in his heart, but the old man adheres to his ideas.”
I think that re-reading has taken on another function for me: I re-read books not to feel moved, but to return to something known and satisfying and comfortable. The Brothers Karamazov, Wuthering Heights, The Power and the Glory, The Outsider, Les Miserables – to name some books which I do consider to be great literature – are not comforting. They are challenging, they wake me up, they force me to think. The books I re-read for comfort are children’s literature, or mystery stories, or adventure stories, where everything is known, everyone has his or her place, every loose end is tied up and all is well with the world.
I kind of make a distinction in my mind between “great literature” and “classic.” I’d agree that great literature is great from its beginning, whether it is recognized as being such or not. But I’d say it takes time for a book to become a “classic.” (A definition from dictionary.com: “an author or a literary work of the first rank, especially one of demonstrably enduring quality.”) Time is required to see if the work can stand re-reading, critical analysis, and is still something that connects with people years after it was created. We can argue that HP is or is not great literature. I think at this point we can only predict whether or not HP will become a classic.
I would argue that Narnia is great literature.
I was going to debate whether Narnia is great literature, when I asked myself: why? why argue the point?
I think we’re all starting from the point of loving a certain book. We probably love books for many different reasons. But some books resonate so deeply with us that we want some kind of external acknowledgement that it’s not just me, that by other people’s standards this is a good book, even a great book. Basically, we want the rest of the world – or some personally relevant portion of it – to agree with our personal judgment of the book. We want validation.
And then the debate starts. Because what moves you may not move me. What brings tears to my eyes may make you shrug. What you consider serious literature may make me yawn.
I think that the debate might be more fruitful if we could say: this is what I love about this book, this is what the author does well, and conversely, this is what I don’t like about this book, this is what is poorly done. And then perhaps we could move on to: this is how someone else does it, and it’s more effective, or less effective.
I can’t even speak about Narnia, only having read the first book of the series. I don’t love LWW but there are parts which I love. What I love about it is the initial sense of magic and mystery as Lucy enters the forest and meets Mr. Tumnus, Edmund’s initial encounter with the Witch and the sense of beauty combined with menace, and also the story of Edmund’s fall (so very human!). As for what I didn’t like about it, I’d say it was the heavy handed allegory/supposal, especially the casting of Susan and Lucy in the roles of Mary and Mary Magdalene. And Aslan just doesn’t work for me: I think that Lewis bit off more than he could chew (no pun intended) in trying to depict Christ. The result feels more like a sermon than a story. I think the writing is pretty good – although nowhere as clean and precise as Tolkien’s. Better than JKR’s, for the most part. But JKR does the Christ-resurrection theme so much more movingly and convincingly.
Red Rocker,
I don’t think claiming a favorite book as being great or a classic is necessarily wanting to have a stamp of validation on that work. That is to say, I can acknowledge a book as great literature or a classic of literature without even having to like that book or even to have read that book. Instead, it’s a recognition of a common consensus about a work’s status.
If a measure of greatness or of a classic is that it must be liked by everyone at every time in every place, then there won’t be any great or classic works.
Also, just because a work may be classified as great or classic doesn’t mean it’s free from criticism. In fact, it’s more likely to be criticized. And by criticism, I mean the positive kind of criticism. Unfortunately, criticism in our day & age has taken on an almost entirely negative meaning. But that’s not what literary criticism is or should be.
And one doesn’t necessarily have to have degree in literature to do literary criticism. You’ve put forth a pretty good model, Red, to follow:
“I think that the debate might be more fruitful if we could say: this is what I love about this book, this is what the author does well, and conversely, this is what I don’t like about this book, this is what is poorly done. And then perhaps we could move on to: this is how someone else does it, and it’s more effective, or less effective.”
revgeorge, agree on most counts. A few qualifications.
Universal acclaim is not only unfeasible, it’s probably not very correlated with quality. I’m thinking of books by Jacqueline Susann, and Agatha Christie, and Ken Follett and Stephen King. Masterful story tellers, many of them, and highly popular, but can any of them be said to transcend his or her genre?
I know there is a whole world of books out there which are acclaimed as great literature. There is even a list: the Great Books. And I accept that verdict. But until I have read a book, and recognized what makes it great, I can not myself say that it is great literature. If I did, I would feel like I was lying, or at least misrepresenting the truth. Which is weird in an almost postmodern sort of way. It’s as if the greatness can only exist in the space between me and the book. Or you and the book. Or any reader and the book.
