Harry Potter and Adults
CCA
got on her nerves was adult Harry Potter readers. She went on to say that she
always felt like snatching the book out of thier hands, and replacing it with a
copy of Madame Bovary, or something.
I'd be interested to know RASFC-ers' opinions on this. I disagreed entirely -
I think well-written books that're aimed primarily at kids can often have a lot
of attraction for adults too. Imagination, a good plot, something you can lose
yourself in.
I'd interested to see what others think.
CCA:)
[1] On the UK TV series Room 101, if anyone's wondering.
--
Family Bites Website and sample chapter at http://www.falboroughhall.co.uk
Shelly
>The comedienne Linda Smith recently mentioned[1] that one of the things that
>got on her nerves was adult Harry Potter readers. She went on to say that
>she
>always felt like snatching the book out of thier hands, and replacing it with
>a
>copy of Madame Bovary, or
>something.
>I'd be interested to know RASFC-ers' opinions on this. I disagreed entirely
>-
>I think well-written books that're aimed primarily at kids can often have a
>lot
>of attraction for adults too. Imagination, a good plot, something you can
>lose
>yourself in.
>I'd interested to see what others think.
>CCA:)
I think it's great when people read anything. I think Harry Potter has gotten
all sorts of folks interested in reading and in trying something different. I'm
a public librarian and I had one man in his 50s and a woman in her 80s ask for
the Harry Potter books so they could see what his kids were reading and what
the fuss was about, respectively.
And in between the Potter books, adults, who have never read fantasy, are
trying other authors and I consider that a good thing.
Heck, I still read comic books and the occasional YA book (and even loved Holes
which was written for children). A good book is a good book, and people reading
is a good thing. :)
Shelly
David Friedman
sphi...@aol.com (CCA) wrote:
> I'd be interested to know RASFC-ers' opinions on this. I disagreed entirely
> -
> I think well-written books that're aimed primarily at kids can often have a
> lot
> of attraction for adults too. Imagination, a good plot, something you can
> lose
> yourself in.
I haven't read Harry Potter, although my wife and children have. But I
would have said that, in general, good children's books are good books,
hence worth reading by adults, subject to the usual qualificants about
varying tastes. I have, for example, read most of Doctor Seuss.
--
Remove NOSPAM to email
Also remove .invalid
www.daviddfriedman.com
Charlie Allery
"CCA" <sphi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031122155859...@mb-m20.aol.com...
> The comedienne Linda Smith recently mentioned[1] that one of the things
that
> got on her nerves was adult Harry Potter readers. She went on to say that
she
> always felt like snatching the book out of thier hands, and replacing it
with a
> copy of Madame Bovary, or something.
> I'd be interested to know RASFC-ers' opinions on this. I disagreed
entirely -
> I think well-written books that're aimed primarily at kids can often have
a lot
> of attraction for adults too. Imagination, a good plot, something you can
lose
> yourself in.
> I'd interested to see what others think.
I intensely dislike people who insist on labelling certain writing as
'better' than others. It's different, that's all. Readers are different and
will enjoy different things in their books. Fortunately there are enough
different writers out there to cater for all these varied tastes. 'Good'
writing to me is writing that leaves me feeling good, whether it be
inspired, challeneged or merely relaxed. IMHO the 'best' writing is able to
make a large proportion of this disparate audience feeling good. I resent
anyone trying to tell me what I _should_ be reading.
JKR with Harry Potter has managed to entice a whole new segment of the
reading population to enjoy the freedom of Fantasy. That can only be good.
Charlie
Mary Gentle
dd...@daviddfriedmanNOSPAM.com.invalid (David Friedman) wrote:
> In article <20031122155859...@mb-m20.aol.com>,
> sphi...@aol.com (CCA) wrote:
>
> > I'd be interested to know RASFC-ers' opinions on this. I disagreed
> > entirely -
> > I think well-written books that're aimed primarily at kids can often
> > have a lot
> > of attraction for adults too. Imagination, a good plot, something
> > you can lose
> > yourself in.
>
>
> I haven't read Harry Potter, although my wife and children have.
But would you let your servants read them? <g>
> But I
> would have said that, in general, good children's books are good books,
> hence worth reading by adults, subject to the usual qualificants about
> varying tastes. I have, for example, read most of Doctor Seuss.
People reading fiction is good . . .
That said, I think the Harry Potter books are bad children's books;
they're full of the kind of stuff that used to make my teeth grate, when I
was a child and reading. I'd be inclined to snatch HP away and
substitute, not Emma Bovary, but Phillip Pullman.
Mary
David Friedman
mary_...@cix.co.uk (Mary Gentle) wrote:
> > I haven't read Harry Potter, although my wife and children have.
>
> But would you let your servants read them? <g>
If I had servants, and had any control over their reading, yes.
Unless, perhaps, the servants were of a sorcerous sort and likely to
learn from the books how to escape my bondage. But then only if I had a
just claim over them.
An account of my household, sorcerous version, can be found at:
http://www.stuartstories.com/stories/rightmagic.html
Alma Hromic Deckert
>The comedienne Linda Smith recently mentioned[1] that one of the things that
>got on her nerves was adult Harry Potter readers. She went on to say that she
>always felt like snatching the book out of thier hands, and replacing it with a
>copy of Madame Bovary, or something.
if she said that she'd like to replace it with a copy of, say,
something by Peake, or Sturgeon, or Heinlein, or Le Guin, or Guy
Gavriel Kay - sure, i can see a point in that, read fantasy written
for adults instead of kids' stuff (although i still wouldn't see what
the damned fuss was about - these are adults, presumably capable of
deciding for themselves what they felt like reading at any given
moment...) but where it starts sticking in my craw is the Madame
Bovary part. this is where it becomes not just replacing juvenile YA
literature with adult literature, but replacing fantasy literature as
a whole with Literature with a capital L and that smacks of both
arrogance and snobbery.
i know what the classics are, thank you very much, lady. if i felt
like reading one of them i would. the reason you'd catch me reading
harry potter (i read the first three books, and then kind of - er -
just lost the connection....) is because i wanted to read harry
potter, not because i didn't know any better and needed to have my
flaubert and my zola and my kafka and my kundera and my camus and my
galsworthy stuffed down my gullet whether i wanted them or not.
gah.
A.
Tim S
> The comedienne Linda Smith recently mentioned[1] that one of the things that
> got on her nerves was adult Harry Potter readers. She went on to say that she
> always felt like snatching the book out of thier hands, and replacing it with
> a copy of Madame Bovary, or something.
> I'd be interested to know RASFC-ers' opinions on this. I disagreed entirely -
> I think well-written books that're aimed primarily at kids can often have a
> lot of attraction for adults too. Imagination, a good plot, something you can
> lose yourself in.
> I'd interested to see what others think.
> CCA:)
> [1] On the UK TV series Room 101, if anyone's wondering.
Well I enjoyed Madame Bovary more than Harry Potter, although 'enjoyed'
isn't quite the right word; 'tolerated', perhaps, would be better. On the
other hand, I enjoyed 'A Bear Called Paddington' more than either.
I don't really see the point in comparisons like this. It's like saying you
took away somebody's pyjamas and gave them a broom instead. The two things
perform entirely different functions.
Tim
Dorothy J Heydt
CCA <sphi...@aol.com> wrote:
>The comedienne Linda Smith recently mentioned[1] that one of the things that
>got on her nerves was adult Harry Potter readers. She went on to say that she
>always felt like snatching the book out of thier hands, and replacing it with a
>copy of Madame Bovary, or something.
>I'd be interested to know RASFC-ers' opinions on this. I disagreed entirely -
>I think well-written books that're aimed primarily at kids can often have a lot
>of attraction for adults too. Imagination, a good plot, something you can lose
>yourself in.
>I'd interested to see what others think.
>CCA:)
>[1] On the UK TV series Room 101, if anyone's wondering.
Well, it all depends on from which end of the forest you are
looking through the trees. I rather like the HP books, they're
getting some interesting character development going, OTOH I
never heard of Linda Smith and don't see why I should've.
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
Sea Wasp
> The comedienne Linda Smith recently mentioned[1] that one of the things that
> got on her nerves was adult Harry Potter readers. She went on to say that she
> always felt like snatching the book out of thier hands, and replacing it with a
> copy of Madame Bovary, or something.
I'd respond by bopping her over the head with Madame Bovary and
taking back my Harry Potter, which is one of my favorite fantasy
series, overall. She (and other similar whingers) are fools. But they
may be the same people that got the New York Times to change the way
they rated the Bestsellers, so that the Harry Potter books didn't stay
on them for the rest of forseeable time. Apparently a lot of "Real
Writers" were feeling bad that this ... KID's BOOK was beating out the
"real literature".
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.htm
Nicola Browne
> The comedienne Linda Smith recently mentioned[1] that one of the things that
> got on her nerves was adult Harry Potter readers. She went on to say that she
> always felt like snatching the book out of thier hands, and replacing it with a
> copy of Madame Bovary, or something.
>
Linda Smith is usually very funny - especially on the radio.
There's nothing I can say about adults reading HP that would not read
like sour grapes, smell like sour grapes and in fact would almost
certainly be sour grapes : )
Its interesting that some of my friends who've read it - wouldn't ever
read fantasy but will read a phenomenon. I wonder what that says about
protocols?
Nicky
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Chris Johnson
> a lot of attraction for adults too. Imagination, a good plot, something
> you can lose yourself in.
> I'd interested to see what others think.
Harry Potter may be largely empty calories, but in certain ways it is
very well written. I don't mean originality or ingenuity as it's
virtually pastiche in some places, and it's no more adult than most of
its readers- but the prose is wonderfully transparent and it MOVES well.
I call that functionally good writing.
It's like judging chocolate truffles by food value and insisting
they're much worse than, say, tofu or liver. If you bog down too much in
brooding over nutrition you disqualify yourself entirely as a gourmet. I
speak as someone who has eaten french fries deep-fried in 100% rendered
beef fat- and got the idea not from McDonald's, but from a John McPhee
short about a reclusive genius four-star chef. "We render all our beef
fat. It is extraordinarily unhealthy, but pommes-frites cooked in this
develop a wonderful golden brown color and nutty flavor, perfect
texture.." (paraphrasing)
Harry Potter is 'extraordinarily unhealthy' by literature standards,
but snack on it sometime. There are a lot of people who would have to
improve in order to attain such heights of effortlessness and fluidity.
If you're asking whether it's GOOD you may be asking quite the wrong
question.
Chris Johnson
Brian M. Scott
>The comedienne Linda Smith recently mentioned[1] that one of the things that
>got on her nerves was adult Harry Potter readers. She went on to say that she
>always felt like snatching the book out of thier hands, and replacing it with a
>copy of Madame Bovary, or something.
>I'd be interested to know RASFC-ers' opinions on this. I disagreed entirely -
>I think well-written books that're aimed primarily at kids can often have a lot
>of attraction for adults too. Imagination, a good plot, something you can lose
>yourself in.
>I'd interested to see what others think.
She's a snob, and probably an ignorant one at that. I've no use
mysefl for Harry Potter -- I couldn't get past the Dursleys,
frankly -- but much of the best fiction I know (and even more of
my favorite fiction!) is nominally for youngsters.
Brian
Sea Wasp
>
> Harry Potter is 'extraordinarily unhealthy' by literature standards,
> but snack on it sometime. There are a lot of people who would have to
> improve in order to attain such heights of effortlessness and fluidity.
