Writing Forums

Writing Forums is a privately-owned, community managed writing environment. We provide an unlimited opportunity for writers and poets of all abilities, to share their work and communicate with other writers and creative artists. We offer an experience that is safe, welcoming and friendly, regardless of your level of participation, knowledge or skill. There are several opportunities for writers to exchange tips, engage in discussions about techniques, and grow in your craft. You can also participate in forum competitions that are exciting and helpful in building your skill level. There's so much more for you to explore!

Is Harry Potter Literature? (1 Viewer)

T

Truth-Teller

Harry Potter is not literature.

Stop daydreaming, folks. [-o<
 

JoannaMac

Senior Member
I think what you want to say is that Harry Potter doesn't qualify as good literature, and that people should stop making such a big hoo ha about it because it's completely unworthy. How's that?
 

Mira

Senior Member
I have read the HP books and I never viewed them as literature.
Uhm, then I'm really confused about the definition of the word literature... I mean, it is a book, that follows a story line. How is it not literature?
 

meldy

Senior Member
I think I still associate the word "literature" with "classic literature".

Its a bit of a vague definition really.

By that definition Dr.Suess is literature.......comic books are literature.
 

Mira

Senior Member
Well, I personally think that anything you can read is literature. Well, anything that comes in book-form really. I mean, not labels on food. But books, comics, maybe even magazines....
 

Mike C

WF Veterans
According to the definition of literature, it is.

Whether or not you like it is a different matter entirely.

Depends on your definition. I prefer this one:

Written works of fiction and nonfiction in which compositional excellence and advancement in the art of writing are higher priorities than are considerations of profit or commercial appeal.

Although take that to its logical conclusion and one would have to assume that success of the writer is in inverse proportion to the excellence of the writing; and from there, that the less publishable a book is, the more literate it must therefore be. Some truth in the first half...
 
Last edited:

Dawnstorm

Senior Member
Depends on your definition. I prefer this one:

Written works of fiction and nonfiction in which compositional excellence and advancement in the art of writing are higher priorities than are considerations of profit or commercial appeal.

Although take that to its logical conclusion and one would have to assume that success of the writer is in inverse proportion to the excellence of the writing; and from there, that the less publishable a book is, the more literate it must therefore be. Some truth in the first half...

I don't much like this definition, as it's quite hard to apply.

First, who gets their word in? Is this about author's intention? Publisher's intention? Reader's perception?

Take the Potter-books. I doubt Rowling puts marketability over what she considers important. I also doubt she's out to advance the art of writing or to achieve compositional excellence (although she does appear to be willing to learn; the first chapter of book 7 is a well written as the next-to last is atrocious - statement of taste involved). From both books and interview I'd argue that the priority, for Rowling, is story telling.

She's not making Bloom's Canon and I can see why not (though he's overshooting his mark and missing the point, I feel).

Will Harry Potter still be around in, say, sixty years? Ask me again in sixty years.
 
Last edited:

galt

Senior Member
If it isn't, I want nothing to do with literature.



Harry Potter is the greatest book ever written.
 

Hodge

pliable
Senior Member
Depends on your definition. I prefer this one:

Written works of fiction and nonfiction in which compositional excellence and advancement in the art of writing are higher priorities than are considerations of profit or commercial appeal.

Although take that to its logical conclusion and one would have to assume that success of the writer is in inverse proportion to the excellence of the writing; and from there, that the less publishable a book is, the more literate it must therefore be. Some truth in the first half...

This must mean Shakespeare isn't literature. Or a lot of the classics, really.
 

mandax

Senior Member
It is literature. Just because people hate it and think it's poorly written and over-praised doesn't mean it's not literature, whether you think it's bad literature or not. It's obviously made an impact, anyway. Look at all of the threads about it, for Christ's sake! So much arguing over nothing. It is what it is, and everyone needs to just accept that.
 

raven hope

Senior Member
I think we might as well forget about the Harry Potter arguement - I mean, 1 month had passed since the book was released to the public, and by now the arguement is pointless. If you think it's good, then it will be good; if you think is bad, then it will be bad.
 

Mike C

WF Veterans
I doubt Rowling puts marketability over what she considers important.


I guess the point is moot: After the first book she was in a position where the publisher would have printed her shopping list, and kids would have bought it. It may be that she considers marketability important; it may also be that she believes she's writing for the sake of the story, and marketing isn't what she's about. Either way, she's made a lot of money, made a lot of money for others, injected money into the publishing industry and got a lot of kids (and adults) reading who might not have ever done so otherwise. Effectively, she's created extra paying customers for the rest of us and made it possible for her publishers to take more risks on new writers.

Whichever way you look at it, and however you want to classify what Rowling does, her books have done a lot of good. If you don't like them, don't read them.
 

ClancyBoy

Senior Member
I guess the point is moot: After the first book she was in a position where the publisher would have printed her shopping list, and kids would have bought it. It may be that she considers marketability important; it may also be that she believes she's writing for the sake of the story, and marketing isn't what she's about. Either way, she's made a lot of money, made a lot of money for others, injected money into the publishing industry and got a lot of kids (and adults) reading who might not have ever done so otherwise. Effectively, she's created extra paying customers for the rest of us and made it possible for her publishers to take more risks on new writers.

Whichever way you look at it, and however you want to classify what Rowling does, her books have done a lot of good. If you don't like them, don't read them.

Some people say Star Wars ruined movies forever. Studios look so hard for that summer blockbuster that they pay little attention anymore to movies that might have a more limited appeal (and fewer explosions.)

This despite the fact that it encouraged more people to go to the movies.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top