Ignore this if it sounds confused: I’m wrestling with postmodernism.
I am intrigued by your comment that just because a book is great literature, it doesn’t mean that it’s immune from criticism. I agree, of course. But that raises an interesting question. How flawed can a book be before it’s not great literature? Or can a book have elements that are so inspiring or moving that a lot of surrounding dross and dreck can be forgiven, or at least, disregarded? What can’t be disregarded?
You know where I’m going with this, of course. Deathly Hallows, which is as close as JKR gets to great literature. I read the four chapters I’ve mentioned earlier, and I am as moved as by anything I’ve ever read. Harry and Hermione at Godric’s Hollow. Harry digging Dobby’s grave. Harry walking to his death in the company of his dead. Harry’s conversation with Dumbledore. Do those moments – and the spare, luminous prose that accompanies them – outweigh all the stuff which is patently not great?
Red Rocker wrote: “Universal acclaim is not only unfeasible, it’s probably not very correlated with quality. I’m thinking of books by Jacqueline Susann, and Agatha Christie, and Ken Follett and Stephen King. Masterful story tellers, many of them, and highly popular, but can any of them be said to transcend his or her genre?”
Of course I agree on universal acclaim not being the defining quality of a great work. I don’t it is a defining quality of a great work or that it makes a work great. It can of course be a contributing factor in that a great work would, by definition, come to receive a measure of universal acclaim or popularity. But just being popular doesn’t make something great.
Red Rocker wrote: “I know there is a whole world of books out there which are acclaimed as great literature. There is even a list: the Great Books. And I accept that verdict. But until I have read a book, and recognized what makes it great, I can not myself say that it is great literature. If I did, I would feel like I was lying, or at least misrepresenting the truth. Which is weird in an almost postmodern sort of way. It’s as if the greatness can only exist in the space between me and the book. Or you and the book. Or any reader and the book.”
Certainly understandable feelings. But I’m not sure postmodernism helps us in this. I don’t think it’s lying or misrepresenting to say something’s great without having read it. I think we also have to take it on faith from other people that something is great & classical. It’s in many ways a matter of trust. After all, it’s unlikely that I’ll ever be able to read all the ‘great’ books in the world or even read them enough to gain a fairly good understanding of them.
I emailed BJ Harrison once asking him if he had criteria that rendered a story a classic and therefore a valid choice for his “Classic Tales Podcast”.
I hope he doesn’t mind me quoting from his response but here it is.
“As far as criteria for classics selections, well, that is a poser. Some of my favorite authors, such as W. Somerset Maugham and Ernest Hemingway, are not within the public domain, and consequently are not available for me to produce at this time. For me, if something is classic, it deals with themes, characters and dialogue in such a forward manner that it can stand the test of time. Unfortunately, so many people feel that they need to be edgy or explicit to be of any consequence. This phase of guttered fiction will eventually drift downstream, I believe. The truth will out, and those works that genuinely edify and lead the reader to truth will always stand as beacons in a maddening world. ”
I agree whole heartedly with him.
Didn’t get a chance to fully finish my last post. For some reason the people at the church for the wedding rehearsal wanted to get started.
Regarding a lot of great literature & classic literature, we do have to trust the judgment of others in these matters. Just like we would trust the judgment of a doctor or mechanic telling us about something wrong with our bodies or cars. That, of course, doesn’t mean we can never question them or come to disagree with their conclusions but we start off on the basis of trusting someone’s more qualified opinion or diagnosis & then go from there.
Matthew, thank you for sharing the quote from BJ Harrison. I think that’s very helpful. Especially his thought “For me, if something is classic, it deals with themes, characters and dialogue in such a forward manner that it can stand the test of time…The truth will out, and those works that genuinely edify and lead the reader to truth will always stand as beacons in a maddening world. ”
I also thought miles365’s comment a few posts above was also helpful but didn’t get a chance to say it earlier.
I think HP is a classic now, & perhaps may be an enduring classic, because it does genuinely edify & lead us to deal with tough issues of life. It doesn’t really matter that the writing, overall, isn’t of the highest quality; it still gets the messages across & draws us into the story & the themes the story deals with. I think this is the point that John Granger has been pushing in his analysis of the series, that HP speaks to something deep within us & resonates with us.