> If you're asking whether it's GOOD you may be asking quite the wrong
> question.
That kind of thing is so pompously elitist it staggers me. Harry
Potter is better than most o' the stuff out there, and about a
thousand times better than most of the so-called "literature". If
someone could actually DEMONSTRATE these so called superior literary
qualities it'd be one thing, but they can't.
m.baro
Brian M. Scott wrote:
>
>[...] but much of the best fiction I know (and even more of
> my favorite fiction!) is nominally for youngsters.
>
Same goes here, actually. I'm still heavily influenced by the John Rowe
Townsend books we had to read for middle school- _Gumble's Yard_ and
_King Creature Come_. Haven't touched them for years and years tho.
--
- Min
artist for sale! artist for sale!
http://treedweller.net
David Friedman
"Nicola Browne" <nicky.m...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Its interesting that some of my friends who've read it - wouldn't ever
> read fantasy but will read a phenomenon. I wonder what that says about
> protocols?
You start a book you know nothing about, it doesn't make any sense, so
you put it down.
You start a book that everybody is reading. It doesn't make any sense.
It occurs to you that if so many other people like it perhaps you are
missing something, or judging it too hastily, so you keep reading. And
besides, if you do get through it, you will understand what everyone
else is talking about.
Dan Goodman
> The comedienne Linda Smith recently mentioned[1] that one of the
> things that got on her nerves was adult Harry Potter readers. She
> went on to say that she always felt like snatching the book out of
> thier hands, and replacing it with a copy of Madame Bovary, or
> something.
There is one person qualified to decide what I read. That's me.
That aside: I find it easy to think of Young Adult books whose
protagonists are emotionally more mature than Madame Bovary, and which
require more emotional maturity to read than _Madame Bovary_ does.
Anything by Cynthia Voight, except possibly _Jackaroo_. Anything by Peter
Dickinson in that category. Anything by John Christopher in that
category. Patrice Kindl, _Owl in Love_.
For younger ages, the _Redwall_ books.
> I'd be interested to know RASFC-ers' opinions on this. I
> disagreed entirely - I think well-written books that're aimed
> primarily at kids can often have a lot of attraction for adults too.
> Imagination, a good plot, something you can lose yourself in.
Note that at least the first Harry Potter book is aimed at people who
aren't nearly as used to fiction as I was at that age. A fair amount of
childrens' fantasy seems to be aimed above that level of fiction-reading
skill -- for example, anything by Diana Wynne Jones. (Note: "fiction-
reading skill" does not mean either intelligence or skill at taking IQ
tests.)
There are a lot of adults at that level. If they consider the Harry
Potter books worth reading, more power to them.
--
Dan Goodman
Journal http://dsgood.blogspot.com or
http://www.livejournal.com/users/dsgood/
Whatever you wish for me, may you have twice as much.
Dan Goodman
>
> I intensely dislike people who insist on labelling certain writing as
> 'better' than others. It's different, that's all.
I would say that some fiction _is_ better than others. A well-researched
historical romance whose characters think and act like people of their time
is better than a past-setting novel of any kind which is sloppily
researched and whose characters act like late 20th/early 21st century
Americans.
Eric Jarvis
>
> I have, for example, read most of Doctor Seuss.
>
Read? I'm desperately trying to persuade my former bass player to get on
with producing mp3s of our gig recordings so that I can prove I've SUNG
Green Eggs and Ham at a rock concert.
Doctor Seuss is great literature. Kind of minimalist as surrealism goes,
and in my view all the better for it. :)
--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Dan Goodman
Now, now. It could be pure coincidence that the New York Times broke
children's fiction out into its own list. (I was going to continue this,
but my giggling interferes.)
The only bestseller list I pay much attention to currently is USA Today's
-- top fifty in their Thursday paper, top three hundred on their website.
They have all books competing against each other -- fiction or nonfiction,
paperback or hardcover. So I can see not only how Harry Potter books sell
compared to Anne Rice's _Foundation and Vampire_ or the latest culinary
mystery, but how they compare to _The Light Socket Cookbook_ and Ann
Coulter's _Nine Billion Years of Liberal Treason_.
Brian M. Scott
<nicky.m...@btinternet.com> wrote:
[...]
[Harry Potter}
>Its interesting that some of my friends who've read it - wouldn't ever
>read fantasy but will read a phenomenon. I wonder what that says about
>protocols?
That most phenomena of this sort are pretty easy reading?
Brian
Joshua P. Hill
>The comedienne Linda Smith recently mentioned[1] that one of the things that
>got on her nerves was adult Harry Potter readers. She went on to say that she
>always felt like snatching the book out of thier hands, and replacing it with a
>copy of Madame Bovary, or something.
>I'd be interested to know RASFC-ers' opinions on this. I disagreed entirely -
>I think well-written books that're aimed primarily at kids can often have a lot
>of attraction for adults too. Imagination, a good plot, something you can lose
>yourself in.
>I'd interested to see what others think.
I agree completely. I don't place the Potter books on a par with
Madame Bovary, certainly, but that has nothing to do with the fact
that they're children's books or fantasy books or what have you --
Huckleberry Finn is a kids' book, and Alice in Wonderland is a fantasy
book, and neither need cede pride of place to Madame Bovary.
The Potter Books are clever, fun, tightly paced, and engaging. But
many admirers of literary fiction are turned off by their mediocre (if
that) style -- too many adverbs, passages that aren't quite
grammatical. And others just don't seem to "get" them. I recently had
a debate with an extremely literate Potter hater on another newsgroup,
and it became apparent after he had critiqued the opening of the first
book that he didn't understand Rowling at all -- he interpreted as
errors jokes that just about any kid would get and enjoy, and he
didn't seem to grasp the dynamics of Rowling's setup.
--
Josh
To reply by email, delete "REMOVETHIS" from the address line.
Eric Jarvis
It depends entirely on what you want to get out of reading a book. If all
you want is to be entertained then there is no possibility of ever rating
books other than as entertaining or not entertaining, it's an either or.
However there are things one can look at as possible demonstrations of
literary quality if one wants.
For instance there is the quality of prose. Partly that will always be a
matter of taste, some people like prose to be sparse and evocative, other
like it to be dense and complex. Either way there is a clear difference in
quality between the prose of somebody who takes little care over it and a
writer who works hard at a precise wording. To give three examples, all
writers I love reading:
Robert Rankin is careless of his prose, it can be somewhat erratic. Not
that it matters as long as he stays weird and hilarious, but it isn't even
trying to be great literature.
Doris Lessing often packs an immense amount into very few words, what
looks like a simple sentence can end up echoing through the next few
pages. She's just simply better at picking exactly the right word than
almost anyone around.
Samuel Delany takes some wonderful liberties with the language, with
passages that are packed with poetry and imagery and almost no advancement
of the plot whatsoever. It's writing that one can float adrift in for
hours without feeling the need to come up for air.
There is no doubt that some writers simply choose their words better than
others. I'd say that's a factor that could justifiably be seen as literary
merit.
Another aspect is content. If one accepts that there can be a purpose to
writing other than entertainment then the number of ideas that are
contained in a piece are a matter of literary merit. How well they are
conveyed, how consistently they are conveyed, or how subtly and precisely
they are conveyed can also be considered important.
I don't think that has to be conscious. Jack London, for example, is a
writer who infuses his books with his ideas and values in a way that often
seems entirely unconscious (and sometimes not). Terry Pratchett is
another. There is just more of the writer present on the page than many
other writers can manage.
I, like many people, enjoy getting value for money. I consider a book that
contains many ideas to be better value than one that contains only a few.
Not that I'm convinced that I understand the normal definitions of
literary merit, and not that I'm convinced that there is a case for such a
thing being independent of the reader. However that's a far cry from
saying it doesn't exist.
--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
all these years I've waited for the revolution
and all we end up getting is spin
Joshua P. Hill
I can't say I agree with you there. There's a whole academic
establishment devoted to the explication of great works of literature.
And in cases like this, it's fairly easy to demonstrate the difference
-- I did it a while back when someone questioned whether Dickens wrote
better than Stephen King.
David Tomlin
> I haven't read Harry Potter, although my wife and children have. But I
> would have said that, in general, good children's books are good books,
> hence worth reading by adults, subject to the usual qualificants about
> varying tastes. I have, for example, read most of Doctor Seuss.
You didn't read Doctor Seuss as a child? You should sue your parents.
:-)
IMO no child should be without Docter Seuss and Kipling's _Just So
Stories_.
Some time ago I read the Narnia books, in despair at having used up
all of Lewis's other fiction.
R. L.
>Its interesting that some of my friends who've read it - wouldn't ever
>read fantasy but will read a phenomenon. I wonder what that says about
>protocols?
Well, for one thing, maybe the very common protocol of 'school stories'
carried them them through Potter, whether they understood a 'fantasy'
protocol or not. Maybe some of them learned fantasy protocol along the
way.
And vice versa, fantasy readers being carried along through the school
stuff.
People already familiar with both genres separately, saw them
surprisingly combined (alio) while still knowing what sort of plot to
expect (idem).
Fairytale, Joseph Campbell pattern might be counted as a third.
Put all this together -- and it helped produce the phenomenon. As with
Star Wars.
R.L.
--
RL at houseboatonthestyx
Heather Jones
>
> The comedienne Linda Smith recently mentioned[1] that one of the things that
> got on her nerves was adult Harry Potter readers. She went on to say that she
> always felt like snatching the book out of thier hands, and replacing it with a
> copy of Madame Bovary, or something.
> I'd be interested to know RASFC-ers' opinions on this.
I think that anybody who's spending time getting aggravated
by what I'm reading deserves the aggravation. She probably
also doesn't like the music I listen to, my favorite
flowers, or how I name my cats. But that's her problem, not mine.
Heather
--
*****
Heather Rose Jones
hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
*****
Brian M. Scott
<w...@ericjarvis.co.uk> wrote:
>Sea Wasp wrote:
>> Chris Johnson wrote:
>> > Harry Potter is 'extraordinarily unhealthy' by literature standards,
>> > but snack on it sometime. There are a lot of people who would have to
>> > improve in order to attain such heights of effortlessness and fluidity.
>> > If you're asking whether it's GOOD you may be asking quite the wrong
>> > question.
>> That kind of thing is so pompously elitist it staggers me. Harry
>> Potter is better than most o' the stuff out there, and about a
>> thousand times better than most of the so-called "literature". If
>> someone could actually DEMONSTRATE these so called superior literary
>> qualities it'd be one thing, but they can't.
>It depends entirely on what you want to get out of reading a book. If all
>you want is to be entertained then there is no possibility of ever rating
>books other than as entertaining or not entertaining, it's an either or.
No, it's a continuum.
>However there are things one can look at as possible demonstrations of
>literary quality if one wants.
>For instance there is the quality of prose. Partly that will always be a
>matter of taste, some people like prose to be sparse and evocative, other
>like it to be dense and complex. Either way there is a clear difference in
>quality between the prose of somebody who takes little care over it and a
>writer who works hard at a precise wording.
Not always; some just have the knack.
[...]
>There is no doubt that some writers simply choose their words better than
>others. I'd say that's a factor that could justifiably be seen as literary
>merit.
