Thread: Is Harry Potter Literature?

I'm up for Grisham bashing

I agree with what was said above also - adults reading kids fiction is good reference material if you are aiming for that market. I often browse amazon for cheap kids best-sellers for pointers. They may be rubbish in some peoples opinions but the authors are obviously doing something right to get published...and once i figure out their formulas i will be too

*Wa- Ha- Haa*

Originally Posted by Truth-Teller

Harry Potter is not literature.

Stop daydreaming, folks. [-o<

Sorry, disagree. HP is as much literature as any other work, from Charles Dickens to Tom Clancy. To deny that it is, is a form of literary snobbery that would force you to be able to then define what you believe literature to be - something that the majority of people on this forum would then proceed to vehemently disagree with.

Let's face it, there are plenty of the so-called 'literary classics' that are absolute tosh (in my opinion - and that's what it boils down to: opinion).

Originally Posted by JosephB

But if you're over 15 or 16 and still obsessing over Harry Potter, that's just weird. They are children's books.

I've seen people obsess about it far too much over time, and I do mean people over 15 or 16. That strikes me as silly. I'm not sure how wierd it is though, at least among young adults. I went through a stage where I hated Harry Potter but I got back into in book 6 and 7 enough to forgive some of it's flaws. Harry Potter's setting, however, is something I'm uncomfortable giving praise. It just isn't consistent enough to merit the praise it has gotten. I praising the way the setting is delivered would be better than praising the setting itself.

Originally Posted by Peejaydee

HP is as much literature as any other work, from Charles Dickens to Tom Clancy. To deny that it is, is a form of literary snobbery...

I tend to agree. Anything populist tends to get written off as inferior, and writers (or more to the point wannabe writers) are usually the loudest critics. Dan Brown and JK Rowling are two good examples. I've not read anything of either, so I'm not judging the writing, but millions of people enjoyed both enough to make them seriously rich people - something most writers would give a kidney for. Had they both only sold a handful of copies, it probably would have been cool to like them.

Harry Potter is literature. Agree with previous few statement.

If it isn't, who draws the line?

Is it a better book than Black Beauty? Robin Hood? Frankenstein? Lord of the Flies? I'd say so. If they are literature, why not this.

I don't understand Rowling baiting. She did a great job of a wonderful idea and blew kids minds off the Gameboys and into the libraries.

It might fit into a special category of "Hyperliterature", books that actually increase the reach and power of reading. Kind of like Elvis and the Beatles are actually responsible for selling more classical records than any long-haired symphony guy.

Originally Posted by lin

It might fit into a special category of "Hyperliterature", books that actually increase the reach and power of reading. Kind of like Elvis and the Beatles are actually responsible for selling more classical records than any long-haired symphony guy.

I've been thinking about this.

I think the popularity of Harry Potter has more to do with the culture of the kids who read it than it does with any virtue of the book itself.

Kids and younger adults today seem to have no problem being "joiners." In fact, they seem to prefer it. That is to say, they won't eschew something just because it's popular.

People my age, however, (gen-Xer's) naturally avoid identifying with very large groups or audiences. Anything that is extremely popular automatically makes me uncomfortable because it seems "culty," and seems to represent a loss of individuality. I'm realizing that's just a personal bias though.

I believe the Harry Potter phenomenon could have happened with just about any book. Ms. Rowling just happened to come along at just the right time to take advantage of a rising youth culture that is by nature extremely homogeneous. Not that I'm criticizing that.

I dunno, they are pretty neat books.

You could say the same for the Rolling Stones or anybody I guess.

I tend to the think the talent makes the times rather than vice versa.

I've never been impressed with Rowling's writing. Rather, it was the themes that she put into her books that got me. I think she touched something on a fundamental thematic level that is much, much deeper than any contemporary piece that I've read.

I think it's kind of funny that some people blast Rowling for writing a "popular" book, when the main theme in all seven books is doing what one thinks is right, rather than what is easy. And especially in the last book, when she touched on the subject of sacrifice and the frustration of not knowing how to make it to point B, I think she touched a lot of people right in the heart. Especially those who have been in a position to feel love so deep that one's own life pales in comparison, or have been in a tough spot living from paycheck to paycheck. Or, even worse, no paycheck at all.

Then again, her own experience is probably why she captured that emotion so perfectly.

Especially those who have been in a position to feel love so deep that one's own life pales in comparison, or have been in a tough spot living from paycheck to paycheck. Or, even worse, no paycheck at all.

You never should have told anyone you are still in high school. It devalues statements like these when you make them.

Originally Posted by Malone

You never should have told anyone you are still in high school. It devalues statements like these when you make them.

It's on other people to take value in what I say, not me.

Any book that uses the word 'said' as much as Harry Potter does, is not literature.

Originally Posted by mythologicalrealities

Any book that uses the word 'said' as much as Harry Potter does, is not literature.

Couldn't disagree more. "Said" is often the best word to use in dialogue tags. Writers who use other words come off as trying to communicate too much in an inappropriate place or grandstanding for the sake of it.

No, I can't think of anything I dislike more than 400 pages of characters 'saying' things.

Originally Posted by mythologicalrealities

Any book that uses the word 'said' as much as Harry Potter does, is not literature.

Well, that establishes your credentials as a complete and utter fucking idiot...