Or as a matter of taste. While I think that there are at least
some gross gradations of merit, I also think that such judgements
rely much more on individual taste than is often acknowledged.
>Another aspect is content. If one accepts that there can be a purpose to
>writing other than entertainment then the number of ideas that are
>contained in a piece are a matter of literary merit.
I'm assuming that you mean 'writing fiction' or 'written
fiction', but even on that assumption your conclusion doesn't
follow. There is no doubt that at least some writers have other
intentions; Ayn Rand is an obvious extreme example. This does
not, however, make the number of ideas contained in a piece a
matter of literary merit; it just means that it is of interest to
some authors and readers.
>How well they are
>conveyed, how consistently they are conveyed, or how subtly and precisely
>they are conveyed can also be considered important.
But no one is obliged to consider this (or not to consider it) a
matter of literary merit.
[...]
>Not that I'm convinced that I understand the normal definitions of
>literary merit, and not that I'm convinced that there is a case for such a
>thing being independent of the reader. However that's a far cry from
>saying it doesn't exist.
If different readers have different notions of literary merit --
and they do -- that in itself is evidence suggesting that
literary merit in the abstract doesn't exist. The fact that some
can say 'X is good, but I don't like it' points somewhat in the
opposite direction.
Brian
Shelly
Not everyone reads that way. I used to be like my mother. She never didn't
finish a book. She was reading one back in the '70s that she didn't like and I
kept asking her how it was, and she kept saying Not so good. But she kept
reading, so I asked her why and she said, maybe it would get better. And this
wasn't a book like Harry Potter that everyone was reading, just a book she got
at the library that looked interesting. She kept saying the same thing til the
last time I asked her, about 3 pages from the end. She didn't like it after she
finished it either. But she read the whole thing.
About 3 or so years ago, I realized I had way more books to read than I would
ever have time for. I'm fussy about what I choose to read, so I'm rarely
disappointed, but even so, there are books I can't get into. So now they get 30
or so pages to engage me, no matter how many people love them. If not by then,
I stop reading. It's the books that I can't decide about after 30 pages that
are the real frustration, and some end up being books I enjoy having read and
some not.
I don't read Harry Potter cuz it's fantasy, which I rarely read and a series
and I don't want to get into another series now. I've got way too many here
already waiting for me to read as it is. So I can't comment on their merits,
except for what they do and that's a good thing. They get people to read.
Shelly
Wildepad
<josh442R...@snet.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 00:21:06 GMT, Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
>
>>Chris Johnson wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Harry Potter is 'extraordinarily unhealthy' by literature standards,
>>> but snack on it sometime. There are a lot of people who would have to
>>> improve in order to attain such heights of effortlessness and fluidity.
>>> If you're asking whether it's GOOD you may be asking quite the wrong
>>> question.
>>
>> That kind of thing is so pompously elitist it staggers me. Harry
>>Potter is better than most o' the stuff out there, and about a
>>thousand times better than most of the so-called "literature". If
>>someone could actually DEMONSTRATE these so called superior literary
>>qualities it'd be one thing, but they can't.
>
>I can't say I agree with you there. There's a whole academic
>establishment devoted to the explication of great works of literature.
But a hundred years from now the academics will be embracing HP as
'literature' and will be able to explain, after careful examination,
why it ranks with MB and the other classics.
>And in cases like this, it's fairly easy to demonstrate the difference
>-- I did it a while back when someone questioned whether Dickens wrote
>better than Stephen King.
But does it matter?
SAMK
> The comedienne Linda Smith recently mentioned[1] that one of the things that
> got on her nerves was adult Harry Potter readers. She went on to say that she
> always felt like snatching the book out of thier hands, and replacing it with a
> copy of Madame Bovary, or something.
> I'd be interested to know RASFC-ers' opinions on this. I disagreed entirely -
> I think well-written books that're aimed primarily at kids can often have a lot
> of attraction for adults too. Imagination, a good plot, something you can lose
> yourself in.
> I'd interested to see what others think.
> CCA:)
> [1] On the UK TV series Room 101, if anyone's wondering.
I think if she tried, she'd find out what *else* a Harry
Potter tome is good for. Or find Madame Bovary in a
highly uncomfortable place. I spent many years reading
crap under the guise of "great literature" and my reading
time is for my enjoyment. If she doesn't like it, she
can go back to staring at the tube like the rest of the
morons in the world.
SAMK
David Friedman
davt...@hotmail.com (David Tomlin) wrote:
> David Friedman wrote
>
> > I haven't read Harry Potter, although my wife and children have. But I
> > would have said that, in general, good children's books are good books,
> > hence worth reading by adults, subject to the usual qualificants about
> > varying tastes. I have, for example, read most of Doctor Seuss.
>
> You didn't read Doctor Seuss as a child? You should sue your parents.
> :-)
Why do you assume I didn't read it as a child? The books are well worth
rereading.
> IMO no child should be without Docter Seuss and Kipling's _Just So
> Stories_.
I don't remember how early I first read the _Just So Stories_, but I
discovered Kipling's poetry when I was about ten.
> Some time ago I read the Narnia books, in despair at having used up
> all of Lewis's other fiction.
And did you sue your parents for not providing them to you earlier?
David Friedman
Eric Jarvis <w...@ericjarvis.co.uk> wrote:
> David Friedman wrote:
> >
> > I have, for example, read most of Doctor Seuss.
> >
>
> Read? I'm desperately trying to persuade my former bass player to get on
> with producing mp3s of our gig recordings so that I can prove I've SUNG
> Green Eggs and Ham at a rock concert.
>
> Doctor Seuss is great literature. Kind of minimalist as surrealism goes,
> and in my view all the better for it. :)
Yes.
My daughter learned to read largely from _Hop on Pop_, which I consider
a subversive piece of literature. The instigator was my wife Betty, and
for a while I was working on something that started
Get Bet
Get Bet in a Net
But I never finished it.
Stephen Bargdill
Not that I have anything against potter or jkrowlings (which hasn't
always been the case--in the recent past i had succumbed to the
fundamnetalist christian ravings that the books encourage witchcraft
and devil worship...but that is another story entirely and i won't go
there unless asked)
What amazes me about Harry Potter is the jealosuy these books have
stirred up in the literary world. Is harry Potter really fiction worth
reading? The people that seem to be berating it, I think, are just
incredibly jealous of the success these books have had. Who wouldn't
want a movie deal from AOL Time Warner for their novel, or a global
marketing plan from Coca-Cola?
Okay, I know there are those out there who would turn their noses up
at that. But it's a lot of money to sneeze at. AOL Time Warner came to
me the other day and said, "Hey, when you finish that first book, we
want to put it on the big screen and turn it into a franchise. Is that
okay with you?"
Look....at that moment in time, if I didn't have a pen in hand, I'd
cut my wrists and sign in blood. "Is that good enough? Sorry, no pen."
Is that like selling my soul to the devil? No...just the almighty
dollar. And, even though my writing is not done through a love of
money as much as it is done for the love of the craft and of story, it
doesn't mean I'm not going to turn down the money either. It sure
would help with the grocery bill and the diapers I have to buy for my
daughter.
Brian Henderson
wrote:
> Harry Potter is 'extraordinarily unhealthy' by literature standards,
>but snack on it sometime. There are a lot of people who would have to
>improve in order to attain such heights of effortlessness and fluidity.
>If you're asking whether it's GOOD you may be asking quite the wrong
>question.
If we had to wait for 'healthy' literature, I fear we'd all starve.
There is painfully little decent fiction in the world, the vast
majority is, as Sturgeon's Law states, crap. Harry Potter is no
different than any other book in that regard, but it certainly is
entertaining and memorable. That puts it head and shoulders above
most of the other drek on the bookstore shelves.
BrainsAkimbo
> The comedienne Linda Smith recently mentioned[1] that one of the things that
> got on her nerves was adult Harry Potter readers. She went on to say that she
> always felt like snatching the book out of thier hands, and replacing it with a
> copy of Madame Bovary, or something.
Take it away, CS Lewis:
"Critics who treat "adult" as a term of approval
instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot
be adults themselves. To be concerned about being
grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown
up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these
things are the marks of childhood and adolescence...When
I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have
been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that
I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man, I put
away childish things, including the fear of childishness
and the desire to be very grown up."
What else is to add?
-- BA
my opinions and nobody else's
David Friedman
Brian Henderson <BrianL.H...@NOSPAM.verizon.net> wrote:
> If we had to wait for 'healthy' literature, I fear we'd all starve.
> There is painfully little decent fiction in the world, the vast
> majority is, as Sturgeon's Law states, crap.
A tiny minority of all the literature in the world is still a lot of
books.
Chris Johnson
Wildepad <capu...@nospammies.hesenergy.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 21:18:16 -0500, Joshua P. Hill
> <josh442R...@snet.net> wrote:
> >On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 00:21:06 GMT, Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
> >>Chris Johnson wrote:
> >>> Harry Potter is 'extraordinarily unhealthy' by literature standards,
> >>> but snack on it sometime. There are a lot of people who would have to
> >>> improve in order to attain such heights of effortlessness and fluidity.
> >>> If you're asking whether it's GOOD you may be asking quite the wrong
> >>> question.
> >> That kind of thing is so pompously elitist it staggers me. Harry
> >>Potter is better than most o' the stuff out there, and about a
> >>thousand times better than most of the so-called "literature". If
> >>someone could actually DEMONSTRATE these so called superior literary
> >>qualities it'd be one thing, but they can't.
> >I can't say I agree with you there. There's a whole academic
> >establishment devoted to the explication of great works of literature.
> But a hundred years from now the academics will be embracing HP as
> 'literature' and will be able to explain, after careful examination,
> why it ranks with MB and the other classics.
No, I think not- unless you use a definition of 'classic' that covers
pop phenomena like Mickey Spillane (in another genre entirely, but at a
similar level of surface appeal vs. literature quality)
It's an extraordinarily complicated question- for instance,
Bradbury's 'The Martian Chronicles' in some ways is far more akin to
capital L Literature than HP. Its language is poetic, its concepts far
from simplistic, its worldview a lot richer than the simple heroism or
'oh look, the real villain isn't the obvious one, that one had personal
reasons for looking villainous' (granted, that's only the first book
there). However, HP _reads_ a hell of a lot better, I thought, than the
Bradbury- and in fact in its simpler way its prose is less stilted,
realer. Where do you put the value judgements? Do you decide that Mickey
Spillane is even more Literature because it's closer to the way certain
real life people think?
Harry Potter isn't really for academics, unless it's really 'publish
or perish'. It's not about being a 'classic'. It's about being really,
really approachable, it's about selling a lot of books, it's about being
a really appealing, entertaining read. There _are_ other values to be
had. It's unreasonable to ascribe all virtues to Rowling. Isn't
bestseller status enough?
Chris Johnson
Mary Gentle
nicky.m...@btinternet.com (Nicola Browne) wrote:
> "CCA" <sphi...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20031122155859...@mb-m20.aol.com
>
> > The comedienne Linda Smith recently mentioned[1] that one of the
> > things that
> > got on her nerves was adult Harry Potter readers. She went on to say
> > that she
> > always felt like snatching the book out of thier hands, and replacing
> > it with a
> > copy of Madame Bovary, or something.
> >
> Linda Smith is usually very funny - especially on the radio.
> There's nothing I can say about adults reading HP that would not read
> like sour grapes, smell like sour grapes and in fact would almost
> certainly be sour grapes : )
>
> Its interesting that some of my friends who've read it - wouldn't ever
> read fantasy but will read a phenomenon. I wonder what that says about
> protocols?
It has school story protocols, which most of the UK will have been exposed
to - can't account for the rest of the world. :)
Nicola Browne
news:snl0svogv0778kudh...@4ax.com
>
> If we had to wait for 'healthy' literature, I fear we'd all starve.
> There is painfully little decent fiction in the world, the vast
> majority is, as Sturgeon's Law states, crap. Harry Potter is no
> different than any other book in that regard, but it certainly is
> entertaining and memorable. That puts it head and shoulders above
> most of the other drek on the bookstore shelves.
I don't know what constitutes decent fiction for you but I do resent
the view that everything that doesn't fit within a narrow aesthetic
judgement is 'crap'. Actually it makes my blood boil.
It seems a commonplace to say that so much fiction out there is crap -
but the threshold for publication is so high I don't know where the
drek is but I'm not finding it.
There's a lot of stuff I don't much like or which doesn't do what
I want a book to do but - crap- no, not for a long time.
Nicky
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Tim S
> CCA wrote:
>
>> The comedienne Linda Smith recently mentioned[1] that one of the things that
>> got on her nerves was adult Harry Potter readers. She went on to say that
>> she
>> always felt like snatching the book out of thier hands, and replacing it with
>> a
>> copy of Madame Bovary, or something.
>> I'd be interested to know RASFC-ers' opinions on this. I disagreed entirely
>> -
>> I think well-written books that're aimed primarily at kids can often have a
>> lot
>> of attraction for adults too. Imagination, a good plot, something you can
>> lose
>> yourself in.
>> I'd interested to see what others think.
>> CCA:)
>> [1] On the UK TV series Room 101, if anyone's wondering.
>
> I think if she tried, she'd find out what *else* a Harry
> Potter tome is good for. Or find Madame Bovary in a
> highly uncomfortable place. I spent many years reading
> crap under the guise of "great literature"
This is exactly the same attitude as Linda Smith's. Just because _you_ don't
like it doesn't mean it's "crap".
Tim
Anna Mazzoldi
> Not that I have anything against potter or jkrowlings (which hasn't
> always been the case--in the recent past i had succumbed to the
> fundamnetalist christian ravings that the books encourage witchcraft
> and devil worship...but that is another story entirely and i won't go
> there unless asked)
Will you go there if asked?
/me asks
--
Anna Mazzoldi
Cornitologo (sm):
Etologo che studia l'adulterio tra uccelli
Sea Wasp
> Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote in news:3FBFEDA4...@wizvax.net:
>
>
>>CCA wrote:
>>
>>>The comedienne Linda Smith recently mentioned[1] that one of the
>>>things that got on her nerves was adult Harry Potter readers. She
>>>went on to say that she always felt like snatching the book out of
>>>thier hands, and replacing it with a copy of Madame Bovary, or
>>>something.
>>
>
>
>> I'd respond by bopping her over the head with Madame Bovary and
>>taking back my Harry Potter, which is one of my favorite fantasy
>>series, overall. She (and other similar whingers) are fools. But they
>>may be the same people that got the New York Times to change the way
>>they rated the Bestsellers, so that the Harry Potter books didn't stay
>>on them for the rest of forseeable time. Apparently a lot of "Real
>>Writers" were feeling bad that this ... KID's BOOK was beating out the
>>"real literature".
>>
>
> Now, now. It could be pure coincidence that the New York Times broke
> children's fiction out into its own list. (I was going to continue this,
> but my giggling interferes.)
I was wondering if you were typing that with a straight face.
>
> The only bestseller list I pay much attention to currently is USA Today's
> -- top fifty in their Thursday paper, top three hundred on their website.
> They have all books competing against each other -- fiction or nonfiction,
> paperback or hardcover. So I can see not only how Harry Potter books sell
> compared to Anne Rice's _Foundation and Vampire_
Heh. I remember reading that title in another vampire novel; the
protagonist has just realized they've been changed to a vampire and
they're having a nightmare in which they're going through a library
where ALL the books are vampire novels -- Rise and Fall of the Roman
Vampire, Foundation and Vampire, the Vampire Strikes Back, etc...
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.htm
Joshua P. Hill
<capu...@nospammies.hesenergy.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 21:18:16 -0500, Joshua P. Hill
><josh442R...@snet.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 00:21:06 GMT, Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Chris Johnson wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Harry Potter is 'extraordinarily unhealthy' by literature standards,
>>>> but snack on it sometime. There are a lot of people who would have to
>>>> improve in order to attain such heights of effortlessness and fluidity.
>>>> If you're asking whether it's GOOD you may be asking quite the wrong
>>>> question.
>>>
>>> That kind of thing is so pompously elitist it staggers me. Harry
>>>Potter is better than most o' the stuff out there, and about a
>>>thousand times better than most of the so-called "literature". If
>>>someone could actually DEMONSTRATE these so called superior literary
>>>qualities it'd be one thing, but they can't.
>>
>>I can't say I agree with you there. There's a whole academic
>>establishment devoted to the explication of great works of literature.
>
>But a hundred years from now the academics will be embracing HP as
>'literature' and will be able to explain, after careful examination,
>why it ranks with MB and the other classics.
The odds against something becoming a classic are fairly astronomical,
so it's probably safer to predict that something won't become one than
that it will. My own take on the Potter books is that they'll sit next
to the Tarzan or Oz books -- enjoyable kids' books that are still read
today, but that aren't comparable to books like Huckleberry Finn,
which manifest an altogether different order of genius and craft.
>>And in cases like this, it's fairly easy to demonstrate the difference
>>-- I did it a while back when someone questioned whether Dickens wrote
>>better than Stephen King.
>
>But does it matter?
I think so. I mean, nobody is going to agree on every matter of taste,
and there's always someone who likes/dislikes something no matter how
much others like/dislilke it, but I don't think many people would deny
that some books are better than others -- more enjoyable, more
meaningful -- and we all use such judgements to guide us in our
reading choices. Great books, to my way of thinking, are simply books
that are so damned good that they're worth reading even though they
may have been written 50 or 100 or 1000 years ago and present special
difficulties to the reader. Frequently, the reader has to expand to
encompass the book, partly to bridge difficulties of time and place,
and partly to encompass the sophistication of the writer's thought.
But in my experience, there's a commensurate reward.
I came across this quote a few weeks ago, and I think it puts it well:
"People continue to believe that fiction as such has some
transformative power. At its best, the novel does indeed have such
authority. There are stories, scenes, cadences in the great novelists
- Dickens, Flaubert, Tolstoy, Proust, they scarcely need naming - that
become part of one's own sense of life and death."
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/entertainment/books/articles/7609451
Harry Potter is fun, but it doesn't have that level of gravitas, it
doesn't become an essential part of who we are, like Hamlet or Ahab or
the jabberwock, or jousting with windmills, or "Can I have more, sir"?
Sea Wasp
> Sea Wasp wrote:
>
>>Chris Johnson wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Harry Potter is 'extraordinarily unhealthy' by literature standards,
>>>but snack on it sometime. There are a lot of people who would have to
>>>improve in order to attain such heights of effortlessness and fluidity.
>>>If you're asking whether it's GOOD you may be asking quite the wrong
>>>question.
>>
>> That kind of thing is so pompously elitist it staggers me. Harry
>>Potter is better than most o' the stuff out there, and about a
>>thousand times better than most of the so-called "literature". If
>>someone could actually DEMONSTRATE these so called superior literary
>>qualities it'd be one thing, but they can't.
>>
>
>
> It depends entirely on what you want to get out of reading a book. If all
> you want is to be entertained then there is no possibility of ever rating
> books other than as entertaining or not entertaining, it's an either or.
>
Entertainment is, to me, the primary and only requisite
characteristic. Did it entertain me? If not, it's a failure,
immediately and totally. The prose could be very nicely done (by
whatever standards I might have), and the author could have put lots
of thought into it, but if it doesn't entertain, it's wasted my time.
> However there are things one can look at as possible demonstrations of
> literary quality if one wants.
>
> For instance there is the quality of prose. Partly that will always be a
> matter of taste, some people like prose to be sparse and evocative, other
> like it to be dense and complex. Either way there is a clear difference in
> quality between the prose of somebody who takes little care over it and a
> writer who works hard at a precise wording. To give three examples, all
> writers I love reading:
>
> Robert Rankin is careless of his prose, it can be somewhat erratic. Not
> that it matters as long as he stays weird and hilarious, but it isn't even
> trying to be great literature.
>
> Doris Lessing often packs an immense amount into very few words, what
> looks like a simple sentence can end up echoing through the next few
> pages. She's just simply better at picking exactly the right word than
> almost anyone around.
My problem with this is that often you can find someone who gets
called a great prose stylist by one person, and is denigrated for
their terrible prose by another. In extreme cases I'm sure you can
find agreement, but as a general rule it's like characterization; your
great characters are my cardboard. The "exactly right word" for you
may not work for me, thereby making her prose clunky for me while it's
excellent for you.
So it becomes non-objective -- opinion -- which means that aside from
extreme cases you can't actually say "good" prose or "bad" prose.
>
> Samuel Delany takes some wonderful liberties with the language, with
> passages that are packed with poetry and imagery and almost no advancement
> of the plot whatsoever. It's writing that one can float adrift in for
> hours without feeling the need to come up for air.
While if that is an ACCURATE description of his writing, that may
explain why I can't stand him at all -- though my experience of Delany
is that it's simply stupendously boring. The only author I can recall
who has had that sort of effect on me through prose is Umberto Eco.
However, the lack of plot progress was a killer. His prose was SO
pretty that it actually was too much; it kept me from paying attention
to the story.
>
> Another aspect is content. If one accepts that there can be a purpose to
> writing other than entertainment then the number of ideas that are
> contained in a piece are a matter of literary merit. How well they are
> conveyed, how consistently they are conveyed, or how subtly and precisely
> they are conveyed can also be considered important.
It could be, yes. But evaluating ideas itself is so fraught with
opinion that I find it pretty hard to find a nice objective method of
evaluating a story. (how does one define "idea" so you can count them
up? Consistency, yes, I'll grant that as an objective standard)
>
> I don't think that has to be conscious. Jack London, for example, is a
> writer who infuses his books with his ideas and values in a way that often
> seems entirely unconscious (and sometimes not). Terry Pratchett is
> another. There is just more of the writer present on the page than many
> other writers can manage.
On the other hand, a number of people consider the writer infusing
his ideas and values into the book to sometimes be a PROBLEM rather
than an advantage. This is of course more common if the writer is
using a sledgehammer technique and the reader doesn't like the ideas
as conveyed (classic example of "rates high on consistency, low on
subtlety" being Ayn Rand).
>
> I, like many people, enjoy getting value for money. I consider a book that
> contains many ideas to be better value than one that contains only a few.
>
> Not that I'm convinced that I understand the normal definitions of
> literary merit, and not that I'm convinced that there is a case for such a
> thing being independent of the reader. However that's a far cry from
> saying it doesn't exist.
>
Well, it does in the sense that the general USE of such objections to
people reading X -- whether X is Harry Potter, SF in general, comic
books, whatever -- includes an assumption of objective independence
from the reader for the "literary quality". You couldn't really say
"How can you read that trash" (to put it bluntly) unless you are going
under the assumption that, well, EVERYONE knows that this is trash.
Joshua P. Hill
Too, I don't think that there's any merit in that schoolmarmy
medicinal version of literature. The great works are great because of
their quality, not because they weren't fun to read. Some are now
difficult for us because they were written at other times, but Dumas
and Dickens would have been astonished had anyone suggested to them
that their works would benefit if they removed "popular" elements like
plot.
Irina Rempt
> Entertainment is, to me, the primary and only requisite
> characteristic. Did it entertain me? If not, it's a failure,
> immediately and totally. The prose could be very nicely done (by
> whatever standards I might have), and the author could have put lots
> of thought into it, but if it doesn't entertain, it's wasted my time.
I thought for a moment that you were saying "if it doesn't entertain
*me*, it's a bad book". Or *was* that what you were saying, and do you
really think your taste is the only valid one for everyone in the whole
world and anyone who likes something else is just plain wrong?
Irina
--
Vesta veran, terna puran, farenin. http://www.valdyas.org/irina/
Beghinnen can ick, volherden will' ick, volbringhen sal ick.
http://www.valdyas.org/~irina/foundobjects/ Latest: 18-Nov-2003
Sea Wasp
> On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 00:21:06 GMT, Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Chris Johnson wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Harry Potter is 'extraordinarily unhealthy' by literature standards,
>>>but snack on it sometime. There are a lot of people who would have to
>>>improve in order to attain such heights of effortlessness and fluidity.
>>>If you're asking whether it's GOOD you may be asking quite the wrong
>>>question.
>>
>> That kind of thing is so pompously elitist it staggers me. Harry
>>Potter is better than most o' the stuff out there, and about a
>>thousand times better than most of the so-called "literature". If
>>someone could actually DEMONSTRATE these so called superior literary
>>qualities it'd be one thing, but they can't.
>
>
> I can't say I agree with you there. There's a whole academic
> establishment devoted to the explication of great works of literature.
Which hasn't managed to convince me. There is a whole set of
professionals dedicated to predicting your future from the stars, and
they have some pretty complicated rules for doing so. Many people
would say, however, that astrology is bunk.
IME, while there are many "great literature" pieces that ARE, IMCGO,
great books, there are just as many that are dull, boring wastes of
time without any particular redeeming values. Moreover, I have seen
the exact same prose praised for its high quality by one person, and
denigrated for its low and ineffective word choice by others. I've
seen characters called amazingly convincing and realistic by one
person, and called cardboard by another.
Except at the very far extremes, I don't think there's a decent
objective way to assess "literature" which would be (A) accepted by
the current literary community, (B) include all or most of the
currently accepted "classics", and (C) manage to, say, successfully
exclude some particular popular choice, such as Harry Potter, from all
such lists.
> And in cases like this, it's fairly easy to demonstrate the difference
> -- I did it a while back when someone questioned whether Dickens wrote
> better than Stephen King.
Indeed. I would be interested to see that. Have a reference?
David Tomlin
> It occurs to you that if so many other people like it perhaps you are
> missing something, or judging it too hastily, so you keep reading.
That's why I read over a hundred pages of LOTR before giving up.
CCA
>...the Vampire Strikes Back...
Frustratingly, that would be such a good title for my current piece...
CCA:)
--
Family Bites Website and sample chapter at http://www.falboroughhall.co.uk
Shelly
I've been in this type of discussion (argument?) on other boards in the past,
with the discussion getting so contentious, I've started to shy away from the
topic. Or at least, I wait for someone else to say it first.
First, there are some poorly written books out there, formulaic books, books
that a lot of people would call "crap." Even some of the folks who read them
call them that. One of my friends reads "crappy" romances to help her fall
asleep at night. Another reads them and Star Trek books to relieve the stress
of her workday. So I know there are books that most people might label that
way.
Second, there are a lot of "good" books out there I find boring or unreadable.
I find them better written than the "crappy" books I also find boring and
unreadable, but all that means to me is that they don't appeal to me and that
"good" and other qualities are subjective.
I don't like being told what to read. Reading is a personal decision. I'll take
recommendations--and have a 5 page typed list of books I want to read, based on
reviews and recommendations--but the ones I ultimately read are ones I want to
read.
I choose by plot, author, writing style. If I'm not familiar with an author,
even with a good review, I still skim pages in the middle to see if the prose
grabs me. That's my litmus test and 9 times out of 10, it works for me. I
rarely don't enjoy a book I've selected to read.
This is about fiction. For non-fiction, my criteria might differ, especially if
I need to read something to research something I'm writing.
And I certainly think that "decent" is a whole lot different than "good" or
"great." To me, decent means it's worth reading. And there's plenty out there,
even if you stick to genre. If you read more widely, as I now do, after reading
SF almost exclusively for 15 years, there's a lot more out there. Granted, I
don't read more than 20 or so books a year, so it'll be decades before I get to
read all the novels I have here. I'd read more books, but I'd have to give up
the zines, mags, and comics, something I don't wish to do.
To me, these qualities when describing books are subjective at best and a book
becomes good or great based on concensus. It becomes great or a classic based
on concensus over time. And the same goes for what's called crap, with the
understanding that for any of them, there will always be someone who disagrees
and why should that contrary opinion be sneered at?
Someone who wears stripes with polka dots has bad taste, perhaps, but for me,
that just means that looking at them hurts my eyes. If that person reads a book
I think is crap, who does that hurt or bother?
Is it really keeping "good" books from being published? Or would they not get
published anyway? If the so-called crap was really too poor to be read by many,
why does it keep getting published? It's published cuz people buy and read it
and keep buying and reading it. So when you label it that way, you're labeling
the reading taste of much of the public. As a librarian, I am loath to do that.
Those are the people that keep libraries and publishers in business. And what
the people want to read is their decision. And since people read for all
different reasons, one person's crap is the next person's favorite book.
End of rant, for now. :)
Shelly
Shelly
(snip)
>Take it away, CS Lewis:
>
>"Critics who treat "adult" as a term of approval
>instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot
>be adults themselves. To be concerned about being
>grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown
>up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these
>things are the marks of childhood and adolescence...When
>I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have
>been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that
>I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man, I put
>away childish things, including the fear of childishness
>and the desire to be very grown up."
>
>What else is to add?
>
>-- BA
Um, nothing. heh. And the quote brought to mind how I used to hide the comic
books I was reading in college. I'd sit in the cafeteria with them hidden in an
open textbook. Now I read them on the subway on my way home from work for all
to see. :)
Shelly
Shelly
wrote:
(snip--and I lost the attribution of the quote within a quote, sorry, but this
gets sooo confusing)
>> And in cases like this, it's fairly easy to demonstrate the difference
>> -- I did it a while back when someone questioned whether Dickens wrote
>> better than Stephen King.
>
> Indeed. I would be interested to see that. Have a reference?
>
Not the same thing, I think, and I don't know if this was mentioned previously,
but:
http://publishersweekly.reviewsnews.com/index.asp?layout=searchResults&con
tent=all&text=stephen+king&publication=publishersweekly
Publishers Weekly had an interesting essay on the need to read Stephen King and
the responses have been interesting--and I hope I got the link okay. PW's site
will be free for only one more week, apparently, tho I don't know when the last
week began or will end... Anyway, it was interesting.
Shelly
Shelly
>Publishers Weekly had an interesting essay on the need to read Stephen King
>and
>the responses have been interesting--and I hope I got the link okay. PW's
>site
>will be free for only one more week, apparently, tho I don't know when the
>last
>week began or will end... Anyway, it was interesting.
Um, crap. Not sure how the link shows up in various readers, but AOL caught
only the first part, so you'll have to copy and paste the whole thing, or you
can just search Stephen King.
Shelly
Brian M. Scott
<josh442R...@snet.net> wrote:
[...]
>Great books, to my way of thinking, are simply books
>that are so damned good that they're worth reading even though they
>may have been written 50 or 100 or 1000 years ago and present special
>difficulties to the reader.
But worth it to whom?
[...]
>I came across this quote a few weeks ago, and I think it puts it well:
>"People continue to believe that fiction as such has some
>transformative power. At its best, the novel does indeed have such
>authority. There are stories, scenes, cadences in the great novelists
>- Dickens, Flaubert, Tolstoy, Proust, they scarcely need naming - that
>become part of one's own sense of life and death."
Which strikes me as pretentious bullshit.
>http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/entertainment/books/articles/7609451
>Harry Potter is fun, but it doesn't have that level of gravitas, it
>doesn't become an essential part of who we are, like Hamlet or Ahab or
>the jabberwock, or jousting with windmills, or "Can I have more, sir"?
Given the number of kids who have apparently found the HP books
utterly captivating, I think it a safe bet that they *have*
become an essential part of some people's identities.
Brian
R. L.
<josh442R...@snet.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 06:45:35 GMT, Brian Henderson
><BrianL.H...@NOSPAM.verizon.net> wrote:
/snip/
>>If we had to wait for 'healthy' literature, I fear we'd all starve.
>>There is painfully little decent fiction in the world, the vast
>>majority is, as Sturgeon's Law states, crap. Harry Potter is no
>>different than any other book in that regard, but it certainly is
>>entertaining and memorable. That puts it head and shoulders above
>>most of the other drek on the bookstore shelves.
Darn right.
>Too, I don't think that there's any merit in that schoolmarmy
>medicinal version of literature. The great works are great because of
>their quality, not because they weren't fun to read. Some are now
>difficult for us because they were written at other times, but Dumas
>and Dickens would have been astonished had anyone suggested to them
>that their works would benefit if they removed "popular" elements like
>plot.
Didn't some of the literati of his time knock Shakespeare too? And
Walter Scott? Time has made these books more difficult, thus more
respectable; and those critics have died and rotted. Also we have the
whole body of their works to see at once.
Rowling is writing on a big canvas. :-) Clues in book one, chapter one,
become important in a much later volume. So what if she's using a big
stiff brush?
I do find it kind of intriguing, that her publishers (who could well
afford to) haven't 'cleaned up' her adverbs and such. Maybe those style
thingys aren't as bad faults as some people like to think. (I wonder if
there's a correlation between grass-roots popularity, and adverbs and
such; frex Nancy Drew. I like reading adverbs fine, myself.)
R.L.
--
RL at houseboatonthestyx
Brian M. Scott
<T...@timsilverman.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>on 23/11/03 4:51 am, SAMK at samkhom...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>> CCA wrote:
>>> The comedienne Linda Smith recently mentioned[1] that one of the things that
>>> got on her nerves was adult Harry Potter readers. She went on to say that
>>> she
>>> always felt like snatching the book out of thier hands, and replacing it with
>>> a copy of Madame Bovary, or something.
[...]
>> I think if she tried, she'd find out what *else* a Harry
>> Potter tome is good for. Or find Madame Bovary in a
>> highly uncomfortable place. I spent many years reading
>> crap under the guise of "great literature"
>This is exactly the same attitude as Linda Smith's. Just because _you_ don't
>like it doesn't mean it's "crap".
It isn't the same: SAMK didn't express any desire to keep others
from reading 'crap'.
Brian
Alma Hromic Deckert
yes but does it have to?...
and anyway, whether you've read it or not, whether you like it or not,
i think that by now there are precious few people in the (book
reading) world who haven't at least heard of harry potter. at least as
many people know who harry potter is as would recognise the names of
Tiny Tim or Moby Dick. a book doesn't have to be Literature to become
"a part of who we are", if by that you mean it embeds itself in the
popular consciousness.
A.
joy beeson
> I'd interested to see what others think.
I think that she was really hard up for a joke that
broadcast.
If an adult can't read a book with pleasure, it isn't *fit*
for children. I wouldn't dream of giving a child a book
that I hadn't read *and enjoyed* myself.
(Well, I'm about to give _Picture Maker_ as a gift without
reading it first, but it's a paperback that can't be read
without damage, I've read a great deal of it in manuscript,
and the kid's sixteen.)
Joy Beeson
--
http://home.earthlink.net/~joybeeson/ -- needlework
http://home.earthlink.net/~beeson_n3f/ -- Writers' Exchange
joy beeson at earthlink dot net
R. L.
<josh442R...@snet.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 21:49:46 -0600, Wildepad
><capu...@nospammies.hesenergy.net> wrote:
/snip/
>>But a hundred years from now the academics will be embracing HP as
>>'literature' and will be able to explain, after careful examination,
>>why it ranks with MB and the other classics.
Damn right! Something in that direction, anyway. Who's MB?
/snip/
>My own take on the Potter books is that they'll sit next
>to the Tarzan or Oz books -- enjoyable kids' books that are still read
>today, but that aren't comparable to books like Huckleberry Finn,
>which manifest an altogether different order of genius and craft.
Huckleberry Finn was a different sort of thing altogether: in current
categories, more like an adult book with a child narrator, or at least
YA. I think Twain wrote before such categories were so clear; and
Rowling and Pullman (after Lewis and Tolkien) may merge them again (by
ignoring them :-).
I love Tarzan and Oz, and think they're magnificent achievements. But
Rowling's are a bit different: the enormous plot arcs, the serious
thread, the close details....
Stuart Houghton
> The comedienne Linda Smith recently mentioned[1] that one of the things that
> got on her nerves was adult Harry Potter readers. She went on to say that she
> always felt like snatching the book out of thier hands, and replacing it with a
> copy of Madame Bovary, or something.
I don't thik it is just the Potter books she has a problem with - she
was none too pleased that _Lord of the Rings_ is anywhere near the top
one hundred books when she was a guest on the BBC's _The Big Read_ and,
in _Room 101_ described _LotR_ as being a bokk for 'Engineering students
named Dave'.
Someone can now follow-up with a sage comment about Protocols :)
--
Stuart Houghton
blog:http://rippingyarns.blogspot.com/
book reviews:http://asciimonkey.blogspot.com/
R. L.
<dd...@daviddfriedmanNOSPAM.com.invalid> wrote:
>In article <656f41f4a9c61a1131...@mygate.mailgate.org>,
> "Nicola Browne" <nicky.m...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> Its interesting that some of my friends who've read it - wouldn't ever
>> read fantasy but will read a phenomenon. I wonder what that says about
>> protocols?
>
>You start a book you know nothing about, it doesn't make any sense, so
>you put it down.
>
>You start a book that everybody is reading. It doesn't make any sense.
>It occurs to you that if so many other people like it perhaps you are
>missing something, or judging it too hastily, so you keep reading.
Yes. And what people are saying, shows you what patterns to be looking
for. Thus helping you learn any new protocol/s necessary.
David Friedman
R. L. <ssss-see-...@ssssssspam.comsssssss> wrote:
> Huckleberry Finn was a different sort of thing altogether: in current
> categories, more like an adult book with a child narrator, or at least
> YA. I think Twain wrote before such categories were so clear; and
> Rowling and Pullman (after Lewis and Tolkien) may merge them again (by
> ignoring them :-).
Kipling wrote two books of short linked short stories that are pretty
clearly designed to be read by both adults and children, with the
children likely to miss some points that the adults will catch.
--
Remove NOSPAM to email
Also remove .invalid
www.daviddfriedman.com
David Friedman
b.s...@csuohio.edu (Brian M. Scott) wrote:
> >This is exactly the same attitude as Linda Smith's. Just because _you_ don't
> >like it doesn't mean it's "crap".
>
> It isn't the same: SAMK didn't express any desire to keep others
> from reading 'crap'.
On the other hand, I gather Linda Smith is a comedienne, so I'm not sure
how seriously the comment we have all been disagreeing with ought to be
taken.
David Friedman
shell...@aol.com (Shelly) wrote:
> First, there are some poorly written books out there, formulaic books, books
> that a lot of people would call "crap." Even some of the folks who read them
> call them that. One of my friends reads "crappy" romances to help her fall
> asleep at night. Another reads them and Star Trek books to relieve the stress
> of her workday. So I know there are books that most people might label that
> way.
>
> Second, there are a lot of "good" books out there I find boring or unreadable.
> I find them better written than the "crappy" books I also find boring and
> unreadable, but all that means to me is that they don't appeal to me and that
> "good" and other qualities are subjective.
There's is a third category--books one judges to be good, judged as
works of art, but dislikes. The Thomas Covenant books are in that
category for me, and, for rather different reasons, the Draka books. The
problem is not that they are boring but, in both cases, that they do a
good job of presenting a world I don't want to experience.
R. L.
mary_...@cix.co.uk (Mary Gentle) wrote:
>In article <656f41f4a9c61a1131...@mygate.mailgate.org>,
>nicky.m...@btinternet.com (Nicola Browne) wrote:
/snip/
>> Its interesting that some of my friends who've read it - wouldn't ever
>> read fantasy but will read a phenomenon. I wonder what that says about
>> protocols?
>
>It has school story protocols, which most of the UK will have been exposed
>to - can't account for the rest of the world. :)
Do school stories really have their own protocols?
I also used the term 'school story protocol', but later wondered if this
isn't stretching the term 'protocol' by using it where 'genre
expectations' might be better.
Someone's example of 'protocol' was something like,"When you hit a
far-out blatant no-such-thing item, do you read on expecting it to be
explained further down the page, or do you turn back and reread,
thinking you missed something." I'd say different protocols determine
whether I expect the explanation (or at least more clues) within a page,
or a chapter, or toward the end of the book, or never.... There are
some skiffy books where after a few more pages I'd decide I HAD missed
something, and WOULD go back and reread.
'School story' is new to me. I first* noticed it in Tamora Pierce's PAGE
iirc, a couple of years ago. I didn't notice till nearly the end of the
first Potter book, that the mysteries and magic weren't the focus, the
focus/arc was the quidditch match and the grades, etc.
But not recognizing the genre, didn't cause me the sort of confusion
Gunn talks about. I was never in danger of bouncing off by
non-comprehension from one page to the next. With both PAGE and
SORCERER'S STONE, it just gave me a little jolt of readjustment toward
the end, when I saw which arcs were getting completed and which weren't.
For me, the completion of the school arcs in Potter gave a feeling of
closure on vol one -- and the non-completion of magic arcs made me
eager for the sequel.
R.L.
*(Long ago I loved STALKY and THE MUDHEN, but didn't think of them as
genre books. Anyway they were short stories.)
--
RL at houseboatonthestyx
Stephen Bargdill
> On 22 Nov 2003 22:02:59 -0800, Stephen Bargdill wrote:
>
> > Not that I have anything against potter or jkrowlings (which hasn't
> > always been the case--in the recent past i had succumbed to the
> > fundamnetalist christian ravings that the books encourage witchcraft
> > and devil worship...but that is another story entirely and i won't go
> > there unless asked)
>
> Will you go there if asked?
>
> /me asks
Since you asked.
Short version: used to be radical christian who wanted to be a pastor.
Believed just about anything the conservative christians taught.
Note: in the non-christian mind, all christians are conservative, but
when you go in and really divide the group up, you get some really
weird people and believes within conservative and liberal christians
both, but it's hard to come by a moderate.
Anyway, had to do a research paper on Harry Potter. Never read the
books (want to now though), but after having done the research, I
couldn't figure out what all the fuss was about.
Plus, there was also a pretty big change in my personal believe
system. Heck, I thought Disney's version of Cinderella was bad because
of the magic involved in it. Of course, I still think it's bad (I have
a 2 year old daughter, so I've watched the thing like a million
times). But I think it's bad now because all Cinderella ever did was
wait around for help. Not really a picture I want my daughter growing
up and thinking....that she's got to have a man to get anywhere.
You should read the original Cindrella though. Wow. What a tough lady.
Anyway, that's pretty much it in a nut shell.
R. L. Divergins
>Dan Goodman wrote:
>> Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote in news:3FBFEDA4...@wizvax.net:
>>
>>
>>>CCA wrote:
>>>
>>>>The comedienne Linda Smith recently mentioned[1] that one of the
>>>>things that got on her nerves was adult Harry Potter readers. She
>>>>went on to say that she always felt like snatching the book out of
>>>>thier hands, and replacing it with a copy of Madame Bovary, or
>>>>something.
Hm. What about snatching the remote control and switching from Smith to
Bovary? :-)
/snip/
>> The only bestseller list I pay much attention to currently is USA Today's
>> -- top fifty in their Thursday paper, top three hundred on their website.
>> They have all books competing against each other -- fiction or nonfiction,
>> paperback or hardcover. So I can see not only how Harry Potter books sell
>> compared to Anne Rice's _Foundation and Vampire_
>
> Heh. I remember reading that title in another vampire novel; the
>protagonist has just realized they've been changed to a vampire and
>they're having a nightmare in which they're going through a library
>where ALL the books are vampire novels -- Rise and Fall of the Roman
>Vampire, Foundation and Vampire, the Vampire Strikes Back, etc...
< giggles loudly several minutes >
What other novel was that?
Carl Dershem
news:20031122155859...@mb-m20.aol.com:
> The comedienne Linda Smith recently mentioned[1] that one of the
> things that got on her nerves was adult Harry Potter readers. She
> went on to say that she always felt like snatching the book out of
> thier hands, and replacing it with a copy of Madame Bovary, or
> something. I'd be interested to know RASFC-ers' opinions on this. I
> disagreed entirely - I think well-written books that're aimed
> primarily at kids can often have a lot of attraction for adults too.
> Imagination, a good plot, something you can lose yourself in.
> I'd interested to see what others think.
> CCA:)
> [1] On the UK TV series Room 101, if anyone's wondering.
She's a twit, not very funny, and has apparently not read the books in
question. Those who force their (often questionable) tastes on others
should be forced to sit and watch Pauly Shre movies.
cd
--
The difference between immorality and immortality is "T". I like Earl
Grey.
Carl Dershem
news:ddfr-284E91.2...@sea-read.news.verio.net:
> My daughter learned to read largely from _Hop on Pop_, which I
> consider a subversive piece of literature. The instigator was my wife
> Betty, and for a while I was working on something that started
That's one book that was not allowed in the house when my kids were little.
OW!
Eric Jarvis
> In article <3fc0e5de....@enews.newsguy.com>,
> b.s...@csuohio.edu (Brian M. Scott) wrote:
>
> > >This is exactly the same attitude as Linda Smith's. Just because _you_ don't
> > >like it doesn't mean it's "crap".
> >
> > It isn't the same: SAMK didn't express any desire to keep others
> > from reading 'crap'.
>
> On the other hand, I gather Linda Smith is a comedienne, so I'm not sure
> how seriously the comment we have all been disagreeing with ought to be
> taken.
>
Not in the slightest given her usual material. She generally pokes fun at
either pompousness, tackiness or hype. In this case I'd guess that she's
having a go at Harry Potter books as a fashion accessory. At least that
was the impression I got.
--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
all these years I've waited for the revolution
and all we end up getting is spin
David Friedman
sphi...@aol.com (CCA) wrote:
> Sea Wasp wrote
>
> >...the Vampire Strikes Back...
>
> Frustratingly, that would be such a good title for my current piece...
You use it.
There isn't even a rule of exclusivity for titles, let alone a rule
against using a title that is employed inside a work of fiction by
someone else.
When one of my books was published, I discovered that there was another
book, published at about the same time, with the same title (but a
different subtitle). And Ken Macleod used the title of one of my books
for a section title in one of his.
(But fiction is different?)
Stephen Bargdill
> CCA wrote:
> >
> > The comedienne Linda Smith recently mentioned[1] that one of the things that
> > got on her nerves was adult Harry Potter readers. She went on to say that she
> > always felt like snatching the book out of thier hands, and replacing it with a
> > copy of Madame Bovary, or something.
> > I'd be interested to know RASFC-ers' opinions on this.
>
> by what I'm reading deserves the aggravation. She probably
> also doesn't like the music I listen to, my favorite
> flowers, or how I name my cats. But that's her problem, not mine.
>
> Heather
Okay, I'm curious. How do you name your cats?
The last cat I had, my wife named after my ex-girlfriend ex-boyfriend.
Have no idea why, and I've never bothered to ask.
The cat we have now, we named Teeka. Which is how our little girl
pronounces "tickle." When we first got the cat, she'd go run up after
it and say, "Teeka, teeka, teeka," and then of course, tickle it.
Brian M. Scott
<dd...@daviddfriedmanNOSPAM.com.invalid> wrote:
[...]
>Kipling wrote two books of short linked short stories that are pretty
>clearly designed to be read by both adults and children, with the
>children likely to miss some points that the adults will catch.
If you're thinking of the Puck stories, I'm not convinced that he
had anyone in particular in mind. But then I see little if
anything in them that a child who's likely to read them won't
get.
Brian
R. L.
<dd...@daviddfriedmanNOSPAM.com.invalid> wrote:
>In article <kiq1svgra8ii0bhua...@4ax.com>,
> R. L. <ssss-see-...@ssssssspam.comsssssss> wrote:
>
>> Huckleberry Finn was a different sort of thing altogether: in current
>> categories, more like an adult book with a child narrator, or at least
>> YA. I think Twain wrote before such categories were so clear; and
>> Rowling and Pullman (after Lewis and Tolkien) may merge them again (by
>> ignoring them :-).
>
>Kipling wrote two books of short linked short stories that are pretty
>clearly designed to be read by both adults and children, with the
>children likely to miss some points that the adults will catch.
REWARDS AND FAIRIES, PUCK OF POOK'S HILL. Double-decker art form.
I like the lighter version. To the child on the lap, and also to amuse
the grandparent reading to him. Nesbit, Barrie, Lewis.
Xanth has a few of those hidden zingers too. The goblins who were dull,
nasty, brutish, and short.
R.L.
--
trying to do the same thing at http://www.rosemarylake.com
--
RL at houseboatonthestyx
Charlie Allery
"Dan Goodman" <dsg...@visi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns943BC76BA19...@209.98.13.60...
> "Charlie Allery" <cha...@charlieallery.demon.co.uk> wrote in
> >
> > I intensely dislike people who insist on labelling certain writing as
> > 'better' than others. It's different, that's all.
>
> I would say that some fiction _is_ better than others. A well-researched
> historical romance whose characters think and act like people of their
time
> is better than a past-setting novel of any kind which is sloppily
> researched and whose characters act like late 20th/early 21st century
> Americans.
>
And it appeals to a smaller subset of people, which as I stated is the
opposite of my interpretation of 'good' - talking within the set of
'published fiction' that is, not including slush in this.
Charlie
Chris Dollin
> The comedienne Linda Smith recently mentioned[1] that one of the things
> that
> got on her nerves was adult Harry Potter readers. She went on to say that
> she always felt like snatching the book out of thier hands, and replacing
> it with a copy of Madame Bovary, or something.
Well, she's a bullying snob.
Quite apart from reading so-called "childrens" books for enjoyment,
because they're fun, because they appeal to a different attitude
(what's often called "innocence" because I don't think we have a good
word for it; I'm thinking of the things-as-they-are experience,
the freshness, the openness, even when tempered by the knowedge that
this, too, shall pass) - these things I'm sure will be said, better,
by others here - adults have a slew of reasons for reading children's
books.
How else to talk about them to children?
How else to monitor them for trends, for competance, for whether they
are to be trusted?
How else to calibrate reviewers, to tell who's opinion is worthwhile,
and who's is but knee-jerk ranting?
Mind you, that's not why I read, to be specific, just about everything
Diana Wynne Jones writes. It's because whe writes extremely good stuff.
Just because some of it is aimed at children doesn't make it worthless
to adults.
--
Merlin Hedgehog
http://www.electric-hedgehog.net/reviews/2003-03-merlin-conspiracy.html
Irina Rempt
> Anyway, had to do a research paper on Harry Potter. Never read the
> books (want to now though), but after having done the research, I
> couldn't figure out what all the fuss was about.
<boggle> How could you do a research paper on Harry Potter without
reading the books?
Irina
--
Vesta veran, terna puran, farenin. http://www.valdyas.org/irina/
Beghinnen can ick, volherden will' ick, volbringhen sal ick.
http://www.valdyas.org/~irina/foundobjects/ Latest: 18-Nov-2003
Shelly
(snip)
>Huckleberry Finn was a different sort of thing altogether: in current
>categories, more like an adult book with a child narrator, or at least
>YA. I think Twain wrote before such categories were so clear
(snip)
My understanding is that Huckleberry Finn is considered Adult now while Tom
Sawyer is considered YA or children's lit. But yeah, given how much adult lit
is taught in junior and senior high, the distinctions are a bit fuzzy. I was
assigned Jane Eyre when I was in 7th grade (age 13), never mind that's I'd read
it on my own over two years earlier, and it's hardly a children's book, or even
what we now designate as YA.
Shelly
Boudewijn Rempt
> There isn't even a rule of exclusivity for titles, let alone a rule
> against using a title that is employed inside a work of fiction by
> someone else.
Wodehouse has a nice intro in the Penguin Edition of Summer Lightning that
basically says he has some little hope of his volume to be included in the
list of ten best novels titled 'Summer Lightning'.
--
Boudewijn Rempt | http://www.valdyas.org
Shelly
hmmm.... yeah, I've encountered books like that, books I want to like for
various reasons, but don't. Perhaps they fall in between my first and second
categories.
Shelly
Shelly
(snip)
>I also used the term 'school story protocol', but later wondered if this
>isn't stretching the term 'protocol' by using it where 'genre
>expectations' might be better.
>Someone's example of 'protocol' was something like,"When you hit a
>far-out blatant no-such-thing item, do you read on expecting it to be
>explained further down the page, or do you turn back and reread,
>thinking you missed something." I'd say different protocols determine
>whether I expect the explanation
>(or at least more clues) within a page,
>or a chapter, or toward the end of the book, or never.... There are
>some skiffy books where after a few more pages I'd decide I HAD missed
>something, and WOULD go back and reread.
Interesting. I tend to do both, depending on how much time has passed since I
read earlier passages, cuz I read mostly on my commute home from work and don't
trust my memory. My reactions to what I read in that sense is not always a
function of the book, but more a function of my easily confused mind. I'm sure
I'm in the minority, but still, it is an interesting point to ponder.
Shelly
Catja Pafort
> What amazes me about Harry Potter is the jealosuy these books have
> stirred up in the literary world. Is harry Potter really fiction worth
> reading? The people that seem to be berating it, I think, are just
> incredibly jealous of the success these books have had.
I like the first four, and have plenty to complain about in V; and I'm
not jealous at all.
Just because you critize something does not mean you don't like it; nor
does it mean that you can't see the wider context.
> Who wouldn't want a movie deal from AOL Time Warner for their novel,
> or a global marketing plan from Coca-Cola?
Me. _Especially_ not for a work in progress.
Catja
David Friedman
b.s...@csuohio.edu (Brian M. Scott) wrote:
Marklake witches? Do you think a child will pick up on the fact that
this is the only narrator who isn't an adult--and why?
Irina Rempt
> Stephen Bargdill wrote:
>> Who wouldn't want a movie deal from AOL Time Warner for their novel,
>> or a global marketing plan from Coca-Cola?
>
> Me. _Especially_ not for a work in progress.
Not me, either. Unless I have as large a voice in it as J.K. Rowling had
*and* can hand-pick the actors for the principal parts.
David Friedman
sbarg...@alltel.net (Stephen Bargdill) wrote:
> Note: in the non-christian mind, all christians are conservative, but
> when you go in and really divide the group up, you get some really
> weird people and believes within conservative and liberal christians
> both, but it's hard to come by a moderate.
>
When you say "conservative" and "liberal" are you using the terms in
their usual political sense, or as a description of two different
approaches to Christianity?
R. L. Divergins
<dd...@daviddfriedmanNOSPAM.com.invalid> wrote:
/snip/
>There's is a third category--books one judges to be good, judged as
>works of art, but dislikes. The Thomas Covenant books are in that
>category for me, and, for rather different reasons, the Draka books. The
>problem is not that they are boring but, in both cases, that they do a
>good job of presenting a world I don't want to experience.
Yes. As Rand said iirc, it's not a contradiction to say, "This is a good
book, but I don't like it."
Zeborah
> People reading fiction is good . . .
>
> That said, I think the Harry Potter books are bad children's books;
> they're full of the kind of stuff that used to make my teeth grate, when I
> was a child and reading. I'd be inclined to snatch HP away and
> substitute, not Emma Bovary, but Phillip Pullman.
There appear to be a lot of children who disagree with you. :-) I don't
call them good literature either, exactly, but I like them well enough,
and I think they're getting better too (though I think the 5th could
have done with some editing; I suspect she's setting up stuff for the
next books, but there should have been a way of doing it more smoothly).
I'd be inclined to not snatch any book away; rather to hover next to
them until they finish and then say, "So you liked that, huh? Try this
one, it's even better."
Zeborah
Julian Flood
"Chris Dollin" <e...@electric-hedgehog.net> wrote
> > Linda Smith
> Well, she's a bullying snob.
Have you ever heard this woman? She is the wittiest woman in the UK. Her
politics and mine may be 180 degrees apart, but I can still find her funny,
wise, sometimes right.
The point she was making, as I heard it, and I did hear her make the point,
was that adults are running scared from adult literature and hiding from the
world by reading children's stories which give them something which is not
being provided by adult publishing. Is that contentious? Is that
reprehensible? Or is it an inditement (a spelling I will regret in the
morning) of modern writing?
JF
Who should be reading the next O'Brian novel but is hoovering. And drinking
Islay malt.
Joshua P. Hill
wrote:
>On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 09:50:32 -0500, Joshua P. Hill
><josh442R...@snet.net> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>Great books, to my way of thinking, are simply books
>>that are so damned good that they're worth reading even though they
>>may have been written 50 or 100 or 1000 years ago and present special
>>difficulties to the reader.
>
>But worth it to whom?
Pretty much anyone of reasonable intelligence who takes the trouble to
master them, I think.
>>I came across this quote a few weeks ago, and I think it puts it well:
>
>>"People continue to believe that fiction as such has some
>>transformative power. At its best, the novel does indeed have such
>>authority. There are stories, scenes, cadences in the great novelists
>>- Dickens, Flaubert, Tolstoy, Proust, they scarcely need naming - that
>>become part of one's own sense of life and death."
>
>Which strikes me as pretentious bullshit.
If you've read these books and these things aren't part of our
consciousness, then it seems to me that you haven't read these books.
>>Harry Potter is fun, but it doesn't have that level of gravitas, it
>>doesn't become an essential part of who we are, like Hamlet or Ahab or
>>the jabberwock, or jousting with windmills, or "Can I have more, sir"?
>
>Given the number of kids who have apparently found the HP books
>utterly captivating, I think it a safe bet that they *have*
>become an essential part of some people's identities.
A part, perhaps, but essential? Tarzan is part of our consciousness,
and so is the Wicked Witch of the West, but they aren't Huck Finn.
--
Josh
To reply by email, delete "REMOVETHIS" from the address line.
Nicola Browne
news:20031123110923...@mb-m14.aol.com
> >"Nicola Browne" nicky.m...@btinternet.com wrote:
>
> > I've been in this type of discussion (argument?) on other boards in the past,
> with the discussion getting so contentious, I've started to shy away from the
> topic. Or at least, I wait for someone else to say it first.
>
> First, there are some poorly written books out there, formulaic books, books
> that a lot of people would call "crap." Even some of the folks who read them
> call them that. One of my friends reads "crappy" romances to help her fall
> asleep at night. Another reads them and Star Trek books to relieve the stress
> of her workday. So I know there are books that most people might label that
> way.
>
I don't read much series fiction but I 've read the odd one and a few
light romances. I sometimes refer to some of the fantasy I've read as
crappy because it isn't trying to do much but entertain, but the point
I was trying to make was that it isn't real drek. It is setting out to
do a
more limited set of things than other books but in the main it
succeeds - the stuff I've read keeps you turning the pages.
I would have thought people on this ng would recognise that is no mean
feat.
I would distinguish between unambitious commercial fiction written
for a certain niche and the appalling and unreadable. I really haven't
seen much of the latter and I don't regard the former as real'crap'-
it is what it set out to be.
Nicky
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Joshua P. Hill
<ang...@vaxer.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 09:50:32 -0500, Joshua P. Hill
><josh442R...@snet.net> wrote:
>
>>I came across this quote a few weeks ago, and I think it puts it well:
>>
>>"People continue to believe that fiction as such has some
>>transformative power. At its best, the novel does indeed have such
>>authority. There are stories, scenes, cadences in the great novelists
>>- Dickens, Flaubert, Tolstoy, Proust, they scarcely need naming - that
>>become part of one's own sense of life and death."
>>
>>http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/entertainment/books/articles/7609451
>>
>>Harry Potter is fun, but it doesn't have that level of gravitas, it
>>doesn't become an essential part of who we are, like Hamlet or Ahab or
>>the jabberwock, or jousting with windmills, or "Can I have more, sir"?
>>
>yes but does it have to?...
No, I don't think it does. There's a place for truffles and a place
for hot dogs.
>and anyway, whether you've read it or not, whether you like it or not,
>i think that by now there are precious few people in the (book
>reading) world who haven't at least heard of harry potter. at least as
>many people know who harry potter is as would recognise the names of
>Tiny Tim or Moby Dick. a book doesn't have to be Literature to become
>"a part of who we are", if by that you mean it embeds itself in the
>popular consciousness.
What I mean is something deeper -- a deeper version, perhaps, of the
same thing. I mean, Madonna embeds herself in our consciousness in a
certain respect, and so do soup commercials, but comparing them to
Oliver Twist is like comparing one's association with a tick to a love
affair. I hasten to add that I don't place Potter in the former
category -- the books are genuinely clever -- but I think one has to
stretch things more than a little bit to place him in the latter
category.
Joshua P. Hill
<ssss-see-...@ssssssspam.comsssssss> wrote:
>On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 09:50:32 -0500, Joshua P. Hill
><josh442R...@snet.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 21:49:46 -0600, Wildepad
>><capu...@nospammies.hesenergy.net> wrote:
>/snip/
>>>But a hundred years from now the academics will be embracing HP as
>>>'literature' and will be able to explain, after careful examination,
>>>why it ranks with MB and the other classics.
>
>Damn right! Something in that direction, anyway. Who's MB?
Madame Bovary.
>>My own take on the Potter books is that they'll sit next
>>to the Tarzan or Oz books -- enjoyable kids' books that are still read
>>today, but that aren't comparable to books like Huckleberry Finn,
>>which manifest an altogether different order of genius and craft.
>
>Huckleberry Finn was a different sort of thing altogether: in current
>categories, more like an adult book with a child narrator, or at least
>YA. I think Twain wrote before such categories were so clear; and
>Rowling and Pullman (after Lewis and Tolkien) may merge them again (by
>ignoring them :-).
As I understand it, Clemens was ambiguous about whether Huck Finn was
intended as a boy's book. Tom Sawyer was not.
And IIRC Rowling has been ambivalent on that issue too, though it
seems to me that from the opening cadences HP has the feel of a story
conceived for children: the humor, the tropes and situations, the
sing-songy language all remind me strongly of the conventions of
children's literature.
>I love Tarzan and Oz, and think they're magnificent achievements. But
>Rowling's are a bit different: the enormous plot arcs, the serious
>thread, the close details....
The woman has talent, there's no question about that. But not, I
think, on the level of a Clemens.
Vlatko Juric-Kokic
>The comedienne Linda Smith recently mentioned[1] that one of the things that
>got on her nerves was adult Harry Potter readers. She went on to say that she
>always felt like snatching the book out of thier hands, and replacing it with a
>copy of Madame Bovary, or something.
Idjit. Like they're mutually exclusive.
Besides, Harry Potter is much more interesting than Madame Bovary. :-)
Now, if she'd used Guenther Grass's _Plaice_ (Sole?) or something like
that as an example ...
vlatko (just read the fifth Potter book)
--
http://www.niribanimeso.org/eng/
http://www.michaelswanwick.com/
vlatko.ju...@zg.hinet.hr
Vlatko Juric-Kokic
wrote:
>On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 23:18:34 +0000 (UTC), "Nicola Browne"
><nicky.m...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>[Harry Potter}
>>Its interesting that some of my friends who've read it - wouldn't ever
>>read fantasy but will read a phenomenon. I wonder what that says about
>>protocols?
>
>That most phenomena of this sort are pretty easy reading?
Yep. Think about Coelho, for instance.
vlatko
Vlatko Juric-Kokic
<nicky.m...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>I don't know where the drek is but I'm not finding it.
You are not looking hard enough. Really. Even with the treshold raised
high, that only means that some publishers used to have a really low
treshold.
Joshua P. Hill
>Joshua P. Hill wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 00:21:06 GMT, Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
>>
>> I can't say I agree with you there. There's a whole academic
>> establishment devoted to the explication of great works of literature.
>
> Which hasn't managed to convince me. There is a whole set of
>professionals dedicated to predicting your future from the stars, and
>they have some pretty complicated rules for doing so. Many people
>would say, however, that astrology is bunk.
But do you really think it's fair to compare the faculty of a major
research university with a bunch of palm readers? I've seen no
evidence that they operate at the same level.
In any case, my own experience has been that the more I get to know
about a great work of art, the more apparent are its extraordinary
qualities. And I think you'll find that many others say the same
thing.
> IME, while there are many "great literature" pieces that ARE, IMCGO,
>great books, there are just as many that are dull, boring wastes of
>time without any particular redeeming values. Moreover, I have seen
>the exact same prose praised for its high quality by one person, and
>denigrated for its low and ineffective word choice by others. I've
>seen characters called amazingly convincing and realistic by one
>person, and called cardboard by another.
>
> Except at the very far extremes, I don't think there's a decent
>objective way to assess "literature" which would be (A) accepted by
>the current literary community, (B) include all or most of the
>currently accepted "classics", and (C) manage to, say, successfully
>exclude some particular popular choice, such as Harry Potter, from all
>such lists.
You can always find someone who has an uncharacteristic or partial
view of anything, and the judgement of literature is therefore partly
a group endeavor. Still, IMO, if a professor can't point to some of
the reasons a great book is extraordinary, she should get another job
-- she'll be like a math professor who can't explain an equation.
>> And in cases like this, it's fairly easy to demonstrate the difference
>> -- I did it a while back when someone questioned whether Dickens wrote
>> better than Stephen King.
>
> Indeed. I would be interested to see that. Have a reference?
Sure -- this should take you to the right place in the thread & you
can read down a couple
And since that has got to be the world's longest URL,
Sea Wasp
> On Sunday 23 November 2003 15:53 Sea Wasp wrote:
>
>
>>Entertainment is, to me, the primary and only requisite
>>characteristic. Did it entertain me? If not, it's a failure,
>>immediately and totally. The prose could be very nicely done (by
>>whatever standards I might have), and the author could have put lots
>>of thought into it, but if it doesn't entertain, it's wasted my time.
>
>
> I thought for a moment that you were saying "if it doesn't entertain
> *me*, it's a bad book".
Yes.
Or *was* that what you were saying, and do you
> really think your taste is the only valid one for everyone in the whole
> world and anyone who likes something else is just plain wrong?
No, because liking a book is a matter of taste -- personal opinion --
and therefore cannot be wrong.
Which is why the bit about "X book is the equivalent of unhealthy
food" is ludicrous to me. As I've pointed out in other posts, the
so-called standards of literature are mostly opinion themselves.
Except in truly wide gradations, you can't GET universal, or even NEAR
universal, agreement on things of that nature. Even in the literati,
if you take a list of a hundred books and ask the people to rank them
on, say, three of the standard dimensions, not ONE of them will rank
the books in the same order, and in many cases the order won't even be
CLOSE. Tolkien often gets beaten on for various reasons -- quality of
prose, and so on -- and yet he has ended up on a number of "greatest
books of the century" lists, along with other acknowledged literary
classics, including lists compiled by literature experts. This has
caused a number of equally distinguished literary types to be shocked,
as they don't think JRRT comes up to their standards.
In short, I have yet to see proof that the literary standards
generally used are actually objectively measurable in anything except
such broad strokes as to be essentially useless once you can agree
that the story isn't written by a child or an idiot who doesn't grasp
your language.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.htm
Joshua P. Hill
>From my post:
>
>>Publishers Weekly had an interesting essay on the need to read Stephen King
>>and
>>the responses have been interesting--and I hope I got the link okay. PW's
>>site
>>will be free for only one more week, apparently, tho I don't know when the
>>last
>>week began or will end... Anyway, it was interesting.
>
>Um, crap. Not sure how the link shows up in various readers, but AOL caught
>only the first part, so you'll have to copy and paste the whole thing, or you
>can just search Stephen King.
Check out
Sea Wasp
> Sea Wasp wrote
>
>
>>...the Vampire Strikes Back...
>
>
> Frustratingly, that would be such a good title for my current piece...
> CCA:)
>
>
Then use the title. No one can stop you.